I Move—

As a final protest from this side of the House I should like to notify my strongest disapproval at its again being thought fit to introduce this Bill further to postpone the biennial registration of voters. I think that in 1941 we last had a biennial registration of voters. In 1943 it was postponed and now it is again being postponed although it should have taken place in April of this year. The Minister admits that the Voters’ Roll is practically a hopeless muddle, but notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of it, that there is a mutilated list with a whole series of additions, he now proposes that the biennial registration should again be postponed until 1947. I think that that is a scandalous action towards the voters of the country, to introduce legislation which changes the electoral law of the country in this manner every time, because in the Electoral Act it is laid down that there should be a biennial compulsory registration of voters. I raise the strongest objection to the Minister now finding it expedient to introduce this Bill. We shall vote against the Bill. The Minister will of course have it passed by means of his majority, but the nation will react to this manner in which the voters of the country are being treated. I hope that the Minister will give me a reply to a question I should now like to ask him. We all regret the death of Mr. Louw Steytler. We know that he was ill for a long time and as a result his constituency was practically unrepresented for months. The vacancy has been announced for quite a time and I should like to know from the Minister what the intention is in regard to filling the vacancy. It is not only during a session of Parliament that a constituency has to be represented. During the recess representatives often have to accompany deputations to Ministers and protect other interests of the constituency. We therefore consider it to be of the greatest importance that such a vacancy should be filled as soon as possible and that there will not be a delay of months. I therefore ask the Minister the direct question what the intention is in connection with filling this vacancy or whether the Government will act in the spirit of this legislation and continually postpone the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I regret as much as the hon. member the necessity of passing this Bill, the necessity for delaying the registration of voters. I and hon. members on this side regard in the same light as hon. members on the other side the necessity for having the Voters’ Roll as complete as possible. Circumstances over which I have no control, and over which the department has no control have prevented us having this registration.

There is a war on.

No, it is a question of shortage of staff and of shortage of material. If the position was difficult in 1943 it is worse today. The hon. member has asked a question about Kimberley. Instructions have been given to get that Voters’ Roll in order as quickly as possible. As soon as that is done we will be able to take steps in regard to the necessary proclamation.

Have you given the Governor-General notice of the vacancy?

Before we do that we want to know that the Voters’ Roll is in order, and that is going to take some time ….

What would “some time” be—months?

To have a by-election with the Voters’ Roll in its present state would not be satisfactory.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—65:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Corman, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F,

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—24:

