I move, as an unopposed motion—

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill makes provision for the taking over of those portions of education for Indians which are still being controlled by the various provincial administrations at the present time. The position at present is that the Central Government, through the Department of Indian Affairs, already has control over the following: University training in terms of the Extension of University Training Act, 1959; vocational education in terms of the Vocational Education Act, 1959; special education in terms of the Special Education Act, 1949, and schools of industries and reform schools and homes in terms of the Children’s Act, 1960. As against that, the responsibility for the primary and secondary education of Indian pupils vests in the various provincial administrations. As a result of the take-over of the functions which at the present time still fall under the provinces, all education for Indians will now be co-ordinated within one department. It is the intention to develop within the Department of Indian Affairs an education division with the necessary technical and administrative staff.

The reasons for this step are obvious. Every racial group, within the pattern of the Government’s policy of separate development, must eventually assume responsibility itself for its social, economic and educational developmental services. As far as the Indian community is concerned, it means that the South African Indian Council, which will eventually be an elected council, will progressively obtain control over these services. It is no more than right therefore that the Department of Indian Affairs, which was responsible for leading this community on the road to self-government, should be given control at this stage already over those matters which will eventually be placed under the control of the Indian community. Such a step will make it possible gradually to train people to provide these services. It is my intention at this stage already, therefore, to consult with the S.A. Indian Council in connection with educational matters, as was, in fact, also done in the case of this Bill which was submitted to the council and discussed and accepted by the council before it was submitted to Parliament.

In addition to that it is my intention to establish an education advisory council similar to the three advisory councils which exist for Whites, Coloureds and Bantu. As a result of the fact that education for Indians will be separated from education for Whites, which still remains under provincial control, it will also become possible to use the services of Indian educationists on standing or ad hoc technical committees, curriculum committees, etc. It will also become possible to promote more Indians to higher posts. For example, it will now become possible for the first time to appoint Indians as inspectors, planners and technical assistants. Similarly it will be possible to employ Indians in the administrative section of the Education Division of the Department. Indeed, it is my intention right from the beginning to appoint quite a number of Indians in this division. Such steps, of course, would be impossible within a provincial administration which is charged with education for Whites as well as Indians. It is essential, therefore, for the Department of Indian Affairs to take over education for Indians in order to make available the necessary administrative and technical posts, so that Indians can be given the necessary training with a view to becoming self-sufficient eventually in this sphere.

A further reason for the taking over of all education for Indians by the Central Government is the necessity for proper planning, because education, apart from its basic formative aim, must also be designated to prepare the pupil to take his place in and to serve the community to which he belongs. While education for Indians was just an appendage of education for Whites, there was no systematic research and, consequently, no purposeful planning of their education. If, in addition to that, one bears in mind the fact that under the present set-up the Central Government is responsible for vocational education and the provincial authorities for academic education, it is no wonder that secondary education for Indians has been described as narrow and restrictive. In 1963, for example, 700 pupils out of a total of 959 who entered for the senior certificate, offered precisely the same subjects, namely English A, Latin, biology, mathematics, geography and history. The only other optional subjects that were offered were natural sciences, Afrikaans B with only 83 candidates, and domestic science. No wonder A. N. Lazarus, principal of the Woodlands Indian High School, advanced the following reason the year before last for the high percentage of failures amongst Indian pupils—

Under central control it will be possible, over and above the separate vocational schools which already exist, to convert most secondary schools in due course into comprehensive schools which will not be limited to two vocational subjects as is the case at present. In this way, with proper research, planning and re-organization, opportunities can be created for every pupil to receive his secondary education according to his own aptitude and abilities and also in accordance with the demand that arises from time to time for trained and qualified Indians. This take-over is necessary therefore for the sake of proper planning and diversification.

Financial considerations constitute an additional reason for the take-over. The large concentration of Indians in Natal places on the Province of Natal a financial burden which it can scarcely bear and which has made it necessary for Natal from time to time to obtain special additional subsidies from the Central Government. The result has been that the Natal Indians have been treated not only worse than the Indians in other provinces but also worse than the Coloureds in Natal. In addition to that, there is even talk that Natal is faced with a leeway in respect of educational services for Whites in comparison with other provinces as a result of the burden imposed on Natal by Indian education.

Having regard to all these considerations I caused proper investigations to be instituted into all the implications of taking over education for Indians. Thereafter I held discussions with the Provincial Administrations concerned who promised their co-operation during the process of taking over. I discussed the takeover with the Indian Council which gave its unanimous support to this idea. Discussions were also held with the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society and although they indicated that they did not want to discuss the principle, their executive committee promised its full support on behalf of the society. I therefore visualize no hitches or problems or opposition.

As a result of a survey made by the Indian newspaper, the Leader, the newspaper came to this conclusion: “Teachers favour takeover.” The Natal Witness, which had initially called upon the Indians to oppose the takeover. wrote on 11 December 1964: “Indian school take-over welcomed.”

By whom?

By the Indians, according to this report.

By the Indian Council?

By the Indian community, the Indian teachers. I want to make it quite clear that this newspaper was not talking about the United Party; I do not know what their attitude is.

In the Transvaal, where the Transvaal Indian Teachers’ Association strongly opposed the take-over, a strong and influential group established a separate organization called the Transvaal Asiatic Teachers’ Association which strongly supported the take-over. Further discussions took place between the Department of Indian Affairs, the Treasury and the provinces, and a formula was agreed upon in connection with the taking over of buildings and supplies. The same pattern that was followed with the taking over of Coloured education will be followed in this case.

As hon. members will observe. Clause 37 of the Bill provides that all schools in all provinces need not necessarily be taken over simultaneously. Since the Education Division of the Department of Indian Affairs will have its headquarters in Durban for obvious reasons, it is my intention first to take over all provincial schools in Natal and all teachers’ training institutions in Natal and in the Transvaal. It is hoped that it will be possible to give effect to the take-over on 1 April 1966. The take-over of Transvaal schools will take place as soon as possible thereafter but at this stage I do not want to commit myself to a specific date.

As far as the Cape Province is concerned, there are really no separate Indian schools as yet. In the ordinary course of events Indian pupils attend Coloured schools. With the establishment of separate residential areas for Indians in certain urban areas in the Cape, Indian schools will come into being in those areas in due course, and my Department proposes to consult with the Department of Coloured Affairs with regard to the takeover of these schools.

Hon. members will notice in Clause 21 (4) that until the Minister otherwise determines the Department of Education, Arts and Science shall institute the courses for the education and training of persons in special schools, homes, vocational schools, schools of industries and reform schools and conduct examinations in respect thereof and that provincial administrations shall institute courses for the education and training of persons in other schools and conduct examinations in respect of those schools in the same way as they would have done if there had been no take-over. The intention here is to make use of the existing examining and certifying bodies until such time as the Division of Education of the Department of Indian Affairs itself is equipped to undertake that task. New curricula and examinations, however, will only be instituted after proper planning by technical committees on which Indian educationists themselves will be represented. I want to emphasize that no lowering of standards is contemplated. Standards will only be amended if Indian educationists themselves decide to do so and if my Department is satisfied that it will benefit the Indian community.

As far as the teachers are concerned, I can give the assurance that they have nothing to fear. Their conditions of service are based mainly on the conditions of service which obtain in Natal at the present time, and in certain respects they are even being improved upon. It appears from a telegram which I have to-day received from the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society that at this late stage certain misgivings have arisen with regard to certain provisions of the Bill. After considering the points raised by the society, I am of the opinion that most of their misgivings are based on a misunderstanding. I have, however, complied with the society’s request to interview a delegation and I will be prepared at a later stage to move amendments which are justified so as to meet reasonable requests that may be put forward and possibly to set out the aims of the Bill in clearer language. Such amendments can, if necessary, be moved in the Senate if it appears to be impossible to do so in the House of Assembly. I want to point out, however, that this Bill has been available for some considerable time already. In addition to that, there have been discussions from time to time between officials of my Department and the executive committee of the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society. In these circumstances one gains the impression from the representations made direct to me at this late hour that outsiders have possibly sown the seeds of misgivings which in most cases are unfounded. The question of recognition of teachers’ associations and the promulgation of regulations to prescribe the requirements in that connection, is one example of a point in regard to which misgivings have apparently now arisen. It would seem that the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society is possibly under the impression that this measure is designed to deprive such an old-established society of recognition. That is by no means the intention, and I want to repeat the assurance which I gave personally to the executive committee of the society that I am prepared to recognize bona fide teachers’ associations which apply themselves to educational matters. In this connection I regard this measure as an improvement possibly on other educational legislation in that it will grant statutory status and recognition to Indian teachers’ associations.

It would also appear that misgivings are now being expressed in respect of the provisions dealing with the take-over by the Department of Indian Affairs of State-aided schools. In this connection I want to make it perfectly clear that it is not the intention at all to take over such schools unless the controlling bodies concerned. of their own volition, request me to do so, and even in that case the take-over will take place in accordance with conditions decided upon in consultation with the controlling bodies concerned.

This Bill does not affect the present status of the university college for Indians and of the M. L. Sultan Technical College. These institutions, which are controlled under legislation, the administration of which has already been entrusted to the Department of Indian Affairs, comply in their respective spheres with the requirements and the needs of the Indian community.

This Bill makes provision for State and State-aided vocational schools which may be established for Indians in the future. The provisions of the Children’s Act, 1960, are not being replaced and schools for industries and reform schools and homes for Indians will continue to be established, erected and maintained in terms of the Children’s Act, but the establishments of the schools in question which are laid down in terms of the Vocational Education Act, 1955 (Section 40 of the Children’s Act 1960) will in future be laid down in terms of this Bill.

As was the case in connection with the Department of Coloured Affairs therefore, there are certain separate Acts and regulations which will be administered jointly with other Departments. The aim of this Bill therefore is not only to transfer education for Indians from the Provincial Administration but also to bring about a certain measure of consolidation of existing legislation in terms of which the State controls education for Indians.

This Bill is based almost word for word on the Coloured Education Act. In the few cases where the wording of that Act has been departed from it has been done for the sake of greater clarity or to eliminate administrative problems which have been experienced by Coloured Education or to adapt the law to the special circumstances to which Indian teachers have become accustomed under the Natal Education Ordinance. I do not consider it necessary at this stage to explain the further details of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize in conclusion that because of the greater participation of Indian parents and Indian educationists in the education of their children, which is being made possible by the take-over and by consolidation, because of the greater possibility to make provision for their particular requirements according to the aptitudes and abilities of the pupils, and because of the other benefits brought about by this Bill, we are really entering upon a new era, an era that will possibly produce positive thinking and new attitudes.

I think that we should be grateful to the hon. the Minister for the fine way in which he has put his case. He pointed out that this Bill is based on the policy of the Government—the policy of apartheid, the policy of demarcation. He referred further to certain shortcomings as far as education for Indians is concerned as a result of the fact that there has been no consolidation and because of the fact that no special attention has been given to Indian education by the Provinces. I think that in this regard I must differ from him completely. I know what went on in Natal and I know how much Natal did for Indian education. We should rather be grateful to Natal for what it has done for Indian education with the small amount of financial assistance which it has received from the State. That is where the fault lies, not with the Natal Administration. The hon. the Minister has told us that he consulted the Indian Council, but he should have gone further; he should have found out why so many Indian teachers are opposed to this Bill. About one-quarter of his speech this afternoon was devoted to the contents of telegrams which he received from Indians objecting to certain clauses in the Bill.

Not to the Bill.

That is what the hon. the Minister said and he added that he had given them a hearing in regard to their objections to certain clauses. Of course, we expected him to contact these people. I shall show later on how far the hon. the Minister was in contact with the Provincial Administration in connection with this matter.

The underlying principle of this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has already said, has been discussed in the House previously. The hon. the Minister pointed out that this principle was discussed when Native education was taken over and when Coloured education was transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs.

This measure is nothing less than a further fragmentation and breaking up of our education in South Africa. This side of the House is still strongly opposed to this policy of the breaking up of education. I am sorry to find that this policy of the fragmentation of our education is being further extended. This breaking up of our education makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of educationists, not only in South Africa but throughout the world. It makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of those who are not obsessed with a philosophy to which they have become enslaved. Besides this, we have here a further proof of the hatred on the part of the Nationalist Party for everything which is not White, for everything which is not ethnically a part of us.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Why should I be ashamed of myself? This is the legislation which is before us! Everything which is not part of us ethnically must be removed from us and placed in water-tight compartments; it must be removed from the sphere of the broader general interests and each part must be placed on its own. The position in South Africa has become very serious because thinking people have became so blind that they can no longer think objectively and rationally even as far as education matters are concerned.

The control over certain sections of Indian education has already been transferred to the Department of Indian Affairs, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. In this connection he referred to university education, vocational education and special education. There are already 11 Departments administering education in South Africa; there are 11 Departments setting examinations and now there is to be another division; Indian education which over the years has been administered by the Provincial Administrations, is now being placed under the control of the hon. the Minister and his Department. If this Bill is passed it will mean therefore that the whole of Indian education and its administration will fall under the Department of Indian Affairs.

What have you against that?

When one considers this unhealthy state of affairs objectively, one wonders sometimes how unbalanced thinking people can become when they are obsessed with an ideology—one could almost say, when they are possessed by an ideological devil. One is amazed when one considers the large sums of money which are spent on the various sections, the wase of time, the duplication of work which takes place in regard to teaching staff who are already so scarce in South Africa, and now we have this legislation which is going to aggravate the position further. But, thank heavens, it appears to me that we have come almost to the end of this process of the fragmentation of the administration of our education, to the end of this sort of destructive legislation. It can of course happen, if the voters are foolish enough to keep this Government in office long enough, that the Government will be responsible for a further breaking up of our education. For example, the Government could resort—and nobody would be surprised if it were to happen—to the establishment of a separate Department of Education for the Bushmen of the Kalahari. The Nationalist Party has probably already discussed it! I want to go further. I should not be at all surprised if this Government were soon to resort to the introduction of this fragmentation process between the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people in South Africa. The Government has already segregated the children into separate schools. In a province where the Nationalist Party is in power the children of the two language groups are segregated into separate schools and so nobody would be surprised if the Government were also to establish different departments or education administrations.

May I ask a question?

I was quiet when the hon. the Minister was speaking. He wants to ask a question simply to distract me. Even if he becomes annoyed I want him to listen well to what I have to say; we may then be able to understand one another better. My hon. friend can ask his question as soon as I have finished my speech.

This Indian Education Bill is a further step in the direction of segregation, as I have said, or, as the hon. the Minister has said, of apartheid. I prefer to call it a policy of caste separation. It is a separation of the race groups in South Africa into castes. This sort of policy is nothing less than a caste system. We already have a caste system for the Bantu as far as the administration of education is concerned; we already have a caste system for the Coloureds and one for the Whites and now we have one for the Indians with all their mutual social caste divisions. Under this Government everything has simply to be divided off into water-tight compartments, the one not subordinate to the other, each master in its own area but the barriers simply may not be bridged. This legislation before us will restrict the Indian and his education to within the confines of the Indian community. It is nothing but a cruel gesture to the Indians. They are all South African citizens; they have been declared to be citizens by this Government but White education is not for them; they will not be able to derive any benefit from it. The Indian community must be discouraged from perhaps thinking that it is part of the broader South African community. We may not think or act in universal terms as far as the Indian community is concerned.

Why not?

I say this because of this legislation; I would not say it otherwise! Each group must be placed in a water-tight compartment—Indians on one side. Whites on one side, Coloureds on one side and the Bantu on one side. [Interjections.] It will avail my hon. friends nothing to make a fuss! Prove to me that I am wrong when I say that this legislation is nothing less than the introduction of the caste system in South Africa as far as the administration of education is concerned.

