Mr Chairman, I move on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to support the Bill under discussion on behalf of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order! No, only one hon member is speaking at this stage. Hon members must please give the hon member for Brits an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Mr Chairman, we as a party did our homework and contacted the chairman of the South African National Wresting Control Board, Brig A F Burger. He informed us that the board was in favour of this legislation.

As the hon the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, this legislation concerns the deregulation of professional wrestling. The legislation provides that in future the private sector will exercise control over this sport. The legislation affects only professional wrestling, and not professional boxing, for reasons indicated by the hon the Minister. Part of the principal Act is being retained, however. This applies to the prohibition of the participation of women in professional wrestling, and, of course, professional boxing. The provision that the police and magistrates may stop boxing and wrestling matches in certain cases is also being retained. I want to express my personal thanks to the hon the Minister for retaining the prohibition of female participation in these sports. In my opinion, permitting women to take part in these sports would be detrimental to the image of women in society.

You are afraid of the female sex, are you not? [Interjections.]

These sports do not suit women’s character; they detract from their femininity and dignity. [Interjections.] To lift this prohibition would give unscrupulous people an opportunity to exploit the female body.

With these few words, Mr Chairman, we should like to support the measure under discussion.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP have pleasure in supporting the amending measure as we did in the standing committee after some debate. Having indicated that the PFP will be supporting the measure, I would also indicate that my colleague, the hon member for Parktown, will be delivering a short speech to the House in which he will express his personal views on the sport of boxing. I must point out quite clearly to the hon the Minister, however, that we shall nevertheless be supporting the measure as a whole since we believe that there should be control of boxing by the State.

One of the points I want to raise, however, is referred to in the report of the standing committee. The report appeared in the Minutes of 8 February, and I should like to quote from it as follows:

Judging by the very comprehensive report submitted to the standing committee which dealt with the Boxing and Wrestling Control Amendment Bill, the situation is quite clearly one of which the hon the Minister and his department are aware. Some six pages of comments were received from members of the South African public who are participants in one way or another in the sport of boxing. These comments were not germane to the amending Bill but were central to the principal Act. We hope that the hon the Minister will look very carefully at those.

We also hope that the hon the Minister will comment in his reply on the relationship that appears to be developing between the South African Boxing Control Board and the International Boxing Association, which is a totally separate body to the World Boxing Association—the WBA. I express that hope because one of the factors that emerged when we were considering the amending Bill in the standing committee was that the Boxing Control Board wished its existence to continue being enshrined in a legislative measure because of the constitution of the WBA to which South Africa belongs.

Apart from those particulars, and making reference once more to the fact that the hon member for Parktown will be speaking in his personal capacity on this measure, we in the PFP will be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, a good boxer or a good wrestler needs only a few seconds, at least no more than one round, to overwhelm his opponent.

And then he must win as we won in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke. [Interjections.]

That depends on whether or not one has good legislation. If one has good legislation, one need not say very much about it. That is what is happening here today. The same applied on the standing committee. In saying that, I do not want hon members to think that there were no differences on the standing committee. Members were not always unanimous about the legislation, and I shall come back to this.

It is interesting that the original legislation was introduced in this House by the Minister of Justice on 10 June 1954. It appears that boxing and wrestling were often practised behind the kraal walls at that stage and that it was more a question of murder than sport. Possibly one of the reasons for the crisis in our sport was the fact that there was political interference in South African sport and that this still happens internationally today, whereas only professional boxing and wrestling are subject to statutory regulations in South Africa.

This legislation also brings professional wrestling in line with the implementation of the Government’s decision on deregulation.

This amending Bill also provides for the abolition of Act 39 of 1954, as amended in 1973, in so far as it relates to professional wrestling. Two provisions of this Act are being retained, however. The first provision, as pointed out by the hon member for Brits, empowers the police and magistrates to prohibit or even stop wrestling and professional boxing matches in certain cases. The second provision that has been retained is the one that prohibits the participation of women in boxing and wrestling.

There has not always been unanimity on this particular measure. I know the hon member for Kempton Park was not very happy about the prohibition of wrestling in the case of women. I want to tell the hon member for Brits that it is only their participation in professional wrestling that is being prohibited; he can tell his wife that she can continue her amateur wrestling. That is not prohibited. Naturally the SA National Wrestling Control Board agrees with this measure.

This amending Bill regulates professional wrestling, which has developed over the years into a fine art, mainly for people’s entertainment. It enables those interested in wrestling to create their own body without interference from the State.

The retention of the measures in respect of professional boxing is being advocated for two reasons in particular, of which the first is health reasons. Professional boxers must receive effective protection, also by means of the law. I want to say this afternoon that when one watches professional boxing of the kind we saw on television recently, in which it seemed as if the one boxer was a slightly overweight, unfit moneygrabber, it seems to me that perhaps this legislation should be applied even more strictly.

The second reason for the retention of the provisions concerning professional boxing is the requirements laid down by the World Boxing Association. If we want to be a member of this body, it is necessary for these statutory measures to exist.

I want to conclude by thanking the previous two speakers, who put the standpoints of the Official Opposition and the PFP, for their support. On behalf of the hon members on this side of the House, I want to express our support for this amendment. I also want to place on record our thanks to the chairman and the members of the standing committee for the part they played in drawing up the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kimberley-North referred in his speech to the protection of boxers, which is the object of this Bill. I want to make it clear that no Bill can protect a boxer. [Interjections.]

†I should like to refer the hon the Minister to clause 12 which amends section 22 of the principal Act. The amendment reads:

I should like to argue that all boxing should be forbidden and stopped in the public interest. [Interjections.]

It is a fact of life that there first has to be a tragedy, a disaster or someone killed before there is a public reaction. An unguarded railway crossing will only be made safe after numerous accidents and deaths. A road over a dam wall will only be securely fenced after a bus full of schoolchildren has landed in the dam resulting in tragic drownings. We have had repeated evidence of that.

We are only too aware that prevention saves more lives than cures, but in our daily lives we seem not to practise what we preach.

The tragic death of a South African boxer—the same applies in most countries—after being knocked senseless in the name of sport, receives its expected burst of publicity. Those in favour of boxing will parade their well-known cliches supporting this bloodsport. Those against raise their indignant protests, and one week later all has been forgotten and young men continue to have their brains knocked around in unforgiving skulls, resulting in well-documented, permanent brain damage and death. This is a fact. Nobody can argue about it.

Death in the ring is only the tip of the iceberg of the harm done to participants by this brutal, so-called sport, except that it causes an outcry when it finally does happen. The aim of boxing is to leave one’s opponent senseless and unconscious.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Greytown has had a lot of brain damage! To leave one’s opponent senseless, one has to attack his brain. This one does by aiming blows at his head. That is boxing. Each head blow is a potential killer of brain cells with resulting muscular, sensory and mental impairment, immediate or delayed. I would like to challenge any hon member to oppose this view.

Has anyone noticed that a blow below the belt is illegal? The offender is immediately harshly warned or even disqualified. However, to hit the head is described as a demonstration of this noble art and there is great excitement and cheering when the excited commentator can describe a perfect, well-timed, balanced, flush-on-the-jaw punch, ending in the climax of boxing, a “flat on his back unconscious opponent”. One can see it every day. This prostrate figure is now further degraded by cameramen who from all angles try to capture for sportlovers this magnificent moment—this man lying unconscious—and all for the increased profits of the sponsors and more money for little men who make a living—if one can call it a living—from this degrading spectacle that destroys men.

The winner—if one can call him that, because we know that quite a few of his brain cells are not as healthy as they used to be before he started the fight—usually prances and jumps around the ring with his arms raised in victory. Some even do summersaults! He now has to be interviewed by reporters from the news media. His eyebrow is cut, his eyes are puffy and nearly closed, and through thickened, bleeding lips he slurs how he knew that he had him—his opponent—during the second round and that the damage was done by a beautiful left uppercut thrown from below his knees! He is now going to challenge the world champion! Everyone who wins wants to challenge the world champion. He then continues muttering much more earth-shattering irrelevant nonsense.

I loathe boxing—professional and amateur. As a doctor I was taught from my first day as a medical student to relieve suffering, to reduce pain and to look after the injured. I do not watch boxing, but we are all trapped when, during the TV news, the most violent parts of the previous night’s fight are relayed repeatedly so that we can all have an opportunity to share the final moment of agony of the bleeding, reeling loser before his final demolition. This is true.

Mr Chairman, does the hon member draw any kind of distinction between professional and amateur boxing?

Could anyone point out to me the difference between the blows delivered by an amateur and those delivered by a professional boxer to a person’s head or jaw? The hon member for Langlaagte should know better, because he is a doctor.

He was a boxer in his youth.

Boxing causes brain damage and even brain death, irrespective of whether the blow is delivered by a professional or an amateur boxer.

†I therefore draw no distinction between the two.

Sir, if there is any final proof that boxing must be banned in South Africa, I would ask hon members to watch the final moments of the late Jacob Morake’s last torment. A year and a half ago this Black boxer was killed in the name of sport in a South African boxing ring. If anybody can watch the last moments of this fight in which this man was punched into unconsciousness and still give me one reason why boxing should not be banned in this country—only one reason—I would like to meet him. Hon members can watch other fights in overseas countries. They can watch those men reeling around, getting hit repeatedly until they lie unconscious with brain damage. They may undergo operations, but sometimes they die. Why should a sport like this not be banned?

Bullfighting is banned in South Africa, and rightly so. Rodeos are not allowed in South Africa, and rightly so. This blood sport involves animals and is not allowed. Human beings, however, can be knocked into oblivion. Boxing is not only legal but draws enthusiastic public support.

Members of the public pay to see more blood; they are willing spectators of these events. Maybe someone will reply to me and explain how boxing can still be justified in this year of 1988—with all the medical evidence of the harm it does to the boxers.

The Medical Association of South Africa condemns boxing and asks for its banning. After a fatal injury we show a revulsion of this sport for a few days or weeks but then let time take its course until the next death. Sir, we must support the Medical Association of South Africa which has asked for a ban on boxing. We can stop this brutal sport today. Legislation must be passed in order to ban boxing in South Africa. This must be done to outlaw this brutal, so-called sport. Sir, my appeal is that boxing must die and not the boxers.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to all hon members who support the Bill.

A number of matters were raised, Sir, but permit me right at the outset to raise a matter which did not emerge in the debate. I should like to underline the fact, in view of the deregulation of professional wrestling, that in my opinion it is essential that those who will be involved in dealing with this sport in future, viz the promoters and the wrestlers themselves, will realise that they have an obligation to the public to create a proper framework for themselves, as other sports have, which will inspire and retain the confidence of the public.

†They need a code of conduct, Sir, and they need to organise themselves now that statutory control has been withdrawn. I want to appeal to them, in the best interests of sport in South Africa, to get together and to organise themselves on the basis of such a code of conduct.

*The hon member for Brits did not raise any substantive matters. I really do not want to pick a quarrel with him, seeing he supported the Bill, but I do want to tell him that if a Minister on this side of the House says that a certain body that was consulted supports something, it is not necessary for him to go and make sure of this. I said in my speech that the chairman of the South African National Wrestling Control Board and the board itself supported this step of deregulation. It really was not necessary for him to go and do his homework to determine whether or not I had told the truth. We do not mislead the House.

Now that was very petty! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinetown referred to representations regarding the relationship between the South African National Boxing Control Board and promoters and boxers. As he himself pointed out, this is not relevant to the Bill at issue. I think the matter should rather be discussed when my Vote comes up for discussion. I will make a mental note to make a special study of that part of the report, and will be prepared if he raises the matter.

He also referred to the question of the motivation for retaining statutory control with regard to boxing—mention was made of the involvement of the World Boxing Association—and to a number of uncertainties that exist. However, he failed to recognise that I gave two motivating reasons. Even if the motivation of international participation falls away—for the sake of sport in South Africa I hope it does not fall away—there is the additional motivation which lies in the very same subject which was raised by the hon member for Parktown, namely that boxing is regarded as a relatively dangerous sport and, therefore, that certain special measures are required because of the health risk involved in the case of professional boxers. So that is another reason why we chose to retain the basic control.

*The hon member for Kimberley North also made a plea for more effective protection for boxers.

I accept that the autonomous board will take thorough cognisance of the requirements that have been expressed in that connection. When I come to the hon member for Parktown, however, things become rather more difficult.

†In the first instance he referred me to the amendment in clause 12 which provides, inter alia:

On the basis of this provision, which I have now partially quoted, the hon member pleads that I must use it to forbid all boxing. That is an absolute misconception. The whole case of the hon member is based on the individual interests of the boxer concerned, and it would therefore be a total misuse of power to use a provision referring to the public interest to do what the hon member wants us to attain. I therefore say the hon member has misread the impact and the basis of the amendment in clause 12 if he couples it with this.

*Sir, we then come to the hon member’s very strong opposition to amateur as well as professional boxing. I do not want to enter into a long argument with the hon member on this question. He has every right to have his opinion, but, without wanting to be spiteful, it is clear to me that the hon member could not convince his own caucus to adopt the same standpoint. That is proof that there is considerable difference of opinion on the matter.

I want us to explore the underlying philosophical points of departure that one should display a little more thoroughly. The hon member is always in the forefront when we take firm steps in the public interest, on security measures for example. In those cases the hon member relies on a strong plea that individual rights are being curtailed, but when it comes to other subjects, he expects the Government to use all its powers to destroy individual rights. The hon member wants those of us who are in the minority—it is a growing minority—of smokers to be prohibited from smoking anywhere. The hon member wants a boxer who boxes individually—no one forces him to box—to be prohibited from boxing. I want to ask the hon member whether we should also prohibit motor sport because it could lead to deaths, or rugby, or mountain climbing. I can go on in this way.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

Sir, I shall give the hon member an opportunity to do so in a moment.

The point is that there are other sports that occasionally give rise to the tragic death of participants.

Such as TV debates.

There are also other activities apart from sport that give rise to death. Liquor causes many deaths, but must we prohibit liquor totally? If we argue philosophically, the responsibility of the Government has to stop somewhere so that the responsibility of individual and the community can take over.

I believe that this is a dangerous sport and that is why the Government is making a single exception in retaining statutory control, because—I concede this—there is a difference in degree. That is also why there are precautionary measures. Within the framework of the precautionary measures, if they are applied effectively during a fight, and there is proper control, it is not necessary for boxing to be more dangerous than some of the other dangerous sports. That is why I do not think it is the Government’s responsibility to take the kind of action the hon member was advocating.

The hon member wanted to ask me a question. I now give him an opportunity to do so.

Sir, I want to ask the hon the Minister, how do they justify not banning so-called sport, but banning those topless girls?

No, the question is what effect something like topless bathing has on the general public, and what effect a sport has on its spectators. When it comes to moral laws, it is a matter of protecting the public against circumstances which may be damaging in respect of the country’s morals. I do not regard boxing as such as damaging to the country’s morals. I therefore do not think the hon member’s comparison was relevant. [Interjections.]

I want to thank hon members once again for their support and express the hope that, when the Bill is passed in the third of the three Houses, we shall enter a new dispensation in which professional wrestling will carry on in an orderly way without State interference, and which will ensure that the essential control over boxing is exercised effectively.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, let me say right at the outset that we oppose this amending Bill and we do so for very good reasons. We must probably view this amending Bill, too, against the background of quite a number of statements on drastic changes in the education set-up in South Africa which the hon the Minister has made during the past few days. These statements prove to be a confirmation of many allegations made by the CP over a considerable period of time, but particularly during the two recent by-elections. These allegations, which the NP then dismissed as untruths and gossip-mongering by the CP, are now being proved correct one after the other.

To begin with I must also say that the Second Reading speech delivered by the hon the Minister in the House of Representatives did not do justice to the importance of the Bill and to the equally important and serious implications it has for Black education in White areas. This is a fact, whether one looks at the speech from a leftistliberal or from a conservative point of view. The question is of course why the hon the Minister preferred to deliver a speech consisting of only one and three quarter typed pages on this important Bill. Perhaps the hon the Minister does not at this stage want its full implications to receive too much exposure, or perhaps this legislation is considered to be of such an interim nature that the hon the Minister does not now consider it to be very important. [Interjections.]

I shall refer primarily to those clauses with which we have problems. I am therefore not referring to the amendment to the university laws. The hon the Minister devoted only three quarters of a page to the essentially important part of the Bill, the amendments to the Education and Training Act of 1979. As regards amendments to this legislation I am not referring either to the delegation of certain powers, duties and activities of the Minister to the Director-General. This appears to be essential for effective administration.

Sir, may I refer first of all to clause 9? In regard to it the hon the Minister says:

That is indeed the case, but our problem with clause 9, when it comes to the new combined schools, is that it enables the Government to do many things under the umbrella of its policy of an undivided South Africa, in which it is no longer important to the Government to establish the respective population groups in their own areas to the maximum extent because it is part of its policy to cause the various population groups to live, work and attend school in as intermingled a way as possible.

This new type of school helps the Government in that it enables the hon the Minister in fact to establish Black communities in rural White areas in which a depopulation problem is being experienced.

Incredible!

I heard an interjection along the lines of “incredible”. [Interjections.] It is indeed the case that the hon the Minister, for whom I had a great deal of respect and esteem when I was still a young student and who taught me why a Coloured homeland was the solution to the Coloured problem, adopts those standpoints today. Speaking about incredible, there are many excellent examples of which those hon members would of course not like to be reminded. [Interjections.]

As far as clause 9 is concerned, I want to refer to the definition of “parent”.

Order! The interjections must at least have a bearing on the subject under discussion. The hon member may proceed.

The definition of “parent” underwent quite a few changes since this measure first came before the standing committee. We support the present definition. The intention is of course—I think the hon the Minister also said so in his Second Reading speech—to span the net as widely as possible to enable as many associated persons or persons in supervisory capacities over Black pupils to participate as parents, or in the place of parents, in the activities of the school being attended by the child in question. Therefore we do not have any problems with the intention. Of course there is one restriction in the clause which does not span the net as widely as was intended, according to the impression I got, viz that in the case of a child living with a person, the parent or guardian if such a person exists shall entrust the custody of or control over the child to the person in question. It need not always be practicable, in the cases where a parent or guardian does exist, to obtain that written consent. It is restrictive if one talks about a net that is spread widely. We nevertheless support the definition of “parent” as it now stands in the Bill because we are of the opinion that one should also be careful not to span the net so widely that doubt can arise as to who should in fact be regarded by the Department of Education and Training as the parent, in its various meanings, and so that the department does not incur unnecessary liability in this connection.

I now want to refer to clause 11. It makes provision, as the hon the Minister stated, “for the representation of parents of pupils at farm schools on the governing body of the school, in order to give them the opportunity to be actively involved in the education of their children”. That sounds fine, but there is a snag. In terms of the existing legislation a distinction is drawn between the governing body or the administrator on the one hand—who in the case of a Black farm school built on the property of a White farmer is the farmer—and a parent or school committee. Now the farmer, in terms of this clause 11, is being deprived of that power which he had to act as governing body for the school on his land. He is being compelled, as it were, into a Black majority government in miniature, in which the parents, in the various meanings for which clause 9 makes provision and who are elected in a certain prescribed manner, share representation with that farmer on the governing body. This is not an enabling provision either. It is very explicit. It reads as follows:

We would be in favour of an alternative formulation which was before the standing committee at one stage. First of all I just want to refer to the fact that on that standing committee the Official Opposition abstained from voting on the various clauses on this specific amending Bill. We have the situation—this clause is an example—that after hours and hours of discussion one was simply confronted one fine day with a fait accompli.

There were negotiations between the representatives of the NP and representatives of the Labour Party. From that emerged a specific agreement between the parties, after which one was simply confronted on the standing committee with the results of this caucusing, of which the members of the other parties on the standing committee knew nothing.

Now that is consensus!

Yes, that is consensus. We shall glance again in a moment at less healthy forms of consensus which are revealed in the Bill.

In other words, the fact that the Official Opposition abstained from voting on the clauses, including this one, and is only now in a position to state our standpoint is simply because it has been made impossible for the party to adopt a standpoint before the time, after it has received notification of the caucused consensus of the NP and the Labour Party, on matters that have finally come before the standing committee. It is impossible to leave the meeting within seconds and return to inform one’s caucus of what the new caucused consensus is and receive the necessary instructions in that regard.

As far as clause 11 is concerned, one of the alternative formulations complies almost 100% with what we should have liked to have had, and I shall quote it:

We would want to effect only one amendment to this formulation, and that is the omission of the words “with the consent of the governing body”. We can see no sound reason why the administrator, the governing body or the farmer on whose farm the school has been erected should give consent before the parents can establish such a school committee, such a parent committee.

If the hon the Minister therefore talks about provision that has to be made for the representation of parents of pupils at farm schools on the governing body of the school to afford them the opportunity of becoming actively involved in the education of their children, then we say that that is not the whole truth. In reality the farmer is being deprived of important powers which he had in respect of a school situated on his land and erected and maintained primarily with his capital.

Instead of a parent committee or a school committee for which provision could have been made, those parents are now, as far as I am able to establish from the Bill, being placed in a majority position in respect of a farmer in one new governing body. This is happening by way of a “shall” and a command; it is not an enabling provision.

In particular there is good reason to prefer the situation as we have sketched it to the situation the hon the Minister is now creating because the functions of the administrator or governing body of a farm school are spelled out, and the functions he has to perform are subject to control by the department and the Minister as the political head of the department. I am referring to information supplied to us by the department under the title “Funksies van die bestuurder van ’n plaasskool” to indicate that our standpoints are sound.

Firstly he must comply with the registration conditions. Secondly he is responsible for the appointment and discharge of teachers, but that is subject to the approval of the Minister. A third function is the supervision of the principal and teachers, subject to the control of the ring inspector. In other words, it is not, as the impression is sometimes created a situation in which the farmers, willy-nilly, can do whatever they like because the schools are on their farms. They are subject to specific supervision and control.

According to the information of the department further functions of the administrator or governing body include the following: Fourthly, disposing of correspondence in connection with the school; in the fifth place supervision of departmental equipment; in the sixth place, the submission of required statements; in the seventh place, attention to inspection reports; in the eighth place receiving, handing over or returning teachers’ salary cheques; and in the ninth place, compliance with regulations on related admission of and control over pupils.

That is all I want to say about clause 11.

In regard to clause 12 we now have the situation that the Minister is being empowered—it is merely an enabling position; not a mandatory provision—to erect school buildings, maintain existing buildings or to have additions made to an existing building. This provision also applies to buildings on the farms of White farmers. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister put it this way:

Here, once again, is the sting. We are not being told the whole truth. It sounds fine to say that the Minister is merely being enabled now to erect new school buildings and to have additions made to and maintain existing school buildings. However, the hon the Minister mentioned the example of the owner of the farm who was not in a financial position to do so himself. In his reply to the Second Reading debate in the House of Representatives the hon the Minister himself refuted the impression which he might have created in his Second Reading speech, namely that this was a very innocent intention he had and that it was an enabling provision which he would only use in those cases where the farmer was not in a financial position to do so himself. The hon the Minister said;

The hon the Minister went on to say:

This is the true NP. Its true colours are showing in the House of Representatives; there are no indications of them in the Second Reading speech. Although the envisaged section 9A is merely an enabling provision, it is the intention to place farmers who do not want to make any extensions—while the department and the Government want them to be made within the framework of its new policy of mixing on all levels, also demographically—in a position where they can be compelled to do so.

What is going to happen in practice? The hon the Minister is going to have a great deal of money, because he has been telling us during the past few days that he is going to receive a great deal of money from the proceeds of privatisation. So this CP “gossip-mongering” about national assets that are going to be sold to meet certain priorities of the Government is once more being proved true. The hon the Minister himself said that State assets were going to be sold in the name of privatisation, and that he would use that money to build schools. [Interjections.] So he has a lot of money when he comes to the farmers.

He now comes to the farmer and says to him: "Man, I want to do certain things here.” The farmer replies that for specific reasons he is not prepared to undertake this or that extension. What happens then? Next year or the year after the hon the Minister comes to Parliament and sings a different tune about these farmers about whom he said a year or two ago that they were such fine people for having erected more than 5 000 farm schools for Black people, primarily at their own expense. They did so voluntarily; no one forced them to do so, no one drove them to it. They did not need a policy of power-sharing to consult their Christian consciences and, out of their own free will, practise their Christian custodianship. They did this of their own accord.

Then he says that these farmers have changed. These farmers are now ugly people and do not want to allow essential extensions to Black education. They do not want to allow him to establish Black colonies on their farms, because that is what it is going to mean in practice. He is asking Parliament to help him by giving him new legislation—he has plenty of money—and new powers so that he can simply arrive at the objective which he, as I quoted from his reply to the Second Reading debate, himself spelt out:

This is confirmed by further statements the hon the Minister made. He said:

I have already indicated, when I discussed clause 11, that this need not necessarily remain the situation. The parents can obtain a say, but not necessarily in the way the hon the Minister is proposing. The hon the Minister went on to say:

I referred a moment ago to the establishment of colonies that was going to take place. Large numbers of Blacks are going to be concentrated on White farms without the farmer and the White community wanting this, because it is in line with the overall constitutional policy the Government is pursuing. The hon the Minister referred in addition to “a point of assembly for the whole community”. I am still quoting the hon the Minister, and hon members must go and argue with the hon the Minister in the caucus if they do not like what I am quoting. [Interjections.] The hon member for Benoni… [Interjections.] The hon the Minister referred to “a point of assembly for the entire community”. Towards the end of his speech the hon the Minister said:

I cannot believe that the hon the Minister saw fit to mete out such an insult to literally thousands of fellow Afrikaners, fellow South Africans, fellow English-speaking compatriots and farmers who went out of their way to create educational facilities for Black children voluntarily, without being pressured and driven to it by a powersharing obsessed government. The hon the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself, with all due respect, for the implications of that standpoint which he adopted. Of course he did not adopt it among his own people. He did not say what he said in the Western or Eastern Transvaal. He said it in the House of Representatives, at the climax of his reply to the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.]

Finally I want to refer to clause 15. Clause 15 deals with the ‘“problem”—I shall explain later why I put this in quotation marks—of what some hon members of the House of Representatives on the standing committee called “slave labour”. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe is laughing about this. It is completely true to his political nature that he would laugh at such things. He will laugh if hon members of the House of Representatives say that “slave labour” is being applied by farmers on farms where those people voluntarily made Black education available. [Interjections.]

In principle we do not have any problems with clause 15. I shall quote certain sections of clause 15:

I shall skip paragraphs (i) and (ii)—

1. (b) who as a condition for admission to a school situated on a farm, or as consideration for attending such a school, requires a child at any time to render any service, whether for remuneration or otherwise; or (c) who neglects or refuses to furnish information to or who hinders or obstructs a school attendance officer in the lawful execution of his duties …

We have no problem with the existence or the creation, to the extent to which it is now being amended, of this offence, but we do have a problem when it comes to the appropriate punishment that may be imposed on an offender.

Here we now have—I have referred to this earlier—a wonderful illustration of what crude and insensitive results the consensus in the new dispensation can produce. The position here is that the old maximum penalty was R50. All of us know that the Government Law Advisers prepare these Bills. We usually accept their advice, because they do so against a wide background of various pieces of legislation which they deal with. The proposal was that the fine be increased from R50 to R150. However, reference was then made to a drastically increased penalty. Eventually a settlement and a compromise was reached in these words, as it was said: “There is a feeling that we should settle for R500.”

The issue is not so much whether the fine is R50, R150 or R500. A principle is at stake here. Sound administration of justice requires one to fit the punishment to the nature of the offence. The advice we received was based on sound legal background and legal knowledge, and therefore the fine should have been R150.

Why must the people who for years rendered service to Black education in the rural areas voluntarily, be trampled upon by increasing this fine to an exorbitant extent in order to serve as an example? [Interjections.] Why should the deterrent effect of the punishment meted out be over-emphasised to such an extent? According to the information which the department made available to us during the sittings of the standing committee—I am conveying this for what it is worth—the corresponding penalty for Indians and Coloureds is not R500, but R100. It is therefore 20% of the fine for Whites. The figure for Whites could not be made available. The figure for the White education department in the Transvaal was available, and it was between R20 and R100.

Why this obsession with consensus and with falling over one’s feet to please people who accuse one’s own people of applying slave labour? [Interjections.] Why must a fine which should be R150, be fixed at R500? We object vehemently to this. Besides the reasons we have already mentioned, we have other good reasons for doing so.

The Director-General of Education and Training, Dr A B Fourie, issued a statement on this matter on 22 May 1987 and I want to refer to it briefly:

If this is not a testimonial to the corrections and validity of the arguments we have advanced then I do not know what is. We are making an appeal to the hon the Minister, at this late stage, to do what is necessary to remove what is considered to be an insult and to substitute R150 for the R500.

The criticism I have now expressed is not all we have. The hon member for Pietersburg will spell out clearly and succinctly the CP’s alternative as far as these matters are concerned.