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss. E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The introduction of this Bill was foreshadowed by me in my Budget speech, delivered as Minister of Finance, just over a month ago. I then indicated the Government’s intention of introducing a Bill which would leave the position of the provinces in regard to native education pretty well unchanged, but would accord recognition to what is today the actual financial position in regard to this service. I said that the Bill would place the financial responsibility for native education on the same basis as it is for other services, and I said further that in relation more especially to the making available of State funds for native education for the provinces, the Bill would provide for the establishment of a Union Advisory Board of Native Education, of which the Secretary for Native Affairs would be the chairman, while the Union Education Department would provide the secretariat. It is because of that position of the Union Education Department in the set up which we are contemplating in this Bill that I am introducing it this morning as Minister of Education. Let me, Mr. Speaker, first of all indicate to the House how the situation which necessitates this legislation has arisen. Under the Act of Union, education other than higher, was assigned to the provinces. It is one of the services enumerated in Section 85 of the Act of Union as provincial services. Native education, other than higher, therefore, just like European education and coloured education became a provincial function, and the provinces therefore after Union administered native education and provided the necessary funds for the service. But in due course this led to the provinces which provided the facilities for native education claiming the right to impose a direct tax on natives for that purpose. That was, however, considered by Parliament to be undesirable; it was felt to be undesirable that the provincial councils should impose direct taxation on natives over and above the direct taxation imposed by Parliament, and as a result of that, by legislation enacted in 1922, by Act No. 5 of 1922, the power of imposing direct taxation on natives was taken away from the provinces. But at the same time in effect Parliament assumed responsibility for finding such funds for the expansion and improvement of native education as might be necessary, over and above the amounts which were at that stage being expended by the provinces on the service. Then in 1925 in the light of the report of the Baxter Commission the whole question of financial relations between the Union and the provinces came under review. It was then laid down that Parliament would not merely continue to carry the responsibility taken under the legislation of 1922, but it would also find the amount of £340,000 which had been mentioned in that legislation as the liability of the provinces, and which had until then been found by the provinces. The effect therefore of the legislation of 1925 was that, except for certain expenditure on administration and inspection, Parliament has for the last twenty years in fact provided all the money spent by the provinces on native education. The amount of £340,000 to which I have already referred, that is the amount the provinces were finding for this service before 1922 and the liability for which Parliament took over in 1925, has been provided year after year on the Provincial Administration’s Vote; it has been voted there. The other responsibility of Parliament was in respect of the provision of funds for the expansion of native education, and that soon came to be a larger liability, and the sum of money required for that purpose has not in fact been voted by Parliament directly except in so far as last year we provided on the Native Affairs Vote for the cost of living allowances of teachers in native schools. What happened in regard to that was that in 1925 Parliament enacted the Native Taxation and Development Act, which provided for the allocation of one-fifth of the native general tax for native education and native welfare. It was out of that allocation that the money required for the expansion of native education was to be provided. That money— since then the proportion has been increased —but that money year after year has been paid over direct to the provinces in terms of the Act of 1925 without any Parliamentary appropriation—so that all that Parliament has been providing from year to year, except for the money for cost of living allowances to which I referred a minute ago, has been £340,000. In due course that Native Development Act was merged into the Native Trust Fund. The Native Development Account, as such, then disappeared, but the position in regard to native education remained broadly the same. But in due course also in view of the fact that the proceeds of the native tax proved to be very inelastic in relation to the expanding needs of native education, that proportion of one-fifth paid over in the first instance to the development fund and later to the trust fund, has been progressively increased until by the Finance Act of 1943 the whole amount of the native general tax became payable to the trust fund, it being laid down that four-fifths of that amount was to be available for native education and one-fifth for general development. That means on the current figures that the amount made available by Parliament for this service in respect of these two items was £340,000 a year, voted directly on the Provincial Administration Vote, and £1,200,000, not appropriated annually but payable in terms of the Act of 1925. In fact, although Parliament has been finding virtually all the money for native education Parliament has had really very little opportunity of saying anything about it. The £340,000 appeared on the Provincial Administration Vote and was part of the provincial subsidy payable in terms of the statute, and there were various limitations on the facilities for the discussion of native education on that vote in view of the rules of the House. The main provision, the amount which stands at £1,200,000, did not come up before Parliament at all annually. It was paid in terms of the Act of 1925 as a standing appropriation, so Parliament has had very little opportunity of discussing a service for which it has had to appropriate virtually all the money required. That financial provision to which I have referred has in later years proved to be inadequate, for two reasons; one is there has been and still is very considerable leeway to be made up in respect of native education. A good deal has been done since 1922 to increase facilities for native education, and since the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Native Education, presided over by the present Senator Welsh in 1935-’36, roughly 10 per cent. was allowed for expansion in each year. But even so, there is today still considerable leeway to be made up, and owing to the inelasticity of the proceeds of the native tax to which I have already referred, we no longer have funds available to meet even that 10 per cent. expansion requirement. But there is also another reason for the inadequacy of the present financial position, and that is a reason incidental to the circumstances of our times. Very heavy additional expenditure has been incurred in respect of the cost of living allowances payable to teachers in native schools, and since that money can no longer be found out of the provision made along the lines described, last year special provision was made on the Native Affairs Vote for these cost of living allowances. Perhaps I should at this stage mention a further point in regard to native education. When we introduced, a couple of years ago, the school feeding scheme, it was laid down that it should also apply to native schools, as well as to schools for European children and for Asiatic and coloured children. Now, that scheme has been financed by the Department of Social Welfare through the Provincial Administrations. Under the new system of provincial subsidisation, to which I referred in my Budget Speech, delivered as Minister of Finance, school feeding will now become a provincial service. It will qualify for £ for £ subsidy in the same way as other provincial services do, and it will therefore now be detached from Social Welfare. But since the Union Government finds the money for native education, we could hardly have expected the Provinces to find part of the money for native school feeding; and since school feeding will now be regarded as part of the provincial educational services in respect of European, coloured and Asiatic children, it is proper that it should also be regarded as part of the native education services. We therefore propose also to find the money which is required to be found for native school feeding and to place it on the Native Education Vote which is being created. Now, in saying that, I have perhaps to some extent anticipated the course of my argument. I would like to go back to what I was saying before I touched on the question of native school feeding. I think that from what I have said three points will be clear. The one is that Parliament has in fact, under the legislation of 1925, made itself responsible for finding the money necessary for the purposes of native education, and that Parliament has in fact been finding that money for the last 20 years. The second point, I think, is that a good deal of that money is being provided by Parliament in what is from the point of view of Parliamentary control a not very satisfactory way. £1,200,000, as I have said, is being provided not by way of annual appropriation, which comes up for discussion in the Committee of this House, but in terms of a legal enactment which does not come up for discussion each year, and I think it will be admitted that that is not entirely desirable. The third point which has emerged from what I have said, I think, is that the present system does not keep pace with the needs of native education, for the expansion of which we are responsible, and especially does it not keep pace with the needs of native education in regard to the difficulties created by the abnormal conditions of the present time. I therefore think, Sir that it will be agreed, in the light of what I have said, that the time has come to put this whole matter on a more satisfactory basis. If, in fact, we are responsible for the financing of education, there is no reason for treating it in a different way from that applied to any other service for which we are responsible, and so we have embodied, in Clause 2 of this Bill, what I think is the correct principle in this regard. “There shall from time to time be paid to each of the Provinces from the Consolidated Revenue Fund such sums of money in respect of native education as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose.” There may, Mr. Speaker, be some criticism of this clause on the ground that it does not go far enough. There are those who would like to see it enacted that there should be made available for native education each year an amount of money calculated on the basis of the number of native pupils; in other words, on a per caput basis. That suggestion has been supported because it was recommended in the first instance by that Welsh Interdepartmental Committee to which I have already referred, but it seems to me that there is confusion of thought underlying this particular contention. The argument was really based on the fact that we had for a considerable period been paying a per caput subsidy for European education and for coloured and Asiatic education, and so it was said: Why not also a per caput subsidy for native education? What was forgotten however was this, that European and coloured education are not our services. They were purely provincial services, financed by the Provinces, and that per caput subsidy was purely a method of calculating what the State would make available each year to the Provinces. It was not intended to calculate what would be spent by the Provinces on European, coloured and Asiatic education. The Provinces were at liberty to spend more that this amount, and they did. What we are dealing with was, therefore, a subsidy. But native education, as we are now dealing with it, in effect, is not a service to be subsidised by us, but a service in respect of which we are finding the full amount of expenditure; and the Provinces will not find any more than that amount which we are making available. Native education, therefore, from the financial point of view, is really a Union service, and the financial provision which should be made for it should be determined, as is the provision for any other Government service, on the basis of the consideration, on the one hand, of the needs of the service, and on the other hand of the general financial position of the country. I do not think there can be any question of the Government seeking, through Parliament, to commit future Governments, or indeed itself, through Parliament, to pay out to a particular service for which it is responsible an amount calculated on the basis of a fixed formula. That is something which does not square with our financial system as it works today. Well, then, we propose to act, as is set forth in Clause 2 of this Bill. In effect that means that the financial responsibility for the service of native education is accepted, and that raises the further question whether we should not take over the administrative responsibility for native education also. From time to time it has been suggested that native education should be taken away from the Provinces and assigned to a Union department, some being in favour of the Department of Native Affairs, and other of the Union Education Department. That is a suggestion which the Provinces, especially in recent years have strongly opposed. As hon. members are aware, it is our general policy not to disturb the present constitutional arrangement as between the Union Government and the Provinces, and having regard to that fact and to the provisions of Act 45 of 1934, in terms of which it is laid down that Parliament shall not abridge the powers conferred on the Provincial Councils save on petition from the Provincial Councils, we have agreed to maintain the status quo in this respect. The Provinces, therefore, will continue to exercise the administrative control of native education, but quite obviously, if we are to provide the funds, machinery must be created in regard to trie allocation and the application of these funds. Some body has to be set up which will discuss and consider the estimates of expenditure framed by the Provinces and which will then advise Treasury as to the amount to be made available in each particular year. In regard to that, there are really three aspects to be considered. The Provinces are interested. The Department of Native Affairs is interested, and I think there is the educational interest to consider too. In the composition of this Union Advisory Board we must bear in mind these three aspects. The Provinces will be represented. As I have said, the Secretary for Native Affairs will be the chairman and the Union Education Department will provide the secretariat, and the Secretary for Education will therefore be the Accounting Officer in respect of those monies which are made available and will exercise the necessary financial control. No doubt there will be those who will criticise the proposals contained in this Bill from one point of view or another. If we were starting with an entirely clean slate, I have no doubt that we would perhaps do things in a different way, but that is not the position. We have to take facts as we find them, and what we are proposing, I claim, is an appropriate solution of a practical problem. We have taken into account the constitutional and administrative facts; we have taken into account the financial position as it has developed; we have taken into account the expanding needs of native education for which it is our responsibility, under the legislation enacted by Parliament, to provide. I believe that it could be said of this Bill that it does take into account these facts and that it does propose to set up machinery which will meet these needs. In that spirit I commend the Bill to the House.

