Mr Chairman, before the Committee reported progress last night, the hon member for Pinetown put three question inter alia. In addition, the hon members for Bryanston and Pietermaritzburg North raised arguments to which I now want to reply briefly.

Firstly, I wish to say the hon member for Pinetown surprised me somewhat at the end. As we would say in education, the hon member is a man for the profession; he is man with a very high regard for the organised profession. If my memory serves me, this hon member was the secretary of the NTS—the Natal Teachers’ Society. The hon member is someone who justifies the existence of the professional association and regards it very highly. [Interjections.] Yet this hon member comes to this Committee and argues that clause 14 be withdrawn. Clause 14 is the very one indicating that there is a professional association and investing it with powers.

On a racial basis.

No, the hon member for Bryanston must wait a bit.

The hon member for Pinetown should follow my argument because these are facts. The fact is that the hon member used a very unfortunate argument. He referred to problems in Natal surrounding the organised profession—the NTS.

I did not say a word about it. You want to drag it in now. You want to be here until Monday. [Interjections.]

We can consult the hon member’s Hansard. We can look up what the hon member was referring to—he chose his words very carefully.

The truth is that, as far as I am concerned, a specific teachers’ society in Natal adopted unfortunate standpoints regarding the entire matter. As a good member of the teaching profession and as a good teacher, the hon member for Pinetown should further the cause of teachers in the House as we are trying to do. We should not allow politics to become involved in this.

I held a discussion with these people in Natal, I am highly appreciative of them and I think we were able to share certain points of view. I have the greatest confidence that the problem in Natal will be solved too.

Regardless of the fact that there is a particular teachers’ society which said its members would not sit on this council to be formed, I honestly believe this body will ultimately realise as well that it is in the best interests of the representation of the organised profession for us to have a body like this one. I am convinced of this. There are many members within that organisation who honestly feel this way. I think the hon member for Pinetown is perfectly aware of my meaning and we are not going to discuss these matters across the floor of the Committee. It is the truth, however.

The fact that two bodies are now amalgamating—the federal council and the Souh African Teachers’ Council—was at the request of those two bodies themselves. They asked for this because they had had the personal experience in the past that their function and task overlapped to such a degree that it was in the best interests of education to rationalise as regards these two bodies.

If we were to delete this clause and make it impossible for them to amalgamate, we should be refusing—the hon member for Pinetown must listen to what I am saying—to comply with the wishes of the organised profession and refusing them the opportunity to amalgamate.

In consequence, there is no question of my being able to withdraw the clause as we should then be depriving the organised profession of furnishing an extremely important contribution to education as an organised body. What is more, we cannot tell those people to proceed with a system which has not worked in practice whereas, on the basis of their own experience, they consider the system would operate better if the two bodies could amalgamate to form one new one.

The hon member also put specific questions, the first of which was whether those of colour—according to my formulation—could serve as members of that new body. It is very clearly set out that this new body will draw up its own constitution, whereupon I shall recognise it if it also complies with the provisions of the legislation. The proposed new section 8B(1) reads that the Minister may recognise the body as a juristic person “with the object of promoting the prestige of the White teaching profession”. Their constitution will establish, however, whom they will admit as their members. I should not like to express an opinion on this or prescribe to them on the composition of their constitution.

Including registration?

My standard for the recognition of registration will be in accordance with the legislation as I read it, “with the object of promoting the prestige of the White teaching profession”. I do not wish to involve myself any further than that in the composition of their constitution and I think the hon member will accept that.

The second question was whether those of colour could register with this body. I should not like to compromise myself as regards a matter which is actually within the field of the professional body and on which I have yet to hold consultations with its members. It is certainly a fact that I shall promulgate the regulations but this will be in consultation with this body. I therefore have no desire to compromise myself regarding this and I think the hon member will appreciate this. Of course, this has to fall within the general provision of section 14 and item 2 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution.

The last question was whether White teachers in the service of other departments could now register with the body. Section 8C(5), inserted in the principal Act by clause 14, provides that White members registered with the SA Teachers’ Council are automatically registered. An important exception, however, is that Whites who taught under any of the three other education departments are not automatically registered. They may apply for registration with the body and such applications will be considered according to the constitution of the body. I hope I have provided satisfactory answers to the hon member’s questions in this regard.

The hon member for Bryanston spoke on the necessity of co-operation between teachers from the various teaching groups. I endorse this and should like to see it as I think it is in the best interest of teaching as a whole. I have no problem to find with this.

The hon member also referred to a Zulu gardener who furnished excellent service. In a lighter vein I wish to tell the hon member that this is somewhat of a reflection on the White teacher because the hon member said the Zulu gardener had done better work than the White teacher. I know the hon member was not trying to disparage the White teacher but it was a slightly dangerous statement to make because it created the impression that the White teacher was not equal to the task.

The hon member asked whether White teachers would also be able to teach under the other education departments. The hon member himself indicated that they could, which was actually to reply to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I have no objection to a White teacher offering his services to any of the other education departments; if they engage him, it is their own affair.

The hon member further asked whether, if this could happen, why we could not also permit teachers of colour to teach at White schools. My reply to that is that I shall not presume to prescribe to any other education department how to administer its education and whom to permit to teach there. I am now referring to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Department of Education and Training. I retain the right, however, to say that White education sets specific requirements. In accordance with these requirements, a person has to register with the SA Teachers’ Council for Whites, after which he may obtain a teaching post. I cannot apologise for this; that is how the system works and that is our philosophy. That is the reply to the hon member’s question.

Mr Chairman, I think it is decidedly unfortunate that the hon the Minister chose to raise a matter that I quite deliberately said yesterday I was not going to raise. I stated quite explicitly when I came to clause 14 that I did not want to discuss the problems that individual organisations and bodies are experiencing among themselves. I stated that explicitly. However, the hon the Minister chose to drag in the affairs of the organised teaching profession. He did so, not I. If the hon the Minister wants to do that, so be it; we will fight on those grounds. However, I think it is decidedly unfair of the hon the Minister to discuss these issues in detail as he did today when he knows very well that the Natal Teachers’ Society has met with the Federal Council and the SA Teachers’ Council since their objection and that they have reached some kind of agreement. The hon the Minister knows that very well.

It is on the basis of that very agreement that I offered the opportunity to withdraw this clause. It is in the best interests of the organised teaching profession that the clause be presented once more without the racial restrictions. We all acknowledge that the organised teaching profession in the other groups does not at this moment wish to participate in a registration council; everybody knows that. It is on the basis that agreement could be reached, and that the possibility of making a registration body open even though others are not at the moment prepared to join it, that this matter could have been proceeded with. The hon the Minister, however, has most unfortunately chosen to be dogmatic about it. He has been dogmatic about the fact that if this does not go through, the organised teaching profession will not have recognition.

If this clause is not passed, the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa will continue to exist. They are representative of the organised teaching profession and have rights in terms of law. The hon the Minister is well aware of that.

I used the word “dogmatic”. I also think it is highly irresponsible of the hon the Minister not at least to have been understanding about this matter. I indicated yesterday that I was well aware that things have changed over the past 3 or 4 weeks in the approach of the organised teaching profession towards this matter. I would have hoped that the hon the Minister could at least have been understanding in his reply, even if not to the extent of removing the clause. He has, however, chosen not to be.

We in this party will oppose the clause because we really believe at this stage that it is the wrong approach and that there are other avenues which could have been followed to the benefit of the organised teaching profession as a whole. As I indicated in my speech on this matter yesterday, I believe that an amendment will be introduced, probably next year. I certainly hope so, because by that time the organised teaching profession will have got through to the hon the Minister on this matter.

I am pleased with the hon the Minister’s replies to the three questions I posed to him. What he actually said was that the statutory restriction on the registration of White-only teachers no longer existed. It will be up to the body concerned in terms of its constitution and the regulations devised by it and the hon the Minister to decide on registration.

I appeal to the hon the Minister, when he examines the matter of registration, to take into consideration the difficulties certain teachers are experiencing at the moment at State-aided private schools that are registered with his department. There are teachers who are not White at such schools, and they experience the greatest difficulty. We also know of cases in the State sector where schools have attempted to use teachers who are Zulu, Xhosa or Sotho to teach that language. Such schools have run into difficulties over the whole question of registration. I do not want to go into individual cases, but the hon the Minister is aware of them and of other so-called non-Whites who are having problems.

I ask the hon the Minister to examine this issue very critically when he devises the regulations governing registration with the Federal Teachers’ Council.

I am afraid that the PFP is going to have to oppose this clause.

Mr Chairman, when the hon the Minister was asked whether teachers of colour could teach at White schools, in his reply he hid behind teachers’ membership of a certain teachers’ organisation. The hon the Minister is the political head of his department and it could happen that a school committee were to approach him with fine arguments, as put forward by the hon member for Bryanston, with reasons why they wished to have a person of colour as a teacher at a White school. If such arguments are put to him and the teachers’ association consents to that teacher’s becoming a member of the organisation, what will the hon the Minister’s standpoint be on this as the political head?

Today there are any teachers’ associations wishing to open their membership to those of colour. If such an association does this, will the hon member tell them his view is that those of colour are not permitted to teach at a White school or will he capitulate and say they may teach there? I want a very clear reply to this from the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the hon member for Pinetown, I wish to say I do not discuss the NTS, the teachers’ society in Natal, and discussions with the federal council across the floor of the Committee. This links up with what I have already said, which is that these people are beginning to see eye to eye and in consequence of that we should pass this clause which provides for the establishment of that body. If we fail to do this, we shall be stirring up the entire hornets’ nest. These people are embarking on discussions with one another and it may happen that they will reach a much better understanding in future. Consequently, this will not pose a problem in future but I find it regrettable that hon members are voting against it at present. It is their right to do so but unfortunately I cannot attempt to withdraw the provision.

As regards the regulations, the hon member requested us to keep an open mind and accommodate people as far as possible. We shall obviously do this in the best interests of education and in accordance with the Constitution, as we understand one another.

The hon member for Kuruman asked a specific question to which he expects a reply from me and I want to tell him I cannot reply to hypothetical statements…

That was not hypothesis.

Wait a bit, the hon member must give me a chance. I want to conclude. I did not interrupt the hon member. I do not intend replying to hypothetical standpoints but I wish to repeat the assurance today that we shall operate White education for White children in White schools and with White teachers in terms of the Constitution.

Just as we make provision in the Constitution for furnishing service, we have to consider each case on merit but the principle remains that we have White education provided by White teachers for White children at White schools in terms of the Constitution. That is our standpoint.

For this reason, it makes no difference to me if a qualified White teacher wishes to teach under any other education department. That is his right and I cannot prescribe to him to refrain from doing so; it is in accordance with the regulations of that specific education department in that case. [Interjections.] The same applies if someone else wishes to teach with us but we then approach this according to our philosophy and I have already spelt out that philosophy to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is blowing hot and cold. One moment he tells my hon colleague here that the Constitution stipulates that we have own education for the Whites, but the next moment he says that the Constitution stipulates that there is opportunity for rendering service.

Of course.

That is the question that we want to put to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] But we are dealing with politics here. We want to know from the hon the Minister… [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning…

Oh really, man, continue with your…

The hon Deputy Minister says that there will be grey areas in South Africa.

I never said so.

Of course!

You are lying!

The hon Deputy Minister… [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning use the ugly word “lie” (“lieg”)?

Order! Did the hon Deputy Minister use that word?

If the hon member is not lying, he is telling an untruth.

Order! Will the hon Deputy Minister please withdraw that?

I withdraw the word “lieg”. [Interjections.]

The hon Deputy Minister’s organiser wrote a circular in which he stated that grey areas do not stand in the way of the survival of the Afrikaner.

Did I say so?

The hon Deputy Minister allows it in Hillbrow and various other places. [Interjections.] I now want to know where the children who live there, go to school.

But you must also…

No, the hon Deputy Minister must listen and not turn his back on his hon colleague. I know one of them is on the left wing and the other on the right wing.

Oh, you are not on any wing. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Has this anything to do with the Bill under discussion?

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May an hon member who is a backbencher of this House stand up in a Minister’s bench and make interjections?

Order! It was not an interjection, but a point of order. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

I just want to say that the hon member for Bethlehem is very forward. In the time that I was a Whip on that side of the House, an hon member would not have done it, but it is evidence of how the NP is disintegrating. [Interjections.]

Where is Koos?

The hon member for Kimberley South sits and makes interjections from a Minister’s bench! [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon Minister of Education and Culture to tell us here today in the Committee in very clear language what the Government’s position is on White education associations, which as happened in Natal for instance, say that they want to open education to non-Whites. What is the hon the Minister’s viewpoint on that? The hon the Minister must not say, either, that we ask hypothetical questions. These are not hypothetical questions. We would like to know from the hon the Minister, who must determine the policy for White education, what the Government’s position, based upon their principles is on non-White membership of White education associations.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: For 25 years it has been the convention that no ordinary hon member may speak from a Minister’s bench. The hon member for Bethlehem rose from a Minister’s bench and posed a point of order. May we please have your specific decision on that

rule whether someone may rise and speak from a Minister’s bench.

Order! I have already given my decision.

Mr Chairman, I have already debated this matter with the hon member for Rissik on numerous occasions. The hon member had better go back and read what I said.

The hon member asked what the position of White teachers’ associations was as regards non-White membership. White teachers’ associations will admit Whites as members; it is as simple as that. White teachers’ associations will act in accordance with their own regulations and constitution. That is the answer to that question.

What is your standpoint?

I have put my standpoint numerous times already! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to express a last standpoint to the hon the Minister. The Government has decided to institute reform at all levels in South Africa to create better racial relations and stabilisation and to bring about progress for all groups in the country. The Government has so often had the experience that when it states dogmatically that something will not happen, it has to come to the House within a few months or a few years to adapt legislation. I wish to make only one appeal to the hon the Minister. He repeated today that there would be schools attended by Whites and where Whites would teach. I appreciate that the hon the Minister has great problems with the right wing in South Africa, but the Government will have to learn that it cannot satisfy its conscience and everything which is decent, honest and good as well as the right wing; that is impossible. It will fail to reconcile all these aspects; it cannot be done.

If the Government wishes to convince South Africa of its sincere and honest intentions with its reform plans, it should rid itself of this undermining, destructive…

Order! Would the hon member deal a little more specifically with the legislation.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I shall do so. Please just give me a chance.

The Government should do away with this because, by using those words, the hon the Minister is undermining the entire spirit and approach of the Government in saying there are schools for White children, White teachers, etc.

What about our Coloureds with 93% White blood? Where are they to attend school? Most of us in this country fall into that group. Where are we to attend school?