The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, and no ideology or ideological consideration can reason it away, that education is indivisible. Whether it is for a German or for a White man or for a Bantu or for an Indian, education remains indivisible. There simply cannot be a separate system of education for the Asiatics as such. There may be a system of indoctrination but one cannot speak of education in this sense. One can never call indoctrination education. The hon. the Minister has indicated that it is his intention to have them educated so that they will fit in with their narrow environment. But the hon. the Minister forgets that the environment of the Indian is not where those 500,000 are living; it is the whole of South Africa, the South Africa of which they are South African citizens. That is what the Indian must be educated for. Up to the present his education has been the same as that of the White man. He has had the same syllabus. He has taken the same courses; he has written the same examinations. All these things have been the same no matter where he has received his education. The Indians have been treated in the same way as far as their education is concerned, but in separate schools. In other words, they have worked under the same system as that of the Whites. The same principles and the same methods have been applied to them. This sort of legislation which provides for separate education systems for the various race groups can hold dangers for both White and Indian. We on this side of the House who wish to maintain the leadership of the White man in South Africa see a danger in the principle of regarding the Indians as a separate community. This is a further example of fragmentation, fragmentation not only of our Department of Education, Arts and Science but a definite step in the direction of the eventual fragmentation, both educationally and constitutionally, of communities at present living within the borders of one homeland.

Another important question which the hon. the Minister did not deal with fully and which I should like him to deal with, is this: If he is seeking to rob the provinces of the rights which they have under Section 84, why is he placing Indian education under his Department? Why does the Government not place it under the Department which has the necessary experience and knowledge. Why does it not place this education under the experienced Department of Education, Arts and Science? Why is the Government taking the education of the Indian out of the hands of a Department like the Natal Education Department, a Department which has had years of experience, and placing it in the hands of the Department of Indian Affairs which knows little about education and which as yet has no knowledge of the organization of education? It will be years before the Department of Indian Affairs has acquired that knowledge. If the Government had placed this education in the hands of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, which has had years of experience, I could still understand it, but to place it in the hands of the Department of Indian Affairs is to do the Department and the Indian community an injustice.

I referred on a previous occasion to these difficulties which I have just mentioned but I was told that my objections were unfounded. How well-founded my objections were has been proved by recent reports in the newspapers. I think that the hon. the Minister will admit that some of our Coloured teachers had recently to wait for months for their salaries. We shall experience exactly the same difficulty in this case as we are experiencing at present under the Department of Coloured Affairs. This is also a Department which had no idea of education matters. We will experience the same chaos as far as Indian education is concerned. I fear that the same unfortunate position will also arise in this case. Why? Simply in order to try to give effect to a dangerous ideology, and for no other reason. Who is going to suffer? The Indian child and the Indian community. All race groups are going to suffer thereby because if one group suffers the whole community is affected.

The strongest objection which this side of the House has to this legislation is in regard to the ignoring of our constitution. I want for the umpteenth time to state that as long as Act No. 45 of 1934 still stands in principle, as incorporated in section 114 of our Constitution of 1961, we do not have the moral right to deprive any province of any of its rights without a petition to Parliament by the province concerned. I referred to this point previously and the hon. the Prime Minister, the then Minister of Native Affairs, replied to my objection. His argument was to this effect: Firstly, that this was not an entrenched clause and secondly, that in the discussion of this Bill in 1934, the Minister at the time said: “Act No. 45 of 1934 has no other meaning than a policy statement of what the Government will do during its period of office.” This can be found in the Senate Hansard of 1953, Col. 1609. In 1953, therefore, when the Bantu Education Bill was being discussed, the Government did not feel itself bound by Act No. 45 of 1934, and this for the two reasons which I have just mentioned. The first reason of the then Minister of Native Affairs—that this was not an entrenched clause—is in my opinion and with all respect stupid and unfounded because, if this particular section is not of application, why do we keep it on the statute book? Why do we retain it as part of our legislation in South Africa if it has no moral or legal force? Why then do we not amend the legislation? I shall be pleased if my hon. friend will reply to me in this regard. Apart from this, the excuse that it is not binding because it is not entrenched is an evasion because even if it were entrenched the Government would have no difficulty in amending it. If it does not have a two-thirds majority now, it can quite easily appoint an enlarged Senate again and have the law amended.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far. He must come back to the Bill. The hon. member is wandering far afield.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it is immoral to effect these changes without recognizing the provinces and without the provinces asking for these powers to be taken away from them. It was on this point that the hon. the now Prime Minister replied to me at the time and I feel that I am entitled to refer to it.

The second reason which the hon. the Minister mentioned was that it was only a policy statement, and I think that this reason is more firmly founded and is important. This reason of the hon. the Minister rests on very much firmer ground because any Government lays down its policy in legislation. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was established in 1961 and Act No. 45 of 1934 was incorporated in that Constitution in section 114. It was incorporated word for word in that section. I should like to read section 114 (b) for the purposes of the record. This is no ordinary piece of legislation: it is our Constitution and this fact makes it far more binding. As far as this matter is concerned the Government has laid down its policy in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, section 114 (b) of which reads as follows—

Here we have therefore a renewal of a definite policy statement by this Government with the same Prime Minister and the same Government as in 1961. That policy statement has been made part of the Constitution of our Republic. No rights under Section 84 will be taken away unless the province concerned asks for it. Section 114 is part of our Constitution, which is far more binding than ordinary legislation. We ask ourselves this question: If this was the policy statement in 1961, why is it no longer the policy? We still have the same Government. Why has this provision no longer any moral effect? Why is it no longer a word of honour to the provinces and to the people of South Africa? Why is it part of our Constitution if it is not binding?

Read Section 84 (c).

I have already read it; I am now dealing with Section 114 (b). I ask the hon. the Minister to read Section 114 (b).

Read both of them.

I shall read 114 (b) again. Section 114 (b) refers to the whole of Section 84.

Read what 84 (c) provides.

I want to read Section 114 (b) again for the edification of the hon. the Minister.

First read 84 (c).

If my hon. friend is becoming annoyed I hope that he will control himself and wait until he has an opportunity to reply. I shall read Section 114 (b) again.

I just wanted to help you.

The hon. the Minister has simply helped me out of the frying pan into the fire! I want my hon. friend to listen. Section 114 (b) states—

Under the whole section, not only in terms of (c)—

In other words, Section 114 refers to the whole of Section 84.

Now read Section 84.

Section 114 provides that before any powers granted to a province in terms of Section 84 can be taken away from it, such province must first petition Parliament to that effect. Only then can Parliament take action. When did the hon. the Minister receive such a petition? Why did he not tell us about any petition which he received from any province? Did he receive one from Natal? He did not. In other words, this action of the Government is an immoral one; it is an injustice to the provinces because the Government does not recognize them in this legislation. For this reason, too, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following amendment—

I followed with great interest the first part of the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) when he tried to devote himself to educational aspects and even used words like “educational philosophy” and “ideology” but when he did that constitutional egg-dance he found himself on such dangerous ground that I could no longer follow him. He literally landed on the wrong road. Why does the hon. member not read Section 84 (c)? Had he read that section to us a great deal of misunderstanding and uncertainty could perhaps have been removed and cleared up.

If the hon. member for Hillbrow is so concerned about the Constitution why has Natal not yet objected to this legislation? Surely they are aware of it. Why is Natal indeed pleased about this legislation? Why is Natal anxious to discard certain burdens which rest on it and throw them on the shoulders of the Minister; why is Natal pleased that the Minister is taking those burdens away from them? Has Natal, for instance, applied in its schools the integration policy which the hon. member for Hillbrow has advocated this afternoon?

You are talking nonsense.

It is not nonsense. The hon. member advocates a policy which is nothing but an integration policy. He says this legislation will mean the fragmentation and dismemberment of an educational system. He talks about an educational system; just one system. In other words, he says this legislation violates his concepts of educational integration. I can assure him that I object strenuously to those concepts of educational integration; I object to them as do the entire National Party and the entire nation outside. The recent Provincial Council elections have proved that the electorate no longer believe in that type of integration policy of the hon. member. These matters were discussed fully at that election and Natal had the opportunity of stating unequivocally whether it was being deprived of any rights as far as this matter was concerned. The hon. member now says it is immoral. He says this legislation violates the holy rights of the provinces! But the province of Natal does not mind; it does not worry. The only one who is worrying is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) because his plans have been completely upset this afternoon. This legislation and the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow have upset his plans to a great extent because he has already drawn up his other lists. Mr. Speaker, during the 17 years I have been sitting in this House hon. members opposite have not once told us what their policy is. If only the hon. member for Hillbrow would tell us what his educational philosophy is! We do not know what they want. Is he prepared to apply that educational philosophy to its logical conclusion? Does he want to see that Coloured girl in Herschel, yes or no? Does he want that Coloured youth to attend St. George’s Grammar School, yes or no? If that is the case why has Natal not long since stated that it wanted the Indian and White children to be mixed in the same school?

That is the dirty propaganda role you have played.

Order! The hon. member is going too far. He must withdraw the word “dirty”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

When you point out to hon. members opposite the consequences of their policy they become sensitive. Old wounds they have inflicted upon one another recently are re-opened. They cannot come to an agreement as far as their colour policy in Natal is concerned. I state unequivocally this afternoon that the United Party cannot come to an agreement in respect of an Indian education policy in Natal. They have never yet proved that they can agree. The hon. member for Hillbrow says this legislation is immoral, but that is only a slogan. There is nothing immoral in this legislation. I want to register the strongest objection possible to hon. members opposite trying to lead us up the garden path by quoting certain sections from the Constitution and by using certain words like “ideology”, “philosophy” and “creating castes” and that type of thing which has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at all. The hon. member said we were breaking a word of honour given to the provinces. But there is no question of breaking a word of honour seeing that the Minister has beforehand consulted all the bodies controlling Indian education. He consulted them and, after having consulted them, he introduced this legislation. The provinces were satisfied and fully aware of the implications of this Bill. Or does the hon. member say they are not aware of them?

Did all of them agree to it?

I shall be very pleased if the hon. member would get up and tell me whether Natal objected and what its objection was. Then we can discuss the matter further. This matter has, of course, given the United Party a headache in its caucus and, merely on the strength of his ordinary knowledge of education, the hon. member for Hillbrow comes forward this afternoon and advocates something which does not fit into the whole spirit of this debate.

It does fit in.

If the hon. member is so concerned about what he calls the fragmentation and dismemberment of the South African nation, I want to tell him that I am a member of that nation.

I did not speak about the “nation”, but about education.

The hon. member must not try to re-deliver his speech. If I am misinterpreting his words, he can object to it officially. Mr. Speaker will give him every right to do so if I am doing him an injustice. He is opposed to fragmentation and dismemberment. I do not know of what. Apparently of an educational system. The educational system we have for White South Africans, the educational system applicable to English- and Afrikaans-speaking children, is not being fragmented by this measure, because there has never yet been one, unless there has been one of integration. And if the hon. member wants that integration he must tell us that. In that case we shall go to the platteland and we shall clean up the United Party completely in the future.

There is something else. If we are fragmenting education with this legislation, does it mean that we are taking the Indian child away from the White child with whom he would otherwise have received his education and with whom he would otherwise have grown up together?

Where do you get that from?

You are talking nonsense.

Why does the hon. member object to the fragmentation and dismemberment if he knows there is no such thing? During all these years the Indian has received his education separately from the Whites. That has been the traditional policy; nothing is being fragmented. He stands separately from the Whites and, when this legislation is on the Statute Book, he will still stand separately from the White man.

Why then this legislation?

The positive implication of the legislation is that where you have always had separate Indian groups in separate provinces, their education will now be consolidated, so that the Indian community will have one educational system, one philosophy, applicable to itself—I shall not use the word “ideology” because it does not fit in here.

Why this legislation?

Give me a chance. While the hon. member for Hillbrow was talking I did not open my mouth to interrupt him, and he must now give me a chance. Does the hon. member want to make this House believe this afternoon that there will be fragmentation because the Indian child will be further away from the White child once this legislation is passed, that he will be further away from the educational system which exists to-day? Surely that is not the position. He has always been far away from it. Surely neither we nor the United Party have ever integrated the Indian in the educational system of the White child in our country. Traditionally that has never been the position, and that will never be the position. Sir, I shall tell you why that will never be the position. Because the legislation under discussion is aimed at introducing an educational system for the Indians similar to the ones which exist for the Bantu and for the Coloureds, a system which, as a whole, meets all their needs. Or is the hon. member suggesting that what is good for the Coloured and what is good for the Bantu is equally good for the Indian? The Indian has a centuries-old culture behind him, Whereas the Coloured race has not even been in existence for one century. I have the greatest respect for the culture of the Indian. His culture is older than the culture of that hon. member and of mine, and that Indian has to build on his culture of the past. It did not have its origin in this country. His culture is behind him. We cannot ignore that culture—again I am not talking about “ideology”—from which the philosophy of education flows (because it flows from the culture of the race) and we cannot say: “You have to adapt yourself to other groups and sacrifice your own identity.” We want to assist him to assert the identity of his race, of his culture and of his philosophy.

Can that not happen under existing circumstances?

It would not necessarily happen under the existing system because, firstly, it is divided into provinces and, secondly, because it does not fall under the Department of Indian Affairs. If a Department of Indian Education were suddenly established without any further ado, a department which would be separate from the Department of Indian Affairs, I would object to it because like many other departments the Department of Indian Affairs is set on creating a community not on destroying a community. The very policy of the entire National Party is to build because the National Party consists of members who, over all the years, have always had to fight for their identity as South Africans and they want to transfer that identity to their children in the schools. That is why I also object to the word “indoctrination” (I shall come to that). We do not want to detract from the identity of the Indian because if we detracted from that identity and that culture of his, what would we be turning the Indian into? Must we turn him into a Bantu which he cannot become? Must we turn him into a White person which he cannot become? Must we turn him into a Jew or a Greek which he cannot become? You see, Sir, educational philosophy is to extend the identity of any race so as to make him worthy being amongst the other races. That is the main philosophy of all education and that philosophy was disavowed by the hon. member for Hillbrow in the arguments he tried to put forward, the very philosophy which recognizes identity which is the major right. The prerogative of every parent is twofold. The first prerogative of the parent is that his child, his descendant, should carry the hallmark of his own blood. He does not want his blood and his race to degenerate. Do you agree?

Yes.

Of course. The second prerogative of every parent is that his conception of life, his culture, his philosophy, his religion, whatever his religion may be, should be transferred to his child. Do you agree with that?

No.

The hon. member does not agree. In that case we must destroy the religion of the Indian and give him a different religion. …

No.

Yes, yes. You must be consistent. The hon. member is not consistent. That Indian child must inherit from his parent what his parent wants to pass on to him.

All the parents?

Order! The hon. member must not continually interrupt.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member talking about all parents, educated, uneducated …

Order! The hon. member has already spoken. He must not make a second speech.

My argument is that a parent is a parent when he has a child and if he has no child he is not a parent. All those children have parents otherwise they could not have been born. Logically, therefore, all the parents of those children have the right to transfer to their children their most holy beliefs.

All?

Order!

The Government of South Africa and the National Party in particular is not bent on destroying the spirit and the nationhood of any racial group. We are not bent on making the one disappear by integrating him with another racial group thereby destroying him. If the hon. member and his party are in favour of that they must tell us now. Then we shall know exactly where we stand with them. If they do not tell us that I shall conclude from that that they believe, as I do, that every race in this country must be educated separately according to his own traditions and according to the wishes of his parents, with the parents exercising that prerogative. That is why we want the parent to have a say in the control of those schools and over the policy followed by those schools. The Department of Indian Affairs must know, although it does not go to the parent to ask him, what the needs are. If I were a director of Indian schools to-day I must at least know (that is the minimum qualification) what the needs of that Indian child are and I must not test his needs against the needs of a Coloured child. It is there where the Cape Province has of necessity done the wrong thing in the past. They have put the Indian with the Coloured which has not been right because that has placed the Coloured in a disadvantageous position. Because he is a nation with a young culture he cannot compete with a race with an old culture.

Mr. Speaker, when the Cape Western College and other Bantu colleges were established I asked what about the Indians? At that stage nobody had yet thought about an Indian college. What must happen to those Indians? Somebody with whom I had spoken then said: Put them with the Coloureds because that is where they will more or less fit in best. It so happens that they are the two races which are the furthest apart, inestimably far apart, culturally and traditionally. To take that matter to its logical conclusion I want to say that I do not think hon. members opposite understand the meaning of the words “community development”. Community development does not necessarily mean separate locations or buildings, separate plots occupied by people of more or less the same colour and speaking more or less the same languages, places where they sleep and eat. That is not community development. Community development means attuning one person, spiritually, mentally and in his attitude towards life, in such a way that he can adapt himself to another person and stand distinct from a third person to whom he cannot adapt himself.