I have listened with interest to the excellent way in which the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill. I am, let me say it at the outset, disappointed in this Bill because it does not go far enough. But it nevertheless offers us in this House another opportunity of briefly tracing once again the development of native education, and to submit a few suggestions which may prove helpful in our attempt to formulate an educational policy for our native people. The first point I want to make—and I make it with a purpose—is that the education of the native should take full cognisance of his background, of his past, of his customs and of his tradition, and I will therefore give you a brief outline of the education, as we found it amongst the natives before the advent of the European. Long before this country was occupied by the white man, the natives had their own particular system of education for their young. It was not an elaborate system, I agree, but it made it possible for one generation to convey to the other the national customs and traditions as well as the great deeds of its heroes and its kings. Although the native had no arithmetic in his curriculum and neither reading nor writing, the young were taught under a well thought out plan which suited and satisfied his wants, the circumstances and the development of the native people. The natives had, for example, a very sound legal system based on their customs and on their habits. From his sixth year the young native boy was considered to be a member of the community and it was his duty to learn certain things, for example, the herding of cattle, the use of the stick and the assegai, eventually, in order to use them in war as in play. After achieving the responsibility of a herd-boy it was expected of him to know his father’s cattle by their colour and to detect sickness amongst the cattle and to report the same to his elders. The native was, and still is today, a very practical being, and I mention this especially for the edification of hon. members over the way, the members representing native interests, and he was therefore taught in a practical way to build his own hut, and the young native girls the art of making mats, etc. When the young native reached the age of puberty education began to play a very important part in his life, and at that stage he was made acquainted with the traditions of his people and came, for example, under the direct supervision of the medicine man. His education after puberty was very severe and the young native was severely reprimanded and punished for any misdemeanour which could act harmfully towards character building. And when finally he had developed from a herd-boy to an adult, his education came under his own family, and there the training included the laws of his tribe, his personal rights and the rights of his family, as well as his obligation towards his tribe and especially towards his family. The natives also built up a very strict moral code, which is still, as we know, very strict and severe especially in the reserves before they reach European civilisation. But for how many years, centuries or generations, this system of education existed, I cannot say, but there is something which we can build upon in our educational policy for our native people. Eventually the missionaries made their appearance, with the laudable object of spreading the gospel, and with this object in view they had of course to teach the native to read and to write. This process and its extension has been going on for a number of years for generations, and I am sure that the House will agree with me when I say that we are deeply indebted to those unselfish men and women who sometimes sacrificed their lives in an attempt to uplift the less fortunate and to enlighten the native races whose advancement for many years seemed to be no concern of the State which had, by conquest or otherwise, created a definite responsibility. Before Union, the South African states and colonies did very little towards the advancement, uplift or education of the different native tribes. It was left almost entirely to the different denominations to give attention to native education, and they were perhaps the only bodies which did give attention to native education, each with its own particular sectarian object and each following its own particular philosophy as regards native education or native policy in general. The pendulum swung more often than not between negrophilism and suppressionism. Eventually the State did take more interest in the development of the native races, especially after Union in 1910, and the hon. the Minister drew attention to the fact that in Section 85 of the South Africa Act, education other than higher education was assigned to the Provinces for a period of five years and thereafter till Parliament otherwise provides. One wonders sometimes whether Act No. 45 of 1934 took cognisance of this clause. Thus native education, along with coloured, Asiatic and European education, was put in the hands of the Provincial Councils. In Natal native education falls under the Education Department with a sub-department with its own inspectors for native education. I understand that the Cape is following on similar lines. But the question immediately arises as to who should control and finance native education; which form of control could best and to its fullest extent, advance native education on the basis of its own past, its own tradition, and its own customs, adapted to present day conditions. In 1913 the Union Education Department suggested that there should be a general transfer of all education to Union control. This matter was considered by the University Commission of 1914, which, however, did not feel itself entitled to make any formal recommendations on this subject. In 1915, the Provincial Administration Commission recommended the abolition of provincial councils and the transfer of all educational control to the Union Government, and in 1921 the Native Affairs Commission maintained that the education given to natives was fundamental to the development of native policy and would be the chief factor in the successful accomplishment of the Government’s aim of segregation and local self-government, and it therefore recommended—I quote the words—

In 1930 to 1932, the Native Economic Commission which enquired into the economic and social conditions of the native recommended, or expressed the view—

This matter of native education was further examined by the Interdepartmental Committee on Native Education in 1935, which was under the chairmanship of Senator Welsh, as the Minister mentioned. On this committee were represented the different provincial councils or education administrations of the four provinces, and after careful consideration it recommended —and again I quote from their report—

For the first time and the last time this suggestion was made—

I draw attention to this because I want to point out that the Minister has almost entirely followed the suggestion in this particular instance—

In order that the Minister should be in close touch with native policy, this commission recommended that the Secretary for Native Affairs should be a member of this board. Now, the wording of that particular recommendation is absent from the present Bill. Although the Minister mentions that he intends appointing the Secretary for Native Affairs, this Bill does not provide for it, and I will, at a later stage, suggest that it be definitely inserted in this Bill that the Secretary for Native Affairs be a member This was in 1936. In 1939 the Union Government, after hesitating for many years, finally contemplated legislation on the basis of these suggestions and the matter was referred to the Provincial Consultative Committee which recommended that it should be referred by memorandum to the four provincial administrations. This was done, and we find that the transfer of the control of education, especially native education, was accepted by the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, but that Natal objected and suggested, or expressed the desire, that native education should remain with the provincial councils, and asked for additional funds from the Union Government for that object.

Difficult people in Natal.

