When the House adjourned last night I was saying that I as an education man welcomed this Bill. Before continuing my argument I just want to announce that some telegrams have been sent to this House on request, and I believe the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) will, this afternoon, read out to the House the telegrams sent to him at his request!

I can only hope and trust that this Bill will result in a clearly defined objective for education. For too long has our education in South Africa been drifting aimlessly in a sea of opportunistic political expediency, so that we never knew what we were aiming for as far as our children were concerned. I believe that many of our social juvenile problems are to be blamed on this deficiency. For too long the pragmatism of an old Anglo-American psychology of learning formed the warp and woof of our education system in South Africa, the psychology which originated in experiments with animals and which was founded on utility. Teaching and education are not merely concerned with factual knowledge—after all, the human being is psycho-phisicum, with a spiritual core.

To-day I want to confine myself to mother-tongue instruction. The child is born in a language milieu; the development of its personality goes hand-in-hand with the development of its language. Language is more than a means of communication; its concepts, intelligence, emotions, attitudes, the levels of the aesthetic, religious and cultural, all are involved. If there is something amiss with the development of the language one of these aspects suffers. Arithmetical ability, logical thought and power of expression are founded on the sound development of language. The process of learning in accordance with thought-psychological methods is irreconcilable with a faulty language medium of instruction. I may point out that the Dutch educationist Kohnstamm pointed out the relationship between language and intelligence. He pointed out that the I.Q. could be determined quite as effectively by means of silent reading tests which are, after all, language tests. This leads to the contention that the I.Q. is not a constant factor and that as the language ability develops, new relations are formed to solve problems of thought, and thus the standard of intelligence as such may be raised. Seen in this light, language is fundamental to raising the intelligence.

Placement in the wrong medium may have grave results. Is the Opposition prepared to answer for the failure of even one child? And how many pupils from Afrikaans parents in Natal have not been penalized in this manner?

How frequently have United Party principals in a subtle fashion passed the application form across the table to an Afrikaans parent, English side up? Months later the parent then discovers that his child has been placed in the English-medium class. We have specific instances of this kind.

How many United Party principals advise Afrikaans pupils rather to follow the English medium from the outset because, as they say, once in the high school they will either have to go to a boarding school or will have to be transferred to the English-medium class in Std. 7, because there are no high school facilities available for Afrikaans-speaking people. We also have instances to bear out that statement. How many United Party principals advise Afrikaans-speaking pupils to go to the English-medium class “because English is the world and commercial language.”

How many United Party principals advise Afrikaans pupils to go to the English-medium class because it will make them “bilingual”? All these motives have been advanced for many years. Most remarkable is the fact that they themselves did not take the medicine they prescribed, otherwise the Afrikaans-medium schools would surely have been brimful of English-speaking pupils!

I would contend that the question of full bilingualism is an illusion and a psychological impossibility. The human mind demands one language, the mother-tongue, for its proper functioning. One cannot think bilingually. One cannot think in two languages. Hence the fallacy of dual-medium instruction.

Why cannot one think bilingually?

If the hon. member read a text-book on education there would be no need for him to come and ask me questions. If an Afrikaans-speaking pupil is in an English-medium class, he is saddled with a double burden. Defective achievement and the higher incidence of failures in the foreign A-language standard bear out this statement.

The alleged erstwhile woodwork teacher at Highbury, Mr. Brian Archibald, M.E.C., who is at present charged with education matters in Natal, expressed himself as follows in the Daily News on 20th February of this year—

What undiluted nonsense! We need only compare the number of English-medium schools with the number of Afrikaans-medium schools in Natal and then compare that with the population figures in order to see that this is not true. Why must the high school pupils of Jozini go to the high school at Piet Retief? At Utrecht three English-speaking parents requested an English-medium class and it was granted. At Nongoma 11 Afrikaans-speaking parents were refused this request on the grounds that the Ordinance provides that a minimum of 15 children is needed.

There is one Afrikaans-medium school in Natal where Latin is offered through the medium of Afrikaans. If a pupil wants to take this subject, he must either change his medium or else mathematics becomes compulsory for university exemption, and if mathematics is offered only through the medium of English, he must change his medium in that subject as well. I contend, therefore, that in that case neither the child nor the parent has any choice as far as his language medium is concerned, or even with regard to what profession he will follow after he has left school.

No, the Natal Afrikaners know the United Party-controlled Provincial Administration too well. I would not be the hon. member for South Coast to-day, after the part he played in this systematic steamrolling of the Afrikaner in his Province.

Since Union every Afrikaans class and school has cost a struggle, an inveterate struggle against authorities who consistently denied the interests and the rights of the Afrikaans child. There is a story attached to each of the cases I can mention, but I fear the hon. members of the Opposition will not even remember all these cases, because they were of no personal significance to them. I wonder whether you still recall the case of the Voor-trekker crèche in the forties, or the story attached to Werda, to Dirkie Uys, to Estcourt, to Stamford Hill. After the education fight had been settled, the Provincial Administration even refused to allow the school to be called the Hoërskool I. G. Jansen.

I may refer to Eshowe, where the struggle continued for years until the beginning of this year, on 24th January, when for the first time in the history of the oldest town in Zululand Afrikaans-medium high school facilities became available in that town, in a town where people in a very low income group also live and work. That town serves the province, but they were consistently denied privileges for the Afrikaans children. No Afrikaans school has ever been initiated by the Natal Provincial Council. English-language schools are built and planned in advance, anticipated. Classrooms are even left empty for a considerable while, but that does not apply to the Afrikaners. They have to fight for their rights. At present there is not one inspector in Natal who is trained to cope with Afrikaans in the A-standard for inspection purposes—not one.

But I come to the question of parental choice. Section 11 (1) of the Ordinance provides that the language medium of each pupil in a public school for Whites shall be the official language chosen by the parent. I have already pointed out that the Afrikaans parents frequently have no choice, neither as regards the subject medium nor the school medium. It is said that it is the democratic right of the parent. I ask: How is democracy not violated? It is our contention that the Children’s Act has already abolished this democratic right as far as the physical well-being of the child is concerned. How much more important is the mental well-being of the child? The State is already compelling parents to send their children to school. The State lays down the age of admission and school attendance. The school lays down school hours, syllabuses, examinations and school uniforms. The province has regulations in respect of children’s diseases. The State prescribes military service. What flagrant abrogations of democratic rights!

But only one democratic right must stay. The wrong one. The one who has political power, the one who can harm and prejudice the child in its progress at school, in it achievements at school, but more, in the development of its personality, the one that elevates lay-judgment above authoritative judgment.

Ulterior motives? Professor E. G. Malherbe reassured us that the language medium of the English-speaking people would not be affected, and he was right. We have checked and in respect of several years we could find only three English-speaking pupils who applied for admission to Afrikaans classes—only three. I ask, once more, how many thousands of Afrikaans pupils were placed in the wrong medium, to their detriment? The Broome Report reads as follows—

The Wilks Report of 1946—by then Mr. Wilks was M.E.C. charged with education matters in Natal—says in paragraph 74—

Paragraph 75 reads—

Paragraph 76 reads—

And then the report continues and prescribes mother-tongue instruction. Were the provisions of this Wilks Commission ever implemented by Mr. Wilks himself, who is still M.E.C. in Natal at present, or was the power of the then Administrator of Natal, who is sitting not very far from us to-day, too great for that?

Parental choice, or let us say, a group of pupils in the wrong medium, promotes cooperation. That is the slogan—co-operation. That is why we have to send our children to school, with a view to co-operation. Mother-tongue instruction means segregating the pupils on the playgrounds. Those are the flagrant political illusions on which we are entertained. The object is not education and teaching. Incidentally, I have never heard the hon. members of the Opposition draw any distinction between education and teaching in this House. They talk about “education”, and there they drop the matter. The object is not education and teaching, I say, but merely co-operation, or rather—which it actually is—the destruction of what is one’s own, or deculturation.

I spoke about ulterior motives. What does it mean if the hon. member for South Coast alleges that the abolition of parental choice will mean the death of English? Is it the Afrikaans-speaking pupil in the English-medium class who has to keep English alive? Surely not. Is it the numerous Afrikaans-speaking teachers employed in English-medium schools, so that there are not enough teachers for Afrikaans-medium schools? Surely not that either. Well, what then?

I say I support the provisions of this Bill, and I find myself in good company. The parents of Natal have already expressed their opinion in the newspapers by way of letter, and I want to read one (Natal Mercury, 20th February, 1967)—

I find myself in good company. Mr. S. G. Osler, when he addressed a group of ladies, said—

Which Bill was he talking about?

Mr. Osler was talking about the Bill now under discussion. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member must not call me a liar. I object most strenuously to that hon. member calling me a liar.

Order! Did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) call that hon. member a liar?

No, Sir. I said I denied it categorically.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Osler also said:

Then I want to read from an editorial in the Daily News of 23rd January, in which the editor said—

With such evidence and pronouncements at one’s disposal, it is understandable that the United Party, as the official Opposition in this House, have not the pep in them to be able to carry this debate any further. That is why they are advancing this type of argument. They ask why we are so hasty in introducing this Bill. Are not our children and the interests of our children adequate reason for haste? We reached a stage where we could not continue any longer. As a Natal education man I want to give the assurance that we from Natal awaited this legislation with enthusiasm. We welcome it and we await the implementation of its provisions eagerly.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Zululand told us one of the strangest stories I have probably ever heard in this House. It was the story of a certain Afrikaner father who was given a form on which he had to make application for his child to be admitted to a school. The form was given to him, I think, with the English side facing him, or an English form was given to him. The Afrikaner parent filled in that form and, according to the story the father only found out three months later that this child had been attending an English-medium school. Surely it is an insult to all Afrikaner parents in Natal to say that they can be so stupid that they did not even know that their child had been attending and English-medium school for three months.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister listened with concern to the turn the debate took yesterday and has once again started to take now with the speech of the hon. member for Zululand. The hon. the Minister adopted such an innocent attitude here when he introduced this legislation. Nobody would be harmed by it. But what happened? Two things became clear in the debate yesterday. The serpent was rearing its head. We are beginning to see what the objectives behind this legislation are. If we look at the large number of combative and aggressive speeches made by the Natal members on the other side, we see that one of the main objects of this Bill is aimed at the Province of Natal, which is mainly an English-speaking province. Why did we hear all these stories about what was supposedly happening in Natal, and what was wrong there? This legislation is primarily aimed at Natal, partly because it is an English-speaking province. The serpent is rearing its head. It also became clear that there was a second group against which this Bill was aimed. That is the moderate Afrikaans-speaking parent of South Africa. I hope I can count myself as one of those … [Interjections.] … who are opposed to that sweet-sounding yet venomous Christian national education policy. As far as Natal is concerned, I am convinced that their system of education need not stand back for the system of education of any of the other provinces, and that it is actually considerably better than that of some provinces I can mention. The fact that Afrikaner parents are sending their children to English medium schools is actually giving rise to a problem in Natal. Are the English medium schools as excellent as that? That must be the case. If the Province of Natal is being attacked indirectly by means of this Bill, I hope that all parents, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, not only in Natal but throughout South Africa, will guard against any injustice being done to the parent in Natal. If it affects Natal, it will affect the whole of South Africa. As regards the Afrikaans-speaking parents whom we consider to be moderates, the hon. the Minister said yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. member for Kensington, that he corroborated the statements made by Professor Chris Coetzee, namely that this Bill, as far as its Christian national aspect was concerned, only related to the Afrikaner child. I think I am being fair when I say that that was the reply made by the hon. the Minister.

Of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Yes, of the Dutch Reformed Church. I, as an Afrikaner parent, strongly object to that. What right does the Minister have to tell me how I should educate my children at school and to determine the type of school my children are to attend? Now he feigns that he does not want to do anything about the parents at the other schools.

As usual you are wresting everything from its context.

The hon. the Minister approved of Professor Chris Coetzee’s words, and here I have the statement in which he said that this Christian national education policy was intended mainly for the Afrikaner child.

Did I say that?

Professor Chris Coetzee said that, and in reply to a question by the hon. member for Kensington you said that you approved of what he had said. Do you perhaps disapprove of that?

That is not to the point at all. C.N.E. is not relevant to this Bill.

I am not talking about the one which is spelt with a hyphen in Afrikaans. Later on I shall prove to the hon. the Minister by means of publications that those two are absolutely the same. I shall quote to him an excerpt in which they do not talk about the hyphenated word, but about education, Christian and national, as it is done in his own Bill. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that there are hundreds of thousands of parents in South Africa who do not support the political views and bigotry and narrow-mindedness of that side. We reject the idea that a man such as the Minister and a party such as the Nationalist Party should seek to take over the future of our children and our children’s children as regards education in general. When I talk about the bigotry, I am astonished that the few enlightened Nationalists who are left —and there are a few of them still—have remained so silent during this debate. I still remember that, when the hon. the Minister appointed his National Education Council in 1962, there was a certain hon. member on the other side who objected to the appointments because they were so unbalanced as regards the representation given to certain parts of the country. It was the hon. member for Malmesbury. In this morning’s Burger I saw an excellent letter by an educationist, apparently a Nationalist, in which he strongly condemned this Bill. I hope that that friend will reveal his identity. I am thinking of the strong objection raised by a man such as Professor A. H. Murray to the idea of Christian national education being forced upon South Africa. I think Professor Murray was appointed to a council by the Minister himself.

This Bill uses the words “Christian” and “national”. I do not concede the right to the Minister to tell me that he is a better judge than I am of what is Christian in character. Nor do I concede him the right to tell me that he is a better judge than I am of what true nationalism in the pure sense of the word is. But he claims that right for himself and I do not concede him that right. There are people who say that we must differentiate betwee Christian nationalism—the hyphenated one in Afrikaans, as the hon. the Minister said—and education which has to be Christian and national, such as that for which provision is being made in this particular Bill. I believe that that is eyewash. I believe that in a case like that it is self-deception. Reference was made here to mother tongue instruction, to mention one example. Mother tongue instruction is mentioned in this legislation. Mother tongue instruction means mother tongue instruction not only in single medium schools, but also in parallel-medium schools. But in terms of Christian national education, mother tongue instruction means mother tongue instruction in single-medium schools only. Was there a single member on the other side who spoke well of parallel-medium schools? It was nothing but an attack directed at those schools and a plea for single-medium schools. To them mother tongue instructions and single-medium schools are one and the same thing. That is also the way it says in the publications of the C.N.E. people. Here and there mention was made of parallel medium schools by speakers on that side. This Bill is a problem to the hon. the Minister. It provides that all Bills dealing with education should be submitted to the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. If the Minister of Agriculture wanted to introduce a Bill dealing with agricultural education in the agricultural schools, would such a Bill also have to be submitted to him?

That is exactly the same as Act No. 86 of 1962.

I am glad the Minister admits that.

I admit nothing. I am saying that this is exactly the same as Act No. 86 of 1962.

Then we agree. Then this hon. Minister will be faced with a problem when legislation in regard to agricultural schools is introduced.

There will be no problem. This has been the case for four years.

The Minister says that there will be no problem. I want to tell him this. On 4th October, 1966, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services gave the following reply to a question of mine—

At present dual medium instruction is being provided at agricultural schools. If legislation is introduced in that regard, what does the hon. the Minister propose to do in respect of this legislation?

That does not fall under this legislation.

The hon. the Minister says that it does not fall under this legislation. The Bill provides the following in Clause 3 (1): “No proposed legislation … relating to education, shall be introduced in the Senate or the House of Assembly or in a provincial council, except after prior consultation between the Minister …” It is obvious that he has to consult the Minister, and this affects agricultural schools as well. But this is just a point I mentioned in passing.