There are so many contradictions and I wish to impress this upon the hon the Minister once more. It will undoubtedly happen that all teachers will belong to a single organisation and be registered by a single body. He should not obstruct such a very natural and desirable development in the future of our country.

Mr Chairman, the CP says that only White teachers will teach at White schools in South Africa. According to the Constitution in terms of which we currently operate, the hon the Minister of National Education, who deals with general aspects of education, may be a White, a Coloured, an Indian or a Black. He can become the Minister of the overall education department or macroeducation. That is the department which has to approve and deal with norms and standards and syllabuses.

I now wish to put it to the hon the Minister that we in the CP say that, if we come to power…

When! [Interjections.]

We are telling South Africa honestly and openly that, when we come to power after the next election, only Whites will teach at White schools. I now ask the hon the Minister to be as open and honest in putting his point of view as regards own affairs education in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am referring to the NP standpoint and his own and not to what teachers’ associations in South Africa will permit and what not. He is responsible for White education in South Africa. He is its political head and I ask him openly and honestly to tell South Africa what the NP standpoint is and his own regarding education.

Mr Chairman, my reply to the hon member for Kuruman is that I put our standpoint repeatedly in the Second Reading debate and in these debates. That is my reply to that question. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, oh no, the hon the Minister is not going to get away so easily with saying that he has said this and that repeatedly. [Interjections.] I have read his speeches made since his coming to this House and they sound like the words of two people. I now want to tell the hon the Minister that his senior, the hon the Minister responsible for macroeducation, said in this House that universities would now be opened to non-Whites because the Afrikaner no longer wanted Blacks, Coloureds and Indians to be influenced exclusively by the leftists of liberal universities.

That is a good point!

Yes, that is what the hon the Minister responsible for macroeducation said. I now ask the hon the Minister whether he recognises the same standpoint and, if he does subscribe to the view that tertiary institutions be opened to influence Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, whether he will tell us today that he does not also intend opening schools on the basis of that standpoint to effect the influencing of Black, Brown and Indian pupils as well as the teachers who have to go there.

But, Daan, they may then become good CPs!

Mr Chairman, before the start of the Third Reading Debate, I just finally want to tell the hon the Minister to reread clause 15 carefully. He will then see how he is enslaving White education as a result of the fact that he replaces “National Education” with “Education and Culture”, and then he must read that the Minister responsible for macroeducation in South Africa can be a Coloured, an Indian, or, through the forthcoming deal which is to be created here, a Black man.

I then want to tell the hon the Minister that he must assess his own political past in terms of this particular clause.

Daan, ask the teachers, man.

I really wish there would be an election. [Interjections.] Of course I would like that. Would the hon members of the PFP like an election?

Yes, any time.

We not only want to test the teachers; we want to test the whole electorate of South Africa. I just want to tell the hon the Minister finally to assess his political history and what he has been standing for through the years, in terms of what he is prepared to do now, namely to enslave the Afrikaner’s education, White education, and eventually, if he were to continue along this path, to utterly destroy it in South Africa.

The CP vote against the clause.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon member for Rissik that I am not at all ashamed of my standpoints in the past nor of my present standpoints; they are reconcilable, and that is more than some other hon members in this Committee can say. [Interjections.]

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

Clause 16 agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

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

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Sasolburg put up his hand if he wants to raise an objection?

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg did rise to do so.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Speaker, we have devoted considerable attention to this Bill and we have attempted to persuade the hon the Minister to be reasonable and to accept some very reasonable recommendations from this side of the House. Unfortunately, however, we did not succeed.

There are one or two positive and constructive aspects of this legislation. We have already welcomed those aspects. They are that the parents and teachers, in terms of the recommendations of the De Lange Committee and also as a result of a very long-felt need, are now going to be involved in a far more meaningful and effective way in the planning of policy as well as in the control and management of education at school level. I think that is a very positive and constructive development.

I think it will, in fact, do two things. First of all, it will involve the community. As a result of this, the community will naturally have greater responsibility and also a greater participation in the affairs of the schools and, generally speaking, the schools will benefit. When one considers the situation under the present circumstances, one finds with regard to many of our State schools in the country that there is minimal interest and participation on the part of parents in the affairs of such schools simply because the parents regard these schools at the responsibility of the Government. They feel the Government should keep the schools neat, paint them and generally look after them. The parents feel that is not their job. They pay taxes, and the Government has to do the job.

On the other hand I have always believed, and still do, that it is an aspect of the responsibility of a community to be very closely involved in the provision, maintenance and management of schools. When I speak about the community I am not just referring to the parent community but also to local authorities and other organisations. In fact, I have always felt that schools—certainly as far as the provision of facilities, buildings, fields, and so on are concerned—are one of those aspects that should have devolved down to lower authorities. I think that the inclusion of parents in terms of the provisions of this Bill will start this process of making the community more responsible and of stirring up greater interest on their part in the control and development of schools.

The other aspect which was positive and constructive was the recognition of the importance of audio-visual means of education—the use of computers and videos. We have spoken about that on many occasions. I would just like to point out to the hon the Minister once more that we are wasting an enormous amount of time, energy, money and talent as a result of the fragmentation of this particular means of providing complementary educational services. This is one of those things that need not be segregated. It need not be fragmented. After all, complementary or supportive educational services for mathematics, for instance, are the same, irrespective of the community being served. This is also the case for virtually every other subject.

I think we could get this enormously useful tool to the teaching profession and to the schools much more quickly and much more effectively if we created a single organisation—a very competent, very professional and well-financed organisation—to serve all the educational needs at every single level in the country. I think I have sent a memorandum on this aspect to the hon the Minister. If, however, I have not yet done so, I will send him a copy.

Unfortunately, apart from those positive aspects, there are two negative aspects. This legislation seems to be determined to emphasise own affairs to the point where it becomes offensive to all the other people who, in fact, will be benefiting from participation in White schools, universities and technikons. I think it is most unfortunate that the hon the Minister did not take this opportunity of de-emphasising those aspects rather than emphasising them. I have said on a number of occasions, and the hon the Minister knows, that the evolutionary process of reform in South Africa is going to move us away from rigid segregation towards open systems. It is as well that we start ignoring the segregation aspects and emphasising the aspects of co-operation and contact in education.

Lastly, we are still very unhappy about the fact that we have not been able to persuade the Government to have a more relaxed attitude to future developments with regard to the teaching profession. I believe that this is something the Government must not attempt to determine by law. The organisations, activities and functions of the teaching profession and the systems which they wish to develop in order to co-operate so as to develop and improve their profession, its status, prestige and effectiveness, is something that can with confidence be left in their hands. It is something which we as politicians should not interfere with, and we should not prescribe to them. They are responsible, intelligent, knowledgeable and qualified people who are able to handle their own affairs and to organise their own profession effectively. I would like to appeal to the Government that in these cases we remove Government or political intervention or prescription and allow these people to develop their own professions in the interests of the country. We must also allow them to co-operate and to develop systems of co-operation with all the other groups so that the teaching profession as a whole and education as a whole could benefit from it.

It is unfortunate that because of those aspects we are not in a position to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill; we have to vote against it.

Mr Speaker, the reality of the unrealistic politics conducted by both the PFP and the CP in Souh Africa emerged very clearly once again during the discussion of this Bill.

The Official Opposition does not support this legislation because ostensibly it is meant only for Whites. According to the hon member for Bryanston, the word “White” appears in this Bill at least 15 times. According to him this is repugnant and an insult to other groups.

On the other hand the CP is voting against this Bill because it is being made subject to a general Act. According to them it is no longer purely White legislation, therefore, and that is why they cannot support it. Of course this is completely untrue. This legislation is not being made subject to general legislation as a whole.

The question we shall have to answer for ourselves in the first place in this debate, is whether both opposition parties are correct in their standpoints. Surely both parties cannot be correct. If one cannot be correct, one must accept that the other one might be correct. [Interjections.] The question we have to answer is whether this is the case. [Interjections.] I maintain that not one of the opposition parties is correct. The fact that the standpoints of the two parties can be diametrically opposed and that they represent two completely opposite poles is a clear indication that they cannot both be correct, or that both can be wrong. [Interjections.]

Let us test this Bill and look at the reasons for it. This measure was drawn up in agreement with the Constitution Act; the Constitution Act determines how it should be regulated.

You must change the Constitution!

That is our problem with the hon member for Bryanston; he is fighting the Constitution. He is fighting something the voters are in favour of. The Constitution is the consequence of a mandate obtained by the Government in a referendum in 1983. The Government got a two-thirds majority for this. [Interjections.]

We say, therefore, that this measure is not shameful and not an insult to people of colour. It is the wish and the choice of the White voters in South Africa that this Bill be dealt with in this way today.

The remarks made by the hon member for Bryanston insulted two-thirds of the White voters in South Africa. [Interjections.] He can laugh about that now, but it was an insult to the White voters, of whom 66% voted in favour of the Constitution. Now he says we are insulting the people of colour in this Bill. He says the measure we are introducing is repugnant.

I say you are making a mistake!

That is the wish of 66% of the Whites voters who determined that education should be regulated as indicated in this measure. The wish of the White voters determined that White education in South Africa must be dealt with as an own affair, and on the basis of that mandate the NP will proceed to deal with education in South Africa in this way.

[Inaudible.]

That is despite the hon member for Bryanston’s complaining.

As far as the CP is concerned, it is clear that they are purposely blinding themselves to what is really meant by this legislation and by own education. They argue that education is being made subject to general laws. They simply make that assumption as a matter of course. Section 14 of the Constitution Act spells out very clearly that a distinction has to be drawn between own affairs and general affairs in the Constitution Act.

The Constitution Act goes further, and in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 there is specific reference to education as an own affair. Apparently the CP wants to put an end to that too. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 makes it clear that education on all levels, including tuition by means of correspondence, manual training of adults, training of cadets and official school sport, is an own affair. In addition it says it is “subject to any general law”.

This is where the CP baulks and wants to put a full stop behind what the Constitution Act states, but before “subject to any general law”. Surely that argument cannot be applied. After all, it is an untruth to maintain that the Constitution stops there and that it contains nothing further. What does it say? I think it is necessary to read to the CP what the Constitution Act says in this connection. I quote from paragraph 2 of Schedule 1:

The question arises: Are they against the determination of norms and standards for everyone in South Africa, or do they want those norms and standards to be determined exclusively for the Whites in South Africa. Education on all levels is also subject to any general law in relation to, and I quote from paragraph 2:

1. (b) salaries and conditions of employment of staff and professional registration of teachers;
2. (c) norms and standards for syllabuses and examination and for certification of qualifications.

What is wrong if norms and standards in respect of these matters have to be determined for everyone in South Africa in terms of the Constitution Act? We must not become obsessed by an idea of co-operation as spelt out by section 14 of the Constitution Act in respect of rendering of services. Along with the principle accepted by the Government in the White Paper, viz that we must strive to make equal education possible for everyone, it is merely logical that one consider certain norms and standards in general, and that such norms and standards comply with certain minimum requirements for everyone.

The only thing the CP can talk about, is that they want to establish an own education for Whites, and that the other groups must work out their own salvation in respect of norms and standards. The crux of their argument is that norms and standards must be determined only in respect of Whites in South Africa and that the other groups have no claim to an equal, similar education.

That is not true!

Of course it is true!

That is the truth! The hon member for Rissik can shout and say it is not true, but that is what they want to establish in respect of education in South Africa.

You know that is not the case!

It appears, therefore, that in respect of norms and standards, the CP wants to include a kind of exclusivity concerning White education, and that the norms and standards for the education of other groups have no relevance for them. I really think this attitude assumed by the CP is a selfish one.

We shall continue to deal with White education as an own affair and, in the spirit of the Constitution and of the mandate we received during the referendum, to give other groups the opportunity to develop their education and comply with all the expectations they cherish.

It is not only the Constitution Act that prescribes how education should be dealt with as embodied in this Bill. The organised profession, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa and the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites have also welcomed this measure with great enthusiasm. With the exception of a single group, this measure has been broadly welcomed by the teaching profession, and teaching circles want it passed as soon as possible.

The hon member for Bryanston must not come and say here, therefore, that a significant number of teachers do not support this amendment. That is simply not true. What is true is that for the most part, the teachers accept the measure with great enthusiasm.

In the spirit of the recognition the Constitution gives own education, of the active positive attitude of the teaching profession as well as of the involvement of the parent community, we should like to support this measure, and we believe it will serve the interests of education.

Mr Chairman, I immediately want to tell the hon member for Gezina that the hon member for Jeppe and I will be in his constituency this evening. The CP is making headway in Gezina.

What about Rissik?

Rissik is doing equally well; it is doing very well indeed. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Gezina really should, as an ex-teacher and parliamentarian, maintain some degree of scientific truth. The hon member repeatedly says that the CP begrudges the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks particular educational norms and standards. I want to shift my attention to the hon member for a moment, if I may, Sir, and tell him frankly that it is untrue. It is not true that the CP begrudges Coloureds, Indians and Blacks their own education.

No education!

Oh, who was that? The hon member should rather go and look for a constituency in which to lose. [Interjections.]

We, with our ethnic policy, do not begrudge each people an independent system of education. The hon member must let that sink in. Secondly we say that each people and each community, like each individual, also determines its own standards and norms. This is an educational truism. The hon member should just go back to high school, university or college to learn that all over again. He should refer to the educationalists we had, especially those at Potchefstroom, for example. In my years as a student, when I was studying their works, I had very high regard for them. The hon member should examine the foundation stones of education as it has grown in South Africa, at least within the Afrikaner community.

Furthermore I want to say that in the time of Dr Verwoerd, when we started to place Black education under our Government’s control, with an own department of Bantu education, we were rendering a service. In those years we, in the ranks of the Whites, particularly the Afrikaners, rendered a service. Some of my fellow students in education dedicated themselves for years to the education of Blacks, Coloureds, and Indians. We did, indeed, render a service in those years, because we are not opposed to rendering a service. However, we do not want to do so to such a degree that the people eventually cannot help themselves, or that one simply imposes one’s ideas on them, the way liberalists usually do. In those years we, in the real NP, the old NP of which we are the continuation, with our specific knowledge and ability to render a service went to the Black peoples and transferred the best of our education system to them. For years some of us devoted our time and attention to their education. As far as Souh Africa is concerned, we contributed…

To the creation of Azania.

… to that the norms and standards introduced into Black education being some of the best in Africa. Now I want to tell the hon member that to say once more that the CP begrudges the Black people optimum norms and standards commensurate with their ability, is untrue. [Interjections.] Anybody who says that—I now quote the State President—inside or outside this House, is a public liar.