Surely that can happen now.

If it could happen now I would like to see the muddle within two generations in South Africa. If you integrated all the races in South Africa culturally and philosophically it would give rise to a muddle. Where will that bring you, Sir? How are you going to give the children of the Huguenots and the children of the Indians who have come from overseas the same outlook on life, the same philosophy; how are you going to get them to think absolutely alike and to feel very happy about it?

I should have devoted a little more time to the way in which holism has been distorted, holism which fitted a man who knew much more than many members opposite. The word “holism” was coined by a man whose name it is not even necessary for us to mention. That man had other ideas. He felt, as he said when he spoke at Oxford, „totally separately”.

He changed his opinion.

Yes, the hon. member may take part in the debate. I should like to listen to her farewell speech. The basic approach of the hon. member opposite is not a pedagogic philosophy although the hon. member for Hillbrow pretends that it is indeed a philosophical and pedagogic basis. It is not.

It is.

No, the pedagogic philosophy is to transfer the hallmark of the parent on to the child as the parent wants it.

Of the best parent?

You cannot turn the Indian child into anything else but an Indian child and that circumstance forces us to make provision for the education of the Indian child in an atmosphere, by persons and with companions coming from homes which have everything which is dear and peculiar to that Indian child. His school, his teacher and his companions must know his nature and be of his own kind. I shall not send my children to an Indian to be taught by him. Why should I expect an Indian to send his child to be taught by a White man? As soon as the third reading of this Bill has been passed I would rather expect the Indian community to say: “Now the Indians have taken the greatest forward step they have ever taken since they came to work in the sugar plantations of Natal.” Now he can do more than being mainly a trader. Provision has now been made for his academic training; provision has been made for vocational training; provision has been made for special schools for backward or deviate Indian children. And finally we are giving the Indian child something which the White child has not yet got to the fullest extent, namely, a unitary or national educational system. If I can still, before dark, give to the White race, that which I am giving to the Indian child I shall die happily.

Why did you not do so years ago?

The hon. member for Wynberg is anxious for me to argue with her. I can just tell her that when I start arguing with a female she comes off second-best.

Mr. Speaker, the word “appendage” has again been used this afternoon. In 1948 the United Party issued a little green booklet. I read it; it was interesting and I have kept my copy. They still say in that booklet that the Indian should be regarded as an appendage to the White man but, of course, that was also after they had passed that law dealing with representation.

Nonsense, we never said that.

Does the hon. member still want the Indian to develop into an appendage to the White man’s culture, to become a wart on that culture?

We never said that.

I am not saying the hon. member said it, but they say in their own propaganda booklet that the Indian. …

“The Coloured”. …

That was why they passed the legislation.

They never said so. The Coloureds. …

The hon. member is correct but they classified the Indian with the Coloured and according to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Hillbrow their idea is to have the Indian and the Coloured child in the same provincial schools. It does not matter to them if they are mixed together.

No.

Sir, in the Cape Province the Indian and Coloured child sit next to one another at school. Do you want them to be separated?

How are you going to separate them?

There you have it. In other words, the policy of laissez-faire. The hon. member for Wynberg was party to that system because she was a member of the Cape Provincial Council for years. Hon. members ought to know that you cannot integrate the Indians and the Coloureds as little as you can integrate them with the White. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) is a man who has been associated with education over the years. He has made some remarks this afternoon which I found a little difficult to follow, and I think some of his prognostications—well, only time will tell whether he is correct or not. He referred to the passing of the third reading of this Bill and said that the Indian community would say that this is one of the greatest steps forward. I do not think that at that stage the Indian community will be able to comment on this Bill. Deeds speak better than words. Time will tell how the outcome of this Bill will affect the Indian community. He spoke of the Indians being formed into one group, but I think in his philosophy the hon. member overlooked a very trite point and that is: Does he intend then, having separated the Indians and their education in a group, to deal with their philosophy and their culture and their way of life, to separate the Mohammedans, the Hindus, the Tamils, all of whom have a separate way of life, a different religion and many differences in their culture? It that his intention?

I want to refer briefly to certain remarks made by the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs. I believe the hon. Minister was unfair this afternoon. He referred to White education in Natal having had to suffer due to the financial burden which Indian education has placed on the Provincial Administration. I challenge the hon. Minister to produce facts which will substantiate such a statement. I believe that the standard of education in Natal of all races, European, Indian, Coloured and Bantu, when it was under Provincial control, was second to none, and I believe that the Europeans in no way suffered. …

I did not refer to the standard, but to amenities and facilities.

But of course amenities must eventually affect standard, and I maintain that the standard has been high and that the facilities have been adequate. Then when we come to the question of Coloured education in Natal, may I remind the hon. Minister—I think I am correct in saying this—that Natal was the first province, and the only province, with free education for the Coloured people.

Why for the Coloureds and not for the Indians?

Are you going to give them free education?

I want to refer to a few events leading up to this particular Bill now before the House. I want to refer the Minister to a statement which he made in a very interesting booklet “The Indian in the Republic of South Africa”, in which he said this—

That was in May, 1962. Here again we have an inconsistency, which we on this side of the House are beginning to expect from the Government, because in 1962 the Minister made that remark, and in 1963, he said:—“as reported in the Natal Daily News of 19 January 1963”—

At present.

Yes, that was a year later, and then he went on to say that only educational institutions such as the University College and the M.L. Sultan College would be taken over by his Department. Very shortly afterwards, a Press release indicated that the Government had decided that the time had come to investigate the possibility and the desirability of such a take-over, and so on 1 February, chief-planner Nel was appointed to go into the matter. By October, the same year, the Minister was able to make a statement that the investigation had been carried out, and apparently conclusions had been reached, because he said in a statement—

He continued by saying that the Cabinet had approved in principle the transfer of Indian Education to the Department of Indian Affairs. That was quick going. One is tempted to remark that it would be gratifying if other Government investigations could be carried out as expeditiously as this one. I am thinking, for instance, of the question of pensions for Bantu teachers and other non-White teachers. I believe the investigation has been going on for ten years and no conclusion has been reached. Before dealing specifically with Indian Education, Sir, in order to put the matter into perspective, I would like to refer briefly to the attitude of the Cabinet to the Indian community as a whole. I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs in the Senate on 8 February 1962. He said—

Then he said in this same handbook to which I have referred that the Indians are proud to be accepted as a permanent part of the population of the Republic. He went on to say that he had been assured that if there were to be hostilities between India and the Republic, the Indians’ loyalty would be to the Republic. Two years later, we had a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister, in quite a different direction, I believe. On 24 April 1964 (Col. 4908, Hansard) he said—

He was referring to the Indians. Sir, I submit that that is a play on words. My dictionary defines “inhabitant” as “one who inhabits, a resident”, and it defines “a nation” as “a people inhabiting a country under the same Government”. I can only believe that the words of the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs were meant for the export market, and the words of the hon. the Prime Minister for platteland consumption, in line with the unimplemented undertaking given by the Nationalist Party before the 1948 election.

A lot of difficulties and problems in connection with the implementation of this Bill will be concerned with finance. The hon. the Minister has said already that the burden on the Natal taxpayer was becoming too heavy. This Bill indicates quite clearly that the Minister of Indian Affairs will be subservient to the Minister of Finance for all the expenditure involved, because in respect of any expenditure he will have to consult the Minister of Finance. It says “the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance” right through the Bill. That is the theme that runs through Clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with “the establishment and maintenance of schools”, Clause 5, which refers to the management and control of State-aided schools and their transfer, Clause 8, “appointment, promotion, transfer and discharge of staff” to Clause 11. “conditions of service of persons employed at State schools”, to Clause 14, “transfer and secondment of certain persons employed at State schools”, and so on to Clauses 24 and 25. Clause 33 (3). As far as Clause 4 is concerned “award of grants-in-aid or subsidies”, this will be dependent on moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose. Under the circumstances, I think it is as well to examine the attitude of the Government in regard to the financing of the education of non-Whites. I should like to refer to the attitude expressed by the Minister of Bantu Affairs when he discussed this matter during the debate on the take-over of Bantu education. This is what he said in connection with finance in Hansard of 3 June 1954. Dr. Verwoerd, who was then Minister of Native Affairs, said this—

Is this what the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs means when he says—

Is the burden to be transferred to all taxpayers throughout the Republic, or is it to be placed on the Indian community supported by a fixed subsidy granted by the Government? Because if that is the case, I would point out that the fixed subsidy allowed to Bantu education has remained static for ten years, although the Prime Minister himself said that it would have to be reviewed by Parliament from time to time. It is interesting to speculate on exactly what effect this principle could have on the future of Indian education if it becomes dependent on the taxation contribution which Indians can make. The total amount of tax assessed for the 21,610 Indians to whom tax assessments were issued in the latest year for which figures are available is R 1,300,000. That is not just for Natal but for the whole of the Republic. I am reliably informed that, in so far as provincial income-tax is concerned, the total income of Natal for income-tax and personal tax is approximately R9,500,000. While no exact figures exist for the contribution the Indian community makes, I am told that it is roughly 7½per cent. So, on that basis there would be available, if this principle is implemented, a further R712,500, which means that approximately R2,000,000 would have to be added to any subsidy which the State might decide to pay.

In looking to see how the Bill will be implemented and how the Indians will fare under the Department of Indian Affairs when their education is handled by that Department, it is just as well to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister again. He said—

But that is another inconsistency. The Minister of Indian Affairs referred in one of his statements on Indian education to eminent educationists among Indians in Natal and he said that it was desirable that they should have a say in regard to the curricula in their own schools. But if we take the Coloured Persons Education Act as a model, what do we find? We find that in Section 30 there is established a Coloured Education Advisory Council. What do we find in Clause 30 of this Bill? The Minister may for purposes of consultation recognize associations of Indian teachers. If we read on, we find in Clause 31 that the Minister may establish a council. This is not equality. It is another inconsistency. Here we have the Minister taking powers to establish a council but not giving Parliament the right to discuss the basis on which that council should be constituted. It will be established by regulation, and yet in 1962 the hon. the Minister referred to the formation of the council. Where is the justice in this? The Indians have a very large stake in their education in Natal. Over the last ten years they have contributed R 10,000,000 in hard cash for their education, and as far as school desks are concerned they have contributed over R118,000, and in addition they have made available considerable amounts of land for schools.

I have referred to the question of a subsidy. There is no mention in this Bill of a subsidy. I have looked for it in vain, and I looked for it in vain in the Bantu Education Act. The subsidy comes later. In regard to the Bantu Education Act it came in 1955, in an amendment to the Exchequer and Audit Act. There the subsidy was pegged at R 13,000,000, and there it has remained. I hope the Indian community will take note of what happened to Bantu education in the Government’s hands.

It is interesting, too, to examine the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the education of the various race groups. This is what the Minister of Finance said in 1958 in Hansard, Vol. 98, Col. 3878—

I think that is a very profound statement on the part of the Minister, and I do not think he has ever changed his point of view. More recent disclosures show that the line of thinking in the Nationalist Party is perfectly in accordance with the statement made by the Minister of Finance. Senator Groenewald. in a Press statement he made—not in an interview. but in a prepared statement—when he was Acting Secretary of the National Party in Natal, said the following—

I believe it is only fair in a debate of this sort when we are effecting a change-over, to deal with the position as it exists, and to deal with the achievements of the Natal Provincial Council, achievements of which I believe they have every right to be proud. I want to refer to certain figures in that respect. I am referring to a statement published in the Natal Mercury of 12 February 1963 in which it was indicated that the total Education Vote for the province had increased by 54 per cent in ten years, but in so far as the Indians were concerned the increase was 326 per cent. Then we find that in 1964-5 over R6,000,000 was voted for Indian education in respect of approximately 127,000 Indian students, and in January 1965 it could be said that all children who applied for admission to the schools were accommodated. It can also be said that since the new schools were established at Chatsworth, 100 platoon classes have been dispensed with. It is also interesting to consider the ratio of Indian education expenditure to the total Education Vote. In 1946 it represented 15 per cent of the total Vote; in 1960 it had increased to 30 per cent, and in 1964 it had increased to 37 per cent. In regard to classrooms we have heard complaints in regard to overcrowding, but here again the record is one to be commended. The net gain in classrooms between 1957 and 1963 in Government schools was 242, and in Government-aided schools 496, making a total gain in classrooms of 738.

I should like to refer to some of the reported remarks made by the Chief Planner appointed by the Minister in 1964. Firstly—and this is covered in an article in the Natal Mercury of 1 February 1964—Mr. Nel gave the assurance that the standard of Indian education would in no way be inferior to that of European education. The Minister endorsed that this afternoon, but one wonders how this can be achieved when we compare the comparative per capita costs of education in Natal. For Whites it is R130 per annum, for Indians R50 and for Bantu, in the whole of the Republic, it is R12 per pupil per annum. Will the State supply the funds to make up this obvious discrepancy between R130 and R50?

Mr. Nel’s second point was that it would be his policy to strive constantly for adequate salaries. If the position of the Coloured teacher is to be accepted as an example. I believe that the Indian teachers will not find the future a very promising one, because although the take-over of Coloured education is of recent vintage already troubles have been experienced in regard to the recommendations made by the Coloured Education Advisory Council to the Minister, which have not been accepted. Only one of the six or seven recommendations has been put into effect. I believe, too—and I think this is of interest to the Minister who holds another portfolio involving education— that if he looks back he will find that Bantu teachers have had one increase in salary in, I think, 17 years. They recently asked for a 50 per cent increase which the Minister told them could not be granted, but that an increase could be granted when funds become available.

The third point raised by Mr. Nel is about Indian fears in regard to the cost of providing education. Mr. Nel said: “I take it that it will be a charge on general revenue.” I have already indicated the attitude of the Minister of Finace in regard to the services rendered to the various race groups, and I hope Mr. Nel is not being a little naïve. The fourth point raised by Mr. Nel is that he indicated that he felt that the pupil-teacher ratio should conform to the generally accepted education standards. Which standards, Sir? White or Bantu? The pupil-teacher ratio in Bantu schools is almost double that in the White schools. Then Mr. Nel made his fifth point, that the school meals service should be retained and where necessary extended. But the Bantu school feeding scheme shows that the R30,000 allocated last year is one-sixtieth —not one-sixteenth—of what it was ten years ago, and it is exactly three-quarters of the amount voted for school feeding for White children in the Transvaal, who total a third of a million, whereas the total number of non-White children is 1,770,000.

It is interesting to see what Natal has been doing in so far as school feeding for Indian children is concerned, and whether the State will be able to exceed this generous allowance. In the last year, out of the total amount of R350,000 allocated for school feeding, R300,000 of it was allocated to the feeding of Indian schoolchildren, and even at that rate the children were called upon to pay lc per meal. It is ten times the amount allowed for Bantu school feeding, for one-fourteenth of the number of children.

Let us take the case of pensions as adumbrated in Clause 13 of the Bill, which makes provision for pension rights and retirement benefits. So does the Bantu Education Act make provision for pensions, but after ten years no satisfaction has really been achieved. I believe that the Bantu teachers in Natal are still in a more favourable position than some of their counterparts in the other provinces. The question of school books is always a vexed question for under-privileged people. Here we find that Natal last year voted R 108,000 for the supply of school books to indigent Indian children. How long will this last if the State takes over? In the same year for 1,750,000 Bantu pupils the Vote for school books was R3,300. I should like to ask the Minister, and I trust that in his reply to the second-reading debate he will be courteous enough to give a definite answer to these questions: Is the Minister making provision or arrangements for the establishment of a department to design and build schools in Natal? Who will effect the renovations and repairs to existing school buildings? Will his Department be ready to assume responsibility for payment of salaries and wages and on a basis that will not cause the inconvenience which the Coloured teachers in their various communities have had to suffer PS the result of the Government taking over their education? Then, will his Department be able to assume responsibility for stores, for books, desks, equipment, etc.? It is not fair to expect the province to do it under those circumstances. And will the Minister continue to allow State-aided religious schools to teach the vernacular after normal school hours as at present? I think this deals with the point made by the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert). These children will learn the official languages of the country at school, but learning their home languages will produce certain difficulties. Will the Minister meet them in every possible way in that regard?