I think we should obtain clarity as to what that side of the House means by the words “Christian” and “national” in this Bill. I have here an authoritative article written on those very two words and on a policy which is being mentioned here, not necessarily C.N.E. policy, but something which is being mentioned frequently, namely Christian and national. Let us see what it means. It was written by Mr. A. F. Weich for the publication Koers, which, as you know, is one of the official publications of Potchefstroom. He starts by saying (translation)—

He does not say Christian national education, not C.N.E. I shall read further—

Such as mathematics or chemistry! I shall read on—

Bilingualism, one of the greatest necessities for building a united nation in South Africa, should not be an aim of education. That is what they mean by Christian and national education. But listen further to what is being said in this statement—

If one gives the child a hiding, one should make it a Christian national hiding. This means that there will be greater and, to my mind, unhealthy interference by churches in school affairs in the future. It says here that “Christian and national education means that the parent community should determine the spirit and policy; in collaboration with the church and the State they should establish, maintain and control schools”. The poor teachers who will have to teach at these schools, will have to conform to the same requirements, according to this article. I shall read further—

It is right that this should be so? Do hon. members on the other side support this? Is it true that this narrow interpretation of a Christian and national outlook on life should be the pre-requisite for a teacher? Do they not want teachers at their schools who adhere to the Jewish faith for instance? This policy which is being advocated in this Bill goes further—

Incidentally, here they spell the word “national” with a capital “N”. That means a political national outlook on life. It means starting with small children at a very tender age. I do not want to read all the details, but just this—

I do not know how it is possible to make technical training in regard to assembling and dismantling motor cars, Christian national in character. Apparently this is also done in that way. In the light of this I want to know what is meant by this legislation. This article continues in this vein. What is in fact interesting is that it is even being said that the Christian national idea—and here it is hyphenated in Afrikaans— rejects the idea of any conscience clause whatsoever. Is that the way of thinking of the other side of the House? This article ends as follows—

It is an education policy which is to grip the Afrikaans nation. Have we not rid ourselves of that idea yet? For heaven’s sake, can we not start thinking as South Africans and South Africans first? It is a policy intended for the Afrikaans nation, for one group … [Interjections.] Hon. members may try to get away from the Christian national concept of education—hyphenated in Afrikaans—but they cannot get away from the fact that those who drafted it were two prominent men in the ranks of that side, namely Dr. T. E. Dönges and Dr. E. G. Jansen. The introduction to that policy was, of course, written by the chairman of the Broederbond at that time, namely Professor J. B. van Rooyen.

Let us look at examples of this school of thought and how they can find expression by means of this Bill. I want to mention examples taken from the ranks of the Minister’s own Party. On a previous occasion I told the House of a Bloemfontein member of the provincial council who said, “We want to indoctrinate the immigrant child into becoming a good Afrikaner.” He does not talk about a good South African, but of a good “Afrikaner”. The following is another example. Last year a principal in Springs drew up a pamphlet in which the United Party was attacked and in which it was claimed that the United Party stood for mixed residential areas and division between the two White language groups. He did, of course, make very good use of that pamphlet. At his request these pamphlets were distributed by the schoolchildren during an election.

Let me also mention a new threat. The following was printed in Dagbreek en Sondagnuus on 5th February, 1967—

SABRA is going to plead for apartheid and the sort of racial policy they are advocating to be introduced in schools in South Africa.

Order! The hon. member is really digressing too far from the Bill. I hope he agrees with me.

I shall therefore confine myself to Nationalists and examples of where they referred to this matter.

You have succeeded in scaring yourself terribly.

This side of the House cannot be intimidated, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will perhaps fear for the future of his own children and of the generation on his side. I shall now read from Die Transvaler dated 24th August. These are the words of a Nationalist who is a provincial council member—

These words are to be found in the Hansard of the Transvaal Provincial Council. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are a few educationists on that side of the House, not so? One of them is the hon. member for Randfontein, and he spoke of what he was supposed to have said in this House a few years ago. I looked up his words, and I think it is a good thing to place on record once again what he said at that time. On 15th August, 1958, he said the following—

Then the hon. member continued by saying that the reason was not that he had indoctrinated them, but that he had told them the history of South Africa as he had had to tell it to them, and—

I wonder whether that unprejudiced narrative of the history of South Africa also included the fact that the two great founders of the United Party had been two Boer generals, namely General Smuts and General Hertzog? While they were fighting, a former Prime Minister of that side was still engaged in writing a book on a certain British bishop.

I regard this Bill as another victory of the bigoted over the enlightened in South Africa and also in the Nationalist Party. I believe that prominent educationists and prominent teachers of the Afrikaans nation are being “Potchefstroom”-ed by this legislation. I say that there is no consideration and no respect in this Bill for people who do not support the way of thought of that side of the House. What respect and what consideration are to be found in this legislation for the Catholics, for Jewish parents, for immigrant parents, for English-speaking parents in general, yes, for the moderate Afrikaner parent? This is bad legislation, it is legislation which will be injurious to the child and the school in South Africa and which can destroy unity in South Africa. That is why I hope that this measure will be rejected by the people of South Africa and by educationists.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove will forgive me for not dealing at once with the aspects referred to by him. I will, however, refer to them in the course of my speech. The introduction of this Bill means that for the first time in the history of the South African people a cornerstone is being laid in the sphere of our education, a foundation on which it will be possible to build with great confidence and pride in future. For the past 50 years our education, the most important activity of our entire national life, was subjected to political disunity, political prejudice and political whims, and the interests of the child and scientific educational principles were neglected. Now, for the first time, we have here a measure in which the teaching and education of the child come first, and in which the decisive factor is recognized educational principles in the interests of the child. Even in 1910, at the time of the National Convention, the majority of the delegates to the convention realized and felt that education should be entrusted to a Union body. Natal, however, protested from fear and the result was a compromise. But no compromise has ever succeeded, and least of all can a compromise be allowed to continue when it affects the education of the people. Everybody was convinced that this compromise was only a temporary measure, however, and for that reason it was provided that education would be entrusted to the control of the provinces for a period of five years, and subsequent to the expiry of that period until Parliament decided otherwise. There was so little doubt about the purely temporary nature of this arrangement that in 1912 Mr. Justice Laurence wrote, amongst other things: “It is impossible to ignore the fact that the drafters of the Constitution must have intended the transfer of education in its entirety by Parliament to the central authority at a later stage.”

From time to time eminent educationists complained and expressed their concern about the fragmentation of education. In 1916 the Jagger Commission advocated the abolition of the provincial system. They asked that all education be brought under the supervision of a central or Union Education Department—

The writer of this was a certain Mr. J. W. Jagger. Then I want to quote from the report of the Hofmeyr Commission of 1924—

The writer was a certain Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr. I quote from the report of the Roos Commission of 1934—

The commission came reluctantly to the conclusion that the statutory control of this matter by means of parliamentary legislation was the only alternative. I then come to the report of the De Villiers Commission of 1948. The members of that commission were: Dr. Francois Jean de Villiers, Mr. Leonard Halford Badham, Mr. Clifford Halliwel Crompton, Professor John Orr and Mr. Alexander Sinton. I just want to quote briefly from the report—

How many of the reports of these commissions have you read?

Mr. Speaker, these people were respected individuals, but they were most certainly not supporters of the National Party. They wrote these reports not because they wanted to advance the cause of the National Party, but because they felt that it was in the interests of education in the country. Divided control continued, however, to the great detriment of the child and of education. The harm we have suffered, as a result of this senseless policy in the course of the past 55 years and more, is incalculable. We have indeed paid a very high price for the fear complex of the Natal jingoes of 1910. Unfortunately it appears to me as though the United Party has made no progress whatsoever since 1910 and are still placing themselves on the same level as the Natal jingoes of 1910.

The National Party, which is not deaf to the heart-beat of the nation, realized that it would be a crime against the youth of South Africa to allow education to continue on this pattern. Now, for the first time since 1910, that error is being put right. After lengthy negotiations agreement was at last reached in the executive committees of all provinces—I believe even in the Executive Committee of Natal—until they were instructed to the contrary by the party indunas. Future generations will regard this legislation as the Magna Charta of education in South Africa. And this is the legislation which is being fought tooth and nail by hon. members on the opposite side and by the Press that supports them. Mr. Speaker, it is the tragedy of the United Party and its Press that they always fail to see and experience the great moment in the history of this nation timeously. They have never been able to join in the festivities of this nation; they have never been able to rejoice with the nation because they oppose everything which is worthwhile. Afterwards they do accept it; afterwards they feel very proud of what has happened, but then they have to scavenge the bare bones like stray dogs, because the banquet is over.

Through the years we have seen this myopia consistently. How they fought the South African National Anthem, the National Flag and the disappearance of the Union Jack! What a performance they put up when we left the Commonwealth! Do you remember the banner headlines against the coming of the Republic? During the past week we have had a repetition of those banner headlines in United Party newspapers—the same attempt to raise spectres, the same despicable method of sowing fear and uncertainty among the English-speaking people by means of misrepresentation and distortion. I can read some of these banner headlines to you—

Minister to rule schools.

Education Bill will enforce “mother tongue”.

U.P. says Education Bill “appalling”.

A pernicious Bill.

It places unlimited power in the hands of the Minister.

Is that not true?

It is not true.

What is wrong about it?

Since yesterday we have been witnessing the pathetic scene in this House of a dying political party giving its last kicks in the throes of death and hitting itself in the process, thereby precipitating its own death. It is incomprehensible that hon. members on the opposite side should have persisted for so many years with the same hackneyed clichés and accusations, like “authoritarian actions”, “dictatorial powers”, “political commissars”, “indoctrination”, “Hitler Germany”, “Communist China”, etc. It is incomprehensible that they have not yet realized that this makes no impression whatsoever on the public outside. Or are they underestimating the intelligence and the judgment of the public? Do not their shrinking numbers show them that they are on the wrong track? The language we heard here and which we have heard again to-day from the hon. member for Orange Grove, we also heard in this House when the Advisory Education Council Act was passed here. I read from Hansard, 1962, Col. 7263, what the hon. member for Orange Grove said—

Mr. Speaker, is this responsible language when one is discussing matters as important as education? For many decades educationists and the people of South Africa have yearned for a national education policy, and now, after thorough deliberation by eminent educa-ionists, provincial authorities and the hon. the Minister, this fine Bill is before this House. It is not a measure which calls for a dirge; it is a Bill which merits a banquet. The people of South Africa, the world of education and future generations will not forgive the United Party for the shortsightedness and political opportunism they displayed in trying to make political gain from a purely educational matter.

I now want to deal briefly with the principal provisions of the Bill and also with some points of criticism raised by hon. members of the Opposition. Clause 2 (1) provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the administrators—and an administrator is defined in the Bill as “an administrator acting in accordance with a decision of the executive committee of which he is a member”—and the Education Advisory Council, determine the general policy which is to be pursued in respect of education in schools. There is therefore no question of dictatorship. There is no question of every school and every child being shunted around by the Minister. There will be consultation with eminent professional people and executive committees. Whom else do hon. members of the Opposition want to determine the policy? Surely it must be someone responsible to this House. Do they want the hon. member for South Coast or the Executive Committee of Natal to lay down the policy? In the past number of years this hon. Minister has handled education in the worthy and most capable fashion. Great monuments have arisen in his term of office as Minister of Education, and this Bill is one of the greatest monuments he has ever established, and we want to thank him for it.

When we come to the general principles, we find that it is provided in the first place that education shall have a Christian character. The hon. member for Hillbrow and also the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to this matter with scorn. I want to warn the hon. members that the people of South Africa will never forgive those who speak scornfully of their religion. Do these hon. members and their Party prefer the vague, colourless and neutral attitude with regard to religion which is advocated by the Liberalists and in which Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, and heathen may all take part? Are those the Christian principles of hon. members on the opposite side? Why does the hon. member for Orange Grove say that the education of the English-speaking child may not be national or Christian? Is it not a sin for him to be trying to withhold that from the English-speaking child? That is not the kind of Christian character we seek for education in South Africa. Surely the fact that ours is a Christian nation should be taken into consideration. Surely the education of a nation should be an expression of the soul of the nation, of the positive traditions of the nation. That is why our Constitution also provides that in humble submission to Almighty God, who controls the destinies of nations and the history of peoples, etc., we shall do certain things. Our history, our culture, our national character and our idealism and our awareness of our calling are inseparably part of our Christian faith. Would there have been any white nation whatsoever in this country at present if it had not been for the fact that our forefathers trekked into the interior with the Bible in the wagon-box and an unshakable faith? We, too, have an unshakable belief in the fact that we as a white nation were guided to this southern tip of Africa to carry the light of Christian civilization into the interior of Africa. How would the progeny of this nation fulfil that calling unless they were schooled in the Christian creed? For that reason I am sincerely grateful that it is now laid down in this Bill, in order that we may tell it to the rest of the world, that our education shall have a Christian character. That does not merely imply religious instruction to those whose parents have no conscientious objections, but it also implies that all education shall acknowledge the Word of God as the highest truth. Now I challenge the hon. member for Orange Grove to refute or to repudiate this system.

Secondly it is laid down that education shall have a broad national character. The origin and the formation and the establishment of all modern education systems throughout the world are due to this principle. Wherever a strong national spirit arises, educational means are utilized as potent institutions for the survival of a nation’s own ideals, culture and traditions. The national principle is not linked to some specific form of state. Monarchies and democracies. bureaucracies and republics, emperors and kings—under all of them this principle is applied. The principal object of national education is training the citizens of the country to serve the country and the nation. The primary element in all national education is the greatness, fame and honour of one’s own country and people. Every young citizen of the country should be educated from childhood to attach the highest value to his country and his people, and if necessary to die for the fatherland. The fame and the honour of the nation must always be held in higher esteem than one’s own advantage and one’s own honour. Now I ask, what is wrong with that? Do hon. members of the United Party disagree with that? Is not the young American educated on this principle, the young American who every Monday morning when he comes to school has to take an oath of allegiance to his nation and his fatherland and his flag, and who has his eyes on his flag every day at school in every classroom, and who, when he goes to church, sees his flag on both sides of the pulpit? And what about the Englishman and the German and the Dutchman and the Belgian and the Austrian? Do they not all have this principle in their education? What is finer and nobler than a young man who marches against the enemy of his people with shining eyes and buoyancy in his stride? Why is that granted to every other nation and people but not to this nation? [Interjections.] The trouble with the hon. members of the Opposition is that for too long they have pursued an alien affection, and adhered to an alien loyalty. These things, which touch the deepest being of the nation, they simply cannot understand. When we seek to educate the youth to love their own, their language, their culture and their country, they say we are indoctrinating the youth. Sir, if that is indoctrination, I was indoctrinating unashamedly for 26 years.

The third principle in this Bill is mothertongue education. This is actually what the Opposition objects to, but it is an international educational principle that instruction shall be given through the medium of the mother-tongue. Now we find a small group of people from the Opposition objecting to it with a view to political advantage. As in the case of all other matters, the Opposition is well behind the times. The parental choice which they advocate and which is their policy, can no longer benefit or save them. The British sentiment, which in the past was adopted by many Afrikaans-speaking people and which was advanced as a motive in the past when Afrikaans-speaking people sent their children to English-medium schools, has gone. There are no more Afrikaans-speaking people, or very few of them, who prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. The very opposite is happening. To-day it is the English-speaking parent who would like to have his child in the Afrikaans-medium school.

Of course. Give him the choice.

Therefore this measure is in fact for the protection of the English language and culture. Why does the hon. member for Kensington want parental choice? Yesterday he told us that if the parent wanted his child in an English-medium school he would provide an English-medium school, and if the parent wanted an Afrikaans-medium school he would provide that as well, and the same would apply with regard to dual medium schools and parallel-medium schools. But how is he going to manage four separate schools in the rural areas in order to comply with the choice of the parents, or will the minority simply have to suffer under the majority again, as in Natal? Parental choice cannot apply in respect of the language medium. The hon. member for Kensington is a great educationist, but here he spoke without conviction because he knew that what he was saying was wrong, but he was compelled to say it. If the parent wants the right to choose the language medium, he should also have the right to decide about the choice of subjects and all those other things, which are educational matters. Our policy is sound and educationally correct. The hon. member tried to make the ridiculous statement that if a fully bilingual child arrives at school it is a great disaster, but surely he knows that that is not true. If the school principal asks the parents which is the mother-tongue, and the parents reply that they use both languages at home, the principal or the principal in consultation with the inspector decide on the language proficiency of the child. Language proficiency is in fact the decisive factor, because there should be no impediment to the assimilation of knowledge. The hon. member for Port Natal said that his children were his own and that he himself would decide what to do with them. But the hon. member’s motor-car is also his own. If he takes his motor-car to the garage, does he say what should be done to the motor-car? Or does he leave it to the mechanic, the trained man, to decide? If he does that as far as his motor-car is concerned, why would he treat his children differently and have them suffer as a result of his shortsightedness? Language medium is no political implement to purchase the souls of children. Language medium, like vocational instruction, is a complex educational matter which must be decided by educationists. Laymen bump their heads when they try to deal with it.

Fourthly, it is provided that all education shall be free of charge. This is a tremendous step forward, particularly as regards the Cape Province. In the past there were parents who frequently felt that there was some discrimination against them because they had to pay for their children’s books. There was in fact the concession that certain children could get free books, but then a stigma was attached to those children because they were needy. I say this is a great step forward. I want to say a word on behalf of certain English-medium high-schools, however, the so-called “fee-paying” high-schools. In Port Elizabeth we have two of those, namely the Grey High School for Boys and the Collegiate High School for Girls. Those schools allow the pupils to pay fees. This is a long established tradition. If they have to do away with all fees now, the result will certainly be great confusion and great problems. The entire tradition was built up over many years, and it will crumble, so to speak. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this, in order that these schools may continue along the same lines for the present.