No, they are good people. At a subsequent meeting with the Minister of Native Affairs, Natal remained adamant and the suggestion was made that the Minister of Native Affairs should draft the necessary Bill for consideration by the four provincial councils. This Bill was drafted, but unfortunately war broke out and nothing further came to it. Since 1939, however, the Union Government has, from year to year, granted further funds for the extension of native education by means, as we have heard from the Minister, of successive allocations from the native general tax, but this money has now been exhausted and so the whole question of control and finance has once more come up for decision. The provinces and the Native Representative Council have again been consulted, with the result that the four provinces now unanimously argue for the retention of native education within the provinces, but that the Union Government should provide further funds for the normal extension and advancement of native education; and on January 19th, 1944, the Provincial Consultative Committee reported their resolve—I quote from the report—

The recommendations of the Native Representative Council were not unanimous, and they suggested on the one hand that native education should be controlled and financed in the same way as ordinary education, or the education of the other classes of the community. The vote was 8-6 if I remember correctly, and the minority suggested that native education should be transferred from the Provincial Councils to the Central Government and be administered by the Minister of Education. From what I have said now it is quite clear there are four courses open to the Government: Firstly, to leave the position as it has been since Union, that is in the hands of the Provincial Councils and to provide further funds for its expansion; secondly, the present Bill; thirdly the transfer of native education to the Central Government and placing it under the Minister of Education, and fourthly, the transfer of native education to the control of the Central Government and placing it under the Minister of Native Affairs. Before enlarging on these, I think you will allow me to say a word of two on the content of native education, and here we are immediately faced with a threefold problem; firstly the education of the native in the reserves; secondly the education of the detribalised native on the farm; and thirdly the education of the detribalised native in our towns and cities. This is a vast problem, I submit, the solution of which will decide, to a very great extent, the so-called native problem in our country. It must, however, be evident to all thinking individuals who give their attention to native education, and native policy in general, that the education of the three types cannot possibly be the same. Our main aim with the education of the native in the reserves must be to deal with the simplest and humblest avocations of the people, building up upon them amongst the people and in their own villages, instead of taking the individuals away from their surroundings, and collecting them in institutions where they will probably be trained and educated on the basis of the white man. We should rather seek, as a commission in Rhodesia has stated, to develop native art and their latent wealth of raw material. Industry should be taught, for example the tanning of hides and skins, food production, rope and mat making, chair making, carpentry, smithing, and especially hygiene should be taught to the natives in the reserves. Institutional education cannot be avoided, especially for our more advanced and rapidly developing natives, but I feel that eventually the education must reach the kraal. That is the most important point I want to make in connection with the education of the native in the reserve. The obvious method here is, of course through the training of native pupils who will eventually establish themselves as teachers and craftsmen in their own homes. All instruction must make them agents of propagation, agents of learning, agents of development and of enlightenment. This should be our aim with the natives in the reserves. But what about the native who has become a permanent farm dweller, who is working on the farms in the capacity of farm labourers or farm foremen? Here I submit that education should be, as in the case of the Europeans more practical than academic, with a definite agricultural background. But without going any further into this I want to continue with the education of the natives in the cities and in the towns, education of the detribalised native who has left the kraal for good and has become a city dweller. Native education here calls for totally different treatment and a content which will enable him to adapt himself to his city environment, and will enable the native population to produce their own clerks, to have their own courts, to train their own doctors, and their nurses for their hospitals and sick, their own teachers and clergymen, their own professors, their own lawyers, their own magistrates ….

And their own politicians.

Yes, and their own politicians too. I am not so sure that the present Bill will make this possible or achieve the greatest measure of success. I certainly would like to have seen the control of such an important and delicate matter in the hands of the national body, that is the Union Government. But, Sir, may I be allowed to give you a few reasons why I would like to have seen it in the hands of the Union Government. Native education, you will all agree, is the chief factor in moulding the native policy in South Africa, and it therefore should be administered by the body responsible for that policy, that is the Union Government. While today the native people will require adaptations of education to suit their special requirements there is need for a unified policy for the country as a whole, and that policy could best be prescribed by the Union Government. In particular it needs to determine whether the education should be based on European practice, or whether it should pay particular heed to the capabilities and needs of the native people. The funds for native education should come from native sources, and if that is not the case today it will eventually be the case, even if it is in a hundred years’ time. The funds should therefore be derived from the body which is entitled or empowered to levy native taxation. And if native education is to serve the native people to its fullest extent there is need for the fullest co-operation amongst the different departments of State, and that can only happen if it is controlled from the highest body. Furthermore, it should also locally be under the direction of our native commissioners or our magistrates, and the Union Government is the only body which controls magistrates. The control by the Union Government will also remove various disabilities and anomalies which exist today and which are causing discontent among our native people. A Union system of control is necessary in order to give fair treatment to natives living in those Provinces where native education is not popular, and where it has not received and cannot hope to receive adequate treatment and encouragement. It is definitely not in the interests of the native people as a whole, and of the country as a whole, that one section should advance while others do not, while the natives in another section cannot hope to advance or are retarded in their advancement and development. If the administration of native education should be in the hands of the Union Government it is interesting to see what the Commission of 1921 advocated. It advocated that native education should be a department of State under the Minister of Native Affairs; to obtain the necessary co-ordination of educational and other native policy there should be constituted a board of native education consisting of the Secretary for Native Education, the Secretary for Native Affairs and a member of the Native Affairs Commission —a very sound suggestion or recommendation indeed. And under the Secretary for Native Affairs there should be three superintendents, one at Kingwilliamstown for the Transkei and the Cape, one in Pietermaritzburg for Natal and Zululand, and one in Johannesburg for the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. We could go further; we could have inspectors of native schools who in the beginning should be Europeans but eventually must be natives. We should have teachers too, but it is not necessary to go into that matter now. This view of the Commission of 1921 was also held by the Commissions of 1935-’36, 1939-’40—as late as all that—and the 1939-’40 Commission said inter alia in its report.

It seems, however, that the time for such control has not yet arrived and we shall therefore have to wait some years for an opportune time, that time when the Provinces will realise, and when we in this House will realise that all national matters should be and must be in the hands of the Central Government.

Hear, hear.

