The hon. member for Kensington, in his short talk yesterday, referred to the shortage of teachers and particularly the shortage of English-speaking teachers. I want to say a word or two about that and I want to make an appeal here this afternoon to the English-speaking people of this country to come forward and to provide more teachers from their own ranks. I think the time has come when the English-speaking people of this country must take stock of the position in the English-medium schools especially and in the higher education department of our educational system. There is no doubt that the Afrikaans-speaking teacher has stepped into the breach to a great extent, but if we want to preserve English in this Republic as an official language; if we want to be able to teach English as a language, and teach it properly; if we want English to be used in this country and for communication and dialogue outside this country, then it is up to the English-speaking people to see that their children are taught properly by English-speaking teachers in the schools. I appeal to the English-speaking people to come forward immediately to fill the breach. Sir, if they do not do this we are going to have a repetition of some of the utterances that we have heard of late, coming from people in provincial councils and even from the hon. the Deputy Minister without a job, the only unemployed one in this House, the hon. member for Heilbron, when he had so much to say about the use of the English language in some of the most important bodies in this country. However, more will be said about that at a later stage. I am sure, Sir, that if I continued along those lines you would rule me out of order.

I want to refer for a moment or two to the shortage of engineers in the country. I want to quote from Southern Africa, which has reproduced an extract from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the methods of training for university degrees in engineering—

Then we come to the last paragraph which says—

This proposal is that non-Whites should be allowed to enter the White universities for training in engineering. The hon. the Minister has by permit allowed non-White medical students to enter White universities. Even that, as the position stands to-day, is most unsatisfactory; there is not a sufficient flow of students. I want him now to see whether he cannot also allow non-Whites—Bantu, Indians and Coloureds—who wish to enter a White university for a degree in engineering, to continue their studies in the engineering faculty. I do not think it is sufficient to allow only those who have a B.Sc. degree to enter the universities. I think non-White matriculants should be allowed to enter a White university immediately after matriculation to study engineering and not only after they have already gained a B.Sc. degree with, say, biology, as a major subject. A B.Sc. (biology) degree, for instance, would entitle a student to enter university with a view to taking an engineering degree. Sir, the hon. the Minister must give this very serious thought because the whole idea of separate development is a farce unless the necessary services can be provided by the people for whom he is establishing special areas. The whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party is that the different ethnic groups must look after themselves. If a Bantu to-day enters one of the tribal university colleges, it will take 15 years before he can become an engineer. To-day the tribal university colleges have White lecturers. It would take a Bantu student five years to qualify as an engineer, if these colleges had engineering faculties. It would require another five years of experience for him to become a lecturer and it would then take the student five years to qualify, so it will be 15 years before Bantu, Indian or Coloured students could become engineers under the present circumstances. I think it is totally wrong. If you want to build up separate nations in this country then you should give them a chance to prepare for themselves now.

I also read with interest in this Strasszacker report that they found, when they studied the number of ballotees in the army who had been called up, that there was quite a considerable number who, when they entered the army, wished to take up engineering, but after they had completed their period of military service they changed their minds. That is a very serious state of affairs because you are losing many engineers. I say that if a ballotee has a flair for engineering he should be drafted into a unit which has an engineering background, so that when he leaves the army he will still have a desire to take up engineering. Not enough money is being provided by the Government for these courses. There are many young men and women who would like to take up engineering but because of the expense they are unable to do so. I would ask the Minister to provide more and bigger bursaries to these people who wish to enter the faculty of engineering at any of our universities in the Republic.

In order to be equipped for the engineering faculty it is necessary to have a proper grounding in mathematics. The Minister knows as well as I do that the greatest shortage of teachers throughout the whole of our educational system is in mathematics. We have not got enough mathematics and science teachers. I would urge him to make mathematics a compulsory subject for every matriculant. When the child enters secondary school he should be told that if he wants higher education he will at all times have to have a good grounding in mathematics. The universities will not accept students in the medical, engineering and dental faculties unless they have mathematics, so why not make mathematics a compulsory subject at school? The Minister must see to it that there are sufficient teachers to teach mathematics and science.

In the short space of time I have left, I want to ask the Minister to do more for research at our universities. The amount of money that is being provided for research today is the minimum amount. It is probably a quarter of what is being provided for research in other countries.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me not to reply to the speech made by the previous speaker. I think that is customary. I just want to bring it to your notice that I did take my courage in both hands last night and got up here, but unfortunately you did not see me. As that had to be a maiden speech, I feel that to-day’s speech has somewhat missed its date. You know, here in the Boland we refer to a Wednesday night as a small Saturday. Such a maiden speech would most certainly have been much more appropriate last night. I suppose I shall therefore not be able to be quite as good now as I was then.

Mr. Chairman, as is customary, I want to thank you for your kindness and for the general spirit of friendliness we have met with here, with the result that we are already at home. I am fully aware of the fact that there is a great deal in which we are not yet at home.

I should also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, the previous member for the Swellendam constituency, Mr. Freddie van Eeden. I know that it is an honour to represent Swellendam here. I should have liked to say a great deal about this fine constituency which I represent, and to proclaim its virtues. It is the southernmost constituency in the country, with beautiful natural scenery, a rich history and a fine tradition. But I fear you would stop me if I overstepped the narrow limits of this debate. Nevertheless, I cannot fail to pay tribute to the mainly farming community in whose service I am to-day. You know, Sir, that it is an independent part of our country, with a spirit which developed as early as the days of the East India Company. I hope education is relevant to this debate. I also want to pay tribute to the farmers, because self-reliance is a characteristic of that region, and as we are in the fortunate position of having a climate which does not compel the farming community to avail itself of so many of the resources that are provided by this Government in emergencies, it is a fact that this community does not avail itself of those resources, and they do that because there is a true spirit of independence among the farmers.

But I should like to plead for a chair in Water Affairs, and here I come back directly to the interests of my constituency, namely water. It is interesting to know that the Swellendam constituency is probably one of the constituencies with the most abundant supply of water in our country, and because we are concerned with water in all its various facets—it is an area where irrigation is practised on a large scale—we also have our difficulties with alkalinization and with erosion in the hills, and flooding. We also have to deal with a shortage of water, but I suppose I dare not speak of that now. But we also have to deal with other factors, and that is that our water supplies are threatened by great complexes like Cape Town. Cape Town is looking at our water supplies with covetous eyes. We are not afraid of our water going wasted, but we are in fact interested in the way this water will be utilized. If it is utilized in the best possible way, we are sure that enough water will be left for us. That is my plea this afternoon.

We are aware of the fact that the various water departments of the major cities and also the staff of Water Affairs are nowadays drawn mainly from the engineering faculties at the various universities in our country. Those persons are trained for a task which is not quite suited to what is demanded nowadays by the various departments of water affairs. As water has become such an important factor in our country—in fact, it has become the weakest link in our entire economy—it is important that these supplies should be used in the best possible way, and that we should not merely concentrate on building large dams. The engineers are well qualified for that, and also to provide pipelines to bring the water to the urban complexes, and to cope with sewage. But when it comes to the re-utilization of water there is certainly a deficiency in the training of the students who will later fill these positions. You know that knowledge is strength, and if ever that was true, it is certainly true in the times in which we live. Where a poor year as regards rainfall, and consequently a drought, is no longer something about which only the farmers complain, but where the wolves are baying at the very door of John Citizen, it is surely not inappropriate to plead now that everything possible should be done in order to undertake the most advantageous utilization of water. The previous speaker has also mentioned the report of the Strasszacker Commission, and I should like to quote one recommendation from it in support of my argument. This is what they say about a basic chair in Hydrology in its widest sense—

Then follows what they mention under that: physical oceanography, surface and ground water hydrology, sanitation (which includes water conservation and supply, water and sewage purification. They also include hydraulics, including river and coastal engineering and flood control. I feel, however, that no matter how much we should like to have this faculty, this recommendation does not go as far as we should like it to go. We should like to see the study relating to agriculture, which is of considerable concern to our country and in which I, as a farmer, am of course most interested, included. We now feel that this faculty may surely be coupled with one of the three universities that already have engineering faculties. But we also realize that no matter how essential this may be, it will be an expensive proposition, and therefore we do not lightly plead this cause. But we also want to point out that if the Central Government is not prepared to undertake anything of the kind under the present circumstances, large concerns, for example municipalities and industry, may be drawn in order to establish such a chair. But I feel that this is the opportune time, because the entire country realizes now how much water means to us. I want to put it this way, that I believe that the general public, despite inflation, will support this undertaking.

The honour has fallen to me this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Swellendam on his maiden speech. We listened with interest to what he said. I support his plea for a Chair of Hydrology and I am sure that when we get round to the Water Vote we can anticipate a positive contribution from the hon. member.

I want to talk this afternoon about the subsidies or grants-in-aid granted to the parents of children attending educational institutions under the control of this Minister. A little while ago the Natal Education Department was approached by parents of pupils attending the Technical College at Pietermaritzburg, and were asked permission for their children to use the bus provided by the Administration for transporting their children to provincial schools in Pietermaritzburg, these children being those who attended the Technical College there. The Natal Administration inquired of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science whether they would join in the scheme provided by the Natal Administration, whereby a bus was subsidised to transport these children and to share the cost of this bus service on a basis proportional to the number of children for which each Department is responsible. The reply received from the Department was “the transport of pupils of departmental vocational schools is the responsibility of the parents. Wherever the financial position of the parents warrants special consideration, application may be made for transport bursaries”.

Dealing with the first part of this reply, that it is the responsibility of parents to transport the pupils enrolled at these technical colleges, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there has recently been a change in the policy of his Department. I refer particularly to a report in the Natal Mercury of 19th August, 1966, which states that the Minister had approved a subsidy to provide a bus to convey students enrolled at the Technical College at Pietermaritzburg from and to their homes in the Cato Ridge area. Will the Minister please indicate to this House whether this report is correct? If the report is correct, will he indicate whether there has in fact been a change in his policy, and whether he has in fact agreed to subsidise a bus for the transport of these scholars? I raised this point because this is something I have felt should be done, not only for the people in my constituency but throughout the country.

Dealing with the second part of the reply received from the Department and the reply given by the Minister to a question put by me in this House yesterday, that transport bursaries may be granted to pupils in need of financial assistance, let me say that from personal observation I would say that none of the parents, particularly those involved in the case I referred to, are in a financial position which would warrant special consideration under generally accepted conditions, and if normal tests were applied, namely the normal tests in regard to income and financial status. However, when the special circumstances which apply in that area are considered, I submit that they do warrant special consideration, and I am sure these special circumstances apply in other areas as well. I am sure those circumstances are not confined only to our particular area. The circumstances I refer to are these. These children live anything up to 20 or 25 miles away from the Technical College. There is no other secondary school closer to where they live. There is no convenient public conveyance that the pupils may use, and I understand that the hostel at the Pietermaritzburg Technical College is full. These children have no other way of obtaining any higher education at all. Under those circumstances I submit that every parent, irrespective of his financial circumstances, deserves special consideration. The cost of transporting a child 80 miles a day—that is what it would amount to if you take them in the morning and bring them back in the afternoon—by car is prohibitive. I repeat that irrespective of the financial position of the parents, they do in these circumstances warrant special consideration.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the position that I have explained and to request that he should reconsider his policy, if he has not already done so, his policy in regard to the transportation of pupils to departmental vocational schools. I submit that the Department should assist parents under exceptional circumstances and I urge that the Minister should reconsider also the offer made by the Natal Provincial Administration that they share transport costs on a per capita basis and also to consider an extension of this principle throughout the Republic in the interests of the better education of our children and consequently for the better advantage of our country. Experience has shown that when any difficulty is experienced in the education of their children, some parents tend to allow these children to terminate their education at too early a stage; that is to say, at a stage when they are not yet sufficiently trained to make a useful contribution to the advancement of our country. Especially in the field of technical education, they have not yet advanced to the stage where they can make a positive contribution. If these difficulties are removed, particularly the transport problem that I have referred to, I am sure that we will have more educated people able to make a practical contribution towards the advancement of our country.

I know that the hon. the Minister will, as some of his colleagues have done, tell us that once again we are asking the Government to spend more money after having criticized the Budget as inflationary. But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that any money expended on education cannot be termed inflationary. This I submit is an investment, a first class, long term, gilt edged investment, an investment in our greatest asset—the young people of this country who will be able to step up productivity, which, I think we all agree, is the permanent answer to our inflation problem.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) must forgive me if I do not follow his argument. It seems to bear more particularly on local affairs.

I want to refer, however, to one minor matter the hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned, and that is the fact that all pupils should be compelled to take mathematics as a subject. Sir, if the hon. member had said that everybody who has an aptitude for mathematics should be compelled to take that subject, I would agree with him. But to force everybody into that crush-pen, no matter whether or not such a person has an aptitude for the subject, will lead to frustration, and we will keep people away from other fields where we also need them.

In previous debates during this Session of the House, and also during this debate, there was a great deal of talk about the manpower shortage in South Africa, how it would affect our industrial expansion, and how it would also hamper our economic progress. Some pleaded for more funds, for the training of more people, and the scientific and technological development in the world and also in South Africa was emphasized, and also everything we should do to keep abreast of that development. The theme throughout was: Training and training once again, training of the available potential, special training in this or that direction; everything aimed at having technically well-qualified people, people who can keep the wheels of industry rolling, people who can produce not only to meet the increasing needs of the domestic population, but also to meet the needs of the export market. The Department of Education, Arts and Science is also fully aware of this need, and in particular the need that has resulted from our rapidly developing conditions. I quote the following from the Annual Report to bring to your notice the awareness of the position as seen by the Department—

And then, further—

The Department is aware of the need and of what should be done. We ask for it, industrial leaders and business men discuss it, demand solutions and float schemes. The Department itself remains well-informed, and I quote from the Annual Report again—

This awareness of the needs and the concentration on the provision of trained workers for every possible field of labour or crafts has actually become an obsession with us. It is also correct, Mr. Chairman, that we should plan, financially and otherwise, that we should provide and expand the training facilities, that new courses should be offered and obsolete courses eliminated. But in saying all these things, there is something very important which we should not forget, and that is that we should maintain the correct perspective and the correct balance in this entire process of training and education. There is the danger that the final product of our training process will be what I shall call, for lack of a better phrase, “a human robot”: Technically highly-skilled people, hard on the track of every possible new development, and even creators of new directions and new inventions, but alas, not human beings in every sense of the word. In saying that I do not want to level the charge at the Department that their education process is not directed towards the entire human being, and that the training offered by the Department is only directed towards trades and crafts, and is not also directed towards pupils and students. I am actually overjoyed to be able to quote from the Department’s report in order to demonstrate how the Department views its task. I quote from page 1—

And then this important sentence—

I quote a further extract, Mr. Chairman—

And then this last quotation, in which it is pointed out that the selection of teachers who are to train apprentices, should be carried out much more carefully, and then the following is said amongst other things—

To me that is most important, because it is of no use to supply only well-skilled, well-qualified technicians and technologists in South Africa. We also want fully-trained people, because if they are not fully-trained, if the entire human being has not been educated, then those technicians are surely going to bring us problems in future. I am very glad that the Department views its task in that light, and that the Department is moving in that direction. It should adhere to that course. To produce artisans will not be very difficult, but to educate the human being to the full in these rapidly developing circumstances, to educate the entire human being, that will be the real problem. All we can ask the Department is to adhere to the course that has been indicated, so that the product of our training process may still be recognizable as a human being. We should still see him as a human being in the full sense of the word and we should not have here what an American visitor once told me. If one visits the campus of an American university, one sees many people, and if one were to select one of them and observe him, “one would not be able to distinguish whether he is animal, vegetable or mineral!” May that never be true of our country. Let it be true that at the other end, after the training process, we shall still be able to recognize the human being.

I should like to pursue the hon. member for Germiston’s train of thought. On a previous occasion in this Session I have had the opportunity of drawing attention to the importance of scientific research in South Africa, and I should like to revert to this matter, although in a changed context. I want to confine myself to the humanities. As this concerns the policy of the Minister and his Department, I think it pertains to the Vote under discussion. I also want to say that it is mere coincidence that I should be adopting this course for the second time, and I can assure you that on later occasions I shall also venture into other fields.