What does the AWB now have to say?

No, the hon member should come and talk to me so that I can give him a few lessons on that. [Interjections.]

I find it very interesting, in present-day politics, that the NP agrees with the State President when he carries out PFP policy, but if the hon Leader of the Official Opposition does so, the NP disagrees with him. The hon members want to adopt the PFP’s point of view, but they like the way in which the State President puts it, the terms he uses. They dislike the way in which the hon Leader of the Official Opposition puts it. [Interjections.]

It seems, from the hon the Minister’s answers to us, and from the hon member for Gezina’s speech, that they link this Bill to two things, namely the Constitution of 1983—particularly sections 14 and 16, and the schedules which deal with own and general affairs, etc—and the White Paper, as compiled from the HSRC’s report by Prof De Lange.

As far as these things are concerned, it is indeed so that the Constitution of 1983 changed the entire dispensation in South Africa. This was changed in principle. Where the Whites, the old NP, initially governed alone, they now have multiracial coalition partners. Coloureds and Indians govern with them, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, notwithstanding certain contradictions by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, says that Blacks are now being incorporated. The Constitution of 1983 therefore changed, in principle, the whole political structure of South Africa.

With the approval of the electorate!

That is of no consequence now. I shall return to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

The hon member agrees with me, however, that it has been changed in principle, and that it is not the same any longer.

But, of course!

The Whites therefore no longer have any control over his own affairs. They rule jointly with the Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.]

It goes without saying that since these education laws are linked to the Constitution, the principles of the 1967 Act no longer apply. Clause 4 deletes them. Education in South Africa is therefore now subject to a multiracial Coalition Cabinet. [Interjections.] Is that correct?

Yes, of course that is correct!

The most difficult thing, in my days in education, was to teach an uncomprehending child that one plus one is not three, but two. The hon member for Gezina sometimes drives one to despair. He agrees with me that the Constitution has changed fundamentally. He says that the Constitution has also changed education in South Africa, now that I say in the House that education is subject to a multiracial Coalition Cabinet, the hon member denies it. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh, is that so?

Yes!

Very well. Then it seems to me the hon member is coming right. I wish I could have him listening to me more often.

But I have just put forward that argument in my speech.

I am delighted about that.

We therefore reiterate that this new legislation on education, as it stands now, is subject to a multiracial Coalition Cabinet. The result is that education in South Africa, this so-called “own education”, is subsidiary to a multiracial Coalition Cabinet.

That is not true!

It is true! Therefore I tell the hon the Minister that he has subordinated and enslaved White education in South Africa to, made it dependent on, a multiracial Coalition Cabinet, and therefore we cannot support it.

There is a second point that the hon member for Gezina mentioned, which deals with the question of the De Lange report. The hon member for Barberton made the point the other day that Professor De Lange was not only the chairman of the commission that compiled this report on behalf of the HSRC; he was indeed also the chairman of a certain cultural organisation in South Africa. That cultural organisation said, in one of the papers it published, that grey residential areas in South Africa would not jeopardise the survival of the Afrikaner. I told the hon the Minister that if the Government was already, in their dark little back rooms, planning grey communities in South Africa this must surely also have an effect on education. Then the hon the Minister must also tell us how he is going to maintain policy of separate, own education in these grey areas. The hon the Minister must give us an answer on these matters. Surely the hon the Minister knows that the Government is not only establishing grey residential areas in South Africa, but also grey education. [Interjections.] Yes, we already have a grey Government. However, it is more blackish than grey.

The hon the Minister must give us an answer on these matters. The hon the Minister must not tell me he made certain points during the Second Reading last year and the previous year. The Government has changed. The hon the Minister has changed. He must not tell us that we ask hypothetical questions. We ask pertinent questions concerning education in South Africa.

I experience no problems with the fact that the Afrikaners are split in two. There are a more liberal and a more conservative stream. Education in South Africa is similarly divided. There is Professor De Lange and the people who go along with him in adopting a particular new course advocated by the NP. However, there are some people in education—indeed many—who are moving in a totally different direction. I want us to conduct the debate in this House in such a way that the electorate knows exactly where it stands, with all the standpoints on education too. [Interjections.] That is what I want the hon the Minister to spell out for us.

I also want to tell the hon member for Gezina that under CP rule norms and standards, salaries and service conditions, curricula and all those things will be controlled only by the CP government. It will not be a mixed government. We will provide an education system in South Africa which will be based on our Christian-national approach to life and world view. There is no doubt about that. We say this unequivocally. [Interjections.] I say that the Coloureds will then work out their own education policy. If we can help, we will gladly do so, but they will work it out for themselves. This applies equally to the Indians, the Zulus and the Vendas.

And the Xhosas.

Yes, and the Xhosas, you name them. This has, after all, been our viewpoint all these years.

The Constitution and politics has introduced tensions into our education. Let me tell the hon member quite frankly that we will resist enslavement in every facet of our lives. He must know that. As far as education, children and other matters are concerned, we will be honest about what our principles are. The hon the Minister must have no doubts about that.

I am very deeply concerned, because I read and I keep my ears open. I hear what is going on in liberal circles, things like the rewriting of the history of South Africa. The hon the Minister said the other day, at his congress, that Black languages would probably be made compulsory. According to him they must or can be made compulsory. [Interjections.] I see no problem in studying Black languages. I did so myself. I nonetheless want to tell the hon the Minister that he is introducing his political viewpoints into education. He is doing so, but he does not want to allow the PFP, the CP or the HNP to do it.

The hon the Minister must not think he can scare us, intimidate us or whatever. As far as the education of our children at the pre-primary, secondary, and tertiary levels is concerned, we, as the bearers of a specific culture, a specific ideal and a specific viewpoint in South Africa, will be more than ever on our guard against the government, its strategists and henchmen, in whatever departments they may be or in whatever educational associations. Also as far as education is concerned, we will keep a close watch on various matters, oppose whatever aspects we disagree on but we will do so in a manner typified or characterised by our principles.

I therefore tell the hon the Minister at this Third Reading that he has deviated, in principle, from the 1976 Act, and just as his constitutional changes will be detrimental to the Whites in South Africa, he is also putting us on a self-destructive path as far as education in Southern Africa is concerned.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This morning I read in the paper that the hon Leader of the House is about to retire. I just want to know whether the House is not entitled to be informed about this by the Hon Leader.

Mr Speaker, there is no question of my retiring from politics; I promise. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik made a long detour in his contribution in order to arrive at section 14 of the Constitution. He asked us to argue in a straightforward and scientific way with one another about education, but he himself did not convincingly explain, not even on the basis of their philosophy on education, how they wished to arrange for these equal standards under their policy.

To my mind the problem is that some of the supporters of the CP have a justifiable standpoint, namely that the standard of the product of education differs among the various groups in South Africa. They are therefore opposed to the quality of certificates with which people enter the labour market. That is what they object to. They have no objection to the appointment of people on the basis of their ability, nor to equal remuneration on that basis. What they do object to is the fact that the quality of the certificates is not equal.

We are now formulating legislation to deal with the matter, and here we are, at the end of the debate, arguing about the question of minimum standards. When these are arranged, we are attacked for doing so. Surely both cannot hold true.

As far as the concept of separate education departments is concerned, in which arrangements are made separately, and separate standards will be set, one is not, in South Africa, going to get past the fact that somewhere there will have to be an evaluating point, where these things can be compared with one another.

Why not?

It cannot happen. [Interjections.] It cannot happen because the market which inherits the final result of the respective systems, will determine that it wants to have this assurance. [Interjections.]

That is one side of the matter. On the other side there is the standpoint of the PFP, which, in the same breath turns the matter right around. They are concerned about the method by means of which the National Education Council for Whites came into existence in terms of the 1976 Act. It has therefore been regulated by means of legislation, and under those circumstances emerged as a statutory body. The PFP says the federal education council which is now coming into existence and which will be a semi-statutory body, is an inferior body compared to the other one.

The difference between the two is that the federal council of teacher’s associations that is going to be established, is being brought into existence by the teaching profession itself. It has been initiated on the basis of their own decision. Is the PFP now trying to imply that what the teaching profession is now establishing of its own accord, will be inferior compared to what was provided in the 1976 legislation?

We have come to the point in the debate on this Bill where we have to say that the teaching profession should take cognisance of the way in which a political issue is being made here of the work they have to do. The teaching profession is, in the days that lie ahead, going to be abused for the purposes of petty politics.

I want to ask the hon the Minister—I know it would be difficult to arrange—whether there is not perhaps a method by means of which this Bill in its final form can be circulated among the people in the profession. In fact, I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to make the entire debate which is being conducted here available to these people, so that they can see for themselves what the various standpoints are and what lies ahead for the profession.

It is a difficult profession. It is a profession which deals with the entire situation in our society as a whole. They are the people who have to bear the real blows when there is an economic recession in a community. They are also the people, the profession, that has to guide the child in moments of great success and well-being, in order to turn him into a balanced and stable person. Those are the people who ultimately determine the standards, and who have to sweat and toil in order to reach the point at which standards are acceptable.

If we read through the Hansard of this debate we see that there is another matter which this profession is going to have to deal with, and that is that it is going to be misused in order to help to support the petty counter-arguments in this country in the midst of the pollution of the world in which a child today has to grow up. It will be a sad day if that has to happen.

Once again I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the contents and the final form of this Bill. I ask again whether we cannot, in some way or another, make it available to everyone in the profession who has to carry out the new policy in the class room, in order to be of service to South Africa.

Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a tragic loss of opportunity at a time in our history when so much of the crisis that is being experienced relates exactly to this field, particularly in the Black townships among the young, up-and-coming South Africans who are going to be the people who will decide the future further on. It was an opportunity for the Government—and it was quite possible for them to do so—to interpret the Constitution in a way which could have made reform in the field of education an ongoing process and which could have taken some of the sting out of the mistakes of the past. They have failed in that challenge. They have failed for political reasons and that is self-evident from the wording of this Bill and their responses in this debate to hon members of the CP on my right. The problem is that no one believes what they are saying. [Interjections.] The CP has shown it up and the NP is in the position where it is shifting from one foot to the other by virtue of some of the actions that they have already taken in the reform process.

Political “woerwoer”.

They have taken action which makes it absolutely axiomatic that certain further action will have to follow, and they are now balking at that action.

If this is the final word as far as separate education is concerned then there can be no progress as regards any improvement to the Group Areas Act. It means they have come to a standstill in bringing about what this party believes could be brought about by our policy of local option whereby what we would be introducing is a mechanism to bring about what would have happened gradually and naturally if another great disaster had not befallen South Africa, and that was when the NP came to power in 1948. [Interjections.] That, Sir, is what this is all about and the hon the Minister, compelled by a political force which they are now very concerned about, has opted not to take this step which…

It was a disaster when they accepted power sharing.

The fact of the matter is that what we had today was the hon member for Gezina standing up and trying to shift all the blame for inferior education by making out that that is what the CP stands for. That was what he was doing. He was trying to make out that they would stand for an inferior situation. By what he said he was in fact acknowledging that in the past there was an inferior education system. The opportunity to give credibility to the reform process that is taking place was framing this Bill in such a way that the interpretation of the Constitution would indicate very clearly that the Government had moved away from some old and outdated standpoints.

Basic to that party’s problem is the fact that they have not yet accepted one very simple thing and that is they do not accept Blacks as fellow-South Africans. That is the basic underlying philosophical problem that they have in approaching the future reform process. They have not crossed that hurdle. To them Blacks are something else; they are over there and they cannot include them in the parliamentary structure. The NP cannot overcome that hurdle for political reasons on the one hand and also because they basically believe that that is something which will destroy them. [Interjections.] We do not believe it will. We believe that they must prepare their young people—their up-and-coming generations in South Africa—to live with the reality of this country which is just that—that sharing a common economy one will have to share a common loyalty and that means that one has to accept all of those people as fellow-countrymen. That is the real root of the difference. It is not a cultural difference because cultural differences can be accommodated quite differently. It is a difference in philosophy towards the inhabitants of this country.

The acceptance of the right of private schools to make decisions as to the admittance of all South Africans to those schools is in itself a paradox in the Government’s approach to education in all fields because in doing that one is devolving that authority down to an institution which has the right to make that decision in the best interests of all those attending that school. Government has accepted that, but one cannot do that and not progress in respect of other communities which should have similar rights. What is going to happen is that, because no one believes what is being said here in this debate, further amendments or adjustments will have to be made within a year or two. By then, however, those amendments will have come too late to resolve the further conflict that will have arisen in the country. No one will give the Government any credit for those minor adjustments when they are made, and the Government will enjoy even less credibility. Reform has now become a process whereby we are now correcting errors made by the Government only two or three years ago. In fact, some of the legislation that has not yet even come into effect. We have already amended certain legislation three times in this House before it has been enacted.

We believe this Bill afforded the Government the opportunity to proceed in the direction of reform that would have eased the tensions tremendously, even the tension that is at the interface of the conflict. One dare not forget that so much of the problem could be traced in 1976 and can still be traced today right down to the level of the youth and the schools. This Bill, however, does nothing to alleviate that situation.

The CP have stated their position absolutely clearly. No one can make any mistake about their standpoint. Everybody knows what they stand for. One may disagree with them and one may point out all the shortcomings in their standpoints but they continue to persevere in those standpoints. As far as the Government is concerned, however, the situation has become such that the country’s lack of confidence, its directionlessness, and the impression that they are marking time all stem from the fact that the Government will not take that next step. That is absolutely evident in this legislation. An opportunity has gone adrift here, and it is really a great tragedy.

They have a “you want it, we have it” policy.

Yes, but they have to move ahead. The CP, with their clear definition of what they stand for, can remain where they are that is fine. Everyone will know exactly what they are voting for. However, no one who votes for the NP will know what he is voting for. All that the NP is going to do, however, is to use the sanctions issue—the NP itself is partly to blame for sanctions—and use it as a means of persuading everybody to vote for something about which there is no clear direction. [Interjections.]

By now it will have become obvious that we on these benches will oppose this legislation. The Government has missed another opportunity and the people are rapidly losing any form of confidence whatsoever in this Government’s ability to handle both conflict and the reform process. I trust the Government will bring this legislation back to the House next session and make amendments to it.