Fifthly, provision is made for proper differentiation in education. It is provided that education shall be provided in accordance with the ability and aptitude of and interest shown by the pupil. In other words, a broad national policy is being introduced here for the first time in order that a thoroughly planned and scientific system of differentiated education may be introduced. If there were one hon. member on that side who really had the education of our children at heart, they would have welcomed this legislation in its entirety, even if only for the sake of this provision. Our system gave rise to a maldistribution of pupils between academic and vocational schools, to the great detriment of the children themselves. Our country can most certainly no longer afford to allow the continuation of the wastage of human material which resulted from this maldistribution. Upon the completion of their primary courses pupils crowd into the academic high-schools without any reason. That is simply because it is fashionable or because it is customary or because there is no other school for them. It is estimated that 15 to 20 per cent of those pupils have neither an aptitude for nor an interest in such academic training, that they do not belong in these schools and cannot make any progress there either. Such pupils become frustrated beings. After failing the standard six examination twice or three times, they leave the schools as frustrated people, people whose confidence has disintegrated, people who have built up a grievance against society and may eventually even become criminals. If such a pupil had been referred to a vocational or technical school after his ability and proficiency and interest had been determined scientifically in the primary school, he might have become a useful citizen and reduced the shortage of technicians. It is estimated that there are approximately 35,000 of these pupils, with an I.Q. of between 80 and 90, in our provincial secondary schools, whose needs cannot be met by the academic schools.

According to clause 8 the Minister may establish auxiliary services on a national level. I hope and trust that one of the first auxiliary services established in this manner will be a psychological and extension service, or that the existing provincial services will be co-ordinated and expanded, in order that every child may receive the necessary guidance timeously, and in order that the wastage which is going on at present may be stopped. It goes without saying that provision will have to be made on a much larger scale for vocational teaching.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. the Minister very sincerely for two strong and very definite standpoints which he adopted when introducing this Bill. The first one relates to the financial relations with regard to education. It is essential that education shall receive a larger contribution from public funds. A nation that does not pay for its education will suffer in the long run. Expenditure on education is in actual fact not expenditure but investment. Secondly, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the strong standpoint he adopted in respect of the training of teachers. At the moment something like 115 different certificates are awarded to teachers. For the sake of the status of the teacher it is essential that this confusion shall be ended, and as soon as possible. Other countries have long realized this. In England there is the Institute of Education. In Scotland there is the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers. In the U.S.A. there is the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards. They have realized tha efficient education patterns can be brought about only if there is proper co-ordination on the training of teachers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down is somewhat remarkable because it demonstrated just how unwise it is for the hon. the Minister to take all the powers and to centralize and standardize them as he is doing. He made a plea for Grey High School, asking that it should not be a free school and that it should continue to be a fee-paying school. Is this not perhaps an indication of all the troubles that are going to be met by all those hon. gentlemen when they go back to their constituencies? When the hon. member talks about children, what I want to know is, whose children are they? Are they the Government’s children or the Minister’s children or are they my children and our children? I think that is what we are dealing with. The hon. member must ask himself that question. He says that Grey High School should be treated somewhat differently. He should not look at one college which gives him some votes. He must look into the heart of every single voter of his in Algoa. When one listened to that hon. member, one realized what this Bill was in fact for. That hon. member said exactly what this Bill was for. He said it was for what he called indoctrination, but they did not regard it as indoctrination. They regard it as the proper way to bring up a child and to train his mind. I have heard Bills described in many ways, but I have never heard a Bill called “’n pragtige wetsont-werp”. That is what the hon. member called this of all Bills. It is a beautiful piece of duplicity. It is a beautiful conjurer’s trick. The hon. the Minister suddenly appeared in the House last Wednesday, produced a Bill and the next Wednesday, here we are debating the matter—a matter of the most vital importance to every single person in this country and to the future of this country. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has the Government Gazette placed on his desk as in the case of ordinary members. If he has, he will have noticed a draft Bill published for general information by the Department of Justice. It was a Bill to amend the Liquor Act. It is stated in the Gazette:

When this Government deals with liquor, it can give notice to the general public. It can ask the liquor store dealers and the persons who drink, or those who do not drink, to make their representations. But when we deal with education, when we deal with the future and the minds of our children, then no notice must be given to anyone. If we are dealing with someone’s profits or someone’s drinking habits, they certainly give them notice. They not only give them notice, but give them an opportunity to direct their comments so that something can be done about it. [Interjection.] There you are. I do not know who said that. I can hardly believe that it is the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development who said that.

Don’t be silly.

The hon. Deputy Minister’s reply is sufficient for me. He said “Don’t be silly”. He is quite right because he would not say a thing like that. Much has been said in this House to the effect that the Bill is being used as political football. This is a political issue. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science knows this very well and so do all the other hon. gentlemen on the other Side. This is a political issue.

I do not agree. This is not a political issue. You people from Natal have made it a political issue.

What in fact is a political issue? It is an issue on which the electors of South Africa decide, not this Minister. The people must decide. Is this not what politics is—the machinery whereby people decide what they want. In Natal this has been a political issue.

You are making it a party political issue.

Every provincial election in recent years was fought on this issue. The politics of this issue in Natal are that the people of Natal will not have it. This is one of the reasons why they will not have it. They did not want this Minister’s Bill and his education policy. This is therefore politics. What concerns the people and what they have the right to express their opinion on, is politics. That is why he avoided the issue. He would not allow them to express their opinion. He knew very well exactly what the reaction of every single parent in this country would be and so he kept it secret.

But the people will decide this issue. They will decide on the principles of this Bill and whether they will be applied and whether they are going to work. There have been many interjections from that side of the House during this debate about Natal’s stand. I think that if there were a stand in this debate that could be called the Natal stand, it was the stand of the Nationalist members of Parliament led of course by the hon. member for Klip River with his old world charm and courtesy. One is prompted to ask the question of those hon. members and the hon. the Minister. Is this to be the revenge of that bitterness on us, the English-speaking people?

It is the result of your bitterness in Natal.

Does the hon. the Minister mean that this is our punishment for being bitter? [Interjections.] He says yes.

Order! Hon. members must please refrain from making further interjections. They only prolong the debate.

It is Natal that is affected here. The hon. member for Zululand who has made his speech and gone—also one of the Natal stand—talked about what Dr. Ernie Malherbe was reported to have said. It was a rather silly thing to say and I am surprised to see that they are now quoting Dr. Ernie Malherbe on this Bill. It is rather interesting. What did Dr. Malherbe say? He said: “You know the English-speaking people have not really used their rights to send their children to Afrikaans-speaking schools.” So what? Is this not the same argument as saying that a lot of people do not vote in provincial elections, therefore people should not have the vote in provincial elections. Is this not the same sort of nonsensical logic that is used. There are a lot of Nationalists who want their children in English-speaking schools. There are a lot of senior executive members on that side of the House who have their children in English-speaking schools.

We expected something when the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill. It took him an hour and a half to do it. But what did we get? We get a very “slim,” slippery, smooth, oily and ambrosial homily, orchestrated of course by the homophony of “Hoor, hoors”, to which we are accustomed. The hon. the Minister was the image of sugar-coated mother love. He was like a crocodile looking at its eggs, knowing that everyone will hatch in his own image. That is exactly what he is after in this Bill.

I can still swing the cane as well.

Here we have it, Mr. Speaker. Where is the hon. the Minister going to swing the cane?

In my reply to you.

He does not mean in his reply. He means he is going to swing the cane and no one else is allowed to own a cane with this Bill. In fact the Minister is the only one with a cane, as far as this Bill is concerned. I know he is going to use it.

Has this Government not learned now after all this time that you cannot legislate for every problem that arises. This legislation is a terrible error. You cannot legislate to determine and control the minds of people, especially people like us. You cannot do it. I promise the hon. the Minister that he will not do it. But if you do try and if you do produce a Bill like this, then we are entitled to know what the hon. the Minister is after and he has not told us. We have had a few leaks from hon. members opposite but the hon. the Minister has not told us what he is after. We will have to guess. The hon. the Minister was asked a question by the hon. member for Wynberg. He was asked what was wrong with the Christian basis of the education as it exists at the moment. The hon. the Minister replied that he did not think that there was anything to worry about. He was then pertinently asked, if he was not worried about it, why was this aspect of religion included in this Bill. This is the introduction of a power to deal with something which does not exist. The hon. the Minister can determine exactly what sort of religious instruction and religious tone there is to be in a relation to the teaching. People have asked what is wrong with having a Christian basis. I say nothing at all. It is a basis of your society and it is there all the time. You do not have to try to determine, and the hon. the Minister must not try to determine, how this is done. How does he decide? Will he tell us what sort of attitude he is going to apply in this regard? I appreciate that the Minister’s attitudes differ from mine. I appreciate that the church he belongs to might have a different approach to things from the church I belong to. Why does the Minister want the power and how is he going to exercise it in this regard?

There is controversy. There is reference by his colleagues and senior members, to the leaders of other churches. Some of them are called “political” bishops. How I as a politician may feel about their attitude is one thing, but how I feel as a member of that church is quite another thing. My feelings about the teachings of that spiritual community is something quite different. How is this hon. the Minister going to separate in his mind his feelings on the one hand as a politician and on the other hand as a Christian gentleman, which he is? One wonders. Is his attitude the criterion? This is very important. The hon. member for Port Natal raised this issue very pertinently with a very pertinent example. He referred to an Afrikaans-medium child in a Roman Catholic convent. It is very important to the child’s parents that their child should have that religious upbringing and that training—that and no other. Does this Minister want to tell us that they are not entitled to have it? Because this is exactly what this Bill says, namely that they are not entitled to it, unless there is an Afrikaans-medium convent in that area. Is this not interference with the religious rights of people, Mr Speaker? I have given the House one example, and there are many others. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only denomination which has such places, such schools and other places of education.

I should like to ask the Minister what the word “National” means? Will the Minister confide in us? He keeps on telling us that he has the right to reply. Will he perhaps put his cane down for a moment and tell us what is in his mind? Will he tell us whether he agrees with the principle of C.N.O., with or without a hyphen, but particularly with a hyphen? Does he agree with those principles, or doesn’t he? The hon. gentleman has to answer the 60 dollar question which one would have thought he would have answered when he introduced this measure. The question is what changes, apart from the change relating to mother-tongue education, does he anticipate making in the sphere of “Christian” and of “national” in our education in South Africa. In other words, what is wrong at the moment with the national character of our education in our schools, what is wrong with the Christian character of it, and what is he going to do about it? There must be some reason for it; otherwise this Bill is unnecessary. One assumes that this Bill is terribly important, having regard to the manner in which it was introduced, the way in which it is being rushed through. The hon. the Minister must tell us that—he has got to tell us that. He has to tell his own people that because even they do not know. I repeat, Sir: What is wrong with the Christian basis upon which our children are taught today and what is wrong with the national basis upon which they are taught?

The Minister interjected during the speech by the hon. member for Mooi River last night and he said, “Just you leave it to us; you keep out of it, and all will be well—especially in Natal”. What changes does he anticipate must be made to the system which exists in Natal? He must tell us—he has got to tell us. As I say, he should have told us when he introduced the Bill.

I should like to quote something to the hon. the Minister, because this is all I am left with, having received no reply from the Minister, having received no statement from him as to what changes he wants. Let me quote to him what was said by an educationist of fantastic success.

Who was it?

I will tell you in a minute. He said—

Those are grand words. Do hon. members on that side agree with them? That is precisely what this Minister wants to do here in this Bill. The same mass educationist, one who, as I say, had fantastic success, having regard to his object, said four years later, in 1937—

[Interjections.]

Order!

These are the words, obviously, of Adolf Hitler. Those are his words.

We know that you are trying to make us out for Nazis. [Interjections.]

Order! I have asked hon. members to stop these interjections. They only spoil the speech of the hon. member and the entire debate. The hon. member may proceed.

It will be an unusual experience, if I may say so, Sir.

We now come to the question of language. It is a third matter in regard to which the Minister has not answered us. According to our Constitution anyone in South Africa has the right to speak either of the languages at any time. One is always entitled to speak either of the languages. Now, Sir, who determines what the child’s language right is? The child must determine. But the child cannot determine because he is too young. So someone has to decide for him. Surely, the person who decides for him is the person who has to decide everything else for him, namely the parent. This is the common law, it has been the law for Millenia. Why now must the State make this decision for the parent? Why? I appreciate that the Transvaal Language Ordinance case went to the Appellate Division and that court by a majority held that the provisions of the Ordinance did not conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. I may say, Sir, that by the time the case reached the Appellate Division, there was just about an equality of Judges who were on one side or the other. But that does not matter. This language right enshrined in our Constitution we know means nothing if one has the votes this Government has. It means nothing. What matters is one’s attitude towards it, the spirit in which it is administered. And the spirit of this hon. gentleman is not very reassuring at all.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to make a reflection on the court by suggesting that there was an equal number of Judges on each side?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I do hope that the Minister will repudiate some of the remarks that have been flung around freely, especially by the hon. member for Zululand. He had the impertinence—I repeat, the impertinence—to say that English was a commercial language, the language of commerce. Good heavens, Sir, this is my language, this is the language of many South Africans. It is not a commercial language. It may be used by commerce more than the Afrikaans language is. We are dealing here with our language, not with a commercial language. We are dealing here with our language rights.

The Minister expects us to trust him. I think that the hon. member for Kensington in the most eloquent articulation of everything that we on this side of the House think of education, when he spoke on our behalf at the beginning of this debate, expressed the view of all of us when he said that we will not have one more advisory committee from the Minister. We do not trust him. After what he has done in the past we do not trust him. We want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to disabuse his mind so far as his approach to the matters of “Christian” and “National” are concerned, especially when they are associated with each other. I know that he is the Chancellor of the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoëronderwys. Sir, that is fine; that is his particular state of mind. There are lots of people who have that state of mind. They want to send their children there and that is dead right, but I do not have to send my child there and I do not want that attitude necessarily as far as the education of my children are concerned. This is the hon. the Minister who determines it. How can he determine it? How will he determine “Christian” and “National” in that sense? But, Sir, quite apart from that I do not trust this Bill. I do not trust the hon. the Minister. I do not trust the motives of the Government in this regard nor do my people. But do not think that we will allow our children to digest what this hon. Minister would like them to digest; to be contaminated by an attitude of polarized negative insularity such as is exhibited every day by hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. Sir, this thing is not going to end here. The hon. the Minister has his majority and this Bill will be passed, but this is not the end; the battle is only beginning.

You have lost it already.

We will go on from here and the battle will be fought in the hearts and in the homes and the minds of every single person in this country—everyone in my constituency, those who voted Nationalist and those who voted United Party. Sir, there are differences between us. Does the hon. the Minister not appreciate that there are differences between us? Sir, if you cannot live with the diversity that is South Africa, if you cannot live with those differences that are us, that are our nation, then you do not deserve to govern this country. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. The hon. the Prime Minister can talk about unity until the cows come home, but as long as this Bill is here, those are hollow words; they mean nothing. Not one Nationalist who votes for this Bill can ever get up on a platform, and say that he believes in unity. So, Sir, as I said at the beginning the battle will go on. I want to say that when this Bill is passed, if it is passed in its present form, the people of South Africa will never forgive this Government and the hon. gentlemen who voted for it for the disservice they have done to South Africa and our future.

Mr. Speaker, you said on a certain occasion that we were spoiling with our interjections the speech being made by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. With all due respect, I believe that he himself spoilt his own speech with the most outrageous concatenation of adjectives, which are becoming worse than those of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to tire of this habit which hon. members of the Opposition have of dragging in Hitler’s Germany into every debate. That hon. member is not serving his own cause by doing so. He will not deter us in that way, nor is he serving the cause of South Africa.

He ought to be ashamed of himself.

The hon. member asked, “Whose children?”. The children of South Africa to whom we on this side as well as they, as the highest council in this country, bear responsibility. It is the children of South Africa for whom we are making provision here. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North) how long he has been a member of the United Party?

All my life.

I asked the Library to send me the principles of the United Party’s programme.

Do they have such a thing?