What I should like to submit to this Committee and what I should also like to motivate, is that there are at present certain confusions that have a hampering effect on our research attempts in the humanities. What I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister is that he should consider appointing a commission of inquiry at the opportune time, to inquire into the whole matter and to submit recommendations to him. From the nature of the case, this commission of inquiry, should, I think, try primarily to determine the value and the use of the research which is being undertaker at present in various fields. Secondly, it will have to make recommendations on how the arrangements which at present serve to co-ordinate this research, may be improved. You will also remember that at its recent annual meeting the S.A. Akademie decided to recommend that a national research council for the humanities be established. That matter will also have to be investigated.

I think it is beyond doubt that research in the humanities is probably just as important in South Africa as research in the pure sciences. From the nature of the case, developments in the social humanistic field determine what course we shall adopt in future. It is surely the constitution of our personality, the structure of our temperament and the set of values we adhere to that determine how we think and consequently how we act on social and political levels. It is the application of our human abilities that determines our productivity level and that may consequently lead to further economic progress. All these matters pertain to the field of the humanities. Hence their importance.

But I want to take the matter even further. Research in the pure sciences and findings in respect of them are usually immediately transferable. If any fundamental principles in the pure sciences are determined overseas, we surely find that they are universally applicable. In the humanities that is not the case, because the cultural, the social and the communal milieu is completely different. If they developed a new telescope in Germany, for example, we may obtain the specifications or buy the patents for it. But if they carried out a study on labour turnover in Britain, for example, it would be of very slight significance to us. If they carried out an analysis of industrial relations in America, it would quite probably elicit little interest here, because the background factors are completely different If we therefore want information in this particular field, we have to collect it ourselves.

But. Sir, I also want to put it in a different way. We are on the brink of a great breakthrough in the field of research in the humanities. New methods of research, new resources, are at hand. We are thinking, for example, of the electronic computers which will play just as important a part in the humanities as the microscope plays in the study of biology. New methods of analysis, for example the depth interview, new methods of training, for example programmed instruction and the language laboratory, have come into being. If we do not want to be left behind, we should see to it that we keep a close watch on these developments.

It is true that a great deal of research is already being undertaken in this field. We think of our universities, of our public departments, of certain great industrial undertakings and of certain important research organizations, for example the Bureau for Social and Educational Research and the Personnel Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. The problem is that the efforts of all these bodies are at present not always fully integrated. Then there is also overlapping. In view of the restricted manpower at our disposal, overlapping of this nature should of course be eliminated. This points strongly to the entire idea and the concept of such a national research council for the humanities.

I may also just mention that Britain found herself faced with exactly the same problem. Consequently we find that as long ago as 1946 they appointed a commission of inquiry, namely the so-called Clapham Commission. After they had inquired into the matter, they came to the conclusion that the establishment of such a council could not be justified. Since then they have appointed the Heyworth Commission, which reported last year. After they had gone into the whole matter once again, they came to the conclusion that the creation of such a research council was not only desirable, but that it had become a matter of urgent necessity. I may just mention that the reports of both of these commissions are available and that they contain most interesting information which may serve as a valuable guide if we were to proceed to establish a body of that kind.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue the matter any further at this stage. What I have submitted to you is quite remote from the party-political context, of course. It is something which is in the national interest, and in that spirit I have presented it here. I hope and trust that at a suitable opportunity the Minister concerned will give his favourable consideration to it, particularly as the S.A. Akademie has also raised the matter.

Mr. Chairman, if one studies the latest annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, one appreciates in what an exceptionally serious light the present Government views university affairs in our country, and the serious endeavours it is making to achieve full development of all the possibilities of and the insight into modern university affairs. We find, consequently, that people in various fields of our society are satisfied to a large extent that our universities are producing young men and women every year who are trained efficiently to plan the development and progress of our country creatively. Not only has the number of universities for Whites increased since 1948, but the Government has also provided realistically for the university training of the non-White. This unprecedented upsurge at our universities is characterized among other things by the following three comparisons which I want to bring to your attention.

In 1948 there were only slightly fewer than 20,000 students at our universities, whereas the number at our universities in 1956 was more than 52,000. In 1948 the State grant was slightly more than R2,000,000 as against the almost R13,000,000 in 1964. The increase amounts to 534 per cent of the 1948 amount. In 1948-9 the capital funds approved totalled only R139,000, as against R5,600,000 in 1965-6. The increase was therefore almost 4000 per cent of the 1948-9 amount. These few examples demonstrate that it is a matter of serious concern to this Government to achieve full development of the modern university.

But I want to go somewhat further, Mr. Chairman, and say that we may define a University as a community consisting of students and lecturers in such a relationship that a threefold task has to be fulfilled. These three tasks are instruction or teaching, enquiry or research, and education or the moulding of human beings. To be able to fulfill these three special tasks, the university community is assisted by a management which governs and controls, and also by an administrative staff. And if we may take that as the norm for a modern university, I want to refer you to the University of Pretoria, a university which is doing a great deal of good work in our country. By means of its 11 faculties and 118 departments, ± 10,000 students are drawn in to enable them to serve animals, plants and mankind in all the various facets of their patterns of life. This is therefore not an inopportune occasion to address a word of gratitude and appreciation to its principal and his staff who in this modest fashion exploit the possibilities of the modern university by doing research, by instructing and by educating. I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister and his Department to continue assisting this university in its threefold task by stimulating research projects, by making technical resources readily available and by increasing funds on a sound basis.

I also want to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, about the students who form part of this university community. It is fitting that those on the outside should always be reminded of the fact that students constitute a specific community and live together in a specific way. These people have their own protocol, their own history, their own disputes, their typical publications and their typical societies and sport activities. And as regards the intra-mural students, the older generation should always remember that it is frequently its own actions and reactions that are reflected by such a student community. The older generation should always remember, too, that that student community is our young generation, our future, and that they are also struggling with particular problems in their own way. We should therefore view their healthy student fun with joy. We should note their blunders sympathetically, we should contribute positively towards their maturity, we should admonish them with responsibility and we should guard them with insight against those who seek their downfall.

As regards the extra-mural students, we should admire the way in which these men and women devote the hours of night to their academic moulding and training after a hard day’s work, and do so in such a way that the standard of the university is not lowered. The extra-mural student in particular deserves the interest and assistance of his employer, not only when concessions have to be made to him in the form of special arrangements when he writes tests or examinations or submits assignments, but he should also be encouraged and met financially.

Seen as a whole, Mr. Chairman, the University of Pretoria is a source of manpower by whose products society benefits and whose influence extends far beyond the confines of our country. One should therefore also remind those who want to propagate the image of our society locally and abroad every day, that they should hail the numerous achievements of that university community most gloriously, in the same way as there is the tendency to publicize its sporadic, its minor upsets so volubly.

Mr. Chairman, investment in science, in knowledge and skills, which means an investment in the human being, yields the highest dividends in any community. If academic freedom also implies academic responsibility, if it is also directed to safeguarding the principles and the ideals on which the pattern of life of any people centres, our universities will truly be of the highest value to us. Because no university can meet its obligations towards the world and mankind unless it first meets its obligations towards its own country, its own community, its own society and culture. If it does the second, the first follows naturally. If these principles are pursued in our community, our universities will not only achieve maturity under the guidance of the Higher Hand, but will be worthy of our respect and will meet our highest expectations.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it is fitting that I should now review what positive and negative things have been said up to now, so that we may be able to lead the debate into those channels which are most advantageous to us and the country in general. I want to thank the main speaker of the Opposition, the hon. member for Kensington, very sincerely for his friendly words. As far as the two maiden speeches are concerned, I shall refer to them at the end of my speech because I actually regard them as the dessert. I want to thank the hon. member for congratulating my Department on the fine, explicit and good report they brought out. That is a distinction we have enjoyed for years. I also want to thank him for his friendly words concerning the good report of the National Advisory Council for Education. I want to thank the hon. member, but at the same time I want to express my regret that he went astray and blamed me for not having made any statements of policy in those reports. The hon. member for Randfontein has already called the hon. member’s attention to the grave mistake he made. That is not being done. This House is the proper place for discussing the policy of the Minister, especially in pursuance of such reports. I hope that in discussing the policy, in suggesting what should be done and in criticizing what has not been done, hon. members will make ample use of the reports submitted to them.

The hon. member for Kensington tried to make a joke of the University Education Act of 1959 by presenting the definition of “Minister” and the interaction among various Ministers in this regard in such a manner—and that in a quite dramatic manner—that it sounded or looked foolish. In actual fact, the hon. member was guilty of criticizing an existing Act of Parliament. This Act was specially drafted to bring about separation in the training of the various races, to have a proper measure for creating separate facilities, and where those separate facilities have not been created, be it for the Bantu, the Coloureds or the Indians, to leave it to the Minister in question to admit those students who cannot yet be trained at non-White universities, to White universities.

The hon. member for Rosettenville really went astray. I want to tell the hon. member that he simply cannot become an expert in every field. He speaks on every topic in this House, and this afternoon he showed that he is no expert in the field of education. The hon. member did not even take note of the fact that a colleague of his, namely the hon. member for Berea, asked the following question on the 19th August—

The hon. member for Rosettenville made an enthusiastic plea for our engineering students to be allowed to enroll at these so called “open universities”, because it will take 15 years before engineering students will be trained at these separate university colleges. What was the reply, Mr. Chairman? The reply was that students had already been admitted for the following degrees, namely, B.Sc (Chem. Eng.), B.Sc. (Elect. Eng.), B.Sc (Civil Eng.), B.Sc. (Mech. Eng.). This reply was given on the 19th August of this year. And then the hon. member pleads here that I should admit them! Surely, we can see that no injustice is being done to these non-White students, no matter to what group they may belong. Where they are desirous of pursuing any course of study which has not yet been introduced at the three different non-White university colleges, they obtain the right, with the permission of the Minister of that group, to enrol as students. I hope the hon. member will in future take more notice of matters of this nature.

I think the time has arrived, Mr. Chairman, that in reply to the criticism made by the hon. member for Kensington, an accurate picture should be given in respect of the termination of divided control in our education and the development of a national education policy. The hon. member already raised the objection that as far back as September, 1965, a Bill was submitted to me by the National Advisory Council for Education, and that the country knows nothing whatever about its contents. That it should in fact be this hon. member—a person who has so much knowledge of education and who was a member of that profession for so long, who has taken such an active part in this development in the various provincial systems which had such detrimental effects for the country—who raises that objection now! It is a system which developed over a period of 55 years, but a system which has achieved recognition in each province and which had also achieved recognition in the fifth instance in a national department of education. It is not something one can weed out like weeds and say that this is not good enough and that that must stay. Every province believes that the method according to which it works, is the best one. Every system which has been devised by educationists, is accepted to be the best. And the great success achieved by this National Advisory Council for Education cannot be emphasized strongly enough. The entire country cannot show greater gratitude to these people for the wonderful work they have done. But then I want to add the following: if it had not been for the so-called contact body, which consisted of the educational heads of the provinces and my own head of the Department of Education, officials on this level who had to deal every day with the practical problems in regard to divided control and an un-national system—in the broad sense of the word—we would not have been where we are to-day. In the first place I want to pay tribute to-day to that body which spared no time, no trouble and no sacrifice—after we had been striving after this for 40 years, ever since the first commissions tried to do something in this regard—to make it possible for us to have come as far as we have in the short period of three years in which the National Advisory Council for Education has been functioning.

Now I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this committee composed of educational heads, together with the executive committee of the National Advisory Council for Education—which is known as the contact body—has tackled this major task: they held meetings on the following dates: 23rd March, 1964, 6th August, 1964, 25th November, 1964, 25th June and 27th July, 1965. They have made so much progress that they are not bullying or forcing the basic principles for co-operation but they have been able to agree on the major basic principles. At the beginning of September, 1965, after these basic principles had been approved by the entire board, they submitted to me what was not a bill in the true sense of the word, or as the chairman, Dr. Rautenbach, phrased it in his report, “a Bill in the language of laymen”, but in actual fact a set of principles on which a Bill could be based. If I had at that stage allowed myself to be carried away by this and said, “I have something here and we should respond to it immediately”, I would not only have made a terrible blunder, but also have made myself the biggest fool in the entire Republic of South Africa, and I shall tell hon. members why I say this. When I went to the various administrators and their executive committees with this principle, I did not find the same unanimity which I had found with the council, the educationists and other persons. If I had allowed myself to be carried away at that time, I would have destroyed what we wanted to achieve, and I would have wrecked the possibility of a national policy and of terminating divided control, and after all the years of struggling to achieve what we have to-day, I would have set back matters to what the position had been before. The sensible method I followed was to consult the administrators. Towards the end of last year, just after I had received the Bill, I addressed them for the first time when all of them were in Durban. I specially travelled up to Durban to have a discussion with them on this matter. There were many problems; they were serious problems; they were not simply minor problems; they were practical problems and fundamental problems and we had to smooth them out one after the other. After we had faced all these problems squarely and had these discussions, I immediately set to work, assisted by a legal advisor my colleague immediately allocated to me. My colleague told me, “This Act is so important that you may use this legal advisor”. With the assistance of the legal advisor and having reached the greatest measure of unanimity after consultations had been conducted with the four provinces, we drafted a Bill and it is that Bill I have now sent to the administrators and the members of the executive committee. On the 26th of this month the administrators are coming to Cape Town and I hope that a final discussion will be held then. If that happens, I hope to be in a position to submit a Bill to this House during the next session, at the beginning of next year. I hope that it will be a Bill which will satisfy both sides of the House, a Bill I know in advance will be welcomed throughout the country, since we are definitely going to terminate divided control and establish machinery for putting an end to the privations the White child in South Africa has had to endure for many years, a Bill which will put an end to that by developing a national education policy—not to enforce it, but to develop it gradually—so that there may be uniformity in this great and most important matter for the future of a united people.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) brought a few points to my notice. He referred to two matters arising from the Estimates themselves. In the first place he referred to the post-doctoral fellowship posts in respect of which provision is being made for R30,000. I think that this is a fine development. We find that many of our students go abroad to obtain their doctorates there. When they have obtained that degree we do not always have suitable vacancies for them here in the Republic and consequently we lose this learned man since he accepts a post abroad. The Treasury therefore kindly consented that we could made available this year ten bursaries of R3,000 each. When such a student has obtained his doctorate and there is no suitable post for him at that time, we bring him back to the Republic, we grant him the R3,000 for the purpose of carrying out further research in the field in which he has been working, and within the next twelve months we find him a suitable post here. I think the hon. member will join me in welcoming that. The second matter about which the hon. member asked a question, is the increase in the amount for youth camps, for immigrant youths. Last year provision was made for R25,000 and now it is being increased to R75,000. There is a note at the bottom of the page explaining that R50,000 is intended for immigrant camps. Hon. members know that our immigration effort is a great success. Between 35,000 and 40,000 immigrants enter the country annually, and there are indications that this rate will be maintained. The great secret is to have these immigrant children integrate with our South African way of life.

“South African.”

Yes, South African, not National. My Department has had these youth camps for years and years. It is an old item which appears in the Estimates every year. The youth camps are intended for the full development of the youth, spiritually, physically, intellectually and all other fields. They are very popular. It is being felt that we should add to the number of these camps. The children attending these camps are English- as well as Afrikaans-speaking, and it is being felt that we should also include a large group of the immigrant children in each of these camps. For that purpose we shall have to increase the number of camps. I may just add that six of these camps have already been arranged for this financial year and that they are about to be held.

In what part?

Hon. members are welcome to visit these camps; they are situated in various parts of the country. Hon. members will be amazed to see what great success is being achieved with these camps, since it is there that we also discover the leaders who will later be able to assume leadership in various national spheres—social, economic and otherwise.