Mr Speaker, towards the end of his speech the hon member for King William’s Town stated very clear standpoints in respect of the CP. He pointed out how clear our education policy was and needless to say we agree with him on that score. We also agree with what he said about the lack of clarity and the ambiguity of the NP’s education policy, regarding which they want to blow neither hot nor cold so that the voter actually has no idea what they are doing. They are still trying to bluff the voter. They want to convince the voter that this is indeed self-determination and own education. They then argue, in the same way as the hon member for Gezina, who says that the CP is becoming bogged down by the subordination to a general law, even though this is not the case. Then the hon member comes along and quietly brings it in through the back door, as though it were not of fundamental importance.

However, I want to return to the hon member for Brentwood. He argues that it is essential that we in South Africa have equal standards and norms for all education, even though they are not minimum standards and norms. The hon member then argues that the objective in education is exclusively a matter of market-orientation and labour sphere. One would say that this is the only reason education is given and exists! [Interjections.] In one undivided South Africa, with one racially mixed nation, and with equal rights, privileges and opportunities for all—the aim the hon member for Brentwood gave as the aim of education—it is logical that the PFP’s standpoint is the right one.

It is completely correct.

If this is one’s basic premise, there is only one standpoint that is correct and that is the one the PFP subscribes to. This then means that all people would live in an open community and would all attend open schools quite indiscriminately and receive the same education so that everyone would be equally qualified for that goal—the labour world. If this is the case the NP may as well come out of hiding now, be honest and not creep towards acceptance of the PFP policy in the hope of keeping a few White voters behind it with this bluff. It should state openly that it accepts PFP policy and indicate what its standpoint is. Then everyone would know where he stood and no one would have to have any doubt about it.

They should change their name.

Everyone would then know that this was not a process towards the total acceptance of the Progs’ official policy; the reality is that the NP is accepting this, and there is no doubt about it.

I also want to tell the hon member for Gezina…

[Inaudible.]

I think it was the hon the Minister of Communication who made that remark. I just want to tell him the CP listened to the hon the Leader of the House, who said that he wanted to remain here longer. We want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that we shall let him stay here a little longer, until the next general election—then the CP will get rid of him. The hon the Minister of Communications who stands in the Durbanville constituency, will probably have to leave as a result of what happened there. [Interjections.] He, too, will probably have to take guard behind his wickets. Mr Speaker, this was just an intermezzo and I want to thank you for allowing me to say it.

I want to return to the hon member for Gezina. He said the CP and the PFP were opposed to the Bill, but both of them could not be right. However, it is not a matter of whether both of them are right, but rather of the fact that the PFP has its own policy, which is a completely open policy in respect of education. The CP again has its own education policy which is a closed policy, if I may use those terms.

Completely closed! Completely closed! [Interjections.]

Yours is a Tutu policy.

The CP demands that each population group—Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—have its own education and handles it exclusively. This means it is a closed door. The NP standpoint is that one should open the door about half-way—and not completely. The CP objects to this because it does not want to have that door half-way open; it wants the door closed. The PFP on the other hand wants that door completely open; it does not want it only half-way open. It does not want only the universities, technikons and private schools to be open—everything else must be open and mixed. Therefore the PFP objects to the fact that the door is only half-way, and not completely open. This is of course perfectly clear and logical. After all, one cannot argue in the same way as the hon member for Gezina that because both parties are opposed to the NP standpoint, of a half-open door, one of the two cannot be right, that perhaps both are wrong. In terms of clause 4, this Bill makes White education subject to a general law—I am talking about section 2(1) of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, 1984. We object to it, because we say that the Whites should make provision for their own education, their own norms and standards, as has always been the case, before the new, racially mixed dispensation came about in 1983. We refuse that other people have a say in the Whites exclusive right to determine their own norms and standards independently. We therefore reject a general statutory provision; we want a separate White provision only.

We reject the policy of one undivided South Africa and of one racially mixed nation, which in such a situation has equal rights, privileges and opportunities. While we demand this legislation for ourselves as Whites, we say at the same time that the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks have the right to create their own legislation and to make their own provisions for standards and norms within that framework. They will also have the right to say that they refuse to allow other people to have a say in the norms and standards which they laid down for their education. They therefore have the right to determine their own norms and standards according to their views and requirements—even if they are only minimum standards, as the hon member for Brentwood said—without the Whites, or anyone else for that matter, helping them to do it or having a say in it.

We therefore say the Whites must have exclusive rights for their own education, because we still believe in education from the people, for the people. That is why we also believe that the other population groups should have their own education from their people for their own people. We think that they should have the exclusive right to decide it themselves. It is therefore for us on this side of the House impossible to support this Bill in any way, a Bill in terms of which education is being made subject to general statutes.

Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to make a remark to the CP, a remark to the hon member for Ge—zina and two or three remarks to the hon the Minister. I want to say to the CP that if they believe it is the liberals who impose their views on others and not the conservatives, they are entirely mistaken. This is particularly so when they say that they would be happy to return to the days of separate departments with no overarching department coordinating and establishing norms and standards. If that is so I think they are living totally in a dream world.

I would like to ask them a specific question: Do they believe that each of the population groups that control education in this country should receive an equal slice of the financial cake in South Africa? Do they believe that Black education should receive as much money per child or per teacher as White education is receiving? I hear a deathly hush.

No, according to our policy of partition each group will decide for itself.

That is the point of my question. They say each group will decide for itself. It means that they as Whites will sit here and decide how that cake will be divided because it is a single financial cake and not four cakes. [Interjections.]

As the hon the Minister of National Education has quite rightly said, there will have to be a common funding formula for all education in South Africa and not a White or a Black funding formula. If that was the case one would commit Blacks into servitude in perpetuity so that they could never become equal. [Interjections.] The CP must therefore not mouth statements about their desire to be separate but not to dominate others.

Will you take a question?

Not now. The sheer fact is that as a White political party they will dominate. [Interjections.] The hon member for Gezina spent some time attacking what he termed the unrealistic politics of the opposition parties. He then went on at length about the Constitution and the two thirds of voters who had supported it and said that was why we had own affairs. It sounded great! [Interjections.] However, I have a problem. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has said in this House that the Constitution is a temporary measure. How temporary are the hon members own affairs, then? I say they are very temporary.

What is the National Statutory Council for?

The second thing the hon member for Gezina referred to was the two-thirds majority. At this point I would like to address a parting remark to the hon the Minister before we go away for the recess. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who is not listening at the moment, made an attack on the findings of the survey conducted by the Natal Teachers’ Society. Of those polled, 80% supported open schools and a single Ministry of Education. The supposition was that members of other societies such as the TTA and SATA would share that opinion. The hon the Minister said that the survey reflected only the opinions of those polled. Am I quoting him correctly? He said one could not make the assumption that the others felt the same. The hon member for Gezina, however, said that 66% of the voters of South Africa supported the Constitution. That is not true.

I was referring to the White voters.

They did not. The new Constitution was supported in the referendum by 48% of registered voters, or 66% of those who voted.

The hon member for Gezina and the hon the Minister should get their act together. They cannot argue in the one case that the NTS sample did not reflect a general feeling, and then in the other case assert that the referendum did reflect a general feeling. I could argue that 52% of the White voters of South Africa actually did not support the Constitution. That is the kind of argument the hon the Minister is using.

The hon member for Gezina said that only one body did not support the formation of the federal teachers’ council. That is actually not true. The Natal Teachers’ Society has adopted a particular viewpoint about taking up seats, but both the Transvaal Teachers’ Association and the Souh African Teachers’ Association here in the Cape have adopted viewpoints in opposition to a racial teachers’ registration body. They have not adopted a viewpoint on taking up seats. However, all three of those bodies are opposed to this council.

I should like to turn to the hon the Minister and perhaps deflect this debate a little from arguing specifically and strongly on the Bill. I want to pick up something the hon the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I quote from his unrevised Hansard, as follows:

I grant that the hon the Minister has a perfect right to hold that view. I have no argument against it whatsoever. My argument concerns an issue which we have not really argued sufficiently—perhaps the floor of this House is not the right place but at some stage we have to exercise our minds on it—and that is that to insist that race is culture is simply not correct.

In previous speeches the hon the Minister has acknowledged, as has the hon the Minister of National Education, that, in cultural terms, education comprises Afrikaans, English-language, Dutch, German and Chinese schools, for instance. I grant him that they are cultural schools. Why, then, is there a White department in charge of education? There is no logical argument or connection except one, and that is political opportunism. One can base education on race because race is the determinant of the political structure of the country. This is where the hon members for Gezina and Brentwood and the hon the Minister are going to have problems. When one changes the Constitution, one actually has to come to terms with the education system changing. One will have to accept that education will be culturally and not racially based. It is in this regard that I think we must enter into a very strong argument with the NP on the basis of their present policy because I have no doubt that if one were to take a sample of the hon members of the NP—a secret vote if you like—on two issues, namely the issue of group areas and the issue of cultural education as a opposed to racial education, one will find that the NP is very widely divided. So, just as the NP is gradually coming to terms with changing policies on group areas, it will have to come to terms with a changing view on racial education. The NP will have to come to terms with it on the basis that education should be provided on a cultural basis. This can be done without threatening any group and allowing for the rights of those groups to practise their culture within a school milieu and within that perspective.

The NP should be insisting on that kind of protection of the cultural rights in education. As long as the NP stands on grounds of race, it is on shifting sands, and the Bible tells us what happens to a house built on shifting sands.

Mr Speaker, we have come to the end of a long debate, when we add together the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and the Third Reading, and of course during the course of this debate all three stages were argued extensively and thoroughly. Naturally there was repetition, and hon members who have now participated in the Third Reading, will pardon me for not replying to all of them and to every argument, for then we would spend a very long time on it in any case.

To begin with I want to thank those on my side of the House who participated very sincerely for their exceptional support. Among those who participated were the hon members for Gezina and Brentwood. I want to thank the hon member for Gezina, also as chairman of my committee. He raised a very important point, namely that this legislation, too, has its origin in the Constitution. That is a fact, whether hon members like it or not. His argument that the rendering of service is also affirmed by the Constitution, stands firm.

I also want to express my sincere gratitude for the contribution made by the hon member for Brentwood. He argued that it would be desirable for this legislation to be widely distributed in education circles. I support that argument of course. I hope that at least every school principal will receive a copy of this legislation and that the teaching staff will try to familiarise themselves with the provisions of this legislation. One can argue about the means by which this should happen, but I support the principle.

This is an important Bill in the sense that we are now confirming education as an own affair under the Department of Education and Culture. It effects the implementation of many important matters, for example the provincial education council, which in fact is going to afford an opportunity for parental involvement as well as the involvement of the profession itself. Various hon members argued about the vital importance of involvement. It is true that the profession has in the past made a quite exceptional contribution as far as the development of education is concerned. This legislation also affords the teaching profession an opportunity to make more positive contributions in respect of planning, policy formulation, teacher training and so on.

The hon member for Bryanston is quite right when he says that parental involvement is similarly of cardinal importance. That is a fact. From time to time we have felt in education that parents were not involved in education to the extent we would have liked to have seen, because they argued that it was the State’s responsibility and that the State simply had to see to it. That is an incorrect premise and this Bill now affords parents an opportunity to become involved on two separate bases, on specific councils, on which they can also make a contribution in respect of the eventual policy formulation, training and so on. Apart from the fact that we are entering a new dispensation, we are creating the opportunity for this particular kind of cooperation in order to obtain the best for education.

When I thank the hon members, also those of the opposition side, for their support for specific matters contained in this legislation, I think it is necessary that I try to indicate briefly where, in my opinion, the arguments on the part of the PFP as well as of the CP are erroneous. First I should like to say the following about the arguments which the PFP advanced, through the hon members for Pinetown and Bryanston. The accusation that education is based on race, is often heard from the PFP side. It is unfair, however. It is not true. In this way, in my opinion…

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must give me a chance to present my argument.

In my opinion they are trying in this way to discredit the present educational dispensation, and to undermine the public’s confidence in the entire educational system. Even if that is not really their intention, I want to tell them that is the effect of their argument when they say that education is based on race. In order to prevent the House of Assembly from adjourning on a discordant note of mistrust and suspicion from all opposition sides, I should like to put the following briefly to the hon members. If we want to prevent our children from receiving a schizophrenic education and become daily commuters between two divergent education systems—by that I mean one educational system in the parental home, and another one in the school—then we must allow education in the school to be as closely associated as possible with the education of the family and the specific community. That is a philosophy according to which we should reason and which should be our point of departure. Only when the school education is a natural continuation of home education and provides, as it were, an education which conforms best to the values, culture, home experience and needs of a particular community, does one have the optimum education of the youth.

The hon member for Pinetown is in full agreement with me.

There is a “but” coming.

No, it is not a “but”. That is the perspective I am presenting. That perspective is necessary. If that is our point of departure, it follows that there are exceptions to this rule. The exception to this rule I lay at the door of the CP. The CP will agree with the standpoint I have just stated. We also say, however, that the Constitution makes provision for exceptions by means of service rendered to them. That provision does not detract in any way from the educational validity of the philosophy which it expounds, namely that of the transferrence of culture from the parental home and the home education to the school. The exception which the Constitution allows, merely makes the application of the philosophy less rigid. That is all that it does. It allows some leeway for exceptional cases. The correctness of the philosophy of a closer a link between home and school and school and the community is accepted throughout the developed world as a healthy education policy.

I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that I am absolutely convinced that the hon member is confusing educational norms with the norms for the provision of education. The eleven principles, as set out in the De Lange Report, were concerned with the provision of education. There is, however, a very big difference between the norms for the provision of education and the norms for education as such. The hon member will agree with me on that score. Now he maintains that the norms for education on a general level are not under discussion. Our teaching norms, as expressed in the Constitution and in the education legislation, are of a Christian, National nature, and are non-negotiable. We have committed ourselves to them, as a Government. Those norms remain. It has always been the case, and it is at present the case, and as far as I am concerned I should like to see that it remains that way until the end.

Norms for the provision of education as such deal with practical matters, such as minimum requirements to which salaries, examinations and certificates have to comply, minimum requirements with which teachers have to comply to in order to teach, as well as specific rank designations to education, so that excessive inequalities which are not in the interests of the country cannot arise. I think that if we agree on this premise, it is very clear that we have not forfeited our principles. It is not the case—and that is what the PFP is alleging—that we do not want to render a service, and that we do not want to have the necessary liaison. We should manage our education from a mainly educationally accountable standpoint, and that is precisely what we want to do.

I want to tell the hon member for Bryanston something, it will not take long, about the audio-visual aspect and the danger of fragmentation. I have already come to an agreement with the hon member in that regard. I agree with him. There are various networks that are at present also investigating these matters. I find nothing wrong with his premise, and we believe that it will develop in this way.

In respect of the appeal made by the hon member that we afford the organised profession the greatest possible opportunity to decide specific matters for themselves, we agree with him. That is also the reason why we are going to establish a new body in terms of section 14, to enable them to do so by means of that section.