It might be an old programme; it was issued in 1944. That hon. member was probably an enrolled member of the United Party at that time. I now want to read to that hon. member what is stated in his Party’s programme of principles. It is of course possible that it has been changed since, because for the United Party changes have become a normal way of life as far as their policy is concerned. I want to read certain of these principles to the hon. member and I then want to ask him when he began to depart from those principles. I quote—

There is a hyphen between the words “Christian” and “national”. I want to ask the hon. member why those words did not then deter him. He was prepared to include them in the first paragraph of his programme of principles, but to-day, because he must try and scare the people of Natal, precisely the same words must be used to try and drive a wedge between the two racial groups in this country. I want to ask the hon. member very specifically when he suddenly decided to throw this principle overboard. It would be interesting to learn that from the hon. member. It would be interesting to hear when that Party adopted “Christian-nationalism” as principle, for what reason they suddenly abandoned it and when they are perhaps going to seize upon it again in an attempt to make a little political capital out of it. These are words with which the United Party go politicizing. We on this side attach a very much more important and deeper meaning to those words. Mr. Speaker, in 1954 we also heard this story from the United Party, i.e. that they could not argue on the principle of this matter. In 1954 the “Education Action Group” of the United Party issued a pamphlet to all United Party candidates in the 1954 election and in the “Introduction” which dealt with the Language Ordinance there appeared the following—

It is then stated in brackets what a few of those principles may be—

“Do not argue on the principles; make it a deeply personal matter; the Nationalists are coming forward here with a terrible thing which they want to introduce into your homes; they are tearing mother and child apart.” We have to-day heard precisely the same arguments from hon. members on that side of the House. Their arguments are not based on purely educational principles.

We come next to the question of parental choice, in which the United Party also played a great role and which has in the Transvaal for example ceased to exist since the “Minute on Education” of Lord Selborne in 1906, right up to 1934, when they themselves made mother-tongue the medium of instruction. But I do not want to discuss that history. In the same document from which I quoted a moment ago, the following was stated—

That in which they themselves had a share, they suddenly wanted to run away from. Christian national education, which the hon. member for Durban (North) is slandering here this afternoon, formed part of his purpose and of his way of life. Mr. Speaker, we must try and formulate principles for education and for the good of our children in what is the highest Council in the country, and then this is the kind of assistance one gets from that side of the House. The United Party take their stand on the basis of freedom in education. The hon. members for Kensington and Hillbrow both referred yesterday to apparently fundamental differences between this side and that side of the House. They are supposedly the people who stand for freedom in education. But they are not the only people who talk about that subject. Reference has been made to the matter in the past. Reference was made to it in the first report of the 1961 Education Panel. Professor Pauw accepted certain recommendations of the report and differed from others. He also submitted a minority report, and he referred to freedom in education. He stated (translation)—

I cannot agree more with his words.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said yesterday, referring to the question of freedom, that one cannot formulate an educational policy in legislation because the moment one does so one stifles its dynamic character. But are provincial ordinances not also legislation, and educational policy is, after all, contained in those ordinances. In provincial ordinances too it is therefore possible that the dynamic expression of educational policy can be completely stifled. On page 72 of the same report Professor Pauw states the following (translation)—

That exists to-day, Sir, and we will not be able to get away from legislation and regulations, whether in regard to policy or teaching practice. But with this legislation we are being afforded the opportunity in this the highest Council Chamber in this country to guard against practices which could perhaps impede what is dynamic in education. I am also appreciative of the fact that as a result of this legislation we in this House will also in future be able to discuss education from the lowest level to the highest, something which we did not in the past have the privilege of doing. Since this Parliament provides finance in the form of subsidies to the provinces, I think it is therefore no more than right that we shall be able to discuss education in all its facets and aspects, and this legislation affords us the opportunity of doing so. I believe that we should have had that opportunity long ago. If that had been the case many things which we shall have to rectify to-day would already have been rectified in the past.

But to conclude with the question of freedom: We must distinguish between external and internal freedom. I quote again from what Professor Pauw said on page 74 (translation)—

That is the fundamental difference, Sir. They aresupposedly the people who stand for freedom in education and we represent the totalitarian power, but the hon. members may as well reject that argument now. But enough about those hon. members and their arguments.

Over the years and down through the centuries civilized nations have each in their time dealt with education and training, and each generation did so in terms of its own particular circumstances according to the degree of importance they attached to their education. But in the past 50 years more attention has probably been givento education than in all the previous centuries; the reasons for that are obvious and I do not think it is necessary to go into them. Nor did we in South Africa escape that process, and the past 50 years testifies to the fact that we have often had to place our education under a magnifying glass and turn the spotlight on it. It is not strange that that should have happened, because education is a dynamic force; there is continual movement, progress and improvement. The spotlight is necessary because coordination and adaptation must always go hand in hand with progress. However, that does not mean that certain fundamental principles and central concepts are also changed, because they stand firm, and whether one embodies them in legislation or accepts them tacitly, those principles always remain the same. But we in South Africa have not always directed the searchlight on education only in order to see where the necessary adjustments could be made. We also did so because we often realized that there were loopholes and shortcomings, which were perhaps a result of our historical development as a whole.

Have you finished with me?

I thought the hon. member had left a long time ago, but it seems to me that I have given him some food for thought now, and he is free to go if he wishes. It is for that reason too that various commissions of inquiry were appointed. I am not going to refer to their reports again, but most of the commissions were perturbed at the lack of a national system and at the lack of co-ordination.Thatis why the recommendations made by these commissions were concerned with supplying the deficiencies in respect of these matters. I would not be far off the mark if I were to summarize the findings and recommendations of these commissions as follows: Acquire a national education advisory council, a national policy and national control. That is the course they marked out, after all the reports we acquired in 1962 the National Education Advisory Council. To-day we come to the next logical step, where powers are being bestowed upon the Minister of Education in respect of the policy to be pursued in supplying education up to Std. X to white persons. Problems which we thought unsolvable and differences which we thought incapable of being settled were eliminated with courage and with sympathetic consultation and all the things were tackled on a purely educational basis. These people keep on saying that this is a political matter which we are dealing with. The Minister has denied it emphatically. Professor Rautenbach, the chairman of the Advisory Council, stated the following when he indicated that legislation on a national policy was in the offing—

That statement appeared in The Star of 30th May, 1966. An important educationist who was charged with this matter also denies that this is being turned into a political matter, but states that we are going to work on purely educational principles and that we are working for the welfare of the child and the country. I would like hon. members to argue on fundamental principles to prove to us that the reverse is true. Progress was made when the Education Advisory Council was established in 1962. But what were we not forced to listen to when that legislation was dealt with in this House! The former member for Hillbrow said in 1962 in Hansard, Col. 7200—

In Hansard, Col. 7205, he states—

If a dying board could have achieved all this which we have to-day then I would not like to see what a living board would have given us. The former member for Johannesburg (North) referred to the committees of this Council as Gestapo committees. She kicked up such a row that Mr. Speaker was forced to call the hon. member to order. The hon. member for Orange Grove, and I am sorry that I cannot also in his case say the former member for Orange Grove—it would not cause me to shed a single tear—referred to a far-reaching Bill and a council with ominous powers. Unfortunately I want to quote again what the hon. member for Algoa quoted—

I am quoting from the 1962 Hansard, Col. 7264. We also find another example of the objectionableness which we are accustomed to from that hon. member—

The former member for Hillbrow, Dr. Steenkamp, said—

The hon. the Minister has shown us how there has been consultation over the years and how problems and difficulties have been overcome and that what we have before us to-day is something which happened with the unanimous approval of the provincial administrations. Now that we have done what the former member for Hillbrow requested, the United Party is still not satisfied with it. It is fortunate that we on this side of the House and the Council which has been appointed pay no heed to the United Party’s prattle and that these people have drawn up their list of priorities in regard to the important tasks which they must tackle, and also that they have submitted this piece of legislation to us as the product of their labours. Through their work they have won status and renown in the eyes of the people of South Africa. None of us, nor even the United Party with their prattle, can in any way detract from the status of this Council to-day. I believe that this Council has the confidence of the teaching profession as well as of the nation in general. If there was ever a council important to our political economy, then it is this Education Advisory Council. Our task must not, be, as those hon. members are apparently trying to do, to place obstacles in the way of this Council, because their work is too important and too far-reaching.

Now that we have come to the next result of the Education Advisory Council’s activities we are once againhearing dire prognostications such as we heard only too often in this House to-day, to wit, how it will affect the provinces, education, the parent and the children together with that entire concatenation of adjectives to which I referred. We must get away from this kind of suspicion-mongering and we must try to judge certain of these things in a positive way. Hon. members on that side have admitted that there are certain positive principles in that Bill, but having said that, they immediately add a “but”. They try to be positive “but” then come forward with more suspicion-mongering to the effect that this Bill will surely not work.

I want to refer to a few of those matters. In the first place I want to deal with the question of greater agreement in respect of syllabuses and curriculums. They say it is a good thing, but add that we must guard against uniformity and stifling through uniformity what we want to achieve. It is stated very clearly there that variety will be taken into account and that we do not want to apply stifling uniformity in syllabuses and curriculums. We must also bear in mind that for parents with school-going children who make an established living, this does not hold many problems. But there are also many parents of school-going children, in the service of the State as well as of private undertakings, who are continually being transferred from one part of the country to another. These people’s problems will to a certain extent be solved in cases where better co-ordination and integration of subject-matter in the various provinces is possible. We are not trying to solve the problem for them completely because where flexibility is allowed we will always find problem cases. If variety is taken into consideration one cannot prescribe precisely what must be done. In this process of co-ordination and integration of subject-matter, good progress has already been made with so-called key curriculums. Discussions have already been held by the various provinces and in these key curriculums an indication is given of the subject-matter and of the knowledge which is expected of a pupil at the end of a specific school-year or standard. This is a great service to our school-going youth. Within the framework of this legislation it will be possible for us to develop this matter to even greater advantage of our school-going youth.

But I also want to put this matter to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that it is also important that we also determine the sequence of the subject-matter in such a key curriculum because it may be that a specific teacher will commence at one point in that prescribed syllabus and another teacher at some other point. If it were possible for us to indicate the sequence of the subject-matter, perhaps even in the school terms, then we will not have the major problem we are faced with to-day. There need be no fear that uniformity of curriculums may even have been prescribed in detail—I say which may even have been prescribed in detail although I am not necessarily advocating that-—can in any way interfere with the dynamics of education and with the conduct of the teacher. The variety lies chiefly in the individual teacher who with his presentation of his subject-matter and his own individuality and originality actually introduces variety into the subject-matter. We are not therefore restricting any teacher who wishes to display a little originality with any of these curriculums. The hon. member for Kensington suggested that we may as well convene the teachers’ associations. It would be easy for them to settle this matter of syllabuses and curriculums. I find it strange that such an experienced educationist as the hon. member for Kensington should say such things. If it had been so easy these people would have settled the question years ago and presented us with the solution. I believe that it will now be possible, by means of this legislation and the compulsory liaison which will now be established, to succeed in overcoming these difficulties.

I am also referring briefly to the greater degree of uniformity in examinations and issuing of certificates. To-day there are diverse methods of testing and measuring. Some shudder when you mention the word “examination”, other cling desperately to examinations. Amongst some there are internal examinations and amongst others external examinations. That also applies to the certificates which are issued as the end result of these measuring processes. The employer seldom if ever knows where he stands. We have heard how many certificates there are in respect of teachers. I wonder how many we would find if we counted those in respect of pupils. We are now moving towards uniformity and we will now have certificates which will at least be a document which one will be able to identify as well as appreciate at a glance. In addition there is also the research, investigation and planning which it will be possible to do on a unified basis, something which I have always been a great advocate of. No educational department can be blamed for having undertaken its research and planning in the way it did in fact do. There was no compulsory liaison between the various education departments. But we believe that under this legislation it will be possible to co-ordinate the research, investigation and planning on the part of educational departments so that such undertakings will no longer be to the benefit of one province only, they will benefit the larger whole.

I also foresee that it will not be possible for us to investigate certain aspects of education within the limits of one province only. In many cases such an investigation which is conducted within the limits of one province only is not as a result of problems which are peculiar to that province; often the problem is one which is experienced throughout the entire country. Up to now it has often happened that one province has investigated a specific teaching problem and that shortly afterwards another province would begin to institute an investigation into the same problem within its limits. On the basis of these investigations certain resolutions were taken and applied within the specific province. We do not want to deprive these people of their freedom but if it so happens that the one province discovered a panacea for the good of education and pupils in that province, why cannot it be applied for the benefit of the entire country? Why should its application be limited merely to the specific provincial boundaries? Then there is also the matter of sending commissions of inquiry overseas. I know of cases where one province sent a commission of inquiry overseas to investigate a specific aspect and that as a result of the report which the commission published certain things were done in that province; shortly afterwards another province also sent a commission of inquiry overseas. I wondered whether there had been liaison between the two or whether both did not go and investigate the same problem.

There is also the need for better co-ordination as far as the planning of school buildings is concerned. We know that the C.S.I.R. has done a great deal in this regard but it ought to be possible in future to maintain a greater degree of standardization as far as school equipment is concerned. This will all contribute to it being possible to apply the available finances more economically, and not only finances, but also the brain-power of skilled persons, persons who are in fact so scarce.

There is something else which I always want to describe as ridiculous, although it may perhaps create the wrong impression. I am referring here to people who allow themselves great personal liberties. In this way one finds a principal or even an Administrator of a province who has a preference for a specific thing, or a special interest in a specific direction. Now this person wants to introduce, on the basis of his own personal preference, something into the province. Let me mention a few examples. There are school farms which exist for a time and then disappear; there are junior high schools which are introduced for a time and then disappear again; the admission of a five-year-old is apparently not a good thing any more and investigations have first to be reinstituted now into the scholastic maturity of pupils; take social studies for example; and now it is differentiation, differentiation directed inwards in terms of the stream system in the comprehensive high school. If one of these novelties is in fact a panacea for the education in one province, why cannot it be extended to the other provinces: [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston has made a strong plea for co-ordination in education. There is, of course, a great deal in what he has said. As a matter of fact. I do not think there is anybody in this House who will deny that we can improve upon the present education system in South Africa—for instance, that there could be better co-ordination. However, the Bill we are considering goes very much further than the aspect of co-ordination pleaded for by the hon. member. What this Bill seeks to do is to impose upon the whole educational system of South Africa a deadly uniformity. This is what I, for one, object to very strongly. Once this Bill becomes law those differences which the hon. member has discussed, differences in approach which each individual teacher may exercise, are going to disappear. Inherent in this Bill is very strong centralized control over the whole teaching system and over teachers themselves. We in this country are already, in fact, experiencing, in the Transvaal at any rate, the very system which is now going to be extended to the rest of the country. In the Transvaal we have been aware for a long time of centralized control, of rigid control over teaching methods, and of an inspectoral system which deadens the initiative of teachers. Teachers in the Transvaal may not criticize teaching except in their own meetings or in teachers’ journals. There is an inspectoral system which lays down rigidly the type of teaching, the text books which may be used and the syllabuses which have to be followed.

Are you against that?

Yes, Sir. To a great extent I am against it. I am not for uniformity in education. I do not believe that that brings out the best either in teachers, or in students. I believe there should be much more local option; there should be much more room for individuality. I do not like the idea of having a system which, as I have said, is deadening, a system which has been operating in the Transvaal being extended elsewhere. Even this so-called Christian National Education about which a great deal has been said in this House to-day and yesterday is to a great extent already in operation in the Transvaal and probably also in the Free State although I am not very familiar with circumstances there. Possibly it may even be applied in the Afrikaans-medium schools in the Cape. Already for a long long time we have had this type of education being applied in our schools. As far as I am concerned, this is simply going to be an extention of the system with which we are only too familiar in the Transvaal. This is the so-called authoritarian system of education. As I say, we are very familiar with it in the Transvaal. And perhaps I may say here that even in the English-medium schools a good deal of this type of “idealism” is being infiltrated into those schools. This is, of course, largely the fault of the English-speaking section themselves because they have not produced the teachers. The English-speaking section has not produced the number of teachers it should have produced if it wished to save its children from the type of indoctrination which they have been subjected to in English-medium schools. The Afrikaans-speaking teachers teaching in those schools are imbued with this “idealism”. They are no different from the teachers who are teaching in the Afrikaans-medium schools. What is more, that is to be expected. If the English parents wish to keep their children away from this sort of influence, the responsibility rests largely with past generations of English-speaking parents.