The hon. member for Berea doubted my calculation and my reply that the salaries of teachers had risen by 170 per cent since 1948 up to now, i.e. including the last increases. I do not know which of us is the greater economist. I want to say at once that I am not one and I assume that the hon. member for Berea is not one either. But fortunately I obtained the help of an economist. I do not know whether he obtained the help of an economist. My economist explained the matter to me in the following manner: The hon. member for Berea said that the maximum increase as regards category D teachers was merely 127 per cent; that the minimum was 116 per cent; that the maximum in the B category was 108 per cent and the minimum 98 per cent, and if that is so, my average of 170 per cent is quite wrong. My economist pointed out that it is one of the cardinal principles of statistic methods that one should work with comparable data, otherwise one’s conclusions have no value. In talking about averages one should realize that there are various methods according to which one can work, and that the conclusions one reaches can vary from method to method. In that manner the answer one arrives at in using the arithmetical average method, may differ substantially from the answer one will arrive at in using the medial modus or geometrical method. However, if one compares the average increase in salaries in category B and D with the total average increase in salaries from 1948 to 1966, namely 170 per cent—according to the same method by which the 170 per cent was calculated, namely according to an average of salary scale—one finds that the average salary for category B has risen by 158 per cent and that of category D by 176 per cent. The rise in category D, which forms the important group at high schools and about which the hon. member is so concerned, is therefore still 6 per cent higher than the average of 170 per cent which I mentioned. I have had the opportunity to study it and to test it, and I am sure that the hon. member for Durban (Berea), as I know him, is also a man who will study it further and that on a subsequent occasion he will agree with me that I am not wrong.

The hon. member for Rosettenville has already to a large extent been replied to as regards his plea that mathematics should be a compulsory subject for all pupils. I want to tell the hon. member that he really is old-fashioned, because that is how it was when we went to school, but nowadays it is no longer so. We had no subject choice; there were six matriculation subjects and whether or not one could pass those subjects, one simply had to take those six subjects. Those six subjects included mathematics and Latin and only the cleverest ones passed, and that is why the hon. member for Rosettenville and I am here today. But we have left many corpses lying along the road, we have wrecked the lives of so many miserable people with these hard and fast rules that to-day, in the light of our wider knowledge, we have a great deal on our consciences, so much so that one would not like to mention those things in an elevated debating chamber such as this. We are grateful to-day that differentiated education has been introduced with the result that each pupil can, according to his aptitude and his ability, study in a field which will in the future be of the greatest value to himself, his fellow man, his country and his people. But even to-day mathematics is still a compulsory subject for admission to many of the university courses, and it will remain so. It is essential for certain fields of study. It is a great pity that we have so few mathematics teachers, but in view of our manpower shortage and the great opportunities for persons with this particular aptitude, it can quite easily be explained. In other spheres of employment they are able to obtain much better posts at salaries with which the teaching profession cannot compete. Therefore we cannot consider such a thing as was proposed by the hon. member; we must explain it away and squash it immediately so that the educational world, not only in South Africa but also throughout the entire world, will not laugh us to scorn as being a lot of backward people who are even at this stage still advocating these hard and fast methods of forcing people to take certain subjects simply because there is a manpower shortage in that field.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville on the fact that he rose here today and made a serious appeal to the English-speaking people to offer their services to this dignified profession, the teaching profession. I think it is high time and I am grateful for the hon. member’s plea and I hope that it will meet with a wide response in the country, because each group has to make its contribution. Just as the hon. member is concerned about the survival of pure English in this country, I am concerned about the survival of pure Afrikaans. The fact that we have mutual respect for the language of the other section, is a sign of true national unity. We agree that all possible help should be given to keep our language on the highest level and that we should all stand together in this regard, that we do not want any deterioration in either of these two languages.

Words of wisdom.

I hope that the appeal made by the hon. member for Rossettenville will not fall on deaf ears; I support his appeal one hundred per cent.

Before I sit down, I come to the delicious dessert, the privilege of extending my hearty congratulations to the two hon. members who made their maiden speeches under my Vote. One of them is a baldhead just as I am and the other is the second youngest member in the House and. mind you, he is my representative in this House, my M.P. I want to congratulate them heartily on the clear manner in which they set out their arguments. The hon. member for Swellendam made a plea here that more attention should be given to hydrology, our water affairs. I agree with him. A great deal is already being done by the C.S.I.R. More can be done. The establishment of a professorship is not a cheap item, but there are no holes to pick in the plea made by the hon. member, and in due course we shall most certainly give attention to that matter if my colleague, who fortunately is present, will open his pocket a little wider so that I may put in my hand deeper.

The maiden speech of the hon. member for Rissik was about the high level of university instruction. He spoke of the patience, the sympathy and the guidance we had to give to the young men and doctors who were being trained, and he also referred to the high standard of our university institutions. He was a little chauvinistic, but we shall forgive him that since he represents a constituency in which one of our universities is situated. What he has said in that regard, I can endorse.

I almost forgot the hon. member for Hillbrow, perhaps because I agree with him so completely. The hon. member made a plea for research in the field of the humanities. I am in complete agreement with him. In this technological age in which we live I have always had the fear that the technological side is being exaggerated; there is utility in technology; there is reality in technology; it is topical, and for that reason one can understand that so much emphasis is being placed on it, but my plea has always been that the technological aspect should not receive too much emphasis at the expense of the humanities, because the latter are in actual fact the permanent salvation of any people in the world. We saw that in the ancient cultures: if the balance is disburbed and too much emphasis is placed on one field, be it economic or militaristic, the humanities are neglected and then such a people goes under. We have our social research bureau, but I must frankly admit that I feel that much more should be done. I want to thank the hon. member for the support he has given me in this argument. I want to assure him that I shall always do my best to see to it that our social research bureau is better equipped.

I think the hon. the Minister has received my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended; even my critical remarks he has received very well. I think we are making some progress. I hope the Minister does not feel for a moment that I have in any way criticized his staff, because my experience in dealing with his staff has been that I have always received the greatest courtesy. I want to make that very, very clear.

The Minister did not say what he thought of my proposal to have all higher education under one Minister. The hon. the Minister, even to-day, handles the education of the four groups. I am not saying for a moment that they must form one group; I want to make that clear to the Minister. I accept that it is the Minister’s policy that there must be four separate groups and that they should have separate development. Although we have the four groups I should like them to come under one Minister, because when an African or a Coloured person or an Indian applies to him for higher education at what we call a White university, he has to consult other people. He should have absolute control—not necessarily this Minister but one Minister in the Cabinet. My suggestion is that one Minister should have absolute control of all higher education.

But the other Ministers know better how to arrange their own affairs.

I think one Minister could do it very well. I am referring only to university education, not the whole educational system. That is my first point. My second point is this: I did not want to know what legislation the hon. the Minister was contemplating; I did not want to see a Bill—what I did want to see was what these professional men had proposed to the Minister. That was my suggestion. I would like to see the details of their report. They hint at what their report is; they say it is a unanimous report. I hope it is. They say it is unanimous and I think it is a great achievement if they have obtained unanimity.

Another point I wish to raise with the Minister is this: Last night we discussed this question of teachers. I say that teachers who are highly qualified have to leave the service because they get married, and I said this should not be necessary. I have known cases where teachers have had to leave the service when they got married and become clerks or typists in offices, people who are professionally trained, because the Department employed them on a temporary basis. It has been mentioned here that certain teachers are put on the permanent staff for three years, but that is not the permanent staff; that is a contract for three years. I think that if English-speaking teachers were allowed to remain in the profession you would have what you require in the primary schools. But I have not such a simple solution for the high schools. There it is very difficult because there you have to compete with industry. We have been asking for teachers of English, Mathematics and Science, but they are very rare, and if they go into industry they are paid twice as much as we are prepared to pay them.

The hon. member for Randfontein appears to have seen the recommendations of the Advisory Council. He spoke with great confidence of what they were, but he is quite at sea about what our attitude was to the creation of this Advisory Council. Our attitude was quite clear. We went back to the De Villiers Report for our inspiration. We said that this Advisory Council should not be a narrowly professional council only, but should be representative of the whole community. The hon. member for Randfontein will remember our amendments in the Select Committee. We proposed 29 amendments, and not one was accepted. It seemed to me that the members of the Select Committee on the Government side were being inspired from outside. They would not accept any amendments. Therefore we received a purely professional body, and not only was it purely professional but it was a body on which Afrikaans-speaking teachers predominated. Not only that, but professional men from the Transvaal predominated. The centre of gravity was in the Transvaal. I was not the only person who complained. The hon. member for Malmesbury complained about it. He made a public speech on the subject. I have his speech here: “Mnr. van Staden is bitter teleurgesteld”. He was disappointed by the manner in which this professional council had been constituted, and the Burger wrote a very strong article on it. It is the constitution of the Advisory Council that we were dissatisfied with. I think the Minister could have had a better advisory council. It could have been more representative.

You said the results were perfect.

I do not know what the result is, but I am inspired by the fact that they said they had unanimity, that all the provinces were agreed. If that is true, I am very pleased indeed, because we have been far from agreement in the past. I hope it is true, and if it is true that is an achievement. The fact that a professional body was appointed which gave this result does not mean that the results would not have been much better if that body had been more representative. But now we have this Council, we must work with it and we must be satisfied with it. If they deliver good work, as they appear to be doing, we should praise them. They appear to be doing good work, but that does not alter the fact that we could have had a more satisfactory body.

There is one final question I wish to put to the Minister. I see on page 25 of the report of his Department, they refer to the General Botha. Is the Minister getting the recruits for training in the South African Merchant Service?

Yes.

My experience has been, that if a boy comes from the Transvaal he will train at the General Botha, he will go to sea and make rapid progress if he is a good lad. After four or five years we find that he has left the sea and has a job ashore. I do not blame him, if he has been fortunate enough to be born and brought up in such a wonderful climate as that of the Transvaal, because then he does not like to go slouching at sea, as the old sailors say. That is our difficulty in South Africa. The South African does not go to sea. Someone pointed out to me the other day that when Diaz, Da Gama and Jan van Riebeeck sailed around these coasts, never on any occasion did the Natives come out to see who they were, as Natives did in the Pacific. The people whom Van Riebeeck describes in his diary are not seafaring people. As the Voortrekkers trekked inland, the old tradition of the sea died within a generation. They became men of the veld. I should like to know from the Minister, when he speaks again, what progress he has made.

I owe the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) an apology. He put a pertinent question to me and I should like to reply to it. It is the policy of the Department to assist parents in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member. If the parents would apply for transport bursaries through the college, their applications would receive sympathetic consideration. No applications have as yet been received. The Treasury has approved of special proposals to meet such cases and a decision is now awaited from the Treasury.

When this House adjourned last night I was pointing out that a joint task was awaiting Labour and Education in that certain industries were discarding workers without such workers being able to do anything about it, and that that valuable human material then took up employment at consolation wages in blind-alley occupations because the way to promotion had been barred completely; and that the worst aspect of this matter was the fact that the entire family of such a person was pushed down to a low level of material, cultural and spiritual existence. This is a national loss which cannot be calculated in terms of rands and cents. The joint task which is awaiting Labour and Education is to devise a system for employing such people at a decent wage and for giving vocational training to those who cannot return to their previous occupations.

But now I am in trouble. Before saying a few words about the cerebral palsied and their education, I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Berea last night, when he pointed out that considerable attention was being given to the word “indoctrination” these days, and that it had allegedly been said that the Afrikaans schools in particular provided fertile soil for indoctrination. It had allegedly also been said that an eminent person; a provincial councillor, expressed himself in public about this and it had allegedly also been said that history was pre-eminently the subject which lent itself to the indoctrination of children. If I am not mistaken I think the hon. member was referring to Mr. Fanie Geldenhuys. I must say, however, that in Afrikaans schools there is nothing of the kind of indoctrination which makes good Nationalists of children, but only that which makes them good patriots and good republicans, as is the duty of every school, be it an Afrikaans-medium school, an English-medium school, a private school or a church school or any other kind of school. I want to assume that the school which the children of the hon. member for Berea are attending is making good republicans of those children, because the father of those children is sitting here on the Opposition benches as a possible member of a future government, and if those children do not become good republicans in the school they are attending, their good father would be misplaced where he is sitting, and how can one reconcile this?

I just want to point out further what happens in America. Last night the Chairman called the hon. member to order when he spoke about these things, but I promise to speak about only such things as the Chairman allowed him to discuss and I shall not speak about things which he was not allowed to discuss. I just want to point out that in America a solem oath consisting of six parts is taken each morning by the children, namely that they swear allegiance to the State President, the country, the nation, the language, the flag and the national anthem. And in Great Britain love for the Royal Family is inspired in the same way—God Save the King or God Save the Queen, as the case may be, and those young Britons, after leaving school, throw out their chests and say: “Brittania rules the waves,” and if one tells them that the tables have been turned and that it now is: “Brittania waives the rules,” they will not believe one because those schools have made such good Britons of them. Such good republicans our schools also want to make of our children.

The second matter to which the hon. member referred was the children of immigrants who were mostly attending English-medium schools, in which connection a certain paper stated that in the next decade no less than 102,000 children of new South Africans, South Africans who were not born here, would go to English-medium schools and only 8,000 to Afrikaans-medium schools.

May I ask a question? I should like to ask the hon. member which of the following two statements is likely to produce the best South Africans? They are contained in the rules of conduct in a student’s diary, and these are the words: In Afrikaans the meaning is “Always and at all times to serve my country and my people”, but the English translation reads: “To serve my country and its people at all times.”

The hon. member is only allowed to ask a question.

I want to put it as follows, be it an Afrikaans-medium or English-medium school, the pupils will be taught at such school—and it is also a quotation—“The choice is to serve your country or to have no country to serve.” It is a question of whether our schools are producing good republicans and they will have a country to serve as citizens of that country. I now want to make further reference to this matter regarding the immigrants. The hon. member hung his argument on the peg of mother-tongue education. When for instance a Pole makes his home in this country and his children understand a few words of English, but no Afrikaans, they are tested and those children are sent to an English-medium school in spite of the fact that the parents request that they should go to an Afrikaans-medium school. This is the result of an Ordinance in the Transvaal which provides that a child should attend a school with a language medium in which he is best able to express himself. But surely this is not mother-tongue education, and the hon. member hung his argument on the peg of mother-tongue education. Is it mother-tongue education if a Pole or a Greek or a German who knows a few words of English comes to this country and we place his children in an English-medium school, or vice versa? That is not mother-tongue education at all, and if he went to an Afrikaans-medium school it would not be mother-tongue education either. That this Ordinance in the Transvaal should remain in force for the sake of children born here is all very well, but I am not satisfied that as a result thereof immigrant children attend English- and Afrikaans-medium schools at a ratio of 102,000 to 8,000. A change must be effected and we ask for an ordinance which will provide that the children of immigrants who can neither speak English nor Afrikaans will be sent to the school of the parents’ choice, provided, of course, that they live within the area from which the school of their choice draws its pupils. A change must be effected, but I now want to leave the matter at that.

I come back to the cerebral palsied. Recently the need for education for cerebral palsied children pertinently came to my attention, but at the same time also the provision of educational facilities by the Department of Education, Arts and Science, and I want to thank the Minister and his Department most heartily therefor. The Estimates chiefly specify approved amounts for the erection of and for additions to schools for the cerebral palsied, one of these being the school at Pretoria. I should like to say a few words about it, not because it falls within my constituency, but because this is the school which children from the rural areas of the Northern Transvaal have to attend because provision has not been made for cerebral palsied children in those rural areas. This matter came to my attention when a pupil from my area applied to be admitted to that school but could not be admitted because there was no accommodation for him in the hostel, and his name was placed on the waiting list together with those of 27 others. The school was built for 150 pupils but the enrolment is already 154. In the hostel there is accommodation for 50. but 60 are being accommodated, and how has it been possible to do so? Because the room of a member of the staff as well as part of the sick bay is used for accommodating some of the children. As a result of representations, not by me, the Department has approved an additional 12 beds, and I see that provision is made for that in the Estimates. I want to thank the Minister most heartily for that, because it makes provision for children in the northern rural areas who can go nowhere else. But that has compelled me to make representations myself for the erection of a school for cerebral palsied children in one of the Northern Transvaal towns which has adequate hospital facilities. Everybody will now think that I shall mention the town of Nylstroom, but I do not intend doing so as I have Pietersburg in mind. As it were, that locality was suggested to me by the knowledgeable principal of a school for the cerebral palsied to whom I had written. Pietersburg is centrally situated and has the best hospital facilities and representations which are supported by realistic considerations are more likely to succeed. It has come to my notice that these schools for the cerebral palsied are usually erected and managed by private bodies receiving State aid, namely associations for the care of cripples, and I think that we should pay tribute to these bodies and furnish tangible proof of our appreciation by way of large donations from the private sector in order to enable them to continue the good work. [Time limit.]