Mr Chairman, I must honestly say it was not pleasant to listen to the hon member for Potgietersrus. Not only did he make a poor speech but it was in fact a deplorable performance on a measure which in every respect is nothing but positive, contains no negative principles and is only to the benefit of people living in this country.

On the standing committee the contribution made by the hon member for Potgietersrus and his party was quite negligible.

What is the use if you people caucus behind our backs?

Sir, the hon member must now give me a chance to explain what happened there.

The Standing Committee on Education met on four occasions to discuss this measure. The spirit and atmosphere on that standing committee, of which I am the chairman, is one of reconciliation, friendliness and communication. No member of that committee can say today that he was not granted a turn to speak when he asked for one. I also call my colleagues in the PFP and all my colleagues in the other Houses as witnesses. I drew up long lists of speakers who had asked for turns to speak. Time and again I allowed every person who felt like making a contribution up to five opportunities to do so.

Now you are prevaricating; I did not dispute that!

That hon member and his colleague …

Order! I think the hon member for Potgietersrus has had his turn. [Interjections.] I am speaking to the hon member for Potgietersrus. He has had his turn; he can now give the hon member for Stellenbosch a chance to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, that hon member and the hon member for Brits did not avail themselves of the opportunity. I reject his insinuation and the image he is trying to create that we acted in an undemocratic and steamrolling manner on that committee. I reject all of that!

Every time the hon member referred to a clause and to what was contained in it, he added: “But here is the sting.” I reject that as well. There was an absolutely open discussion on that committee. During the second meeting I asked one of the deputy directors-general of the department, Dr Meiring, to explain once again the full scope of the contents of the Bill. He spent an hour and a half doing so. I reject that hon member’s insinuations.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, he is now making the statement here, with reference to other allegations he also made, that this measure now enables the Minister to establish Black colonies on farms against the wishes of the farmers. That is a flight of the imagination; there is no such thing! Clause 9 is a positive measure which is related only to the reality. It is concerned with combined schools. One finds a situation in which one cannot have a primary and a secondary school in the same area, simply because there are too few children. It is a positive educational measure for one to try to accommodate and combine these children into one school.

With reference to clause 11 he said that farmers were now being deprived of the power to manage their schools. Hon members on this side of House who are managers of schools will participate in this debate. They will be able to testify here themselves as to whether they are being deprived of any power they ever possessed in the past. They will testify that they do not feel that their rights are being curtailed in any way, for the sole reason that their attitude in respect of schools and in respect of the children whose interests are being served by this legislation is positive, and because the people on this side of the House are positive, they will not agree with the hon member for Potgietersrus.

The hon member said there was an alternative amendment before the standing committee which he would have supported almost 100%. That alternative was discussed on two occasions on the standing committee. I want to know from the hon member for Potgietersrus why he never stated at the time that he supported that motion. He remained completely silent. Now he comes here and kicks up a fuss about the same aspect. I do not even want to take the trouble to comment any further on any of the aspects the hon member raised in his speech.

You cannot! [Interjections.]

I find the hon member’s approach completely objectionable. I dissociate myself from it. I want to have nothing to do with it. [Interjections.]

I would rather come back to what is positive. I want to say that since we are dealing here with a measure which affects rural schools, this is not really a phenomenon which is unique to South Africa. As recently as 1975 25% of all pupils in greater Soviet Russia were scattered over the entire country in small single-teacher schools, and I do not think that that situation has changed dramatically in the meantime. What is nevertheless true is that our system of farm schools has unique features. So far as is known there is not another situation anywhere in the world in which the owners of farms are also the owners of schools to the same extent as here in South Africa. Out of a total of 7 631 Black schools falling under the Department of Education and Training—these are Black schools outside the self-governing territories—5 576, or 73,07%, are farm schools. More than 25% of all Black children attending school in South Africa outside the self-governing Black territories are in farm schools.

The role of farm schools in South African Black education can hardly be overestimated. So, too, the contribution of our farming communities to Black education in the rural areas is very, very difficult to assess highly enough. It is probably true that many farmers erected schools on their farms to try to ensure the stability of their work force. Surely one cannot find fault with that, Sir. However, more than sufficient evidence exists that by far the majority of those farmers also place a high premium on the development of the life potential of the children on their farms. Most of them have, out of their own pockets, contributed far more than the minimum requirements needed.

Since we are on the verge of the development of a new dispensation here I think it is only appropriate that we pay tribute to all those farmers of whom, as I said, quite a number are sitting on this side of the House. South African society as a whole is infinitely indebted to them.

Nevertheless this system has always had its failings. The fact that farm owners may open or close schools on their land at will causes a lack of permanence for example, which of course leads to uncertainty. This is also an obstacle to the planning and distribution of schools. This, and various other factors such as the disturbing phenomenon that one third of the Black children of school-going age in the rural areas have not yet attended a school, became a source of concern to the Department of Education and Training. Consequently an intersectoral task group was constituted to investigate the matter. In itself this was a unique experiment involving co-operation between the educational authorities, educationists and experts from the private sector. Inter alia representatives of the SA Agricultural Union served on that body, as well as representatives of the SA Vrouelandbou-unie, the HSRC, the Chamber of Mines, the SA Federated Chambers of Industries, while the churches in the farming community in general also had representation on it.

These are the people who made these recommendations, but the hon member for Potgietersrus did not taken cognisance of it. He did not take cognisance of the fact that the farmers and organised farming communities themselves accepted this legislation—the basis thereof. In an excellent report that committee recommended inter alia that the State, as in the case of other population groups, should accept full responsibility for the establishment, maintenance and administration of farm schools. This legislation is now creating the machinery that will make it possible to begin to implement that recommendation. I am saying that this is only the beginning, because no one must labour under the illusion that the State can now suddenly take over all school buildings for Blacks on farms.

This is simply beyond the financial means of this country. It could cost billions of rands to buy those almost 6 000 schools. Consequently we shall have to continue to rely for a long time to come on the dedication and co-operation of the farmers. That is why we welcome the fact that the subsidies and administration allowances being paid to farmers were recently scaled up to a more realistic level.

The fact that the State may also erect buildings as farm schools and administer those schools will definitely be a stabilising factor. I just want to mention a few examples. It will now be possible to centralise schools and provide transport and/or hostel facilities wherever these are necessary. This is very important because in this way the inhumanly long walking distances can be eliminated.

In this connection I wonder whether our Whites, who complain so easily when essential rationalisation in respect of non-curricular education facilities such as swimming baths takes place, ever realise what sacrifices Black children still have to make today to attend schools.

Are hon members aware that even today there are Black children who have to walk 10 to 15 kilometres and further to attend school? Even now it has simply been stated as the ideal situation that schools be planned geographically and demographically in such a way that pupils preferably do not have to walk more than five kilometres.

It is people like these whom we want to help with this legislation. I am glad to be part of such an effort. I participate in it out of gratitude for the unprecedented privileges which the children from my own community will be enjoying.

Arising out of the recommendation of the task group—the hon member for Potgietersrus asked a question in this connection—the Bill also makes provision now for representatives of parents of pupils registered at farm schools to become part of the governing body. These provisions are more than positive. We Whites accept parental involvement in the schools of our children and their education as self-evident and indispensable.

With this legislation those obvious doors are now for the first time being officially opened to a large number of Black parents. This can only have good consequences. In particular I want to express the hope that it will also serve as stimulus for the utilisation of farm schools for community education which also includes adult education. In this way this measure can, generally speaking, also become a community-stabilising factor.

The people of the Department of Education and Training are idealistic. In addition they possess the exceptional ability to convert their ideals into workable practice by means of creative thinking, innovation and perseverance. They cherish many ideals in regard to farm school education. They have many new ideas, such as travelling principals who may be appointed for groups of farm schools; phases in education where a teacher can manage a whole phase, for example junior or senior primary, on his own; and individualised teaching methods by means of which each pupil can progress at his own rate of development.

The legislation before us will help to make all these ideals more attainable. It will facilitate the task of our dedicated officials. It is not only with pleasure, but also with a feeling of compassionate involvement that I support this Bill. If I was ever inclined in my life to complain about the circumstances in White education, my exposure to Black education finally put an end to any such tendency.

Mr Chairman, how can people like us who have so much complain while so many other people have so little?

Mr Chairman, it is with pleasure that I follow upon the hon member for Stellenbosch. I think it is necessary to follow up some of the introductory remarks he made in regard to the standing committee itself and its meetings, because I want to indicate that we would certainly agree that that standing committee is conducted in an agreeable and friendly way.

It has a lot to do with the chairman himself in the way he handles the committee and gives people the opportunity to have sometimes overmuch of a say, as he says the PFP sometimes has in that committee.

If ever an epithet of boycotting needed to be hung on a party, it must be hung on the CP. They did nothing more than boycott participation in that committee. They were there in body, but not in soul, and certainly not in mind. [Interjections.] When the question arose of some intemperate language being used in that standing committee in attacking farmers, who was it who defended the farmers? It was the NP and the PFP! Not one word on that subject came from that party at that stage! [Interjections.]

I believe that when it participates in a standing committee, it behoves the CP to participate fully and, if they have objections or clear opposition in principle to clauses in a particular measure, to enunciate them and have them argued out in that standing committee. However, I believe that what did in fact happen with this measure was that it was only subsequent to the standing committee meeting that the CP actually realised the implications of this measure. [Interjections.] I believe this measure represents, if hon members like—the hon the Minister probably will not like the word—a revolutionary change in rural education in this country. [Interjections.] No doubt the hon the Minister will talk about an evolutionary change. Certainly it represents a very considerable change from the status quo. I believe, in recognising this change, the vast majority of parliamentary political parties with the sole exception of the CP are supporting this measure, because it represents a situation of such benefit to all the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I shall return to some of the points made by the hon member for Potgietersrus a little later. I think it is necessary, in indicating our support for this measure, also to indicate, as the hon member for Stellenbosch has done, the background to it.

There are 5 500 farm schools. They have within them, in the primary schools, some 700 000 pupils, representing in all 48% of all primary school pupils falling under the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. However, there are only 50 000 pupils in rural secondary schools. That only represents 15% of all children in secondary schools under this hon Minister.

Demographically there is something wrong. Demographically one must raise the question of why the secondary school pupils in rural areas have not been catered for. That is what this Bill is addressing.

However, there is another point that the hon member for Potgietersrus did not make when he launched his paeon of praise for the farmers of South Africa and what they have provided. I am going to comment on what the farmers have provided in a moment, but what that hon member did not mention is that 36% of all Black children in rural areas between the ages of 6 and 14 are not at school at all.

I believe that what this hon Minister is trying to achieve with this measure—as well as with other measures I am sure he is going to bring before this House—is to cater for that particular group who are not being catered for, despite the very good efforts of the farmers of South Africa. In addressing that gap I believe that this hon Minister and his department need some support.

Let us make it quite clear—the hon the Minister will be aware of it from reports he has received from the standing committee—that there is a degree of apprehension, or concern—I think that is perhaps the best word—regarding the farm school system in its totality. I think that this excellent report the hon member for Stellenbosch has referred to, “The Provision of Education for Black Pupils in Rural Areas”, examines that concern, both in national and in international perspective. Let me say, however, that the concern can be best summed up by a comparison drawn on the standing committee between the fact that Black and Brown pupils have a farm school system, while for White pupils the farm school system has by and large been eliminated.

That remains a particular problem. It is perceived in the minds of some people to be one of discrimination. I believe the ultimate goal of this department vis-a-vis rural education needs to be spelt out. I think this is what this report is trying to do in the short and medium term. In the end, however, the hon the Minister must give us a clear indication as to whether he foresees farm schools disappearing from the South African education milieu.

I must indicate—and the hon member for Stellenbosch put his finger on it when he quoted the figure of 1975 for the Soviet Union—that by and large it has been accepted that farm schools do get phased out as a country moves towards a greater degree of industrialisation and urbanisation. The hon the Minister must indicate whether he foresees this happening in South Africa.

During the four meetings of the committee, we in the PFP had some fairly lively discussions, particularly with the NP, on some of the provisions contained in the original draft of the Bill before that standing committee. I must indicate quite clearly—the hon member for Potgietersrus did not mention this—that at least three clauses in the original draft Bill were comprehensively amended on that standing committee.

The first provision concerned the definition of parents; the second dealt with the building of a school on a farm and the whole question of security of tenure for that school building; and the third, the increase of a fine.

I think it also behoves me at least to remark on the question of the governing body and the school committee.

The definition of parents is a very important one, because one has to understand clearly that it covers the orbit not only of the genetic parent or even the legally appointed guardian but also of those people who are, in fact, looking after children who have been placed in their care or under their control whilst those children attend school.

Those of us in urban areas are particularly aware of this. For example, in Natal one particular township may be under the control of one political faction, and another township may be under the control of another political faction. Children are shifted from the one to the other to be able to attend schools in those areas. This must be catered for, because it is a political reality.

The second case is that of an increasing trend that has been noted in Natal and, no doubt, in the Cape, of children in urban areas who are being placed in schools in rural areas to get them away from the “bad influences”. Here again we know that the Department of Education and Training in terms of its regulations and particularly in terms of its registration requirements, demands certain responsibilities of “parents”. Those “parents” have to be aware that they are taking on those responsibilities when they take control of a child. I hope the hon the Minister will indicate to us in his reply whether all “parents” covering a wide variety will be informed of their legal responsibilities when a child is brought to a school, especially—and I quote from the definition of “parent” inserted by clause 9 (b):

These people must be informed of their legal responsibility.

I come now to the whole question of leasing. The hon member for Potgietersrus dwelt on this at some length. He saw it as a terrible slur on the good name of farmers in South Africa that the hon the Minister had brought this amendment before the House, because he felt that the farmers had already done so much in the past.

We in the PFP are well aware of the good work that farmers have by and large done in South Africa in providing farm schools out of their own money.

No, it was not their own money.

I said by and large. They have provided a measure of continuity in education in rural areas when it was desperately needed.

When one examines the report—the hon member for Stellenbosch quite rightly pointed out that it was signed by, inter alia, the representative of the South African Agricultural Union—one notes that the point is made that principle 6 of the White Paper on the De Lange Report states that the provision of formal education shall be the responsibility of the State. The question I want to ask the CP is whether they accept that or not. If they do not accept that, they must say so.

He does not know about the report.

Yes, that is possibly true, Sir. [Interjections.]

However, having accepted the fact that the provision of formal education should be the responsibility of the State, there are certain corollaries that flow from that. The State has a responsibility to ensure that a child receives an education, wherever he may reside. It is all well and good, as a working system that can be accepted, that a farmer provides a school at his own expense and that the State remunerates the teacher and provides equipment at that school. Then there is no problem. However, four other ways in which this can be achieved are suggested in the report.

The first suggestion is that the school should be rented and upgraded by the State. For this no legislative changes are required. In fact, I understand that the department is proceeding with this.

The second suggestion is that the State should lease the land to build a school or to maintain the existing building for a period of time. The State should thus provide that facility. With regard to the question of leasing I refer hon members to clause 12, which amends section 9A of the Act and contains the words—

We understand from the law advisers that “long lease” means at least 10 years. Now, Sir, that kind of confirmation of State rights on that land allows the State to spend taxpayers’ money in order to provide a school for the pupils, whom the State is obliged to educate.

The third suggestion is that of expropriation. The question arises, in cases where a farmer or farmers in a particular area will not provide a school, whether the State should be allowed to expropriate. No doubt the CP will wax lyrical against expropriation, just as—to be perfectly frank, Sir—in the standing committee we heard arguments in favour of expropriation. Certain members there were saying that they had suffered under the Group Areas Act and that their land had been expropriated. Why, therefore, should land not be expropriated for farm schools?

I want to quote from the report because I believe it represents an equitable, moderate position with regard to the expropriation of land:

We know that only too well in this country, Sir. Therefore, expropriation is in my opinion certainly not a way in which the State can deal with its need to provide for farm schools.

The fourth way that is suggested is simply to erect State schools on State-owned land, which one does find in the rural areas. There is, for example, outspan land which is no longer being used. That is a possibility.

There are therefore five ways in which the State can meet its responsibility as set out in the De Lange Report. I believe that the CP is being totally unfair in viewing the change that is proposed here as a slur on the farmers when it is, in fact, designed to be—together with the farmers’ contribution—part of an overall rural education system.

Thirdly, I turn to the question of the fine which is being increased from R50 to R500. The hon member for Potgietersrus made the point that in terms of the original draft Bill this would have been “R150 or one month”.

Now, Sir, I think we must understand clearly what we are dealing with. We are not dealing with a situation in which the societal norms are that the child shall not be used for labour. This is the societal norm in White society. By and large in South Africa one can say that 99 percent of White children between the ages of 6 and 14 or 15 do not work. Full stop. That, however, is not the societal norm in the rural Black society of South Africa. There has been, and still is, utilization of child labour in South Africa. We are aware of this and it is a fact. All that was called for in the standing committee, was that it should be recognized in South Africa that a slap on the wrist, which is what R150 might amount to, is not, or let me rather say may not be a sufficient deterrent to a farmer who wishes to use child labour. So, Mr Chairman, it was a compromise reached between certain members of the standing committee who wished to set astronomical figures and those who wished the figure to be very low.

I come now to the governing body which is a fascinating story in itself. Here we have—let me try to find the right phrase—almost a contradiction in terms. A Bill arrived on our tables which suggested that clause 11, as it now stands, should be the draft clause. We went into the standing committee and we debated the matter. The clear understanding was that the parents would have a majority say on that governing body. That was clearly understood in the standing committee. By the time we got to, I think, the second meeting, of the standing committee, the department had proposed an amendment which in fact created a new body—certainly in terms of the draft amendment—namely the school committee. The governing body was not touched and a school committee was created on which parents would be represented. The hon the Minister will be well aware of the fact that as a result of discussions both inside and outside that standing committee, a situation of total impasse, in which this Bill would actually not have come out of that standing committee, was resolved by reverting to the original draft of the Bill. With all due respect to the quotation of the hon member for Potgietersrus of what he and his party would support as far as the school committee is concerned, that is precisely what the standing committee could never agree on, and on which it would not agree. I do not believe that the hon member for Potgietersrus is in fact, in supporting that amendment, contributing—or could have contributed—to the work of the standing committee at all. [Interjections.]

In the Bill as a whole, the amendments to the various university Acts are not controversial and certainly do not need to be discussed at very great length.

I would like now to refer the hon the Minister to certain points that arose in the standing committee. They arose as a result of this measure on which I think the hon the Minister certainly should indicate a direction. The first is the amendment in the Bill creating combined schools. As we have quite clearly said, we have no problems with combined schools which are schools which will run from Sub A right through to Std 10. Neither do we have a problem with regard to high schools in rural areas. All that we are concerned about is the entire question of the placing of either combined or high schools because there still appears—and the hon the Minister must correct me if I am wrong—to be an area of indecision as to whether the concept of centralization will be accepted by the department as far as high schools are concerned. By centralization we mean that children will be brought from a particular rural situation to a particular school in order to receive their high school education.

This will of course involve—as the hon member for Stellenbosch has quite rightly pointed out—the entire question of hostel facilities. I must indicate to hon members that on that issue there certainly appears to be some degree of political differentiation within the NP.

The whole concept of busing and paying for children to ride by bus from a rural area to a centrally located high school also needs to be thrashed out. However, until these things are done. I believe we have a system which is in mid-process; it has not fully begun to work its way out. There needs to be a clear indication from the Government that they intend to work towards a centralised high school system where the provision, by and large, for the children in a particular rural area will be made by bringing the children to the school and where concepts like hostels and busing will be fully utilised.

It is perfectly obvious that the hon the Minister will not think that I am going to allow this opportunity to slip past without making a necessary comment on the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. I know we will have a full debate on this matter tomorrow when we shall discuss rationalisation. However, it strikes me as really very strange that today we have a debate on farm schools, rural schools and all their problems—we talk about 36% of pupils who cannot get into school or the fact that there are no schools for them and we talk about building new State schools—while tomorrow the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly will have to address the problem that 20% of all his school places are empty. In fact—let me use this as an example—he has 19 Cape schools that are unutilised. They are empty.

I find this crazy. What are we doing? Are we simply saying what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly said at the Cape congress, namely that we have to pay twice and three times and four times in order to have this duplication, because they want apartheid? There has to be a logical rationalisation. How can he have 20 …

Order! Perhaps that is a subject for tomorrow’s debate.

Mr Chairman, I am about to address the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. How can he believe that he can talk in this report about the provision of hostels and more hostels and spending more money, while the other Minister has 23 000 empty hostel places? The point I am making is that there is no distinction in education between the two. With due respect, Sir, to argue that the 20% empty places in the one system does not have an effect on the other system is to my mind arguing a nicety which is not true. So, we believe that both hon Ministers and the hon members of the NP need to look very carefully at the utilisation of schools.

Let me examine their own fears and difficulties. Are they saying that Black children should not be able to use empty schools because there are White residents around? [Interjections.] But we have Black and White residential areas in South Africa which are right next to one another. So, why should Black children not use an empty school …

Order! The hon member is now addressing a principle which is not to be addressed under this amending Bill. The hon member must kindly come back to the particular clauses under consideration.

Mr Chairman, I will certainly abide by your ruling and speak on the matter tomorrow.

Let me make it quite clear, Sir, that section 9 of the principal Act which is being amended by clause 12—if I may direct your attention to it—concerns the erection and maintenance of buildings for State-aided schools. The Minister may register a school as a State-aided school etc. All I am saying is that these buildings in fact exist and the hon the Minister can use them. All I am trying to do is save this Parliament and the taxpayers of South Africa more money being spent on the education system than is really necessary. However, be that as it may, I will pursue that tomorrow.

The point I want to make to this hon Minister is that we do not believe that opening schools or using empty White schools is a panacea. I want to put that straight to the hon the Minister because when I have called for the use of empty White facilities he has accused me of arguing that that was the be-all and end-all and that that was all that was needed. I am not saying that. All I am saying is that it is one of the ways in which this hon Minister can address the problems of rural education.

Having said that and having had my criticism of the hon the Minister—if you like—I must add that we in this party support this measure because we believe that it is a very significant move in rural education to provide for the needs and for the future of all South Africans.

Let us accept one thing and that is that to a large extent it is on the education of our children, particularly in the rural areas, that much of the future of South Africa is going to depend.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member for Pinetown for his positive contribution on education. I found his few reservations in typical Prog idiom rather hard to understand but perhaps my Free State English left me in the lurch.

As regards the hon member for Potgietersrus, I can only say that after his speech I felt as if I were left standing in front of the shattered remains of a delicate porcelain vase which had been hurled to the ground. I wondered whether this illustrated what this Official Opposition intended doing with our beautiful country, South Africa. If there is one sphere in which we should have reached a reasonable measure of unanimity today it is on this important matter of education, not only that of our own people but of all the children who live in South Africa.

This afternoon I find it an exceptional privilege, as a farmer and farm school administrator of long standing, to participate in this debate. I welcome the amendments to the Education and Training Act of 1979, especially as regards farm schools. I am referring specifically to clauses 11 to 15 which provide for the constitution of governing bodies in which the Government vests powers to take the initiative in the erection and maintenance of school buildings where circumstances necessitate this. In addition certain practices, which might have led to the misuse of pupils for farm labour, are being prohibited.

Last year’s task group report, which dealt with education in rural areas, emphasised the seriousness with which the Government regards this important facet of education. The amendments under discussion this afternoon specifically embody a few of the most important recommendations published in that report. The importance of this facet of education was underscored by various speakers this afternoon and I do not want to go into this again.

The hon member for Potgietersrus severely criticised clause 11. As the administrator of a farm school I wish to state unequivocally that I see no threat in it whatsoever; on the contrary, I welcome the fact that the parent community will now also emerge as an organised body to assist the administrator of the farm school, who is usually a busy farmer, with this important task. In any case I foresee that the role played by the administrator will diminish in importance as parent involvement develops and the perception grows that the school does not belong to the owner or the system, but to the community.

It is only when the parent community perceives this correctly that more use will be made of parental participation and this will come into its own in the parent community and especially in that of farm parents.

I state unequivocally that there is no better support against the radical onslaught than specifically an involved and well-informed parent community. We should obviously not force the issue here but allow matters to take their natural course. The owner or administrator should remain in the background for an unspecified time. I am convinced that the Black parent community desires this too. We should not deprive it of this too soon because it would damage this splendid facet of education.

The greatest problems experienced in providing education in country districts are the relatively low standard of living, poor social conditions and high birth rate. These factors are all being forcefully addressed by means of better training, better facilities and adapted syllabuses. By introducing greater parental involvement the school should also become a parent community centre in the true sense of the word.

As regards clause 12, the hon member for Potgietersrus and the Official Opposition are only too aware that if one looks at maps illustrating the geographic distribution of rural education, one sees large areas in this country which are well-supplied with farm schools. Nevertheless there are also large areas where few or no farm schools exist simply because there may not be farm owners in those areas who have the financial means or the interest to provide them with schools.

As a result of this it is imperative for the Government to become really involved and, where necessary, to provide and maintain farm schools itself in order to achieve the ideal of “not having to walk more than five kilometres”.

In the case of clause 15, I agree that there must be many farmers whose blood boils at the mere thought that such a provision should appear on the Statute Book. If one takes a closer look at the clause, however, one realises that it has become absolutely necessary. I do not know of any farmers who exploit this situation and use children as slave labour—as it is sometimes called. I do not know of any such farmers. I do know of staff members—teachers of both sexes—who sometimes exploit children.

Let us assume that such farmers still exist somewhere in the country. Then it is a very good thing that this stigma should be altogether removed, once and for all, from the good name of this important facet of education. [Interjections.]

The negative criticism that farmers erect farm schools merely to recruit labour is outrageous. In contract my experience has been that it is in fact the good farmers, farmers who have sufficient labour but who really take an interest in the changing fortunes of their labourers, who provide farm schools. The others to whom reference was made are frequently neighbours who are eager to see a school on the adjoining farm but who do not want to be bothered to provide one themselves.

The time has come for tangible tribute to be paid to the role played by these few thousand farmers in the process of education. The part they play in maintaining stable, progressive country districts, in satisfying the demands of a developing economy and a sophisticated agricultural industry as well as in the upliftment of less developed communities, cannot be calculated in monetary terms.

Administrators of farm schools have no easy task; heavy demands—heavy financial demands—are made on them. We heard this afternoon that subsidies have been adjusted, but it goes far beyond this. Day after day the farm school administrator has to dip into his own pocket; has to place his tractors and lorries at the disposal of the children on the farm when they have to attend concerts or school functions. This is a thorny problem. Frequently a teacher comes to the farmer with complaints. Sometimes he is dosing sheep or involved in important work, but has to interrupt this to attend to the teacher’s complaints.

It is said that farm school administrators do receive some remuneration—R30 per annum. In mentioning this R30 per annum I am reminded of Mr Cohen in his trading store in my childhood days. The schoolboys often congregated round the large jars of nigger balls, peppermint mottoes and sugar candy. When matters went too far, Mr Cohen chased us out with the following words: “Out you are! Out you are! You come here, you buy for a penny, you steal for a tickey, you make a shilling trouble!” [Interjections.] To have a farm school on one's farm is frequently more than a “shilling’s trouble”. I say this afternoon that this R30 may as well be abolished because the administrators of farm schools do not do the work for money, but for love of the cause. They do it for love of our dear country, South Africa.

I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Smithfield said at the start of his speech that they supported education for all the children of South Africa. That is very positive attitude, but we view this entire situation from two different worlds.

The hon member for Potgietersrus very competently stated our objections to clauses 9 and 11, and especially clauses 12 and 15. I shall not repeat them, but merely underline a few aspects.

In this regard I want to tell the hon member for Stellenbosch he is wrong if in what the hon member for Potgietersrus said, he read the insinuation that we on this side of the House did not have turns to speak in the standing committee, he was wrong. I saw no such insinuation in it; there was nothing of the kind.

When the hon member for Stellenbosch says he wants nothing to do with the standpoint of this side of the House and our views on this matter, he is fully entitled to this opinion. I want to tell him, however, that this matter affects the basic principle of the ethnic policy of this side of the House, which used to be the standpoint of that side of the House. [Interjections.] He may not want anything to do with it but let us leave it to the voters of South Africa. Let them decide the issue, as they have chosen to do in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke and as they will choose to do in Randfontein. [Interjections.]

In glowing terms the hon member for Pinetown even called this change a “revolutionary change” but said the hon the Minister would call it an “evolutionary change”. I would almost be inclined to agree with him; ultimately it will be a revolutionary change. It will be very far removed from the earlier standpoint of that hon Minister; from the time, as the hon member for Potgietersrus said, when he still advocated a Coloured homeland. It will be very far removed from the entire concept of the ethnic policy of that party. I shall illustrate this in the course of my speech.