Reference has been made to the attitude of the Indians themselves. There seems to be a divergence of opinion on this. The Minister feels that the Indians are perfectly satisfied with the proposed take-over, and I believe that there may be reasons why they are satisfied for the time being. It is interesting to note that in 1962 Mr. Pather, the president of the Natal Indian Organization, said that the move would be opposed by the Indian community with all its strength, and at that stage he claimed to have the support of the 3,000 members of the Natal Indian Teachers’ Association. In 1963 we read in Press reports that the opinion of the Indians, represented primarily by their school teachers, was divided, and then the Minister told us that the members of the Indian Council had accepted the take-over in principle. I wonder whether their minds were made up for them. Were they perhaps influenced by the fact that at the same time it was mentioned that social pensions would be increased by R188,000, and that R40,000 would be allocated to the training of teachers? Did that cause them to change their minds? Perhaps it was the statement of the chief planner, Mr. Nel. I do not doubt Mr. Nel’s sincerity, but I believe that he will become a frustrated and disappointed man when he realizes what may happen to Indian education if it follows the pattern of other education taken over by the State for other racial groups. I believe, too, that the Minister himself is in a cleft stick of ideological inconsistency. On the one hand he is asking, and generously promising, facilities for the education of a race, portion of the population of South Africa, which for years his Government has regarded as an exportable commodity. On the other hand, he has not been able to educate satisfactorily the largest proportion of the indigenous population—a section who are being trained for self-government in terms of Government policy.

I believe that the grievances which the Indians in Natal have expressed from time to time could quite easily have been solved without coming to Parliament with a Bill of this nature. I do not think it needs a financial genius to find a way whereby the money could be provided to overcome the Minister’s anxiety that Natal was shouldering too great a burden. It is just a question of using the vast surplus the State has to subsidize the Natal Provincial Administration on a basis which could enable them to provide the facilities which the Minister hopes to give under his system.

Reference has been made to the constitutional difficulty. I am not a constitutional expert. I have read this section here, and to me it is perfectly clear. It says that Parliament shall not abolish any provincial council or abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under Section 84 except by petition to Parliament by the provincial council concerned. I do not believe there has been a petition from the Provincial Council of Natal, and under those circumstances I do not believe, with respect, that this House is competent to consider the matter. I believe that the record Natal has in regard to Indian education is one of which the country can be proud and, therefore, I see no need for this Bill, and I join in the opposition to it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter deeply into the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood). Amongst other things, he made a very great fuss over the fact that the wording of the legislation before us at the moment is not exactly the same as that of the legislation relating to the take-over of Coloured education. He also mentioned other aspects, to which I shall return. I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), who was the first speaker on the Opposition side.

The hon. member for Hillbrow was an educationist, but he did not speak as an educationist to-day; he spoke as a politician, and he once again tried to prey upon the rubbish heap of race relations. I have often heard him make speeches as an educationist in the past, and it seems to me that, for the sake of his political principles, he has abandoned many of the educational principles to which he subscribed when he was still in education. However, I want to take part in this debate as an educationist and not so much as a politician.

The hon. member referred theatrically to watertight compartments; he even called them castes, but I want to ask him whether he knows that the Natal Provincial Administration has established no other schools than single-medium schools in Natal during the past five years? The hon. member also had a great deal to say about fragmentation of education, but I want to prove the opposite, which is that this legislation will in fact bring about consolidation. I listened carefully to what the hon. the Minister said and I thought that he gave such a lucid explanation of this legislation that it would be very clear and would be accepted, but we nevertheless find that, as a result of their policy, the Opposition are opposing it.

In its approach to the problems of our country this Government has always been led by its sense of fairness and justice, its sound judgment and its sense of logic, but above all by its conscience. The integration of Indian education under the Department of Indian Affairs once again confirms the fact that the Minister and the Government have been led by sound judgment and are acting according to the dictates of their consciences. Moreover, the matter of the take-over of Indian education by the Department of Indian Affairs has been planned very thoroughly in advance, as the Minister has already pointed out, but I should like to go into it further. An expert in the field of education in general, and in the field of Indian education in particular, was appointed for this purpose. The name of this person, Mr. T. R. P. Nel, was mentioned frequently by the previous speaker. That may create the impression outside, although the hon. member who has just resumed his seat may not have deliberately meant to do so, that Mr. Nel is a person who does not know a great deal about educational matters. Allow me to say, Sir, that Mr. Nel was formerly an inspector of education in the Natal Education Department and that he has been seconded to the Department of Indian Affairs as from 1 February 1964. He started off as a teacher, and later became principal of several schools in Natal. In 1954 he became a lecturer at the Natal Training College in Pietermaritzburg, and subsequent to that he was the principal of a large high school in Durban, until he became an inspector of education. As an inspector he had, inter alia, 40 Indian schools falling under him. At the moment he is the chief planner of education in the Department of Indian Affairs, and I do not think one can easily find a better person for that post. Mr. Nel prepared a report in regard to the takeover to be effected at this stage, which was submitted to the Government.

I also want to point out that there have been negotiations and consultation with the various parties concerned. In the first place I want to refer to the South African Indian Council, which has on two occasions stated that it supports the take-over. This Council granted its support to the take-over last year, but on that occasion it declared that it would like to have an opportunity of studying the proposed legislation. In this connection a person who has a seat in that Council, who is well known in Indian educational circles and who is a former vice-principal of the M. L. Sultan College, was appointed to make a careful study of the Bill. He submitted a full report to the South African Indian Council. I also want to emphasize the fact that two other well-known educationists have seats in the South African Indian Council, namely, the head of the Indian School at Laundium in Pretoria, and Dr. Rambiritch, a well-known educationist, who was a teacher for many years and is a lecturer in education at the Natal University College for Indians at present. But in addition to the fact that on those two occasions that Council unanimously agreed to the take-over of Indian education by the Department of Indian Affairs, the Executive Council of the South African Indian Council, after making a thorough study of the Bill, again decided in favour of the Bill and confirmed their previous decision as recently as last week.

In the second place I want to point out that there have also been negotiations and discussions with the large Indian Teachers’ Association. The Indian teachers began to pay attention quite some time ago to the possible take-over of Indian education by the Department of Indian Affairs, and at a congress held in 1963 the Indians expressed themselves against the take-over policy, for two reasons: In the first place technical and vocational education had been taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs in that very same year, and the Indian teachers naturally expected that in due course the other sections of education would be taken over as well, but in the second place the people did not know at that time what the take-over would comprise. It was perfectly understandable that they were against it, because they did not know what their position would be as far as salaries, conditions of service and other benefits were concerned. Everything was still uncertain at that stage. But the climate has changed gradually, and I want to emphasize that it has changed in spite of the fact that the English-language Press, particularly in Natal, created a fuss over the possible take-over. At the end of June 1964, the members of the Natal Indian Teachers’ Association met in Durban on the occasion of a congress. I may just say that this Association is the mouthpiece of approximately 3,000 Indian teachers. One of the main items for discussion on the agenda on that occasion was the proposed take-over of Indian education by the Department of Indian Affairs. The congress decided that the executive committee of the Association should send a deputation to interview the Minister, and that interview took place on 1 October 1964. This Association told the Minister what its attitude was, but did not declare itself against the policy. I should like to emphasize, for the information of hon. members on the other side, that the Indian teachers, as represented by the body concerned, said that they would grant their full co-operation to the Department after the take-over and that they would not oppose the take-over. They went even further and said that they would be prepared to co-operate on subject committees by assisting with the planning, and several subject committee meetings have already been held. Sir, the individual teachers are not opposed to the take-over. I should like to make the following quotation from a report which has been published and which was written by a Durban correspondent (translation)—

That is the attitude adopted by the individual teachers.

We now come to a third body which is concerned with the handing-over and with which negotiations have been conducted, and that is the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I may just mention in passing that according to the latest statistics there is an Indian population of 63,787 in the Transvaal at the moment, which represents 13.4% of the total Indian population in this country. In the Transvaal there have been separate schools for Indians ever since 1911. There were as many as 35 separate Indian schools in the Transvaal in 1963. Over the years many of the Indian children have continued to receive their education in mixed schools, that is to say, schools at which both Indians and Coloureds are enrolled. In 1963 there were 28 such mixed schools at which Indians were in the majority in the Transvaal. The total number of Indian pupils in the Transvaal in 1963 was 19,954. After the take-over of Coloured education by the Department of Coloured Affairs these small groups have in actual fact presented something of a problem to the Transvaal. The principle of the take-over of Indian education has been accepted without any reservation by the Transvaal Administration. The status quo will therefore be maintained in the Transvaal for the time being, as the hon. the Minister has said, because initially the place where the problem is the most serious, namely Natal, is going to be concentrated upon.

It is not a problem.

The fourth body which has been negotiated with is the Provincial Administration of Natal. As is generally known, by far the largest number of Indians, that is, 395,854, or approximately 83% of all Indians, live in Natal. While there were only 11,500 Indian pupils at school in Natal in 1928, the number has increased to nearly 135,000 pupils by 1965, and they are receiving education at 50 State schools and 240 State-aided Indian schools. The numbers have increased so rapidly that, owing to lack of funds, the Natal Administration has only been able to provide limited educational facilities. The Natal Administration has not even been able to provide free books to Indian pupils up to Std. VI. Coloured children, on the other hand, have been provided with free books up to Std. VI ever since 1942, and needly Coloured children have been provided with free books even in secondary schools. In this connection the editor of the Graphic, an Indian newspaper in Natal, wrote the following in that newspaper on 19 March 1965—

Elsewhere in this article reference is made not only to the shortage of funds, but also to the lack of any definite policy—

Sir, I am not the one who is saying that; it comes from a leading article in an Indian newspaper—

May I just say in passing, Sir, that I have been told that 92% of the Indian pupils in Natal are not receiving any instruction in Afrikaans. I do not know whether the facts in the above quotation are correct, but if they are, then the Natal Administration must to some extent be charged with neglecting Indian education, and then that education will only benefit from being taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs.

Various commissions have been appointed in Natal over the years to investigate, inter alia, Indian education. Two of them, the Dyson Commission of 1928 and the Broom Commission of 1947, both emphasized the fact of inadequate facilities and insufficient planning in respect of education for Indians. The Broom Commission saw the solution in the establishment of a special sub-department which should devote all its attention to Indian education. There were approximately 23,000 Indian pupils in 1937, as compared with approximately 135,000 at present, of whom approximately 28,000 are in so-called “platoon” classes, that is to say, double classes, and do not have buildings or classrooms of their own.

The Natal Administration has, nevertheless, tried to do its best with the limited funds at its disposal, and in the article in the Graphic to which I have referred the following is stated in this regard—

But then the writer makes the following accusation; he does not call it an accusation, but I do—

Sir, normally one would expect Natal to have welcomed the take-over, but it does not. Although Natal is opposed to the principle of take-over, the administration has promised its full support to ensure a smooth take-over when it does take place.

In this connection I just want to reiterate that the various bodies have been fully consulted.

The Department of Indian Affairs is already controlling the University College for Indians in Natal, which was taken over in 1963, and that College is a very great success. I just want to remind hon. members that that College started off with only 80 students; in the second year the number was 420; in the third year 642, and in 1964 there were already as many as 860 students, 300 of whom were extra-mural students. In addition to the fact that there has been an increase in numbers, however, a sound academic standard has been maintained. The second series of schools which has been taken over is the technical and vocational schools, which were also taken over in 1963. Special education for Indians has also been taken over as from 1 April 1963. I want to ask hon. members on that side, who have such a great deal to say about standards and about the standard of education, whether they can really say truly that the standard of education in those schools is not up to the mark?

The proposed take-over will mean that all educational services for Indians will fall under one department; all these services will be controlled by the same body; in other words, they will virtually come under the same roof, and that in itself can only hold advantages. This consolidation will result in better, purposeful and judicious planning at all levels of education —primary, secondary, technical and vocational education, educational colleges and at university level. Much better co-ordination can be achieved in that way, and as a result of that— and to me this is a very important point— the interests of the Indian child and subsequently the interests of the community and at a still later stage even the interests of the country can be served much better. A very important principle which has to be taken into account when any decision affecting control of education is being taken, whether in regard to the Whites, the Coloureds or the Indians, is whether the best interests of the child and, through him, the interests of the community, can be served. I maintain that in this case the best interests of the child, the community and the country will be served. Sir, proper coordination and purposeful planning, which must necessarily result from the fact that all educational institutions will be under the same central control, mean, in the first place, that pupils can receive better training in the particular fields in which their aptitudes lie, in the fields in which they are interested. In the second place it means that more regard can be had to a pupil’s scholastic achievements, his intelligence, his capabilities and his interests in order to determine which course of study he should follow; in other words, better vocational guidance can be given.

The education of each particular population group must necessarily be determined by the specific needs of the group concerned. If the interests and the needs of the Indians are to be looked after properly, it is important that their education should be separated from the White education and be placed under the Department of Indian Affairs. In a department where all spheres of education fall under the same roof and where there is therefore sound co-ordination, the requirements for various types of courses can be better determined. Moreover, the pupil can receive guidance and training in the field in which there will be maximum opportunities of employment for him in the future. That is one of the matters in regard to which I want to express a certain measure of criticism on Indian education in the provinces. In fact, the main flaw in the present system of Indian education is the lack of variety in the courses which can be taken by Indians. This is particularly true of the secondary division in Natal, where the educational pattern for Indian pupils is an extremely one-sided one. The pattern is cast exclusively in the academic mould. Sir, in this connection I just want to reiterate the statistics furnished by the hon. the Minister. Out of 995 Indian pupils who wrote the Natal senior certificate examination in 1963. 74 per cent took exactly the same academic courses. I say that is unsatisfactory, because in order to create more opportunities of employment for Indians in the community there has to be a variety of courses, because, after all, everybody cannot go into the same profession. If the Department of Indian Affairs administers and controls Indian education it ought to be in a better position than the Provincial Administration to develop Indian education in accordance with national policy on the one hand and in accordance with the needs and interests of the Indian population itself on the other hand. But it is in fact in this regard that the Opposition objects to the take-over of Indian education, as we have heard from the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). Sir. the Opposition wants education to remain integrated, because the Opposition wants the Indians in South Africa to be integrated with all the other groups into one multi-racial nation. The United Party wants to draw in the Indians as a permanent part of its race federation.

The final remark I want to make in connection with the take-over of Indian education is in regard to teachers. We know that the take-over cannot take place without the teachers who have to provide the education as such. In this regard I have already referred to the Natal Indian Teachers’ Association … [Time limit.]

A good deal of the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was devoted to assuring the House that the various Indian teachers’ organizations and the Indian council, etc., had accepted the principle of the take-over of Indian education by the Department of Indian Affairs. I must say, somewhat cynically perhaps, that I take with a pinch of salt these assurances about the acceptance of the take-over by statutory bodies such as the Indian council. They consist mostly of nominated members, they are under Government control and therefore I do not attach very much importance to the noises of assent which come from councils of that kind. As far as the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society is concerned, here of course we have rather a different story. As far as I know, some three years ago this Society was against the take-over of Indian education, against the transfer of Indian education from the Province to the Department of Indian Affairs. The Society came out categorically against the principle of the take-over. Since that time there has been what I would call a philosophical acceptance of the situation because of the knowledge that no amount of protestation is going to make any difference to the attitude of the Government. And then, of course, we had the functioning of what I call force majeure, and the Indian Teachers’ Society, which represents something like 90 per cent of the teachers of Natal, has now accepted this principle. It has no option. It knows perfectly well that the hon. the Minister is going to continue with his plans to take over Indian education, and the Society has philosophically decided to make the best of things under these circumstances. It is also true, of course, that the hon. the Minister’s planner, Mr. Nel, has issued several very reassuring statements to the Teachers’ Society, and this to some extent might also have persuaded them that they might have certain expectations from the Minister. I sincerely hope that the Minister is going to live up to those expectations, because as he knows, Mr. Nel on his behalf, I presume, or on behalf of the Department has made some very far-reaching promises to the Indians.