I think we have all been listening with interest to the hon. member for Waterberg especially when he spoke about the problem of the immigrant child in our country, and what struck me in particular was that the hon. member said, if I understood him correctly, that in that respect he approved of the principle of parental choice in connection with the school which the child should attend. We on this side of the House have always approved of the principle of parental choice, but I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has also done so. I also appreciate the fact that it was even said in the newspaper Dagbreek …

May I ask a question? If the parent gives the child the wrong advice, do you not think we should protect him?

Yes, we have to protect him against the Nationalist Party.

When it comes to making a choice for the sake of the well-being of any child, I prefer that which the parent thinks best to that which the Nationalist Party thinks best. But I am glad that the hon. member for Waterberg, who is an ex-teacher, is also beginning to think in the direction of parental choice.

May I ask whether the hon. member can mention the name of one distinguished educationist who is not in favour of parental choice?

We have just heard from the hon. members for Waterberg and Kensington. They surely are prominent educationists and they like the principle of parental choice.

But there is one matter in connection with which I want to break a lance with the hon. member for Waterberg, namely a quotation or an explanation he allegedly gave in connection with a very ugly remark regarding indoctrination of children and a charge which had been levelled against a group of teachers in South Africa. I want to mention it in pursuance of the fact that the National Advisory Education Council, which falls under the Minister, has one important function in particular, namely that the Council should also endeavour to uphold and promote the prestige of the teaching profession and of persons engaged therein. The hon. member for Waterberg referred to a statement made by one Mr. Geldenhuys, a prominent Nationalist and an ex-teacher, in which he mentioned indoctrination. Let me now quote for the hon. member the exact words as they appeared in the Transvaler of 24th August (translation)—

Those were the exact words, and at that stage he was interrupted and asked: “Do you mean through indoctrination?” His reply was: “Yes, through indoctrination.” Where it is one of the functions of the Education Council to uphold the prestige of the teaching profession, it is in fact worthwhile going into a charge such as this. But first let me say that as a general charge against the Afrikaner teacher and clergyman I regard it as being totally false. Even as a general charge against all Nationalist teachers I regard it as being false. But the important point is this; here we have a Nationalist ex-teacher who admits that he believes in indoctrination. In other words, amongst the Nationalist teachers there is a group, and a dangerous group, who believes in indoctrination.

The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

May I ask the Minister what empowers him …

May I ask a question? Can the hon. member define indoctrination?

I do not have a dictionary with me, but I should say that indoctrination means trying to fill a child’s mind with things which are not in accordance with the truth. In this way the hon. member spoke of Slagtersnek in 1938, when he …

The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

I come back to the task of the National Advisory Education Council. The hon. Minister will recall that he requested this Council in his opening address to them to appoint a sub-committee to go into the conditions of service of teachers and also into the prestige of the teaching profession. So much as regards the hon. member for Waterberg.

I now come to the hon. the Minister. The Minister spoke about the problem of the immigrant child and I interrupted him when he said he wanted to create an Afrikaans spirit or attitude in the immigrant child. I asked him whether he meant South African or Afrikaans and he said very specifically “South African”. With that I agree wholeheartedly. But now I am once more concerned about the difference of opinion which apparently exists in the ranks of his party in connection with immigrant children and I again refer to the same Mr. Geldenhuys who said the following (Translation): “We want to indoctrinate the immigrant child to become a good Afrikaans citizen.” Now, there is nothing wrong with being a good Afrikaans or English citizen, but the Minister was right when he said that they should become South African citizens and he disapproved of the word “indoctrination” whereas one of his prominent provincial councillors had used the word.

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

The National Advisory Education Council has for instance discussed uniform dates for school holidays and uniform curricula. I do not know whether I shall be permitted to discuss that here.

That cannot be discussed here.

I do not really want to discuss it, I just wanted your guidance so as to see to what extent school matters which fall under the National Advisory Education Council may be discussed here.

We appreciate the invitation of the hon. the Minister to discuss education policy, and now I want to come to something which he allegedly said—and I hope that he was correctly quoted in one of his own newspapers—something he allegedly said as Minister of Education, Arts and Science in Potchefstroom before the Historical Society of South Africa. There he made the following statement (Translation)—

Is that correctly quoted?

Absolutely correctly.

I believe that it is desirable to teach history in our schools and to teach it correctly, but I think it is wrong if the Minister says that an education system which fails to introduce pupils in the classrooms to the national history is committing high treason. I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister was expressing criticism there on the education system of South Africa as it exists at present in connection with history instruction. Is that correct?

If one were to adopt a negative attitude, one would make such a statement.

Very well, let us view this from the positive angle that the Minister wants to do away with what he regards as possible high treason in the education system of South Africa. [Time limit.]

If I were to reply as I should like to reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should have to devote my entire speech to that end. In any case, I just want to tell the hon. member that I myself was a teacher for many years; I was a history master. I have a different approach to the interpretation of “indoctrination” to that of hon. members on the other side. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as “indoctrination”; I prefer to speak of inspiration, of being imbued with love for what is one’s own. When the English use the expression “to imbue with patriotism”, that is deemed to be right, but when inspiration with love for what is our own emanates from the Afrikaans-speaking side, when love of our country is encouraged, when there is an endeavour to inspire patriotism in children, that is deemed to be wrong. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell on the matter any further. The thought I want to express in order to counter the hon. member’s arguments is that they are always seeking to convert the concept of “inspiration” into that of “indoctrination”, which is a less palatable word. That is why the hon. member committed a fatal blunder when he said, after an interjection, that “indoctrination” was the communication of facts which are not true. No history master, or teacher of any subject, gives his pupils untrue facts; every teacher gives his pupil facts which are correct. A history master who does not give facts which are correct is a traitor to his own past.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a remark made last night by the hon. member for Kensington. I refer to his reference to teaching conditions in the Transvaal and the shortage of teachers, in particular English speaking teachers. He used the following words in his speech: “We have not got enough English-speaking teachers. Now I have often in response to that heard the question ‘whose fault is that’? I want to say that it is not anybody’s fault particularly.” Sir, I am pleased that there is a change in the train of thought of the Opposition. I am also pleased by the remark that the hon. member for Rosettenville has just made. This is the first time since I have been a member of this House—and I have discussed this matter each year—that I have heard an appeal being made by the United Party from this House, or from any other place, to the English-speaking section of the population to do its part. Mr. Chairman, the United Party is becoming increasingly apologetic in regard to this matter. “Not anybody’s fault,” they say. According to the Opposition the shortage of teachers has always been the fault of the Government in the past; it has always been the fault of the Provincial Councils or the fault of the departments in the past. I want to say, and I am not the only one to say this, that it is a fact that it is the fault of the English-speaking section of the population that there are not more English-speaking teachers available. This is so, as I have said on previous occasions in this House, because the English-speaking youth is never encouraged by any eminent member of the United Party to embark on a teaching career. I repeat that I do not stand alone in this respect. I want to draw the attention of the House to a, to my mind, illuminating article that appeared in this connection in one of the English-language newspapers at the beginning of the year. This article appeared in the Sunday Express of 23rd January, 1966, in pursuance of the matriculation examination results in the Transvaal. I shall only quote extracts from the article which states, inter alia—

Let me say immediately that many of these Afrikaans-speaking teachers are principals of English-medium schools, but what is more, Afrikaans-speaking teachers teach English A, that is to say, English Higher, in high schools. The article goes on to refer to married women, to whom the hon. member for Kensington also referred, and states—

This is an important admission on the part of this newspaper. In conclusion, the article quotes what an English-speaking professor has had to say in this connection, namely—

There you have it. That hits the nail right on the head. That is the accusation against the English-speaking section of our people, and I am very pleased that we have had this appeal this afternoon on the part of various hon. members. Is this the position because English-speaking people are becoming more and more interested in materialistic things and for this reason shy away from careers in the teaching profession? This is the case. And then we have accusations made against the Afrikaans-speaking teachers! They are the people who are rendering this teaching service, as I said just now, to the English-speaking community, and then we have the accusation that the Afrikaans-speaking teacher, as we have just now heard again, indoctrinates!

Last year the hon. member for Randfontein and I made an appeal in connection with the teaching of history in schools falling, inter alia, under the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I asked whether it was not possible for history to be made a compulsory subject. This year I want to make an appeal for Afrikaans, not because Afrikaans is not a compulsory subject because, as we all know, Afrikaans, as an official language together with English, is a compulsory subject. I want at the outset to pay tribute to the large corps of teachers throughout the country who are performing this task in connection with teaching, a task which is often a thankless one, as we have once again experienced here this afternoon. I want to pay tribute to teachers in all spheres—in junior schools, in high schools and also to the teachers in the university sphere.

Mr. Chairman, teachers are not simply tutors; they are more specifically educators, people who educate the whole being of the child and the student and who do not simply impart knowledge to him. But I should nevertheless like to single out one group of teachers, one particular group of people, and these are the teachers who teach the two official languages at high schools. These people who have a very difficult task to perform, people who have to take home bundles and bundles of papers for checking, perform a colossal task which is not confined to the classroom. But their’s is an extremely important task and I want for this reason to associate myself with what has just been said by the hon. the Minister—that this is the task of assisting to keep the language (I am speaking more particularly about Afrikaans) pure. It is an extremely important task. We are living at the time when language is being subjected to mutilation, vandalism and degeneration on a very large scale, and here we have a group of people who are trying to halt this process. They have a difficult task. Many people contend that the mutilation of language nowadays is a passing phase. [Time limit.]

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to begin by sending an emergency call to the hon. the Minister. And that emergency call is: “Give us more engineers.” We are all aware of the tremendous shortage of trained engineers in our country, but the question is, what positive steps are we taking to help alleviate that shortage? Before suggesting something practical I just want to refer briefly to how widespread that shortage is and how it is essential for us to do something to try and remedy that shortage. Those of us who attend agricultural congresses know that it is a point which is continually turning up on the agendas. Many farmers want to build their own irrigation dams but cannot do so because they do not have the engineers to help them build those dams, and in this connection it would probably not be inopportune to mention the requirements of our own Department of Water Affairs.

I think we would have completed many more schemes if we had been able to place that specialized manpower at the disposal of that Department. We understand that Escom, which supplies the country with power, wants to double the power over the next few years, and in the years following that, wants to redouble, or even triple the amount. Now I am asking how they will be able to achieve this if the necessary electrical engineers are not available? More and more engineers will be required for the general expansion and development of our country. It is not only for the technical and industrial expansion that they are necessary either. From the nature of the case and in view of their training and ability we find that engineers are often appointed as managers of large undertakings and work in that capacity. In this respect I can also refer to our own Department of Water Affairs where our Secretary is a trained engineer. Our fishing harbours, too, would have been much more developed at this stage if that Department had had the necessary engineering manpower. And as Africa to the north, of us develops, great projects will be tackled on the continent, factories will be erected, and irrigation and other schemes will be tackled. How will South African firms be able to tender for those projects and win the contracts if they do not have the necessary engineers? Think also of our own Department of Transport, of Defence, the Railways, not to mention our large city councils such as that of Johannesburg—all of them need more engineers because their requirements are continually expanding and becoming more technically complicated. Mr. Chairman, I think that with these few remarks I have indicated that the cry of distress is really justified.

But if we would consider for a moment the international position we would see how important it is for any country to make sure that it is not caught napping as far as the training of engineers is concerned. We know how Russia has continued to persevere in that sphere, but that America, particularly after the end of the Second World War, relaxed their efforts somewhat. The result was that the Russians’ sputnik was the first to orbit the earth, and up to the present America has had to spend millions of rand in an effort to make up that lost ground and retrieve its lost prestige.

Normally it is the duty of the universities to train our engineers. Last year a commission of inquiry went into the matter and submitted a very good report. But I am convinced that we should not place this task entirely on the shoulders of the universities. We can greatly facilitate their task and speed up the whole process. By way of explanation just the following: If it is the work of a high school to pilot a pupil through to matric, then we cannot ignore this process at the primary school. As a matter of fact, the most important foundations are laid at the primary school on which the pupil must build in order to pass matric eventually. By way of analogy I now want to raise this point. We must not wait until a student arrives at university as a first year student, and then begin the process of turning him into an engineer. We must begin much sooner than that.

When the prospective engineer arrives at the university as student he should already have received the basic grounding in at least a few of the difficult subjects which he will have to cope with in the course of his studies. The result of such a method will be that the engineering course, which is inevitably difficult, will be made much easier, that the large number of failures in the first year in the engineering faculty will be considerably less, and that the student beginning as engineer will not at a later stage transfer to another course as easily as is the case at present. The final result will be that we will be able to supply our country with many more of the essential trained engineers.

What we really need in this respect is a kind of preparatory school, where we can slowly but surely give the future engineering student a thorough grounding, from standard six already, in those subjects which will later form the essence of his studies. Mathematics is an obvious choice, but attention can also be given at such an institution to subjects like machine drawing, machine construction, the generation of power, and the basic principles of electricity. If a pupil receives the basic training in these subjects, he will fare so much better as student in the engineering faculties. The hon. the Minister and his Department have supplied us with many technical schools in our country which are doing very good work. We are proud of them, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on what they have already achieved in this field, because it not only redounds to their credit, it also means a great deal as far as the training of skilled persons for our industries and other institutions is concerned. Would it be too much to ask the hon. the Minister to give us two of those schools, which would in the first instance concentrate on supplying prospective engineers with a preparatory course? Would it be too much to ask, or would it be unpractical? In addition I want to suggest that our matric courses at our technical . schools be changed in such a way that the f pupil passing that matriculation examination will already have received the basic preparation for becoming an engineer. Our technical schools with all their apparatus, their scope, their people who have been trained in that direction, are the obvious places where that spade work can be done. The question is whether we make enough use of them in that respect as well.

Since the hon. member for Hillbrow represents a neighbouring constituency in Johannesburg I want to return to what he said earlier to-day. You know that the hon. member for Hillbrow represents the constituency from which Mr. Alec Gorshel fled after the United Party had fled from him. During the election campaign the hon. member for Hillbrow said in the course of the only meeting he held in my constituency: “I am not a politician; I am a psychologist.” After having listened on two occasions now to his speeches in this House, I am grateful to be able to say that I have noticed that he is not only psychological, he is also logical, and I want to advise him to avoid the political and remain logical.

What I am actually rising for is to say something about sub-head G of Revenue Vote No. 14, and I want to remind hon. members of the fact that in 1964 this House passed the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act unanimously and with great enthusiasm. On that occasion the hon. the Minister told us that the Bill which he was introducing enjoyed the support of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister, the advisory council on which the most influential leaders of commerce, industry and mining had representation. Now I must say that also for that reason, perhaps particularly for that reason, everyone who had a seat in this House at that time had very high expectations of that National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. When the Government subsequently converted the advance of R500,000 which it had made in order to set the ball rolling into a unique donation, I felt that a new dispensation had dawned for students who did not have the necessary means to attend university courses on their own resources. I am very grateful to learn that from this National Study Loan and Bursary Fund R16,000 has already been made available this year for bursary loans which amount to as much as R400 per student per year. But I must also say that it has been a bitter disappointment for me to learn from the particulars that the strength of the fund on 15th August this year was R551,105 and that in addition to the original R500,000 which the Government had donated and the interest earnings of R48,780, only a meagre R2,325 had come from the part of the private sector. It was a bitter disappointment to me, and it applies in the first instance to those companies the representatives of which serve on that economic advisory council of the Prime Minister. It is disappointing that they have not even availed themselves of this great opportunity to see to it that the companies of which they are directors, did their duty in regard to the great national cause. We all expected, and quite rightly too, commerce industry and mining who feel the need for trained persons the most, to avail themselves of the opportunity of contributing to the funds, contributions which are tax-free. We expected them to see the opportunity of creating facilities for the training of more persons whom they would have been able to use later. I cannot think that it is due to unwillingness on their part. I think they may perhaps have forgotten the very good recommendations they made to the Economic Advisory Council.