We have no difficulty with the first part of this legislation, that is the provisions dealing with the amendment of Acts concerning universities and including the deletion of the requirement that the designation of degrees shall be as prescribed by statute. We have no difficulty either with the second part which deals with the Medical University of Southern Africa Act, 1976, and changes three aspects, namely to provide that the principal and vice-principal shall in future be members of committees of both the council and the senate; that the English titles of “rector” and “vice-rector” be changed to “principal” and “vice-principal” and that all lecturers who are heads of departments shall also be members of the senate.

When we come to clause 9, in which the hon the Minister provides for the establishment of so-called “combined schools”, I quote from what he said in his Second Reading speech on the establishment of these schools:

This is therefore being proposed for farm schools in particular. I now wish to ask the hon the Minister whether, in our history of small farm schools, thought was ever given to the establishment of such combined schools. No, when the child has completed his primary school career, he has to go to a hostel in a larger centre. That principle is now being incorporated here.

Our greatest difficulty actually lies in clause 12. In this clause provision is being made for money to be appropriated by Parliament to lease certain property for the erection or maintenance of buildings or to erect other buildings. The Minister’s powers to maintain existing buildings and to add additional buildings to existing buildings and maintain them are also mentioned. The hon member for Stellenbosch even foresaw that hostels could be erected at such places. I now want to refer specifically to what the hon the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate in this regard. He said, quite correctly:

That is a fact. I myself was raised on such a farm. This side of the House has no racist feelings as far as this is concerned. We do not begrudge those people education for their children too. Our people also made those school facilities possible on farms and maintained them, frequently without compensation from the Government. Those people are CP supporters today. [Interjections.] We say, however, that we have a problem with the course the hon the Minister is adopting now in the further development of the principle of farm schools. I want to ask the hon the Minister what his ultimate goal is in amending this legislation, because he said in his reply to the Second Reading debate:

Can hon members imagine this? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister holds out the prospect that this land which is to be acquired should in fact involve ownership so that State-aided schools in the true sense of the word may be erected there. I ask the hon the Minister again what course he is adopting as far as this is concerned. I wish to quote yet another paragraph from his reply to the Second Reading debate which actually elaborates on the plan the hon the Minister is engaged on here.

The hon the Minister said:

Hear, hear!

I hear an hon member saying “hear, hear”.

Do you people object to this?

I want it on record that hon members said they intended to establish this type of community centre in remote rural areas of South Africa. Consequently they are actually going to develop new Black towns in remote sports. [Interjections.] What is a place that has a school, a hostel, sports facilities, a clinic, a place for weekend gatherings, a church and, as a result of these activities, a little shop as well? It is a town. That side of the House is holding out the prospect of new Black towns in rural areas of our country. [Interjections.]

It is part of their orderly urbanisation.

As the hon member for Barberton says, it is part of their orderly urbanisation of rural areas in the Transvaal.

I wish to dwell for a moment on the financial implications of what the hon the Minister is envisaging. Over the past few years—especially the past two years—we have heard of an enormous escalation of funds. The hon the Minister mentioned, in a television interview the night before last—I should like to know whether we heard this correctly—that the money which was going to become available through privatisation was going to be applied for so-called deprived (agtergeblewe) education.

They quoted him incorrectly!

He quoted himself incorrectly!

I should like the hon the Minister to repeat that standpoint clearly in his reply here so that it may go on record.

The expenditure of funds which will result from this amendment will be similar to that of a year or two ago, for example, when the hon the Minister suddenly announced that stationery, rulers and pencils would be supplied to the Department of Education and Training free of charge. I wonder whether hon members saw what happened at places where this distribution took place. Literally truckloads of books, pencils and rulers—in many cases broken—suddenly had to be distributed by the department to the remotest destinations in the middle of the year, at a stage when those people had already provided themselves with those items. It suddenly became necessary to spend that enormous amount of money distributing tons of supplies. I am not certain whether all those supplies have already been distributed today. It is our standpoint that it is a waste of the taxpayer’s money to spend it in this way.

The hon the Minister foresees the establishment in terms of clause 12 of 12 large development projects in these rural areas.

I want to give hon members an example of what will happen. The hon the Minister’s reply to a question which I put to him yesterday about the Mankweng hospital, which was built in Lebowa, will illustrate the point to hon members. To my knowledge the amount of that tender was R27 million. Now it is R35 million. The final figure is R38,5 million for the end of March; R38,5 million was spent on 415 patients! If this is the way in which Government money is going to be employed for Black education to put this amendment in clause 12 into operation, and the pace at which this is going to be done, I say that hon Minister will have to privatise every conceivable Government asset to be able to do so.

He will have to sell all the family silver.

Even then there will not be enough money.

Let me put our side of the case—the CP policy on this subject. As regards Black education, our standpoint is that it should be community-orientated at all times; it should be aimed at the people. We do not have any problems, as the history of our people indicates …

Order! No, we are not discussing the policy of the hon member’s party now but the provisions of the Bill. There will be Vote discussions in which the hon member may do this. Here we are arguing the clauses.

With respect, Mr Chairman, clause 12 deals with the Government’s intention to effect an amendment which applies to education in rural areas. In contrast I wish to say that we are opposed to this, and want to motivate this.

Order! I do not follow the hon member’s argument clearly. He said clause 9 …

Clause 12.

Please help me; what points is he extracting from that?

Paragraph (b) of the proposed section 9A (1), which is being proposed in clause 12, provides for the possible erection of new schools and buildings in such rural areas by the Minister.

Order! And the hon member says he is opposed to that and wants to furnish reasons?

I merely want to give reasons, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

We are opposed to this. We do not have any problems with the situation in primary education where tuition is being provided in farm schools; it has been done in this way for years, and we had the same situation in the history of our own people. When it came to secondary education, however, our people had to go to hostels in the larger centres. We say that secondary education should, in the first place, be aimed at the people and should also be community-orientated. That is why those facilities should be created in Black residential areas; what is more, preferably in the national states. That is the ideal situation.

As regards tertiary education, in particular, this is of fundamental importance because if these centres are established, as the hon the Minister foresees, a small urban complex will actually develop. When unrest erupts, it will manifest itself there as well. History has surely taught us now that there has never been any unrest in rural areas, where there are small farm schools, during the entire unrest situation.

Do you intend removing Blacks from farms?

That is why it is our standpoint that this is not the way to carry out our ethnic policy, which now differs radically from that of the Government, because here, to a greater degree, we are again creating a tangled up hotch-potch of peoples, interests and geographic areas, and we on this side of the House are more in favour of further disentanglement so that the different peoples in this Southern Africa may come into their own in their own areas.

Rather tell us about Morgenzon.

I therefore want to say, in conclusion, that we are rebelling; we protest against this type of arrangement which brings about further entanglement, intermingling and integration. I want to close with the relevant words of N P Van Wyk Louw who said… [Interjections.]

Listen to “Lawaaikamp” now!

Van Wyk Louw said:

Sir, that is why we on this side of the House are opposed to this legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in following on the hon member for Pietersburg I should like to say at the outset that he should not imply that Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton comprise the whole universe. They may represent the ultimate in the CP’s own political horizons but, as far as we are concerned, they had better realise that we do not fear the future. [Interjections.] I am really unable to react to the alarmistic ghost stories with which, to a certain extent, the hon member for Pietersburg concerned himself. If I did that I would merely be squandering the time of this House, especially if I were to attempt to deal fully with the improvisation with which he tried to entertain us. [Interjections.]

Before I turn from the hon member for Pietersburg, I want to say that the CP will have to learn that we shall have to live and let live in this country, and do so within the framework of the stark realities confronting us.

We agree with that but we do not wish to be dominated! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I now wish to confine myself to the Bill before the House. This measure is the final product of penetrating research and study which is briefly summarised in this report, “The Provision of Education for Black Pupils in Rural Areas”. Before I come to the details of the Bill, I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Department of Education and Training on the study and the hard work that went into this as well as their results which we have before us today. Hon members would do well to read it in order to form an impression of the enormous task of this department which, among other activities, has to administer and improve almost 5 600 Black farm schools.

During the deliberations on the standing committee we were all very impressed by the dedication and thoroughness with which those officials approached their task. We on this of the House wish to take this opportunity to wish them everything of the best in the task which lies ahead—a task which is aimed at creating equal educational opportunities for all in South Africa. That, Sir, is an essential task.

I want to confine myself to three of the most fundamental clauses of the Bill. In the past it was true that a farm school was managed very simply—and also quite efficiently—by the owner of the farm on which the school was located, or of course by his representative. Clause 11 now provides for the inclusion of the parents of pupils in the governing body of a State-aided farm school. This is a meaningful amendment which I think will lead to greater community involvement in the education of children. It should also contribute to greater stability in our farm schools too. I am convinced this will satisfy farmers because our people are not dictators by nature and are also able to hold their own in the company of others.

Clause 12 empowers the Minister to erect and maintain the necessary buildings on land leased by the State. This also includes the power of maintenance of or making additions to existing buildings. All this is obviously subject to a longterm lease in favour of the State. The latter aspect is essential to ensure that the State receives good value for its investment. The current period of nine years and 11 months which applies to buildings subsidised by the State is clearly inadequate in the above-mentioned case and the hon the Minister could perhaps reassure us in his reply by furnishing details regarding the specific period of the long-term lease being envisaged here. After all, we have an obligation not only to farmers but also to taxpayers elsewhere.

Finally, clause 15 provides for high fines or imprisonment—certainly higher, as the hon member for Potgietersrus pointed out, than in the case of Coloured or Indian schools—for cases in which children are used during school hours to work elsewhere or in cases in which admission to the school concerned is linked to farm labour with or without remuneration. Nevertheless the same punishment also applies to someone harbouring a child during school hours. Arising from this clause there are three aspects I should like to touch upon briefly.

Firstly, the relatively severe fines and punishment are an indication of how strongly the standing committee feels about the interference in children’s educational opportunities. If the conclusion I have drawn from CP contributions is correct, this obviously excludes the CP.

What about parity at…

Order!

On the other hand it was asserted and implied that such offences did not actually occur. Consequently I wish to argue that, even if some of us find the fines a trifle high to our liking, this is actually irrelevant because the situation will not arise in practice. This should also reassure the hon member for Potgietersrus.

If the hon member believes that farmers do not commit these offences, why did he express himself so vehemently opposed to these allegedly excessive fines? Was it merely to start a controversy or to excite emotions? Does the hon member think our farmers are that stupid?

Secondly, it is worth noting that it is highly probable—I am merely postulating—that the owner of the farm will be the strongest candidate for committing an offence as regards employment during school hours. On the other hand the most probable offenders as regards the provision on harbouring or hiding such a child will be the parents, guardians or friends of the child itself. In other words I submit that the punishments are the same in both cases, since the effect on the child’s school work is the same. Consequently there is no hidden racism here at all. The PFP will welcome this on the one hand; I believe the CP will do so too.

Thirdly, the increase in existing fines for similar offences in the case of Indian and Coloured schools should certainly receive urgent attention. We shall soon be accused of discrimination, or even of apartheid again, or by the CP of pure vindictiveness. These days nothing is impossible.

In conclusion I should like to say in a somewhat more serious vein that I am convinced this Bill will bring us a few steps closer to the challenging ideals of high-quality education for everyone in the country.

And one nation.

We shall strive for this in spite of interjections or obstructive tactics on the part of the CP. One is actually amazed at their ability to read the most obscure motives into the best of intentions. Such people must be bitter to the core and certainly very afraid of the future. My advice to them is: If one wishes to survive in Africa, one has to be courageous and have steady nerves.

In addition I wish to thank the hon member for Stellenbosch, the chairman of the standing committee, most sincerely for his sympathetic and diplomatic handling of this very sensitive legislation. There were certainly insinuations, as the hon member for Potgietersrus pointed out, of slavery, which we did not find pleasant. The hon member for Stellenbosch dealt with the situation in a masterly fashion and we see the results before us today. I wish to thank him in particular most sincerely for this and express our pleasure in supporting the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to comment on the speech of the hon member for Umhlatuzana. I think he put his own points of view very well and this does not deserve any further comment.

I wish to refer to certain aspects of this Bill and I want to deal in particular with those aspects which concern farm schools and with certain proposed amendments to the Education and Training Act. I welcome the fact that the Government is addressing the problem of secondary education in the rural areas in a more positive and practical manner. It is a well-known fact that there is a serious shortage particularly of secondary school facilities for pupils who have completed their education at farm schools. I particularly welcome the provision for the definition of a combined school. This now opens the way for facilities to be used and established for both primary and secondary education. I must point out, however, that this must only be regarded as a temporary measure—as has been mentioned before—until such time as it is possible to provide adequate facilities to meet the needs of all those requiring this standard of education.

I welcome the flexible approach that the hon the Minister has now adopted in this regard.

When one talks about secondary education in the rural areas, one has to think in terms of hostel accommodation as well. It is here that I think that the hon member for Pinetown had a relevant point when he posed the question in regard to the number of empty White schools at a time when there is such a shortage of schooling facilities for Blacks.

The point I really want to make is that generally speaking the public do not appreciate the contribution made by many farmers and their wives in providing and improving the education of the children of their farm employees, and in meeting the requirements of the surrounding areas. People are also unaware of their heavy commitment to and involvement in improving this aspect of the quality of life of the younger generation in these areas.

The involvement of the farmers and their wives in these farm schools is such that it goes far beyond merely providing education; in fact, it covers the whole field of a general upliftment of the people who live in that particular environment. In many cases this has been provided at considerable cost to themselves. We must face the fact, however, that there is a great desire, particularly in the rural areas, for learning among the Black people.

I wish to return to the legislation and I should like to deal with clause 15 which seeks to amend section 37 of the Education and Training Act. While it may be necessary in some cases—here I associate myself with the comment made by the hon member for Smithfield—I would regard the issues that are reflected in this clause to be rather the exception than the rule—where scholars have been required to render service for their education.

I want to turn briefly to clause 11 which seeks to amend section 8 of the principal Act in regard to the governing body. It is in this respect that, while I do not agree entirely with the points made by the hon member for Potgietersrus, he did have a point here. One realises this when one sees what the Bill itself provides concerning the governing body, viz that it shall consist of such parents “ …as may be determined or elected in the prescribed manner”, and I would like to have some clarification as to the definition of “prescribed manner”.

This is where I think the hon member for Potgietersrus has a point. This particular aspect must not be allowed to become an issue which could lead to possible conflict and friction between a school manager and those employees who are the parents of pupils being educated at such a school. I wish to point out too that at present many of the farm school managers work in close consultation with the parents of scholars who go to these schools, and they enjoy a very good working relationship with them.

Therefore I would suggest to the hon the Minister—and I would like to hear his comments—that the school manager, in a spirit of goodwill in the running of the school, should have the power to approve all nominations that are made for the government body. One point that the hon the Minister must realise is that farmers must be encouraged to continue to support the principle of farm schools. When changes take place it is essential that they do not read into this certain aspects which may discourage them from continuing with this very praiseworthy concept.

The high standards at many farm schools in Natal do great credit to the many people who have gone to enormous trouble and considerable expense to establish excellent teaching and recreational facilities on their properties.

Now that we are on the brink of a new concept in regard to rural education, I would like to suggest that greater attention be given to in-service training for teachers. At the same time, it is imperative that the lines of communication between the department and school managers, and between regional offices and the department in Pretoria, be improved and strengthened. Since this legislation seeks to rectify a number of the anomalies of the past, I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I sincerely thank hon members who pledged their support to this Bill. At one stage or another all speakers were agreed on one point, namely when they paid tribute to the farming community that had made and were still making such an enormous contribution to education in South Africa, and particularly Black education. I am referring in particular to the investments they made in the form of the establishment of facilities and the provision of services for farm schools over the years.

To prevent the wrong impression being created by the venom with which the hon member for Potgietersrus tried to misrepresent me as a person who tramples on the honour of the Afrikaner—he of all people—I want to make it quite clear that we have the greatest appreciation for the contribution of the farming community. As a matter of fact, if there has been one contribution which benefited the public interest in South Africa and which was overlooked, this is it. It is so easy to talk about what the private sector, meaning the business world, commerce, industry and mining has done for Black education—they can give publicity to this through their organisations—whereas one frequently forgets that the expenses and contribution of the farming community have been far greater than the private sector’s. As a matter of fact, I think their example should encourage the rest of the private sector to do even more than they have done so far.

Clause 15 contains a provision which makes the misuse of children of schoolgoing age for farm labour punishable. It is also punishable to lay down as a condition that such a child must perform labour when he enrols at a farm school. I want to make it quite clear that this provision has not been inserted because there is an escalating problem. As a matter of fact, this is a problem which occurs very seldom. There are very few owners of farms who are guilty of this. In many cases, as some hon members rightly observed, it is not necessarily the owner of the farm who is the culprit. It can also be a teacher or a farmer from a neighbouring farm who is guilty of this. These people have nothing to do with the school, but they are sometimes the ones who misuse these children.

The penalty contained in this clause, is a maximum penalty. If such a contravention occurs, the courts have the discretion to determine what the punishment should be. I think we can confidently leave it to the courts to impose a reasonable punishment within the ample limits laid down. It is wrong to make a misrepresentation, as the hon member for Potgietersrus tried to do, that this is a prescribed fine or penalty. It is not even clever to try to make such a misrepresentation. It is downright mean. [Interjections.]

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Stellenbosch, the chairman of this standing committee that prepared the legislation, as well as other hon members of the committee. The hon member for Stellenbosch is developing into a fine diplomat and a man with patience and the ability to negotiate. He also piloted this piece of legislation through the standing committee in an expert manner.

I also want to thank him most sincerely for the study he made of the report on farm school education, on which he addressed us here briefly this afternoon.

I come now to the hon member for Smithfield. He is an example of a person who, as the owner of a farm, is also the manager of a farm school. He therefore has experience of this situation. However, he says confidently that he does not feel threatened by the fact that he must negotiate with the representatives of his Black parent community. As a matter of fact I think he does so every day in the course of his work, and if he can negotiate with them regarding sheep and maize, he can far more readily and freely negotiate with them regarding their children. [Interjections.] I am sure he can negotiate with them without erecting a fence or a barrier between them in order to avoid feeling threatened.

I am also very grateful that he pointed out to us that one in fact gives the community a responsibility by giving it representation on the school’s governing body. After all, Sir, one does not give a person any responsibility if one leaves him out of a matter. At the moment the position is that farm education is as it were something which is laid in the lap of the Black community. They are not really involved in it, and therefore have no responsibility to strive for the maintenance of that education and the maintenance of that school service. However, if they become involved via their representatives, as members of the governing bodies, they acquire responsibility and they also become involved, as the hon member said. They will then also be more satisfied, settled and permanent labourers on that farm. This will therefore also be an asset to the farmer.

The hon member for Umhlatuzana very effectively put paid to the specious arguments coming from the CP through the hon members for Pietersburg and Potgietersrus regarding the penalty provision. By raising three points, he in my opinion refuted those arguments very effectively. I merely want to advance the further argument that what is involved in the penal provision is in any case a maximum penalty. It is not a prescribed amount. It represents a ceiling, and we hope that our courts will act with the necessary discretion within that framework.

I also want to give the hon member for Umhlatuzana the assurance that it is the intention of the department, when it erects a school on the land of the owner of a farm and negotiates a long-term contract in order to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent as effectively as possible, to act with great circumspection in order to make the term as long as is reasonable under the circumstances. We have the advantage that a long-term contract of lease enjoys protection, because according to the legal rule in terms of which lease precedes purchase, that contract of lease must be honoured if the farm is alienated. The successor must also abide by it.

†I come now to the hon member for Mooi River. He linked up with the two spokesmen of the Official Opposition and said that the manager should be given the power to approve the nominations made by the parents. I do not think that would be fair, Sir. I think the parent community should be given a fair choice to select the representatives whom they deem fit. If there are any of those parents who are not acceptable, then their children should not be accepted and registered at that school. They should be excluded from the school. If they constitute a danger or threat to the community, they can be excluded from that school according to existing rules and regulations for the maintenance of order at the school. However, I think the parents must be given a fair choice as to whom they want to elect as their representatives.

Concerning the question of the “prescribed manner” in which such an election has to take place, I want to point out that this will be done in accordance with the existing way of electing school committees, where the maximum amount of reasonable control to ensure the free exercise of choice by the parents is provided for. I can also give the assurance, Sir, that the regulations with regard to the election of such parent representatives and the way in which governing bodies, in which parents are represented, are to function at farm schools will be finalised after consultation with the representatives of organised agriculture.

I should like to give the hon member the assurance, with regard to in-service training for teachers about which he also spoke, that a special programme was launched in the latter half of last year to adapt the present management training programmes for managing staff of schools—I am referring to the headmasters or department heads in the schools—so as to make them applicable also to the special situation in the farm and rural schools.

This year we started to apply this management training system as part of in-service training also to the principals and other senior staff members at farm schools. We take this matter very seriously.

The hon member for Pinetown asked me a number of questions and I would briefly like to respond to them. To his question whether I foresee that farm schools will disappear, I can reply most definitely that as far as I can see, they will not disappear. I think they will remain a feature of the South African education system for many years to come. On the other hand, the hon member has, I think very usefully, set out different options—one could say different models, and I also call it different phases—in which farm schools could be provided. The hon member referred to the renting of farm schools by the department from the owner and upgrading them. There are quite a number of cases like this. He also referred to a long-term lease where it is built at the cost of the taxpayer, as provided in clause 12 of this Bill. The hon member also mentioned expropriation. Expropriation to me would be completely unacceptable. What the Government does envisage and what it has been asked increasingly to do by the farmers is to acquire part of the land in ownership by free purchase of that land and then use taxpayers’ money to establish a State school as a farm school on that piece of land. That will have to be done through negotiations and I cannot see that anything will be achieved by causing ill will and ill feelings through expropriation in a case like this.

The hon member also said that farm schools could be erected as State schools on State-owned land which, of course, is not generally available, but this is a possibility. I would also like to mention two further possibilities. The one is the continuation of the present system, which is the predominant system. That means the farmer takes the initiative, he erects the school and he gets a subsidy. However, I want to make it quite clear to the two hon members of the Official Opposition who spoke on this measure that the representatives of organized agriculture on this working group appealed for the introduction of the alternative of State schools built at the cost of the taxpayer on property belonging to the State—that means either on State-owned land or on land specially purchased by the State from farmers for this purpose. This option is being introduced, and I had the impression that the farmers wanted to be released from the financial responsibility of carrying a large part of the burden and that they wanted the State to take over the responsibility. That is what they have been asking for. The hon member for Potgietersrus is shaking his head but he knows that it is true.

*However, that does not suit him. It does not fit in with his contorted arguments to face up to the truth in this case. There is also a sixth possibility as regards the cases to which the hon member for Pinetown referred.

†I think one should also negotiate to acquire a servitude over land which would in many ways perhaps be preferable to a long-term lease. These six options then, can be used in accordance with what the owner of the land, or the farming community in a particular area, prefer. This is the kind of thing that is done in negotiation with them.

The hon member for Pinetown also asked whether the parents will at the time of registration be informed of their legal responsibility, especially in view of the wide definition of “parent”. This is one of the very reasons why we so clearly define “parent”, and that is namely that we insist that when children enrol at the beginning of the year, the parents in terms of this wide definition should be present with them to accept, together with the child, the responsibilities which go into education. Education, as the hon member knows as well as I do is a partnership between a school and a parent community. It is one of our big problems that especially militant and revolutionary elements try to undermine the department’s efforts to establish an orderly registration process by involving the parents in this broad definition as well. I can thus give the hon member a strong and affirmative assurance in this regard.

The hon member then asked what the policy with regard to the centralisation of secondary schools is. I would say the preferable approach here is to centralise them, as the hon member for Pietersburg has said.

*I agree fully with the hon member for Pietersburg that high schools, particularly when hostels are supplied, must be provided in Black towns. As far as I am concerned, if at all possible, this should also preferably be in a self-governing area.

So, you do still have a touch of nationalism left.

Well, the hon member for Brakpan is really pleased with himself.

I want to make it clear that there are other options as well. There is the option that a few classes, for example a standard 5, 6 or 7 class can be attached to a farm school until such times as facilities are available at a centralised point. However, if we provide centralised schools we shall also have to consider the responsibility of transport for the pupils to those schools. We shall also have to consider the provision of hostels.

As regards discipline in Black communities, hostels are going to create a problem. The traditional discipline in the Black community is exercised by the family or the extended family, and the ideal would actually be for the children to board with relatives in the town. There they can be properly controlled and disciplined. The moment one has a large number of children in a hostel, disciplinary problems tend to crop up. That is why it is not such an easy choice to make. The department would like to weigh these matters up.

However, I want to make it very clear that the centralisation of secondary education is our policy. Although with primary education, we are trying, as far as possible, and where this can be achieved by the addition of a few classes, to bring the school closer to the child, this is simply not possible with secondary education. Particularly when hostels are provided, this will have to be in a township or in the self-governing areas.

We have no intention of erecting hostels at farm schools. The idea of the farm school is, in fact, that the school must be brought closer to the child, so that he will be within walking distance of it. The idea is not to cause a new concentration there by way of hostels.

This then brings me to the hon members for Potgietersrus and Pietersburg. [Interjections.] I am astounded that these inflamed objections to the use of the school as a community centre can exist. Do the hon members of the Official Opposition really object to the clinic sister using that school building to treat the people who live on neighbouring farms? Would they prefer the ambulance of the Transvaal Provincial Administration to travel from the town, at the taxpayers’ expense, to fetch people who are ill so that they can be taken into town or would they prefer to use their own pick-up truck to take the people to town? If we have such a clinic sister service, it is self-evident that it would be in the interests of one’s own workers for the worker to be treated there, unless of course the hon member wants to make his study or sitting room available for that purpose. [Interjections.]

Do they really object to church services being held there over weekends? Many of our farmers provide sporting facilities at the schools, both for the children and the people living in the vicinity. Are there really objections to that? Now they are acting as if the utilisation of the school by the general community will suddenly lead to the establishment of a new town there. This is absolute nonsense and a distortion of the truth. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg also asked me about the utilisation of funds acquired from the privatisation of State assets. The point I made on television two evenings ago was a standpoint in which I associated myself with the hon the State President who said this year in his address at the opening of Parliament that the dead capital revitalised by means of the privatisation of State assets, would in the first place be used to pay off existing debts. In the second place it will, however, also be used inter alia for capital assets in developing communities. He referred to education assets and town and housing development. In the third place he also made mention of the creation of more employment opportunities by stimulating the informal business sector and small business undertakings.

In that respect education, including Black education, will be one of the institutions with a claim on the funds. In reality we are in this way saving the taxpayer money because if we do not activate these funds, which one could actually say are lying dormant in existing State assets, by means of privatisation, we must get the money from the taxpayer or borrow it and the taxpayer will have to pay the interest on these loans. We are therefore acting in an economical way in the interests of our people, the taxpayers. It is a misrepresentation to say that national assets are being given away here for the sake of the farm workers.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister, with reference to the argument he has just advanced, over what period he foresees that per capita parity will therefore be achieved between Black and White pupils.

The hon the Minister of National Education has already stated the Government’s standpoint on that matter, namely that it is striving to implement a programme over a period of 10 years to establish equal opportunities in education, as far as this is within the State’s financial capabilities. He also said—and I agree with him—in view of the population growth in the Black communities in particular that even after 10 years we will not be able to achieve actual parity within the financial capabilities of the State. However, in all fairness and as far as possible we want to narrow the gap which exists.

That is all I want to say in this regard, because I think I have dealt with the most important points raised by the hon member for Pietersburg. As regards the examples he mentioned of the wasting of State money, I want to admit that in the first year in which stationery was provided to schools free of charge, which took place at fairly short notice, delivery was probably inefficient. However, I want to challenge him to point out serious mistakes or deficiencies in the present system, which has in the meantime been properly designed and has been effectively implemented this year. If he can do that I will be very grateful to him. This will mean that we can improve a very well-geared system even further. However, I must admit that in the first year, as is the case with any large new undertaking—in which 1 800 000 pupils in 7 400 schools had to be provided with equipment within six weeks—there were disruptions. However, I think the fact that this took place with so little disruption was an achievement which did credit to the department which dealt with this matter.

The hon member for Potgietersrus would seem to be suffering from a sting mentality. He also gave me to understand that whereas he used to respect me he apparently no longer does. As regards respect for what I am and what I have done, I shall confidently leave the people of South Africa, particularly my own people, the Afrikaners, to decide this. I am not at all concerned about what the hon member for Potgietersrus thinks of me. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member advanced the unbelievably ridiculous argument that the introduction of combined schools was an indication that we would be giving rise to a larger mixed community in those areas where combined schools were to be established. What is that farming community other than a mixed community and who is mixing them other than the farmers who employ those people? Am I to deduce from that remark he made, in which he criticised combined schools which would give rise to people living and working together on the farms, that it is the policy of him and his party that they are going to prohibit the farmers from employing more Black workers on their farms and allowing them to live there? [Interjections.] Do they feel that the farmers must send those people to the self-governing areas so that they must commute to the farms every day? [Interjections.]