There is just one further matter which I wish to raise in respect of the hon member for Rissik. He says that we are linking this educational legislation to the Constitution. That is in fact so. I have already reacted to that. One cannot separate the two. That has always been my standpoint; as it was years ago in this House as well. I was saying it even before we accepted the recommendations of the De Lange Report.

The hon member argues, however, that with the passing of the Constitution we have entered a new constitutional dispensation. I agree with him on that score. Furthermore he says that it also means that we have switched over to a new dispensation in education. What we have switched over to in education, is, however, absolutely in keeping with what we had before the educational dispensation in the new Constitution. I pointed out to the hon member during the Committee Stage that before we had the new Constitution and came forward with this legislation, we applied the rendering of service in practice. In that respect, therefore, there is absolutely no change in principle. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that the Whites no longer have the exclusive right because the educational dispensation has been rendered subordinate to a multiracial coalition Cabinet. In the first place I want to object to the term “coalition Cabinet”. I wish to state categorically that there is no such thing as a coalition Cabinet. [Interjections.] It is true that there are representatives of the other two Houses in the Cabinet. This is not the place to discuss that. It has already been suggested in this House, and when the hon member says that it is a coalition Cabinet, I say it is not true. It is not a coalition Cabinet. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member should just give me a chance to finish.

Furthermore I want to say that it is not the case that we are able to accept it without qualification. That is the main problem. The statement is being made in public that education has now subordinated to a multiracial coalition Cabinet. That is not true because it is stated very clearly in the Constitution which conditions education is subject to. There is general legislation in terms of these three important issues, and that is all. This is the only case in which we shall have joint decision-making, in this sense that the hon the Minister of National Education, in consultation with the respective education Ministers will determine policy in respect of this common connection. We have discussed this at length; I am not going to take up more of the House’s time by discussing it again. All that I want to say about it is that I find it a pity that the hon member for Rissik makes such frequent statements about information which he has obtained from so-called secret documents. On top of that, he associates the Government with alleged statements by certain organisations that sent secret documents…

Like the Broederbond! [Interjections.]

Sir, I object to that, because I do not think it is fair. Furthermore the hon member drags in the names of certain people. I refrain from quoting the standpoints of people outside this House and trying to associate the CP with them. They will not be able to point out one occasion to me on which I did that. I think it is unfair of them to do this, and I do not believe it is healthy for debates in this House that the hon member for Rissik adopts these methods. In addition the hon member for Rissik was probably referring to organisations of which he himself was a member at a certain stage. I find it reprehensible that the hon member should in that way…

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

No, I am not going to reply to any questions now. That disposes of the matter. [Interjections.]

The hon member for King William’s Town spoke of an opportunity, which had been lost as far as this Bill was concerned. He said reform was an ongoing process, and we agree with that. It does not, however, mean that one should forfeit one’s principles.

I conclude by saying to the hon member for Koedoespoort that he discussed precisely the same things he spoke about during the Committee Stage. I refer him therefore to the reply which I gave to his arguments during the committee stage.

That concludes my comments on the third reading debate. Once again I thank the hon members who participated.

Question put,

Mr Speaker, I move:

First of all, Sir, I should like to thank the hon the Leader of the House for making it possible for this Bill to be debated at this stage.

The National Parks Act at present prohibits the payment of remuneration to members of the Board of Trustees.

*The chairman actually devotes considerably more time and trouble to board matters than is the case as regards other members. Consequently, it is felt that there is justification for singling him out for remuneration for the work done by him in connection with his position as Chairman of the Parks Board. The measure before the House therefore provides for this.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister has said, this Bill makes provision for the payment of a salary to the chairman of the National Parks Board. The evidence before the committee bears out the fact that that gentleman carries quite a heavy workload, and we believe it is only fair that he should receive some remuneration for it.

We will be supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, there is general agreement as regards the legislation before us. It was my privilege to be a member of the Parks Board as well. An appointment to the Parks Board has always been regarded as one of the most desirable appointments by those ranks to whom the conservation of our natural heritage lies close to their hearts—so close, Mr Chairman, that on my appointment the hon Chief Whip of Parliament told me he believed that was the nearest I would ever get to heaven. [Interjections.]

It is nonetheless a pleasant task but certainly one which, although not demanding, takes up a considerable amount of one’s time. When one considers that members of the Parks Board undertake journeys of inspection twice a year for at least a fortnight and so on, regardless of the fact that it is a pleasure and that one may derive joy from the freedom of nature—it does appear to be time-consuming to a person. One therefore frequently has to sacrifice one’s own interests and affairs to be able to carry out this task.

Members of the Parks Board actually receive no remuneration. What they do receive is the privilege of free accommodation in national parks at certain times of year. In addition, expenses attached to accommodation and attendance at meetings are paid for them. Statistics clearly show that very little use is made of this concession and one may therefore deduce—and I am able to confirm this from my own experience—that the job satisfaction is such that this concession is not abused as a form of reimbursement.

The agenda of meetings of members of the Parks Board is comprehensive. They are definitely the longest agendas I have yet en countered. On every occasion there are reports on the various aspects of the parks and it literally takes up hours to work one’s way through those reports if one wishes to carry out one’s task correctly. From the nature of the case, hon member will appreciate that very, very much more is required of the Chairman of the Parks Board. Consequently, one feels under these circumstances that it is not only fair but altogether justifiable that we approve this measure today. We on this side of the House therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I agree with everything said by the hon member for Swellendam except for one aspect on which I cannot agree. This is that the hon member so easily relinquished a position so close to heaven. I do not believe this was altogether wise. [Interjections.]

Our standpoint is that this Bill should long since have been included in the Statute Book. It is a fact that tourism has become a very important industry in South Africa and national parks are a very important subdivision of this industry in our country. I should say foreign tourists come here chiefly to view the national parks.

Until not long ago tourism earned as much as R800 million a year for South Africa. Within a foreseeable period this could amount to R1 billion; in other words, it is already developing into a very important South African industry and a great money-spinner.

For the very reason that national parks play such an important role in tourism, we feel that the National Parks Board is a very important body. The chairman of any board is undoubtedly a very important person. Consequently, we say that, as the Chairman of the National Parks Board has such important work to accomplish, it has long been necessary for him to be remunerated accordingly so that the man filling this position may be someone of very high quality and we wish this to remain so permanently. All future chairmen of the National Parks Board should have the necessary qualifications and characteristics to accomplish this task well; therefore this party finds it a privilege to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting this Bill, but there are one or two points I would like to make.

When one looks at appointments to parks boards and to environmental organisations generally, one realises that appointments must be made on the basis that the person concerned is required to have a certain knowledge of the natural environment. He must be dedicated to the preservation of that environment. He must be dedicated to the preservation of that environment, and he must have the time to do justice to the responsibilities that are attached to being a member of a board such as the National Parks Board.

I must emphasise too, that it must always be regarded as a privilege to be appointed to a board of this nature. The appointment must always be regarded as a prestigious one. Let me quote an example which can serve as a parallel, although on a somewhat smaller scale. Membership of the Natal Parks Board is a much sought after honour, and one finds that the members serving on that board see their work as a labour of love. Yet prominent people are competing with each other to serve on that board. These, then, must be considered as the underlying factors when appointments are made to such boards.

When one comes to deal with the legislation itself, one appreciates and accepts the fact that the Chairman of the National Parks Board is expected to spend a considerable amount of time preparing for meetings and acquiring knowledge of particular matters. To put it quite simply, the chairman is required to put in a great deal of homework in order to carry out the responsibilities that go with his position.

We in these benches therefore have no difficulty in accepting the fact that progressively greater demands are going to be made of the chairman and so it is essential that consideration be given to receiving a form of remuneration.

I would point out however that any remuneration must be made within reason, bearing in mind the points that I have made in regard to the requirements of people who serve on such organisations. One is aware of the fact that there are certain perks—one is almost afraid to use that word too literally for obvious reasons—available to members and ex-members. However, generally speaking, the time has come for some form of remuneration to be made to the Chairman of the National Parks Board for the services he renders.

We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank all hon members who participated in this debate, especially the hon member for Swellendam who spoke from experience. For some years he was a member of the Parks Board where he did good work. He is also aware of the obligations of the Chairman of the Parks Board and the work he has to do. The hon member for Swellendam therefore spoke to the House with authority on the Bill.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Meyerton for his contribution. As he has done before, he once again stressed the importance of tourism; we are deeply aware of the fact that national parks play an exceptional role in South Africa as regards tourist attractions which our country offers foreign visitors.

†The hon member for Mooi River referred to the dedication with which members of the various parks boards perform their tasks and their duties. Both in the case of the National Parks Board and in the case of the Natal Parks Board there are people who serve without remuneration, who regard it as a position of prestige and who are usually able to make a real contribution to our game parks as a result of their knowledge of this subject and because of their general contribution to environmental affairs. We are aware of the need to make sure that the best people possible are appointed to the National Parks Board, in the same way as the Administrator of Natal sees to it that the best people are appointed as members of the Natal Parks Board.

He makes the point that the remuneration to the chairman as provided for in this Bill should be within reason and I wish to give him the assurance that we shall look at this matter carefully, bearing in mind the other benefits that are received by the chairman as a member of the board and also by its other members. I might add that we are looking at this question of what he calls “perks” in some depth and I will be dealing with this matter in the House next year.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting that in the legislation on private schools which has obviously been produced by the department very recently the word “White” is not used at all. This just goes to prove the point that we have been trying to make—that as we experience the evolutionary reform process the Government is learning a lesson. They are learning that it is wise not to base legislation on racial concepts or terminology. It is just a great pity that the Government was not prepared to apply that lesson in the previous legislation as well but I hope that they will apply it in future.

I want to state very briefly that we welcome this legislation. It is something that we have hoped and asked for over a very long period. We believe that private schools fulfil a very important function in the community and that they deserve the support of the State in the provision of the services they render.

Private schools can form a very important part of the solution to the problems of our society in relieving the tensions that exist as a result of the inability of children of other race groups to attend White schools.

Where the Government has failed to provide ways and means for the parents of children of the other race groups to place their children at White schools where there are vacancies, the private school structure can certainly go a long way towards filling this void.

It has been the experience at private schools where there are multiracial pupil bodies that all the dire consequences that the Government predicts for mixed schooling have not come about. It has been the experience that children from various race groups at private schools assimilate very easily and happily. They co-operate, there are very few, if any, problems on an interracial basis, the children prosper at the private schools and, in general, the teaching and the social activities such as sport and recreation prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that where children attend the same school it is in the interests of all the children and of the community. This is particularly so in the understanding that it creates among children during their formative years. It contributes to an understanding at the later levels of education, at the workplace and in society as a whole.

The experience of private schools simply proves that integrated schooling is a good thing where people choose it for their children and their community.

Unfortunately private schools will continue to fall under the own affairs department and therefore the Government and the hon the Minister find it necessary to say that a private school under a White own affairs department can only have pupils from other race groups up to a maximum of 49% otherwise it is no longer a co-called “White” school.

The hon the Minister will remember the harm caused by the document that was circulated earlier on indicating that there would be a system whereby the subsidy would depend on the percentage of children of other races at a private school. Thankfully, that is no longer the case.

If the Government continues to refuse to accept our representations for opening up the education system, they would still be doing themselves and South Africa as a whole an enormous favour if they were to provide the next best thing which would not be contrary to their policies and principles, namely an open Department of Education under which all private schools could operate. This would allow both existing private schools and those to be formed in future, as well as Government schools—if it is the choice of the parent bodies concerned—which may be sold to the communities as future private schools, the principle of the freedom of choice of parents and communities, a principle that was included in the De Lange Report and has since been taken up in legislation. This principle will allow schools to decide for themselves whether they wish to be open or not. If they do they will operate under a department of open education. In those circumstances it will relieve the tension which exists as a result of segregated schooling. It will mean that all those schools which do not want to open will not have to; they can continue under their own affairs department. It will also mean, however, that those schools which wish to open can exercise that self-determination which, according to the Government, is a fundamental principle by which it abides. This would allow those schools, parents and pupils to exercise the principle of personal choice which the Government has accepted and included in its legislation. Schools would then be allowed to operate in circumstances where they would decide for themselves, control their own destinies and, to a large extent, be able to finance and manage their own affairs.

I would like to mention to the hon the Minister that that would be a further very positive and constructive step forward on the path which is now being laid down with the acceptance of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I also have to leave the Chamber early today because I have to be in Gezina tonight. The hon the Minister will have to pardon me, therefore, if I am not present during the Third Reading. The hon member for Koedoespoort will attend to that.

Daan, we also want to go home. Keep it short!

I should like to leave early, but the hon member for Bryanston spoke for a long time.

I spoke for 4,5 minutes; you have already wasted three minutes! [Interjections.]

Our standpoint is that in principle we are not against private schools at all. There are many reasons for permitting private schools in a country such as South Africa. There are religious and cultural reasons and so on.

I told the hon the Minister, however, that in view of all the discussions about education, we have no confidence in the educational system or in the Minister, and that we notice that the private schools are now being used by people who want to enforce integration and miscegenation or rather ethnic mixing in South Africa. That is the instrument they are using.

During the past year or so the hon Minister has shown us that he does not want to prevent these people—I almost want to call them perverse teaching groups—from enforcing integration. On that basis we cannot agree to clause 1, and the same applies to clauses 4 and 9. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to ask the hon the Minister to be a little more explicit in his speeches on this Bill today than he was last Friday. I have a problem, because I found myself in the extraordinary position over the weekend of defending what the hon the Minister was doing, and I am more used to attacking than defending him. I was defending him in particular against the kinds of remarks that were being carried in the newspapers, and I would like to quote an article which appeared in the Sunday Tribune of 31 August under the heading “School Folly”, as follows:

The article continues as follows in the third paragraph:

As far as I am aware, this is incorrect, and I want the hon the Minister to say so explicitly. The people outside and some of the media have forgotten what happened in April and May. We have to state explicitly that this is not a racial measure. It is intended to coordinate the four provinces, to combine the four ordinances and then to set up regularions which will control the private schools.

I ask the hon the Minister to be absolutely explicit on that issue, particularly when he refers to clause 9(l)(a) which concerns the admission of pupils and clause 9(l)(c) which concerns the appointment of teachers. I hope he will assure us that, within the terms of the Constitution—that was his phrase—and as accepted during negotiations, those schools will decide for themselves.