I stand here as a director of the “Transvaalse Helpmekaarstudiefonds” and that is the reason why this matter of study loans affects me so deeply. If I think of the small study fund which we have in the Transvaal, out of Helpmekaar sources, and I analyse the figures I have here before me and notice that from April to June of last year the “Transvaalse Helpmekaarstudiefonds” increased each month by R3,286, on which the donors did not receive any tax rebate, then I say that the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund cuts a very poor figure. We must do something to arouse more enthusiasm on the part of the companies and the general public for this great cause.

I want to make a few suggestions which may help to bring the fund to its feet again and I hope they will be looked upon favourably by the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to ask whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to seek the co-operation of the Public Accountants and Auditors Council of South Africa, to explain the matter to them and request their co-operation, because the auditors are pre-eminently those people who have to deal with all companies which pay taxes, and they are the people who very often advise the companies on a professional basis in regard to tax matters. I am convinced that if the hon. the Minister were to get the auditors of South Africa as nonofficial canvassers for this fund, we would make very rapid progress.

In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider informing the Federated Chambers of Commerce and Industry and also the “Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut” on a personal basis in regard to this scheme, what is being contemplated, how it is being administrated, how the members of this body can contribute, and particularly how they can obtain tax rebates. I think that if the people know this and they see what a big task remains to be accomplished,, they will not be slow in coming forward to do that which we expect of them.

In the third place I want to make an appeal to all members of Parliament, and in fact to all responsible persons in the Republic to be of assistance in regard to this great cause. There is not one of us who is not a director, or a manager of a company, or chairman of a board of managers or merely a normal client of one or other company, who does not have influence on those bodies. I believe that if we were to make it our task to act as nonofficial canvassers for this study fund, many of the companies which never even think of this fund and might perhaps not even know about it, would be quite prepared to make their contribution, a contribution on which they can obtain a tax rebate.

Sir, we should not let ourselves believe that sufficient provision exists for prospective students who want to undergo further training after matriculation. We know that there are quite a number of bursaries and loans for first class matriculants with four or six distinctions, but we know just as well that even first class matriculants without distinctions and particularly second class matriculants find it very difficult to get their needs filled when they want to go to university. That is why I am making an appeal to everyone to treat this matter very seriously and not to expect everything to come from the part of the Government as has been the case up to now. Let us rather see a greater display of enthusiasm on the part of the private sector for this matter. If we do that, I am certain that the results will come.

I was pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister that post-graduate scholarships have been instituted in an endeavour to bring back those graduates who left the country for further study overseas. I do not think he is likely to be very successful in bringing back these men but I should be pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister what success he is having in this regard. The British Government, being faced with the same problem sometime ago, sent missions overseas in order to get back their own men. These missions were constituted by representatives of the Selection Board of the Civil Service, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board. By means of sheer persuasion and by putting certain facts in front of these emigrants or migrants, whichever way you like to look at them, this group succeeded in bringing back 13 of these men during 1961, 23 during 1962 and 12 during 1963. I know there have been missions sent from this country overseas in an endeavour to convince doctors but these I understand have been unsuccessful. This is because the opportunities for advancement and the rates of pay in Great Britain are much better than those we can offer here.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay traversed extremely well the difficulty this country is experiencing as a result of a shortage of engineers although there are one or two points which he did not mention. I realize that the Government in 1957 began to appreciate the difficulties it was facing due to the shortage of engineers. It thereupon set up a commission to deal with the problem. This commission reported rather late, i.e. seven years later and for another two years after that the Government did not do much about it. It did nothing to implement the recommendations of that commission about matters which the commission regarded as being very urgent. I know things take time but has the Government, for instance, endeavoured to institute any great improvements at universities? One of the things the commission recommended was an improvement in the subsidy for engineering students. At the time that commission reported there were 6,000 odd engineers in the country and vacancies for another 1,000. The commission also recommended that the average number of engineers required for the needs of the country should at least be 75 per cent more than the number then available. This large backlog should at all costs be made up otherwise the whole advancement of this country would be seriously checked. There is no doubt whatever that unless some sort of crash programme is devised to improve the position as regards engineers this country will be further held back in its economy, in its manufacturing industries and in the development of our national resources. The Government talks glibly of setting up another Sasol but the present Sasol’s success is largely due to the chemical industry which has sprung up around it. It is, of course, a very good thing indeed that such a chemical industry should be established, using as it does coal of which we have enormous resources. As a matter of fact, this is one of the brightest prospects we have for the future, and the more industries we can establish of the variety of Sasol the better. That depends, of course, on the Department of Education providing us with engineers. Meanwhile the Government has put in train the large Orange River project but here again progress of the work is being held back due to a shortage of engineers. One of the reasons for this, and a major psychological reason at that, is that nobody knows what an engineer really is. I remember that when I was a young man in London many years ago I had toothache and although I was a qualified medical man at the time I eventually landed up in the hands of a quack dentist, an unqualified dentist. That could happen because at that time qualified dentists were not so easily identifiable as they are to-day. Similarly we have now the position that everybody can call himself an engineer for instance, it is certainly not extraordinary for an, ordinary motor mechanic to be referred to as an engineer. We may even see a van running up and down the streets with a sign on its side that the firm using it is a firm of hot water engineers. Others again advertise themselves as being irrigation engineers. We have the problem of people who are engineering suppliers but who probably do not have an engineer on their staff. What is referred to as a hot water engineer is really an ordinary plumber.

A large number of firms advertise themselves as being electrical engineers but what do they have on their staff? They have electricians on their staff and probably an electrical engineer has not even been near them. This, then, is one of the serious problems this Government should face, i.e. to identify in the minds of the public what an engineer really is, who is an engineer and who is not. I have seen the proposed Bill of the hon. the Minister which refers particularly to people who are professional engineers. Whether that will work, is a question for argument. I have heard it suggested that we should establish something in the nature of a chartered engineer, in the same way as we have chartered accountants. The main thing is that we must be able to separate the wheat from the chaff so that the public will know that when it employs somebody it will get a technician, or a technologist or an engineer. The main thing the Government has to do is to establish by some form of legislation what and who are engineers, what the qualifications of an engineer are and how the public is to know that when they are being given service in respect of electricity, a hot water system, or irrigation, etc., such services are rendered by qualified engineers or not. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Central) will excuse me if I do not follow up on his argument. I want to touch upon another subject. I am rising to break a lance for the steps which have been taken by the University of the Orange Free State to bring into being a political archives. I would be glad if the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members on the opposite side would also listen carefully to what I have to say because I want to hear their opinions on this matter.

We shall admit to the fact that in the modern world there is a tendency to write contemporary history. As a result of modern telecommunications, radio, etc., things happen much more quickly in the modern world than they did centuries ago. One can normally accept that what might previously perhaps have taken a century to become history, takes only five years, a decade, or twenty years to-day. In other words, in the short span of the 20th Century in which we are now living, history has been recorded which would normally have ranged over many centuries. Now one finds in historians an increasing tendency to put aside to a certain extent the old history, the established facts, and to concentrate on modern or contemporary historical writing. There are many publications dealing with this section of history to-day. To mention a few, there are the Round Table, International Affairs, The World To-day, The Journal of Modern African Studies, The Commonwealth Survey, The Australian Journal of Politics, and scores of others.

That need has also arisen in South Africa, but in South Africa a kind of stigma has attached to the writing of modern political history because we in South Africa have been embroiled in such a fierce and intensive political struggle. We have therefore just concentrated on our own party political struggle and have somewhat neglected the rest. That is why I say that the steps being taken by the University of the Orange Free State to bring into being such a political archive, ought to receive our support. The reason why I am breaking a lance for them to-day is not because it is my old Alma Mater. To tell the truth, I have never been associated with that University, but I admire that pioneering work which they have undertaken. They are now building up a political archives. In doing so they envisage the safe preservation and scientific processing and classification of all political documents. They also envisage a comprehensive political register of all published and unpublished political works in South Africa. They envisage the active collection of documents which might otherwise be lost to posterity. Do you know. Sir, that in South Africa to-day we are practically suffering from a complex. If we come across an old earthenware pot or a chair or what have you of the old days, we seize upon it. We also pay thousands of rands for it. But if we find a political document or writing which might perhaps be of far greater value for our political history, it is relegated to the attic and becomes lost there amongst the cobwebs. They also envisage the collecting and classification of the newspapers of to-day, so that, when a research worker does research on a specific subject, it will not be necessary for him to wade through a wagonload of chaff before coming to the few grains of wheat. These documents will be readily available to him. That will facilitate the task of research workers considerably.

As far as research work is concerned, Sir, we have done very little in South Africa up to now. Actually we have just touched the surface. We now find that the interpretation of our own political history is being done in a very free manner by persons overseas, persons who are even hostile towards us. We are ourselves too much embroiled in our own bitter political struggle and we do not get any further. For these reasons I say that it is to be welcomed that the University of the Orange Free State, under the guidance of Professor J. J. Oberholzer and Dr. M. C. E. van Schoor, has taken the lead in establishing a political archives.

History in itself is not a very lively subject, but political history, as far as I am concerned, borders on political science. In other words, it is a dynamic subject which deals with the cardinal problems of to-day It deals with the dynamic problems and our views on how we must meet them to-day.

These political archives of the University of the Orange Free State have already acquired very important donations, which already form a very valuable nucleus, one which they have already built up and which they will continue to build on. I am thinking for example of donations from the present State President, Mr. C. R. Swart. I am also thinking of all the documents belonging to Mr. Leslie Blackwell, a former judge and member of this House, which have been made over to these archives. I am thinking of the donation of the political documents belonging to Dr. Eric Louw, the late Mr. G. P. van der Merwe, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, Mr. C. L. Henderson, the former private secretary to Minister W. B. Madeley, and Mr. Bailey Bekker, all of which the archives have already received. These documents are so important that they now possess a nucleus around which they can continue to build.

Members on the opposite side, or others, may perhaps put this question: Is it not better for these documents to be placed in the hands of the State Archives? I want to reply immediately and say that I think it is the duty of the State Archives to preserve all State documents for posterity, but it cannot demand private collections, because the private donor is usually a little sceptical of the State or of private persons. I am aware that there are private individuals at the moment who are also collecting these documents avidly. I am thinking for example, of Dr. W. A. Kleynhans, of the University of South Africa, and numerous others, whom one can only admire. But I think that not one of the private collectors, or even the State archives, can build up a collection which will enjoy the support of all political parties, and that is what is essential in this matter. The State Archives will possibly obtain documents dealing with the State as such, but only a university of status can have come so far that it will be able to obtain all the documents from all political parties.

It is also the case that in the State Archives documents are preserved which are important for history, because the Archives Act provides that certain documents can only be published after 50 years. What is of even greater importance, however, is that one should no longer have to wait for periods of 20, 50 or 100 years. We need them now, now at this stage, because it is on them that we must base our political thinking. We must continue to build on those values, and we cannot wait any longer. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) in discussing the position of our National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. There is no better investment which we in this country can make than to equip our youth, who attend our universities and other institutions for higher education, for life. If then it appears that there is something wrong with that Fund, one feels that the time has come for the public to be told that the responsibility for the training of our youth is not simply that of the State but also that of companies and of individuals.

I want to say immediately, Sir, that as recently as early this year, accusations were made against this Government by no less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the Government was doing far too little for the education of our youth at universities and other institutions for higher education. He mentioned figures, and this fact makes one realize how easy it is to play with figures. I do not want to use another well-known expression in regard to what can be done with figures! He said in this House that in Great Britain 10.6 per cent of the national income is spent on education, while in South Africa the figure is only 4.5 per cent. Other hon. members of the Opposition also drew this comparison. If members of the public also follow this up and draw comparisons of this nature, which may perhaps be confusing, it may give the impression that this Government is not doing sufficient in connection with university or general education. Mr. Chairman, the true facts are that South Africa’s contribution towards education, on the part of the Government, compares very favourably with that of any other country. Comparable figures indicate that in the United Kingdom 4.4 per cent of the national income is spent on education and, in Australia, only 3.2 per cent. In Denmark the figure is 3.5 per cent and in the U.S.A., 4.6 per cent. In South Africa this figure is 4.5 per cent. Although we are grateful for what the Government is doing—and for what it is doing in these estimates specifically by increasing the grant to universities by a further R3,000,000—I should like to ask this question: Are these figures actually comparable when one expresses the amount which the State spends on all aspects of education as a percentage of the national income? I ask this question because the State does not have the total national income to spend. The State only has that revenue which it collects. Would it not be better, comparison wise, to express the expenditure on education as a percentage of State income, or to compare actual State expenditure with that of other countries? I hear the hon. member here next to me groaning, but I want to tell him that the unfavourable figure mentioned by his Leader was mentioned incorrectly in regard to Great Britain. What portion of Great Britain’s national income goes to the tax-collector? If he will investigate this aspect of the matter, he will realize what an unfair comparison his was.

Britain is a welfare state.

Yes, precisely. It is a welfare state. One realizes then what an unfair comparison his was. In other words, I contend that when the amount spent by the State on education is expressed as a percentage of State income and not as a percentage of the national income, one will receive a far more favourable picture of South Africa in comparison with other comparable countries like Great Britain.

Mr. Chairman, I have said that the Government is setting the example. But the Government cannot do everything, as is the position in the case of housing, a matter which we discussed the other day. The Government can assist but it cannot do everything in regard to education. The public as a whole must be made aware of the fact that they too have a contribution to make. The signs are there that this will be the case. Because of the tax concession made to companies we have the position to-day that, since 1960—in other words, over the past five years—gifts and promised gifts to universities—which are engaged upon special campaigns—amounted to about R20,000,000. This amount was to a large extent forthcoming from companies. This indicates that this tax concession did encourage them to contribute in that way. One does wonder—and I make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister for transmission to his hon. colleague—whether it will not be worthwhile to make this concession in respect of individuals as well. Would this not also encourage them to contribute to our universities on a larger scale, or even to the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund? One can also think in terms of estates which are subject to the payment of estate duty. If a tax concession can be made in this connection, contributions to our universities will be further encouraged.

Mr. Chairman, I am faced with the danger that the hon. the Minister may accuse me of chauvinism, as happened to my friend the hon. member for Rissik. This may be a favourable opportunity to pay a few words of tribute to the University of Stellenbosch which is this year celebrating its centenary. It is a unique university which is established in a rural town. It is a university which has left its mark upon our country and its history. The hon. the Prime Minister is an ex-student of that university. The Chancellor of the University is the hon. the Minister of Finance and there are two council members of the university in the Cabinet.

Yes, but it also produced good men!

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am grateful that that hon. member is not an ex-student of that university. Stellenbosch University has a tradition of service to our country. In its 11 faculties, which will shortly be increased to 12, it makes provision for a wide variety of services to the nation and its people. I should like to mention two faculties in particular, those of Forestry and Military Science, which are the only two of their kind in South Africa. The latter faculty particularly, that of Military Science, has of late been playing an increasingly more important role in our country.

In paying tribute to the part which this university has played during the past hundred years of our history, I think that it will also be fitting to pay a few words of tribute to the Registrar of that university, Prof. S. J. Pretorius, who will be retiring at the end of this year after a long period of service with the university. Those who attended his classes while he was still lecturing remember Prof. Pretorius as one of our most capable university men. In recent years he has in an administrative capacity been most closely connected with the growth of the university which now has 6,500 students.