Order!

This argument only makes sense if that is his point of departure. I find it alarming that a man who received his training at the institution to which I was also attached, could advance such arguments in public. [Interjections.]

Order! I feel that the hon the Minister is quite capable of speaking for himself. He is getting far too much unnecessary assistance. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Potgietersrus, supported by the hon member for Pietersburg, tried to make a big fuss about clause 11. In the first place I want to say that the reason why provision is being made in clause 11 for parental representation on the governing body is because section 8 of the Act is the only place in which a specific form of governing body in respect of State-aided or private schools appears.

We could not find a section in the Act in which the concept of school committees appeared. In section 44 (c) of the Act, which deals with regulations, reference is only made in general terms to regulations which the Minister may promulgate regarding the establishment, maintenance, management, control and closing of public schools.

Legal advice indicated that, if we wanted to introduce school committees, there was actually no suitable section in the Act by means of which to do so. We therefore used to section 8, in which reference is made to governing bodies. This is therefore the first reason why we are dealing with governing bodies here.

In the second place I understand that the hon member for Potgietersrus is a lawyer and that he is even qualified to act as a legal practitioner. I want to help the hon member to read the Act. He has only read the second proviso, which is being inserted by clause 11 of the amending Bill. It is stated in that proviso that it is further provided that, in the case of State-aided schools situated on farms, the governing body—this was mentioned before—must be a body which consists of the owner or his representative and the parents and representatives of the parents of the pupils enrolled at the school. This is a proviso which is being inserted in section 8 (8). What does this section, of which it forms a part, say?

This is one possibility. The second possibility is: or he may, subject to the approval of the Director-General, appoint or authorise any person to manage such school on his behalf and subject to the provisions of this Act, and such person shall for the purposes of this Act be known as a governing body:

If the hon member had gone back and read this section in the Act, which I think he would do if he was handling the interests of a client, instead of trying to score political debating points here, he would have realised that the choice lay primarily with the owner of the farm. Does he want to manage his school himself or does he want someone else to act in his place? Because the so-called governing body then comes into existence, and certain conditions apply. If there is a governing body, it shall be constituted in a specific way.

This is a disgraceful misrepresentation. The hon member should be ashamed of himself, if he can still be ashamed of himself. How can he intimate that this provision amounts to depriving the owner of the farm of the right to decide for himself and on his own regarding his school, when he wants to do this?

That hon member would seem to be a city dweller. He does not understand our farmers. I understand he came from the Rand and he stood for election in Potgietersrus. He must still learn. Even I who am a city dweller too can see that. He does not understand our farmers. Our farmers, as the hon member for Smithfield said, do not have problems negotiating with their workers or the representatives of their workers. If they can negotiate about sheep or maize, they can negotiate even more readily with those people about their children.

We are dealing here with farmers who care so much about their workers that they are prepared to erect schools at their own expense so that the children of those workers can receive an education. I am convinced that the farmers will welcome the opportunity to negotiate with the representatives of the parents on the interests of the school.

As the hon member for Smithfield rightly said, those parents are going to be given responsibility and become involved and help to shoulder that burden. They will also have to face the consequences if they do not face up to that responsibility. If I am the owner of land, and I have built a farm school, and the workers abuse it, I would consider that just as good a reason to get rid of those workers as their not doing their ordinary work properly. To misuse such an opportunity which is intended to give their children a proper education is sufficient reason to take steps against such workers.

I want to make it quite clear that when someone understands our farmers, they will not foresee any problems in the application and handling of this provision. Our farming community know today that it is also in their own interests to promote the general welfare of their workers. That is why they send the people to Boskop and similar places to attend training courses. That is why so many of them are working with the Rural Foundation, which is promoting community development and community responsibility among the farm workers. The Foundation is also promoting the population development programme of my hon colleague, the Minister of National Health and Population Development, together with all its tremendously important implications. I want to say that I have not the slightest doubt that the kind of farmer who is prepared to build a school for his workers, will have no problem acting under this dispensation. In any case, if he has a problem, he still has the option in terms of section 8 (8) of the Act of saying that he wants to manage the school himself and on his own.

The hon member for Potgietersrus also saw a dangerous trend in clause 12, which deals with the empowering of the Minister to use money voted by Parliament to build schools on private land and insure them by means of long-term leases, as if this is going to be a radical change in the entire approach. I think, when I spoke about the objections of the hon member for Pietersburg to community centres at the schools, that I also replied effectively to the remarks of this hon member. The representatives of organised agriculture in the work group of the Department of Education and Training, which investigated farm and rural schools, asked that a more general concept should be inserted regarding the utilisation of the school facilities for community upliftment and development and community responsibility and involvement on the part of the department. We replied to the call by intelligent leaders in the field of agriculture. They also asked that instead of their building the schools on their land, we should establish the alternative possibility that the State would build schools at Government expense on existing State land or on land which the State acquired by negotiation. I therefore cannot see a single reason, if one analyses these arguments, why the hon members for Pietersburg and Potgietersrus, in their lucid moments, cannot confidently support this particular Bill, along with all the other hon members of this House. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill provides for the amendment of the Technikons (National Education) Act, 1967, Act 40 of 1967. In the first place the purpose of the amending Bill is to provide for amendments in connection with the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation. Provision is therefore being made for effecting the transfer of the administration of certain provisions of the Act to the Minister of Education and Culture, Administration: House of Assembly. Secondly, the amending Bill seeks to provide for the declaration of an educational and training institution which is controlled by another Government department or own department as a subdivision, a school or a department for example, of an existing technikon; and thirdly, to provide for the alteration of certain technikons’ names.

The Bill provides for amendments that are related to the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation. Before the implementation of this new dispensation, the principal Act was administered by the Department of National Education, which has been divided into two separate departments since 3 September 1984 on the basis of the functions performed by this department on the levels of both general and own affairs. As from 17 September 1984, however, the principal Act has been entrusted to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, Administration: House of Assembly for implementation. Consequently certain definitions are being amended, deleted and inserted in clause 1.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended, we were discussing the Technikons (National Education) Amendment Bill (House of Assembly). I was referring to clause 1, and I shall now continue.

The existing legislation on technikons does not provide for the integration of a whole education and/or training institution, a school or a department for example, as a subdivision of a technikon. In view of the Government’s rationalisation measures, it is desirable that provision be made for the integration of an education and training institution under the control of other departments or the Department of Education and Culture as subdivisions of an existing technikon. The forestry college at Saasveld near George, for example, could be incorporated into the Port Elizabeth Technikon. Clause 4 provides for such incorporation.

Clause 3 provides for the amendment of certain technikons’ names. This amendment is being made upon the request and recommendation of the Committee of Technikon Principals. The technikons in question want to change their names in such a way that they will be pronounced and written in the same way in both Afrikaans and English, which will result in administrative and cost benefits.

Clauses 7 and 9 are consequential amendments as a result of the establishment of certification councils for school and teachers’ training, as well as technikon education.

It is true that the majority of the amendments in this amending Bill are consequential amendments that are related to the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation. The rest of the amendments are related to requests and recommendations made by the technikons themselves.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Minister for his thoughtfulness in making his speech available to me earlier this evening so that I could follow it on paper.

The CP opposes the legislation before us tonight. I should like to concentrate on a few matters in the amending legislation. In the first place, as a result of the new educational dispensation we are experiencing, amendments have to be made to the principal Act, as the hon the Minister pointed out. The formulation of the principal Act was based on the earlier factual situation in which there was only one Department of National Education. Although the CP does not support the existing educational dispensation, we not object to these specific consequential amendments being made to the legislation.

In the second place clause 3 provides for the amendment of the names of certain technikons. The hon the Minister indicated the reasons for the alteration of these names in his speech. The Pretoria Technikon now becomes the Technikon Pretoria, the Natal Technikon becomes the Technikon Natal and the Witwatersrand Technikon becomes the Technikon Witwatersrand. The names of three other technikons have not been changed, however, viz the Cape Technikon, the Vaal Triangle Technikon and the Port Elizabeth Technikon. We are not opposed to the alteration of the names of these different technikons, but since this is a recommendation that came from the Committee of Technikon Principals and not from the individual technikons themselves, we want to know whether uniformity cannot be achieved now that these changes are being made. In our opinion complete uniformity would eliminate confusion.

The third important reason for this amending Bill is the Government’s rationalisation programme. I am referring to clauses 2 and 4. Section 5 of the principal Act is being amended in such a way that an education and training institution that falls another Government department can now be taken over by the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly as a subdivision of an existing technikon.

We have problems with this amendment. Our problems are not with the rationalisation process as such, however. In fact, if this meant that White educational and training institutions could be incorporated into existing technikons, we should certainly have supported this measure. In this way one could have saved money without sacrificing the quality of education and training. We are therefore not opposed to the incorporation of training institutions into existing technikons as such.

What we do object to is the implications this can hold for White education if educational and training institutions that fall under general and therefore mixed Government departments can now be incorporated into technikons which are controlled by the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly.

We have three reasons for our objection to such a decision. In the first place this would further frustrate education as an own affair and would lead to further mixing in White education. In practice this would mean that White technikons would have to take all these training institutions under its wing once again. We already have the situation that approximately 52 000 non-White students are studying at White universities. I am aware that approximately 40 000 of them are studying through Unisa. The fact remains, however, that they make up more than 25% of all students at so-called White universities and that that percentage is growing every year. A further addition of non-White students under the control of the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly can merely lead to greater intermingling on the level of tertiary education.

The Department of Environment Affairs has informed me that the Saasveld Forestry College, which provides training for all population groups, has already been incorporated into the Port Elizabeth Technikon and no longer falls under that department. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister indicated that this was something that could still be done. We should like clarity on whether this has been done or is still being envisaged.

Our second objection is that this means that non-Whites will be receiving their education and training under White control in ever increasing numbers. We do not think that is right. Their own people should exercise control over the education and training they receive. In fact, it is quite ridiculous to talk about education as an own affair if large numbers of one’s own people are under the control of other peoples’ education departments.

In the third place this legislation has financial implications for the education budget of the Whites. We in the CP insist that the own affairs budget for education in the House of Assembly be utilised in full for Whites. At present only one technikon, the Northern Transvaal Technikon, is under the control of the Department of Education and Training. Only one technikon is under the control of the Administration: House of Representatives, viz the Peninsula Technikon. It is clear from this that the educational and training institutions of other Government departments will have to be incorporated into White education. In addition we are not aware of similar legislation before the House of Representatives at the moment.

The financial implication is that the White education budget will have to carry those incorporated training institutions. We on this side of the House want to object to that. A large chunk of the White education budget is already being used for the education of non-Whites; even though the White education budget increased by only 8,8% last year in comparison with the Coloureds’ 16,1% and the Blacks’ more than 40%. According to our calculations, approximately R216 million of the subsidies of R837 million for White universities, was spent on non-Whites. In our opinion, to finance a further number of nonWhites from the already insufficient White education budget, is unfair to the Whites.

The CP opposes the legislation, not because we are opposed to linking educational and training institutions to technikons in principle, but because this has further negative implications for White education.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits was getting very worried. I am still trying to determine on what basis they are really opposing this legislation. He knows just as well as I do that in terms of section 14 of the Constitution the council of a technikon decides on the admission of students.

The purpose of this amending Bill is threefold. In the first place, as the hon the Minister said, it provides for the amendment relating to the implementation of the new Constitution. Hon members might have been misled into discussing the merits of the Constitution, which is something I do not think you would permit, Sir. What is important is that the Constitution exists and that it was accepted by the majority of voters represented in this House. Consequently one must act accordingly.

The second objective is to provide for the incorporation of a whole educational or training institution as a subdivision of an existing technikon. I do not think any of us have objections to the Government’s rationalisation measures, and this amendment is important in this respect.

The third objective is simply to legalise the alteration of certain technikons’ names at the request of the technikon principals.

If this Bill makes any contribution to emphasizing the importance of technical education and the role of technikons, I believe it is very important and worthwhile legislation.

We have a contradiction in South Africa in that there is a large oversupply of people who are unemployed, and a large number of new employment opportunities have to be created daily. On the other hand we have a shortage of certain classes of people with technical training. On the one hand there is an oversupply, and on the other, in another sphere, there is a shortage. It is calculated at present that 31% of all White pupils in South Africa who start their school training in Sub A or Grade 1 eventually end up at university. In other developed countries the percentage is between 17% and 18%. In developed countries the ratio between technical students and university students is 3:1 in favour of technical training. In South Africa the ratio is 5:1 in favour of the universities. One can well ask whether a university degree is necessary for certain professions.

Most of the amendments in the Bill are merely consequential and will be discussed in detail by hon members on this side of the House. We on this side believe that the training of our young people should be elevated above petty partypolitical differences, and because we believe that these proposed amendments are in the interests and to the advantage of the student population of South Africa, and therefore to the advantage of South Africa, as a whole we should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will be opposing this measure and we move the following amendment accordingly:

Hear! Hear!

Mr Chairman, when one looks at the hon the Minister’s speech, one gains the impression that this is an entirely technical piece of legislation that can be passed without really much debate; that there is nothing wildly controversial or even of great moment about it. I think that from the point of view of those persons and political parties that are opposed to the own affairs concept, this amending Bill represents the legislative enactment of the principle of own affairs. Let us take note: The legal position is that since 17 September 1984 the administration of the Technikons (National Education) Act of 1967 has been placed under the control of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly, ie—and this has not been indicated in the hon the Minister’s speech—with the exception of section 28, the administration of which has been placed under the control of the Minister of National Education.

That is quite clear from all the documentation we have been able to acquire. [Interjections.]

The Ministers of Education and Culture in the other two Houses do not have a principal Act governing technikons. They have Acts referring to the specific technikons under their control, namely the Peninsula Technikon in the case of the House of Representatives and the M L Sultan Technikon for the House of Delegates. For the Department of Education and Training there is a principal Act, Act 27 of 1981, dealing with the Northern Transvaal Technikon and the Mangosuthu Technikon outside Durban.

Several very interesting constitutional problems become apparent when one reviews the situation regarding this piece of legislation. Quite rightly, in my opinion, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has indicated that he is not responsible for section 28; the Minister of National Education is solely responsible. Yet the Bill that he has laid before us proposes an amendment to section 1 which affects a definition relating to section 28, which is not his responsibility at all. There is a proposed change with regard to the particular Minister defined. In an own affairs context, therefore, a definition is to be amended which refers to a general affairs section. [Interjections.] This may be laughable in the opinion of some hon members in this House, but it is a very important principle. [Interjections.]

In 1986 the Technikons (National Education) Amendment Act was passed. It included an amendment of section 28, and this was quite correct as the Act was the responsibility of the Minister of National Education, but there was also an amendment of the section 1 definition of the word “technikon” with relation to section 28. I quote from that Bill, which ultimately became an Act, as follows:

I will not quote the first part—

Here is the addition proposed by the Minister of National Education:

To an extent, we have a legal dilemma. If in 1986 the Minister of National Education could amend section 1 definitions of the principal Act as far as they affected his section, then I would hold that the Minister of Education and Culture cannot legally amend a section that is actually under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Education. If he purports to do so—this is according to the legal advice we have obtained—he can propose an amendment, as his Bill states, only so far as it applies to an own affairs Act of the House of Assembly. That means that the other two Houses will also have to amend these two provisions.

I would be very pleased if this Minister could tell us whether his legal advice suggests that to be the correct course, because there is no way, in my opinion, in which the House of Assembly, dealing with an own affairs measure, can actually amend a section that is a general affair. This cannot be done legally.

Regarding the motion to pass this piece of legislation and the amendment moved by the PFP, we believe as we did when the 1986 measure was discussed that this debate should have a far wider range than merely the technicalities in this amending Bill. What we are looking at, in essence, is not merely the amendment of three sections, one of which happens to create amendments to facilitate the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation.

What we are actually doing, Sir, is taking the control over the principal Act away from one Minister and giving it to another Minister and, simultaneously, transferring it from general affairs to own affairs. That being the case, I submit that we should have an opportunity to debate the principal Act. It is quite clear, from the initial submissions and from the De Lange Report—this goes back as far as 1981, and representatives of departments of this Government also sat on the De Lange Commission—that the intention was that the control over autonomous higher educational institutions should be vested in a single Minister. That is quite clear. I quote as follows from page 200 of the report:

According to the De Lange Report this hon Minister will now be a part of them—

This hon Minister may be of the opinion that the Constitution makes it obligatory for him to control all education, including tertiary education. However, it is quite clear, from discussions which took place on the Standing Committee on Education—discussions on, for example, the Universities Act and also the Technikons (National Education) Act—and from legal advice taken, that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is, in fact, not a superior law. It can be amended by another law passed subsequently.

We believe the correct approach that should be adopted is that all tertiary education institutions—I refer to universities, colleges of education and also technikons, with which we are concerned this evening—should be placed under the control of hon the Minister of National Education. That kind of approach is followed in the report on Macro-aspects of the University within the Context of Tertiary Education in the RSA by the Committee of University Principals. They also argue that these institutions should fall under one Minister. That has to do with universities. Now, Sir, we believe very strongly that technikons should, on exactly the same basis, also fall under one Minister.

It is interesting—this is a point which was raised by the two previous speakers, the hon members for Brits and Kimberley North—that the entire question of access and admission to technikons is, in fact, germane to this whole case which we have before us today. There are at the present moment some 53 000 students at technikons throughout South Africa, of whom 40 000 are White, approximately 4 000 Indian, 4 000 Coloured and 5 000 Black. Sir, I do not, at this stage, intend to indicate how many students are at the so-called White technikons, but I am prepared to make a prediction: In view of the fact that the councils of those technikons have, during the past year, been granted permission to admit people of colour outside of the quotas previously rigidly imposed by this hon Minister, those technikons will increasingly move away from being “White” technikons.

It is interesting, Sir, if we look at technikons and at the argument concerning an amendment to the same Act that was passed in this very House in 1986, that my then colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, made this point very tellingly. He said (Hansard, Assembly, 25 August 1986, col 10742):

We argue that one of the last things that should be done in the country as it moves ahead into a new industrial sphere as we saw today at the CSIR presentation, is to hog-tie something like technikons into an own affairs system. They are specifically the ones that should be freed first.

I have already indicated what difficulties this party has with clause 1 of the Bill. We believe, for example, that the definition of Director-General is being amended in a way that is not legally correct or, if it is done by this hon Minister, it will certainly not have the implications he thinks it will have.

Secondly, the implication of the definition of “Minister” is exactly the same. However, I leave that for the hon the Minister to answer a little later on.

I would like to move on to two other technical aspects, first of all the names of the technikons. We have no objection to or problems with the amendments of the names of the technikons concerned. However, we have a question which is not answered adequately in the hon the Minister’s very short speech. This concerns the implications of two aspects which occur in a number of clauses in this measure. In this respect I want to indicate quite clearly—as we in this party have indicated in the past—how much better the system of standing committees has proved in the handling of Bills. The standing committee has the opportunity of questioning officials and Ministers on aspects of the Bills which do not, in fact, have to be raised in this House. I made an earnest appeal at that time that this hon Minister should take the opportunity of appointing select committees or, at least, standing select committees to consider Bills. I hope he is going to do this with the educational affairs Bill, which is otherwise going to prove to be a very thorny issue in this House.

As far as this Bill is concerned, the two aspects I wish to raise concerning the whole question of the definition of “subsidised” school or institution as contained, for example, in clause 2. As I understand it, the hon the Minister has indicated in his speech that he sees it, for instance, as applying to the Saasveld College for Forestry near George. I just want to ask him whether it is the intention to include all agricultural colleges, for example, under this kind of heading? The other suggestion is the General Botha Mercantile Marine School at Granger Bay. Is this also designed to be incorporated?

In connection with that I would also like an explanation from the hon the Minister of the sentence, contained in the last part of clause 2—“or such institution was declared a subdivision of a technikon”. If the Saasveld College or the agricultural colleges or the General Botha become a subdivision of a technikon, what will be the role of the present head of such a college? How does he fit in? Does he merely become head of a department? What is his role? I think the hon the Minister owes us that explanation at least.

At this stage I will hold fire. One of my colleagues will pick up a number of other matters. However, what is important is that, certainly from these benches, in moving the amendment that we decline to pass this Bill until all tertiary education is vested under the control of the Minister of National Education, we are not in fact going much further than at least one section of the principal Act itself, which is already vested under the Minister of National Education.

Mr Chairman, this evening we have again had the experience of seeing both the opposition parties oppose this legislation, but for completely different reasons. In this amending Bill hon members of the Official Opposition see a large number of spectres presaging the downfall of education as a White own affair. In contrast, the hon member for Pinetown also criticised this legislation, moving an amendment to the effect that the Bill should stand over until all tertiary education is placed under the control of the Minister of National Education. There is nothing strange about that; we have had this experience on various occasions in the House.

With regard to the amendment of the hon member for Pinetown on behalf of the PFP, I unfortunately have to tell him that we on this side of the House cannot support it.

Order! There are some hon members of the House who have very loud voices and do not realise it. I would be very glad if they would converse more quietly. The hon member may proceed.

Not only does the hon member want the own affairs concept in the constitutional dispensation to be eliminated, but in point of fact he wants to have the entire constitutional dispensation, which we have at present, done away with. It must be replaced by a system of universal franchise on a common voters’ roll which would result in majority rule in this country. May I remind the hon member that the own affairs concept in our Constitution, and also the idea of education as an own affair, is part of the basic philosophy of this party and that for that we have repeatedly obtained the support of the White voters whom we represent in this House of Assembly. For that reason we cannot support this amendment.

I now come back to the amending Bill before the House this evening. I merely wish to indicate that its purpose is, as the hon member for Kimberley North has said, to adapt the principal Act, ie the Technikons (National Education) Act, 1967, and to bring it into line with the new definitions which were the result of the implementation of the 1983 Constitution, and other new educational Acts. Its object is also to change the names of certain technikons and to facilitate rationalisation in the sphere of technical education. If one views this legislation impartially, one cannot but come to the conclusion that it is not far-reaching legislation. The philosophy and the objectives of the Act are not being amended. The amendments which are, in fact, been brought about are chiefly consequential amendments. It also confirms the Government’s philosophy, as I said a moment ago, of education as an own affair for the various peoples, and this also applies to technical education. This amending Bill is therefore meaningful, in our opinion, and should actually have the support of the opposition parties. I listened to their arguments this evening, and they set me wondering. Since this is own affairs legislation, it did not come before a standing committee, and that has me wondering if having a standing committee of the House of Assembly on own affairs would not have served some purpose. Then we would perhaps have brought those hon members to the point of consensus.

Clause 1 deals with certain amendments in the definitions ie, that of “Director General”, of “Minister” and of “Treasury”. Clause 2 amends section 2(2)(b) of the principal Act, and concepts such as “State-aided vocational school or continuation class” are being replaced by “subsidised school or institution”. That is also a consequential amendment of Act 41 of 1967, ie the Educational Services Act. Lines 24 and 25 of clause 2 amend section 5 of the principal Act so that education and training institutions of other Government departments, and also of the Department of Education and Culture, can be taken over as a subdivision of an existing technikon.

Clause 3 amends section 4(a) of the principal Act which has to do with changing the names of a few technikons. The Pretoria Technikon now becomes the Technikon Pretoria, the Natal Technikon becomes the Technikon Natal and the Witwatersrand Technikon now becomes the Technikon Witwatersrand. This amendment was introduced at the request of the Committee of Technikon Principals. A name is important to any establishment, and we are glad that these amendments can now become a reality after actually having been part and parcel of normal speech for some time.

Clause 4 amends section 5(1) of the principal Act and is in step with the rationalisation measures and efforts the Government has set itself as a goal. It makes provision for the inclusion of education and training institutions in existing technikons.

We are living in an era in which education and training, including tertiary education, has become tremendously expensive. We are also deeply conscious of the fact that in the period in which we are living, technikons are facing serious financial problems. This very morning in the Press we read a statement about this.

Where rationalisation is implemented in a responsible fashion, it can be meaningful in the sense that it can eliminate unnecessarily duplication, thereby effecting savings. This clause creates the mechanism to link advanced technical institutions to existing technikons. The remaining clauses are chiefly consequential amendments which, in my view, need no further discussion here.

The amending Bill is essential to amend the principal Act, the Technikons (National Education) Act of 1967 in as far as it is implemented as an own affair of the House of Assembly, and it is a pleasure for me, in these circumstances, to pledge the support of this side of the House for this measure.

Mr Chairman, I am obviously not too surprised to hear that the hon member for Bloemfontein East is not going to support our amendment. It is the kind of thinking that we expect from that side of the House.

I want to take up where the hon member for Pinetown left off in his condemnation of education as an own affair and I want to support his amendment.

It is quite clear that, for education to provide equally for all people in South Africa, it has to be a general affair with one Ministry controlling education for all people, and not the present mock situation with a general affairs education department apparently controlling overall policy and finances and the own affairs education departments acting virtually unilaterally thereafter in what is nothing more than an extension of apartheid education and practices.

I notice with interest that the hon the Minister smiles while I speak because he has heard me say this on numerous occasions, and I want to assure him that he will hear me say it on many more occasions in the future as well.

This Bill before this House today is the extension of the apartheid education policy and should certainly not be allowed to pass through this House.

The hon the Minister refers to this Bill as little more than an amending Bill but, unfortunately, it has far greater ramifications than this that are unfortunate in the whole context of education in this country. If it is an amending Bill it certainly has fallen short in certain areas. I would like to mention one or two of them.

Firstly, there is the issue of student numbers—raised briefly by the hon member for Pinetown—with regard to White and non-White technikons. The Government claims that the quota system is now a thing of the past and that the admission of students to a technikon rests in the hands of the councils of these technikons. This appears to be a relatively good improvement to the situation but there are still problems, largely because the policy of admitting students to the technikon hostels has remained unchanged, viz—and I want to stress the point—own affairs education comes into play once again.

This poses problems such as the one already brought to the attention of the hon the Minister on several occasions where only one technikon in the country or in a particular area offers a particular course or courses as in the case of courses related, for example, to the textile industry.

Students of all race groups are attached to this particular industry, the textile industry. Yet the entire textile industry finds itself dangerously short of qualified staff, because in the particular case that I want to mention the Natal Technikon is unable to allow students of colour into its hostels.

The hon the Minister will not allow them.

That is right. The hon the Minister will not allow them. These students are further hampered—unfortunately but very definitely—by the Group Areas Act which makes it difficult for them to find suitable accommodation near the technikon of their choice. Hence the courses they want to attend are denied them, are denied to a large section of the population. We find that discrimination is still practised.

Furthermore, there are continuous reports of students who are denied access to technikons to embark on courses of specialised educational study such as, for example, the higher diploma in chemical engineering, despite the fact that the course is not offered at any other technikon in their immediate vicinity. Discrimination is often believed to be the cause of this. The people who are affected by it believe that they are being discriminated against. If this is so—this is the point that I would like to put to the hon the Minister—and if the technikon councils at present are, in fact, denying students access to their colleges on the basis of colour, then in effect the quota system is remaining, but in a different guise. The obvious solution—and this is related to the Bill—is to open all technikons and to move away from own affairs education; to move away from own affairs technikons; to make all technikons open to people of all colours.

I also want to speak—I have raised this point already—very briefly on the issue of the composition of the councils of the technikons. I believe they are weighted very heavily in favour of certain groups, and may I say in particular in favour of the ministerial representatives. This particular Bill that we have before us this evening proposes a minor amendment to section 8 of Act 40 of 1967. I want to say immediately that I find the whole composition of the council most extraordinary. At present we find that the council is constituted in the following manner. It consists of the principal of the technikon, two donors to the technikon, one person appointed by the local authority, such persons as the Minister may appoint—I want to draw particular attention to this specific aspect; I repeat, such persons as the Minister may appoint—and, finally, one past student elected by past students. It is emphasised that the council shall consist of not fewer than 10 and not more than 20 members. I come back to the same point. The number of people the Minister may appoint to these particular councils would appear to be virtually unlimited, provided that the council itself does not consist of more than 20 people in the end.

I find it strange that the Technikons (National Education) Act, No 40 of 1967, does not allow for larger representation, and in particular for representation of members of the academic staff on these councils. Technikons do, in fact, have avast academic staff, yet they are represented by their rector only. I believe that for the real process of negotiation between the council and the academic staff to take place the academic staff need to have their own representatives on this, the highest body of the technikon. I want to say—I mentioned this to the hon the Minister—that this is not meant as any reflection on the integrity of any of the rectors of any technikon in this country.

I am not suggesting that a rector would be unwilling to support his staff on any matter that may arise between the staff and the council.

However, we have to face reality and say that this could, in fact, be the case and there are often other situations when the staff need to represent themselves without putting their rector on the spot. There can be no doubt that members of the staff of technikons would really welcome representation on their council. I bring that point to the hon the Minister’s attention.