On my behalf.

Well, I am glad to hear that because I hope the hon. the Minister is going to see to it that these promises are fulfilled. I want to remind the Minister of some of the promises and perhaps in his reply this afternoon he will tell us that it is his intention to carry out the promises made by Mr. Nel. Last year, on his behalf, Mr. Nel told the Indian teachers that there would be a building programme initiated to provide at least 800 classrooms for Indian children, which would be required to eliminate the double sessions which are going on in the Indian schools at the present stage. He undertook to see to it that the size of the classes would be gradually reduced. Mr. Nel assured the Indian teachers that free books would be made available to Indian pupils up to Std. VI, and he said it was obviously necessary to have full-scale planning with the necessary physical and financial action on behalf of the Government regarding the provision of suitable new high schools. He promised that many more teachers were going to be trained by the Department because it was anticipated that Natal was going to need something like 4,630 Indian teachers by the end of this year and 5,630 teachers by 1970. He also said that he would like to see tuition-free training for teachers and that this should be augmented by means of loans and bursaries for books and residence, as well as residential accommodation to help gifted students. He hoped too to see a gradual introduction of compulsory education for Indian children, because he was concerned, quite correctly I think, about the unhealthy wastage of students leaving school in the higher primary standards. Most important, Sir, he said that the examinations of the Natal Education Department and of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, would be retained for these schools. He also talked about the need for adult education, and the appointment of inspectors and the provision of jobs for many more Indians through this new innovation. Well, those are very far-reaching promises made on behalf of the Minister and I am sure all of us will watch most anxiously and I might say with a good deal of curiosity, to see whether these promises are fulfilled. We will give the hon. the Minister a year or two, but personally I must say I am not very reassured by the fact that the hon. the Minister is here in a dual capacity; he is also the Minister of Bantu Education and I am not terribly impressed with his record as Minister in charge of that particular portfolio. Although it is true that the number of Bantu children going to school has materially increased, I am not impressed at all by the fact that so many of those children leave school after Std. II or Std. III. Very few children actually complete their schooling. Nor incidentally do I like the curricula for the Bantu Education schools, as the hon. the Minister knows. This, I must admit, has made me a little dubious of the practical effect of these far-reaching promises. I do not like the curricula, as adapted. There are some changes which I do not like, particularly with regard to the medium of instruction. The Minister knows that I am against that because I feel that the curricula are affected by this change; it makes it almost impossible for students to continue, for instance, in science subjects; if children are educated right up to the end of primary school and increasingly in the secondary school through the vernacular, it makes it extremely difficult for those children subsequently to receive training in certain subjects and to go on to higher education at university. However, I do not want to say too much on Bantu education; I want to content myself by saying that I am not very impressed with the ministerial record in the case of Bantu education, and here we have the same gentleman in charge of Indian education.

I have, of course, much more far-reaching objections in principle to this take-over than simply the fact that the Minister of Bantu Education is also the Minister of Indian Education or will be from now on. My reasons, of course, are precisely the same in principle as my reasons for opposing the take-over of Coloured education last year. I am opposed in any case to fragmentation in education. I do not like people being educated differently on racial grounds and I do not believe that educational policy or the content of education should be divided on racial grounds. I believe that the same sort of education, free and compulsory, should be initiated for all the children in this country irrespective of race or colour. I believe that they should be encouraged and taught to develop to the fullest extent all their potentialities so that they can make the maximum contribution to the welfare and the prosperity of our country.

You want mixed schools.

If parents want their children in the same schools I have no objection to that in principle; if parents want their children in separate schools, I have no objection to that either. In other words, I do not intend to enforce the principle of mixed schools, but I have nothing in principle against them. Let me make that quite clear. I mentioned earlier on that there were many things as far as Bantu education was concerned with which I disagreed, and one of the things that worries me about this take-over is the Minister’s attitude to the financial aspect of the education of the various racial groups. We know that any amount over and above the fixed amount which comes from general revenue in the case of African children must come from the African people themselves. The hon. the Minister has said that it is an achievement that the salaries of over 3,000 Bantu teachers were not even subsidized by the State but paid in full by the Bantu themselves. I do not regard that as an achievement. It is of course an achievement on the part of the poverty-stricken Africans that they were prepared to make the necessary sacrifice to pay these additional teachers but I certainly do not think it is right, in principle, that the poorest section of the community should finance their own education.

It so happens that the Indian community has made great contributions towards Indian education. As the hon. the Minister will know, out of the 281 schools for Indians in Natal, 219 are actually State-aided schools and where State-aided Indian schools are concerned, the Indians have contributed on a R for R basis towards the building costs. The Indian community has provided an enormous amount of money, compared to its general standard of living and its income, for Indian education. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that Indian children in Natal are suffering certain disabilities because the Natal Provincial Administration has not been subsidizing education to the extent it should have. He says that the White taxpayers in Natal are bearing an unjustifiable burden because of the costs of Indian education. He mentioned discrimination as regards the provision of free books. He said Coloured children received free books up to Std. VI whereas Indian children did not. In the past he has also commented on the fact that he did not think it fair that salaries of Indian teachers should be less favourable than those of Coloured teachers. I would not dream of contradicting the hon. the Minister on this score. When he says it is unfair to discriminate against the Indian child and the Indian teacher I agree 100 per cent with him but I go further than he does, Sir. I believe it is wrong to discriminate against any person on the ground of race or colour but I do not, of course, necessarily adopt the same remedy as the hon. the Minister does. He thinks the remedy is simply to transfer Indian education from the Natal Province to his own Department.

I think the remedy is to be found in increasing the subsidy paid by the Central Government to the Natal Provincial Administration so that better salaries can be paid to the teachers and free books supplied to the children. There is, of course, a good deal of valid criticism that one can offer against the Provincial Council of Natal as far as Indian education is concerned. I do think also, however, that one must give some credit to the Natal Provincial Council as far as Indian higher education is concerned because from 1955 the percentage of enrolment in high schools for Indians in Natal has risen from 12.2 per cent to 19 per cent in 1962. I think that is a considerable achievement particularly when one realizes that over the same period the enrollment of Bantu children at Bantu schools has dropped from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent under the Minister’s Bantu Education Department, resulting in a very small percentage indeed of Bantu children in high schools. If the Minister feels there is discrimination— and I agree with him that there is—the way to remove that discrimination is to make it financially possible for the Natal Provincial Council to pay higher salaries to Indian teachers and to subsidize the children’s books at least. Since the Minister agrees that there is discrimination, is it his intention to supply those free books and at least brng the Indian children on the same level as Coloured children? Since the Minister criticizes discrimination is it his intention to see to it that Indian teachers’ salares are at least raised to the level of the salaries paid to Coloured teachers which, I believe, represents something like 80 per cent of the salaries paid to White teachers? Would the hon. the Minister assure this House that one of the things he is going to do as soon as he has control of Indian education is at least to raise the salaries of Indian teachers to the level of the Coloured teachers as an interim measure and then gradually build them up, as I think they should be built up, to an equal level with White teachers, as Coloured salaries should indeed also be built up?

Now you are talking.

Now I am talking. I am prepared to start at least with improvement up to 80 per cent and then get up to 100 per cent.

There is, of course, a third and much more discriminatory factor as far as Indian children in Natal are concerned, and that is regarding the question of compulsory education. As has been mentioned, there is compulsory education for Coloured children in Natal. Education for Coloured children has been compulsory in Natal since 1942 but there is no such thing in the case of Indian children. I think it would enormously reassure the Indian people of Natal, the Transvaal and elsewhere, if the Minister could tell us that the permissive Clause 23 in the Bill is going to be implemented as fast as the Minister can possibly manage to do so from both the financial and practical aspects. I think the Natal Provincial Council should come in for criticism here for not having introduced compulsory education for Indian children. After all, it is a long time ago that the Wilks Committee sat and that committee reported 20 years ago. They asked in that report that compulsory education should gradually be introduced for Indian children. That was a unanimous request. This has not been done. Not even the interim measure they recommended has been implemented, that interim measure being that children already at school should be kept at school until Std. IV or until they turned 13 years of age. There have been many excuses. There has been the excuse that the Indians have a high birth rate and that Natal cannot afford it. As far as the Indian birth rate is concerned, of course, the Wilks Committee knew about the high birth rate when they made that recommendation and in point of fact the Indian birth rate has been declining considerably over the last ten years. There has therefore been no reason why the interim measure should not have been implemented. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to remove this third and most important type of discrimination against Indian children.

I would like some assurance on the financial aspect, as I mentioned earlier. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us it is not his intention to try to make the Indian community pay still further towards the education of their children. I particularly want this assurance in view of the fact that the National Party through Senator Groenewald, on 18 March 1965 set out its policy. This appeared in the Natal Daily News of that date. Speaking on behalf of the National Party, Senator Groenewald said—

I am worried that these are going to be the Minister’s feelings as far as Indian education is concerned.

I want to turn for a moment to the question of the standard of education. When the hon. the Minister originally talked about taking over Indian education he said he was going to have an investigation made, an investigation which was in fact subsequently made, because he wanted to make sure that there would be no lowering of the standards. He gave the assurance that he would not lower the standards. He went further and said he was investigating the possibility of continuing to use the Natal Provincial Administration as the body for the examination and certification of students. Mr. Nel also told the Indian Teachers’ Society on 30 June 1964 that the Natal Education Department and the Department of Education, Arts and Science would be retained and that their syllabuses for Indian children would also be retained. What worries me, Sir, is that this Bill does not provide for that. Clause 21 says that the Minister may institute courses, determine their nature and length, call for examinations to be conducted and certificates issued. The Bill furthermore says that only until the Minister otherwise determines will the existing Education Departments institute courses and conduct examinations. I maintain that the Bill is not in accordance with the assurances which the hon. the Minister gave us and which Mr. Nel gave to the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society. I am quite sure that all the Indian teachers are extremely worried about this particular aspect. They do not want any change in standards. They want to maintain the same educational standards which have obtained up to now. The Bill is vague on this: it is permissive and because of the very statement that the status quo is only going to be maintained until the Minister decrees otherwise, one obviously suspects that it is not this Minister’s intention to retain the existing position for a very long time.

I am worried about another general statement that was made about Indian children when the Minister announced the Cabinet’s decision to take over Indian education. He talked about proper co-ordination and planning to ensure that the Indian scholar and student received training in those directions in which he showed aptitude and which would offer him the maximum employment opportunity once he had completed his course of study. On its face value one should not have any objection to a statement like that. It seems sensible to have aptitude tests and to train students accordingly, but unfortunately over the years one has become very suspicious of the Government’s motives when it talks about the aptitudes of the different racial groups and, particularly, when it talks about training them for the maximum employment opportunities. We have had this before. We have had the hon. the Prime Minister training African children for their role in life—the role they would be expected to play after school. We all know what that role is. In the case of Coloured education we have had similar examples. We have had the Minister of Coloured Affairs talking about educating Coloured children to fulfill their role and not having them wandering round the streets clutching their matriculation certificates in their hot little hands. We know what is happening there, Sir. The Minister of Coloured Affairs quite recently addressed, of all things, a meeting of farmers, at which he assured them that he would see to it that Coloured children were placed in camps where they would be trained to do certain types of agricultural work and that if the children did not want to go there voluntarily he would see to it that they went there compulsorily. Now we have this third facet of racial split in education and the hon. the Minister is talking in the same kind of language. I would also like his reassurance that he will not try to canalize Indian education according to the role which Indians are supposed to serve in this racially fragmented society in South Africa. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that, in any case, the Indian is artificially restricted in many ways as far as his employment opportunities are concerned, by job reservation on the one hand and. very important, by a lack of mobility on the other hand. The very fact that Indians are unable to move from the Province of Natal and seek jobs elsewhere where there may be openings for them, artificially restricts their opportunities of employing their capacity to its maximum extent. We are now going to have a third restricting influence and that is education at different levels so as to see to it that the Indian does not get ideas about his status in life.

These are some of the important objections I have to this Bill. I want to know something about this Education Council the hon. the Minister says he is going to set up. The Bill again is permissive. Whereas the Coloured Education Bill actually instituted such an advisory council this Bill is permissive on this point. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I understood him to say this afternoon that it was his intention to set up this Council.

Yes.

I am prepared to accept the Minister’s assurance in this regard but I still don’t know why the Bill does not provide for it. The Minister can, of course, set up any council he likes so I have no doubt that he will carry out that promise of his.

Will the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that he is not going to curtail the existing rights of teachers? He has mentioned that he intends to recognize teachers’ societies and I hope that he means existing teachers’ societies and not only those that are going to fall in and slavishly obey his every will. Here too we have the example of the Coloured teachers. We have had intimidation. There were clauses in the Coloured Education Bill which prohibited teachers from taking any part in political matters or from criticizing the Government. Those clauses ominously appear in this Bill as well. I know there was some talk about taking over some of the clauses in the Natal Education Ordinance. I have not studied that Ordinance in any detail and that may be so but whether or not that is so does not influence my argument. I do not like clauses that provide that teachers may not criticize the Department on pain of dismissal or pain of being had up before an investigating board for misconduct. Clauses 15 and 16 cover this. These are the clauses that I particularly do not like.

Clause 16 (m).

I am referring to that particular sub-clause, Sir, and (f) and (g). I do not like these misconduct clauses. I think they are far too wide and they give the Minister the power to clamp down on any teacher who might have the temerity to criticize his Department when it may very well need criticism.

Clause 16 (m) particularly gives them the right to criticize. To-day they have not got the right to criticize. We are giving them more rights than they have had hitherto.

I know the Minister has said that he has taken over some of these clauses from the Natal Provincial Ordinance.

Not this clause.

So this is your own little brain child. These rights are, of course, considerably circumscribed in the Coloured Education Act and I am not terribly impressed by the fact that this is an extension of the right to criticize. I do not think there should be any restriction. Why should teachers not be allowed to level criticism? The Department should be able to meet criticism. That surely is the correct course, namely, not to restrict criticism but to accept it.

Must we allow anybody in the country to get up and criticize his own Department and his own school?

Order! The hon. the Minister should address the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. the Minister and I could argue this clause out in greater detail in the Committee Stage. I just wanted to mention now that this was one of my objections.

Then I want to ask the Minister something about this question of compensation in regard to the taking over of schools to which the Indian parents have contributed large sums of money, particularly those State-aided schools where they have contributed on the R for R basis towards the cost of building. We had an argument on this score with his colleague, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, when Coloured education was taken over and the answer then was that common law guaranteed some kind of compensation. But I still feel that something should be inserted in the Bill so as to make it an inscribed right so that people can appeal against the amount of compensation offered, something which I think they will have difficulty in doing otherwise. I do think that Indian parents and other Indian bodies who have contributed so materially towards Indian schools should be given a reassurance on this score. I know they are worried about it.

Then there is the question of the using of school halls for purposes other than educational purposes. I understand that some of the conditions under which grants were actually made were that the Indian community as a whole should be allowed to use those halls. When the Government takes over will these rights still obtain?

Yes.

I am glad to have the assurance in that regard.

I want to conclude with my opening remarks and that is that in principle I obviously must oppose this Bill. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) because the whole question of the fragmentation of education is something to which I am basically and in principle opposed. Unlike the hon. the Minister and his colleagues I do not regard this as a step forward for the advancement of the Indian people. I consider that this country is taking another retrograde step in the direction of further racial division in a multi-racial country. I believe this to be impracticable and in principle not correct.