In paying tribute to this university and the part it has played, I should like to express my gratitude for the sound trains of thought and guidance that have been forthcoming from the university. There has of late been a great deal written in the press in regard to the position of sport, and, more particularly, an intervarsity rugby competition. The University of Stellenbosch’s attitude has been: Studies come first; we cannot participate in a competition which will mean that students will have to travel all over the country during the time they should be studying. Strong criticism of the Rector and the university has been expressed in sporting circles, but the university has stuck to its guns and has issued a statement in the following terms (Translation):

As it happens, Sir, this university is one which has achieved much in the sphere of sport. It has produced many good sportsmen. That is why I think that what it has had to say is of particular importance. For this reason too one appreciates the comments forthcoming from one of our daily newspapers in the North, which were as follows (Translation):

These comments were made in pursuance of the decision of this university in regard to the question of sport. When one considers the amounts that are spent on education, particularly on higher education, and when one considers the numbers of students who are unsuccessful every year, one feels that, particularly in these times when we need our young people so much, these words have great meaning and are worthy of research—that sport must be accorded its rightful place, in perspective, but that in the first instance devoted study on the part of our students must be accorded its true position.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch paid tribute in his speech to the University of Stellenbosch on the occasion of its centenary celebrations this year. I think it fitting for us, on this side of the House, to request the hon. member as the representative for Stellenbosch to convey the good wishes and sincere congratulations of this side of the House to that University. Stellenbosch has undoubtedly played a tremendous role in South Africa in the past 100 years, and one assumes, taking into consideration its achievements in the past, that it will maintain its tradition. We trust that the hon. member for Stellenbosch will also transmit that to the University authorities.

I am rising, however, to touch upon a matter which to my mind is one of the most important problems besetting education in South Africa and which has also been mentioned here to-day, but in regard to which I think we have not done much towards finding any solution. It is undoubtedly the case that South Africa will not be able to develop to its full potential, be it in the field of agriculture, in that of commerce and industry or in any other elated field of service, unless we make sufficient use of the manpower available to us. A great deal is said about the enormous shortage of manpower which we are experiencing in this country. I wonder whether that view is quite correct. I wonder whether it is not rather a case of our not making sufficient use of the manpower we have at our disposal. I have no doubt that we do have the material at our disposal, but I wonder whether our Education Department, or the State or the Government, truly realizes that up to now we have not quite succeeded in our attempt to provide the country with sufficient schooled workers. There is no doubt about it that there are to-day tens if not hundreds of people at our universities wasting their time or wasting their own or their parents’ money, while there are scores of young boys and young girls outside our universities and institutions for higher education, boys and girls who would like to be admitted to those institutions, who would like to assist us in wiping out the shortage of schooled manpower and improving the position, but for whom the doors of those institutions are closed because of the fact that they do not have the means at their disposal. I am not saying that the loans and bursaries which we have granted up to now and the methods which we have applied up to now have not helped to improve the position; of course they have. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) has outlined here what Helpmekaar, for example, does to make bursaries available, but he also expressed his disappointment at the fact that there was such a poor response on the part of commerce and industry in regard to the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund. I notice from the report of the Department for the past year that donations totalling R1,825 were received from companies. The question arises whether the methods we apply at present meet the needs of South Africa; whether the methods which we have applied up to the present really assist us in training the people we need so desperately. I would go further and say that sending a son or daughter to university is one of the most expensive undertakings to-day that any parent can venture upon. I would almost go as far as to say that sending a son or daughter to university has always been the exclusive privilege of the rich man in South Africa. For the parents in the middle income group it is an enormous burden and for the poor it is practically impossible. Parents in the middle income group who have a gifted son or daughter may possibly be able to obtain a bursary or a loan. But in nine cases out of ten that bursary or loan does not suffice and they themselves have to make some contribution. For the poor man who has a gifted son or daughter there is perhaps also the possibility of sending the child to university with the rid of a loan or bursary. But what about the man in the middle income group or who is poor and whose son or daughter does not fall in the high intelligence groups but has nevertheless passed the matriculation examination and has obtained an exemption certificate to attend university? What about those parents who do not have the necessary contacts or who do not know how to set about obtaining loans or bursaries? I maintain that the methods we apply in South Africa are completely out of date considering the circumstances in which we live today, and unless we adopt a different approach to university training I cannot see how we are going to provide in South Africa’s need for trained persons. I wish to plead with the Government to investigate the possibility of giving free university training to boys and girls who have the ability but whose parents do not have the means to send them to university. Let us help them; they ought to be assisted. We would serve South Africa in doing so. We will not be able to develop to our full potential unless we take steps of this nature. We are all surprised that commerce and industry do not do more about loans and bursaries under the Act which we passed here a year or two ago in terms of which they may deduct any contributions made to universities from their taxable income. We are surprised that they do not do that. But why should we be surprised? Those people adopt the attitude that it is the duty of the State, and I do not blame them for doing so, because they are approached by a multitude of organizations for financial assistance. But if we consider university training to be a priority, if we provide more money for university training in future and if we demonstrate that we are in earnest as regards this matter, then we shall influence those people as well to do more for education and especially for our institutions for higher education.

I again want to plead with the hon. the Minister to consider providing free university training to talented boys and girls whose parents do not have the necessary means at their disposal to send them to university. I am convinced that by doing so we would render a great service to South Africa and would enable South Africa to develop to an increased extent in future and to make better use of its potential.

Before replying to what the hon. member for Newton Park has just said, I want to say that I agree that we in South Africa cannot afford to neglect our human material, but that we should see to it that every boy and girl who has the potential is trained to the maximum of his or her ability. The hon. member advanced an argument which is very popular, and I should have liked to have been able to support him, but we have to be practical. We should not therefore, in debating the Budget, attack the Government for excessive spending, and then, when it suits us. appeal for services which would of necessity incur heavy expenditure. We do not want to convert South Africa into a welfare state; we do not want to promote socialism. I agree with the hon. member in regard to the importance of educating every boy and girl, especially those who possess talent but have not the wherewithal to attend university. We should not allow those boys and girls to be neglected. I trust that it will be possible to make interest-free loans available to these people so that lack of means will not obstruct their path towards higher education.

I rise to make an appeal for technical education in South Africa, and in particular at the technical high schools. I am pleased to know that we have a Minister and a Secretary for Education, Arts and Science who are sympathetic to this cause. This is also true of our Department of Education, Arts and Science. Mr. Chairman, in making this appeal I do not want to be misinterpreted; I am not saying that insufficient attention should be given to the academic training of our young people, but that if South Africa were to go to the trouble and expense of making a survey of our requirements, we would be able to maintain a fair balance in South Africa. This survey would in the first place serve to determine our immediate and future requirements, what we require in the nature of human material, and secondly, to ascertain what we have available in the way of human material. There are certain basic principles of education which we would not want to waive, principles which will enable our young people to avoid superficiality, principles which will stimulate sublimation. I am glad to say that there is a technical high school in my constituency. I am pleased that the old stigma which was previously attached to trade schools is disappearing to an increasing extent and that those schools are now seen in an entirely different and favourable light. We need these technicians in South Africa. When we scrutinize the immigrants who are recruited for South Africa we find that our immigration campaign is directed towards technical development and technicians. I am of the opinion that much more time and more attention should be devoted to the development and training of our own human material here in South Africa. I appeal in particular for the introduction at every school in a suitable environment of a subject which I want to call “agricultural mechanics”. We need it desperately; it is of vital importance that we have people who can teach this subject and that we train our lads in this technical direction to enable them to service and maintain the mechanical and other agricultural equipment in everyday use.

I want to make an appeal for a survey of this nature, not in order to upset the balance but simply in order to maintain the balance in the future. There is no doubt that there is a need for academically trained persons for the future, but it is equally of vital importance that we should also have technically trained persons. I think that it is far cheaper to develop our own human material to the full than to import immigrants. I also maintain that our own people do not have to be taught to assimilate with the South Africans; they are born of the soil and know these requirements. I say that under no circumstances can we in South Africa afford to allow our people to become redundant for the sake of people who are strangers to the nation, the soil and the traditions of South Africa. That is why I want to make an appeal for technical training and the giving of a status to our technical high schools and those boys and girls whom we can train technically. I want to make a very urgent appeal to parents not to send the so-called stupid child to our technical high schools. There are no stupid children, or very few; it depends upon the method we use to ascertain the ability and potential of that child. Fortunately, our nation is a balanced nation and we do have people who do not have the bent to occupy high academic positions but who have a flair for showing their skill with their hands. There is a great need for such persons. I feel that our education should be orientated in such a way that we shall be able to make a comprehensive survey of South Africa’s needs in this regard and of the material we have available, and that we should so develop that material that it will contribute towards the establishment of a model state in South Africa where we shall do our work ourselves.

I want to reply very briefly to the few thoughts which have been expressed, and I want to thank the hon. member for Waterberg for his thoughts in regard to the cerebral palsied. He made a plea for such a school to be built at Pietersburg. I can only say that one is at present being constructed at Krugersdorp. It is very expensive and we must first wait and see how it develops, and major contributions are being asked for from the private sector, but we realize that where the needs exist this will happen.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that an education system which does not have history as a subject is committing suicide and high treason. I agree. Any nation which does not know about its origins and what its links are with other countries will come to a fall. What is so tragic is that I had a survey made and the percentage of children in the English-medium schools taking history is much higher than in the Afrikaans-medium schools. I have even gone so far as to introduce history in our higher technical and trade schools, because it is absolutely essential. It will be up to Standard VIII. Of course we cannot make it a compulsory matriculation subject. I am not pleading for it to be a compulsory subject, but history as a subject must be there. It is a basic subject.

Did the word “high treason” not refer to our present education system?

Oh please, the hon. member should not be so suspicious. He will sleep much easier, live much longer and be a much more pleasant person if he were not so suspicious.

Two hon. members spoke about the shortage of engineers, the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Durban (Central). The Strasszacher Report, as hon. members know, is only a report on this shortage of engineers. It was handed to us at the beginning of 1966. The Scientific Advisory Council is now convening in September to go through the recommendations of this report with a fine-tooth comb and will then submit their findings to the Cabinet. That will afford me the opportunity as the Minister responsible of making proposals to the Cabinet in regard to doing what can possibly be done. I am glad that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) and the hon. member for Newton Park both spoke about this bursary fund. This is something which affects me very deeply. It is probably one of the greatest disappointments I have had in my political career, i.e. the poor reaction which was forthcoming. You will remember that the Government initially gave a loan of R500,000 in order to make a start with the fund. I exerted myself in order to get this amount as a donation so that we could use the interest on the funds for bursaries, and the Government agreed. We have already tried out, by means of circulars, etc., all the good plans which the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) put forward. During the next session I hope to introduce an amendment to the Act which established this fund. We do not have the right to do so at the moment, but the only way to get this money is to appoint a paid organizer. He can sell all the various bodies on this matter. I hope to make this amendment in the 1967 session. It is not now a convenient time to do so. I then hope that the fund will grow. I want to thank the hon. member for his interest and I am also availing myself of this opportunity, as I do on each and every occasion, to make that urgent appeal to the private sector to realize that they are not giving away charity, they are making an investment in South Africa for the future. Everything which one gives to education and training is an investment.

I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that free university training costs many millions. If one makes it free for one person, you will have to do it for all. One can only do it by means of a bursary, and we have had that in the case of ordinary education. Here it was also the indigent first and later it went further and further, and to-day it is free for the richest man’s child, as well as for the poorest man’s child, and that principle is wrong. But it costs a parent an average of R600 a year to keep his child at university. I admit that it is expensive and that is why I am pleading for these bursaries. But we must rid ourselves of the idea of free university training.

I am pleased about the plea of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for higher technical schools. I just want to furnish this one figure. In 1954 there were 27 vocational schools with 5,000 full-time pupils, whereas in 1963 there were 77 with 30,000 pupils. We are therefore making progress. That is the direction we are taking. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank all the hon. members on both sides of the House very sincerely for their contributions. It was a pleasant discussion and it was constructive, and my Department and I will take thorough cognizance of many of the ideas which have been expressed here.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—Schools of Industries and Reform Schools, R2,185,000:

This Vote, which is separate from the Education, Arts and Science Vote, is an important Vote in that it plays an important part in the education particularly of some of the maladjusted youth of South Africa. However, I think there are certain aspects dealing with the reform schools and the schools of industries which require further elucidation from the Minister. I refer to the question of the schools of industries which are playing an important part, and I understand that in many instances the pupils of these schools of industries are playing an important part in the industrial life of South Africa and are making careers for themselves after leaving such schools. However, I feel that the time has arrived when greater care should be taken in regard to the grading of these schools of industry. We find that in terms of the Children’s Act many of the young people who are committed to these schools of industry are committed on various grounds. There are instances of children declared in need of care in terms of a court order, and there are nine grounds on which a person can be committed to a school of industry or can be declared a child in need of care. Here I think that at least one of the schools of industries for boys should be allocated to those young persons who are not showing any delinquent tendencies whatever. In other words, boys who are transferred from children’s homes and are then committed to schools of industries, and the reason for their committal is often because they are deserted children or neglected children or abandoned children. I have had instances where boys have been transferred from a children’s home to which they were originally committed on such grounds and where they have not developed any behavioural difficulties but have been sent to a school of industry where a large percentage of the pupils at that school are persons who have been committed to that school on the grounds that they developed delinquent tendencies or uncontrollability or truancy or because of various other offences that they might have committed. It is found that in some instances these children who are committed to the schools of industries have not developed any behavioural difficulties at all, but after being for a period of two years at these schools of industries some of them then develop delinquent tendencies. I feel that the environment is not conducive to the best results unless these schools of industries are carefully graded and great care is taken in the committal of these young people to such schools. I believe that the Minister could have at least one of these schools of industries where the type of boy committed to it would be the type of boy who has not yet developed any delinquent tendencies and who could also be placed, when it comes to private placement, and sent to such a school; and these schools can be made great use of by many people who would like to see their children receive extra discipline at a school of industries but at the same time would not like to see them committed to a school where they come into close contact with boys who have developed delinquent tendencies. This would obviate that danger of environment. I therefore think the Minister should give some indication as to the degree of success that the schools of industries are achieving, particularly in regard to those boys who are committed to these schools on the basis of being habitual truants or because they have been convicted of offences and have been sent to these schools for rehabilitation. The other point is the question of absconders. Here I believe it is really in the hands of the boards of management of the various schools of industries when it comes to dealing with these boys who abscond. It appears that in many instances when the absconder is returned to the school he invariably absconds again in a very short time. I wonder whether it is not possible for the Minister to take up this problem with his colleague the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to see whether greater use could not be made of the observation centres so that in the best interests of the boy concerned he can be dealt with either by being transferred to another institution where there might be a greater possibility of him receiving the re-education which is so necessary in the rehabilitation of this particular type of youth.

Obviously the reform schools have a far more difficult task than the schools of industries. Reform schools have to deal with young juvenile offenders. Yet, here too, I believe that greater care should be taken in regard to the grading of those boys admitted to such schools. I know of several cases where boys have been admitted to the Constantia School for offences such as abduction and others. Some of these boys soon after they were discharged were again convicted for offences of a different nature. Recently there was a case of a boy who within six months of his discharge was convicted on three charges of housebreaking and theft. The offence for which he was originally committed to the reform school was that of abduction. So I should like to suggest that greater care should be taken in regard to the association of the boys at such schools and also of the type of offence of which they have been found guilty.