The same applies to students. A similar case can be made for their representation for the same kind of reason. However, I stress the point that negotiation is an important part of establishing good relationships in any organisation, and technikons are certainly not excluded in this regard.

I am led to believe that there are some technikons which invite representatives of the academic staff and student body to sit in on council meetings. This is at least a step in the right direction. There can again, however, be no doubt that full participation rights would be far better and far more acceptable to the staff and the students. It is not clear why a council needs to be so top heavy with ministerial representatives, unless it is again to safeguard NP education policies within the technikons and to ensure that those principles which the Government wants to protect for its own benefit—such as the ratio of Black to White students—are in fact being retained.

I believe that this Bill falls way short of the kind of educational issues that should be addressed. We should be looking at a non-racial, integrated education, and the sooner we stop playing games, like the one we are playing at the moment with the Bill before us, the better.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon members for Bloemfontein East and Kimberley North for their extremely effective contributions. A very sincere thanks, too, for the fact that they confined themselves solely to the provisions of this legislation. I shall come back to that in a moment.

The truth of the matter is, as the two hon members said, that it is immediately evident that the hon member for Brits, as spokesman for the Official Opposition, began by saying that he did not actually reject the legislation, but that he rejected its implications. The hon member then argued that the schools, as he indicated, would be more “open” as a result of this legislation. On the other hand, the hon member for Pinetown immediately stated that they strongly opposed this legislation because all tertiary training had to fall under one Minister and one department, if one might put it in those terms. The hon member for Durban North said that he was not surprised that the hon member for Bloemfontein East was opposed to his colleague’s amendment. Let me tell the hon member for Durban North that I was not surprised at all to hear what the hon member for Pinetown’s objection was. No one in this House was at all surprised that he supported the hon member for Pinetown’s amendment.

I think I should finish off my reply to the hon member for Durban North’s speech now. Let me tell that hon member that I am sorry that there is actually nothing on which I can reply to him, and I listened very attentively to his speech. The hon member devoted the major portion of his speech to the composition of the councils for technikons. With the best will in the world I cannot see how that is applicable to this legislation now before the House. I want to invite the hon member, however, very sincerely, to discuss the matter which he broached and which is bothering him—and I accept that—with me during the discussion of my Vote. There will be enough time to discuss it then, but there is no clause in this legislation under which we can meaningfully speak about the composition of technikon councils. That is chiefly what the hon member for Durban North spoke about.

He also spoke about the policy for admission. Once again I very respectfully submit that the policy for admission, as such, has nothing to do with this amending Bill.

What about own affairs and general affairs?

If we wanted to digress a great deal, we could get round to the point that this legislation, as the hon member has just stated, does have a bearing on own affairs.

In that respect hon members can see it in that light, but then that has nothing to do with the amendment of a specific clause, as is the case here, it being rather a matter of principle. I want to ask the hon member to have us discuss it in the debate on my Vote, when we shall have enough time to speak about the policy for admission as such. At this moment I only want to tell the hon member that if he is trying to suggest that the policy for admission is still based on the so-called quota system, he is being mischievous, because the hon member knows—I have said this on a previous occasion in this House—that the policy for admission in regard to technikons was formulated after we had had specific discussions with technikon principals and their councils. The technikon principals and the technikon councils took decisions, in accordance with their own policy, with which we agreed, about the admission of people of colour. In spite of this suspicionmongering, there is consequently no question of a specific quota being allocated to these people in some way or another. As I have already said, we can also discuss this in the debate on my Vote.

The hon member said he saw me smiling when he said that this legislation was merely a continuation of the policy of apartheid. I was smiling at the inanity of it. It depends on what the hon member means by apartheid. As far as we are concerned, education as an own affair has a pedagogic basis. In the discussion of this legislation I do not want to take up any more of the House’s time on that aspect either. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinetown is in a hurry to make an interjection about the technikons. The hon member knows, as well as I do, that in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Constitution it is clearly indicated that all education at all levels is an own affair. The Constitution provides for this, and the hon member surely does not argue with me about the fact that this is the basis on which technikons were included under own affairs departments. And that also answers the question on which he dwelt at length in his main argument, that of the necessity for tertiary education to fall under one department and one Minister. If that is to happen, we must first amend the Constitution, but until we do so, that cannot be done, and it is therefore not an issue in the debate we are conducting at present. The hon member knows that as well as I do.

Permit me to sketch, in broad terms, what we are dealing with. Here we are amending the Technikons (National Education) Act so that it will fall completely under the control of the own affairs Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly. That is basically what this measure deals with, and in consequence it is necessary to introduce specific amendments which we can discuss under the respective clauses and which I shall briefly deal with here.

This brings me immediately to the argument of the hon member for Pinetown about the change in the names of the Director General and the Minister. The fact is that long ago Coloured and Indian education fell under the Minister of Internal Affairs. The hon member knows that this was subsequently amended and that it fell under the Minister of National Education. Because we are now making this legislation an own affairs measure, it is necessary to state that the measure, as a whole, is own affairs legislation.

Section 28, which deals with the composition of the committees of technikon principals, and section 28A, which deals with their powers and functions, fall under the discretion of the Minister of National Education. The hon member knows that very well. If one wants to make this Act an own affairs Act which falls within the ambit of the powers of the Minister of Education and Culture, it is therefore necessary to single out those two sections in regard to the designation of the Minister and the Director General. As far as the designation of the Director General is concerned, the whole Act therefore falls under the highest official of the Department of Education and Culture, whilst those two sections fall under the Director General of National Education and the Minister of National Education. That ought to solve the hon member’s problem.

I now want to reply to the hon member for Brits in detail. He has a problem with the changing of the names; he asked why the names of all the technikons could not simply be changed now. I want to make it clear to the hon member that the changing of the names of these three technikons took place on the strength of requests from the specific technikons themselves, and each request was accepted by the Committee of Technikon Principals. The CTP has not forced the other technikons to change their names. Technikons are autonomous, and the others prefer to retain their names. For that reason there is no question of our changing the names of the other technikons now if they have decided to retain their present names. I hope the hon member will accept that explanation as such and that he is now clearer in his mind about the issue.

The hon member also has a problem with the take-over of Saasveld, for example, and his problem is—as I indicated a moment ago—that he is worried that it will now become completely Black. Let me tell the hon member that all White technikons, White universities and White education are under the control of the Department of Education and Culture, which is an own affairs department. The fact is, as the hon member himself knows, that in accordance with paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution there is the possibility of rendering service, and as a result of the rendering of service it is indeed possible for people of colour to study at White technikons, universities and even, subject to specific conditions, at technical colleges too. I should like to indicate here that I think that the hon member does not quite understand what this is all about. What is involved here? We want to create an opportunity, when the Minister of Education and Culture thinks fit, for a specific section of an own affairs department, or of a general affairs department, to be placed under the control of a technikon if the department prefers it.

And what is the effect of that? When the powers are granted in terms of this Act, it still means that the State President is the one who must firstly determine whether it is an own affair, because he must certify it as such, and secondly he is the person who must grant permission for such a subdivision to be included in a technikon. The State President will first certify that it is an own affair.

Secondly, the Minister of Education and Culture will make the recommendation and grant permission for such inclusion to take place. I am almost sure it was the hon member for Pinetown who asked what was going to happen to the staff and the principal.

The structure.

Yes. The fact of the matter is that when a decision is ultimately taken on an institution such as Saasveld—ie that it shall be transferred to the technikon—it means that the staff will also be transferred to the technikon in question. In accordance with its own autonomous decision-making process, the technikon will decide on the designations to be given to those people who are transferred, and also about their salary structure within the technikon’s cost structure, because then they would fall completely within the ambit of the powers of that technikon. So there should be no such problem.

The hon member for Pinetown began by saying that he opposed the measure because he wanted tertiary education as a whole under the jurisdiction of one Minister and one department. The hon member also quoted from the De Lange report. I put it to the hon member that in the first place the De Lange report was considered by the Government. On the grounds of that report the Government published its White Paper. In that White Paper the Government accepted specific recommendations in the De Lange report. We could conduct a debate with the hon member about the whole matter he has now raised here. The hon member knows that it is, in fact, true that in regard to the four matters mentioned in the schedule, all education falls under the jurisdiction of one single Minister, ie the general affairs Minister. That is precisely in accordance with what is contained in the De Lange report. The De Lange report did not recommend that every further act of conducting own affairs’ education should fall under the jurisdiction of one single Minister. In regard, however, to those affairs affecting all education, for example norms and standards applicable to capital and running costs, certification, evaluation and so on, and also conditions of service and salaries, all these facets do indeed fall under the jurisdiction of a single Minister, ie the Minister of National Education. That is as far as the De Lange report went. At a later stage we shall be able to argue at greater length about this matter if the hon member feels inclined to do so.

I have already replied to the hon member in connection with his problem concerning clause 1. In regard to agricultural schools the hon member also asked a question. I want to make it very clear that from this measure it should not be concluded, in the first place, that the days of technical colleges and agricultural schools are numbered. The idea of this legislation is not to abolish technical colleges or agricultural schools by transferring them all to the control of a technikon.

Why Saasveld?

I shall reply to the hon member on this question in a moment. It is not a question of doing this, because there is a need—this evening I state this categorically—for technical colleges. There is a wide-open field for the work that really has to be done by technical colleges. For that reason we have no intention whatsoever of trying to transfer technical colleges. There is a specific need as far as agricultural schools are concerned—a need that has to be satisfied. We have no desire whatsoever to transfer agricultural schools to technikons either. After all, technikons also have a specific field in which they operate as far as further advanced technical training is concerned.

The hon member asked why Saasveld? Because Saasveld itself, a long time ago, came up with the idea that it wanted to train students for a national diploma, Saasveld’s control board felt that it would be better for its students to have them trained at a technikon—in this case the technikon in Port Elizabeth—offering specific courses in the interests of the students themselves. For that reason we want to adopt the standpoint that if there is a real need for the section to be transferred we will, in point of fact, be at liberty, and have the power, to do so. That is what this measure makes provision for.

And General Botha?

The same applies there too, if that were to happen at a later stage. Then there would be an advantage. At this moment, however, this is not relevant. In point of fact, however, it could happen. Provision would exist if it needed to happen at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, I think I have now replied to all the relevant questions. We can argue at greater length about other matters during the Committee Stage, if it appears necessary to do so.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I am of the opinion that the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill represents an attempt to fulfil the long-standing need for a satisfactory bargaining mechanism for the employees of the SATS. The Official Opposition is generally in favour of such a body, and consequently also of this attempt to satisfy this need. We tried to contribute to the improvement of this Bill in various ways for the sake of the SATS, although we were of the opinion that the more favourable circumstances which would prevail in the labour field under the CP Government, should facilitate a more flexible approach to labour disputes. [Interjections.]

We were confronted by the fact that one of the trade unions that is being affected by this Bill, namely the Running and Operating Staff Union, submitted a memorandum to the standing committee in which certain objections were raised. Two of them were explained in full, and with regard to the third objection it was requested that an opportunity be granted to elucidate it verbally before the standing committee. Although the CP, the PFP and, if I remember correctly, one hon member of the House of Delegates, wanted to give this trade union the opportunity to state their case as they requested, the majority of members on the standing committee decided not to grant the trade union this opportunity. Unfortunately, we were therefore exclusively dependent on hearsay evidence from the management of the SATS about the opinion of inter alia this trade union.

Furthermore, we experienced the illuminating situation of officials who were elucidating aspects before the committee, being asked to speak English for the benefit of certain members of other race groups, who did not understand Afrikaans. The chairman of the committee further ruled that all memorandums that were submitted to the committee, had to be in English as well as in Afrikaans. Fortunately this ruling was subsequently overturned by a ruling from the Speaker, for which we are very grateful. [Interjections.]

Despite these events the Official Opposition considered the pros and cons of the Bill under the present circumstances. We are of the opinion that the Bill as such can contribute to greater labour peace, provided it is dealt with in the right way. We were given the assurance that the so-called “senior employees” referred to in clause 1(ii), were only senior officials at the level of director and higher. In our opinion, it would otherwise have had implications of such a nature that we would have had to seriously consider voting against the Bill.

We also had strong reservations about the wisdom of the wide re-delegation of powers that were granted in terms of clause 2(3), especially as it will make control as well as the determining of responsibility in the SATS difficult.

Furthermore we believe that clause 8(7) will bring about an improvement in that the Labour Council that is being formed will not only have to report to the Minister, but its report will have to be presented to Parliament within 21 days after the Minister has received it, or if Parliament is not in session, within 21 days after the next session commences.

We also pointed out that the initial wording of clause 9 could result in certain serious problems with regard to litigation. We are thankful that the relevant clause was subsequently amended, so that the amended wording now does away with this problem.

Against this background, and with these observations, I want to express support for this Bill, on behalf of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort is displaying a completely new tendency by supporting this legislation, because they abstained from voting on the standing committee. I am grateful for the change of attitude which has taken place since the conclusion of the discussions on the standing committee.

All the same, I want to react to one matter, and that is that I am adhering to my point of view that I shall, in his own interests, request any hon member who submits a memorandum, to do so to the best of his ability in both languages. I did not force anyone to do so, but I request everyone to do so. In the past, when the hon the Deputy Minister was still chairman of this standing committee, the CP—the CP members who served on the committee then, have since lost their seats—objected strongly because memoranda appeared in Afrikaans only. On the basis of that my predecessor, who is today the hon the Deputy Minister, arranged with the departments concerned to have all memoranda submitted in both languages. I also want to place it on record today that we as chairmen—I think I am also speaking on behalf of the hon the Deputy Minister—are very grateful that we were able to arrange with the departments concerned, namely the Department of Transport, the SATS and later also the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, that they would submit all memoranda in both languages. I am thanking them for that. I want to let the matter rest there. We shall return to it later, when in the future only English memoranda are submitted. [Interjections.]

What surprises me about the attitude of the hon member for Roodepoort is that he did not want to take part in the voting that day. He did not even want to vote for his own amendment to clause 9, which we adopted. There I am at a loss. If a party goes so far as to move an amendment, but it does not even vote for its own amendment and other parties have to vote for its amendment, I see great problems with communication within that party.

What is interesting is that we usually adopt democratic principles on our standing committee, and after a long discussion and all the information that I made available, as well as the information that the staff of the SATS provided, we decided to take certain steps. I followed the good middle-of-the-road democratic approach and we voted on it. Nevertheless, it was interesting that the hon member for Roodepoort was very eager to have a certain trade union appear before us, but he was not as eager to have other trade unions appear. Then it was the PFP …

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, the hon member is mistaken. The member of the PPF—his place was later taken by the hon member for Greytown—also asked that a trade union be allowed to give evidence. We also discussed that and voted on it. The majority of members from the various Houses considered the information we had to be sufficient to conclude matters.

At this stage I also want to have it placed on record that I am grateful for the work that was done by the chief management of the SATS, for the memorandum they prepared and for the information they gave us.

This Bill is a piece of legislation that blazes the trail. It should be seen as an extension of the budget that we finalised this week.

During the Second Reading debate on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill I said that the Appropriation Bill was a watershed between the old and the new era in transport in South Africa. This Bill is the next step in the new era of transport in South Africa. On several occasions the CP had a great deal to say when we were discussing privatisation. Every time lip service was paid to the aims of privatisation. Now here is another step forward to give the people that are going to be involved in it, a say. The promise that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs made in the debate on his Budget that has just been finalised, and in which privatisation enjoyed received a great deal of attention, is brought to practical implementation in this Bill. It is important to note that the new Labour Council that is being brought into existence by this Bill will give employees and their representative bodies a say so that their voices will be clearly heard on matters they are unhappy about or on which they want answers.

With this Bill we are moving closer to the system we find in the private sector. We are moving away from the system of the Government sector to that of the private sector. That is already sufficient reason to support this Bill. The creation of this Labour Council is the answer to a great many problems that arose in the past and to demands that were made.

The hon the Deputy Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that he would refer clause 21 just as it is to the Labour Council as soon as the Bill is passed. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to make the instruction a little wider. We made a certain proposal in the standing committee which we sent to the three Houses and which was contained in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Assembly for Wednesday, 17 February and I am quoting what we asked for:

I should like to request that the hon the Deputy Minister also refer certain debates that took place here as well as the papers that were tabled to the new Labour Council. That would include papers from the private sector in which certain opinions were aired, which contained certain objections and in which certain proposals were made. I hope that the hon the Minister will see his way clear to doing so.

I also want to express my sincere thanks to my standing committee members who conscientiously worked their way through this legislation.

It was not easy legislation. I want to thank each hon member, regardless of his party affiliation, for his preparedness to cooperate to create a better labour dispensation within the SATS.

Once again I want to say that in my opinion it is a great step forward to the advantage of the employees of the SATS. I think that the personnel of the SATS will be far more satisfied with the new system and the new Labour Council that is going to be established to settle disputes. However, for the sake of completeness I also want to say this: It is thought that legislation of this nature will prevent all strikes. That is not the case. No law can prevent a strike. Only good labour relations can prevent strikes. This Bill is a contribution to better labour relations.

The legislation will not solve all the problems. In future the hon the Minister is going to refer certain matters to the Labour Council, and I should now like to take the opportunity to invite the Labour Council, with the new chairman who will be appointed, to come back to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister so that next year we will be able to effect those amendments that they recommend.

This Bill, as it is at the moment, serves as a point of departure and one should not see it as an end in itself. It should be considered as a point of departure for better relations between employer and employee. That is where the interesting stage is reached of the minor difference between what the State is involved in—we can see it in particular in clause 21 in which strikes are forbidden—and what the private sector is involved in. Although, as regards labour legislation, we are moving into the world of the private sector, we cannot adopt that course completely.

Therefore, I am urgently requesting the Labour Council, all its members and its chairman, to make it their first task to examine this legislation and make proposals so that we can amend this legislation on their recommendations for the sake of their future, and from that point of view, for the sake of better functioning in order to avoid problems.

Finally, one must bear in mind that certain costs will be involved here. I am grateful that the SATS undertook to help ensure at the outset that this Labour Council, its functions and mechanisms got off the ground. I am supporting this Bill for the sake of the personnel of the SATS who are working very hard and making many sacrifices to get that organisation and also the economy of South Africa going. It is legislation that offers us an opportunity to solve any short-term problems in future. This is especially true if we note that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said that the possibility also existed that consideration would be given to whether specialised organisations could not in some way be dealt with under this legislation. This broadens the further possibilities of this Bill. It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Primrose has described this Bill as a watershed between the old era of labour relations in the SATS organisation and the new one. I understand it is the hon member’s birthday today, and perhaps we could regard today as being a watershed between his old, evil ways in the NP and the more enlightened viewpoint of the future. As a birthday present to him I must say that, although there are major gaps in this piece of legislation, we regard this Bill as a step forward. In spite of its shortcomings, and somewhat reluctantly, the PFP will not oppose it.

Generally it brings about a collective bargaining mechanism by the establishment of the Labour Council as well as dispute settlement mechanisms. This is definitely a step forward, but there are still major flaws.

The particular major flaw is of course the prohibition of strikes. As the hon member for Primrose has said, no legislation can stop strikes. He is quite correct. The right to withdraw one’s labour is a basic right which should only be disallowed in the most extreme circumstances. Any legislation which withdraws it automatically has major shortcomings.

In certain circumstances the Railways could of course be described as a key strategic industry but not to the point of prohibiting strikes. Many of the hon members have probably experienced railway strikes in many other countries. I have experienced them in both England and France, for example. They are part and parcel of normal labour relations and labour dispute settlement operations in many other countries.

Strikes should really be regarded as a failure of the process of collective bargaining. One has to add that Black South Africans, deprived of any meaningful political rights, tend to use the only real alternative they have. They use the power of their labour for political ends. This, of course, is sometimes a little unfair on the employing organisation which tends to look at disputes in terms of work opportunities and work conditions in that particular organisation. So the PFP disagrees totally with the prohibition on strikes because we regard the right to strike as absolutely basic.

Another major flaw is contained in clause 10 which deals with the composition of the Labour Council and the participating parties. Subsection (8) reads as follows:

So initial membership consists only of those unions which the SATS chooses to recognise. Even new membership is confined to unions which are—and again I quote—“formally and explicitly recognised by the SATS”. Once they have been formally and explicitly recognised by the SATS the Labour Council can accept the union as a member only by a three quarters majority vote. This is totally nonsensical. In this sort of situation one finds in practice that various unions are competing for members. In any industry one will find that there are frequently more than one union operating, and they are in competition. If one of the opposing unions is given the right to bar the membership of the other of any industrial council type organisation one will find that they will keep them out rather than allow them into the official negotiating processes. They are unlikely to vote in favour of competition.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister in this case what yardstick the SATS will use before a union is formally and explicitly recognised. I have always believed that it was the right of labour themselves to decide who should represent them and what union they should belong to. I must ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it has to do with the percentage of work force or if it is to be entirely arbitrary. If, for example, in any section of the SATS’s operations more than 50% of the labour employed wants to belong to a certain union, is the SATS definitely going to recognise them? Or are they going to look for a sweetheart union? Are only sweetheart unions going to be recognised and allowed?

In looking at this Bill in totality one can only hope that it will facilitate the ironing out of industrial disputes. There is really no room for any more of the sort of thing we saw last year. I refer to the debilitating strike that took place in the SATS’s organisation. We want to get away from the attitude of the SATS during that strike when it really appeared from the outside to adopt a “baas” attitude, an attitude of “kragdadigheid”. There is no room for that any more in labour relations. One has to have a more enlightened attitude.

One must agree with the hon member for Primrose. One hopes that he means what he says when he says he believes this is a step forward, but there is quite a long road ahead before one arrives at the final answer in terms of the industrial relations machinery of the SATS. However, overall we think it is a step forward, better than the old approach, and on that basis we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, before I make a few observations on what the hon member for Bryanston said, I want to take this opportunity to join him in his congratulation of the hon member for Primrose, the chairman of the standing committee, on his birthday. He confided to me how old he was today but I will not tell the House, because there is mixed company in the audience. It might spoil his chances.

On behalf of this side of the House, I should like to convey our sincere congratulations to the hon member for Primrose. I also want to take this opportunity to express a special word of thanks and congratulations to him for the manner in which he acts as chairman of the standing committee. I think the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, under the direction of the hon member for Primrose, is doing good work for this House and for the country and that we are making excellent progress with the building and achievement of consensus between the various population groups and their representatives in Parliament. Once again we thank him sincerely for that.

I prepared quite a speech to deliver here tonight, but things are not going to work out. Our friends the hon members of the Official Opposition again lay low in the standing committee and did not show their hand. [Interjections.] We accepted that they would oppose this proposed legislation. [Interjections.] I do not know what reason they are going to give their voters for having opposed it. [Interjections.]

Today labour relations—not only in South Africa, but let us confine ourselves to South Africa—are a very important element in the degree of order, peace and tranquillity that is experienced, and especially when seen against the background of the onslaught we have to contend with. Labour relations are like a see-saw and we must admit that the heaviest side was always weighted in favour of the employer. We are all aware of the importance of balance in labour relations. Even the hon members of the Official Opposition are aware of it, and I am thinking particularly of the hon member for Carletonville, for whom we have great respect because he has over the years proved himself to be a champion of the interests of the employee. We must see the whole question of employer and employee in South Africa in a balanced way. We must return to it to improve the balance as far as possible, although it will probably never be possible in practice to achieve an even balance. In this process we are moving away from a paternalistic attitude. I am afraid that the Official Opposition is not with us in this regard. At some time or other they must explain the reason for this to us.

We are moving away from the typical old paternalistic approach, because it is a concept that has gone out of fashion. It is a colonialistic concept, because paternalism today is no longer conducive to sound relations, especially not labour relations. For that reason the management of the SATS is applying their management policy in such a way as to move away from paternalism. However, they act in a consultative capacity in order to seek the best possible balance in our labour relations. Today, in South Africa, balance is being sought in the interests of the employee, of his welfare and well-being. His contentment and his interest in the enterprise, are also in the interests of the employer and of the enterprise itself. I think the Official Opposition should also reflect on this carefully. Management techniques are employed to achieve this, and today it is a challenge for us. For that reason the legislation before us today is not prescriptive but is suggesting structures whereby labour relations can be improved.

Therefore, the hon member for Carletonville must not take it amiss of me if I say in this House tonight that in spite of all his experience and knowledge of this matter he made no contribution in this regard on the standing committee. [Interjections.] He did not want to make a contribution. For some reason or other he was bound by his caucus.

Were you sitting there fast asleep?

No, I was not asleep. They accused me of that before, but it is much better to listen and to take in what is happening than to make a noise.

Ask your chairman what happened.

It will serve no purpose for the hon member to try to intimidate me, because he will not succeed. He made no contribution on that standing committee with the specific object of improving labour relations. [Interjections.]

It is not necessary to have a long debate on this legislation, but I think it is necessary to place on record the point I briefly want to make. Today there are instruments that are being deliberately employed to make labour relations fail. The instrument that perturbs hon members and me the most is intimidation. If we in South Africa can succeed in regulating our labour relations and our legislation in that regard in such a way that we are able to defuse the intimidatory elements, a wonderful future awaits us in this country.

A further instrument is the question of a crisis of confidence and the suspicion that is being sown against people, management and our leaders in this Chamber. It is like a deadly disease that will overpower and destroy us.

The CP carries the germ.

It is a privilege for me to support this Bill. The final point I want to make has bearing on the delegation that is dealt with in clause 2 of the Bill. I know that there were also certain problems with the concept “delegation”, because it applied to the SATS. Today delegation is a generally accepted management principle. A private organisation uses the principle of delegation to implement its management technique. One cannot apply unnecessary constraints on business enterprises, especially not the SATS, which is geographically a wide-spread enterprise. It is important that the General Manager has control over delegation and can limit it, and still accept responsibility. It has become apparent in this House, on the standing committee and from the auditor’s report on the accounts of the SATS, that the General Manager accepts responsibility for the problems and any mistakes which may possibly arise in the organisation. Therefore, he must exercise his powers of delegation in a responsible way and that is why I have no problem with that clause in the Bill.

The Bill also deals with collective bargaining, and it is important that we consider this, because it is synonymous with negotiation between groups of people, and not individuals. I believe the Official Opposition will also have problems with that. If they have not already said that they do not support it, they will probably say so later tonight. Surely it is said that when one sees a pig, one should throw a stone at it, because if it is not coming from the garden, it is on its way there. That will now become the problem of the CP opposition.

Bargaining presupposes equality. Surely one does not bargain with someone who is beneath one, because one can dictate to him. The concept of “collective bargaining”, that is dealt with in this Bill, is therefore of the utmost importance, and we must examine it thoroughly and understand its advantages.

It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill, which, as the hon member for Primrose said, is quite likely to make a pioneering contribution to the improvement of labour relations in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by saying that I appreciate the contributions made by hon members towards promoting the passage of this Second Reading.

I am also pleased that the hon member for Primrose, who opened the debate, is celebrating his birthday today, on the special occasion of our agreeing to this legislation.

And he did not give you any cake!

The hon member for Primrose is a little older than I am, and I am sure that he will enjoy many, many more years. I believe that if I, at my age, could come as far as I have come, I am sure that the hon member for Primrose still has many good years ahead of him, and we want to congratulate him today on this memorable occasion.

The hon member referred to what happened on the standing committee. I do not want to elaborate on that now, but I think the point the hon member made is very important. The standing committee has an important function in the parliamentary set-up. There the legislation can be thrashed out and any questions we may have can be put to the people who will be responsible for the implementation of the legislation. Therefore, it surprises me when questions are not asked on the standing committee and standpoints are not adopted, because the system of standing committees was created so that we as members of this institution could become better informed. If one is unable to form an opinion, one can at least be given advice by the experts. Therefore, for the sake of a good parliamentary system and of a good debate, I hope that hon members of the Official Opposition will make use of this opportunity regularly and not play their cards so close to their chests, but also participate in the debate in those standing committees.

I am merely giving hon members this good advice, Sir. If they want to follow another path, they have the right to do so, but I think it will be conducive to better debating here and to the more efficient functioning of legislation that is agreed to.

The hon member for Primrose mentioned that this legislation was a continuation of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs’ budget speech. I cannot agree with the hon member more. This legislation has a very long history. It was not that the SATS negotiation process between employer and employee did not work in the past. I think that under the circumstances it worked very well. It has a long and exceptional history, but it became outdated, and if there is one thing that one must try to achieve—the hon member for Carletonville will probably agree with me here—it is not just collective bargaining, but also that one should arrive at a certain point. One must not only be able to negotiate, one must be able to negotiate and arrive at a point of agreement.

This legislation is making provision for this. The political head of the department—the Minister or his Deputy Minister—is now standing aside to a degree, while an expert is being appointed as chairman—someone who will be impartial and who will have no connection with the SATS. He will play that role.