I was interested to note that in introducing this Bill the hon. the Minister stated that consideration was being given to a large, countrywide project to create new public opinion in order to obtain really meaningful appreciation of and interest in education. Among the steps he said he was contemplating was the holding of a national congress on education, a “volkskongres” as he called it. He said such a congress would be held. in co-operation with suitable organizations and institutions. Well, to me it seems that the hon. the Minister is putting the cart before the horse. What on earth is the point in having a national congress on education when this measure is already a fait accompli? Surely the best time to have held such a congress and the best time for getting the advice of educational experts was before introducing this Bill. After all, in clause 2 of the Bill the hon. the Minister is laying down absolutely and completely the principles of education he should like to see …

The basic principles.

Yes, the basic principles which he should like to see in operation throughout the country. These basic principles are very important principles. As a matter of fact, these are set out in considerable detail and minutiae in this Bill. One has only to look at clause 2, stretching from (a) to (k), to see just how the hon. the Minister has laid down in detail what he wants to see translated into practice in our educational system. I am not going to talk at any length on the so-called Christian character of education or the broad national character of education as mentioned in the Bill. I think these aspects have already been adequately covered by other speakers on the Opposition side. A lot has been said about mother-tongue education. Most of the members on the Government side who have spoken so far have said that the principle of mothertongue education was accepted all over the world. Quite right, so it is. But surely it is absurd to compare systems of education operating in unilingual countries with South Africa which is a bilingual country with bilingual people in it.

What about Switzerland?

It would be absurd, obviously, to find English-speaking children in England being educated through the medium of French. That is obvious because England is a unilingual country.

What about the Welsh children?

But it is a very different thing indeed when you come to a bilingual country like South Africa. Let us look at two other countries that are bilingual countries, although one of them ‘is, in fact, a trilingual country. Let us take Switzerland. As a matter of fact, a certain hon. member already asked, what about Switzerland? Switzerland, as we all know, has three official languages. At least, three actually are the important official languages. If one happens to live, say, in French-speaking Switzerland, the chances are that one’s child will go to a school where the child is educated through French-medium. But there is absolutely nothing to stop the parents living in German-speaking Switzerland or Italian-speaking Switzerland from sending their children to school in French Switzerland and having them educated through the medium of French. There is no over-all State control to see that this is not done.

Let us take that portion of Canada which is known as French Canada. One of the provinces there is Quebec. In Montral, the largest city in that province, 75 per cent of the children are French-speaking while 25 per cent are English-speaking. There is absolutely nothing to compel the French-speaking Canadian child to go to a French-medium school or the English-speaking child to attend an English-medium school. The parents may choose. As a matter of course most of them choose to send their children to the mother-tongue school. Here, of course, it is a different matter, in that it is state control imposed from above. This is the radical difference between what happens there and what is going to happen here.

Dr. Malherbe’s name has been used in this House, and I now want to quote what Dr. Malherbe has said in regard to this matter. He pointed out that two-thirds of the White population and one-third of the Coloured population in South Africa speak both official languages—among them are bilingual children. He also said that both official languages are spoken in 34 per cent of the homes in this country. Interestingly enough, this is the only bilingual country, however, outside the Soviet Union, where the State enforces the medium of instruction and segregates the children accordingly. This is what Dr. Ernest Malherbe has said, one of South Africa’s leading educationists. Having dealt with the bilingual child briefly, I now want to bring another problem child to the notice of the House, and perhaps the Minister will tell us something about this. I want to ask the Minister: What about the immigrant child whose mother tongue is neither Afrikaans nor English? Who is going to decide to what school the immigrant’s child is to go? Is it the Minister? I have very little doubt that it will indeed be the Minister, or the people who are nominated by the Minister or delegated by him to exercise his authority.

Let me turn to another aspect of this Bill which worries me particularly, and that is the reference in clause 2 which lays down the basic principle applied to “the needs of the country”. I refer to clause 2 (f). Who determines the “needs of the country”, and on what basis? Who furnishes the guidance to the pupils? Must the pupils be bound by such guidance? What happens, for instance, if there is a conflict between the “needs of the country” and— as the other part of the clause refers to—the “interests, aptitude and ability of the pupils”? Who resolves this conflict? If there is a shortage of mechanics in South Africa, must pupils be “guided” into vocational education, even if they wish to pursue academic studies? Surely the parents of the pupils are the ones who ought to give the guidance and who should choose their children’s school careers? Who is going to decide what is “with due regard to the needs of the country” and the “aptitude … of the pupils”? Will it be the Minister, the school or the parents? I say, unlike hon. members on that side, that the parents should have the final say over the future careers of their children.

Again I must come back to this very Russian-sounding clause. In Russia it is the State who decides if it needs more academics, or if it needs more technicians, or if it needs more factory workers. It is the State that decides which children shall go into academic training and which children shall be taken into vocational education.

Clause 2 (2) makes it even more abundantly clearer than ever that it is the Minister, and the Minister alone, who is going to determine education policy and even the very content of education. The Minister determines the policy, the Minister makes the regulations to ensure that his policy is carried out, and these regulations will override any provincial ordinances. This is the important point. It is he, and not the Legislature, who lays down the penalties for failure to comply with his regulations and thus, if there is any lingering doubt that the Minister is to be Humpty-Dumpty—when he uses a word it means just what he wants it to mean—the only question is, “which shall be master”, the Minister himself declaring which shall be master. The Minister simply has to give notice of any steps which he wishes to take and thereafter the steps which the Minister wishes to take, or the decisions he wants implemented, need not even be embodied in law and will not, therefore, be debated in this House.

Other hon. members have covered the absolute powers enjoyed by the Minister as far as the appointment of the new Advisory Council is concerned. They have pointed to the fact that it is to be purely advisory. The Minister may consult them but he need take no notice of their recommendations. Other hon. members have also dealt with the panel of experts, the educational experts. This again is a purely advisory body which may make recommendations. I do not want to dwell upon that aspect at any length.

I am interested, however, in clause 7, which, for want of a better name, I call the “Inquisitors Clause”, because this goes much further than any powers of inspection normally laid down or the inspection of schools. It has been called the “Snoopers’ Clause” by the hon. member for Kensington. Now, Sir, in this case: he Hounds of De Klerk, analogous to the Hounds of God during the inquisition, will have powers far wider than any inspectoral powers in schools known in any other country, with the exception of the totalitarian countries. I want to mention that these powers were actually included in the draft Bill which this House considered in 1961, the Bill was later sent to a Select Committee before second reading. When this House accepted the 1962 Education Bill those powers were excluded from that Bill. But here they are again in full bloom, these inquisitorial inspection powers, which are to be given to people delegated by the Minister.

Now, Sir, we have had a great deal of discussion over the last day or two about this question of uniformity in education. I want to point out that the general consensus of opinion in most democratic countries is that uniformity, which is the natural result of centralized government control over education, is undesirable and highly detrimentral. It is detrimental to development in education where individuality, originality and creativity are called for. It may be advantageous in postal services or transport services. However, it is not advantageous in the field of education. I think that it was the hon. member for Oden-daalsrus who commented on Britain’s National Education Act. It is perfectly true that Britain has a National Education Act, but in fact there is no national control in Britain over education. There is a highly decentralized system of education operating in Britain and teachers are given the utmost liberty to use their own initiative in the schools system. In fact, the Handbook of Suggestions to Teachers published in Britain by the State lays down that the only uniformity of practice is that each teacher shall think for himself and shall work out for himself such methods of teaching as may use his powers to the best advantage and the best suited to the particular needs and wishes of the school. It is a completely decentralized system where the teachers have enormous powers to use their own initiative.

Surely there is flexibility in our system?

I do not believe there can be flexibility when every single facet of teaching is laid down by this Bill.

It is decentralized education.

No, unfortunately the Bill which we are considering to-day does not decentralize the control of education. It does exactly the opposite. It introduces a deadly uniformity into our schools. That is what it does. In Holland, for instance, there is no central authority. In that country there is a great degree of freedom of individuality and a large variety of schools and methods of teaching. Canada, too, has no centrally controlled system. The United States also has no central system at all. There is also great diversity of decentralization. Interestingly enough. Sir, it was the Van Wyk report that stressed that, in spite of having no national control of education, national education does exist in the United States simply because it is a democratic system with democratic aims, which, says the Van Wyk report, has throughout the years suc-ceded in making good Americans out of millions of immigrants coming from numbers of countries with completely different backgrounds. In a generation, although there is complete decentralization and no uniformity, those children become good Americans. One does not need a National Education Bill such as this House is considering to-day in order to produce good South Africans; that comes out of natural patriotism; it should not be imposed from above. It should not be engendered by uniformity in the educational system. There are one or two democratic countries which have centralized control. France is one of them, but it is interesting to note that educationists in France are to-day moving away from centralized control and are more and more introducing decentralization in the French educational system. Pre-war Germany naturally had centralized control. The whole state doctrine, of course, was propagated in the schools and children were educated in accordance with the industrial and military needs of the state, but after World War II, interesting enough, a completely different system was introduced in Western Germany and to-day in Western Germany there is decentralization of education and there is no national control of education.

Why do you not deal with the ultimate aims of education?

I am coming to the ultimate aims, and this is where I differ very radically from the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party who has an authoritarian idea of education. His idea is that the child should be made to conform to the so-called national ideal. I have a completely different view of education. I believe in education of the individual.

I believe in the educational principles embodied in this Bill.

I do not know what the hon. member means by that.

You are looking for sinister motives behind this Bill.

Uniformity is one thing but I believe in individuality in education, in the development of the child so that the child will be able to produce to the very best of its ability and to think for himself instead of being made to conform. I think that the very worst thing you could do is to make children conform.

We do not want that.

They should be taught to think for themselves. Sir, I am not going to labour the point about the present system in the U.S.S.R. The system there is obviously also a centralized authoritarian system, but even in Russia, Kruschev in 1959 introduced far-reaching changes in the Soviet education systems which gave regions more autonomy and ensured more diversity in the type of education. The interesting thing is that South Africa and South Africa alone seems to be moving towards uniformity and centralized education. Other countries either do not have it or, if they have it, they are moving away from it. The hon. member for Primrose described this Bill as a milestone in education. I say that this Bill is taking us in precisely the opposite direction from the direction in education which is now being followed by the vast majority of countries, certainly in the Western world. I agree that there are certain aspects of education—I said this initially and I say it again— that should be tackled on a co-ordinated basis. The example quoted by the hon. member over there is obviously absurd, that one province sends over a delegation to investigate education overseas and then another province does the same thing. I say that it is just a question of sheer common sense. Sheer common sense would enable one province to draw on the experience of another province.

But here we are formulating the policy that will be implemented.

That is the very thing that I do not like about this Bill. There obviously are aspects where co-ordination would be to the advantage of the country—the so-called externa of education; compulsory school attendance is one example; the length of the school year may be another example; the salaries, the qualifications and the conditions of service of teachers, all those aspects which in fact strive to provide for equality of educational opportunity for all the children in the provinces. Unfortunately, of course, I have to discuss only White education here because this Bill only concerns White education. These are things which obviously can be co-ordinated to the advantage of the country, and I have no objection to that, but we have to watch very carefully to see to it that when we get uniformity, even a desirable uniformity in education, we do not adopt the lowest common denominator of the four provinces, because that might happen. At one stage I know that in the Cape the pass mark in English, I think, was 50 per cent; that was lowered to 40 per cent. I do not think that we ought to be lowering our standards; I think we ought to keep our standards as high as possible and we ought to get the best advantage from what we have in the different provinces. Let me give another example. I believe Natal employs married women teachers on a permanent basis; the Transvaal does not, although goodness knows, it is the intelligent and sensible thing to do. When there is a big shortage of teachers, as there is, then obviously you should employ all your trained personnel, but because of this absurd business of not employing married women on a permanent basis, many teachers are lost to education in the Transvaal. If we are going to have one of these desirable coordinating factors, I hope that we are going to see to it that Natal does not lose her married women teachers and that the Transvaal will stand to gain from the employment of married women teachers on a permanent basis. We are going to have to watch very carefully to see that it is not the lowest common denominator that is used to spread uniformity even where, as I say, uniformity is desirable. But, Sir, this is where I think I differ radically from the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party. I do not believe that the interna of education—■ the syllabuses, the methods of instruction etc. —should be imposed from above. I am dead against the imposition of uniformity from above as far as syllabuses and methods of teaching are concerned. As to the teacher, far from the teacher being a mouthpiece of central authority, which he is likely to be under this Bill, his job should be, as Adlai Stevenson put it—

On what should the interna of education rest?

The interna of education should rest with the individual teacher.

On sound educational principles—and those are embodied in this Bill.

The syllabuses, the text books, the methods of teaching and so on, should be left, as it done in Britain, to the teacher. I think everybody will agree that the British education system is a very good one. In Britain it is left to the individual teacher to decide what he should teach, how he shall teach it, what sort of text book he will use, and so on. Nothing is imposed from above. I believe that that is the ideal form of teaching.

Finally I want to say that this Bill to me is just part of a broad general pattern, a pattern which we have seen developing over past years, It consists of departmental pressure on teachers, such as we have seen exercised to an ever increasing degree in the Transvaal. It is part of a pattern that includes the virtual elimination of representative school boards; those have gone too in the Transvaal. It is part of a pattern that we see in Bantu education; that we see in the take-over of Coloured education and in the take-over of Indian education. It is part and parcel of the whole pattern of restrictions that have been imposed from above on the “open” universities of South Africa, which are no longer allowed, without ministerial permission, to enrol non-White students. This is all part of the same pattern. Another thing that is part of this pattern are the attacks that we have had on the conscience clause. I wonder how long it is going to be before our universities as a whole are going to be made to conform completely? There are ominous portents of this already. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s second reading speech was an ominous portent of this. He has already talked about bringing the universities within the centralized authority. I must say that it makes my blood run cold to think of our higher institutions of learning being brought into this mould and being made to conform and to lose the whole meaning of university education. [Interjections.] Sir, I am only saying what the hon. the Minister said. This is not something that I have dreamt up in the dark watches of the night; this is not a nightmare which has simply come upon me. It is something which the Minister talked about in his second reading speech. He talked about extending this to the churches, the colleges and the universities. Then, Sir, there was also another indication of this. In Die Vaderland of the 15th February there appeared a report of a speech made by the Rector of the University of Pretoria, Prof. C. H. Rautenbach. He too says that the universities must also come into this scheme. He made a long speech in which he suggested that university education should also come under the national policy of education.

For purely academic reasons.

Let Professor Rautenbach do it to Pretoria University if he wishes; nobody is stopping him from doing anything he likes at the Pretoria University, but let him leave our other universities alone. He was not talking about the Pretoria University or even the other Afrikaans-medium universities; he talked about “universities in South Africa”. Well, let him leave our other universities alone. They do not want to have to comform. They do not want to be made to toe the line of a uniform system of university education which to me is the very antithesis of the meaning of higher education, which should be to broaden and open people’s minds.

Are you speaking on their behalf?

Yes, I think I can speak on their behalf. I was educated at such a university and I lectured at such a university, and I know the ideals which exist in such a university. It is a great pity that the hon. member did not take advantage of the existence of such a university and go to one himself. Sir, to me this Bill is all part and parcel of an overall pattern which is developing in this country. It is aimed at one thing and one thing only and that is to give effect to this Government’s determination to produce a State-system of education on authoritarian lines, where the purpose of education is to mould the individual into the shape which will enable him to fulfil a function assigned to him by the State. The children belong to the State, according to the hon. member for Germiston; they do not belong to the parents.

That is nonsense.

This, of course, is based on a very old well-known German theory that “What you would put into the State you must first put into the schools”. Sir, I am one who believes that the chief purpose of education is to develop the potentialities of every single individual, and because I disagree entirely with the whole spirit and the whole philosophy which is being introduced by this Bill, I shall support the amendment.

I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Houghton on one matter and that is that the purpose of education is to develop the possibilities of every individual. It seems to me that the Bill before us is a good and wholesome measure; it is a step forward in the development of our South African nationhood and of our South African state. Sir, as we have heard so much to-day about the English-speaking section and the rights of the English-speaking section, I would like to address you briefly as an English-speaking South African …

As a Quisling.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to use that word? It has been ruled out of order before.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “Quisling”.

And apologize.

Sir, I withdraw it because you instructed me to do so.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member says that he withdraws that word because you instructed him to do so. The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to explain …

I do not want to hear any explanation. The hon. member must withdraw the word “Quisling”.

I have withdrawn it.

Unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

He ought to be ashamed of himself.

I am a South African and I am intensely proud of my nationality, and I am also intensely proud of my mothertongue, English. I know that the English language, which is my home language, is safe in the hands of the National Party.

You are not safe in their hands.

I am not an educationist and I do not want to discuss this matter technically. I am a layman, but I want to touch on three matters particularly.