The question of the success of the Constantia School for Boys received special attention when a report under the aegis of the National Bureau of Education and Social Research was submitted by Dr. J. N. Lotter. This report had as title “Rehabilitasie van Blanke Jeugoortreders”. This report contained some interesting information. It was, in fact, a follow-up study of 544 pupils discharged from the Constantia School. Certain statistics contained in this report make one wonder whether the time has not arrived where the old question of the type of training, the curriculum and the type of re-education at the Constantia School cannot be improved. According to this report only 26.3 per cent of the 544 ex-pupils could be classified as successes. Only 26.3 per cent of these pupils were not convicted of another offence during the follow-up period of five years. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Umbilo is known in this House as a person who makes a constructive contribution to the discussion of this Vote each year. He takes particular interest in this matter and I am glad of that. We appreciate it and I can assure him that we have already acted on many of his suggestions. I also wish to assure him that the classification of industrial schools, a matter which he touched upon, has already been accomplished to a great extent. However, I acknowledge that he is right in this respect that things are far from perfect. There is still a need for further classification, but the hon. member will realize that further classification would entail more schools, more buildings, and so on. At the moment it would be extremely difficult to make funds available for the erection of such schools and buildings.

The question of truancy has been enjoying the attention of my Department’s psychologists for quite some time already. It is a matter which I am as concerned about as the hon. member. I may just mention that it is not always the fault of the child if he plays truant, just as it is not always the fault of the teacher. There are many problems associated with this matter and we will therefore have to tackle it in the right way. I agree with the hon. member that it will not be of much avail to send the child back to the same environment. That will only frustrate him even more. As far as the school at Constantia is concerned, the psychologists and inspectors of my Department are already giving their attention to the adjustment of courses and the establishment of more effective methods for rehabilitation. I am very glad to be able to testify that great progress has already been made. I thank the hon. member very sincerely for his interest in this matter.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote 16,—“Information, R3,345,000”.

The hon. the Minister who is Minister of Information at present, was chairman of the chief propaganda committee of his party for many years. I am prepared to compliment him on having done particularly good work in that capacity. Now he is the head of the propaganda department of South Africa, and I am convinced that it is in his power to make a success of it, if he wants to. But then he will have to effect a few changes, and develop a new approach in respect of his task. The hon. the Minister will have to admit that, in spite of everything we have undertaken in the field of State information during the past years, we have actually not made any progress. I note that in the Annual Report of the Department mention is made of the fact that “there has been in several countries a gradual yet significant shift of attitude towards South African affairs”. One hopes that that is really the case, because if things are going badly with a country, it also affects its citizens in all manner of ways. It concerns each of us personally that our country should enjoy prestige and that it should not continually have to live under a cloud of threats. But the hon. the Minister will pardon me if I point out that this statement appears in the reports of his Department virtually every year. In the report for 1963, for instance, it is also reported that there is “greater understanding and increasing acceptance of the underlying idea of separate development”. Favourable signs are always being seen and reported. However, the trouble is that it is like the rainbow. We never reach the actual change. On the contrary. I think the facts of the matter are—and it is necessary for us to look the facts in the face—that our position in the world has not become any easier. According to speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for instance, the position has indeed become more difficult for us. I must honestly say that sometimes I am inclined to wonder whether things would have gone any worse with us if, instead of spending so much on State information over the years, we had spent the funds on teaching and educating our own people. As we see the matter, there has been, in spite of all the efforts that have been made, no improvement worth mentioning in the image of South Africa abroad; at any rate, no improvement up to a point where it is significantly to our advantage in the field of diplomacy and politics. The question that has to be asked in this regard is where does the fault lie, and how can we try to correct that fault. We on this side feel that it is our duty to say what we think should be done to put the matter right. The advice we want to give the hon. the Minister in this regard is that he should in the first instance study the information services of democratic countries such as England and America, and, in contrast to that, the information services of one-party states such as Russia and Portugal. If he does that, he will see that there is a clear difference in the approach of these two kinds of countries as far as their information services are concerned. The difference is contained in this: In the case of one-party states, the state is identified with the ruling party. Let me mention a practical example of this. Take, for instance, the Soviet Union. In the public mind all over the world it is inseparably coupled with the doctrine of Communism. Consequently, if the Soviet Union advertises itself in the world, it cannot do so without advertising Communism at the same time. It is for that reason that in thinking of the Soviet Union at present, one thinks of it not as a country—although it is a great country which has tremendous industrial development and which has at the same time attained great achievements in the field of science—but immediately in terms of its Communism. We in this country have quite rightly banned Communism, and it is for that reason that a country such as ours, for instance, cannot allow any information pamphlets of a country such as the Soviet Union here for the very reason that it puts its doctrine first and foremost. The result is that in the minds of the people in the world that country and its doctrine are coupled inseparably to each other. Over against that we find the other group of countries such as America and England. In those countries we find the two-party system, as we also know it in South Africa. A principle of this system is that the government of to-day may perhaps be the opposition of tomorrow. In the propaganda of England and America, for instance, mention is not made of “State policy”, but of the policy of the current government. In reading the information documents of these countries, it is in fact possible to be conscious of the party which is in power. Their information offices also make available to the world explanations in regard to the policy of the current government. But their whole approach, such as in the case of America, is of such a nature that one will not continually identify that country with the Democratic Party which is in power at the moment. One thinks of it as a country, just as in the case of England, and if one thinks of them politically, one does in any case have a mental picture of a democratic state with two leading parties, each with its own policy, but both of them still inextricably part of the state. The one is as much part of state as the other. One simply does not think of identifying the ruling party in America, for instance, with the state. The whole picture of their political life is one of government and opposition, and conversely, and in that manner the image conveyed to the world is that of rivalling politics and rivalling political ideas.

I think that we are making our mistake in this regard. I do not want to go as far as to say that we are following the Russian model in all respects. I am of the opinion that we are closer to the Portuguese model. However, we have reached the uneasy position that when the outside world thinks of South Africa, it immediately thinks of apartheid. They continually see these two together and never do they see South Africa as a country without connecting it with apartheid. In the public mind South Africa and apartheid have become a unitary concept, just as the Soviet Union and its communism are inseparably linked in the public mind. If one thinks of one of them, one immediately thinks of the other as well.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the opportunity for talking about race policy as such, neither am I doing so. What I am in fact dealing with, is the way South Africa is presented to the outside world. Let me put it this way that, if such a doctrine had been a pleasant and accepted concept to the outside world, it would not have mattered. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout merely served the same old sour porridge here this afternoon. He has of late been doing that so often in this House. We are becoming quite used to the fact that he refers to this side of the House by implication as a one-party State, and in the same breath mentions Russia. I want to tell him that it does not go down very well with us. All I can therefore congratulate him on this afternoon, is that he said the same old things he says here so often, in a calmer fashion this afternoon. I want to tell him that if he thinks he is of any service to South Africa by making that kind of statement in a responsible House like this, it surpasses my understanding, and I think also that of most of the hon. members on this side of the House. Mr. Chairman, I just want to show you how unpatriotic the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is. I want to show you how unpatriotic he is in making that kind of reference in this House.

I have in front of me a report of the “Hearing before the Sub-Committee on Africa of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 89th Congress”, which took place on 10th, 17th and 24th May, 1966. I want to read to the hon. member the evidence given before that Committee by a former visitor to South Africa, namely Professor C. D. Marshall. I want to do so with the object of showing what a person of high standing who visited our country, said of South Africa, compared with what was said by a man sitting over there, namely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Professor Marshall said the following before that Committee—

It was therefore stated by that important visitor from abroad that the position was not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has tried to make us believe on more than one occasion. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and also the United Party’ that the Government may give information to the world abroad until we are literally blue in the face, but as long as the United Party through a spokesman like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rises in this House in one debate after another and makes that type of speech here, it destroys summarily all the good work done by the Government and the Department of Information. [Interjections.] I do not think it redounds to the credit of hon. members on the opposite side to vilify our country in such a way in this House. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell you that the people of South Africa, and I want to include the United Party, constitute our best Department of Information. We are all concerned in the matter, and all of us should co-operate to improve South Africa’s image abroad.

If we are asked what the main task of the Department of Information is, the answer is surely very clearly that it is to disseminate the image of South Africa abroad—not to sell it, because that is an ugly word—and also to supply information locally to keep the inhabitants of our country informed about Government projects and Government policy. In this great clockwork system the Department of Information is only a tiny cog, and only has the small amount of R3,250,000 on its Budget. The image of South Africa is of such a nature that the world abroad simply cannot fail to see it, thanks to our country and its people, people of quality. I do not want to exclude the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but if the hon. member persists in comparing us with Russia by implication, he will eventually compel me to exclude him. The image of South Africa we should all publicize, is an image of people with a strong and capable Government, a Government which many countries have reason to envy us; a country where law and order are still maintained under the most difficult circumstances conceivable, and where peace, quiet and prosperity reign under a directing authority; a country where the economic progress as well as the economic investment possibilities are without equal anywhere in the world; a country where great and complex problems, in fact, a problem which is unique in the world, are tackled with skill, determination and insight. We all realize that this is a difficult and unique problem, namely that of our race relations.

Is it too much then to expect the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the United Party to co-operate towards disseminating this image of our beautiful country, a diamond of many facets, honourably to the world abroad? This is a country of which any inhabitant can be justly proud, and not only every inhabitant of the country, but in view of the era in which we live, also the world abroad and in particular the Western world. Our value to the world abroad lies particularly in the intrinsic worth and actions of this Government and of all its subjects, and not in millions of rand in an attempt to sell something cheaply and in popular fashion to the world abroad. Faithful to the true image of South Africa, our Department of Information need not go about swanking and parading abroad like an empty braggart. South Africa does not need that.

Our position in this country is such that if its image were disseminated faithfully, we would be able to present its merchandise without splendour and embellishments, but in a civilized and modest fashion, with dignity and true quality, to those abroad who can still recognize and appreciate what is noble and elevating. Here it may be fitting to say that I believe that in view of these difficult circumstances in which South Africa is struggling with its unique problems, the world abroad will yet be grateful to this country for the way in which it is dealing with those problems. In contrast with that, we see the United Party, which through some of its spokesmen frequently says irresponsible things in this country, as we saw again this afternoon, which present us with many unnecessary difficulties abroad. Against that background there are the activities of our Department of Information and its 390 officials. It is only a small number, seen against the background of the large officialdom which we have available in South Africa. It is only in that light that the activities of the Department of Information may be judged, and it is only in that light that we may criticize the Department of Information if we have any criticism.

I should like to submit the following positive approach to the Minister for his consideration. I know we have already started that on a small scale, but is it not possible that some of these really outstanding and brilliant pamphlets, for example, “This is South Africa—Dit is Suid-Afrika”, may be made available on a large scale on all incoming and outgoing aeroplanes and ships? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired I had not yet completed my argument, otherwise the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would have realized that he was on the wrong track altogether with what he had to say. In parenthesis, I have never presented South Africa as a one-party state. Neither have I ever intimated that we are moving in the direction of a one-party state; for I do not believe that. Here I am, a member of the Opposition, and that is why it would be foolish of me to say that we are a one-party state. When I resumed my seat previously I was indicating that what we were concerned with here was not whether apartheid was right or wrong. That is the policy of the Government and we cannot argue at any length about that matter on this Vote.

My point was that in its presentation of South Africa abroad the Government is continually identifying South Africa with the ideology of apartheid to such an extent that those people always see South Africa and apartheid as being one and the same, just as they always see the Soviet and Communism as being one and the same. It is obvious that if apartheid was an acceptable ideology in the outside world it would not have mattered, but we all know that colour apartheid is something which will never be regarded in a favourable light overseas. Only recently Dr. Eric Louw, the former Minister of the Exterior, suggested that we leave the United Nations, because according to him, it was useless to expect that one will be able to convince the outside world of the justice of the Government’s race attitude; not even the Western countries he said, and that is why he said that we should rather withdraw from the United Nations, and spend our money at home. It is generally accepted that apartheid is something which we cannot sell. That is why I believe that, in view of this state of affairs, it should first be the aim of our Department of Information to break down the present image which people outside have of South Africa, i.e. that South Africa and apartheid is one and the same thing and that they are inextricably linked together.

What our information service is in fact doing at the moment, is bolstering that imagine instead of breaking it down. That is why we are not getting anywhere. The publications which are being made available by the Information Service are larded with ideology. The terminology which is being used, is the terminology of dogma countries—they talk about “state policy” and “South African policy”, and so on. Even in the fine pamphlets in which the Transkei is being presented to the outside world, it is being done within the framework of the apartheid dogma. That is a pity, because we can in fact hold up the Transkei to the world as an example of the development of an area which is predominatly Bantu.

The Transkei has always been there and we are now developing it. However, we now find that there are long passages in this publication in which attempts are being made to make use of that fact to justify ideology. Our propaganda is too much in the service of apartheid, and that is why we are not achieving any success through it. Of course, I realize that the Government has adopted a course which is attracting attention, and that it must therefore explain itself. We are not suggesting either that the Government should not explain its policy. In fact, we do not blame the Government for stating its policy. We make no objection to that. But what is wrong is the way in which South Africa is being presented by the State Information Service. South Africa is continually being harnessed behind the party politics of the governing party. The image which it is presenting of South Africa—and I am referring in particular to the political image—is unbalanced. What it ought to do is this:

It can issue publications in which the policy of the Government is explained. They should be separate publications in which the policy and administration of the Government is explained. But it should be made sufficiently apparent that it is government policy and not “state policy”; that it is the policy of the Government of the day in a country where we have a two-party system and where the Government of to-day is not necessarily the Government of to-morrow. In other words, we suggest that the Government in its propaganda should not follow the example of Portugal or Russia. I am not saying that we are a one-party state, but I am saying that we should not follow the example the one-party states are setting in their propaganda. We should follow the example of the democratic countries, and what are they doing? They are giving a balanced, true picture of their country as it really is. In its latest annual report the Department itself has given the real solution. It stated there that “a balanced picture of the South African scene” should be created, and that is why it is bringing out people to South Africa. The former Minister of Information, when he accepted his post, said: “My task is going to be to give the outside world a true picture of South Africa, an honest picture.”

Do you think segregation will make any difference?

Let the Government issue its publications on the apartheid policy, in a separate volume, but when, in any publication, it wants to present a picture of South Africa as a country and it comes to politics, then it should be made consistently clear that we are a democratic country with a two-party system, with a Government and an alternative Government; and every time when it presents the policy of the Government Party then it should at the same time present the policy of the alternative Government, because after all almost half of the White voters of this country are opposed to the Government policy. [Interjections.] We will not argue now about a difference of 2 or 5 per cent, the fact is that that is the way things are in South Africa. The only true picture of South Africa is that there is a Government and an Opposition. Anything else is not a true picture of South Africa. The Government, when it presents a picture of South Africa, presents for the most part an unbalanced picture of the country. All the documents which it publishes is larded with that. The Government is continually identifying South Africa with the ideology of apartheid, but that is not South Africa. South Africa has a variety of points of view. Apartheid is the point of view of the Government of the day, but it is not necessarily the point of view of the Government of to-morrow! Publications by the American Information Service presenting a picture of America are not continually giving long descriptions of the policy of the Democratic Party as being representative of America; it gives a picture of America as it is; it gives the full story of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party; it gives the whole picture of America as it is. We say that our Information Service will never achieve success unless it carries out what it has itself prescribed in this annual report, i.e. that it should give a balanced picture of South Africa when it is dealing with South Africa. There is nothing wrong with stating the Government policy in separate publications, but it should not continually be harnassing South Africa to the party political bandwagon of the Government. It has been a long time since I was overseas—three years ago however I was in Japan—but there and in America I had the opportunity of holding discourses, and my approach was always the following: Where I came across a misrepresentation, whether of the policy of the Government or the policy of the Opposition, I immediately corrected it, but what I consistently did in addition to that, was to present the complete picture of South Africa. And this achieved excellent results. I told the people: “South Africa is a democratic country with two main parties and a free exchange of political ideas”. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the policy of apartheid and the image of South Africa, which according to him are created in the same breath. He said that the two were linked inseparably in all publications issued by the Information Service. I just want to ask him this question: Does he think for one moment that if the policy advocated by the United Party in the past election were presented abroad, it would create any other image of South Africa than the so-called apartheid image? The policy of the United Party, as advocated by them, presents a worse image of discrimination than any image that may be created of the National Party’s policy. If we were to present the United Party policy, as advocated in their manifestos, namely that they will never give the non-Whites an opportunity of governing the country, to the world abroad, South Africa’s image abroad would be much worse.