The hon. member who has just sat down maintained that the Indians have accepted this legislation rather resignedly and philosophically because they have no other choice. This is actually a strange attitude for the hon. member to adopt because she is the fighter of Houghton. She has taken the course this afternoon of striking her colours meekly for the sake of the Indians. We do not know her in this role; she is usually a standard-bearer, a fighter. The hon. member asked whether the hon. the Minister will keep his promises. She is very disappointed as far as the results of Bantu education are concerned. This was also the contention of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood). I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will permit me to mention certain parallel facts to prove that progress has been made with Bantu education under this hon. Minister. I shall also have something to say during the course of my speech about the fragmentation of education mentioned by the hon. member and also by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I should like now to deal with financial contributions. The hon. member said that the Indians should not be asked to contribute too much money for their own education. This view is diametrically opposed to all sound principles of education. It has been proved very clearly as far as Bantu education is concerned that the Bantu are anxious to contribute and since 1954 their contributions have increased by millions.

The examinations are now under the control of the Department of Education, Arts and Science and the hon. the Minister has said that that is where they will stay as long as he deems fit. The hon. member is afraid that the hon. the Minister will discontinue this practice one of these days and that these examinations will then become inferior. Let me tell the hon. member what I think the hon. the Minister has in mind. It is that he has so much confidence in this system of education under the new régime that it will not be very long before the Indians will be able to do this work themselves. They will be trained and they will be able to appoint their own examiners and moderators and they will be able, perhaps still with a little supervision, to maintain this same standard. This is simply an indication of the confidence which the hon. the Minister has in his own legislation.

As far as the clause dealing with misconduct is concerned, it is a strange thing to my mind that we had to wait so long before objection was raised in this regard and that it was left to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to do so. We heard the same objections when Bantu and Coloured education were taken over. These provisions conform more or less to the provisions contained in those laws which were adequately discussed at the time. It also appears to me as though hon. members opposite do not have very much to say in this regard.

I must say that the attitude of the hon. member for Hillbrow was to my mind somewhat comical. It was really not the attitude which one would expect to be adopted by an educationist and the first speaker on that side. The hon. member for Hillbrow was in an unhappy position. I saw him as a schoolboy carrying on a school debate on the usual little subjects of: What is stronger, water or fire? or: What is the mightier, the pen or the sword? He said that the next step will be that we shall segregate the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people under different departments. In the same breath he said that the Kalahari Bushmen would be next. I do not think the hon. member was in earnest when he said this. He reminded me of the position in which I found myself 40 years ago as a young teacher when I had to tell an 86-year old man that the earth was actually round, with this difference: I tried to bring the truth home to a man who did not want to believe while the hon. member for Hillbrow has been trying to bring home something which is not true to people who know better.

I do not want to deal with the clauses in detail. We shall have an opportunity to do so at a later stage. As far as Clause 3 is concerned I just want to say that this clause is a clear proof to my mind of the efficacy of this Bill. Reference is made, inter alia, to hostels. There has to be an improvement in this connection. Just think of the position at Zastri College to-day where ten boys are living with the vice-principal of the school and between 60 and 70 are boarding privately and not always under the best conditions and influences. The position is even worse at the Mitchell Crescent School for girls. This legislation is not solely in the interests of the group for which it is intended; it is in the interests of the whole of South Africa. The good faith of the hon. the Minister is apparent from the fact that at this late stage he is going to give a deputation a hearing. This is the second-reading debate on this Bill and many negotiations have already taken place in connection with the Bill but the hon. the Minister has nevertheless decided to meet people from Natal who are objecting to this Bill possibly under pressure, and, if possible, to effect further amendments in the Other Place if they are in any way reasonable and in the interests of this matter. I say that this is a proof of the good faith of the hon. the Minister in connection with this legislation.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) has already sketched the later portion of the historical background to the education of non-Whites in the Transvaal. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to tell you a little about its earlier history. In 1900 the education of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Malays in the Transvaal became a State undertaking under the supervision of the S.A. Republic of that time. A superintendent of non-White education was appointed and he had also to organize Bantu education. In 1903 the first Education Ordinance provided for the establishment of schools for non-Whites and for their upkeep and control by means, inter alia, of regular inspections. Provision was also made for State-aided schools for non-Whites and the Education Act, generally known as the Smuts Act, was passed in 1907. This Act made provision for free education for Coloureds and Indians in separate schools in the Transvaal. In 1910 there were 12 mixed schools for Coloureds and Indians with 1,644 pupils in the Transvaal. In 1912 separate schools for Indians were established. This was due to the actions of the Witwatersrand School Board. This step was motivated by religious, cultural and language considerations. In 1919 a start was made with a training centre for Coloured and Indian teachers. There were not enough Indian teachers in the Transvaal so teachers were imported from Natal but, worst of all, teachers were also imported for this school from India. I thought simply to emphasize this earlier history to some extent in order to indicate that the education of every group has always been mainly State work.

I come now to that part of my speech in which I want to reply to the repeated accusations made by hon. members opposite to the effect that the hon. the Minister has not done his work in regard to Bantu education. Nothing has come of those fine promises! There is no achievement which is worthwhile mentioning! The Bantu can see no future for themselves as a result of the fact that their education now falls under the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education! I just want to say that a greater interest in active participation in school matters has gradually been apparent since the take-over and we expect the same to be the case with the Indians once this Bill comes into operation. This is what the takeover of Bantu education has resulted in since 1954. There are 5,101 schools with 547 Bantu school boards. No fewer than 36,000 Bantu serve on the school committees of those 5,101 schools. All this is envisaged for the Indians under this Bill. There are 25 advisory Bantu parent committees in respect of State hostels but there has also been a tremendous growth in the school population which proves that the Bantu have developed an affection for and confidence in those schools. The annual rate of growth in the ten year period prior to the take-over was 5.16 per cent and in the ten year period after the take-over, 8.87 per cent. Over a period of ten years the number of pupils has increased from 983,000, the number on take-over, to 1,770,000. The Indians will show more zeal once this Bill is put into operation; the pupils will be more anxious to attend school and to stay at school longer, and the Indian parents will be more zealous in making financial contributions and in serving on school bodies. There will be a considerable movement of pupils from the lower primary classes to the higher primary classes. We also have an example in this regard in Bantu education. Hon. members opposite say that Bantu education is a failure. Let me tell hon. members that contributions by the Bantu in 1954-5 towards the erection of schools amounted to only R33,436, while in 1962-3 the amount was R496,425, a tremendous increase! But what is more, during the past five years—and I made this point for the benefit of hon. members opposite who speak of the fragmentation of education and the undermining of education—there have been no fewer than 746 applications for R-for-R assistance for the erection of schools. There were 746 applications from Bantu school boards and the total amount involved was R1,299,518. Can hon. members opposite still say that this education has failed? Can they still say that, no matter for what reason, Indian education will fail? But over and above this, the Bantu also contributed an amount of R6,500,000 in direct taxation. We have just heard from the hon. member for Houghton that we should not ask the Indian for too much as far as his education is concerned. The Bantu are already contributing Rl2,374,000 towards their own education and they do it with pleasure under the system which we are now also advocating for the Indians. School attendance has improved and it will also improve in the case of Indian education. As far as the Bantu are concerned, it increased from 89.3 per cent of all enrolments in 1947 to 92.8 per cent in 1964. Nobody can contend that this will not also be the case with the Indians. This achievement is all the more remarkable when we consider that Bantu education is not even compulsory. There is a guarantee that the Whites will continue to work in the Indian schools as long as is necessary, and also in the teachers’ training centres, the secondary school complexes and at State hostels. We will not withdraw their services unnecessarily. As far as Bantu education is concerned there are now only 529 White teachers as against 29,590 Bantu. At present the Whites make up 1.7 per cent. Things will also go well under the legislation which we have before us to-day. Let us consider examination results. I want to refer to the Indians in Natal. In 1963, 38 per cent of all candidates who entered for the Senior Certificate Examination failed, and in 1964, 925 Junior Certificate candidates out of 2,680 failed. We had the same position in the past in regard to Bantu education but that position is no longer operative to-day thanks to the good work which is being done by the Minister who is responsible for the education of that group. I shall not for the sake of comparison refer to Bantu examination results. I want to point out that this Bill before us envisages the development of the individual as a whole. The Indian must also develop into a useful and exemplary member of his community, and under the new régime it is easier to make provision for physical culture, for physiological education, for sociological education and for the educational development of the individual—the self-activation of the Indian in the service of his own community. We will see them coming from those schools as leaders, organizers, entrepreneurs, instructors, managers, employers and supervisors. Besides this they will enjoy the fruits which there are to be obtained from responsible work of this kind by people who have to train their own future leaders. They will also have the opportunity to overcome their own problems. That is how we want it to be. As their ability and skill increases under the new régime so too ought their earnings to rise. I think also that we can already state that the earnings of the Bantu have risen since Bantu education was taken over by the Central Government. I repeat that as their ability and their skill increases, so too ought their earnings to rise with an accompanying positive influence on their own economy. We look forward to this. This should reduce the pressure of taxation on the White man as far as the development of the Indian is concerned. We should like to see this happen and we should also like to see in years to come, as a result of this legislation and as a result of the fact that their ability and skill has been improved thereby and that their earnings have risen as a result thereof, that they have had a benign influence upon the economy of their own group and that, as a result, the pressure of taxation upon the White man as regards the education and development of the Indian has gradually been reduced. It will be Indian education by the Indian for the Indian. We have in mind a sound basis for the education of this specific group. I want now to emphasize the opposite of what we so often hear from the other side in regard to the fragmentation of education. I say that what is envisaged here is a sound basis for the education of a specific group, without creating isolation and with full recognition throughout —and this has been a principle of education through the ages—of the universal character of education all over the world. Sir, in this way the universal principles, tenets and methods of education can be best adapted and applied under this legislation according to the group’s own character and for its own particular purposes.

To sum up I want to say this: What we envisage is the consolidation of all education for the Indian under the Department of Indian Affairs; what we envisage further is a definite plan for the supply of books and material, based perhaps on the average example set by the various provinces to-day. What we envisage further is not to be over-hasty as regards compulsory education. This is not yet the case as far as Bantu education is concerned to-day. One has to be practical and have regard to the requirements, namely, buildings, equipment, teachers and the costs involved in this regard; what we expect further is one official language as medium of education plus an Indian language in the primary and secondary school; there is also consultation by experts, parent bodies and school committees, examination services and the recognition and taking over of existing education institutions.

I want to conclude on a rather contentious note. I do not know precisely where I myself stand in this regard but I shall take a chance. We know that 90 per cent of the Indians who emigrated to Natal from India to work in the sugar plantations were farmers and the descendants of those immigrants are concentrating upon commercial activities. There is, however, a fairly strong feeling that they should be given agricultural training and even that experimental farms should be made available to them. I wonder in this regard whether we should not possibly guide them along commercial channels—manual labour and professions in their own communities. It may sound selfish but I feel very strongly that we should retain the agricultural land for the Whites.

In the light of the success which we have had with similar legislation for other population groups in our country, I support this legislation wholeheartedly and I hope and trust that it will not be many years before we shall be able to prove that this was a good and wise step.

In the course of his speech, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) was interrupted on one or two occasions by the hon. the Minister when he referred to Sections 84 and 114 of the Republican Constitution Act, and it seemed to me that the hon. the Minister was not correct in his interpretation of those two sections, be cause, Mr. Speaker, I contend, with respect, that Section 84 (c), mentioned by the Minister and Section 114 are in no sense contradictory. If they were contradictory they would not appear in the same Act.

I did not say they were contradictory.

The point is simply this that whereas Section 84 (c) refers to control over education “until Parliament provides otherwise”, Section 114 provides for the provincial councils to submit a petition to Parliament to have a boundary altered, or to have certain of its powers curtailed or removed. That could include powers over education. But in terms of Section 84 (c) Parliament then would have to consider the wisdom or otherwise of such a request. Of course the operative words are “until Parliament otherwise provides” and not “until Parliament otherwise decides”. There is a very great difference there. Parliament has the power to make a provision but not the power to make the decision. That is precisely where the hon. Minister’s interpretation of those two sections is incorrect.

Sir, it has been very interesting indeed listening to the hon. the Minister trying to put up a convincing case for this Bill. We did not like the 1963 Coloured Education Bill and we do not like the Bill at present before us any better. As the hon. Minister said, with few exceptions, the text of this Bill is identical with that of the Coloured Persons Education Act, which was debated in this House in 1963. In those debates in regard to the transfer of Coloured education in 1963, we have the same arguments dished up that we had from the hon. Minister this afternoon. We were told (a) that the Cape Provincial Council had asked for a transfer. That in effect was correct, but Natal of course has sent in no petition and has not asked for his transfer at all. We were told (b) that there were 10,000 more Coloured children at school in the Cape Province than White, and that was the reason for taking it over. Well of course, the number of Indian children in schools in Natal by far outnumbers the number of White children. We were told (c) that the financial burden for the Cape Province had become intolerable in consequence. We were told that this afternoon in regard to Natal. And, finally, (d), we were told that the new move would lead to an exciting programme of what the Government euphemistically calls the socio-economic uplift for these population groups. I think we proved that these arguments were invalid in 1963, and I think they are invalid to-day.

The hon. the Minister in his speech made great play of the attitude of the South African Indian Council. In 1964, in the debate under his Vote, this hon. Minister quoted this body as graduating to the position where it will have statutory powers. I have the quotation in “Hansard”—statutory powers over matters of concern to the Indian community, and I take it that education was one of them. But this year, we have had the hon. the Prime Minister stating quite clearly that as far as the Coloured and the Indians in South Africa are concerned statutory control will remain with the White Parliament indefinitely. This attitude would seem to be confirmed by the Minister of Indian Affairs, who, in reply to a question earlier this year, a question put by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) on 26 March said about this council—

Now, Mr. Speaker, the point is this that in Hansard, following that question by the hon. member for Berea, was the heading “Recommendations made” (by this Indian Council), and then there follows a long list, and then, very significantly, there was another head: “Matters referred to the Council.” Just “referred”, in other words no recommendation was asked for—these matters were simply referred to the Council. And two things that came under the heading “Referred to the Council” were (1) the transfer of all Indian education to the Department of Indian Affairs and (2) the Indian Education Bill now before Parliament. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister came here this afternoon and told us that he had the unanimous approval of the Indian Council for this legislation. I would like to know, if he has the unanimous approval of the Indian Council, whether he obtained that approval after 26 March when he replied to the question by the hon. member for Berea, or when did he get it?

You are under a misapprehension there. The second list are the matters submitted by my Department to them, and the first list contains the things initiated by them.

With respect, one list contains the recommendations, and the recommendations were very specific. If, in fact the Council had recommended the transfer of Indian Education to a government department, you would think that that would be part and parcel of the list of recommendations made by this Council which was set out in Hansard.

I am not at all satisfied with the hon. Minister’s reply in that regard. Many of us would like to know just how much real power this Indian Council is going to have over the education of Indian children under these circumstances. We Would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether they will be permanently subject—even in this field—to the dictates of the Central Government, in which they will have no representation of any kind.

In the debate on Coloured education in 1963, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) told the hon. Minister to cut out all the cant and admit that the one overriding consideration behind that Bill was apartheid. Of course he was perfectly correct.

The real basis of this Bill is not educational at all; it is political. Nothing short of it. Let us not bluff ourselves either, Sir, when it comes to talking piously about the “socioeconomic uplift” of these population groups. The truth is that the whole programme of socio-economic uplift—which conveniently covers every aspect of Nationalist ideological schemes in this country—has been planned in such a manner as to benefit the White man and his life, his industries and his politics, to the maximum extent: Particularly in his need for trained labour—and to force the Coloureds and the Indian people to accept an inferior status. Why do we not have the courage to admit it? That is what the Government is doing. I am not here referring to the Bantu people, but to the Coloureds and Asiatics, who have no states of their own to build up, no states of their own to go to, and you know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, that they will devote most of their lives working very largely for us.

We all know about the opportunities these people have for university education, that they can become professional people (and are in increasing numbers); but we also know, and we regret it very much, that where the Indians are concerned, or any of these population groups, that they will function intellectually only in the strictly limited sense of exercising their talents in the circumscribed field of their own small community of 500,000 people, if the hon. the Minister carries out his intentions. The exciting adventure of true education, embracing the whole world of science and ideas, which essentially involves an exchange of thought and of ideas with others in similar disciplines, is not for them, not in South Africa, at any rate. They are all to be kraaled off.