Regarding clause 1 we notice that the definition of education excludes preprimary schools. Here again I understand that there was a long ongoing discussion regarding the representative bodies which the hon the Minister saw in April and May regarding preprimary education. I understand that it is an area which is a bit undecided at the moment, but possibly the hon the Minister can explain the matter in connection with that particular area.

Secondly, we also note in clause l(vii) that private schools exclude church primary schools. Again we want to question the hon the Minister as to why a church primary school is excluded. It says here:

We just want some detail regarding that.

Like some other hon members, I will unfortunately not be able to be present during the rest of the debate on this Bill. I have detailed questions on clauses…

Hear, hear!

I thank the hon the Minister! I have detailed questions on certain clauses which I shall be referring to the hon the Minister, but they deal mainly with the entire question as to when the regulations will be published. In our comments on the arrival of this Bill, we in this party stated quite clearly that we would have desired that the regulations be published simultaneously with the arrival of the Bill or were at least available simultaneously with the arrival of the Bill. Many of the measures contained in this, including clause 1, are dependent on the regulations. This is really an enabling measure more than anything else, and it is those regulations that we need to address. In particular those regulations need to spell out absolutely clearly whether the subsidy will be 45% or 15% in terms of the criteria which are set out in the so-called draft regulations which the hon the Minister devised together with other bodies in April and May this year.

We know that there are ongoing discussions, and we hope that the hon the Minister will make these regulations available within a very short time. I received a ’phone call on this measure from one of the local Catholic convents asking to have the regulations as urgently as possible because they have to budget for next year. Every private school is in that position. They have to budget, and unless they are absolutely certain of the money they are going to get from the State, they simply cannot budget. So, I want to urge this hon the Minister to do everything in his power to finalise the regulations and to make sure that they are circulated to all private schools in South Africa as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Official Opposition for their support of this measure. In reply to the hon member for Bryanston, I want to say I agree with him and have said in the past that excellent work is done in private schools. I am also aware that there are good mutual relations among pupils at private schools, as well as between the pupils and the teachers. As far as the hon member for Bryanston’s standpoint about the so-called “open department for education” is concerned, I want to say I know what his standpoint is. He sent me a document about it a while ago. We studied it, and I must appreciate his standpoint, but we cannot endorse that standpoint. The hon member did state certain things in the document which I believe could be to the advantage of education, but I do not think this is the time to debate that. I think that is why the hon member for Bryanston did not mention this, and I am aware of his standpoint on the matter.

This brings me to the hon member for Rissik who said they were not against private schools in principle. Naturally the hon member also said he accepted that there could be rendering of service, but the CP’s greatest objection is that they do not have confidence in the private schools as such, probably because private schools, as he put it at some or other stage—I think he said so again today—can be “dens”. The hon member for Rissik went on to say he had no confidence in the Minister either. It is the hon member’s right not to have confidence in the Minister, but fortunately there are many more people than the hon member has in his party, who do have confidence in the Minister and in the educational system.

Test that with an election.

We shall see.

BUSINESS SUSPENDED AT 12h45 AND RESUMED AT 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, I was telling the hon member for Rissik that fortunately there were more people who had confidence in me than…

Let us test that, come on!

Very well. We shall not debate it now. Time will tell.

The hon member for Pinetown apologised for his absence. I shall reply to his questions very quickly. I did not read the Press report to which he referred. I think it appeared in The Sunday Tribune. With reference to what the hon member read from it, I must say that what it says is not the full truth; in fact, it is not the truth at all. To motivate and prove this statement I refer the hon member, and also the Press, to statements I made during my Budgetary Vote discussion on 23 May 1986 about the regulations concerning the private schools.

The hon member also put a fair question, viz why pre-primary education is excluded in clause 1(v). The reason for that is threefold:

In the first place pre-primary education is not compulsory. Secondly pre-primary education is not included in the subsidy formula for the financing thereof, and thirdly pre-primary education is regulated by the respective provincial ordinances and for that reason is not contained in this legislation.

With reference to clause l(viii) the hon member asked why a “private school” does not include a church primary school, farm school or private special school or class. The reason for this is that historically there are certain church schools in the Cape which are not private schools, but which are subsidised for some or other reason. They are excluded by this, therefore. Their continued existence is ensured as it was before. As far as the farm schools are concerned, there are historic practices in Natal where farm schools were subsidised for some or other reason, although they were not public schools or ordinary private schools. Their continued existence is being assured as well, and they can carry on as at present.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 4 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 9 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned the other afternoon I had already told hon members the long and rather sad history of what was happening to the people of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein. I had come to that part of my speech where I mentioned that the people of those two areas were objecting to the Government’s plans for them, namely to remove them from where they were and relocate them in Rust der Winter, which was then going to be transferred to kwaNdebele. I also mentioned that the White farmers of Rust der Winter had also not been consulted, as indeed the people of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein had not been consulted although the governments of kwaNdebele and Bophuthatswana had been consulted. However, the 15 000 people involved are now going to be forcibly removed, regardless of what the hon the Minister has told the other two Houses. Furthermore, the White farmers of Rust der Winter, who have not been consulted, are dead against giving up their farms although they realise that they would be expropriated at a fairly considerable sum which they estimate to be between R150 million and R170 million. It is a move to which everybody concerned—the people of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein and the White farmers of Rust der Winter—objects.

I now want to move an amendment, and I shall give the reasons for this in a moment. I move—

I do this for one very good reason. I learnt this morning that the hon the Deputy Minister in presenting his case at Second Reading to the House of Delegates—I do not know what he told the House of Representatives—informed them that I had come to see him “together with an attorney on two occasions” and that I had supported the excision of this area and the handing over of the land to Bophuthatswana. I do not know where the hon the Deputy Minister gets that from. I certainly went to see him. I first went to see the hon then Minister of Development Aid and then later Advocate Felicia Kentridge, to whom the case had been referred, came down to Cape Town. The hon the Deputy Minister very graciously granted us an appointment and we spent a long time with him. However, we were not talking about Geweerfontein and Bloedfontein at all. We were talking about another area adjacent to those two areas which is called Kalkfontein, and unless the areas are to be fused—the hon the Minister knows more about this than I do—I would be very surprised to find that they all suddenly form part of one and the same area.

Let me tell the hon the Minister the history of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein, which he ought to know. They were excised from Bophuthatswana in 1979 and placed under the commissioners responsible for kwaNdebele when the magisterial district of Mdutjana was defined. The area was defined in such a way that one portion of it contained Geweerfontein 156 JR, referred to in this Bill, and 153 JR, Bloedfontein, consisting of Pedi, North Sotho people and Ndebele, and the other area containing Kalkfontein 143 JR where Tswana people mostly lived. They are two entirely different areas.

Advocate Kentridge and I have all the documents and letters written to the Director-General of the department, all of which refer to Kalkfontein. Therefore, where the hon the Deputy Minister gets the idea that I saw him, together with advocate Kentridge, about Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein and suggested that the land should go to Bophuthatswana, is beyond me. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister must have misled the House of Delegates which voted against this measure in the standing committee. He must have persuaded them to vote for it at Second Reading and again at Third Reading. I cannot say whether it was entirely due to the fact that he misled them by telling them that I had supported this move or whether it was because somebody learned on Mr Rajbansi and persuaded him to do that, despite the fact that his representatives on the standing committee had opposed the Bill.

This must go back to the standing committee. The true facts must be put before them so that they are not misled and will know whether they should vote for or against the Bill. Obviously the Government wants them to vote for the Bill because then, when the majority in this House pass the Bill, it will be a consensus measure which will not have to go to the President’s Council, making a farce out of the Government again as indeed happened when the other two Houses opposed the Public Safety Amendment Bill and the Internal Security Amendment Bill, and the Bills had to go to the President’s Council to be passed. That indeed made a farce out of the parliamentary system.

Sir, the whole thing is the most awful “gemors”. I just want to point out what this transfer of the 15 000 people will mean. They were not consulted, and it will be a forcible removal—just mark my words!—to an area known as Rust der Winter, while the land, with all the infrastructure which those people have built up, is to go to Bophuthatswana. Let us work out what it amounts to. The people of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein are to be shunted to Rust der Winter. The White owners of Rust der Winter will be expropriated—and will go wherever they like—as I say, at the cost of R150 million to R170 million.

The land on which Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein are situated, together with the infrastructure, is to go to Bophuthatswana. Rust der Winter is to be incorporated into kwaNdebele—at the end of a long negotiation process in which the Nebo farms have been given to Lebowa—presumably in compensation for Lebowa’s agreeing to give up Moutse. Just watch this chain of events, Sir. Of course, Moutse was given to kwaNdebele in order to persuade kwaNdebele to opt for independence, which the Government badly wanted—another independent homeland.

In the meantime, kwaNdebele has changed its mind about independence, but not before a great deal of bloodshed and violence took place in the area of both kwaNdebele and Moutse. Moutse therefore goes to kwaNdebele but, as I say, Chief Phatudi, who had agreed to this excision, has now changed his mind. He agreed to it because he was given the Nebo farms and also Zebedelia, a very valuable citrus estate. However, he had so much opposition from his own assembly that he has had to change his mind.

That has nothing to do with the Nebo.

Never mind the Nebo. The hon the Deputy Minister should not try to distract me with something that is irrelevant. That happened to be the beginning of all the exchanges that went out. [Interjections.] Chief Phatudi has now taken the Government to court; he lost the case in the lower courts, he has now taken it to the Appeal Court and the Moutse people have also got a case in the courts. I mean, what nonsense! Nobody wants this except the Government, which is still bound to the old Verwoerdian consolidation plans, irrespective of the fact that, firstly, we were told that they will not go ahead with all the consolidation plans, and secondly, we were also told that there would be no forced removals in the future. If the Government goes ahead with the attempted removal of the Geweerfontein and Bloedfontein population of 15 000 it will be one of the worst forced removals that this Government has resorted to in a long history of very reprehensible moves by moving people around as if it does not matter. They were never consulted and I have evidence in a petition which they have signed, in letters, pathetic letters, which they have sent to various Ministers and also of course in the fact that they are now still resisting as far as possible.

The only way I can describe it is that it is just a most revolting “gemors”. It is an absolutely revolting “gemors” and I think the best thing the Government can do would be to withdraw this Bill altogether…

No, they must resign.

Oh, that would be the first prize! [Interjections.] That would be the first prize. Failing that, the second prize would be to remove this Bill altogether from the Order Paper and the third thing is to send it back to the standing committee so that Ministers do not make misrepresentations which may well have influenced hon members of the House of Delegates to change their minds from the attitude they adopted on the standing committee to the attitude they adopted at Second and Third Readings. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon members who participated in the debate. I want to thank hon members on both sides of the House—even those who opposed the Bill—for their input. I want to extend a special word of thanks to hon members of the governing party who debated the matter in a positive manner and supported it. I shall possibly discuss a specific few points in connection with this later on. [Interjections.]

I think I should start right away with the hon member who spoke last, the hon member for Houghton. She gave a long account of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein and, as she did when she participated on the occasion of the previous debate, she has now again read letters through out, which I wrote concerning Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein and she also referred to petitions and gave an explanation. Some of the points which she touched on are quite correct, but some of the conclusions which she came to, were completely incorrect. Some of the standpoints adopted by her, were wrong too.

I specifically want to talk about a few of those standpoints. In the first place the official figure for the number of people who are involved in Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein can be handled, according to the census of 1980. According to the census of 1980, this number is not 15 000, but just a little over 5 000.

Old Helen cannot count.

According to the information on Geweerfontein and Bloedfontein which officials issued to members of the standing committee, that figure of 5 000 has amounted to 5 100 people.

It is time for another census.

I just want to mention that the hon member has once again created an image in this connection which is quite out of touch with the real situation, but I accept that a lot of people are involved or are involved per se—whether it is 10 000 or 20 000 or 5 000. They are nonetheless involved and we should therefore pay attention to the matter. One must be sympathetic to the wishes and interests to those who are involved in this. I just want to make that point very clear.

The second point to which I want to refer is that the hon member for Houghton said that she had come to see me, but that she had never discussed Bloedfontein or Geweerfontein. She said that she had discussed Kalkfontein. She also says that this morning I stated in the House of Delegates that she says that that land should be excised from the territory of kwaNdebele and should be added to the territory of Bophuthatswana.

I have your Hansard here!

Mr Speaker, I shall read what I said in my speech this morning in the House of Delegates from the unedited Hansard. I quote, as follows:

I spoke about Kalkfontein—not Geweerfontein!

Mr Speaker, here in this House the hon member for Houghton also said that I say that territory should be excised from the territory of kwaNdebele and added to that of Bophuthatswana. That is not true. I did not say that. It is not in my Hansard either.

But that is a different area!

Mr Speaker, I spoke here of Bloedfontein!

Well, I did not!

Mr Speaker, I contend that the hon member for Houghton argued that that territory should be excised from the territory of kwaNdebele and added to that of Bophuthatswana. I certainly did say that the hon member argued that it should be excised. But I never said that she said I said it should be added to the territory of Bophuthatswana. She has therefore misled this House too. [Interjections.]

I now put it to the hon member for Houghton that she did in fact speak about Kalkfontein.

I spoke only about Kalkfontein.

Mainly, yes.

Only about Kalkfontein!

Mainly. [Interjections.]

†The hon member also made mention of Chieftainess Moepi, and we discussed the possibilities involving the chieftainess. I must add though, Sir, that throughout this whole process, we must not fail to bear in mind that Kalkfontein also belongs to both those groups—the Tswana and the Ndebele. In relation to the whole situation regarding Rust de Winter—which is not really relevant to this issue—the question of accommodating those two groups is also involved.

I should now like to give the relevant facts to the hon member. Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein belong to Chieftainess Moepi. They are registered in her name on behalf of the tribe. Chieftainess Moepi is a Tswana.

You know in fact that that is not the real reason!

That may well be so, but…

You know that that is so!

Yes, I know that. I am coming to that, however. I shall say it in this House too. That land is, however, registered in the deeds office in the name of Chieftainess Moepi.

[Inaudible.]

Now the hon member for Houghton knows—every jurist in this House knows it in fact—that when land is registered in someone’s name, that person has the right to that land.

… what it was before!

Moepi has the right to that land. She has the sole right to that land, and no one else. [Interjections.] The people who live on the land at Bloedfontein, are members of the Tswana as well as the Ndebele tribes. The ratio of members of the Tswana tribe to the Ndebele tribe is therefore approximately 50:50. However, a few other groups live on that land too. The hon member Prof Olivier will know that when they have “lodsha”-ed with a captain, they become part of his tribe. Then they too have an indirect right to lay claim to that land.