There will also be equal representation on that bargaining body, that Labour Council. In the Wiehahn Report mention is clearly made of the question of collective bargaining with the intention of bringing it into line with what is already happening in the private sector. I think it is a very important step, which, in the long term, will be to the advantage of both the SATS and its employees.

The hon member made the point that no legislation could prevent a strike. That is absolutely correct. I agree with the hon member 100%. The negotiation and bargaining process was created precisely in order to prevent strikes in South Africa. That is the modern way in which it must be done. It is quite right that it should be so. It is also in accordance with what the Labour Relations Act is trying to accomplish in the private sector. However, we now have a specific situation to deal with.

†The hon member for Bryanston stated that his party was against the prohibition of strikes. They were against clause 21 of the Bill, he said. Clause 21 does not, however, introduce anything new into this legislation. It has always been part and parcel of the current legislation. The SATS is also not the only body in respect of which that particular prohibition exists. The hon member went further and made the point that certain people in the country did not have political rights. Of course, Sir, I believe he is completely wrong in that regard. People do have political rights. There are, however, certain organisations that are exploiting the situation. They are also using the trade union movement to accomplish their own particular objectives—not for achieving good labour relations in South Africa.

*Therefore, this power must to a large extent be available to ensure that when people make use of intimidatory methods it is possible to prevent a service that is being rendered to the country from being crippled. As I said in my Second Reading speech—I am emphasising it again—we are prepared to have the proposed Labour Council examine the provisions of clause 21 once this body has come into existence.

The hon member for Primrose also raised the point that there were other matters that had to be referred to the Labour Council. I think clause 13 deals with the functions of the envisaged Labour Council. The provisions of that clause are extremely wide. Therefore, there is no reason why matters of the nature that the hon member mentioned, cannot be referred to the envisaged Labour Council. Unanimity exists with regard to this legislation. I also want to thank the hon member for De Aar very sincerely for what he said about the matters under discussion. I am thanking him for having appreciated that point.

There is one more little point to which I should like to react. It is a matter that was also raised by the hon member for Bryanston.

†The hon member for Bryanston wanted to know what yardstick the SATS would apply in its recognition of a union.

The SATS is at present in the process of drawing up a list of recognition requirements. These requirements will be broadly in line with the approach followed by the private sector. I hope this reply will satisfy the hon member. There is no doubt in my mind that, in time to come, the SATS and the Labour Council will recognise more trade unions in South Africa.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation again to hon members who have participated in this debate.

*I should like to conclude by saying that here we are indeed concerned with a milestone, as hon members have referred to it.

†I also want to thank the standing committee, management and their legal advisers because I know that they burnt many candles at both ends. I should also like to thank the trade unions which we continually consulted and which were prepared to give their blessing to this Bill. The standing committee spent a great deal of time on this legislation, and I have no doubt in my mind that South Africa can look forward to a period of better race relations and, through trade unions, to a better relationship between the worker and his employer. I believe that we will be able to obviate strikes to a considerable extent and that we will have industrial peace within the SATS.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill envisages making an arrangement with regard to the building up of own capital by co-operatives which have obligations towards the Land Bank in terms of the State-guaranteed credit scheme. Such a scheme exists when the State makes funds or guarantees available to the Land Bank so that the bank, in turn, can enable co-operatives to make additional production credit available to their members in times of great difficulty.

†The existing carry-over debt schemes in respect of production credit for farmers and co-operatives, especially in the SUMMER-RAINFALL region, were actually made possible by such a guarantee to the tune of R800 million which the State issued to the Land Bank under the exceptional drought conditions. Should a farmer, to whom production credit was granted in terms of the State-guaranteed credit scheme, be sequestrated and should the co-operative of which he is a member be unable to recover the outstanding production credit from him, the co-operative may claim the deficit from the Land Bank which, in turn, may recover the amount concerned from the State in terms of the said scheme. Experience has taught us that co-operatives which adopt a risky financial policy and whose reserves are less than 35% of their total assets may ultimately land in financial difficulties and then have to be liquidated.

*Should this happen to a co-operative with obligations under the State-guaranteed credit scheme, all its members’ carry-over production debt would immediately become payable. Consequently members who might otherwise have redeemed their production debts over a much longer period, may find themselves in financial difficulties and may possibly even have to be sequestrated. Such a situation would result in a drastic increase in the State’s risk in terms of the scheme. For this reason provision is made in the Bill for the fact that co-operatives which have obligations in terms of the State-guaranteed credit scheme, may be obliged, where necessary, to increase their reserves to a safer level in order to decrease the danger of their untimely liquidation. The basis for the calculation of the amount to be set aside to achieve this purpose will be determined after due consultation with the Cooperative Board of the South African Agricultural Union, which supports the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, at this late hour of the evening, when good bona fide farmers such as the hon the Minister and I should rather be in bed than conducting a debate, it gives me great pleasure to say that we support this Bill.

At a time when the word deregulation has become all the rage and is the ultimate answer to all problems, this Bill is doing the very opposite. Here it is has unfortunately—and I am saying unfortunately—become necessary to regulate once more. It is a pity that this Bill has become necessary, but we are satisfied that it is, in fact, vital and in the interests of the taxpayers of the country, the co-operatives and, lastly, in the interests of the members of the co-operatives.

It is a pity there are certain co-operatives that are experiencing financial problems. One does not want to elaborate on that in much detail except to say that the measure now before us represents an effort at salvaging that situation. It is therefore a pleasure for us to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we are grateful to the Official Opposition for their support of this amendment to the Act. It does at least seem to me as if, in the few moments of clarity that flash by from time to time, they also realise that the NP acts in the interests of our farmers and our farming co-operatives at all times. [Interjections.]

The amendment to this Co-operatives Act confirms the important place occupied by co-operatives in agriculture in South Africa. In this debate I do not want to fight, all over again, a battle which has long since been fought here but I do want to mention that it was the dire need of farmers that gave birth to co-operatives. Cooperatives came into existence to give farmers some bargaining power and to protect them, to a certain extent, against exploitation. These dire straits, which manifested themselves 40 or 50 years ago, made it possible for the co-operative movement to develop into an indispensable supplier of services and products to the benefit of the farmers in the country. The function of co-operatives is no longer merely to buy and sell; they no longer simply receive grain and dispatch it to the harbours; they no longer merely process the farmers’ products; they have now also become the most important source of financing in agriculture. The financing of farmers by the State has assumed such proportions that co-operatives have become an indispensable link between the State and the farmers.

Speaking of the scope of State assistance to agriculture, I think it is necessary to thank the hon the Minister of Agriculture and the Government for the comprehensive measures that were instituted to assist the agricultural sector in years of crisis and to keep farmers on their farms, to such an extent that our country is self-sufficient as far as most foodstuffs are concerned.

This amendment affects two very important issues. Firstly it must help to ensure that the State guarantees do not have to be put into operation unnecessarily. Assistance which is potentially of such magnitude must have a certain degree of protection. Secondly, it has to ensure that a co-operative’s own funds are bolstered. If the ratio of own funds to external funds is less than 1:2 a co-operative’s position is a shaky one. The ideal, of course, is a ratio of 1:1.

A co-operative’s own funds, which are virtually unassailable, are funds that are transferred to the general reserve. A general reserve cannot be distributed as long as the co-operative exists. Funds allocated to a general reserve by the directors cannot be rejected by the members. Share capital, members’ levies, deferred bonuses and bonus shares are not regarded as own funds. These funds are paid out to members at some time or other, for example in the event of death, when farming activities cease or when the board of directors decides to pay out deferred bonuses in cash.

To get money into the general reserve fund, means that profits must be declared. Approximately half of the profit then goes into taxes, which means that there is a cash outflow from the co-operatives. This consequently affects the cash-flow position of the co-operatives. So only half of the profit can be transferred to the general reserve fund. In this way only half of the profits are employed to bolster our own funds in the co-operatives.

I therefore want to advocate that the tax holiday being granted to co-operatives, for very good reasons, should be extended by a few years. The powers granted to the Minister by this amendment enable him to ensure that the overall profits can be transferred to the general reserve fund. This concession benefits not only the co-operative movement, but also the farmers, the taxpayers and the consumers of foodstuffs. Nor would this concession adversely affect the private sector. A vital agricultural industry boosts the private sector and generally breathes more life into the economy as a whole. Everyone has had ample experience of this during the recent droughts.

With this amendment to the Act, a tax holiday can therefore not be abused in the sense of allowing a flow of cash to the farmers, to the detriment of the co-operatives. The full benefit will therefore have to go to the co-operatives’ own funds. I think that a plea for a tax holiday can be met, but there will always be co-operatives which, even after a few years’ concessions, will still not have their own funds at a desired level. The hon the Minister said that the basis for the calculation of the amount that has to be set aside would be cleared with the Co-operative Board. For that I, as a member of a co-operative, want to express my thanks. I also want to make the following request: When the tax holiday eventually comes to an end, could the hon the Minister seriously consider also regarding deferred bonuses as an element in bolstering the financial position of the co-operatives. The majority of co-operatives today must obtain permission from the Land Bank and from the Minister if they wish to pay out bonuses. In this way the hon the Minister could therefore ensure that profits, by way of deferred bonuses, remain within the cooperative for at least the period during which a farmer remains a member, in other words until he stops farming or until the advent of his death. As new farmers become members, they supplement the funds lost when other farmers leave the co-operative.

I gladly support this legislation, because in the overall context of State assistance, Land Bank financing and the co-operative movement it will be to the benefit of the farmers.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ladybrand has made a plea for the extension of the tax holiday which co-operatives have enjoyed for some time. I believe this is the subject of another debate because it does not really have anything to do with this Bill. He believes that this will strengthen both the cooperative movement and the position of farmers and perhaps it might be considered. At this stage I believe, however, that it should be well debated before such a decision is finally made.

Let me come to the Bill under consideration. The State makes certain funds available or gives a guarantee to the Land Bank so that the Land Bank, in turn, can lend money to co-operatives so as to enable them to lend money to their members who are in financial difficulty due to drought, floods or any other abnormal circumstance. The hon the Minister mentioned the R800 million which the State has made available to farmers in the summer rainfall area because of the drought.

If a farmer is finally sequestrated the co-operative is entitled to recover that money from the Land Bank. However, there has been a tendency among certain of the co-operatives—not very many of them—to make use of the loan capital supplied. In that way they get themselves into financial difficulties so that the co-operative itself has to be liquidated. This has a very unfortunate result as far as its members who have borrowed money from the co-operative are concerned because once the co-operative has been liquidated their loans become repayable immediately. Very few members are able to redeem these loans and therefore they have to be sequestrated. The State-guaranteed amounts would immediately be claimed by the liquidator of the co-operative but the farmer who might otherwise have been able to pull himself out of this bad situation and get himself out of trouble over a certain period, actually loses everything in those circumstances. This is most unfortunate.

This measure is designed to ensure that when co-operatives which have obligations in terms of a State-guaranteed credit scheme—like the one the hon the Minister spoke about—make profits, they should be made to increase their reserves to a safer level instead of distributing their total profits among their members.

This seems to us to be entirely reasonable. There is a well established business principle involved. If a bank manager, for example, lends a client money, he is entitled to lay down certain conditions as to how the client should operate his business. It is a well-established principle.

In this instance, the condition laid down is that the co-operative strengthens its position by putting a determined percentage into reserves. We believe this to be just and reasonable and will support the measure.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to join the other hon members, including hon members of the other parties on the opposite side of the House, in supporting this measure on behalf of this side of the House.

It is a pity that we have to deal so hastily with this amending Bill, because it is a very important measure as far as our farmers and also our co-operative movement are concerned. So for the sake of our farmers and our co-operatives we must discuss this Bill very thoroughly.

The drought conditions have been such a financial blow to our farmers that additional aid schemes have had to be introduced by the State to keep farmers on their farms. We thank the Government for this, in spite of the fact that hon members of the opposition allege that too little has been done.

The poor climatic conditions have, of necessity, resulted in the financial position of co-operatives being threatened. A financially strong co-operative is the farmer’s guarantee of survival in times of difficulty. In difficult times the demands made on co-operatives are higher. Therefore it is all the more important for co-operatives to be financially sound.

It is also of importance to the State for cooperatives to be financially sound, particularly when they participate in State-guaranteed schemes. Although the money is loaned to farmers by the Land Bank, and is guaranteed by the State, the co-operative is the body responsible for its administration.

In the event of poor administration by a cooperative, the State has no remedial powers and can lose large sums of money. That, of course, is unacceptable. This measure is consequently essential in order to take action, where necessary, to lead co-operatives towards implementing a better financial policy.

In the case of guarantees being granted by a body, as the hon member for Barberton rightly said, it is quite simply an acceptable business principle that such a body should impose certain conditions to safeguard its guarantee. It is also important to point out that this is not basically a question of the guarantee in regard to the member; that is an erroneous impression prevalent amongst our farmers. The State will keep to its part of the bargain. It is, after all, specifically the State that accepts responsibility for the farmers.

Here it is basically a question of the liquidity of the co-operative. It is therefore unfair, if the State accepts responsibility for all farmers’ debts, to have the scheme miscarry as a result of the incorrect financial policy of the co-operative.

It must also be remembered that if a co-operative were to participate in a State-guaranteed scheme in regard to its members, and was about to be declared insolvent, this would not only endanger the State’s guarantee, but also the members of that co-operative, because the object of the guarantee scheme specifically aims at enabling farmers, over a period of years, to repay their accumulated carry-over debts. If the co-operative were to be liquidated, the liability of all members would immediately become relevant. Therefore the members are also in danger of being liquidated. One therefore sees that the measure is intended, firstly, to protect the State’s guarantee and, secondly, to protect members against their own co-operative, if necessary.

The argument is advanced that this measure encroaches upon the autonomy of co-operatives. We must bear in mind, however, that the measure is only applicable to co-operatives participating in the State-guaranteed scheme and that this participation is voluntary. Most important of all, however, is the fact that the matter has been cleared with the Co-operative Board of the SA Agricultural Union. That board decided that such a provision would be supported if the basis for the implementation of the clause were to be determined in close consultation with the Cooperative Board. In other words, the board will have a say when the Minister wishes to implement the provision.

A second important consideration dealt with by the Co-operative Board is that of the co-operatives’ liability to taxation—which has already been mentioned—something which, in their unique circumstances, makes the building up of capital more difficult. The hon member for Ladybrand, in his argument, dealt with this in full, and I shall leave it at that. We know that this matter will be investigated further by the Jacobs Committee, but we on this side of the House want to make a very urgent plea to the relevant hon Minister, and also to the hon the Minister of Finance, to give this aspect very serious consideration.

I gladly support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I am under threat by the Whips, so I shall be very brief.

While the text of the Bill is brief, I think one realises that its implications are far-reaching. I must say I consider it regrettable that a Bill of this nature has to be introduced because it does actually transgress the independence of a cooperative. On the other hand I accept that there is a need for legislation to protect State guarantees on Land Bank loans to co-operatives in order not to prejudice the credibility of the Land Bank in the raising of funds in future.

It is obvious that the Minister must have the right to lay down a basis on which surpluses of certain co-operatives will be distributed in order to safeguard these interests.

This legislation will not apply—thankfully—to the majority of co-operatives, but only to those in financial difficulties of which, one understands, there are relatively few. I want to welcome the undertaking that the hon the Minister has given that he will consult with the Co-operative Council of the SA Agricultural Union on the basis on which the powers given him by this legislation will be applied.

It is inevitable, too, that the co-operative movement must suffer if its members are in financial difficulties. I must make it quite clear, however, that there are certain co-operatives which are guilty of irresponsible actions and have tended to concentrate more on their trading ventures than on serving the interests of their own members.

I accept finally that the co-operative movement has an important role to play in the restructuring of agriculture because it will have to become increasingly involved in the processing and distribution of agricultural products. This in turn means that the co-operative movement as such will have to exercise greater internal discipline and control. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, from the speeches made here it is very clear to me that this matter was dealt with very exhaustively by the standing committee. I want to thank hon members for the seriousness with which they have dealt with this very important measure today.

The hon member for Barberton quite rightly remarked that we are living in an era in which we want to deregulate. That is true, but the circumstances he mentioned have changed to such an extent that we unfortunately find ourselves in a situation in which we have to examine the vulnerability of co-operatives under the State-guaranteed credit scheme. Hon members will remember—I think it was three or four years ago—when we introduced the State-guaranteed credit scheme. Then the situation was such that in granting agricultural production financing to producers co-operatives no longer had the necessary security by way of a lien. A lien only has security value if there is a crop, but if there are successive crop failures, that lien has no value for cooperatives, and that is why the State-guaranteed credit scheme was introduced.

Since the introduction of the State-guaranteed credit scheme we have examined—and I have also asked the registrar to examine—how the vulnerability of individual co-operatives has increased in recent times. The truth is unfortunately that the vulnerability has increased as a result of climatic conditions and poor yields. The authorities were therefore compelled to grant further protection, in the face of this vulnerability, by way of the incorporation of this measure in the Bill. I immediately want to add that this measure only applies to co-operatives to which the State-guaranteed credit scheme applies. It does not apply to other co-operatives. If I remember correctly, it applies to approximately 32 co-operatives, chiefly in the summer-grain areas.

If conditions in agriculture were to improve, and if the position of co-operatives were to improve to such an extent that they no longer needed the State-guaranteed credit scheme, the provision would not be applicable.

The hon member for Ladybrand made a very valuable contribution here. He spoke specifically about the question of the right of a co-operative to reserve funds in the best interests of its members. It is now normal practice, if a co-operative effects a saving, to pay it by way of deferred bonuses and levies to its members. Normally it then has an agreement with its members to borrow that money from them at a much lower interest rate. It therefore has cheap operating capital at its disposal. If the co-operatives were to place that profit in reserve, it would mean that it became taxable and would affect its cash flow and its cash-based operating capital. One can understand that co-operatives would be more inclined to pay out the money to its members, especially in the case of these particular co-operatives in the summer-grain areas where the farmers are not taxed all that heavily. During the past seven years the majority of them have only shown losses. Then, of course, there is no actual tax payable.

If a co-operative is sound, this is a very good policy, because it means that the reserved funds rotate. There is consequently a continuous cash flow as one group of farmers are paid out and the others, in turn, pay money in. The co-operative then has an internally rotating cash flow. As soon as that co-operative runs into difficulties, however, that cash which it has at its disposal becomes a claim against it. The co-operative then owes that money to its members, and then its troubles start. It is therefore a very dangerous situation if the co-operatives own/external capital ratio is not a sound one.

The basis on which this legislation will have to be implemented will require the assistance of the Co-operative Board of the South African Agricultural Union, because the capital situation and the capital-generating situation differ from cooperative to co-operative. The Co-operative Board of the South African Agricultural Union will consult with the various groups of co-operatives to establish such a specific basis.

The hon member for Bryanston also said that it was only good, sound business policy to place profits in reserve so as to bolster the capital position. It is nothing if not sound policy. Unfortunately some of our agricultural co-operatives are even making profits under these difficult circumstances. They do not necessarily make the profits out of their members, but many of our agricultural co-operatives process primary agricultural products from which they make a profit. Consequently they not only make profits out of the farmers, but also out of the secondary commercial sector.

There is a tendency amongst many of our members—I do not blame them for it—to say that their agricultural co-operative is making a profit and that they want to share in that profit. At times members exert pressure on the agricultural cooperatives to pay out that profit to the members instead of holding it in reserve. This provision will now make it possible for co-operatives to tell its members that if the paying out of its profits to members would thereby weaken its capital position, it is bound by legislation not to pay out all its profits to such an extent that its own capital position in relation to external capital is weakened. It is therefore a kind of guarantee or safety valve incorporated in the legislation. In itself this is a security measure, because the greater the number of guarantees and securities which are incorporated, the greater the bargaining possibilities of the Land Bank which has to find these funds in the capital market. It is logical, after all, that one pays higher interest for capital that one negotiates in the capital market, and there are greater risks involved. So it also has that benefit.

The hon member for Humansdorp referred to the problem of taxation. That is one of the major problems we are experiencing at present in the co-operative movement. The poor years we have had have had a detrimental effect on its various schemes. Every year the co-operative movement has to finance production credit to the value of millions of rand and is therefore involved in cash expenditure. The liquidity and profit position of agricultural co-operatives has therefore worsened. The ability of agricultural co-operatives to generate own capital has therefore deteriorated in recent times.

At present the Jacobs Committee, for example, is investigating the taxation liability of agricultural co-operatives. The incorporation of this restrictive measures simultaneously makes it possible for agricultural co-operatives to reserve capital, with a certain percentage of the reserves, if it is at all possible, being tax-free. That proposal by the Co-operatives Board is at present, being considered by the Jacobs Committee, and we are awaiting their recommendations in this regard.

The hon member for Mooi River quite rightly stated that the measure encroached upon the autonomy of co-operatives. I agree with the hon member. I sincerely regret this. Our co-operatives are very touchy and sensitive about this.

There are co-operative organisations in South Africa with a turnover of R1,5 billion. They are large undertakings with good financial managers and sound financial policies. Unfortunately, as a result of circumstances beyond their control, they have now been included in this scheme, and one is therefore compelled to encroach upon the autonomy of these well-organised business undertakings. For that reason we are very careful to discuss and clarify, with the Co-operative Board of the South African Agricultural Union, the basis on which we shall be implementing this. The registrar and I will therefore not simply sit in an office and decide upon the form in which funds should be reserved. The matter must be properly clarified in order to acknowledge the autonomy of co-operatives which know how to manage their affairs.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to thank hon members once more for their support of this measure. I am sure that this legislation will, to a large extent, contribute towards including agricultural co-operatives in the restructuring programme in agriculture, because as far as I can see these relevant schemes—the five-year and ten-year transfer schemes—have become part of the system of financing in agriculture for the next few years, and that is why this legislation is extremely important.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (1) personnel mismanagement;
2. (2) management deficiencies; and
3. (3) promotion irregularities,

Mr Chairman, at the outset I wish to make it very clear that my statements are based on facts and allegations which show deficiencies in the hierarchy of the administration of education in the House of Delegates. My concern is for the welfare of Indian education in particular and education at large. I do not propose to indulge in personal attacks, but rather in revealing defects and weaknesses in the educational system which will be detrimental to the development of our people—an education that we so jealously fostered with much sacrifice.

There is gross mismanagement in the personnel department because a new kind of bureaucracy has taken over education since 1984. Senior officials have been forced to resign and high-ranking inspectors have left the profession. The case of Mr R L Charles’ resignation was given our due attention in the last session. Why did this chief inspector retire prematurely? That is a big question. Recently a Mr Singh, an inspector of education, resigned out of disgust and frustration with the management. The department lost a very worthy educationist. He was in his fifties and he sacrificed a R100 000 benefit. It must have taken some doing to make him opt to forfeit such an amount. Did he resign because he was rated unpromotable by the present management? I am informed that it is common knowledge that in 1987-88 about seven inspectors with excellent records, who up to then were rated promotable, were suddenly rated unpromotable.

How is it possible for hand-picked men and women to be rated unpromotable? Who was responsible for the evaluation of the professional staff in the service of education and who assessed them as unpromotable? What were the reasons for this? It is ironic that the present management, which was once rated unpromotable, should now be evaluating others and labelling them as unpromotable.

It is alleged that those members of the present management are not fit to manage the affairs of Indian education. One can check the records. That will show the truth. Does this anomaly not warrant a commission of inquiry? I do not wish to name the officials at this stage.

It is generally said that files went missing when a certain education leader was being assessed. The question that arises is: Are files tampered with for the benefit of those who are in the good books of certain educational authorities and the management? Only an impartial inquiry will determine the truth.

A principal subject advisor has received letters of censure and reprimand. The Director-General, Administration: House of Delegates is also alleged to have sent a letter of censure to this high-ranking official. If this is the case, what were the circumstances and by whose authority was this done? It would appear that the Executive Director was not competent to deal with such situations. Will the hon the Minister of Education and Culture tell this House whether this is so?

A highly respected principal is alleged to have been reprimanded for insubordination by an acting educational leader. The case, it is believed, centres around the principal’s reputed performance in regard to the promotion and retardation of pupils. Three junior primary pupils were retarded. The principal was ordered to promote one of the pupils. The fate of the other two was disregarded. The principal justified the professional aspect of his action. This was overruled. Did the education leader assert his authority and undermine the professional assessment of this respected principal? Does this not create a crisis situation? I would ask that this matter be investigated by an independent commission of inquiry in order to clean up the mess. One needs to ask how many educationalists of varying ranks have been censured or reprimanded under the procedures that have been adopted.

In 1987 professional circles were buzzing with the story that a senior subject advisor had been paid half his salary, without even having been informed, because he was unavoidably detained overseas due to his wife’s illness whilst on holiday. It would be interesting to know who authorised the payment of half his salary; whether the procedures adopted were legal and justified, and whether others in this service suffered similar fates. A commission of inquiry will throw more light on this action. Some of the allegations give sufficient reason to conclude that personal mismanagement is rife and that those responsible are not fit to manage the affairs of Indian education. There are mismanagement deficiencies.

I should like to mention one of the objectives for educational management recommended by the main committee of the HSRC in 1981. I quote from page 194 of the De Lange Report as follows:

There is a need for an organised structure and for co-ordination between the community, the private sector and the Department of Education. However, what is prevalent in Indian Education?

The department is at loggerheads with teacher organisations. Obviously, there is no cohesion. Somebody does not like the teacher organisations.

Community input is vital to ensure that the quality of education is maintained and improved. School education committees are called “rubberstamps” and “toothless bodies” because of their limitations. In this respect I want to quote an article written by Mr Bobby Harrypersadh in The Post in November 1987. This is a report on an education committee meeting, and I quote:

It continues, and I quote:

I emphasize the word “all”. I want to refer back to the De Lange report and its preconditions for an effective system of education management. I quote:

Mr Chairman, there is no evidence of real participation with principal bodies to discuss manpower needs and the adjustment of curricula to meet the needs of technical education. This is certainly a management deficiency. Just to quote an example, at Clairwood High School, which caters mostly for academic education, the emphasis is on academic achievements rather than technical skills. On the other hand we have a manpower shortage of technical skills in this country.

I want to quote briefly what the Deputy Postmaster-general: Telecommunications, Mr W J Taylor, has to say. I quote:

The M L Sultan Technikon is in a shambles. Mismanagement, corruption and fraud is evident. Why has the rotten state of affairs there not been cleared up? I have more information on this technikon. I shall deal with it at a later date.

Concerning curricula, I want to know to what extent curricula and examinations are restricted to meet the demands of the community and to what extend the curricula leads to wastage of human potential. The emphasis appears to be academic rather than technical. Youths are walking the streets, rejected by society and employers. They can find no suitable jobs. Employers cannot accommodate them because of their limited qualifications.

The problem lies with examinations. Manipulation of results and the lowering of standards to obtain lower grade passes enable pupils to get Senior Certificates. This is unprecedented. It only happens in Indian schools. [Interjections.] The question of the high pass rates of matriculants in Indian schools is a misnomer.

I want to quote from the Herald of 7 February 1988, from an article written by Prof S R Maharaj from Durban. His opening paragraph states, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr Chairman, I am not taking questions. My time is limited.

I begin again. I quote:

He goes on to say that the following is fiction, and I quote:

That speaks for itself. It is a pity that I do not have enough time to elaborate on the results. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Merebank referred to some communication by the Director-General during the early part of his speech. Am I correct?

Yes, Sir.

Order! To which director-general did he refer?

It was the Director-General of Administration: House of Delegates, Mr Chairman. I was informed of it.

Order! The hon member was informed?

Yes, Sir.

Order! I want to refer the hon member for Merebank to the ruling by Mr Speaker on 1 March this year. He said that he had discussed the matter with me and that he had advised me of his ruling in that respect. The name of civil servants will not be mentioned in that sense across the floor of any House, as those civil servants are not present to defend themselves. Hon members who endeavour to do so will be stopped immediately by the Chair. In this case the hon member referred to the Director-General without mentioning his name. The Director-General of this House is present here but he does not have the opportunity to defend himself. I request the hon member to adhere to this ruling.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Merebank made a serious indictment by mentioning …

Order! Is it a point of order or a question?

It is question, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I am not taking any questions.

It is a shame!

Order! The hon the Minister may not say that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to ask with respect whether you reiterated Mr Speaker’s ruling that the names of civil servants should not be mentioned in this House?

Order! I think the hon member understood me clearly.

Then, Sir, I wish to state that the hon member for Merebank mentioned—I do this with constraint—the name of Mr A K Singh earlier on in his speech. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Merebank mention the name?

No, Mr Chairman. The hon member is dreaming. Perhaps his conscience is worrying him. [Interjections.] I would like to continue and I now come to the area of management deficiencies. In this respect I want to refer to court cases specifically. How many principals or staff members have been involved in court actions since 1984? What has been the financial cost of these actions? How many times has the department been successful? How much professional time has been squandered by educational leaders and teachers in these investigations? Educational leaders have suddenly assumed the role of advocates but they are ill-equipped to carry out investigations. So far they have lost almost every court case in the country and it has cost them thousands of rands. This matter will be pursued later.