Let me remind the House of what the hon. the Minister had to say on this subject when his Vote was being discussed last year. The hon. the Minister said this—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many factories, how many industries, will the Minister succeed in establishing for the exclusive use of 500,000 people, about 40 per cent of them under working age? I raise this point because the question of employment is inevitably linked, as the hon. Minister knows very well, certainly in the minds of this Government, with educational standards. Now in that same statement, last year, the hon. Minister went on to say, referring to the Tamil Indians in Natal—

Therefore the educational and social research Bureau of the Department of Education, Arts and Science is further investigating the question of the labour-pattern in Natal.

In the same breath, in the same speech, the hon. the Minister went on to talk about not lowering educational standards.

You see, Sir, the only grounds for comparison we have so far are the type of statements made by the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs in the debate in 1963, when Coloured Education was taken over.

Just a year ago.

Yes, a year ago. But the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs was alleged to have made a speech in Namaqualand in 1962, in which he said that a great portion of the Coloured people were not properly schooled and many of them were not prepared to avail themselves of the opportunities that could be created for them. The Minister said—

Then he said this, and this lines up completely with the line taken by the hon. Minister this afternoon—

Mr. Speaker, he cannot find work because this Government will not let him. The country is crying out for people with matriculation certificates. It is crying out for skilled people of all descriptions irrespective of colour. Hon. members know perfectly well that our approach to this whole matter of education differs fundamentally from that of the Government. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs is quite correct in saying that every community has to produce its quota of manual labourers, as well as skilled people. I wonder how many Europeans work as manual labourers to-day? in actual fact they despise that type of work, and I think that is one sense in which our values have become slightly distorted. It is quite amusing, because if the Government’s Bantustan plans really were to work and all the non-Whites were to fly away by 1978, we would all have to do pick-and-shovel work and it might do us a lot of good.

In this Bill the Government is attempting to adapt what should be a purely educational matter to the economic and political situation arising out of their own political Nationalist ideologies. If you want the answer, just read what the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) said in this House in the 1963 debate, namely—

We are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is to be the basis of the present Bill also? Because our point of view is that racial fragmentation and Balkanization in educational terms means, in effect, only one thing: a special type of education for each group in terms of the social position they occupy in South Africa.

“Baasskap” education.

Yes, let us face it. I repeat what I said at the beginning, that the criterion is not an educational one—it is ideological and political.

The educational mess in which we find ourselves to-day in South Africa is directly attributable to the Government’s political and social approach. It is entirely negative even for the Whites. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) was perfectly right in saving something to that effect with regard to differentiation in our schools. The Government’s whole philosophy is based on the concept: Divide and rule! If this is applied in the field of education, it becomes an absolute nightmare for professional people trying to carry out a professional task. Let us make no mistake about it. You can appoint as many committees as you like, but there can be no proper co-ordination of our talent and our manpower potential in South Africa under these circumstances.

Our approach is radically different. We do not believe that there are such things as “Coloured education”, “Indian education”, “White education”. Hon. members know that.

There was a time when certain hon. members on that side of the House took the same view. The hon. member for Prieska looks as if he is coming in next. He was a member of the Cape Coloured Education Commission which sat from 1953 to 1956, and he was an inspector of schools in the Cape Province at the time. Let me remind the hon. member of what that commission had to say. The chairman of the commission was the late Professor M. C. Botha. He had this to say about it—

I did not say that.

At the very outset of its deliberations, the Commission had to ask itself whether the term “Coloured education” is intended to mean a specific type of education which is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the ordinary connotation of the term “education”. Such a point of view could hardly be defended in a country which is democratically governed, under a government which has adopted as its policy the ideal of parallel development for all its population groups.

What is your point?

The hon. member for Prieska signed this report. Paragraph (7) reads as follows—

When therefore in this report we use the word “education”, it is on the assumption that it refers to education in schools for Coloured people and not to a special kind of education.

What is your point?

What kind of lunacy is this to create a separate department of education for 500,000 people when you already have three departments of education in existence? In any other country but South Africa you would think we were stark, staring mad. What the country needs, of course, is differentiation throughout, not only for Coloureds, Indians and Bantu. The hon. Minister says that he is going to introduce practical courses as well as academic courses for the Indians. Differentiation, of course, is just as badly needed for the Europeans, and it is a crying disgrace that this Government has not introduced it years and years ago. Why did you not start with the Europeans?

And now that we want to do it, you complain that we are taking over the task from the provinces.

I want to say a word about and to ask the hon. Minister a question or two in regard to compulsory schooling. What are his intentions in this regard? Section 23 of the Coloured Education Act makes provision for compulsory attendance—leaving the area, standard and age group to be decided by the Minister, and Clause 23 of this Bill for the Indians is identical. What are the hon. Minister’s intentions in that regard?

Although the Minister of Coloured Affairs refused to give any undertaking on this subject in 1963 vis-à-vis the Coloureds, he stressed the point that the provincial administrations have not been in a position to do justice to Coloured education and that the Coloured people were very dissatisfied as a result. I think that is a lot of nonsense, because I do not think the hon. Minister has done any better. It does not look like it. But the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs was very specific in a statement he made on this subject, and perhaps the Minister who is dealing with this Bill can tell us whether he holds the same views. The hon. Minister said this year, on 6 March, that he was against immediate compulsory school education for Coloured children. This was in a speech which was read for him at the opening of the Bellville High School for Coloured pupils. He said—

Then he said—

In that connection we want an answer from the hon. the Minister, because in terms of this Bill we want to know whether he is going to give us an undertaking or not that he will introduce compulsory schooling for the Indians wherever he possibly can. I have here a brief extract from the report of the Director of Education for the Province of Natal for 1962. and on page 26 the following sentence appears—

It should not provide an insuperable difficulty to do something about this, and fairly soon.

I referred just now to the statement made by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, in which he said that the community itself should be prepared to carry responsibility, and he means of course the financial responsibility. I want to say quite unequivocally that the tendency has always been, and I think it is both hurtful and unfortunate, to refer to any social service provided for Coloureds and Indians with the assistance of the White taxpayers as so much patronage doled out to groups of poor relations with an inferior status. Sir, if we were a homogeneous community in South Africa, we should still be faced with having to deal with the ignorant and the indigent. We should remember President Johnson’s dramatic call a few months ago to eliminate the dire poverty and ignorance that still exists in the U.S.A., and not all of it amongst the Negroes by any means. Here, unfortunately, whenever we deal with these things, whether it be education or anything like it, or social welfare, the whole issue tends to be bedevilled by race and colour. We believe that where education is concerned that should not enter into it at all. Take the Indian community as a whole. I am not going into the taxation figures because the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood) dealt with some of them, but I want to bring one point to the Minister’s attention with regard to their ability. Does he know that of the economically active White population of South Africa, 18.5 per cent are in high-level occupations, and of the Asian group 13.2 per cent are in high-level occupations? In other words, only 5 per cent more Whites pro rata are in high-level occupations to-day than the Asiatics who number only 500,000.

I also want to say something about their academic standards. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) talked about the separation of the Indians and the Coloureds in the schools. I wonder what the Minister intends doing about this with his passion for dividing everyone up? The hon. member for Pretoria (East) contradicted himself flatly today by saying that separation was easy because I have here a quotation from his speech on the Coloured Education Bill in which he said that in 1962 there were 42 schools for Coloureds in the Transvaal and 38 mixed schools where Coloureds and Indians received their education together. In other words, they were just about fifty-fifty, and in the 42 Coloured schools there were something like 18,849 pupils and in the mixed schools there were 12,810. So he says one thing in 1962 and quite another in 1965. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member’s figures were not correct in 1963. In the Cape Province, as the Minister knows, I still sit on the Cape School Board and I have been on it for ten years. With a few exceptions, the Coloureds and the Indians are all mixed up in the same schools. How are you going to separate them? Are you going to have a host of officials put onto the job to decide who is Coloured and who is Indian? Will the basis of distinction be the Population Registration Act? I do not see any mention of it anywhere. Or are you going to decide on the basis of who is Christian and who is Muslim? There is no mention of it in the Bill. How many more Government officials will we need to carry out this work? How will the Minister administer his Department under those circumstances? One thing is certain, and that is that he will have plenty of headaches if he is going to try and separate the Coloureds from the Indians. We have had the position, of course, where African students have been removed from Coloured schools because, as one of the officials of the Department told a reporter the other day, it was not good for their personality and cultural development to study against this foreign background. Well, if these schools are to be unscrambled I wonder how the Minister will manage it.

Finally, to deal with the Bill itself, Clause 9 deals with the transfer of certain persons to the service of the new Department. If the Minister looks at the clause he will see that it is nothing more than an edict. These people are given no choice. Surely they should have the right to contract out if they wish?

I think it is scandalous for any Government just to transfer them holus-bolus. Clause 10 provides no safeguards for staff transferred from State-aided schools to State schools in regard to the retention of their salary scales, their status and conditions of service. They are just being taken over and told to get on with it. That is not the way to treat people, but we shall deal with this in the Committee Stage. Clause 15 refers to people being discharged by the Minister for a variety of reasons that have no bearing upon “discharge” as we understand that word. You do not discharge a person when he attains the pensionable age or on the grounds of continued ill-health. You do not discharge him merely because you want to reorganize the school. The word “discharge” carries with it some sort of stigma. We will deal with that a little later. Under Clause 16 “misconduct” is dealt with.

Order! All these matters can be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Very well, Sir, but I am really speaking strictly to the Bill. But let me say something about the educational standards of the Indians in South Africa, because I think it is something which should be recognized. Their academic achievements have been quite remarkable. I want to quote from the Annual Report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science on the subject. The students, full-time and part-time, enrolled at the Universities in 1962—all universities at which they were entitled to be enrolled— showed the following: Of the Coloureds there were 336 pupils, and we have 1,500,000 Coloureds in South Africa. Among the Asiatics there were 657, nearly double the number. And if you look at the list of students enrolled in different fields of study at the universities, including those doing advanced studies and part-time studies, you find that the Indians out-number the Coloureds in every single faculty, arts, medicine, architecture, law, etc., 934 Asiatics and 729 Coloureds in all. And the interesting thing is that there are only 500,000 Asiatics as against 1,500,000 Coloureds, so that their academic achievements are really something which we ought to take note of when we deal with the question of their education. I am glad that some hon. members mentioned the fact that the Department of Education, Arts and Science should continue to set their standards. We feel very strongly about that indeed.

I want to conclude by saying something about this clause which deals with the Minister’s powers to decide which teachers’ associations he shall approve of and the power he takes unto himself to prescribe the nature, the constitutions and the activities of these associations. If the Minister has anything specific in mind, why does he not set it out in the legislation? What does he expect them to be —a lot of yes-men? What is behind this? I consider this clause and all its implications to be nothing short of an insult to the Indian community. These teachers are professional people, and how can he expect any teachers’ association in any country which is not a communist country where they take their orders, to tolerate dictation of this kind? Is the Minister afraid of criticism even within the teachers’ organizations? We should like to know what his views are on that. It seems to me that it is a gross breach of personal, professional and private freedom and we deplore it in the strongest possible terms. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, it is of course impossible for me to reply to everything the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) said in her speech, but I just want to refer to a few matters. In the first place she acted the advocate in regard to a few sections in the constitution. I am not a lawyer and therefore I do not wish to cross swords with her, but I just want to say that the Provincial Administrations took no legal action in regard to the transfer of Coloured education, and that must have been for one of two reasons: either that they were not as clever as she is or else they were only too glad to be rid of Coloured education. I think the second is the correct view. Secondly, the Minister himself will tell us how much support he has received from the Indians in regard to this proposed transfer of Indian education. He has already said that he has certain support for it, and I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to doubt what he said. We can talk about the ideology later, but I just want to put this preliminary question to the hon. member. Can she in all honesty tell me that she is giving expression to her ideas in regard to multi-racialism? She quoted from the report of the Coloured Education Commission. It is true that I served on that commission, and to-day I am still prepared to write what I did then and to sign that report. If she can prove to me that “Coloured education” is different from “education for children in Coloured schools”, then I am prepared to withdraw that sentence. I simply cannot see with what object she quoted it. It seems so childish to me.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I listened to him carefully and I am convinced that to-day we had just the same sort of thing as before, namely smokescreens being put up behind which the hon. member and the Opposition try to hide the real reason for their opposition to this Bill. He came along with a story that education was being cut up and fragmented. We have heard that story from him on half a dozen occasions already. If we leave out the O.F.S. where, I understand, there are only a few Indians, surely we are consolidating the work which is to-day being done by four different Departments, but according to him this is fragmentation and not consolidation. He says education is education. That is quite correct, but education (opvoeding) is not education in the same sense. They are two separate things. If education and upbringing are to ensure a closer contact between the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa, then his logic ought to convince him that we should have these people in the same schools. Is he in favour of mixed schools?

Of course not.

Then I cannot see the sense of it. In fact these people are in separate schools, and in future they will also be in separate schools. I simply cannot see his point. He talks about our ideology of apartheid and says we are slaves to it, but what about his own ideology of integration? Is he not the slave of that ideology? [Interjection.] No, he simply followed the same pattern which he pursued in an earlier debate, and I should like to refer to it.

The first occasion when the hon. member spoke along those lines was when we were debating the transfer of Coloured education. Then the hon. member gave us a detailed history of education ever since the days of Jan van Riebeeck, and he came to the conclusion, which was summarized in the amendment he moved, that such a transfer would amount to the curtailment of provincial powers, a lowering of the status of the Provincial Administrations; it would mean duplication of the administration of education, which would result in higher costs; and fourthly, it would result in estrangement between Whites and Coloureds. The first three constituted the smokescreen. The fourth was actually relevent, viz. the United Party’s policy of integration of the Coloureds.

What kind of integration? Economic integration?

Total integration. To my mind, integration is integration, but seeing that the hon. member has asked that question I want to say this. The father of liberalism, and in many respects the father of the policy of the members of the Opposition, said that in the process of integration there are five stages, the cultural, economic, political, social and eventually biological integration. The difficulty of the hon. member and of the Opposition is that they do not know where to call a halt in regard to the non-Whites. One cannot just call a halt at any stage. Therefore if I talk about integration I am talking about total integration. They dare not say so because it is too dangerous. The United Party cannot afford to talk of total integration. They cannot afford to do so because of the White votes they still need, because many of them still hope that they will perhaps come into power one day. I admit that they are not prepared to carry integration to its final conclusion. They still talk about residential separation and social separation, but if we watch the position carefully there are many indications that they are prepared to abandon that standpoint. They are continually fighting against group areas and job reservation and what they now call petty apartheid. Just think of their propaganda in favour of mixed audiences and other forms of social intermingling. Then we ask whether total integration is not their eventual objective. Now, this new deal we have heard about over the past week-end and to which nobody here has yet referred …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The same smokescreen was put up in 1959 in regard to the Extension of University Education Bill. We were told that it was a violation of the autonomy of the existing universities and they further pointed out the alleged lack of status which these university colleges would have. But the hon. member for Hillbrow was not prepared to say that he wanted to have mixed universities, just as he is not prepared to say now that he is prepared to have mixed schools. He left it to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), who put his foot into it and said that it was his view that we should have mixed universities. [Interjection.] I will tell the hon. member where he can find it in Hansard. It is Vol. 100 of 1959, Col. 3400. [Interjection.] It is relevant that we were accused by the Opposition of not being interested in education but only in the ideology of apartheid. I want to show the hon. member that he continually put up smokescreens and did not discuss the merits of the subject, but tried to hide his policy of integration behind those arguments. [Interjections.] They are the people who are continually accusing us in regard to this ideology of apartheid, but their own ideology they hide behind smokescreens.

How different is the behaviour of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)! It is a pity she is not here because I want to compliment her on at least being intellectually honest and logical in her views. She wants to have a pot-pourri in South Africa, a mixture of White and Brown and Yellow and Black, which eventually will simply turn into a black mixture.