The hon. member for Houghton said, and I agree, that the purpose of education is to develop the possibilities of every individual. Is it not true that the human personality and intellect require certain lines along which to develop? One of them is a belief in the Supreme Being. We, as a Christian State, believe in the Christian religion, but it seems to me that no matter what church a South African belongs to there can be no objection to accepting this Bill, because in clause 2(a) full provision is made for freedom of conscience and we never have interfered and never will interfere with a person’s religious convictions. Clause 2(b) says the education must have a broad national basis. It seems to me that this obviously means a broad South African basis.

Then why does the Bill not say so?

But this is South Africa and we cannot have, for example, a Russian basis in this country. [Interjections.] The English child is taught to be English and that is right, and the American child is taught to be American, and love his flag and his native soil; what is wrong with teaching a South African child to love his flag and his country and his two languages? That is the purpose of this Bill and it is on this basis that we are going to seek to build up a vigorous and united South African nation with its two languages.

You are whistling in the dark.

It is unfortunate that such a delicate and important matter as the education of our children and their language should have been made a political issue in this debate. It seems to me that it is quite obvious that this Bill deals with education in a bilingual state. It seems quite obvious, also, that everyone has only one mother tongue, just as you only have one right hand. I have never met anybody who is completely bilingual. The language which you learn first at home is your mother-tongue. If you take a child who is naturally English-speaking and force him to go to an Afrikaans-medium school, or vice versa it is the same as making a right-handed person write with his left hand.

My child learnt Zulu first.

[Interjections.] I believe that unless you first master your mother-tongue, whatever it may be, your personality never develops to the full and you can never think clearly. Therefore I am convinced that this clause which deals with mother-tongue education is correct. The question is asked why the parent should not decide. In my experience I have found that 90 per cent of parents, both English- and Afrikaans-speaking, choose mother-tongue education for their children, but there are cases where parents of both language groups make a choice, through no ulterior motive, and well-meaningly, but they decide wrongly. People who speak English at home think that if they send the child to an Afrikaans-medium school he will become fully bilingual. I do not believe that can happen. It seems to me that it is a cruel thing to put a child who is English-speaking into an Afrikaans-medium school, or vice versa. In any case, the first day at school is a big shock to a child, and if he has to use a strange language as well it must put him back tremendously. Therefore I think that in deciding this matter the question must be what is in the interest of the child. Such a lot of emotional nonsense is talked about it, but long before we were in power the State decided that at a certain age a child had to go to school in the interest of the child himself, in the interest of the future citizen. In the same way the State must decide on the medium of education, in the interests of the child himself. Unfortunately we have had a lot of political talk here about Natal and indoctrination. I do not know what the indoctrination is about, because that matter has never been discussed in my party. [Interjections.] The United Party has fought vigorously for the status quo, but what happened in Natal? Who indoctrinated those English-speaking people who voted for the National Party there? What happened at Umhlatuzana? What happened in Zululand, which was previously the seat of the Federal Party and wanted to break away from the Union? It was the seat of Mr. Heaton Nicholls then, but it has now been won by the National Party. That had nothing to do with indoctrination. One does not require indoctrination. It is obvious that the voters of South Africa, English-and Afrikaans-speaking, by using their common sense, see and know that the National Party is the correct party for them. It is only unfortunate that the voters of Umlazi did not have a chance to express an opinion. [Laughter.] Due to an unfortunate set of circumstances the hon. member for Umlazi was returned by the decision of the court. I read the other day that in Britain, when this happened, when a member of Parliament found himself returned to the House of Commons without an election and without his voters expressing an opinion, he always resigned because …

The hon. member for Umlazi was returned unopposed; the court said so.

On a point of order, Sir, may an hon. member cast aspersions on the manner in which another hon. member is elected to this House?

The hon. member may proceed.

Unfortunately we have heard very little about the merits of education, but we have heard a lot about party politics. What is being done here is just another shameful attempt to frighten the English-speaking people away from the National Party. This is a very old story. They tried to frighten us in regard to the Citizenship Act and they said that if the Bill was passed we would be only second-class citizens. They opposed the coming of the Republic. It seems to me that the United Party has a most peculiar name. It is the United National South African Party, but if they are united they are only united for a few moments in a negative attempt to wreck South Africa’s national progress. I do not think it is fair to call them “National”; I do not think they would like it, and after I have heard the debate to-day I doubt whether they are even South African.

I will not try to reply to my neighbour, the hon. member for Maitland, because it is quite obvious that it is his farewell speech. Only time will tell. The hon. member for Maitland not having been a member of the Provincial Council before, we can forgive him not knowing about the language ordinances of the Provincial Council and what provisions are. Otherwise I do not think he would have made the speech he did. However, education is a very serious matter and it is one of the greatest responsibilities of the Legislature. Listening to hon. members opposite, especially the frivolous after-dinner speech we had last night from the hon. member for Waterberg, although he is supposed to be an educationist, left much to be desired and I am glad that his colleague, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, put the matter right and brought the debate back to a proper footing.

The hon. the Minister has been at pains to tell us that this is not a political matter. The education of our children, after all, is the responsibility of the Legislature. It is a matter which has to be discussed either here or in the Provincial Council. It is a matter which deals with the people, so how can the Minister say this is not a political matter? He might say that it should not be a controversial matter, but I think this Bill is highly controversial. Listening to hon. members opposite, the real intent of the Bill is slowly being revealed to us. As the hon. member for Kensington said, it was cunningly hidden, but the veil has been slowly lifted and we find what is really hidden behind it, and what is really intended by this Bill. [Interjections.] The Natal factor was one of the big factors which was revealed, where we have a United Party majority in the Provincial Council in Natal but a Nationalist Party Administrator. We find that the real aim of this Bill is that it is aimed at Natal.

Order! That point has been made by almost every speaker already.

I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Klip River. I wonder whether we are really going forward or backward, I want to read to the House a motion which was passed in this House in 1944 in relation to education. It says—

It is therefore with a view to serving these objects that the Government in consultation with the provincial authorities considered that amendments were necessary to the educational laws and regulations and the revision of the educational machinery of the provinces so as to give effect within the period of five years to the following principles:

1. (1) that the child be instructed through the home language in the early stages of his educational career …
2. (2) that the second language should be in troduced gradually as a supplementary medium of instruction from the stage at which it is on educational grounds appropriate to do so; and
3. (3) that such changes should be introduced in the system of training of teachers as are necessary to make the ideals of bilingualism and of national unity in the schools fully effective.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said after listening to the speech of the hon, member for Klip River I wonder whether we are going backwards or forwards. I think we are going backwards. After all, this is 1967 and that motion was accepted by this House in 1944. This particular Bill, it has been said, confers considerable powers on the hon. the Minister and it virtually puts him into a position of a dictator of the whole educational policy of this country.

That is a point that has been made repeatedly. The hon. member must take new points now or I must ask him to resume his seat.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s principal powers are enumerated in clauses 2 and 3. We have the empowering Bill in front of us. I feel fairly certain that the uniform Educational ordinance to follow is already prepared and will be produced to the various provincial councils. Are we going to have the position where, like the Traffic Ordinance, provincial councils will be faced with uniform ordinances as arising from this particular Bill and will not be able to amend these ordinances? Are we going to be in that unhappy position? The position is this. From the top there will be dictation. This Government can be accused of a terrific lack of faith in the provincial council system. I was a member of the provincial council and there are a number of members here who were members as well. That applies to both sides of the House. When I became a member of the provincial council we controlled Bantu Education and through financial reasons the Government decided to move it to its own department. We had the same experience with Coloured education when that was moved from the Province through the lack of finance. And, one can see the pattern coming through, namely that the Government will eventually take over the complete control of education throughout the country. It is said that there is no coordination and that it was necessary for the Government to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not so. There has been complete co-ordination among all the provinces, from the various directors of education, and there has been no difficulty. If one looks at the systems of education and takes the Cape as an example, a province I know well, can the Minister pinpoint any fault in the system of education in the Cape? We have here some of the finest universities in this country. We have the Stellenbosch and the Cape Town universities.

That has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. We have these outstanding schools here, well-known schools, where some of our Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers were educated. Is there anything wrong there? Is it necessary to make changes in that respect? Is it necessary to interfere with the system of education that we have in the Cape and to introduce some uniform system here? Are we going to be faced with the ordinance that we have in the Transvaal? Are we going to have the strait-jacket system of education that they have in the Transvaal. A system where the parent loses complete control over the child as far as the educational medium is concerned. We heard about the educational medium here. It is taken out of the parents’ hands entirely, that is in so far as the parent is concerned under the Transvaal system.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Oh yes! Why does the hon. member not get up and make a speech so that we can hear what he has to say? [Interjections.]

Order!

There is the fear that the English culture and the Afrikaans culture will suffer if we do not have these separate mediums of education. I do not have any fear as far as the English culture is concerned, and I do not think the hon. member who interrupted just now, if he understands it, will disagree with me on that point. And, Mr. Speaker, as far as the Afrikaans culture is concerned we have a considerable volume of very fine Afrikaans literature that is available to-day. It is of a very high standard. But, through the educational system that we have to-day, it has a limited readership. We have some brilliant men amongst the Afrikaner community and they have produced some brilliant books. But, why should our children and why should we, the people of South Africa, be debarred from reading this literature through a system of this Government, by this unilingual system of education, by the isolation of the two White groups. One Nationalist member last night referred to it as “wit apartheid”. Why should we have that system? Is it not high time as read out in the motion and accepted by this House in 1944 that we should aim for that national unity that we are always crying out for? National unity, in other words let us come together. On a sound basis. Not on the basis of a complete division of our children. Where are we going? The world as we know is hungry for knowledge. It is travelling fast. It is becoming smaller in concept by space travel. We have the atomic age that we live in and we hear a lot about the age of the computer. But when one starts thinking about that and one comes to a Bill such as the one before us to shrink the whole of the educational concept in this country you are shocked. It is a small Bill. It is not necessary. A measure of this kind, if carried to the bitter end, can only lead us to greater division and to a dead end as far as our children are concerned. And as I said in my opening remarks, there is the responsibility that rests on us for the education of our children.

The hon. the Minister has told us through the Press that he would be travelling overseas shortly in another capacity. I am pretty certain that when he goes overseas he will learn that South Africa—he is a travelled man— does not consist of Englishmen and Afrikaners. But he will find that South Africa consists of White South Africans and Black South Africans. And, he will have to go over there and talk as a South African. And that is the concept, that is the heritage that we would like to build up in this country, a heritage of true South Africans and not of a divided nation. The member for Hillbrow referred to the ten countries that were visited by a commission from the Transvaal Education Department. He referred to the practice in the United States of America but I should like to refer to what is happening in France. I shall come back to the U.S.A, later. The concept of the hon. the Minister of Education is one of a central autonomy with him at the head. I think that is the concept of this Bill. I do not think anybody on the other side of the House will argue about that. I now read the following passage from the Education Bulletin of September 1965 on page 556, namely—

And that is what is going to happen. Mr. Speaker, returning to this commission that went over to the ten countries, I find it very interesting. They point out the diversification of the various types of education systems that they have overseas. There is no such thing as uniformity. We know that there cannot be uniformity as far as education is concerned because we live at too great a rate and things change. So you will find that this Minister, when he becomes the big “mind” of education in this country, will be continually bringing in amending Bills into this House in order to instruct the Provincial Council: “Do this, do that and do the other thing.” These will be matters over which they will have no control, which they will be able to debate, but will not be able to alter. The provincial councils, as far as education is concerned, will become a complete deadletter. They will become a rubber stamp. There will be no changes, because the Administrator will say: “I am sorry. The hon. members must realize my position. I cannot change this ordinance.”

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of this Bill which has not been touched on. The aspect of the teacher, which is the most important. I would like to prevail on the hon. the Minister to drop this particular Bill and prepare some form of legislation or do some research as far as the teachers are concerned. I was very interested to read an article by a well-known South African. He said this: “A teacher is after all the man who, seen in true perspective, may be doing the most important job on earth. And it is becoming a more difficult task every day, because the world is becoming more involved and knowledge more complex … Let us never forget: When you educate a man, you educate an individual; when you educate a teacher, you educate a nation.” That was said by Anton Rupert. That is the real crux of the position as far as education in this country is concerned. It is a question of teachers. This Bill provides that the hon. the Minister will be in control of the training. I think that is one of the most important items, to which he should really pay attention. He should scrap a Bill such as this, a Bill that is only going to create serious division and distrust in this country. I know he feels that we should not deal with this matter on a political basis, but it is so. I say this: The majority of the Natioalist Party sitting over there, is derived from one thing only. The youth, the child in the school, brought up in a single-medium school, Afrikaans-medium, is inculcated with what we call nationalism.

The hon. member for Germiston referred to the principles of the United Party on Christian nationalism, but there is a difference. We believe in a Christian national character, but the difference here, as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, is that they mean nationalism to suit their political training. That is the difference. We mean truly national, and national on the basis of the two groups of the population together. To hon. members opposite “national” means the getting together of the Afrikaner population to exclude anybody else. That is the national object of that particular party. That is the difference. That is what we are fighting in this country to-day. That is causing this very deep division. It starts in the classroom from the small child until he completes his education. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, that we should do that. The responsibility is ours, and our responsibility is to bring up citizens as true South Africans—not as uni-nationals, either Afrikaans or English-speaking. That I hope one day will disappear. We will see a true South African nation, but with a measure such as we have at the present moment and with the temperament of the Government at the present moment, that I think will never take place until there is a change, not until this party is in power.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate, not as a teaching man but as a layman who has one interest and one interest only, and that is to contribute my modest share in an effort to provide the best educational facilities and institutions in the country for the training and development of happy South Africans. For that reason I want to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for the fact that we have been able to hold this very historic debate since yesterday. I say it is historic, because it has been demonstrated from this side that the provisions contained in the legislation before us should have been introduced many years ago. But we are grateful for receiving it at this stage of our national development, because in this respect a great task and calling await us. In this regard I also want to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the Department for what they have done to provide us with this legislation, which is comprehensive and which enjoys the wholehearted support of the provinces to a very large extent, with the exception of Natal, of course, which has to be silent under the political pressure of the United Party.

I should like to reply to a few things which were said here. Firstly, the hon. member for Berea said in his speech yesterday that there were no English high-school hostels for girls in the entire Witwatersrand. I should like to correct the hon. member and just point out to him that he does not know what he is talking about. In Nigel an English-medium high school was built some years ago, and at the instance and the request of the English community in that vicinity, and particularly in the East Rand and Eastern Transvaal, an English-medium high school with hostel facilities was built. In the Vereeniging complex an English-medium high school was built very recently with beautiful hostel facilities attached to it. I want to say, regarding the English community in Johannesburg, where they are concentrated to a very large extent, that in that complex there are hostels, subsidized by the Province, for those children. Hostels are not simply built if one or two people request them. Hostels are built when there is a real need for those facilities. We saw examples of that kind of unplanned development in the days when the United Party was still in power in the Transvaal. Quite a few of the hostels built by them are virtually empty to-day. They are nothing but white elephants.

This hon. member, as well as others, made the accusation that as far as this legislation was concerned, there had been no prior consultation. Here I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Odendaalsrus said yesterday in this regard, namely that consultations were in fact conducted on an extensive scale with regard to this legislation. As a former member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal I may state that hon. members who make such accusations here, do not know what they are talking about. The legislation was examined thoroughly in consultation with all the relevant concerns. Then the hon. member also said that it was the object of this legislation to keep the South African nation apart. He said: “It is the aim of this legislation not to unite the nation …” Now I want to say here, and I am now speaking as a layman who has also had something to do with these matters, that it is not the specific task and function of education to bring about a united nation. I think that in this respect all educationists will agree with me. The task and calling of education centre more particularly on ensuring that the child receives the best education, on looking after the development of his mind and intellectual capacity, on building his character and making him a being who will be able to take care of himself later in life. That is the task and the calling of the school. Because the hon. members themselves could not succeed in building a united South Africa, they should not try to excuse that now by alleging that the schools cannot do it. The National Party has proved since 1948, and without using the schools for that end, that through a purposeful policy a united South Africa can be built to a large extent. Because the United Party could not succeed in that and because they are being whittled away in one election after another, they should not come along and blame it on the schools. The task of the school is to see to it that the child enjoys the best education, a task and calling which the schools have so far been able to carry out with a high degree of success.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said that the recommendations of a delegation sent overseas by the Transvaal Provincial Administration could now no longer be implemented. But I want to point out to him that this legislation provides specifically that ample scope will be left in our education for diversity within that framework. We need only look at clause 2 (1) (g), which provides that—

I am aware of the fact that the provinces insisted very strongly on this point, and I am grateful that there is provision in this legislation for diversity. In this respect the hon. member for Hillbrow is therefore wide of the mark. There is nothing that will be forced into a corset by this legislation, i.e. without scope for diversity. On the contrary, ample provision has been made for that. If something is being forced into a corset, I think it is the thinking of the United Party, their thinking as revealed in the course of this debate. We shall simply have to accept that the course adopted by the United Party in this debate is in accordance with an instruction from their Caucus, and a ten-ton hammer will most certainly not budge them.