It is not the policy of the United Party, in its logical conclusion, which is harming the image of South Africa. The South African Department of Information has a particularly difficult task because we occupy a virtually unique position in the arena of so-called world opinion. It is not the task of the Information Service merely to make our existence and our achievements known to the world. We are a relatively small and inconsequential country as far as the world abroad is concerned and as far as we, by means of financial pressure behind the scenes, can force our point of view on to other countries. It would not have been possible for us to make Britain, for example, abandon the enforcement of its rights in Suez. We are a relatively small country in the world.

South Africa’s premise should be to present its policy as it is, namely within the framework of separate development. Our entire premise is that separate development is the only policy that can succeed in solving the problem of race relations in South Africa. Consider the success South Africa has achieved, by means of its policy, in securing human dignity here for members of all races. What success have other countries achieved with their policy of integration, compulsory or voluntary integration? We need only consider the “success” they have achieved, and then compare it with the success South Africa has achieved with its policy, to realize which policy is the more successful. I want to submit that the reason why the campaign against South Africa is waged with so much hostility, is the very fact that South Africa is proving to the world that we are achieving success with our policy, and that so-called world opinion does not want this policy to be successful. World opinion is seeking to announce the policy of integrational liberalism, the policy of world fraternization, and South Africa’s experience proves that the opposite policy is successful, and the experience of other countries proves that that policy of fraternization is not a success. Our entire premise should therefore be to emphasize in our Information Service documents that the policy of separate development is successful.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is always trying to compare South Africa to a one-party State. He did that again to-day by trying to draw a comparison between the information services of Portugal and Russia, and that of South Africa. He said that our Information Service differs drastically from that of the two-party States, from the democratic states, America and Britain, but the fact of the matter is that if South Africa is showing any tendency to become a one-party State, it is as a result of the voluntary choice of the voters, because they are rejecting the United Party more and more. If the United Party are supposed to be such authorities in the field of information, why do they fail in every election? I want to submit that the United Party fails to submit an honest policy, and for that reason they cannot succeed in presenting a correct image of South Africa.

South Africa is involved in a struggle against power politics, and because it is a struggle against power politics, South Africa can only try to bring about a more favourable attitude towards its policy. I am grateful that the judgment in the South West Africa case has contributed to such a large extent to the considerable improvement in the image of South Africa abroad. It has contributed considerably towards giving many countries food for thought. I want to congratulate our ambassador in America on the contribution he made in a television debate the other day, when the interviewer asked him most vindictive and aggressive questions and he nevertheless succeeded in replying calmly and most efficiently to those questions.

I think our publications abroad have also contributed considerably towards South Africa’s improved image abroad. The judgment in the South West Africa case in particular has contributed a great deal to the fact that people are now asking themselves whether the vindictive campaign against South Africa should be continued. South Africa is making its mark despite the fact that we are facing the superior power of so-called world opinion.

South Africa will achieve success, and the documents published by our Information Service are having an effect wherever they are disseminated in the world.

I should like to plead that some of our information documents should be sent to all larger companies overseas for the information of the directors and heads of those companies. I think that will contribute to a better understanding of South Africa and to its economic prosperity. In that way we shall also be able to present a better image of South Africa to people who matter. The hon. member for Primrose has already said that we should place those documents in aeroplanes; I agree wholeheartedly, but it is my request that our publications should also be made available in all business offices abroad to which the public has access.

I do not plan to go very deeply into what the hon. member has just said. You cannot go very deep into such shallow waters. I am not quite sure whether he was talking about the department of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or whose department he was talking about but I seem to have missed the point that he was talking to the hon. Minister of Information. Sir, this Department of Information is something which concerns all of us. It is not something which concerns only the Nationalist Party. It concerns us on this side of the House. It concerns all South Africans, and it is a Department which is larger than merely a propaganda department. We are all involved in it, every single one of us. Our country is involved in it. The image of our country overseas is involved in it, and I think the image that this Department puts across must be something greater than merely the image of a party in power, because that is something which can be changed at the whim of the electorate. That is something which is here to-day but may be gone to-morrow when there is another party in power and another policy may be followed. But it is part of the duty of the Department to create overseas an image which is favourable to South Africa, and whatever happens, you are working against liberalist organizations overseas whose object it is to destroy the good image of South Africa. The policy of this Department must be so framed as to counteract the propaganda of these other agencies overseas. I believe what is important is to put across the realities of our position in this country, and that reality is quite simple, that we are the only stable and civilized country in Africa, and both sides of the House are involved in that stability and civilization.

What is necessary is to penetrate to the mass thought of the West. That is the task of this Department, to get across to the thought of the people in the West that we here are a White population which has a function and a mission to perform in the world. I believe that the image that is put across is in some ways the wrong one. I realize that when the hon. the Minister of Tourism was the Minister of Information we had a certain amount of pictures of South Africa which are attractive to foreign tourists, glistening beaches and dusky maidens and wild animals, designed to draw visitors to our country. But I think the task of this Minister is to influence the minds of the people overseas who are our potential friends. I am quite convinced that the mass of people in the West are potentially friends of South Africa. We must get into their minds a new image of our country and it is going by default because I believe we are not using the right medium.

This is a thought which was given to me by a person, a friend of South Africa, a frequent visitor who is chairman in England of 42 companies, including one of the largest insurance companies in Britain. He made the point that the medium of our advertising, which consists largely of the printed word in Britain, is wrong. It is difficult to get across to the people the message that South Africa has. I do not know whether hon. members have seen some of these printed advertisements. I have seen some in Punch and they are very urbane and civilized. “What is South Africa like, old boy?” “It is a great place, old chap. Our chaps over there are doing a great job,” and all that sort of thing. But this is not what we need to get across to the thought of the people. The advertisements in the newspapers are a little too detailed. The suggestion was made, and I give it for what it is worth, that time bought on commercial television, short, factual and effectual films in prime viewing time, are the things to bring into the homes of the people, where you have a compulsive audience. They will never get up and turn off the programme just because South Africa appears on it. They will be there watching and you will bring your message into the homes of 40,000,000 people at a time. People say it will cost money, but if you are spending Rx,000 on the printed word which is totally ineffective that money is lost completely, but if you spent Rxx,000 on something which penetrates into the minds of the people you are trying to reach I believe you will achieve something. I think this is something the hon. the Minister should go into. This is the ideal way to make a real impression, to reach out to the people with a message that we in South Africa, all of us, White people and Black people together, are working to achieve something which will be a bastion for White civilization on a continent which is rapidly being engulfed in darkness. I think the present way in which we are approaching this matter is the wrong one, and I think that by making more imaginative use of the mass media we will be able to achieve something which will be of tremendous value to our country—and it is our country. I do not care what party we belong to, but we have a common future, and this is one way which will help us to get ahead.

Mr. Chairman, let me say in the beginning, in contrast to some of the speeches I have been reading up in the past few days of previous speakers on the Opposition side in regard to Information, the hon. member for Mooi River has at least come with some constructive ideas and I want to congratulate him. But I want to return in the first place to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has now been promoted to be chief spokesman on information for his party. He made the statement that after all its efforts through the years, the Government has not been able to improve the image of the country overseas. He also said that we have been chasing a rainbow but we do not seem to be reaching that rainbow. Now I want to ask that hon. member what his suggestion is, and how can we improve our image, if we all know that the only image and the only policy that the outside world and its Press demand from South Africa is that we should follow the road of racial integration? Not even the United Party with its new-found policy which it propagated in the last election and to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred, White leadership for ever, could create that better image for South Africa.

But I want to come back to earlier times. I do not know to which party the hon. member for Bezuidenhout then belonged, but in 1947 General Smuts led a deputation to UN. He even had the assistance of the former member for Turffontein. In those days we did not have the apartheid policy, but in spite of that the image of South Africa was so bad at UN that General Smuts with all his world stature and statesmanship could not obtain a two-thirds majority there. But let us come to Rhodesia, which does not follow our policy and has a policy of racial integration, and which has 15 Black M.P.s. I am quite sure the hon. member will agree with me that Rhodesia’s image at UN is not much better than that of South Africa, and they have no Verwoerd or apartheid there. Let us take Portugal to which he also referred as a one-party state. We know that Portugal has a colour policy of assimilation, but Portugal’s image at UN is much more unfavourable than that of South Africa. I want to make this statement to-day that the only direction in which the so-called world opinion will be interested and which will give us a better image is Black domination or a movement towards it. I think the trouble is that our party is prepared to nail its colours to the mast and to state quite frankly that it is following a policy of separate development or separate freedoms, while the trouble with the United Party is that it is not prepared to state openly what policy it is following.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s reference that the Minister should make a study of the information services of the United Kingdom and of the U.S.A. It seems to me that he has not done his homework because he should know as a widely travelled hon. member that the United Kingdom Government information services published a pamphlet in which they state quite clearly that it is the function of a State information service that it should portray and furnish information on Government activities. I want to quote the relevant part—

Then it also quotes the Prime Minister of the time, in December, 1945, that Britain’s information services had now become an important and permanent part of the machinery of government under modern conditions. Now, what difference is there between the policy which the United Kingdom is adopting as far as information services are concerned, and of this Government? There is no difference at all. I also want to point out this to the hon. member. He made the accusation here to-day that in the Government publications no reference is ever made to the fact that there is more than one policy in this country. That is not correct, because if he would look up the back numbers of the S.A. Digest he would see that even his own party had a lot of publicity during the last election. Many speeches made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were reported, and also speeches by the hon. member for Houghton, who represents the Progressive Party in this House. So that is not correct. I also want to mention to the hon. member that as far as the United States Information Agency is concerned, he should be aware of the fact that whenever there is a change of government, changes are made. When Mr. Kennedy, for example, took over the Government in 1960, the head of the U.S. Information Agency was also changed, and that has happened every time that a new president or a new Government has taken over in America. I also want to remind the hon. member of this. He said that the United States Information Office separates itself from the internal policy of the particular Government, but I want to tell him that from my own experience in Johannesburg as far as the United States Information Office there is concerned, it very much practises integration. I invite any hon. member to go to Shakespeare House in Commissioner Street at any time of the day and you will see that the races represented there are according to the official integration policy of the United States. I am not criticizing it because they have that prerogative under diplomatic privilege to exercise integration there, but I want to make it clear that they practise integration on their premises in that building. Is that not an association of the State Information Service of the U.S.A, with the colour policy of its Government?

But I want to come back to the Department itself after having dealt with those few points raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think the Department of Information should be congratulated on the fine job it is doing under very difficult circumstances. I want to say that I think the Department of Information is definitely too bashful in telling South Africa itself what they have been able to accomplish under very difficult circumstances in South Africa. The Opposition, through derogatory remarks over the years, have unfortunately created a very wrong image of what the Department of Information is doing, also in the minds of our own South Africans. The image is that the Department of Information is doing very little or, as they sometimes put it, is doing nothing. Sir, has the time not arrived for the Department to blow its own trumpet a little more and even to expand its internal services in South Africa? From time to time advertising space is bought in the public Press overseas. The hon. member for Mooi River has referred to that. Cannot the Department now for a change insert advertisements in South African newspapers, if the papers do not want to publish news stories about it, telling the South African public what it is actually doing to create a better image for South Africa here as well as overseas? Criticism is so easily levelled at the Department, often as the result of what I should like to call “enlightened ignorance”. It has been said that the Department works only for its own glorification, but I think that is very unfair. If you would just page through the latest annual report of the Department of Information compiled by its Secretary, a very excellently produced publication, you will realize, Sir, how extensive and elaborate the efforts of the Department really are to put across the message of this unique country struggling to find a unique solution for a unique problem. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein seems to have got his lines a little bit crossed when he states with horror that the United States Information Office practises integration in order to demonstrate the policy of their governing party. For his information it happens to be the policy of the opposition party in the United States as well, and therefore you might just as well say that by doing so they are practising and carrying out the views of the American Opposition. It is a very weak argument to use to condemn the information service of another country for carrying out its own national policy.

I do not think he condemned it, he just referred to it.

The hon. the Minister, the ex-Minister, I was going to say the hon. the Minister of ex-information …

You should get your facts right.

The Minister of ex-Information is a little worried about this, because the sort of statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein …

He did not make a statement.

… is typical of the hon. the Minister’s own problem, when he often lost his way and crossed his lines.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a much more serious statement, one made by the hon. member for Primrose. I want to say to him that nothing can do South Africa’s image more harm than the sort of speech that member himself was guilty of perpetrating. He attacked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and alleged that the hon. member implied that South Africa was a one-party state. But then he went on to give a perfect example of Fascism, of Naziism, and of one-party states, the one symbol of intolerance, namely intolerance towards opposition. And his own intolerance towards opposition and towards criticism by the Opposition is the perfect example, the living embodiment of the one-

party-state mind. That sort of intolerance does South Africa far more harm than any criticism this side of the House can ever make, because, Mr. Chairman, criticism is the essence of democratic practice, and the denial of criticism is the essence of Naziism. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that member’s own speech does more harm than anything this side of the House can say.

Now, Sir, I want to look at the objective which the Department of Information has set itself, according to its own report. It says that “it is the purpose of the Department to project, both at home and abroad, an objective picture of South Africa”. While dealing with that object, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has perhaps given consideration to a proposal by one of his own party, a supporter of the Government who holds high office under the Government, that that objective of the Department of Information can best be carried out by employing Bantu officials in the Department of Information to put across a better image of South Africa. I quote from the Burger of December last year in which Dr. Eiselen, Commissioner-General under this Government, stated the following—

Here you have a supporter of the Government proposing the use of Bantu in the Government Information Service. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with that view, because the same speaker in the same speech goes on to deal with this objective of the Department of Information to which I referred, namely the object which the Department has set itself of giving an objective picture of South Africa. But Dr. Eiselen believes that the Department is working under difficulties. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he also agrees with Dr. Eiselen’s views as to what the Department should do. I have quoted this in a different context, but I now want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Information and ask him whether he accepts or whether he repudiates this statement. Because, Sir, this is a matter which affects him as Minister and which I believe is his duty to put right. Dr. Eiselen states—

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. the Minister accepts that statement, or whether he repudiates the Commissioner-General for the North-Sotho. I want to know whether in fact the dilemma of the Department of Information is that it has to put out one story for overseas and another story for South Africa; one story for Whites and another story for Blacks. Because that is what the Commissioner-General for the North-Sotho himself determines to be the dilemma of the Department of Information. He in fact pleads for the Government to be honest and to stop giving this double-barrelled picture of South Africa. He says that the Department of Information should take its courage in both hands and accept the implications of putting Government policy across straight and clear. But the emphasis throughout is on Government policy, and not on South Africa. When we on this side of the House accused the hon. the exMinister of using the Department of Information for political propaganda, as an adjunct of the Nationalist Party propaganda machine, he denied that that was its task, its objective, or that it in fact supplied political propaganda to any political party. I ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—who was so noisy a little earlier—to deny now in this House that in his own election campaign his office issued material printed by the Division of Information as election propaganda. I challenge him to deny it.

I deny it.

The hon. member denies it. I happen to have witnesses available who went into that member’s office and asked for propaganda and were given Division of Information propaganda. The hon. the Minister denies that it was being supplied. I will get the affidavits. I thought that the hon. member would admit it, but he will learn that it is better not to try to hide facts. The member denied that it was done. I want to state now that I have here a list of six publications, four of which were printed by Dagbreek for the Department of Information, one printed by the Cape and Transvaal Printers for the Division of Information, and one printed for the Department of Labour. These six documents were printed with the taxpayers’ money and were distributed by the Nationalist Party as election material during this election in March. I will give you the names of these publications, Mr. Chairman. They are “Land of the Xhosa”, “Decentralized Industrial Development”, “Workreserving”, “So Fair a Home”, “Pillars of South African Economy”, and “Coloured Peoples of South Africa”. Naturally, Sir, after the denial by the hon. the Minister I was not going to be put off with a mere denial, and we sent a person in with a witness. He came back with these six documents, plus five others printed by the Nationalist Party.

How many did you distribute to the United Party?