It is a pity that events prevented immediate action by the Central Government when the Provinces were ready for such transfer. However, that opportunity was missed. Why? Mainly because, since we have been in contact with the native races in this country, we have been tampering with it, we have been following a vacillating policy from 1779, instead of getting down to the problem and solving it once and for all. With regard to this matter I think we must have the fullest confidence in the integrity and in the sincerity of our Provincial Councils. We can only trust that the time is very near when they will fully realise this vast principle and this vast and delicate problem. With regard to the further provisions of this Bill, I have two further criticisms to offer. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 show clearly that the recommendations, as I have pointed out, of the Inter-departmental Committee on Native Education of 1935-’36 have been adopted except, of course, that this Bill does not provide for the transfer of native education to the Union Government; and also that the abovemen tioned clauses of the Bill are very vague. I would therefore suggest, and I hope the Minister will accept this, he said he would do it, that it be definitely inserted that the members of that board should include the Secretary for Native Affairs, the Secretary for Education and a member of the Native Affairs Commission. I think it would improve his Bill if he accepts my suggestion. As to who should be the chairman depends on how the Minister is going to react towards my following criticism, and that is in regard to the direction of native education. I honestly feel that the direction of native education as provided for in this Bill, should not be in the hands of the Minister of Education. We have a very competent Native Affairs Department and a very competent Minister of Native Affairs. This Native Affairs Administration has been for many years the Ministries of Agriculture, of Public Health, of Public Roads etc. to the native. Why cannot they also be the Ministry of Education to direct native education? Native administration has a competent and trained personnel. They have the men who have given a life-long study to the native people and to native problems. They direct the native policy, and I feel firmly convinced, with all due respect to our present brilliant Minister of Education, that the welfare of the native as a whole could best be served by placing the direction of native education in the hands of the Minister of Native Affairs. From experience we know that our different departments of State are very unco-ordinated and very jealous of each its others powers and functions, and I fear if this Bill is accepted in its present form, also in regard to native education as such and native administration and finance in general, we shall have a continuance of the bickering and the pettiness and the wastage of money which has so often evinced itself in the past—to the detriment of an adequate and full realisation that a sound and lasting solution of the native problem lies in the native schools where the foundation for the adult is laid, where the native youth is prepared for native adult life. Our policy should be planned on that basis, on the recognised principle that youth and its education are part and parcel of the whole man. If we accept this Bill as it stands it means we have failed to take full cognisance of this principle, and thereby disturb the continuity in the life and government of the native people. Therefore I trust that, even at this late hour, the Government will realise this and substitute “Minister of Native Affairs” for “Minister of Education”. I think I have said enough to make the House realise once more the problems we are facing as guardians and advisers of the native people. These problems cry out for solution, a solution which can only be achieved by objective thinking and handling, and the sincere desire on the part of both the native and the European and also on the part of both the Central Government and the provincial councils, for an amicable settlement of the most intricate, the most delicate and the most dangerous problem.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) had the courage to make that speech in the House this morning. I am very glad to see that practically in all respects he supports the policy which we on this side of the House announced in the House the other day. What is more, I am glad to see that he supports almost 100 per cent. the policy which this side of the House has always so clearly held out to the nation and so clearly declared in this House, what the policy ought to be with regard to native education in the country. I appreciate the fact that he had the courage to rise and to sound a very clear note on the other side of the House. I am only sorry that he is a voice calling in the wilderness, because if we look at the policy followed by the Government, we feel that the hon. member for Vryheid and perhaps also a few other members on that side are practically just voices calling in the wilderness. That is a fact. If we look at the policy put into practice during the last few years, we can state the fact here that the country has never had a Government which was so impotent, or rather let me say a Government which was so unwilling, to put our racial problem on a sound basis as the present Government. Here we have a clear example, one we have had many times. The course of events in connection with native education has never before placed a Government in such a favourable position to tackle the whole matter in an energetic manner, to place the whole matter on a sound basis, to solve the problem in the best interests of both European and nonEuropean, as the present Government. Look at the point of view of the native population outside. Look at the point of view of the Afrikaans-speaking population outside. Look at the point of view of your English-speaking population outside. Never before has the time been as ripe as today; never before has such a golden opportunity presented itself to the Government as today. But what do we find? We find the Government initiating this sort of legislation. I cannot help but repeat what I said the other day in the House, that on behalf of a large portion of the native population in this country, on behalf of a large portion of the English-speaking population and the major portion of the Afrikaans-speaking population, we once again want to protest very seriously against this policy which the Minister is following. As has correctly been stated here, education is the key to the creation of the proper relationship between European and non-European in South Africa. If there is a matter which should be watched with the greatest care and the greatest caution, it is native education, the education of all non-Europeans. There is practically no other aspect of our public life as regards racial problems which should be tackled with so much care, with so much caution and with so much earnestness as this very question of native education. Put native education on a sound basis and half the racial questions are solved. Do not forget that the schools today are the places where racial problems of the future are evolved, and to the degree that a sound basis is created for education, to the same degree the future racial problems of South Africa will be made easier and lighter. We cannot deny that fact. It is a fact we see today in other Provinces in Africa; it is a fact we see in America; it is a fact we see in the West Indian islands and in other countries where problems of colour exist. There is this one message; provide sound education for the non-Europeans and half your racial problems will be solved. If we regard the state of native education in South Africa today, we can only describe it by the use of one word, namely that it is a chaotic condition. It is nothing less than a chaotic condition. As regards native education, we today find a muddle in South Africa, a muddle so great that it is a blot on our policy in South Africa. I want to pause for a moment at the control of native education. As was correctly pointed out here by the hon. member for Vryheid, it is one of the most essential things that native education should be controlled by the Union Government. I just want to add this other fact to it, namely that policy and education cannot be separated; policy and administration dare not be separated. That is the sound basis; that is the sound direction. What do we find in South Africa today? Just take the Provinces, as regards native education. Each Province simply adopts its own course and its own direction, and each Province does just as it likes while the Union Government keeps mum. It has correctly been pointed out that in recent times commissions and other bodies who can really speak with authority on this subject have repeatedly stressed that the time is not only ripe but that it is more than ripe when the control of native education should be placed under the Union Government. Everyone who can speak with authority on this subject made that recommendation and spoke with a clear voice on the subject. We had this phenomenon that even the Provinces have come to that conclusion to a large degree. With the exception of one Province they came to that conviction. Then immediately the argument was used: The war has broken out, now that war has broken out nothing can be done about the matter. We now find ourselves on the eve of peace, and now the Minister brings forth this Bill, probably with the excuse that peace is approaching and that we can therefore do nothing further in the matter. It is not right towards the country, especially if one takes into consideration that all those persons and bodies who can speak about