Then the argument was advanced that this legislation signalled the death, the end, the destruction of the provincial system. But as I see it, the provinces will in the future receive more support from the Central Government as far as the development of education in our country is concerned. Since in future we shall have a uniform national education policy and the provinces have now been charged with implementing the provisions of clause 2 of this legislation, it follows that this task will have to be carried out with the assistance of generous provision of financial means by the Central Government—in other words, far from the provinces being destroyed, greater demands will be made of them in future. I also envisage that the struggle the provinces had to wage in the past in order to obtain a reasonable subsidy from the State for educational purposes is something of the past. Concomitant with passing this legislation this House also accepts the responsibility to see to it that the necessary means will be supplied to the provinces to enable them to implement the legislation. It will be the task and function of this House to see to it that the necessary financial assistance is rendered in order to achieve that object.

I want to refer to an observation made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), and that brings me to my next point, namely to give eloquent examples of the good results mother-tongue education has produced in the Republic, and more specifically in the Transvaal. As for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), I deplore the fact that in our public life and also in our political life there are still South Africans like him who in this House accuse another South African who adopts a certain political attitude on the strength of his convictions, of being a Quisling because that other South African does so—perhaps because that hon. member is an English-speaking member who does not see eye to eye with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). In this respect the hon. member shows, to my mind, a sign of immaturity; in this respect he reveals a spirit which should be foreign to South Africa. In South Africa we accept the democratic system; in South Africa we accept that we are all democrats and that it would be an evil day if we were not and if we denied a person in South Africa the occasion and the opportunity to change his political views without being branded, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) to-day branded the hon. member for Maitland. I hope the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) will experience a change of mind and will refrain from this kind of thing.

When the National Party took over the Provincial Council in the Transvaal in 1949, we were saddled with a ruinous dual-medium education policy which we had inherited from the United Party. It was a policy which was aimed at one thing only, as educationists have demonstrated, a policy which muddled and confused the youth. Under the United Party it even went so far that educationists have proved that an entire generation of the Afrikaner people disappeared in the Transvaal as a result of that policy. Against that background we decided that there was only way of saving the future of the White youth, and that was to introduce mother-tongue education in the Transvaal. We did so in the conviction that we were there to see to it that a White nation was established at the southern tip of Africa which would be able to fend for itself against the vastly superior numbers of non-White people at the southern end of Africa in particular and in Africa in general. In view of the fact that we have 3½ million Whites, we cannot afford the loss of one White soul, whether Afrikaans or English-speaking, to this small White population group. There is only one acceptable policy, particularly in a multiracial and multi-lingual country like South Africa, where we have two official languages, Afrikaans and English; there is only one well tried system which can be applied to provide the best education, and that is mother-tongue instruction. That principle is accepted throughout the world. It was established here yesterday that the U.N. and other very important institutions also accept it. Mr. Speaker, what was the result of that policy of the Province of Transvaal? We had to wage a violent struggle to have that policy implemented in the Transvaal. The United Party then used exactly the same arguments as those they are using against this Bill to-day. There were night sittings, to such an extent that the hon. member for Vereeniging, who was not here then, was on his feet for several hours and eventually broke down in that debate, so that we had to carry him out.

And now he breaks down even before he has spoken.

But eventually that legislation was placed on the Statute Book and implemented. The object of that legislation is to produce human material which will be able to contribute their share in this country. What were the results? That legislation was adopted in approximately 1951-’52. In 1953 it came into full operation. We realized that if we wanted to produce the required human material, we had to produce matriculants who could enter a higher educational institution. We decided that we could produce such matriculants only through the introduction of mother-tongue instruction. In 1948, when we took over, 18 per cent of the Std. VI pupils in the Transvaal reached Std. X, and after mother-tongue instruction had been brought into operation, 26 per cent of the Std. VI pupils who enrolled in 1954 reached matric. Of those who enrolled in 1955, 28 per cent reached matric; in 1956, 31 per cent; in 1957, 32 per cent; in 1958, 34 per cent; in 1959, 36 per cent, and in 1960, 37 per cent, and of the 1961 Std. VI pupils who wrote matric last year, 39 per cent had reached matric. That shows you how there was a progressive increase through the years in the number of pupils who progressed from Std. VI to matric. I say—and I am convinced of this and we have the evidence here—that this came about only as a result of the fact that we introduced mother-tongue instruction in the Transvaal. I am grateful to be able to say that of the pupils who reached matric, there was a virtually equal percentage of Afrikaans and English-speaking pupils. In the days of the United Party only 18 per cent could reach matric. I want to go further and demonstrate to you how, in comparison with the increase in the White population of the Transvaal, there was also an increase in the number of White matriculants. In 1953 the White population of the Transvaal totalled 1,264,000, and in that year we had 3,666 candidates, and 2,239 of them obtained a university exemption certificate and 631 an end-certificate, and we increased the numbers progressively as follows: In 1958 the population totalled 1,398,000; the number of candidates was 6,350 and of them 3,549 and 1,449 obtained the university exemption certificate and the end-certificate, respectively. In 1964 the population totalled 1,611,000 and 10,872 candidates wrote matric. Whereas the population increased by 27 per cent from 1953 to 1964, the number of matriculants in the Transvaal increased by 109 per cent, and the number of pupils who obtained the end-certificate increased by 717 per cent.

I have presented these facts to the House to demonstrate that mother-tongue education is the best medium to apply in order to produce the white human material which will eventually be able to run this country. For that reason I am grateful that we have now embodied this provision in this legislation and I hope and trust that the Minister will never be compelled to have recourse to the provisions as laid down in clauses 2 (2) (a), (b), and (d), in order to force the provinces to implement this legislation.

But I want to make a cordial appeal to Natal to-day. We are equally honest and sincere with regard to the education of the English child. In particular I want to mention the Transvaal, because it is a province with which I am acquainted. I challenge anyone in this House to point a finger at one example of discrimination against the English-speaking child in the Transvaal, in a province which exerted itself in particular to see to it, by means of its parallel medium schools, which offer parallel mother-tongue classes in those schools, and its Afrikaans and English purely single-medium mother-tongue schools, that both the English and the Afrikaans children receive equal treatment. That is why I contend that it is not too much to expect it of a province like Natal, which is not yet following that course strictly, that they should also apply this very important principle.

I want to conclude by saying that as far as the Transvaal is concerned, it may be stated to-day—and I challenge anybody to prove the contrary—that the population of that province has accepted mother-tongue instruction whole-heartedly. I would even go as far as saying that I do not think any political party—and I also want to address this challenge at the United Party—can tell me to-day that where there are established singlemedium mother-tongue schools in the Transvaal, they would, if they were to come into power, convert those schools into parallelmedium or dual-medium schools, in accordance with their policy. I challenge them to do that. We had instances of parallel-medium schools where the position of the economic operation of those schools became involved, and where the English community came to us and asked to be allowed to form their own separate English-medium mother-tongue school. I may mention the example of Witbank, the Settlers Agricultural High School, the case of Capricorn and the English-medium school in Vereeniging, schools which came into being as a result of the numerical superiority of English-speaking pupils in parallel-medium schools, who felt that they wanted to secede. I am trying to demonstrate that mother-tongue instruction is the best basis for instruction as far as a bilingual country like South Africa is concerned, and I want to make this final appeal. To us education is a matter of serious concern. Let us not continue politicizing about it, but let us have this matter founded on established educational grounds, accepted throughout the world.

After having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Benoni. I feel that perhaps we have reached a higher level than we reached last night. I want to join with him in one thing, and that is an appeal to this Government that they will subsidize the provinces to a greater extent than they have done in the past, to educate our children, more particularly when this Bill is passed. I heard from the statistics that the hon. member quoted that there was a very large increase in the number of matriculants in Natal, as well as in the other provinces. Sir, we have no mother-tongue education there as such. We have mother-tongue education coupled with the parental choice, and our number of matriculants has also increased. I do not think this enters into the argument at all. I think the increase in the number of matriculants, if we want to be practical about it, is on account of the increase in wages and the increase in the standards of living; this is one of the facts of history and it is not only on account of policy. The hon. member raised other points, which I would rather deal with as I go through the points I wish to raise. I might mention the point he made about my interjection which is well taken. I want to pass on now to the hon. member for Maitland, who said that the voters of Umlazi had been denied the right to vote at the last election. I want to point out to the House that they were not denied that right by us, but by the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party, in an unashamed attempt to by-pass the Constitution Act, introduced a candidate who did not qualify to stand. This portrayed either an abysmal lack of knowledge of the Constitution Act, or an attempt to by-pass it.

I want to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid last night when he gave us an awful lot of figures which I believe he obtained from the Administrator of Natal. [Interjections.] He used these figures to try to prove some point, but we all noticed last night how he spluttered backwards and forwards over his papers trying to find these figures to prove that the facilities granted to Afrikaans-speaking children in Natal were not adequate and were certainly not fair when compared with the facilities granted to English-speaking children. I think if he had read those figures correctly, he would find, as the Administrator did when he conducted an inquiry, that on a proportional basis more and better facilities are provided in Natal for the Afrikaans-speaking children. [Interjections.] I ask any hon. member to prove the contrary. The Administrator made this inquiry himself and that was the conclusion which he arrived at. [Interjection.]

I want to pass on to the hon. member for Zululand. This hon. member made a long song about mother-tongue education. I believe that before he came here he was a lecturer at Ngoya University College in Zululand. I want to ask him whether he speaks Zulu? Perhaps he does not understand me. I shall put it as my old friend the late Chief Wunzolwondhle would have put it—“U ya kulumu ise Zulu na?” [Interjections.] I think it is obvious that he does not. Where is the principle of this Nationalist Government in regard to mother-tongue education, where you have a lecturer lecturing people when he cannot even speak their mother-tongue?

How does this principle apply? Surely if it applies to one section of education, it must apply to another, particularly to an institution which is established by this Government and not an autonomous institution as we have in the case of our universities.

Are you in favour of mother-tongue education?

Yes, I am in favour of mother-tongue education with the overriding principle of parental option. That is the mistake which hon. members on the other side make repeatedly. They will not accept our bona fides when we say that parental option must come first and thereafter the mothertongue. Another point raised by the hon. member for Zululand was the telegrams which he maintained that I had solicited. I resent this and I deny it categorically. When the people, who sent me those telegrams, hear about this they also will resent it. How dare he cast such imputations on the character of such noble people as we have here, leading educationists throughout the country? He puts this imputation on their motive. This came about because the hon. member for Vryheid happened to be in the lobby when I was handed a whole handful of telegrams. Straight away he ran to his friend and said, “You must see the telegrams that Webber is getting”.

I want to return to the Bill. After speeches such as those that we heard last night, particularly from the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Klip River, is it any wonder that we on this side of the House are suspicious about the provisions of this Bill? Is it any wonder that even if there was not the implication of the introduction of Christian-Naltional education, with the hyphen, we would reject it altogether in any case. The hon. member for Klip River said outright that this had been introduced to punish the English in Natal for what they have done to the Afrikaner, the poor downtrodden people. He was not born in Natal. He came of his own volition and why has he stayed if he was so oppressed? Why did he not return to the Western Province if he was so oppressed? He chose of his own free will to remain in Natal. He chose to have his children educated in a parallel-medium school which was provided for him. I sincerely hope that they are fine South Africans. I am sure that they are.

I am telling you I was born in Natal.

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but he should produce new arguments; these old arguments are now so threadbare.

Another point with which I wanted to deal was that this hon. member for Klip River pointed at me personally last night and asked at which school my children were being educated. He knows the school at Cato Ridge and that that school is a parallel-medium school. That was where my children were until I came to the Cape. I am proud to have put them there. They are today bilingual and good South Africans and they are only bilingual because they had the opportunity to mix with Afrikaans-speaking children which this Government is now going to deny them in terms of this Bill. Let us return to the question of Christian-National education. We have heard the Minister’s assurances and the denials by the hon. member for Randfontein and the hon. member for Klip River. What do the utterances of Ministers and hon. members in this House mean when it comes to the application of this legislation? This House has a legislative function only and the utterances in this House are not binding upon those who have the executive function. They will function in terms of the provisions of the Act. They will function according to their interpretation of those provisions. If those provisions allow for such a divergence of interpretation as we have heard in this House this week, is it a good measure and must it be left as such? If the hon. the Minister is genuine when he says that this does not mean the implementation, at any time, of C.N.E., with the hyphen, I call on him now to make the first move, to withdraw it, or to suitably amend it, or to define satisfactorily the terms so that those who will be charged with the execution of this Bill, will know where this House wanted them to go. I cannot support the Bill as it stands now. I reject it categorically and I support the amendment. I also call upon the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. members for Zululand, Vryheid, Klip River and Umhlatuzana—they are seated so far apart that I think this has been done deliberately to prevent them from fighting—to vote against this measure. I call upon them to vote against it as the representatives in this House of a political party which has rejected the principle of this Bill.

It has not.

At the end of last year the Nationalist Party Natal weekly newspaper carried on its front page under banner headlines an article which stated: “Natal’s Nationalist Party is strongly opposed to the institution of Christian national education in State schools”. I quote from a translation. It went further: “There is a strong opinion that at the next sitting of the provincial council the Nationalist Party should introduce a motion in which it expresses itself against the importation of C.N.E. in Natal”.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited. There we have an unequivocal statement of the standpoint of the Nationalist Party in Natal. They are against it and I now call on those five hon. members to vote with us when we come to divide on this question. Mr. Speaker, I now come to another point.

A telegram.

I shall come to the telegrams. I want to quote from the annual report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. U Thant, to U.N.O. as delivered in September 1966 wherein he was asked to summarize the world’s present problems. The first one he said was:

The prevalence of narrow nationalisms, the periodic reliance on crude power, whether political, military or economic to serve or protect supposed national interests.

So you believe that.

Yes, this I think is the crux of all the problems in the world. Would you deny that it is not the problem in Central Africa and in Vietnam? [Interjections.] I shall return to that hon. member. I feel that this statement can be applied to this Government, to its preoccupation with narrow sectional nationalism, its blatant reliance on crude political power to serve the sectional so-called national interests. Nothing brings this out more than the Bill which is before us now and the attitude of the hon. member for Klip River. What did he say last night? He said: “We will force it through. We have the votes and we will force it through”. We heard what the hon. the Minister said. He said that he has a cane and that is all he needs. The provisions of this Bill give us cause to be perturbed. I submit that the ultimate aim of this Bill is the possession of the mind and the soul of every child in this country.

The secrecy with which the provisions were shrouded, the arrogance with which it was presented, and the sanctimonious platitudes used by the Minister in his second reading speech all go to strengthen my suspicion about this Bill. I repeat that I reject it categorically as it stands. Why did the hon. the Minister not make these provisions public? We have heard to-day that the provisions of another Bill have been made public. Opinions have been called for. Should the parents not have been given an opportunity to express their views? Should educationists not have been given an opportunity to express their opinions? If this Minister really meant what he said and if other hon. members really meant what they said when they said that the public would welcome the provisions of this Bill, and that there was nothing for the public to worry about, why did he not publish it and then sit back and wait for the “Ek dank die Minister …”? He could also have had a stack of telegrams as I have. I think he did not because he is afraid of his own brain-child. He is afraid of this Frankenstein that he has created. As we heard last night from the hon. member for Mooi River, this will eat him and his party. Our fear is that this Frankenstein will eat the whole of South Africa. That is why we oppose it. What has been public reaction since we have had the opportunity to circulate a few copies of this Bill, so that people could see the provisions contained therein?

Now we come to these telegrams which hon. members have waited for. I know that there has been an organized campaign in certain constituencies by Nationalist Party organizers to have telegrams sent to United Party representatives in this House. This is an old game, and it is the beginning of the war of nerves which will be carried on from now to the next election. None have come to me. I know that they have been received. I have here telegrams from individuals. Some of them read as follows: “As a parent, opposed to Education Bill”: “Division wholeheartedly behind you in your efforts against Education Bill. Fight to a standstill”. I have telegrams from whole communities: “We, the people of this district, oppose the Education Bill and give our full support in opposing this Bill in Parliament”.

Which district?