I now want to come to the question of promotion irregularities. Only last night I heard that certain hon members were discussing the appointments of senior personnel in the Department of Education. [Interjections.] It is alleged that certain hon Ministers appointed their favourites to the high posts. This is what I heard last night. [Interjections.]

This does not come as a surprise to me; there is no smoke without a fire.

Hon gentlemen seated in this House know the truth very well. If they are sincere they will ask for a commission of inquiry to go into this matter and to get us a clean sheet.

We have nothing to hide.

The hon member has nothing to hide, certainly.

The teaching profession is buzzing with talk that teachers who supported the NPP were promoted or promised promotion. I was present at the Tongaat election and I noticed no fewer than half a dozen teachers—I have mentioned this before, some of them are my acquaintances—doing everything in their power to get voters, to take their names and to escort them to the polling booths. I was even told that a senior official worked untiringly for a whole month in Tongaat to support the party.

Now, I do not see anything wrong with teachers voting, but I certainly say it is very, very irregular for a senior official in the Administration for Education who is supposed to be neutral. The code of conduct is very clear in this respect that people should adhere very strictly to the code of conduct and not take part in politics.

I would go further and say that there is no room for any more teachers to go and participate in politics. Their community is not too impoverished of people to take their positions. I can also tell you this, Mr Chairman, that teachers have been used in elections because they control education and children have an affinity for their teachers. The teacher has a better influence. But what does that teacher do? He manipulates them for political gain. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, will the hon members on that side give the hon member an opportunity. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to remind the hon member for Camperdown that it is the duty of the Chairman to decide on that. [Interjections.] The hon member may continue.

I want to quote from a local newspaper, the Herald of 8 November 1987. The headline is, “Tongaat teachers are being bullied to the ballots”:

[Interjections.] I have enough evidence in my possession. If anyone wants to appoint a commission I am willing to let them have a list of names of teachers, their years of service and qualifications, who have been promoted on political grounds. There are various other types and they can have it with pleasure. There are certain other teachers who under the pretext of buying library books took the day off on the day of the election.

They even had their vehicles at their disposal. Why should a teacher from Chatsworth go up to Tongaat and spend a whole day using his car to support the party? Does he love politics so much? [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon members on this side of the House are now interjecting too much. Will they give the hon member who has moved the motion an opportunity to proceed. Hon members will have an opportunity to reply to him.

It is alleged that the announcement of promotions was held back till after the Tongaat elections, and that five changes were made to the original list in respect of those who worked for the NPP in Tongaat.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Order! The hon member has stated clearly that he is not prepared to take questions.

Mr Chairman, it is a very simple question.

Order! He is not prepared to take questions. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, with regard to promotions why has the post of Chief Executive Director not yet been filled?

You tell us.

I want to know on whose authority. I am not the authority. I am asking the question. I say this is not good management. Is there no one suitably qualified to fill this post?

What manoeuvre lies behind that?

We do not know. Perhaps it is a clever technique to get some favoured person so that manipulations will be easy, as is the case now.

If a special commission of inquiry is instituted, it will find deficiencies in management, promotion irregularities and personnel mismanagement, all of which exist in the department of Indian Education.

If anyone claims clean administration, the only proof will be the finding of an independent inquiry. That inquiry will reveal whether it is clean or not. Unless this is done the morale among the educationists and teaching staff will deteriorate, and it is already at a very low ebb. Because of this, teachers are displaying a considerable degree of lethargy and indifference in their attitudes to work. This is evidenced by the comments in reaction to questions put. Teachers just shake their heads because all is not well in their education department as a result of this favouritism and corruption. It is a sad state of affairs and a dangerous situation for Indian education.

I want to quote briefly what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had to say regarding promotion:

A commission of inquiry will definitely reveal numerous defects and weaknesses because, although good work is being done in certain fields, these little evils will spoil a lot of things for our education in this country. In his conscience every hon member here in this House knows the truth. As the Opposition here in this House it is our duty to reveal these weaknesses and deficiencies for the improvement of Indian education.

Mr Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that when the hon member for Merebank addressed this House he used the word “manipulation” when referring to the Chief Director of Education. The inference that can be drawn there is that it is an insinuation against this House and I would like you to have a look at the Hansard. If you feel, Sir, that it is an insinuation, the hon member should withdraw that statement.

This is another act by the Official Opposition. I would refer to the entire motion before this House as a comic strip because from the very inception—if hon members have read the various motions moved by members of the Opposition—it has been a question of whether to institute a commission of inquiry. This is another escape route brought in by the hon member for Merebank in order to have the ruling party submit itself to a commission of inquiry.

This particular motion is not directed at the hon the Minister of Education and Culture; it is directed at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Let us be honest about this. [Interjections.] The Official Opposition has explored all kinds of avenues in order to get the hon the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry. Each time the motion was effortlessly defeated and now they are coming through the back door in order to make certain very flimsy and valueless allegations against the Department of Education and Culture.

First of all he referred to three very important items. He referred to personal mismanagement. I do not know whether he knows the meaning of the word “management”, because he talks about mismanagement. Secondly he talks about management deficiencies, and thirdly he refers to promotional irregularities.

They are all English words.

Yes, it is English. I would be able to get the Afrikaans translation if the hon member requires it.

That very same hon member for Merebank, when he entered the debate last year, never referred to any mismanagement or irregularities, although he had the opportunity to do so. Therefore the irregularities and mismanagement have all happened within a few months—between the last adjournment and the present moment. One may regard what the hon member for Merebank has said as absolute nonsense.

He refers to Ronnie Charles. I think Ronnie Charles was the chief inspector of schools. If he consults the records he will see that the SAIC had Mr Ronnie Charles appointed as an acting deputy director of education. Therefore, as far as Mr Ronnie Charles is concerned, there was no prejudice whatsoever. He was appointed acting deputy director of education, and this was done by the executive committee of the SAIC. I do not know why he did not level any accusation at that particular SAIC. I imagine that he has no grounds whatsoever to do so.

Again, therefore, it is a matter of competency. The people that promote various people within the department itself are people with expertise; it is not the hon the Minister of Education nor any politician who does that. People with expertise promote people on merit, and if the hon member for Merebank does not know that—unfortunately he has been a teacher and a principal—he wasted the department’s very valuable time. [Interjections.]

Some other questions emanated from the hon member’s motion. First of all—unfortunately he did not take any questions—the point is that he wanted a judicial commission of inquiry. Now, a judicial commission of inquiry is intended to inquire into malpractice within a department. Only where there is malpractice and it is proven, is a judicial commission of inquiry instituted. The type of allegation made by the hon member for Merebank is not even worth getting an ordinary individual to sit and listen to, since he will not want to hear that type of nonsense. A judicial commission of inquiry is intended for …

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

Mr Chairman, I do not think it is a sensible question, and I shall not take it. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member withdraw the words “I do not think it is a sensible question”.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member will withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words, but I shall not take a question.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon member is trying to tell the Chair what to do. He is suggesting that the Chair do exactly what he tells it to do.

Order! The Chair will decide on that.

Mr Chairman, I want to draw the attention of this House to the fact that when a judicial commission is proposed, there naturally should be sufficient grounds for the allegations of malpractice. Such malpractice must be proven against the department in respect of issues such as personnel mismanagement, management deficiencies and promotion irregularities as well as the various other issues raised by the hon member for Merebank. Unfortunately, the hon member has only made a statement and as such there are no serious allegations which can be investigated by such a commission. One should know what the meaning of judicial commission of inquiry is before one attempts to bring this matter before the House in the form of a motion.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The motion reads: A special commission of inquiry, whereas the hon member Mr Thaver is referring to a judicial commission of inquiry. He is confused.

Mr Chairman, I wish to repeat that everything stated by the hon member for Merebank was unwarranted. This motion was merely put on the Order Paper in order to get some credibility for an insolvent political party. Normally, when a business or a political party becomes insolvent, it tries to find some sort of publicity or advertisement and this is exactly what Solidarity is trying to do. They now wish to tell the community, through the media, that they are very busy asking for commissions of inquiry. Unfortunately all those commissions of inquiry that have been asked for up to now by way of Notices of Motion in this House, have been defeated.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Merebank and I was disturbed by what I heard. I notice that a cloud of despair is hanging over this House, and unless corruption at the highest level is stamped out, it will eventually affect the child. We will then destroy our education. Our ancestors left us the greatest gift, namely education.

They told us that education would be our salvation. We did not …

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

Regrettably, Sir, my time is limited. [Interjections.] We did not forget those words. For that reason the South African Indian community built on that heritage over the years, and one can say that they did so under difficult circumstances. I venture to say that the community has taken the lead as far as the building of schools by the community itself is concerned.

†Mr Chairman, from this philosophy of our ancestors emanated a challenge to our fathers and grandfathers to do their utmost to educate us. Great sacrifices were made by the Indian South African community in order to achieve its goal of sound education. This striving by our community culminated in the high standard of education of our people, of which we were proud up to a few years ago.

Sadly, after listening to the hon member for Merebank. I truly believe that the high standard of education among our South African Indian community is waning rapidly, and no one can convince me otherwise. My primary concern is for the gift which our great-great grandfathers gave us, namely the philosophy that our salvation lies in education. Therefore we must propagate this philosophy with the sincerity, the power and the personnel available in our community so that we may puff out our chests, raise our heads high and be proud of our educational standards.

I would like to believe the hon member for Merebank. He is a former teacher and an education spokesman for this side of the House. [Interjections.] I do not believe he fabricated any of those facts. His case was put forward so convincingly, contrary to the hon member Mr Thaver’s assertions. He was very proud to say that every motion that had come before this House had been defeated and that this motion could be defeated as well.

I should like to relate a story from the Mahabharudam to the hon members of the majority party. Driyo-Therin had 100 brothers on his side—they were known as the Kurukulas—and the Paandervars had five brothers. In his gloating pride, Driyo-Therin always boasted that he and his brothers outnumbered the Paandervars 20 to 1 and that they could finish them off at any time. He did his utmost to destroy those five brothers. Unbeknown to Driyo-Therin, however, there was a mole in his camp by the name of Jugoonee. [Interjections.] The Mahabharudam is ancient history. It is not a legend and it is not mythology, but in actual fact it is ancient history which took place some 5 000 years ago in India. It is on record. [Interjections.]

Ultimately … [Interjections.] That hon member talks like an idiot, Sir. I am quoting ancient history. He is challenging historians in his ignorance.

Is it hearsay?

It is factual. It is history. Any man who challenges that …

Did you get it from an informant?

I did not get it from an informant.

The result was that the hundred brothers were vanquished and destroyed. Nobody remained except those five brothers who were pious and honest men. The members of this side of the House are like those five brothers, those five Paandervars. I give a stern warning to the ruling party not to gloat about their numbers, because it consists of useless people who should not be in Parliament.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I wish to object to the last statement made by the hon member when he referred to the members of the ruling party as being useless hon members. Also, he referred to a member on this side of the House as an idiot.

Order! Will the hon member for Camperdown withdraw the word “idiot” and the remark to the effect that the other side has useless members.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, I continue where the hon member for Camperdown left off. He quoted the Mahabharata here this afternoon. In the same vein, it is absolutely imperative that every hon member of this House evaluates the subject matter under discussion. I say this in all sincerity. If one talks about sacredness within the Indian community, we must take into account, as the hon member from Camperdown mentioned, the sacrifices of our forebears with regard to the survival of education. If one takes into account their honest sacrifices, responsibility demands and dictates that every responsible representative of the Indian community handles the sacred issue of education with all the respect it requires.

The hon member for Camperdown made a statement about members of the majority party of this House. Knowing my colleagues to be honourable, at no stage have they taken advantage of the numerical aspect …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

The hon member is my friend, so I will take a question, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he followed the speech of the hon member Mr Thaver when he stated that several motions asking for a judicial commission came before this House but they were defeated by the majority party because of their numbers. Does he agree that that consists of gloating about numbers?

Mr Chairman, I stated in this House, in a debate on another motion submitted by an hon member from the other side, that these motions, to me, are an exercise in absolute futility. For record purposes I want to repeat this. If we have to calculate the number of man hours and what it costs Parliament in terms of taxpayers’ money, what kind of politics is that? If it is politics, then the right brand of politics must be debated, in accordance with the needs, desires and aspirations of people. That is important. I do understand that it is politics.

I take into account the statement the hon member for Merebank made about welfare. He made no personal attacks. Of course he attacked the new bureaucracy after 1984.

Then he speaks about a crisis situation—so much so that we are unable to clear the allegations.

When one looks at the motion before the House it is phrased very carefully. Anybody who reads it will have a clear impression of the implied seriousness but having heard the hon member’s contribution here today I am somewhat disappointed. If one has the courage to submit to the House a motion of this nature then one must also have the courage to submit all the detailed information that one has to the House.

I tried to mention names but the hon the Chairman ruled it out of order.

I am not asking that names be mentioned but there must at least be an intimation of the seriousness of the allegations made in this regard.

Mr Speaker ruled that we must not use names of persons.

I will repeat that statement outside.

Uplang!

Order! The hon member for Stanger must please refrain from speaking in the vernacular in this House. We have enough problems in this House and he must not add to them.

I only responded to an interjection, Sir.

Order! What was the interjection so that I can put it right? Was it also in the vernacular?

No, Sir, it was in English. But there are always provocations from that direction.

Order! Do not justify one wrong with another wrong—if there was one.

I withdraw it.

The hon member should stand up when he speaks to the Chair!

The very fact that the word “crisis” appears in the motion implies that there is a crisis in the entire Indian education. One should, however, look at the progress made in the field of education. There is continued expansion even to the remote areas. In many parts of the country there were never any institutions, but since the time education was taken over there has been tremendous progress in various fields concerning education. Apart from this the process of the phasing out of the State-aided schools is an ongoing one. Hon members are aware of the situation of State-aided schools in this country which has an historical past. Today, with the handling of education by this Administration one can proudly say that many State-aided schools are being phased out. It comes within the ambit of the educational policy of either taking the child to the school or the school to the child. Education is always the responsibility of the State. This Administration has made tremendous progress in that direction.

What about technical education? The first technical institution was in Pietermaritzburg. We do not have a long history of technical institutions in this country and for that reason education has been moving in a different direction in this country. When one analyses the situation one sees that the difficulty that the younger generation is faced with is the fact that no provision has been made for technical education. It was this Administration that piloted the whole matter, hence we have the institution in Pietermaritzburg today.

Let us look at a singular position that arose in our department, namely the need for a personnel member to fill a position in our Department of Agriculture. If the Indian community had any prospects in this regard in this country we would definitely have had a candidate from the Indian community. However, we did not have one—the Indian community is not encouraged to qualify itself in this field—so a person had to be brought all the way from Swaziland. However, with the institution that is now introduced the required qualification will be provided.

Every pupil in Std 6 and 7 is following a course in computer technology and some selected high schools are already offering computer studies for matric. The study of technical electronics will increase at selected high schools every year. The improvement of matric results over the past two years has increased the numbers in the A aggregate.

It is clear that many positive things can be said about education. If anybody should believe that there is a crisis in any department or concerning any official in a department and even insofar as the total Administration is concerned, something is radically wrong with the judgement of that individual.

If ever education can be said to be moving forward dynamically it is today and it can be respected throughout the country. Therefore I want to support the amendment of the hon member Mr M Thaver and I want to confirm here that there is no crisis in Indian education.

Also, we must be able to evaluate the motion that is going to be presented in this House which will result in some tangible discussions relating to the welfare of our people.

Finally, may I say that there is no crisis in Indian education. Unfortunately this motion has been placed before us here today and it has to be debated. We do hope and look forward that hereafter there will be matters pertaining to the grassroots level and the bread-and-butter issues of our community.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture quite rightly pointed out that there has been a wonderful and commendable school building programme throughout the country. We acknowledge this and I think our community acknowledges this.

However, what the hon member for Merebank was talking about was not the physical plant at all, neither did he tell us about Indian schools. All that he said was the quality, the management, the administration and the day-to-day affairs of running these schools is questionable. That is all he was trying to say. Let us put the record straight. It is noted with concern … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, may I implore your good self that I am not taking any questions, but if the hon the Minister submits his question in writing, I shall be ready to answer. [Interjections.]

The number of litigious cases brought by the hon the Minister of Education is noted with concern. In many of these cases the alleged accused were found not guilty and discharged.

I am not suggesting for one moment that I am condoning misconduct or any bad or reprehensible behaviour of any teacher, pupil or any employee of the department. Litigation is very costly and such litigation imposes on the taxpayer, the school and the community at large.

There are at least two cases pending in respect of principals. It is my contention that litigation should be the last resort when all other avenues within the parameters of the regulations governing the service and conditions of teachers have been explored and exhausted. Then perhaps litigation will be the correct step to seek recourse for justification.

I now wish to support my contention by quoting a case where four final matric year students at a very large and reputable school in Chatsworth were involved in vandalism. A good principal—I am not casting any aspersions on that good man—of his experience would have contacted the parents. The parents rightfully acknowledged that their children were responsible for the vandalism and they wanted to make reparation to this effect. However, this principal—I think he was a lawyer or an attorney, I cannot say—found that he could be the judge and the master of the situation and proceeded to charge the pupils concerned. It was found in a court of law that the admission of guilt in terms of which the accused pupils were charged was made under duress and they were rightfully discharged.

However, the matter did not rest there. The hon the Minister wanted to lodge an appeal and somewhere along the line of this litigation he got cold feet and withdrew the case. What I want to ask this House is why go to the extent of litigation when we know the ground is shaky. When we reveal our disorganisation, not only in the school itself, we bring distrust and suspicion into the community.

Which school was that?

I do not want to bore hon members with the details of the case but I have everything here in black and white. It is here and for the information of the hon members in this House, I am going to send a photostat copy of this case and its results to all hon members. [Interjections.] This is not a newspaper report.

As I said, the matter did not rest there. He insisted on going to court and he lost the case. Now one should consider the following factors in this case: The cost of litigation to the taxpayer; the effect on the community; the unwise steps on the part of the principal and any senior official that advised it; the embarrassment and humiliation of both the principal and senior officials.

I understood that the students were discharged and that they formed a gang and started booing the principal. In other words, they were further undermining his authority at that school because this principal lost the case.

In a full, ongoing inquiry of allegations of misconduct—I cannot quote this because the matter is sub judice—by a Durban school principal the proceedings were delayed simply because the senior official who had been appointed as an assessor in this case had some interest in the case.

The opposing counsel therefore rightly objected to his presence and a recusal was granted.

What I am trying to say is that we are in an embarrassing situation. In the inspectorate there are some people with a legal background and they would have been able to understand the position as it was to save embarrassment.

What is also very serious is that 18 teachers have been subpoenaed to give evidence in this case. I want hon members to multiply 18 by five teaching hours. How many hours are being lost? How many pupils will miss their lessons for the day? What is more, a court case is never dealt with in one day; there might be several adjournments. The hon member Mr Nowbath will agree with me that this kind of thing carries on and on. If we multiply that figure of 18 by an indefinite number of days, who is ultimately the loser? The child is the poorer because of this case.

I would like to see this official …

Blame the chairman!

I am not blaming the chairman, but I want the hon the Chairman of the Ministers' Council to hear this because he sometimes speaks for the Minister of Indian education. I want him to rise and to give me a positive answer in this case.

This litigation has a deleterious effect on the normal running of a school. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council rightly said: We are no longer under White tutelage. We suffered under the Natal Provincial Administration who gave us old desks for new. And when in 1965 the momentous Act No 61 was passed, we thought a new era had dawned for Indian education and that the Indian had come of age, that he was no longer under White tutelage. Whose children are we teaching? Whose children are we concerned about? Who are our inspectors? Who are our teachers?

I do not think we are putting our House in order if we allow such litigation to continue.

There is something I want to show the hon the Minister of Education. Here is a nice little booklet: Wet op Onderwys vir Indiërs 1965. The English title is: The Indian Education Act, 1965, Act 61 of 1965. I want to ask this good hon Minister to ask every senior official to be in possession of one, and at the end of six months we shall set a short “test” to see how they do! I say this because the entire question of Indian education is contained herein and it will prevent further litigation and embarrassment. Let the schools get on with their work without fear and litigation threats.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid that we have entered another cycle of inane repetitions, arguments that have been advanced in the past, arguments without substance and submissions without substance. There is nothing new that I have heard this afternoon.

When I examined this motion I was intrigued by the wording, namely:

In reply to an interjection or comment from this side, the hon member for Merebank said that it was not a judicial commission. Briefly, a judicial commission is constituted and operates in terms of the Commissions Act. I should like to know whether this commission—this special commission—under the chairmanship of a judge will have powers to subpoena witnesses, to compel witnesses to come forward and give evidence.

Yes.

If that is so, it must be a judicial commission of enquiry—not an ordinary commission of enquiry. I may refer hon members of this House to—let us call it a fiasco, and deliberately so—when this House rushed into and appointed the Moll Committee. It is true that it was not chaired by a judge, but the position was that that committee could not call witnesses. In fact, the principal—or is he called the rector these days?—of the University of Durban-Westville told this committee in so many words … [Interjections.]

This committee was appointed at the request of a certain member of the Opposition who had a vested interest in that matter. I do not wish to spell out the details, but I am saying that it was the direct result of a request by a certain hon member of the Opposition.

Do you always accept his request?

Do not interject.

He may interject, Mr Chairman, but the interjection was totally inane and has no substance. Such interjections do not worry me. If they come from intelligent people, I shall pause and reflect. [Interjections.]

May I remind the hon member for Stanger that this is not an application by a White man to house Black residents and employees in Stanger in an Indian area. We shall take that up again when it is relevant.

Are you going to ask for a commission of enquiry into that?

Possibly! We might as well ask for another commission of enquiry into that one.

I wish to come back to the motion. I would have felt happier had this motion stated and set out the terms of reference of this special commission—the use of the word “special” suggests that there are other commissions of enquiry that are not special.

I do not know whether the hon member for Merebank was in fact a teacher of the English language. If this is so and if an example of his product is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, then he has done Indian education a tremendous favour by departing from it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to know if the hon member is aware of the fact that the hon member for Merebank requested his principal to have a special class in 1952?

Mr Chairman, I do believe that this was for a very young child who subsequently rose very high in Indian politics.

This special commission of inquiry has no terms of reference allocated to it. It has but a conclusion to investigate. Normally a commission of inquiry will inquire and report, however this one will investigate and report on the conclusion that there is a crisis. It is presumed that there is a crisis without any evidence being put forward. If there had been a crisis in Indian education, why would 500 young people who had just completed their training at an institution at the beginning of last year demand that they be given jobs in the teaching establishment? In fact, the hon members of the Official Opposition in this House backed them up and fought for them to get into a system of education that is now said to be in a state of crisis. If there is a crisis, the logical and correct thing would be to run away from it and not to apply and insist that one becomes part of it. They are sending innocent people into a crisis which is very much like the charge of the light brigade, with cannons to the left and cannons to the right. Still, the hon members of the Official Opposition pushed about 500 teachers into that battle. They demanded it.

I heard this afternoon that about a half a dozen inspectors out of 10 000 teachers had resigned. Surely we should not abuse logic? Let us be reasonable. Does the hon member for Merebank have facts? I do not say that everything is perfect—nothing is perfect. However, nothing is as bad or as wicked as the hon member for Merebank tries to insinuate. He is losing credibility by overstating his case. I submit, as this House has been advised by Mr Speaker on a previous occasion, that if there are allegations to be made, then substantive motions should be put forward, setting out the details to this House so that one may catch the monkeys in the woods. Right now I see no monkeys in the woods.

Where is my friend, the hon member for Camperdown? I trust that the Taalakademie will not go for him.

Mr Chairman, the hon Mr Nowbath refers to logic. I am sure that he has read John Stuart Mills’s essay on logic.

I do not parade my knowledge.

Obviously he has not read it. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

If he knew the first thing about logic, he would not compare six school inspectors with 10 000 teachers. It is puerile. It is the most pathetic form of asininity to draw that kind of comparison.

But you are asinine!

So much for the hon member Mr Nowbath and his contribution to this debate. Of course, he is the hon member of this House who once said in this House that he had been given a job by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and therefore he has an obligation to support the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] That is recorded in Hansard. He also said that he did not go out canvassing for votes. [Interjections.] That is the hon member Mr Nowbath for you.

This is a matter that concerns 230 000 pupils and 10 000 teachers. It is not a matter to be treated lightly. It is a matter of fundamental importance because it concerns the future of an entire group of people.

It has been said that the Indian group in South Africa has made the greatest contribution in terms of self-help in the field of education. Parents have made tremendous sacrifices so that their children might gain an education. Many hon members of this House have made personal sacrifices, both for themselves and for members of their families. Why? It is because education is a prized objective.

There is a saying to the effect that knowledge is the only wealth that can never be stolen, burnt by fire or washed away by floods. Knowledge comes through education and when things go wrong in the educational system it is a matter for concern. Moreover, any hon member of this House who is genuinely interested in serving the interests of the community would want to take a Hoover cleaner and clean up the dirt. [Interjections.] I said a Hoover cleaner. I did not mention Irene Patricia Hoover. I said they would want to take a Hoover cleaner and clean up the system so that so-called clean administration may become apparent.

As far as teachers in politics are concerned, I must respectfully disagree with the hon member for Merebank. I believe that teachers are entitled to belong to political organizations. However, it is grossly undesirable for teachers to wear rosettes and to parade their party political affiliations at election time, because that could cause division within a community and between parents. Therefore it is not conducive to the better education of our children. It is grossly undesirable for any teacher to support a particular political party because some politician has offered him a promotion if he supports that particular political party or canvasses for votes for that particular political party.

They might be doing it out of sincerity. [Interjections.]

Oh, yes, I have no doubt that a man who seeks to advance his own cause is sincere about it. However, what is important is that I want to ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to have the records examined in order to ascertain which teachers were absent from school on 26 November 1987 and what reasons they gave for their absence. I am reasonably familiar with the conditions of service which govern teachers and there is no provision in those conditions for occasional leave in order to take part in an election campaign. There is no provision for that whatsoever. Moreover, we will supply the hon the Minister with the names of some of these teachers, provided that he undertakes to see to it that the matter is fully investigated.

If any of those teachers either failed to submit a leave form or if they submitted a leave form with false information, proper disciplinary action should be taken against them. We have the names of eight such teachers which we will supply to the hon the Minister. Mr Chairman, we have to abide by your instructions that the names of civil servants should not be mentioned. We believe that it is a good rule, but recently we have sometimes found it frustrating because civil servants have been corrupted by certain politicians. A teacher who does certain things because he has been promised a promotion has been corrupted. The corruptor is far more guilty than the corruptee, so perhaps the name of the corruptee should be protected while we go for the corruptor.

We did not say it. It was the hon member Mr Thaver who said that when commissions of enquiry are requested, every finger points only to one person in this House. It is true. We do not point any finger at the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. We know that he is an honourable man. I mentioned in this House how certain instructions were given to staff of the Department of Education by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council without going through the hon the Minister concerned or even through the chief director or any director of education. That is the kind of thing that is undesirable and which breeds tremendous discontent.

There was a great hullabaloo about there being a 93% pass rate in the matriculation examinations. The Teachers’ Association of South Africa had figures published to the effect that of the 12 429 Indian pupils who wrote matric, a record of 11 575 received Senior Certificates, 4 625 achieved matric exemptions and 593 failed. From time immemorial “a person who has passed matric” refers to a person who has passed a matriculation examination which will qualify him for admission to a university, in other words, a person with a matriculation exemption. It was not 93% who obtained matriculation passes. Whoever spread that story to the newspapers either did not understand the first thing or was deliberately trying to mislead the public, in other words, telling a lie for publication in order to gain temporary plaudits. These plaudits were very temporary indeed.

I mentioned 38% on a previous occasion, but I was wrong. It is 37%, even less than 38%, who obtained matriculation passes. That is a dismally poor record when one considers that the educational level of children has been progressing generation by generation. The children who are busy with matriculation examinations now have had a much better opportunity than the children who wrote matriculation examinations the previous year or in 1986 or 1985. Inevitably the standards must improve. Furthermore, the educational level of the teachers has progressively increased. Inevitably, that must also have an impact. Of course there are other influences that stimulate further progress on the part of children and helps them to acquire general knowledge, which in turn helps them in their matriculation examinations. I therefore think we must do something about the management deficiencies in the Department of Education.

I received a signed letter, dated 20 February. I will just read portions from it, bearing in mind the Chair’s ruling not to mention names. However, I have to mention certain details. I quote:

He mentioned the name of a senior official in the Department of Education—

He then asks if it is any wonder that the principal concerned will obtain any kind of favour from the staffing clerk. I quote further:

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

No, I only have one and half minutes left—I have no time. I quote further:

Two heads of department supervising one teacher seems to be unheard of.