the subject with authority made this clear and unequivocal recommendation to this House. It is therefore the express duty of the House to tackle this matter immediately. But not only is there a muddle in the Provinces. If one for example looked at the administration of education in the Provinces, what is the state of affairs one perceives there? We find this state of affairs, that native education in the Provinces is being controlled by missionary societies and sects for the most part, and that today in South Africa there are in existence about 500 sects and missionary societies. Each Province has a curriculum to which effect is given to a certain degree, but the fact cannot be denied that each sect has only one aim namely to put its own stamp on the soul of the native children. It ignores the prescribed curriculum. It only teaches that to the children so that they can write their examinations, and not so as to form and develop the soul of these children. Those few hundred sects and missionary societies which are at work through the length and breadth of the country have only one object, and that is to impress their own stamp on the soul of the native child. That is not right towards the natives. I just want to pause to deal with a few facts in connection herewith. Unfortunately I have not the figures of the latest reports with me, but I want to pause for a moment at the figures given for the year 1939. I take the Cape Province. In the Cape Province we find the following, according to the report of the Director of Education: The work of native education, with the assistance of the State, is divided amongst no less than 21 church societies; in other words, this sum of money, of which the Minister makes no mention is divided amongst no less than 21 sectarian societies. The report proceeds and says: Three churches are responsible for the large majority thereof. In the first place we have the Methodist Church. That church controls no fewer than 788 native schools, with 85,000 pupils. In the second place we have the Anglican Churches with 385 schools and 45,000 pupils. In the third place we have the Church of Scotland with 313 schools and approximately 50,000 pupils. We therefore have this position in the Cape Province, that these three have no less than 1,486 schools under their control. In other words, 80 per cent. of the pupils in the Cape Province are under their control today. Here I again bring that accusation. I want to say this, that if there is one person who really appreciates what the missionary societies have done, it is I. They did good work; no one can deny that. But we also have to consider this other fact, namely that most of the missionary societies—I am sorry to have to say it, but I must—in many cases have as motive hot so much to preach the gospel, not so much to develop the soul of the native, but more the cultivation of a definite culture and denationalisation of the native to make him an imitator of the western civilisation. We cannot get past this fact. These facts are there. Instead of the missionary societies keeping in mind the actual interests and the soul of the native and the interests of the whole of the western civilisation in South Africa; instead of their building on what is peculiar to the native and developing that, they only started from one point of view, namely that they wanted to put their stamp on the native. It has been said of the Italians that if they do missionary work they forget about their Roman Catholic Church; it has been said of the Germans that if they do missionary work they forget about their culture; but if the British do missionary work they eventually left one thing behind them, namely a store. Their work has as its object to develop markets amongst the native population, instead of educating the native populations on their own lines and to develop what is good in the life of the native. I pass on to the condition in the Free State. According to the 1939 figures, the Dutch Church had 153 schools there, with just over 10,000 pupils. The Methodists had 85 schools with just over 7,000 pupils; the Anglican Church had 10 schools with 1,600 pupils and the Amalgamated Mission Societies had 83 schools with 23,000 pupils. In the Transvaal the position was the following: The Inter Church Societies had 118 schools with just over 20,000 pupils; the Wesleyan Mission Society 121 schools with 20,000 pupils; the Dutch Reformed Church 127 schools with 12,500 pupils, the Anglican Church 112 schools with 19,000 pupils, and the rest of the mission societies just over 200 schools with something like 20,000 pupils. In Natal we find the following figures of the Provincial Secretary for Education, namely that the Anglican Church had 104 schools with just over 10,000 pupils; the Methodists 104 schools with just over 10,000 pupils, and the other mission societies 473 schools, with more than 50,000 pupils. A large section of the country is under the impression that native education is controlled by the Provincial Administrations and that the Provincial Administrations exercise proper supervision just as in the case of European education, namely that the Province is there to see that a native education policy is followed. That is not the case. Most mission societies have the primary object of putting their own stamp on the native, and only in the second place do they follow the curriculum of the Provincial authorities, merely to enable the pupils to pass their examinations. If we consider the actual position, we see that there is a chaotic position in connection with native education, and if it continues like that I can only prophesy still greater chaos in South Africa. I appreciate what the Provincial Administrations have done, but if we have regard to the position we cannot do otherwise but say that the Provincial Administrations in large measure simply allow the muddle to continue. If we see what a hopeless failure the Provincial Administrations have made of this matter, the Government dare not allow this matter to be controlled by them any longer, but it should immediately take it over and place it under the Union Government. I want to pause for just a moment to discuss the curriculum which is being followed. We have one curriculum in the Cape; we have another in the Free State; in Natal there is another, and Transvaal again has a different one. I again want to stress the fact that we must not attach too much imporance to the existence of these curricula, because the mission societies are busy negativing those curricula in their schools in large measure, and are not putting them into practice. Instead of following the curriculum they are busy putting their own stamp on the children. The fact is that the existing situation is extremely unsound. Look at the clashes between the curricula in the Cape, Transvaal and the other provinces. The natives in the Cape Province and the Transvaal, for example, are dissatisfied because the one has something which the other has not. We already have that basis of dissatisfaction amongst the natives, but not only is it a ground of dissatisfaction for the native population themselves, but also as regards our native policy it is an absolutely unsound position. I am glad that the hon. member for Vryheid laid stress on this fact that it is a national problem and that as such it should be under the control of the Union Government, in order that the Union Government may see to it that the native education policy is in harmony with the national policy in general. There should be unity of policy right throughout the whole of South Africa. I say that a sound foundation and basis should be laid down to apply to the whole of the Union. Just look at what the natives are taught in the schools. Instead of the curriculum fitting in with the background of the native, we find that something which is strange to him is being forced on him. We cannot deny it. I am glad that the hon. member for Vryheid also stressed this fact, namely that the native’s own background must be considered in his education. The native has a beautiful background which offers a sound basis of development. Take his knowledge of soil. We will generally find native kraals in the fertile portions of the vicinty. He had a practical knowledge of soil. Look at his love of animals. There are few peoples who exhibit such a love for animals as the native population—I do not refer to the detribalised native. Especially amongst the Sothos we find that they have a great love of animals. They treat cattle as a sort of deity. They sing about cattle as “the God with the wet nose”. I have often noticed in the native reserves how tenderly and kindly natives treat their cattle, in comparison with the denationalised natives who we find on farms and in cities. Where can we find a better knowledge of plants amongst children than one finds amongst young native children between the ages of 8 and 10? There are many adults who do not know as much about plants. Take the history of the native. It is really a privilege to sit and listen to the old natives when they tell the history of their people for the past hundred years. The area in which the tribe lives becomes their world, and instead of building on that, we find that something is forced upon them which is quite strange to them. For that reason I say that we must have a curriculum which develops what the native already has. The native’s own national heroes can be dealt with in history when a history lesson is given to native children in the schools. That will be useful to the native. But now he only hears of King Henry VIII with his multitude of wives, of the wooden horse of Troy and of all sorts of things which are not connected with his life. These things are forced upon him and today already we see the tragic results of that policy. Go to the