Eston. There are others: “Disapprove Education Bill. Relying on you”; “Disapprove strongly Education Bill. Know you will do all you can.” Would anybody like to know who signed that one? It was signed by a Pienaar. Then there are others: “Do not approve Education Bill. Please do all you can”. This is signed by a bilingual family. I know them. There is an English-speaking mother and an Afrikaans-speaking father.

Are you bilingual?

I am; quadrilingual, if you want it that way. This last telegram was signed by a family with an English-speaking mother and an Afrikaans-speaking father, a family which is bilingual from the smallest child, who is now about four, to the eldest, who is about 13. [Interjections.] I agree with you 100 per cent. It is ideal. This is the epitome of unity in South Africa. Those bilingual families are the future of South Africa. But, what will the effect of this Bill be on their children?

Absolutely nothing. [Interjections.]

Into which language medium are you going to put those children? This is the problem child of education in South Africa. I will go further and say that this Bill discriminates against those parents. The unilingual family still has a choice, as long as they choose their language and not the other one. The bilingual family has no choice. The headmaster, or the inspector, or the director, or someone appointed by this Minister, will decide which school those children will go into. That is why I say it is discrimination. It is a blatant denial of normal human rights. Not only that, as the hon. members for Durban (North) and South Coast pointed out, it is also a violation of our Constitution. We have this entrenched clause which says that every person shall be entitled to use his own language. This hon. Minister will appoint someone who will tell those people what to do, people who the hon. member for Zululand said were the epitome of what is best in South Africa. Now you are taking these rights away from them, because they have become true South Africans—“ware Suid-Afrikaners”. They are being victimized. I shall now return to what I was saying earlier.

Are there any more telegrams?

Yes, I have some more for you. I asked why the hon. the Minister had not consulted educationists and groups of educationists. I now want to read comments from some educationists. One said: “It is thought that the public has a right to know more about this proposed Bill which we have been assured is nothing about which to worry. If this is the case, is there any reason why the details of the Bill should not be disclosed to the general public?”. This was before the Bill was available to us. Another prominent educationist: “The Bill is so broad that it is difficult to assess its full import and very definite assurances appear to be necessary, if our present democratic system of provincial education is to be safeguarded.”

Is that from Mr. P. A. Moore?

Incidentally, I do not believe that one of these people supports the United Party. Another prominent educationist says: “Uniformity in education enforced by a rigorous central control is the worst thing that can happen to the young people of any country. In the present case, it almost certainly means sooner or later indoctrination on the lines of what is often called ‘Christian national education’.”

Would you like to read these telegrams which I received as well?

I would be glad to. Here is another telegram. Unfortunately I must leave one section of it out because of the fear of victimization. It reads as follows: “We, the members of staff, are deeply disturbed by new Education Bill. Would like to see protest extended from Parliament to public. Suggest mass meeting Pietermaritzburg.” This telegram is signed by no less than 20 prominent educationists in Natal. At the end of that list is added “and others”. That is why this Minister did not have the courage to consult educationists. He knew that there would be much criticism, but he hoped that the propaganda which preceded the introduction of this Bill would lull people into a false sense of security. We heard from the hon. member for Houghton that this classification of parents, of homes and of children that I was referring to earlier applies to one-third of the people in South Africa, and one-third of the scholars of South Africa.

They are the ones who are being discriminated against. One-third of our population will not have a say about the language medium to be used in the education of their children. I reject categorically the sentiments expressed by the hon. members for Vryheid, Klip River and Zululand, particularly when they talk about education in Natal and the alleged hardships under which the Afrikaner people have suffered. Those hon. members have all been members of the provincial council, they all know the provisions of our Ordinance, and they know that we stand for parallel-medium schools with the parental option. I can see that it is no use pursuing this matter further so I will leave it and go on to another point.

I wish to deal now with clause 2 (1) (e), which provides that education shall be free of charge. I think the hon. the Minister must have changed his mind about this since he spoke in this House on the 1st September last when he said (Hansard, Col. 1886), dealing with a plea that had been made for free education—

Those were the words of the Minister on the 1st September of last year, here in this House. Why did he at that time say that the principle of free education was wrong? It was for political expediency. At that time there was a commission sitting in Natal to investigate fee-paying schools. But now free education is good. Why? Because the hon. the Minister hopes to sell this Bill to the people of South Africa with this point of free education.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about our feepaying schools. The best-known and most famous schools in our country are the feepaying schools. That I say quite categorically, and I do not think that anybody will deny it. They have the most proud records of any school in this country. Many of them are over 100 years old. I am glad and proud to wear the tie of Durban High School which already has celebrated its centenary anniversary. It has a proud record over a 100 years. It has produced the finest citizens South Africa has ever seen. It produced the first South African to be appointed a Governor-General for South Africa, the late Dr. E. G. Jansen. He was Afrikaans speaking, but had been to an English-medium school!

Because there was no Afrikaans-medium school. [Interjections.]

His parents exercised their option. [Interjections.] They chose the language medium they wished their son to be educated in. He was not compelled to go to a certain school, as the Minister is now going to decide under this Bill. This school with this proud tradition has produced three holders of the Victoria Cross; it has produced many Judges; and many other leaders in all spheres of South African life. Many people who have passed through D.H.S. have devoted their lives to public service in many ways. D.H.S. is one of the most progressive schools in the country. It has the finest swimming pool of any school in the country. And where did that pool come from? How much did the province donate towards its cost? Not one solitary cent, Mr. Speaker. Who built it? The Old Boys and the parents. What is more, they have just collected another R200,000 for further facilities. The same applies to Pietermaritzburg College. Let me tell the hon. member for Vryheid that that school’s six A-grade rugby fields were provided by the parents and the Old Boys. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the speeches of hon. members I wondered for a moment whether the debate was not perhaps going to develop into such terminology being used that I would not be able to follow the arguments. That did not happen though. What I do find odd, however, is that through lack of arguments the hon. the Opposition, or actually the hon. member who has just sat down, even had to use an argument of U Thant in order to lend support to their own arguments. I think I can say to them that that hon. gentleman probably has as little time for them as he has for this side of the House. We shall not go into the telegrams which were read out with so much eloquence by the previous speaker any further, because the hon. member for Zululand has duly exposed their origin. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have noticed this new development in the tactics of the United Party. When we were dealing with contentious legislation in the past, they organized processions, protest meetings, etc. But because they have now discovered that they do not get sufficient support from the public to do that type of thing, they have started to have telegrams sent. After all, that can be done with so much less trouble!

To us on this side of this House who listened to the speeches made and the various points raised by hon. members opposite, it was really disappointing to notice the low standard and the poor quality of their speeches. We are dealing here with education in the first instance, and we probably have the right to expect those who do not agree with us at least to discuss educational principles, and to have the debate conducted on those lines. But what did we get? If one has to summarize, one might say that, in the first place, they sowed suspicion. Here we have legislation which is being introduced for the good of the country as a whole. But the Opposition refuse to accept it as such—hence their attempts to sow suspicion. Hon. members allege that this legislation is aimed at taking possession of the hearts and minds of our children so that they can be guided in a particular direction and be indoctrinated systematically to make little Nationalists out of them—hon. members opposite just did not say so in so many words. But that side did not only sow suspicion. There was also a certain degree of bitterness, Sir. I shall probably not be wrong in saying that the Opposition has adopted a negative attitude throughout their discussion of this matter. The Opposition has once again proved itself true to its past by showing its unwillingness in a matter such as this, a matter of national importance, a matter which promotes national unity. In that respect the Opposition is like a jibbing horse. It keeps on backing away. It does not like to feel the harness round it; it does not want to pull the wagon well; it does not want to pull the cart forward. One probably has to have a great deal of patience with them.

One must, however, give the Opposition credit for the fact that this is merely a temporary phenomenon on their part. After a while they will become accustomed to the legislation, and after they have become accustomed to it, they will accept it. Just see what a fine and choice collection of Republicans they are to-day! We can still remember how they opposed the coming of the Republic. Nevertheless they have accepted it to such an extent now that they have even nominated a candidate for the presidential election! I therefore want to prophesy that when this piece of legislation comes into operation, when it starts to bear wonderful fruit, when national unity has been created in our country—something of which we have always dreamt—the United Party will accept this measure and will commend it as a very good Act. I also want to prophesy that more than one of them will want to claim the credit for this measure they are opposing so strongly to-day.

Clause 2 of this Bill, in which the principles are laid down, has been dealt with so thoroughly that I feel we should now give our attention to one of the other clauses. After everything that has been said, I believe that the essence of this legislation, which is embodied in those principles in clause 2, remains intact. I am fully convinced that when the history of education in this country is written by future historians this legislation will be regarded as the Magna Carta of education in South Africa. We also believe that the historians will find ample appreciation for what has been done in the past, in the period preceding this legislation. Because we do not doubt for one moment that thorough and sound work has been done by the various bodies. But the time has arrived for us to place our education on a unitary basis. Up to now we have been too fragmentary. We have been too divided. Each body followed its own course, the course it thought best. In this connection I recall that we attended an Agricultural Union Congress in Natal once where the farmers submitted a motion to the Congress in which they asked for what this legislation is giving to-day. I speak under correction now, but I think it was the hon. member for Mooi River who said that day that the people in Natal had their own system and that they considered it to be the best system in the world. Well, we probably all think that our own particular system is the best. There is a German proverb to the effect that “every goose thinks its gosling a swan”. Everyone of us thinks our system better than the next one. However, we cannot approach the future of our education in such a manner. The time has come for us to adopt only one course in future, and this is now being made possible for us through this measure. We believe that this legislation will be the binding factor in our education, and that it will herald a new dawn for education in South Africa.

As I have said, the principles embodied in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection 2 (1) have already been dealt with thoroughly, and therefore I want to turn to a new principle which has not yet been discussed in this debate, and that is the last one, namely paragraph (j), which reads “conditions of service and salary scales of teachers shall be uniform”. Mr. Speaker. I am absolutely convinced that if one’s object in life is to mkae money one must never join the teaching profession. If one wants to make money, one will go and sell coffee or sugar or motor cars or insurance. In other words, one will turn to the commercial world and exploit the possibilities it offers.

Teaching is and remains primarily a calling to which one is driven by one’s inner convictions. One finds most of one’s reward in helping the child who is entrusted to you for his education and in seeing how that child develops in the intellectual, emotional and physical spheres. The child is entrusted to you when he attends school for the first time and he is reticent and shy when he first enters the classroom. After a year or so, when he leaves that classroom, he is outgoing and full of confidence. If a teacher does not put this aspect of his calling first and foremost the teaching profession would soon become a torture to him, a trial to the child and a dismal failure for both. That is why we can agree with the French philosopher’s winged words on education, and I should like to quote them as a guiding principle for all the teachers in our country: “To fill the mind with knowledge and the heart with understanding is to share creation with God”. This creative joy, seeing the child grow and develop and mature, is really the teacher’s greatest reward.

But however idealistic the teacher may be, he cannot live by idealism alone. Like all of us, the teacher also lives in a realistic world and at the end of each month he has to pay his accounts—then the creditors ask for money. He can only satisfy them with hard cash, the cash he receives in exchange for his services. I do not want to plead for an increase in the salaries of teachers. But, Sir, allow me to say that money which is spent to draw the best people to the teaching profession is undoubtedly a sound or even the best investment any nation or state can make, because unexpected and high dividends are returned on that money. Because we have had the position up till now that a teacher with the same training and doing the same work as his colleagues is paid a bigger salary and is offered greater benefits by one province or department than by another province, a position has been created which has been detrimental to the country as a whole and to education in particular. Through circumstances, such as a large provincial revenue derived from industries or mining, and other factors, one province may be better off financially than another. It is only human that it will be tempted to offer its teachers a higher salary because it can afford to do so, and in that way to attract the best teachers from the other areas. It will only be human for the teacher to respond to that, because, Mr. Speaker, “Where it is a matter of money we all have the same religion”. For that reason teachers will go and teach where they get a higher salary for the same work. That will bring a certain measure of instability into the teaching profession, and will result in teachers moving backwards and forwards in the country, not to promote the interests of the profession in the first place, but in search of higher salaries, higher remuneration and more favourable conditions.

This legislation puts an end to that unsatisfactory state of affairs. In future a teacher will get exactly the same salary for the same work and for the same training, whether he teaches at Naboomspruit or Pretoria, Vioolsdrif or Port Elizabeth. His leave and other benefits will also be exactly the same. This levelling process cannot but have a very good effect on education. It will lead to satisfaction in the profession, and the richer provinces or bodies will no longer be in a position to deprive the poorer provinces of their teachers and their educational talent. In this respect, too, we are entering a new era through this legislation, we are eliminating the old provincial anomalies and placing the needs of the country as a whole first and foremost. This is the golden thread which runs through the whole of this legislation. We shall no longer look at provincial boundaries. The country’s needs will be given priority in the future.

Since we are introducing uniform conditions of service and salaries, I just want to refer to the particularly favourable leave conditions previously enjoyed by teachers attached to the Department of Education, Arts and Science. One can almost say that there was a certain measure of jealousy on the part of other teachers because those teachers were treated so favourably in that respect. After only five years’ service they could get three months’ leave. In addition they could by means of vacation service, half of which was given back to them, greatly increase the number of days’ leave to their credit in a very short time. The position was that under such circumstances a teacher could get three months’ leave after only three years of service.

If we consider all the principles of this legislation, we cannot but say that we should have had this as a basis for our education long ago. I now want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he; should make full use of the powers conferred upon him by this measure, so that we may both in letter and in spirit see the results of the implementation of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, if I am correct in what I have discerned, only three hon. members from the Cape on the Government side participated in this debate. The reason for this will become obvious, I think, as I develop my argument in this debate. The hon. member for Mossel Bay quite safely chose to discuss a non-contentious aspect of this Bill, an aspect which we all support, namely uniformity of salaries and conditions of service. The hon. member for Maitland gave us his personal credo whilst the hon. member for Algoa had the audacity to suggest that there was perhaps something wrong with one of the subsections in the Bill. It is obvious Sir, that, although none of these three hon. members were members of the Cape Provincial Council, they have been wise enough to study what has been the accepted policy of the Nationalist-controlled provincial council in the Cape Province. But by reason of the stand they have taken in this debate, these hon. members have repudiated the Nationalist-controlled Cape Provincial Administration which introduced an ordinance in 1956 which is not in conformity with this Bill, an ordinance which the Nationalist-controlled provincial administration in the years which have passed since 1956 have not had the temerity to attempt to amend. I am referring namely to the parental choice in regard to the medium of instruction of pupils. Before I go over to deal with that aspect, I hope that hon. members in this House who were in the provincial council, and some of them who voted for the 1956 Ordinance, will in the course of this debate perhaps stand up and tell us what justification they have found, not only for jettisoning the opinions which they held in the long and heated debate in 1956, but also for jettisoning their own party colleagues who now sit in the Provincial Council of the Cape.

The system in the Cape has stood the test of time. I do not think unsatisfactory results came from that as far as education is concerned. The hon. member for Algoa found it necessary to express some alarm about the removal of the limited fee-paying system which applies to certain schools in the Cape Province. He is quite right in his attitude. The number of schools of that nature is very limited. The Minister knows that there are a number of so-called fee-paying Government schools in the Cape Province, where, because of contributions made by the parents, there can be a broadening, for instance, of the literature that is made available for the pupils. They are not confined to the limited text books. They are able to extend their literature into a wider field. They are able because of contributions, to provide improved playing fields and other sports and recreational facilities which are subsidized on a rand-for-rand basis by the province. I think that the Minister will be quite amazed to see to what extent the Government and the province are saved expenditure because of the contributions which are made by parents in this way. But it has a far better, far deeper, and far more impressive result, and that is that in these schools the parents, not only when they have children at school, maintain a continual interest in the school, in its activities, in its work, and in its achievements.

An esprit-de-corps is built up in those schools, something which should not be destroyed for the sake of the paltry fees which are paid by parents if they choose to send their children to those schools. Because in the Cape the position is fortunately that the schools are not zoned, and it is possible under the system which we have in the Cape, a system which is working and which has achieved results, to have situations such as this: My youngster is in an English-medium Government school. When I went to watch her playing tennis there were three Afrikaans-speaking girls playing with her on the tennis courts and they were all speaking Afrikaans. I do not have the time now, but I hope to be able to read to the Minister tomorrow the provisions as they stand in the Cape Ordinance. The Minister will then be able to understand why there has not been even a “peep” from any hon. member of the Nationalist Party in this House who at any time sat in the Cape Provincial Council, because he would then have to repudiate his own colleagues and what they have accepted in this province.