The point which therefore comes very clearly to the fore here, is that there are separate interest groups which have rights to that land. For the purpose of solving this problem, a decision cannot be taken on whether the land, for example, forms part of kwaNdebele. If this had to be done, certain groups living there would be dissatisfied because they will not want to fall under kwaNdebele, but rather somewhere else.

Why do you not leave them as they are?

As they are, they are part of the Ndebele tribe, and as such they belong in the kwaNdebele area of jurisdiction. [Interjections.]

*I now find it interesting that the hon member for Houghton states in this House—and it is recorded like this—that Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein should remain where they are. Those two places should therefore make up part of kwaNdebele. According to the hon member Moepi therefore has no say, although she is also a Tswana, and she has to accept that jurisdiction—the jurisdiction of kwaNdebele. [Interjections.] This is what the hon member for Houghton now says. [Interjections.] She really has to decide now whether she wants to have her bread buttered on both sides or not. In this process one cannot have one’s bread buttered on both sides. On the basis of this I say that it does not matter what decision one takes in regard to kwaNdebele and Bophuthatswana, because there is nevertheless going to be a part of those people who are going to be dissatisfied.

The one aspect on which this House should blame the hon member, however, is that she projects abroad an impression that it is a case of forced removals. [Interjections.] Then the outside world reacts to that!

What is the real standpoint of this Government, however? The Government states that if there are people who are unhappy in Bloedfontein or Geweerfontein, we shall try to arrange accommodation for them.

Leave the people where they are.

They can remain there! They can just remain where they are! We shall not affect their staying there at all. They can decide for themselves.

If there are people who do not want to stay here, however, we are prepared to take their wishes into account as well. We shall then try to arrange matters in such a way that their wishes would also be accommodated. [Interjections.] Surely one could not find a better example of the implementation of these people’s wishes!

The hon member for Houghton is not really concerned about the people who are involved in this. [Interjections.] The hon member does not want to do this. No, she rather wants to carry an image…

Answer why you told a lie. [Interjections.]

I did not tell a lie.

You did tell a lie!

I did not tell a lie! I said, Sir—and I go on record here as having said so and having said so truthfully—that I was honoured that the hon member came to visit me. We had a wide and very interesting discussion. [Interjections.] The hon member discussed Kalkfontein.

That is not what you told the House. [Interjections.]

There is something I want to tell this hon member, Sir. She said we only discussed Kalkfontein. [Interjections.]

That was the main issue! The point is that I did not go to see you about…

The hon member is saying we only discussed Kalkfontein. [Interjections.] I ask the hon member now whether we discussed Witlaagte as well.

[Inaudible.]

I ask the hon member: Did we discuss Witlaagte as well? [Interjections.] We discussed Kalkfontein principally, yes; but the hon member discussed Witlaagte as well, and Witlaagte is a portion of that territory. [Interjections.]

This has nothing to do with Krugerfontein. [Interjections.]

The fact is, Sir, the standpoint which the hon member has adopted, is that she objected to the Tswanas who remain on a certain piece of land, being included under the jurisdiction of kwaNdebele.

Yes, that is correct. [Interjections.]

All right, then, if the hon member opposes that in principle, why does she not agree with me that Moepi is a Tswana and that her land is therefore included in kwaNdebele?

Because the people want it and I am going to see to it…

No, Sir. I shall just leave that point at that. As far as this whole area is concerned, we have accommodated the people’s wishes as far as possible. In the second place there is no question of forced removals here. The people went their voluntarily. [Interjections.]

But I want to make a very important third point.

The first point was that you lied to the House.

If only the hon member would not give a running commentary… [Interjections.]

She is in a mess now. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon member is correct. The hon member for Houghton is in a mess.

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

No, Sir.

I want to take this argument further. There is one point which I want to make very clear. The hon member for Houghton, and the Official Opposition in general, must realise one thing. That is that the meaningful consolidation and the completion of states is part of the NP policy; and the hon member will not be able to detract from the implementation of this policy as it was and is by just focusing on this one aspect. [Interjections.] It is part of a whole package which has to be implemented—within the framework as the State President has said. Forced removals are not part of this; we have vindicated ourselves as far as that is concerned. [Interjections.]

In concluding this part of the debate I just want to say that I again received a telex on my table when I came to sit here. I did not have time to read everything—I also received other telexes—that came from abroad and from other institutions. I receive these telexes on the basis of incorrect information given by the hon member for Houghton in the House—information which, to the detriment of South Africa, projects an image of South Africa which is not correct, and which leads to further unrest in South Africa, for which the hon member has to accept responsibility. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is one point that the hon member for Houghton, and also the hon member for Berea raised. This is in connection with the citizenship of people who are involved in this matter. It is correct to state that when those people live in a certain territory and this land is added to another country, they accept citizenship of that country with the inclusion of the land. They then fall under the citizenship laws involved in that. Against that statement I cannot argue, because it is correct. What is in fact true, is that the regulation of people’s citizenship rights is done by citizenship legislation as such. Under whose jurisdiction and authority certain territories fall, is raised in this legislation. One will first of all have to accommodate those people who have vested rights and who have financial assets vested in the land. The Government’s ruling was that we would pay out or buy out all the owners involved to compensate them so that they have a free choice and can decide for themselves—they have no rights vested in the land—whether or not they want to remain on the land under the jurisdiction and citizenship measures of the other country. They therefore have the right, like every individual in the country, to move to another area and to fall under the jurisdiction and citizenship measures of that country. On the basis of this justification has also been given in this regard. This is my reply to that specific question. [Interjections.]

Why did you lie?

Mr Speaker, I never told a lie.

You did! I have your Hansard!

I never told a lie. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Berea say: “Hoekom het jy gelieg?”

Yes, I asked him that question, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that. He told an untruth in the other Houses.

I say he told a lie.

Mr Speaker, I once again want to confirm here that the hon member for Houghton, when she came to see me, did not only discuss Kalkfontein. She discussed Bloedfontein and Witlaagte as well.

That is a lie!

Mr Speaker, I openly say that this is so.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Houghton continuously carry on telling the hon Deputy Minister: “He is telling a lie”? She carries on—just like a puppet.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

No, Sir, I am sorry. It was a lie and I cannot withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Order! I order the hon member for Houghton, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope the hon member will as soon as possible when she goes away correct the incorrect statements which she broadcast abroad. [Interjections.]

You are the last one to talk! You put right what you said… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, you do not have to worry about me; I am withdrawing from the House. [Interjections.]

Order! Only the hon the Deputy Minister may now proceed. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting that on a previous occasion…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister if he has read the Hansard report of his speech in the House of Delegates and if so, does he intend to leave it unchanged?

I read it here in this Chamber and I will read it again. [Interjections.] I said:

I attacked the hon member…

What did you say? Do not interpret—just read!

No, that is what I said. [Interjections.]

You must read!

No, that is what I said, viz:

You say that is all true?

I am telling you what I said. That hon member asked me what I said in the House of Delegates and now I am reading from my Hansard what I said. I want to point out to the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition again… [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Houghton stated here in the House that I had said in the House of Delegates that we had held discussions, that she had objected to the territory being part of kwaNdebele and that I had said that she had lodged appeals for it to be added to Bophuthatswana. I now state that I did not say that and I now read the Hansard report to prove it. If the hon member for Houghton says this, she is misleading the House. Let me say with all respect that while I discussed the matter here, there was such a continuous flood of words—this was possibly because they had been hurt—that they did not give one the opportunity to put a point clearly. I cannot state it more clearly than I have stated it here. Amongst all these land transactions there was only one transaction involving land on which there was only one tribe; there are always various tribes involved.

I now want to refer to the hon member for Lichtenburg, who unfortunately is not here now. He also made a few statements in which he referred to me specifically. He said that the CP was opposed to the legislation because we had exceeded the quantity which is indicated in the legislation of 1936. I accept that he is opposed to the legislation for those reasons, but I want to remind him of what happened in 1979. A new committee was then formed to deal with meaningful consolidation, as the State President described it at the time. The quantity of land which was allocated in terms of the legislation of 1936, was at issue in that regard and it was decided that it could be exceeded if it were to mean meaningful consolidation. With reference to that decision the numbers were exceeded. I want to make this point clear.

The point here is whether you people consolidated meaningfully!

As far as consolidation is concerned, I have learned one thing in the short time that I have held my present office: It is that two people can never agree on where exactly the line should be drawn or how consolidation should take place. But someone will have to take a decision on it at some stage or another. Even when the hon member for Lichtenburg was in this position, there were also differences, protestations and harsh words, and at that stage the same principles applied.

The hon member raised a very important point here. He said he is not going to consolidate any further in the sense in which the Government is doing so. But he is prepared to exchange land, and to allow land to be purchased for consolidation. The interesting question based on principle which I want to put here—which has not been spelt out very clearly—is whether it is in fact CP policy that Blacks can buy land in White areas for the purposes of consolidation.

Now you have to reply, Jan! [Interjections.]

I should also like to know how decisions on this are going to be made, because the precise standpoint does not always emerge clearly from the hon member’s Hansard. It can have far-reaching implications, however, and we shall have to create certainty on that specific point in the future. Is that what they mean? What do they mean by that, and how is it going to be carried out?

We shall give you exact clarity. [Interjections.]

He has to do this according to what is written in the hon member for Lichtenburg’s Hansard. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg has raised another point. He said we are giving land “pasella wêna” and are playing at being Santa Claus; that is why he is opposed to it.

I want to have it placed on record here that exactly the same procedure as the present one has always been followed.

In accordance with the 1936 Act?

No, I am speaking of the method of purchasing and transferring land.

Within the 1936 code?

“Pasella wêna”! Santa Claus! The principle which ties in with this is that the CP is arguing that the Government is now giving away land in a different way to what those hon members would have done when they were still in the Government, or different to the way in which it was done in the past.

… the 1936 law!

I just want to have it placed on record that this is not the case. It has been done in the same way for years, but there is another principle which is involved in this. [Interjections.] He says “pasella wêna”.

Outside of the 1936 code!

No, I am speaking of “pasella”.

“Pasella benna”!

No, “pasella wêna”. [Interjections.] Sir, it concerns the two initials “P W”.

Yes! Yes! [Interjections.]

I do not think that this befits the hon members of the CP.

Scandalous! Scandalous! [Interjections.]

That is wrong…. “pasella wêna”.

Yes, but I know where these words come from. If the hon member for Theunissen says that it has no connection to the initials “P W”, I should like to take his word for it.

It has nothing to do with “PW”.

Then I ask that the hon member’s party drops the matter.

But he does not know what is going on in his party! [Interjections.]

The hon Chief Whip of the CP said that it is not “pasella wêna”, but the “pasella benna” which has exactly the same meaning. This indicates the spirit in which it is said.

Ben, you must show a little humour!

I enjoy humour.

I want to discuss the procedures in regard to the Marico Corridor. The hon member for Lichtenburg objected to this. I accept that, when this latest consolidation was announced, an opportunity was not given again for evidence.

That makes it fatal!

No, but what is in fact true is that three proposals came up in June and August 1983. The first was the whole corridor, the second was a part of the corridor and the third was no part of the corridor. Evidence was given in regard to all of these aspects and all those facts were taken into consideration when the decision was taken.

I just want to place it on record as far as it concerns the report of the standing committee which has not been approved yet. I refer to the proposal that we declare it to be an open area. The hon member for Lichtenburg says we are passing the Bill when we have not yet even accepted the proclamation and the report of the standing committee, the hon member should know that to accept the report and to declare the area to be an open area by means of a proclamation, is aimed at promoting the purchasing of land. This Bill concerns the transferral of purchased land. Two matters are involved here. Nowhere in the Act of 1936 or the Act of 1980 is it stated which procedure should be followed. On the basis of this, I say that the allegation made by the hon member for Lichtenburg is incorrect and creates a wrong impression of this.

As far as the consulation with owners is concerned, I want to say that the owners are never individually consulted by the ministery on any occasion. But they are given the opportunity to given evidence. The Marico corridor falls within the constituency of the hon member for Lichtenburg, and I held discussions on the whole procedure in Zeerust with all seven owners who are involved in this. They are satisfied with the process which gives effect to this. We therefore satisfied this requirement as well.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also said that this Government is strangling agriculture and forcing it to its knees. But never before in the history of this country have so many opportunities been created for farmers to service in this truly difficult situation, as have been created by the Government in this same year and in recent years. [Interjections.] On the basis of this, I have given an adequate reply to this point. [Interjections.]

The hon member for King William’s Town has raised a few points. He spoke about a single nationality and a dual citizenship. When I replied to the hon member for Berea, I dealt with this matter. I accept that in certain respects we differ on the principles involved here. If the four independent states themselves have decided that they want to govern independently and want to stand independently, we cannot force a single citizenship onto them against their will. On the basis of this, we could never agree on that point.

The hon member also specifically referred to Langedraai in the Ciskei. We discussed this personally in my office. It is part of this and there are specific problems as far as those people are concerned. I have in the meantime spoken to the farmers again, and they also raised this. It is one of those situations, however, in which we could never satisfy everyone, but we will again pay attention to the question of Langedraai. Langedraai is in fact included in this and cannot be excluded, because if we were to do so it would affect a few other farms in the area, and other problems again would arise.

That is a mistake; an obvious mistake!

No, it is a mistake which crept in in the past as a result of arable land behind the peak which was not taken into account. But if Langedraai were to be excluded again, divergent standpoints would cause problems in the community. We can therefore not accommodate it in this respect.

The hon member for Helderkruin gave a clear explanation of the total solution for these areas. He also explained the question of citizenship. He was unable to be here and asked that I should excuse him, but I at least just want to thank him in his absence for his contribution.

The hon member for Ermelo gave a very detailed explanation of this whole process, and also replied to some of the other hon members. I thank him sincerely for this, but apart from his contribution to the specific legislation, I also want to thank him for the six months and more in which he along with hon members struggled to get this legislation approved by the standing committee and to listen to all the evidence. He had to ask hon Ministers four times to explain the matter to the standing committee and finally they still would not see what was wrong and what was right. [Interjections.] We thank him very much for all his trouble.

In conclusion I want to say a special word of thanks to the hon member for Nelspruit who also made a contribution. He has much knowledge of the consolidation process and made a positive contribution. I should like to deal with a few other matters in the committee stage.

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill complies with the recommendation contained in the first report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, which has already been passed by all three Houses.

Mr Speaker, yesterday we rectified a wrong which had been done to an ordinary person. Today we are rectifying a wrong which was done to a very prominent person, a person who was an acting judge. This indicates that the committee is there to see that justice is done, not only to the poor but also to the prominent. The whole question was debated in some depth, and it had the support of all the members of the committee.