native in the reserve and speak to him in his own language, and you will be surprised at his knowledge of the rivers and the geography of his surroundings. That can be taken as a basic ground for development. But speak to him about it in English and he knows nothing about his surroundings. I really feel concerned about the situation in which our natives are landed with the curriculum which is being followed and with the education they receive today. In this respect the Transvaal is quite a long distance in advance of the other provinces. The Transvaal has made a fair degree of progress and its education system can to a large degree serve as a model for the other provinces. But even the Transvaal has by far not progressed enough in that respect. For that reason I say that there should be reform of the whole educational system and it must be based on the culture and background and the whole life of the native himself in his tribe, on which development may take place. If that is done, the native’s own life will be developed and possibly we may also find this, that he will take the best out of western civilisation and apply it to his own life. But what is the result of the education system we have at present? It is that the native retains only the worst of his on civilisation, and on the other hand, he absorbs only the worst of European civilisation, because the civilisaiton of the European at present is simply something which is applied to him from the outside. If the native can ride on a bicycle and he can hang bells all round that bicycle when he rides through the street, he regards it as the highest product of European civilisation he can find. That is the result of our having uprooted him from the anchor of his own background, because we did not allow him to retain what was best in it, and made him absorb a western civilisation in a manner which did not make it inherent to him but which purely turned him into an imitator. The whole of this educational system has a tragic effect on the brain of the native. The result of it is that we find superficiality amongst the natives—a superficiality in the case of the denationalised native which fills us with anxiety about the position. There is no depth in him. Instead of our having evolved a product who will be able to improve the mental state of his own nation, we evolved a superficial imitator of the white man and of the possessions of the white man. That is not just towards the native. This whole educational system aims not only at separating the native from his nation, but to make him a danger to the whole civilisation in the country. The result is that the native today desires to be a European and also to have the white skin of the European. That is a dangerous phenomenon which we find. The native does everything in his power to straighten his hair a little; he does everything in his power to scrape his skin a little whiter. The process has thus developed so far that the native is already desirous to have the physical properties of the European, and the danger in this phenomenon is greater than one often realises. It waxes and becomes a danger for the European population. That is not all. This whole policy is also a danger for our own western civilisation, and we must not lose sight of that fact. Our people and our children come into contact with the native population and that contact has an effect on our western civilisation. Instead of it also raising the standard of our civilisation, the present system results in a deleterious effect on the European civilisation. Take children in the cities who come into contact with denationalised natives, and take children in the country who come into contact with natives who still live under tribal conditions, and you will see what a deleterious effect the denationalised native has. It is a danger which goes much deeper than one realises. I cannot spend time on all the points, but I also want to refer to the great economic burden which this policy lays on the country. If the natives were anchored to their own tradition and taught to be proud thereof, they would be a greater asset to the State. One today has the position that natives become denationalised on a large scale, with the result that they simply loaf around and will not do anything. They have no more spirit and energy to attain a higher sphere of development for themselves and for their nation. It is a very dangerous policy which the Minister is following.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When proceedings were suspended I was busy pointing out how unsatisfactory the position is today as regards native education, especially in regard to administration and the curriculum, and how it can have only one result, namely national deterioration of the natives on a large scale. I further pointed out how deleterious the effect is on the various aspects of the life of the native. I now just want to add the following point, and that is the bad effect it has on the civic life of the native. There is no doubt that the native feels that an injustice has been done him because we do not recognise his own spiritual values. I am reminded of an old native who asked me a few years ago in connection with the erection of a school: “Baas, what do you give our children in the school? When they come out of school we can do nothing with them, they are of no value to our community, they have respect for no one.” I want to point to the deleterious effect on the moral well-being of the native. Today you have a large number of detribalised natives and denationalised natives, and we see what a burden they are on the State. No less an authority than Jesse Jones, who is an authority on the subject of native education, issued the serious warning that if we do not give the natives the correct education we will turn them into poison sacs. The proof thereof one finds in the urban locations, especially as a result of the kind of native education given—they have become nothing but poison sacs. What is more serious, if we have regard to the sort of education given in the native schools in the country, we must come to the unfortunate conclusion, however unpleasant it may be, that in many cases they are the dissemination points of that poison found amongst the natives. That is not fair towards the natives. The correct system to be applied to the natives is the system of definite Christian national education. That principle should govern the whole of the education policy for the natives. Then we will create a nation which is really an asset to the country. The principle of education through medium of the mother tongue should also be applied to the natives. It is often said that we have too many native languages in South Africa. That shows great ignorance, because there are only four native language groups in South Africa, namely Nguni, which is used throughout Swaziland, throughout Natal until the Cape. Included in this we have the Zulu language, the Swazi language, and you have Xosa and Ndebele, but the languages are now so related to each other that we can take Zulu as the language of one group, and it is one of the most beautiful languages in the world. Then one has the Sotho group, which includes Tswana, which is spoken particularly in Bechuanaland and Western Transvaal, South Sotho, which is spoken practically over the whole of the Free State, and North Sotho, which is spoken in the Transvaal. Of the Sotho groups one can take North Sohto as the language. One can take North Sotho as the standard of comparison. Then there is the Thonga Shangaan group which is spoken especially round about Barberton, but the numbers are very limited; and then you have the Vendu group in Zoutpansberg, which includes about 180,000 and they are also in a process of joining up with the Nguni or Sotho group. The fact is that one can found a thorough policy on the basis of two langues, namely Zulu and Sotho; only these two languages. I just want to point out that in England, for example, one finds no less than 80 dialects, and the language which we write and talk is the language of London, and the same process can be inaugurated here by means of a wise policy. I just want to sound a warning note in regard to the financing of native education. I am in favour of the natives receiving an opportunity to develop, but we must not go too fast. In 1938 the expenditure on native education was £893,000; in 1944 it had risen to £1,900,000, and in 1945 to £2,530,000 if we include the amount devoted to the feeding of natives. We must be rather careful. Then just a few words about the Bill itself. When we come to the Bill, I am in the unfortunate position that I can only say that it puts a crown on the existing state of chaos. It really creates the chaos of Babel. Take for example the matter of control. It is supposed to rest with the Provinces, but is prescribed by a Union Advisory Board. The financial arrangements are made by the Union Government and the chairman is the Secretary for Native Affairs. One really does not know what will happen and the Minister is so vague about the whole matter that he cannot even tell us how this important Board will be constituted. That is one of the great deficiencies in the Bill. Why does the Minister not tell us how the Board will be composed, especially as so many powers will be entrusted to it. I wish to conclude with the serious appeal to the Minister of Education to appoint a Commission to investigate the whole matter thoroughly. Commissions have been appointed in the past but the time is now ripe for the thorough investigation of the matter in order to lay a proper foundation. The whole course of events in the whole of the Union indicates that this is the proper time to place native education on a proper basis. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