It is clear that the Opposition is embarrassed by this matter. Because education is such a determining factor in the socio-economic as well as the cultural development of a community, it is necessary that one should at least have a clear direction in which one wants to develop. In regard to the education of the Indian, one will have to bear in mind the fact that the Indian community has maintained itself during the past century as a separate religious and cultural group, in close contact with India and Pakistan; that their civilization is Oriental and not Western. Therefore there can be no talk of integration in the sense in which the United Party thinks of it in connection with Coloureds. At the most one can integrate the Indians in the economic sphere. Culturally they are unassimilable. I want to point out that only 5 per cent of them are Christians and that only 2 per cent of them use one of our official languages as their home language. Their religion is Hindu or Mohammedan and their languages are mostly Tamil and Hindi. Politically the United Party is not prepared to go further than a few White representatives in this House, similar to what they are offering to the Bantu. Our policy is that there is only one solution for this difficulty and that is separate development also in the sphere of education. In regard to the Coloureds, we have made remarkable progress, in spite of all the prophets of doom. If one reads the latest reports one finds that great progress has been made in regard to the current services as well as new services. In regard to the current services there is a large increase in the number of schools established, and it is only a year ago that we took over Coloured education. There is also a great increase in the number of teachers and students. We have had improved salary scales. More Coloureds are employed in education. For the first time in history we have two full-fledged inspectors of schools who are Coloureds. We have three inspectors of vocational schools and we are training others. In regard to the new services much has been done. These are matters which received no attention under the Provincial Administrations. I mention a few of them: Extra-mural education, sport, differentiated education in certain schools, and psychological services which have been introduced. In the Peninsula alone there are to-day 15 adaptation classes for mentally retarded children. There is an Education Council. New kindergartens have been established and also continuation classes. There is training for farm workers, and please do not call this “education for slavery” again. That is what we are doing for the Coloureds. That is also the obvious course to adopt in regard to the Indians. That is what we offer them. Now that we are all convinced that repatriation is impossible because India and Pakistan do not want our Indians, and because our Indians are satisfied that they are better off under Verwoerd than under Shastri, it is necessary to make room for them in South Africa as a permanent part of the population, and we are making rapid progress in that regard. There is already a Department of Indian Affairs and a Council for Indian Affairs. We are setting aside group areas for them. They are given local government. Their welfare services have already been taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs. University and higher education have already been taken over, and now primary and secondary education will also be taken over by this Department. I hope the hon. member for South Coast is satisfied now. He was very concerned because this Minister was only half a Minister of Education, but he will now become a full-fledged Minister of Education, and I want to congratulate him on it. I also think Natal will welcome it, because in spite of what was said here to-day it is a fact that the 360,000 Whites in Natal cannot bear the education costs of the 43,000 Indians, even with their help. In spite of what has been said this afternoon, there has been discrimination against Indian students in regard to books and equipment and even the courses offered because, as they themselves said, they could not afford it. Well, now a Department which can afford it is taking it over, and what is the objection to that? Their salaries do not compare favourably with those of the Coloureds there. There are also other respects in which there is discrimination. For example, Indians had no say in the education of their children. In the socio-economic sphere 50 per cent of the Indians, of the economiclly active persons, are already engaged in commerce and industry. A very small percentage is engaged in agriculture. The rest are engaged in the refreshment services, transport, etc. Whether, as has so often been said, the Indian has now reached saturation point in his participation in the sphere of commerce and industry, I leave aside for the moment. We have heard complaints that there is already some measure of unemployment. The figures usually given are perhaps exaggerated, but let us accept that it is already there. One of the reasons may be that all services are not available to the Indian. The average Indian is not bilingual enough to join the Public Service. Let the school also see to education in other directions. I want to refer here to Clause 3 of the Bill, where provision is made not only for primary schools, high schools and nursery schools, but also for trade schools, for technical education, for vocational schools, for training colleges, for special schools, for special education, for part-time classes, continued education, for agricultural schools and for reformatories in terms of the Children’s Act, and at the same time the Indian is given the guarantee that we will not tamper with the school system as such; that there will be enough State schools, that there will be State-aided schools, and that under certain circumstances there may also be private schools. It does not behove the Opposition simply wildly to oppose a measure like this; they should tell us what is I wrong in respect of the cultural and the socio-economic aspects of this Bill. The menu is complete; the dishes offered are of the same sort and quality as those offered to other race groups in the country. Now that we have accepted the Indian community nolens volens as a permanent part of the population of South Africa, we must evolve a plan for the peaceful and happy co-existence of this racial group with the rest of the South African population. Education is one of the most important components, if not the most important part, of this plan. This Bill now rounds off the separation between the education of the various race groups, and if it means segregation for the Indian it also means segregation for the other race groups, including the Whites.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying this: The South African way of life is separate development, and the sooner the liberals realize it the better it will be for all of us. I want to conclude by quoting Omar Khayyam—

I want to correct the impression of the hon. member who has just sat down as to what the attitude of this side of the House is with regard to universities. I am sorry that he raised the matter in this debate because university education has nothing to do with this Bill. We have said over and over again that those universities which have autonomy and which are open universities should have the right to choose their students. It is not the business of outsiders to dictate to the universities.

You missed the point.

Perhaps the hon. member will explain at a later date precisely what he meant. It is quite clear that in this desire to implement apartheid throughout our lives, the Government does not regard it as sufficient for us to have the usual separation of the groups which has come about in South Africa through tradition, but it has now become necessary for the Government to form new departments to carry on work that has been done efficiently in the past by the Provinces. We have seen it happen here, first in the case of Bantu education, and then in the case of Coloured education. The Government was not satisfied to have the Provinces look after Coloured education; it had to be taken over by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and we now find that the Minister of Indian Affairs has to take over Indian education. He takes over all matters affecting the Indians and he builds a little empire of his own. Sir, he could not have chosen a worse time to do this. Even if we on this side of the House had agreed that it was a good thing to do, I would say to him that it was a bad time to do this. The Minister could not have chosen a worse time because the Minister knows that whenever a new department is formed, more people are needed to staff that department. The Minister knows what difficulties the Government is experiencing to-day in filling vacant posts which are advertised. In spite of that the Minister goes blindly into this new radical change. I hope for the sake of the Indians that this experiment will work; I sincerely hope so; I would hate to see it become wrecked, but the Minister has a long way to travel before he will see the light of day. I want to know from the Minister in his reply what good reason there is for this change. He has not given us one single good reason. He may have found reasons but he has not mentioned one single good reason. Let us go to the first spokesman on the Government side, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert).

Did you not listen to the reasons given by the Minister?

I said “good reasons.” The hon. member for Witbank is a man steeped in education. He struggled for half an hour to give a reasonable explanation for the introduction of this Bill. He said that each province has an entity on its own; he tried to suggest that it was wrong for education to be subdivided and to be looked after by the different provinces; that we were not getting efficiency from the provinces but, he said, “we will now place all education under one roof and from now onwards there will be smooth administration of Indian education.” What will now be left for the provinces as far as White education is concerned? White education is at the moment being looked after by each of the provinces and if the hon. member for Witbank is right then it is the end of control of White education in the provinces. The provinces will be deprived of their last right, that is, if we follow the argument of the hon. member for Witbank to its logical conclusion. Talking about the writing on the wall and the finger that is moving on, which the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) had said something to-day: The writing is on the wail and the finger is moving on. He has not moved on; he has now moved out but I want to tell him this that if the pattern that has been followed in the case of Coloured and Indian education is to be extended, the control of White education will be taken away from the provinces. That is the writing on the wall.

I listened to the hon. the Minister and I still have to learn from him which province asked for this change, which province petitioned for this change? Which educational group petitioned the Minister for this change? Can he tell me of one? The hon. the Minister has not given us a single good reason nor has he told us of any group, provincial or otherwise, that has asked for this change-over. It is a brainchild of apartheid and whether or not it is going to be successful will depend not on the Minister and his Department so much but on the willingness of the Indian people to carry out education to the best of their ability. I hope the Minister has made his plans well because if he does not get the co-operation of the Indian people it is going to fail miserably. I think at this stage we must say in this House how much we, the White people, appreciate what the Indian parents have done for their children. As we have heard, over a million rand have been contributed by Indian parents towards the education of their children. They have set aside sums of money for building, desks, books and so on. I think we should show our appreciation in this House. But if the hon. the Minister is going to go against the wishes of those people who have contributed to the best of their ability in the past, then his road is going to be hard. What is going to happen to education if the Minister takes it over? The best that I can see is that it will remain as good as it is now. It is going to take several years to catch up to what it is now because I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that the change-over is going to mean delays.

Why?

Because it is a change-over. The hon. the Minister cannot expect to take over and that everything will go on as it did before. If that is so then there cannot be a change-over. The hon. the Minister is going to have new people in his Department. The hon. the Minister is going to change a whole number of things; he has said so here to-day.

When did I say that?

Is the Minister going to chanee the syllabus or will it remain the same? Are different subjects going to be taught? If the old system is going to be followed why change-over then?

You did not understand a single word of what I said in my introductory speech. Apparently you cannot understand Afrikaans.

The hon. the Minister need not be abusive. I asked him whether there was going to be change and he said why should there be a change. If there is not going to be a change then why must there be a take-over? Then we certainly do not need the Minister. It has taken the provinces at least from 1910, discounting any previous education given to the Indians, to 1965 to reach the standard we have reached to-day. There is no denying that. Whether the standard is good or bad is for the Minister to decide. If it is a good one it is going to remain as it is: if it is a bad one it would need changes. If there are to be changes it would mean delays. These delays are going to be similar to those which took place in the case of the changeover as far as Coloured education is concerned. If the Minister can keep the pace I would say he is a good man but I doubt it very much. The hon. the Minister is not an educationist. He will have to have a team of people to guide him. He is going to direct what they should try to do but there is no guarantee that they will carry out his wishes. He will have to persuade them to do what he wants them to do. He is going to mould all those children who are at school to-day. If there is to be a change of one subject, if there is to be a change of the vernacular, if there is to be a change in the attitude towards high school education, if there is going to be a change in preparing high school students for university, it would mean a change. And it is going to take time to bring in these changes. Now the Minister must make up his mind and tell us here and now if he is going to do anything of that sort at all and how he is going to avoid delays in this change-over. I want to know what right the Minister has got to think that his new Department of Education is going to be better than the provincial education departments. What gives him that idea? Or is the Minister going to be quite honest and say categorically: “I cannot do better; I am not doing this to make the educational system better, but I am doing this purely for ideological reasons, purely because it is a part of apartheid”.

I want to go back to the provincial system as it is now. Are there any faults with it? What faults are there? The only fault that I can see in the system is that the provinces have not got sufficient money to carry on as they would like. The subsidies that they are receiving from the Government are far short of what they require. They have been pruned year after year, not only in respect of Indian education and not only in respect of Coloured education, but in regard to White education as well. They are pruned out of all proportion to what is required. The fault is there, because there is not enough money to spend on the requirements of the pupils. If there is a fault, it is because the teachers are not getting high enough salaries. If there is a fault, it is because books cost too much and cannot be bought by the under-privileged. Those are faults in education. If there is a fault, it is because classrooms have got to be used twice a day instead of once a day. If there is a fault, it is because the classrooms are over-crowded. These are things that have got to be corrected. Is the Minister going to do that? If he is going to do these things, I say that I will be very happy about it. I want him to tell us in his reply what his attitude is going to be about the money that is going to be spent on this type of education. I want to know what he is going to do about keeping the children at school to matriculation, how he is going to prepare them for higher education. He knows of the skills that we are short of. It is the ideological belief that the Indian shall look after the Indians, that their teachers shall be Indians, that their skilled workers for particular skilled trades shall be Indians, that in their own group areas they shall look after their own affairs. Is he going to prepare from now onwards the basis for this higher education that will be necessary? It will take a long time. But that is his job.

Why did you criticize the establishment of the Indian University College?

I am not so satisfied about that.

Then nothing will satisfy you.

I want to tell the hon. Minister that it is because of the keenness of the Indians to learn that there is a success there. That is the important thing. It is not so much the provisions being made. Does the hon. Minister want to tell me that there was no Indian doctor qualified before the Indian College came into existence? Does the hon. Minister want to tell me that there were no Indian teachers? That took place irrespective of the hon. Minister, and he must not take praise for what has gone on in the past. What they have done is that they have grabbed at the opportunity that was offered, and they will build up the Indian colleges, irrespective of what the hon. Minister does. He has got to remember that you can have the greatest institution in the world, but if you have not got the will of the students in that institution to work hard and to gain the knowledge that is offered, nothing can come of that institution. In the Indian institutions the boys who are going there are determined to lap up every little piece that is being offered to them in the way of education, and if the hon. Minister is giving it to them, is he doing so as a favour?

We are providing the opportunities and bursaries.

But you are doing that for the White people and you are doing that for the Coloured people. What difference does it make whom you provide it for?

You have just now criticized me that I will not do it in the case of the Indians.

I did not say that you would not do so. I asked whether you were going to do it, and I said I would be very pleased if this would happen, and I will be one of the first to give you praise. But if it fails, you are going to be condemned. I for the life of me cannot see the necessity for this change-over, for this radical change-over. It is unnecessary, it is a waste of manpower, it is going to mean a waste of money. The Minister could easily introduce any changes he wanted to through the provincial councils. He could carry on in the same way and he could allow the provincial councils that small right to carry on with education for all the people in the provinces up to a certain level. If he would have done that, there would have been none of this silly ideological change-over.

It is quite clear to me that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has not been listening to the hon. the Minister’s speech at all. I just want to reply to a few statements he made here. He said, e.g., that the next step would be that White education would be taken away from the provinces. But not long ago the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) blamed the Minister because we had not a long time ago done in regard to White education what we are now doing in regard to Indian education. But where did she and the United Party vote when we came along with the Advisory Council, and what objections did they not raise when we wanted to remedy the matter? And what happened on the Select Committee?

Another statement he made is that we should appreciate what the Indians have already done for their children. But now the Minister wants to give the Indians more opportunities to do more for their children, and to take more interest in their education, and the hon. member is opposed to it. He blames the Minister for not being an educationist, and he asks how the Minister can formulate an education policy for the Indians. But when they were in power Mr. Strauss was Minister of Agriculture, and what was he, a farmer or an advocate? That hon. member is a medical man, but he wants to prescribe to the Minister what he should do in the sphere of education. What right has that hon. member when he knows absolutely nothing about education, to prescribe to the Government what should be done?

It is the principle of taking it over.

It is the transfer of education, but the hon. member knows nothing about education and then he wants to prescribe how it should be done and he blames the Minister for not being an educationist; in other words, he should not hold that portfolio. That is why the hon. member makes such nonsensical remarks. He says the Indian College is a success, not because of the facilities the Government has created, but because of the desire of the Indian to learn. But now we particularly want to give them more facilities, knowing that the Indian is keen on learning, just like the Coloureds and the Bantu and the Whites. We want to give them the necessary facilities to put into practice their interest in education and to contribute more towards the education of their children. Why is the hon. member opposed to that? He keeps on asking the Minister whether he will give them enough schools and facilities. We are not the United Party. If this Government tackles the matter, it does so after planning and it knows precisely what it wants to do. But the great objection of the hon. member is that the Minister did not say that there would be enough schools and accommodation. He says that if he knows the Minister will see to that, then the matter has his blessing. No, we know the United Party and we know that it has repeatedly changed its policy, but I never thought that it would again change its policy in the short time of ten days over the Easter recess.

Order! The hon. member should come back to the Bill.

I just want to make a comparison. From their speeches, and particularly that of the hon. member for Hillbrow, it is now quite clear that the United Party stands for educational integration in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow objected and said that we on this side hate everybody who differ from us in colour; we always want to push them away and put them into separate, water-tight compartments. If they are not put into separate camps, where does he want them? In other words, there should be no separation in the sphere of education either; and if there is no separation surely the logical result will be intermingling.

Are you really so stupid?

I would rather be stupid than tell untruths in the rural areas. I think it would be a good thing if the hon. member for Hillbrow were to read his speech to-morrow. The whole tenor of it was that we want to keep the races apart.

Educational administration.

No, he did not talk about educational administration. He accused us of wanting to keep the races apart and he said that the day would still arrive when there would be separate departments for English and Afrikaans-speaking children.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.