I just want to point out one matter. Many of the problems which are brought before the committee would not arise if we had the compulsory transferability and vesting of pensions. I know there is another committee working on that. However, it is a very important point which we have to get across, not only to people in this House but also to the public in general.

We will support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, hon members on this side of the House, who also participated in the deliberations of the standing select committee, whole-heartedly support this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to thank the hon member for

Edenvale. In my opinion he passed a very important remark, which we shall follow up.

As always the hon member for Brits made an excellent speech! [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

1. 1. On page 5, to omit lines 10 to 12.
2. 2. On page 5, in line 13, to omit “(v)” and to substitute “(vii)”
3. 3. On page 9, from line 26, to omit paragraph (i) and to substitute:

(i) District of Pretoria
Portions 20 and 50 and the Remainder of Portion 17 of the farm Hammanskraal 112 JR.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

That the Bill be now read a third time. Question put,

Order! Before we come to the next order of the day, I wish to announce that I have received the following message from the House of Delegates:

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Water Amendment Bill, which is before the House today, heralds a new era in the utilisation of water resources in Southern Africa. Rivers often form the borders between states. On the other hand, they have no respect for the borders of countries either, and therefore necessitate liaison with a view to ensuring the optimum joint utilisation of this resource, which in Southern Africa is unfortunately a relatively scarce one. The Government has always advocated the optimum joint utilisation of rivers common to various states. Several interstate commissions and committees have, in the past, been established and agreements entered into between us and our neighbouring and self-governing states. Such agreements, however, are only the start of development possibilities. In order to ensure the development of a water source, there has to be a body or institution that can undertake the development and operate and maintain these joint projects.

†The Water Act of 1956, as it presently stands on the Statute Book, does not provide for bodies that can construct, operate and maintain international water schemes. Therefore, the Act has to be amended to give effect to treaties which are to be entered into in the future, in terms of which the available water in this sub-continent can be utilised to the best advantage of all its inhabitants. Should treaties be entered into, bodies will be established to make the proposed project a reality. If the proposed amendment to the Act is accepted, the work on the implementation of a project can immediately start once the relevant treaties have been signed.

Regarding the clauses of the Bill in particular, I want to mention a few aspects. Sections 138A, B, C and D provide for the establishment of the aformentioned body and its powers, including financing and its orderly functioning. The clauses concerned cover a rather wide spectrum but I will not discuss them individually. The Bill covers each one fairly comprehensively, but in short it lays down the administrative procedures which are to be followed.

*Section 138E regulates the financial control that has to be exercised in order to ensure that the large amounts of money that are obtained and spent annually are judiciously and correctly employed.

In conclusion I wish to thank the chairman and members of the standing committee for their competent and expeditious consideration of the Bill. The amendments were accepted by the standing committee.

Mr Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting this Bill. We welcome the moves which are being made by the department to provide for the medium- and long-term demands of the country for water.

This country has been blessed with great mineral wealth. Unfortunately, however, it does not have an abundance of water. Ironically, the part of the country which has the greatest wealth in terms of minerals is also that part of the country which has the least water. It is difficult, therefore, to provide the necessary water for the development of industry and commerce. I refer, naturally, to the Witwatersrand.

A situation has been reached in this area in which further development will be severely circumscribed unless an adequate supply of water is provided. Although this Bill does not specifically refer to any one scheme, it is obvious that its provisions will have a direct bearing on one of the most exciting and imaginative schemes that has yet been contemplated. I refer to the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme. This scheme will ensure an adequate supply of water for South Africa and its industrial heartland for at least the first quarter of the 21st century.

In order to get this international scheme under way, legislation such as the Bill we have before us today, has become necessary. The financing of schemes such as the Lesotho Highlands scheme is always problematical. These schemes are massive and require substantial amounts of capital. The situation is especially problematical during times of economic or political uncertainty. It is possible that the financing of the Lesotho Highlands scheme may prove difficult. Nevertheless the indications at the moment are that the necessary finance will be available on the local and international capital markets for at least the initial stages of the scheme.

It is also possible, however, that new ways of raising the necessary capital will have to be found in the future. The imposition of a levy upon potential users, for example, is a method which has in fact been considered. The department has undertaken to conduct an indepth investigation into the advisability of introducing what could be regarded as a controversial measure. Further legislation in this regard might well be forthcoming at a later stage—early next year perhaps—when more data is available.

We on these benches welcome this development. We consider it to be a sensible one, and one which indicates that the Government has regard for these difficulties. In the meantime, we hope that the Lesotho Highlands scheme and others which might be affected by this legislation will proceed on schedule and that the provision of water for our thirsty land will continue to enjoy a high priority in the future.

Mr Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow the hon member for Albany. I should like to thank the Official Opposition, as well as the CP, for their cooperation in the standing committee in this connection.

I think we must accept, and this is obvious, that the steps taken in this Bill have become essential at this stage. As a result of the urbanisation process in South Africa large numbers of people are gathering together in the metropolises of this country in particular, and in due course a greater need for water arises in these metropolises. It is also a fact that up to now water could be supplied to these metropolises mainly from sources inside the borders of this country. But this situation could change in future, and water could be brought from outside the country’s borders by means of international agreements—to these metropolises too, amongst others the PWV area. It then becomes essential for steps like these contained in this Bill to be taken, in terms of which international agreements can be entered into and carried through.

I should nevertheless like to take this opportunity to tell the hon the Deputy Minister who is dealing with this legislation that it is placing a unique instrument in the hands of the hon the Minister and the Government. It is true that international agreements can be entered into through this legislation. I want to ask the hon the Minister and the department to bear certain considerations in mind when they enter into these international agreements.

The first consideration is that agreements must be in line with the Government’s general policy approach of decentralisation of economic activities in this country. I am specifically referring to this point to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the fact that the Orange River drains the water of 49% of this country’s surface area. But on this 49% of our country’s surface area only 25% of the drainage of our country’s surface water takes place. The hon the Minister must bear in mind that when consideration is given to the transfer of water from the Orange River to the PWV area, a large area of this country—more than 50%—could be affected by this in future. It is essential for us to bear in mind—no matter how important it is constantly to provide the PWV area with an adequate supply of water—that we must consider other sources to meet that need.

There is also another principle that crops up with regard to the international agreements that can be entered into in connection with the transfer of water, namely the granting of royalties to the countries supplying water in terms of the agreement. The hon the Minister must consider the possibility that if we were to declare ourselves willing to pay royalties to any neighbouring state, the independent national states and the self-governing states could also, possibly with a measure of justice, claim the payment of royalties to them in future.

There is a final point I should like to raise. We can accept that if we enter into an international agreement in order to bring about the transfer of water from a neighbouring state, we can assume that on the basis of economic considerations it is most unlikely that these states would not want to honour the agreement. But if there were to be political unrest in such a state—this is possible in any state—irrational decisions would also be possible. In this regard we in South Africa have already had unfortunate experiences. For that reason I want to suggest that if we ever consider buying water from our neighbouring states by means of royalties, it must be as a last resort.

In spite of these few points I wished to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister, I think it is essential for this Bill to be agreed to. Consequently I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in associating myself with the hon member for Albany and the hon member for Fauresmith. I just want to say briefly that we support this Bill. I agree with the standpoint and remarks of the hon member for Fauresmith and I should like to associate myself with him when he said that we should be extremely careful that in the particular circumstances in which the country finds itself we do not make ourselves too dependent on the goodwill of changeable neighbours. As far as practical use is concerned, I think that the legislation under discussion is possibly the most important Bill agreed to in this short second session. Consequently we take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, we in these benches wish to associate ourselves with the remarks made by previous speakers. We support this Bill.

I think the Bill speaks for itself and it is quite obvious, from the external political situation that the country is facing at the present time, that other means of financing such projects as the impoundment of water will have to emanate from means other than conventional sources. I think the interesting fact in regard to the proposed Lesotho Highlands water scheme for example is that so much of the country surrounding that area where the proposed impoundments will be constructed has proved to be unsuitable topography for the utilisation of the water resources in that particular area. It is therefore logical that the water which is derived from those impoundments should be put to more practical use.

I want to raise one or two points in regard to the proposed new section 138B. I refer to subsection (1)(d). It states that a body shall have the power, and I quote—

I would like to offer a word of caution in that one has to be careful that the proposed body itself does not become too heavily involved in the construction side of such undertakings. This should be left to organisations and private contractors who in all likelihood are better equipped to handle the many aspects of construction.

I also want to refer to subsection (1)(f) of the same proposed section 138B. It states that a body shall have the power, and I quote—

This is a very important provision and the impact that it will have on the environment must not be lost sight of. I would like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister—I know he is well aware of it—to complaints that emanated from certain parts of my constituency where the farmers complained bitterly that the condition of their land adjacent to the Mooi/Mobeni pipeline had been left in a disgraceful condition as a result of the construction of the pipeline. I therefore do feel that the whole question of the environmental impact of such schemes must be carefully monitored. We have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want most sincerely to thank hon members who participated in the debate, and who all supported the Bill. We must also sincerely thank the chairman and members of the standing committee for the way in which they handled the legislation.

I think the hon member for Barberton was correct when he said this was a very important Bill. It enables us to deal properly with one of the scarcest resources in this country.

†The hon member for Albany says that we have great mineral wealth, but unfortunately do not have such a wealth of water. That is, of course, true. By adopting this measure we are now making it possible for the scarce water supply to be combined with the plentiful supply of minerals to the greatest possible benefit of this country.

*It is important for us to note that probably within decades we shall be able to regard the total water systems of a larger area than just the Republic of South Africa as a unit. This does not mean that we must of necessity prejudice specific catchment areas or service areas of rivers in favour of other areas.

This brings me to the statement of the hon member for Fauresmith. I have taken cognisance of the proposals he made here. If there is surplus water in a certain area, and one has a need in another area, in my opinion it is only right to use that surplus water in the areas lacking in water. Of course one must be sure that it is a surplus, and I think that is the hon members’ point.

The hon member for Mooi River raised two important points.

†It is always necessary to be wary of allowing too much power to be put into anyone’s hands. I think he is correct in stating that we have to be very careful about authorising entry to people onto the property of others, especially where the environment might be at risk.

*We have had cases where contractors entered upon land and did not leave it in a good condition. I want to give the hon member the assurance that also because of his previous representations we have taken cognisance of this, and that the department is very thoroughly geared to the conservation of the environment in future.

I again thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

We have come to the end of a session, and I want to thank You for Your guidance. I also want to thank the various presiding officers. I want to thank all hon members for their co-operation, as well as hon members of the Opposition and their Whips. Matters became a little heated sometimes, but we found common ground and are parting as friends.

I want to thank the Whips on this side of the House for their co-operation, particularly the hon Chief Whip of the NP and also the hon Chief Whip of Parliament. I also thank all hon members of the Opposition, who treated us with respect. We appreciate that. I wish all hon members a pleasant recess. I know we are going to work hard, because the Members of Parliament actually start working hard in the recess.

I also wish hon members a happy Christmas and a prosperous New year. I move that the House adjourn until 30 January 1987.

Mr Speaker, may I just from these benches react to one or two things that have been said by the hon the Leader of the House. I think that everything that has happened in Parliament during this part of the session has in fact strengthened Parliament. I believe that, as in a good marriage, there must be a tiff or two, but then the bonds are strengthened thereafter.

We as the Official Opposition have faith in and respect for the Chair—you, Sir—and we thank you for your guidance. We have faith and confidence in the system, and from our side we are aware of a very strong sense of co-operation among the Whips and also with the hon the Leader of the House.

From this side I wish all hon members of the governing party a safe return home and a happy recess.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of our party I should also like to express and have placed on record our sincere thanks to you as the Speaker, to the Chairman of the House and to the Deputy Chairmen. We should like to have placed on record our thanks to the Secretary of Parliament and his staff, the service officers, the telephone exchange and Oom Essie and his staff, who saw to it that we ate well here in Parliament. We thank them most sincerely. Sincere thanks to the hon the Leader of the House and the Whips of the Governing party and the other Opposition parties for their co-operation—the times of conflict were perhaps also needed to bring about better co-operation.

We also want to tell our hon colleagues in other parties that we wish them a pleasant recess. I thought we would be able to take our leave of a large number of these present here, if the State President had called an election. [Interjections.] We would like to take our leave of a number of them here today, but it seems we are not being given the opportunity to do so. But I think that the hon members on that side of the House in particular will agree with me that this session belonged to the CP. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, one does not quite know what to say when one hears such eloquent words and claims from the hon Whip of the CP. We in this party would like very much to associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon the Leader of the House, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Kuruman.

We can do no more than express the hope that all hon colleagues in this place will enjoy good health until we meet here next year. We hope that next year we will have learnt a lot of lessons from this year and be able to put them to good effect. We are grateful for the fact that we are able to part in the knowledge that we have had a troublesome period and differences, but confident now, if never before, of the fact that no difference of opinion is insurmountable. We have indeed sailed through very troubled waters, and I think each and every one of us has emerged from it the better for the experience.

I too want to come up with a little bit of a commercial in the closing stages. I was approached this morning by the Sergeant-at-arms who congratulated me warmly. I take great pride in the fact that I personally have been in attendance on every single day at every single sitting of this session this year. I have not missed a day, and I am rather proud of that fact. [Interjections.]

Good luck to everybody.

Mr Speaker, as one of the less talkative members of this House… [Interjections.]… this afternoon I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to you and all other hon members of this House. I have already done so on a previous occasion, and I do not want to delay hon members any longer than necessary.

Nevertheless, this afternoon I should like to express a particular word of thanks and appreciation to the hon the Leader of the House. I still remember the first speech made in this House by that hon Minister sitting over there, when I was actually a bit annoyed with him. I was one of the backbenchers in the NP at that stage. When he had finished speaking that day, he concluded his speech by saying: “This was really a “smart” speech!” [Interjections.] I did not think it was such a “smart” speech, but over the years I have come to realise—I think the hon members in this House agree with me—that he is not a bad fellow. He is actually a “smart” fellow. If it has now taken 20 years for someone else to say this, I think it is worthwhile for us as members of the House to thank the hon the Leader of the House for the role he has played. He may not know this, but he is a unifying factor. Even if he does not always mean it, and even if he sometimes disagrees with his own colleague too, he still remains a unifying factor. We thank him in particular, as well as everyone who made this session a very interesting one.

Everything of the best to all the hon members, from our side too. If some of them do not return here, because of our activities, we still wish them a very prosperous future.

Question agreed to.

This brings us to the end of the Order Paper for 1986. The House is adjourned.