This requires investigation. It requires the greatest and closest of scrutiny. What better way is there to do it than through a proper commission of inquiry? There have been obfuscatory statements made in this House. When one points to a particular fact a cloud of dust is raised in the hope that the real issue will be forgotten by the public. However, as someone said the other day, there are certain hon members in this House who are like bullterriers—they do not let go and they will not let go. They will not let go until we have the commission of inquiry that everyone has been asking for, including newspaper editors.

Allegations have been made by the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council against the hon member for Red Hill and the hon member for Red Hill immediately replied that there should be a commission of inquiry and that he was prepared to be investigated. A similar allegation was made against the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whose reaction was identical. These gentleman have nothing to hide.

Why should anyone who has nothing to hide be afraid of a commission of inquiry?

Mr Chairman, what the Opposition has done this afternoon has been to subject the House again to an act of shadow boxing. The hon member for Merebank who moved this motion did us a favour, of course. Once again he relied on hearsay. Once again he gave us the impression that he is relying on an informant. Once again he gave us the impression that his evidence may be lost in an unknown postbox. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stanger is the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition. I would like to remind the House once again this afternoon what I had stated about the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition, who unfortunately is not acting today. I indicated to the House that the hon member for Stanger did the wrong thing by approaching a junior official. He used the wrong channel and possibly tried to get in through the back door to try to obtain a favour for a relative of his. [Interjections.]

I do not want to mention to this House or to our society and South Africa what proposition the hon Acting Leader of the Official Opposition made.

Shame!

It is shameful. The hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition will hang his head and will never be able to lift it if what was discussed were to be released. It would be the end of his political career. I do not even want to mention what I said in another structure.

You are using disgusting tactics! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue.

That is the type of anger that comes out of people who know that they are hiding something.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue, but before he continues I want to say that I clearly pointed out to hon members that I would allow interjections, but sometimes interjections go too far. I also pointed out that hon members have the opportunity to reply when there is an opportunity to do so. Sometimes interjections get out of hand. I ask hon members to give me their co-operation.

I made an interjection and by way of personal explanation may I say …

Order! I am not taking any personal explanations. I think when the hon member for Reservoir Hills was speaking he was given a very clear hearing.

I was not pleased with what the hon member for Reservoir Hills stated this afternoon, but I gave him the opportunity to say what he wanted to say. [Interjections ]

Order!

I did not make any defamatory allegation against the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition. I did not hide behind the so-called parliamentary privilege. I want to say that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has a tin god and when that tin god, headed Indian education we had the greatest Gestapo tactics and an icy wind blew over our schools.

This time the hon member for Reservoir Hills knows that he is about to fall into a hole. The hon member for Reservoir Hills has dug a hole. He is in a corner.

Let us take that era when the guru or tin god of the hon member for Reservoir Hills controlled Indian education. Mention was made this afternoon of litigation. I think the litigation actions taken by the Department of Indian Education prior to 28 August 1984 may have broken a world record.

I want to say that I mentioned in this House that the hon member for Reservoir Hills—I mentioned this in 1985 during the no-confidence debate—had hosted senior officials of our education department in his house before 1984. I even mentioned what flowed from that and the hon member for Reservoir Hills admitted that it was so. I also mentioned that there is a restaurant in Durban called Saltori and before 28 August 1984 if one entered Sartori at 12.30 pm on a Friday one would find the hon member for Reservoir Hills sitting with officials. Not Indian, Coloured or Black officials, but officials of an education department. I indicated in 1985 that all the close relatives and the relatives of the wife of the hon member for Reservoir Hills had been promoted. I do not say they did not merit promotion but during that era there was a crisis as far as Indian education was concerned. Where was the voice of the critics? Where were the pens of the critics?

We are manning a mighty education department with approximately 12 000 people in that establishment. I want to say that the days where people could manipulate people over a whisky bottle, over a curry and rice and invitations to Saltori or invitations to Reservoir Hills are gone from this administration.

The crisis is that an attorney from Grey Street cannot pick up his receiver and demote or transfer teachers to Stanger …

Order! I request the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to return to discussing the motion and to be specific in his arguments.

But I am being specific. I am saying there was a period …

Order! There might be certain insinuations and I urge the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to abide by my request.

What I am trying to say is that there was an era when the Indian educationists in this country were under tutelage. There was an era when the Indian education Ministers in this country were on sufferance. However, when hon members on this side of the House were critical and had the courage to expose those things, those people who were responsible for that suffering were defended by hon members on the other side of the House. That is the crisis. The crisis exists in the minds of hon members on the other side of the House because they do not have the kind of access certain members of the Indian community had when certain Whites were in charge of education. Let us not kick education around like a political football.

The hon member for Phoenix made reference to technical education. He said we were not training our youth to satisfy our manpower needs.

Mr Chairman, I did not make any reference to this matter.

The wrong man.

All right, it was the hon member for Merebank. He made reference to technical education. The blame should not be laid at the doorstep of this Ministry, this Ministers’ Council or this administration. A great deal could be said on the initiatives taken by this Ministers’ Council, this administration and my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to uplift and to provide on a massive scale a programme to introduce technical education for the Indian community in this country. We are under sufferance because of the previous administration who were worshipped by the leadership of both of the opposition parties in this House. However, their voices were silenced. They did not have the courage of their convictions and did not stand up and be counted. I suggest to the hon member on the other side of the House that he read the book The Super Afrikaners written by two great journalists, Hans Strydom and Ivor Wilkens, and see what revelations they made about education.

Let us take our senior certificate results. I am not going to attach any importance to what the Teachers’ Association of South Africa has to say because it is against the system, against people that use the system and against the House of Delegates. One can do one’s best for education but there will always be a period when TASA criticises the House of Delegates, whether or not the hon member for Reservoir Hills or the hon member for Merebank is a Minister of Education. They will always criticise because one can pass a judgment on the company that the leadership of TASA keeps. They have to make up their minds whether they are running an institution that takes care of the welfare of professional people or whether they are going to take part in political exercises in this country. Even if our matriculation exemption results were 93%, they would still find reasons to criticise.

There was a person by the name of Mr G Krog—he is not a public servant so I shall mention his name—who headed the Education Department for a number of years. Look at the senior certificate results while he was running the department.

Why were there no statistics to the effect that we are getting 24% exemptions? There are comments on education on page 4 of the newspaper Graphic, which has gone into liquidation—I shall not give reasons why, or mention who is responsible. Nobody at that time analysed our senior certificate results. There has been a great improvement in our senior certificate results since 1984.

We are under the strict and rigid control of the Joint Matriculation Board. We write the JMB matriculations under the control of the Joint Matriculation Board. Whoever makes reference to our senior certificate results should note that there is such a thing as an ogive curve. If there are allegations that our senior certificate results and our matriculation exemption results are poor in quality, I wish to refer to the reference I made in the debate on the motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, to the research carried out by the professors at the University of Witwatersrand. They compared the quality of the senior matriculation results of all education departments, and the findings of that research were that we fared the best out of all the provincial departments. We were better than Natal, Orange Free State, Transvaal and the Cape. The best in the country was the Joint Matriculation Board, and we came second best! This was a completely independent and impartial analysis of the matriculation results of all the departments last year.

Thus the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We do not gloat over those results, but what we do gloat about is the fact that if there were a crisis in education, that should have been reflected in the results—not only the Std 10 results, but our Std 6, 7 and 8 results as well.

We are running an institution, and the success and the quality of that institution determines the success of our community. I say that when one is a Minister or anyone else at the head of an education department, one cannot be a so-called “softy”. One must be stern; one must be soft as silk and hard as steel.

You must be fair-minded.

You must also be fair-minded. I agree that we must not rush into litigation, but I want to say that I will not divulge the name of the hon member of the Official Opposition who came to my House and pleaded with me to stop that litigation and interfere with the affairs of the department. Ultimately the principal in question was convicted of theft in a court of law. I want to say that an hon member of the Opposition came to me twice—he sent deputations to me—to interfere with the course of justice. That is corruption and interference, and I want to ask whether any hon member on the other side of the House can honestly deny that he made representations to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, and to me on behalf of teachers? It was in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Education Act, Act 61 of 1965. This is the bible, the blue book, that was referred to by the hon member for Phoenix.

We must understand procedures. Wild statements have been made in this House this afternoon to the effect that a promotion document was altered. My hon colleague will give this House the details. We have promotions in terms of two pieces of legislation. One is the Public Service Act and the other is the Indian Education Act. The promotions in terms of the Public Service Act are rigidly safeguarded by an independent institution, the Commission for Administration. I want hon members to know that when a person is promoted to the level of adviser, chief adviser or principal education adviser, or chief inspector or educational leader, that promotion is determined mainly by the Commission.

Neither the Ministers’ Council nor the Minister has any discretionary powers. The recommendation comes from a committee on which the commission’s inspectorate has an important say, to safeguard correctness. Let us understand these procedures and let us look at those in terms of the Indian Education Act. We had the courage to improve upon it. It was done with the Teachers’ Association of South Africa playing a very valuable role. They did not merely make an input, but they served on a joint committee. For the first time in the history of education school principals, with the support of TASA, have played an important role in determining criteria and also allocating merit ratings for teachers. If there is a difference between the rating by an inspector and that by a school principal, this is moderated. They are countersigned and they are checked. They are audited by many people and not by one or two persons. After that there is a placement committee, comprising senior officials of the department. These people check every rating. Neither the placement committee nor the Executive Director of Education has any discretion. The rules state that he who gets the highest rating, gets the first choice. That can be audited and checked. Not even the members of the placement committee, the head of education and the Minister have any discretionary powers.

To make a wild statement that a final sheet of promotions was changed is absolutely crazy. Such a thing would be absolutely unacceptable to us. That is just a wild statement and, as one of my colleagues stated, it is only for Press consumption. Let us be responsible, truthful and realistic. If any hon member here has any evidence that something like that has in fact happened, I am sure that my colleague will undertake a thorough investigation. Obviously there are many people who are disappointed at the promotions. However, compared to previous years hardly any complaints concerning promotions are received from TASA. If one compares the amount of complaints received 10 years ago to that received over the past three years, the fact that there are hardly any complaints only goes to show that there is a tremendous improvement. As with the July Handicap, you find 10 horses at the winning post, but one must win.

What about a dead heat?

Sometimes there is a dead heat, but our education is progressing and we do not need a vacuum cleaner to clean it. I received a request concerning a Mr Shaik. He came to see me and he told me that I should shake the person who has made all these statements on his behalf as well as the representations in his name.

It is, however, very clear that the reason for this Notice of Motion is not based on educational grounds or considerations. It is based on political motives and the whole debate on it has gone flat. It has just fizzled out like a damp squib. It has once again shown the hollowness of the opposition. That is where the crisis is. The crisis is there. [Interjections.] A hole is being dug and the hangman’s noose is around that political party’s neck. One can see it is dwindling in size.

Their leader is not here to guide them at this important moment and having moved a motion of no confidence in the Government, they should explain to the country what their leader is doing and whom he is promoting. [Interjections.] I indicated that they were the super salesmen of the Nationalist Party of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is no wonder there is so much frustration in the field of education with regard both to people within the service and in the community at large. We have witnessed an excellent dramatisation throughout the debate this afternoon by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and if that is his attitude towards some of the issues that have been discussed here, then I am afraid that we are heading towards a calamity in education. [Interjections.]

He referred to this debate as shadow-boxing and said that he would prove that the allegations that had been made were wild. I think he should prove that they are wild. He has not proved that as yet. The only way he could do that would be to hold a judicial commission of enquiry. On the contrary …

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

Unfortunately not. I know what his symptoms are and I want to give him the right medicine. [Interjections.] I am ready to give him the medicine, as a specialist does. Before I have finished with him he will be unsteady on his feet. [Interjections.] He said that we had made wild allegations. We want to show that we have made real allegations, not wild ones. He has the power to appoint a commission of enquiry. Why is he mortally afraid of appointing a commission of enquiry?

Who asked me to interfere with a court case?

There is certainly a crisis in education, and it is only the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who says that there is no crisis. I would like the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to state categorically, after I have finished, that there is no crisis in education. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has, in fact, been making wild statements this afternoon. What has he been doing? He has once again been alluding to personalities. He spent 10 minutes analysing and dissecting the contribution of the hon member for Reservoir Hills. That is not discussing education. The day the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council stops alluding to personalities and abusing political power and, more importantly, interfering in the field of education, there will be peace in this House. [Interjections]

You asked me to interfere with a court case. You asked me. You came to my house.

You see, Mr Chairman, this is the kind of behaviour we have from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] It is an indictment of every hon member on the other side of the House.

Mr Chairman, may I rise on a point of personal explanation?

Order! No, I am afraid I cannot allow that.

I said …

Order!

I want extra time, Sir. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, he made the statement …

You sent people from Shallcross.

Order! I want to appeal to the hon member for Cavendish for his own good, in view of the condition of his health, to calm down. I cannot instruct him to do so, but I address that appeal to him.

Mr Chairman, I sincerely thank you for your humane consideration. I want to cruise along, so to speak, this afternoon because I want to address an appeal to hon members on both sides of this House so that sanity, reason and a critical understanding may prevail with regard to this very important aspect of education since unfortunately, through the fault of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and not through any fault of ours, the ruling party is being treated like a political football. [Interjections.]

Time and time again none other than the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council assured this House that he would not engage in any political interference in education.

This afternoon I want to prove, beyond any doubt, that there is gross political interference in education.

Coming to matric results, people sometimes crow about this. Why was there a need to make all these adjustments from the standard level to the lower level and from the higher level to the lower level? Who authorised this? Who initiated this? What was the need? These are questions that have to be answered at some time. From which office do the directions come? Who authorised that matric results could be disclosed by telephone? Was it the hon the Minister of Education and Culture? Was it the executive director? We want to know. Was it the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? I know of it from where it came. Today the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council asserts things here and wants us to believe these, as if we are playing the part of a puppet opposition.

Tell the House what you said in my office. What about the list?

Mr Chairman, I will tell hon members about the list. I want to explode this thing. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has no foot to stand on. If he wants to talk about the list, I want to ask him why he put away the report of the three-man committee. My friend, the hon ex-Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, as well as the present hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, will confirm that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council locked it up and nobody is going to see it, not even I who was in charge of education. [Interjections.] This man says that there is no political interference!

I will come to the other list when we are discussing education and culture.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has no foot to stand on in education. The Teachers’ Association of South Africa, with a membership of 9 000 teachers under the House of Delegates, is today disillusioned with the manner in which the education authorities are handling their legitimate representations on behalf of the teachers. It is shocking that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can make such damaging references about the Teachers’ Association of South Africa. He is actually slighting, slinging mud at, and slamming the entire teaching fraternity. Would hon members regard that as responsible action?

This afternoon the hon the Minister of National Education called me out for a while to discuss certain issues. Amongst others, he expressed tremendous concern for teachers.

The Teachers’ Association of South Africa is driven to consider acquiring trade union status. This is a serious indictment on this House. Consider this: The entire body of teachers is now considering seeking trade union status. This is a serious indictment.

Order! May I remind the hon member and other hon members that it is very bad manners and very unethical if Ministers of State, or even other hon members, have some private discussions with hon members on certain issues, to disclose that without their permission.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I note your ruling.

Order! The hon member might have done it not knowing the rules, but …

It is poor …

Order! I ask the hon member Mr Nowbath not to comment when the Chair is giving a ruling or giving hon members advice.

Mr Chairman, if we compare the Teachers’ Association of South Africa with the Teachers’ Federal Council, we see the kind of attitude the hon the State President accords the Teachers’ Federal Council. It happened the other day.

I think it is high time the House of Delegates accorded the Teachers’ Association the attitude in order to continue the close and harmonious relationship with the teachers. It is important otherwise it will leave much to be desired in that respect.

A senior administrative officer in the department is actively engaged in politics. I have no qualms about that but I want hon members to be aware of the extent of the freedom which he has been allowed by the department. He is directly involved in staffing and with the personnel of the Department of Education. During recent elections he canvassed unemployed teachers and told them that they would be considered for employment if they solicited votes for the NPP. I have been informed that he used his office and brought in upwards of some 1 200 special votes in the Tongaat by-election. I have no qualms about this, even if he brought in 3 000 votes.

I also want to refer to a case in Tongaat. I will give all the necessary information to a commission of enquiry. A teacher who was previously unemployed, canvassed for the ruling party and was later given a permanent post. I have no complaint about an officer in the department being a party political supporter but the Director and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture too must be discreet as to what extent an officer becomes involved in party politics. This is important and I think the White Department of Education is giving serious concern to this aspect. In this case the officer by virtue of his senior post can bring duress on teachers who are unemployed—I leave aside teachers who are in the profession.

The hon member for Merebank alluded to what I would call the sinister position that prevails around the vacancy of an acting Chief Executive Director of Education. The appointment or nonappointment of a person to this post constitutes a serious mismanagement and is detrimental to education as a whole. The officer is left uncertain of his permanent appointment. Any human being would feel that way. He may even become a political victim and the tragic cases of Mr Leslie Peters and Mr Ronny Charles may be repeated. If the officer does not toe the line, he may not be considered. These are the questions that people in the community are asking. The officer is placed in a very delicate situation as the prolonged delay in the appointment of the Chief Executive Director of Education is likely to undermine his own personality and image among his colleagues in the profession and the community at large. We would like the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to make a statement concerning this.

In any department of education protocol is important. Protocol is for example when an assistant teacher cannot approach a director without his permission. In the House of Delegates protocol is being bypassed in the sense that teachers are avoiding normal channels of communication and are seeking interviews with the Ministers and the Chief Director of Education without the knowledge of their principal. This undermines the authority of the principal and therefore the Administration suffers. Consequently a teacher feels that he has a direct pull and a hot line with officials in the House of Delegates. This actually gives teachers licence to do what they want to do and to show contempt for instructions given by the principal.

I want to illustrate this general point with a specific case.

It is a case involving the deputy principal in Tongaat who pressured a teacher, Mr M Perumal, to canvass for the NPP against his will. This is well-known. This deputy principal asked Mr Perumal who his boss was. The teacher replied that it was the director. The teacher took the principal to the telephone and after phoning the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said, “Now listen to your boss,” and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council took over. [Interjections.] You come with me, mr nominated member, don’t worry about a commission of inquiry! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member permitted to talk to an hon member directly?

The Chair can decide on that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

Following this unhappy incident …

Why are you not talking about what you did?

He was unsteady on his feet this afternoon and I am here to give him some more. I am here to invite the city council. I shall give him 50 people from his side and I shall get the other 50 people.

Following this unhappy incident Mr Perumal landed in hospital.

You are very unhappy because you are not sitting here.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council cannot stomach the truth. I am sorry to say that.

I am a public representative and I represent the people. I am concerned about the community and not my position.

That is some presumption.

That man can do no better. Let him go to the fakir and learn. [Interjections.] I shall tell you something else, Sir, without casting any aspersion on any particular member, there is much evidence of poor planning in the department. Facility requirements at various schools are not given due consideration, all things being equal.

[Inaudible.]

He knows what is coming!

The impression is created that the planners do not have a free hand in carrying out their functions. It appears as if Ministers who want maximum improvement in their constituencies have a strong influence over their planners. One is led to believe that planners are politically influenced in determining priorities.

This results in older and well-established schools being overlooked, although the older schools have produced creditable results despite the shortage of facilities at those schools compared with the new schools which have modern facilities. A good example is Chatsworth Secondary which is 25 years old and Risecliff which is over 16 years old.

These schools in Chatsworth do not have many of the facilities which Arena Park Secondary has although the former has outstripped Arena Park in the production of results. The only reason for the provision of top facilities at Arena Park is that this school falls within the constituency of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

Let me finish. The irony is all the more evident in that the first school hall is also sited at Arena Park Secondary.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Part of Arena Park is in the Montford constituency and that school is too.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will get the dope now. Yet in this area there is the Montford Community Hall as well as the Ragput hall—a very large hall—and the Pathidene hall at Dayanand Gardens, leaving aside the other cultural halls which are not far such as the Hari Krishna’s Mammoth Hall and the rest.

Improvements of education facilities should not all be concentrated. In addition Arena Park has a double tennis court. This is unique and I think this has been funded by finance from the House of Delegates. Why are all these facilities in the constituency of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers' Council?

I want to go further. There are other areas. If this hall were placed in Croftdene I would have no qualms. The only other hall there is the hall. That is the only other hall.

I would have no qualms whatsoever if it were Westcliff. So why are there problems in Arena Park? Is this how you achieve the glamour of being a politician?

Do you know who financed those tennis courts?

The misuse of political power in the House of Delegates has become chronic and it has brought about an abnormal situation. No one can deny that. I want to cite a few cases. I shall probably have to hand this in to the Director of Education, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. There are glaring cases here. There were two typing teachers at Arena Park Secondary—I have my notes here with the details—one a female and the other a male teacher. The female was the more senior teacher and produced outstanding results in typing. She was made redundant and transferred. The younger male teacher, who is a close friend of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, was retained at the school although he produced poor results in typing. I ask hon members of the House of Delegates how I am to prove this without a judicial commission of inquiry. Why do we not go over this? I am prepared to come with you. Let us go to the principal of this school and to the teachers, let us look at the records of their inspectors, and let us go to the Director of Education.

Lastly, here is a glaring case of the abuse of political power. Two teachers from Evergreen Primary applied for promotion. One of them had three merit notches and an assessment of “good”. The other had no merit notches and an assessment of “fair”. On application for promotion the good teacher was posted to a remote school in the Transvaal, and the other was promoted to somewhere near his school. The only reason for that was that the person with a poor performance, who got promotion nearer home, happens to be a card-carrying member of the party.

Mr Chairman, in the short time I have at my disposal I just want to make a few very brief comments. First and foremost I want to say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers' Council that in his normal style he was on the attack, but today he made another mistake. In his reply to the debate he said that if he was to make certain exposures, people's political careers would be completely destroyed. Obviously, then, he has proved the need for a commission of inquiry. If people on this side of the House have done things that are wrong, things that could destroy their political careers, why is he hiding behind not having a commission of inquiry?

So much for that. It is apparent to me that while talking about education this House, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the Ministers’ Council, and the officials are in fact protecting members of his party. I want to bring to this House a case in point. A certain teacher was accused of sodomy. He happens to be a member of the ruling party. I was informed by the principal, when this matter was brought to his attention, that this teacher would be transferred from that school. What I say to the House is that nothing has happened simply because both the principal and the teacher are actively involved in the NPP. He is therefore protected. Our children are being subjected to this kind of element in education because of the political affiliations of this particular teacher.

I also want to bring to the notice of this House that I received a phone call this morning and I was told that tenders were received for a school that was built in Phoenix 55. The lowest tender was not awarded the contract; it was in fact awarded to the second lowest tender, costing the taxpayer R52 000 more. This brings me back to the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper. The tenderer that was awarded the contract is the one that has been advertising the House of Delegates—Rambrose Building Services and Contractors. In his advertisement Rambrose talks about the good work being done by the Department of Indian Education and the percentage pass etc. The hon member for Reservoir Hills dealt adequately with that particular aspect.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers' Council can institute as many inquiries as he likes, but can he deny the fact that there are building contractors who have given him funds in cash—amounts of R5 000 and R11 000?

Can he deny those facts?

Mr Chairman, on a point of personal explanation, I say in this House under oath that no building contractor has given me any funds, even for the party. I think this nonsense that people gave me funds must stop. I am making a clear statement in this House under oath …

Order! I want to draw the attention of the hon member for Stanger to the fact that he is not dealing here with the allegation that he has made. He has made a serious allegation, and I have previously stated—and Mr Speaker has reiterated this—that allegations of that nature across the floor will not be allowed. They will only be allowed by way of substantive motions, and the hon member, as Chief Whip of his party …

Acting leader.

Order! Will the hon member who said “acting leader’’ stand up please. I call upon the hon member for Laudium to bear in mind that I have appealed to hon members to be silent when the presiding officer is addressing the House.

The hon member for Stanger, who is the Chief Whip, will know that presiding officers have stated time and again that hon members have the opportunity to bring allegations by way of substantive motions. The hon member is exceeding the bounds of the privilege that he has in discussing this motion here today. I therefore order him to withdraw and apologise for those words that he used against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in regard to him having received the amounts of money mentioned.

Mr Chairman, if you order me to do so …

Order! The hon member must not use the word “if”. I have ordered him to do so, and I have qualified the word “order" by way of the appeal that I have made.

I withdraw those words, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must also apologise.

I apologise. Mr Chairman.

May I proceed by referring to the schools we provide for our children. Certain contractors, in providing these schools, are receiving preferential treatment. A great deal of doubt is being created in the minds of our community insofar as the lowest tender is not getting the contract. This leaves a big question mark. I believe that if this House wants to clear the air once and for all, it should have a proper commission of inquiry. Let us have a commission of inquiry and clear the air once and for all so that we can restore some dignity in this House. It is pointless the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council accusing us when every time in his defence he goes about accusing the hon member for Reservoir Hills of doing something wrong. He then accuses the hon member for Cavendish of doing something wrong. If he knows that we have done something wrong, why does he not order a commission of inquiry himself? He proves the case for a commission of inquiry in his own defence yet refuses to appoint a commission. As he himself has said on many occasions, “He will slip on his own banana peel”.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I wish to thank all hon members for their contributions in this afternoon’s debate. As far as details are concerned I shall come back to each member if time permits. If time does not permit. I want to assure hon members that I shall not write to them, but I have the right to answer them during my Budget debate. I shall do so then.

Before mentioning that there has been a tremendous amount of progress, I must answer a very pertinent question by the hon member for Stanger. Assuming that his facts about tenders are right, the Tender Board has every right to accept any tender and not necessarily the lowest one, depending on other factors. One such factor is the kind of service that the tenderer has rendered in the past.

There has been a tremendous amount of progress in all fields of education and at this stage I would like to thank all the hon members who have said so, like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and others. There is no doubt about it and I am indeed proud of it. However, where unsubstantiated allegations were made, they were received with contempt. This is a very strongly worded motion and any argument that is advanced without being unsubstantiated, must meet with the contempt it deserves. I want to stress that there is no crisis in our education, but I am prepared to investigate every allegation provided it is properly substantiated.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

I have but a few minutes left, Sir.

You are not answering all the questions, therefore would you take one simple one?

Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to take a question.

I will take one towards the end of my speech.

As I said, these allegations should not be based only on hearsay and conjecture. Because of the motion being so strongly worded, I would like all the allegations to be substantiated.

In support of the tremendous progress made in education I wish to state that these reforms, as spelt out by my Ministry over the past few years, go beyond the confines of the classroom situation. Am I not extending what is best in our education system to as many children as possible? We can boastfully claim that we have one of the highest literacy levels of all the communities in this country.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Would it not be fitting if some of the accusations that have been levelled, were answered instead of the hon the Minister in general eluding them?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon the Minister may continue.

You are only shadow-boxing.

[Inaudible.]

What about your interference with the court case?

Mr Chairman, I did say that I was constrained by time and I would like hon members to bear with me.

These remarks can be made on any platform.

Answer the allegations.

You are a bitter man because you are not sitting here. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council kindly restrain himself.

One needs to question not only the intention of this motion, but also the practical value of achieving the investigation which the hon member seeks. The time for such rhetoric is over. What I would expect from the hon member is an offer of concerted co-operation in our continued hard-headed assessment of what is on offer until the end of the century, if not longer than that. After all, that is only a decade or 12 years away. The hon member should be asking himself whether we are advancing our children from the present standards to something better, or not. My reply to that would be that he should look at the results and the individual accomplishments of our people in the various fields here and overseas.

The party’s appetite for commissions has been so obsessive that symptoms of confusion—I am not going to say symptoms of paranoia; I shall avoid that—are beginning to show. His call for a probe is not only irrelevant in the present healthy state of Indian education but at the very worst, it is vindictive. It holds the department, the teachers and the pupils, as well as the parents in great contempt if the hon member thinks of it in this manner. I ask him to desist from such thoughts and to co-operate for the betterment of education in general.

The hon member for Merebank made mention of missing files. I would like him to give us some more details about this. I have no knowledge of it. I should like some details from him in that regard. [Interjections.] He also mentioned the censure of a superintendent but I shall come to that a little later.

Great play has been made of the matriculation results and I want to dwell on that aspect for a little while. Our article in reply to the Teachers’ Association of South Africa reads as follows:

I am going into detail because it must be made quite clear once and for all that there was nothing wrong with our announcement insofar as results were concerned.

As early as 3 October 1986 the examination board of this department approved the application of the extension of the conversion formulae to include the lower grade in the November-December 1987 Senior Certificate examination. They had therefore given people much time in advance to think about this. This was a unanimous decision of the board, on which the Teachers’ Association of South Africa was represented. The details of the changed requirements for the Senior Certificate were conveyed to the principals of all secondary schools by way of a circular issued in August 1987. That the Teachers’ Association of South Africa now writes something against it, is therefore totally uncalled for.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.