I second the amendment. After the very instructive speeches of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) it is a great pleasure to me to second this amendment. Having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Wonderboom, which was also supported by what the hon. member for Vryheid said, one feels that the only conclusion to which one can come, is that this legislation is not going to solve the problem, that it is not going to restore order out of the chaos which has been created. That is the opinion of those hon. members who have given serious attention to this matter. What we need in South Africa is a revision of the position, a revision which will take place after a thorough investigation of the problem. These two hon. members, especially the hon. member for Wonderboom, with his extensive knowledge of native affairs, did not leave much that is new for the ordinary member to say in regard to this matter. But there are a few thoughts which I should like to stress. The first is that since the native problem is regarded, if not as the greatest problem of South Africa at the moment, then at any rate as one of the greatest, and a problem which in any event is going to become the greatest problem in the future, we feel that this problem which is of so much importance to the future of South Africa, can only be tackled and that changes can only be brought about in one of its aspects if it is done with the greatest circumspection. If anything of that kind takes place, it should only take place after proper planning, and not in a slipshod way. The effect of such a change ought to be taken into account, because it affects the relationship between European and nonEuropean, but the native problem especially, the solution of which will be of so much significance to the whole of South Africa in the future, ought to be regarded as an entity and it should be approached from one angle only. In other words, I think we in South Africa ought to have an even more extensive Department of Native Affairs, and that all matters affecting the natives and the relationship between Europeans and natives, all changes in the policy towards the natives, should be brought about by that Department only, and other departments ought not to intervene and to undertake work which falls under the Department of Native Affairs. I say that this problem should be regarded as an entity and it should only be dealt with by people who have the necessary training, and it is only when it is dealt with by trained people in one department, that we can get a continuing policy, not only from year to year, but from generation to generation. It is impossible to get that if other departments interfere with this matter which should be regarded as one entity; because if that is done, it will not be treated as one entity; it will be dealt with piecemeal. When one looks at this Bill, one is given the impression that an attempt has been made to create the impression that this is only a financial measure, that it deals with the control of funds which are intended for native education, and that it will be dealt with on a new basis in the future. By creating an education board, an attempt is being made to bring about a change in native education as a whole. The first point which strikes one in this legislation is this. What is going to happen if the protectorates of Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland are incorporated? Native education remains under the Provincial Administrations with an advisory body over them, but no machinery is created in this legislation for the incorporation of the various protectorates surrounding the Union. If the whole matter had been under the Department of Native Affairs, we would have had the machinery ready when the protectorates are incorporated, to proceed at once with educational work in those protectorates. But as this Bill reads at present, as soon as the protectorates are incorporated, provision will have to be made afresh by means of other legislation for native education in those territories. Another question which, in my opinion arises in the mind of everyone is in what direction we are going as far as native education is concerned. During the last few years especially there has been an enormous increase in this vote. Apparently no limits have been fixed. No estimate has been made of the costs which will be involved over a long period of years. It has not even been decided from which sources the financing of native education is to come, and I think that fact is creating a feeling of concern in the minds of many people as to the future, because they do not know where this is going to lead to, and how great the costs are going to be, nor do they know what section of the population will be asked in the future to bear those costs. If we want to pass effective legislation of this nature, there ought to be certainty in the minds of the people in connection with these matters; they should know how much the various sections of the population will have to contribute to the costs, and how much will be devoted to native education over a fairly long period of years, at any rate. The second factor in regard to which we are becoming perturbed—and this appeared clearly from the speech of the hon. member for Wonderboom—is the trend which is being followed in connection with native education. Everyone feels that as far as the curriculum is concerned, although the position is much better than it was in the past, the trend which is being followed still leaves a great deal to be desired. It is difficult to ask people to spend such huge sums of money on native education, when the actual trend of it has not yet been determined. There may be one good feature in this Rill, although the Bill detracts from its value to a large extent, namely, that we are at least getting a little more centralisation with regard to the direction of native education. We are getting more central control, but the direction and the control we are getting is not of a statutory nature. This Bill does not give the central body any powers except advisory powers. Although the Minister of Education felt that there ought to be more cetralisation and more central control of native education, although machinery is partly being created to achieve the object of effecting central direction and control, we find that the provisions of this Bill frustrate that object, because the central body or board can only give advice and it is left to the Provinces to a large extent to decide whether they are going to adopt that central advice and direction, or whether they are simply going to continue with the direction which they have followed in the past. I need only look at the manner in which this proposed board is constituted to realise immediately that it will be practically impossible to devise a uniform educational system. When I speak of an educational system, my remarks must not be construed to mean that in my opinion every type of native in every part of the country must get the same education, but what I feel is that there ought to be certain basic conceptions which can be applied to all four Provinces. It will be difficult to achieve that, bearing in mind the composition of the advisory board. In the first place we have the four different Provincial Administrations. As far as native education is concerned, the policy of the four Provincial Administrations differ very greatly. Apparently the Transvaal Department has made the greatest progress in the right direction; the other Provinces have done so to a lesser extent, but the point is that there are four directions all conflicting to a certain extent, and we should endeavour to attain uniformity in those directions. Then we have the Union Education Department, the Treasury, and eventually a representative of the Department of Native Affairs on the Advisory Board. I visualise a fair amount of conflict between the representatives on the Advisory Board. In the first place we will have a certain amount of conflict between the Department of Native Affairs, with its views in regard to the needs of the natives, and the Department of Education which deals with a totally different type of person. We will have differences between the Treasury and the Department of Native Affairs, and also between the Department of Native Affairs and the four Provincial Administrations, each having its own system of native education, with the result that there will practically be no centralised control, with the further result that we shall not have one continuing policy but practically the American system of “checks and balances” in our educational system, instead of one continuing policy in connection with native education in South Africa. In my opinion there is only one department which ought to have control, and that is the Department of Native Affairs. They ought to have full control of native education. My first reason is that we want the native problem to be regarded as a unit, and for that reason we want to place all aspects of it under one department which can then carry out a continuing policy in connection with education. The second reason is that in the Department of Native Affairs we have people who have specially concentrated on native affairs, and with my experience of the officials of the Department of Native Affairs, I feel that they are the people who will carry out the wisest policy in connection with these matters. My experience is that those officials are people who have a very great measure of sympathy towards the natives, and that they are imbued with a desire to improve the position of the native in South Africa, but that in any event they do not hold those theoretical and romantic ideas which we so often find in the case of people who want to approach the native problem in that spirit. They approach the native problem in a realistic manner, having regard to the interests of South Africa as a whole. Since we have such a department, why should we now create an Advisory Board, a step which may lead to all sorts of difficulties because that board has no real executive power. If we place native education under the Department of Native Affairs, certain definite principles can be laid down for native education throughout South Africa, and we could then have a continuing policy which can be carried out from one generation to another generation. It is very clear from the speeches which have been made in this House that native education in South Africa, to a large extent, has been left to missionary societies up to the present time. There are certain parts of it which are good. Many of these missionaries are people who have a great knowledge of the natives and who have tackled this problem in a realistic manner. But there were many of them, especially those who came from overseas and with overseas money, who had unpractical, romantic ideas in connection with the natives. They had the idea of the noble barbarian; they did not think of the native as an uncivilsed person. These people have done great harm to South Africa. They have created political difficulties between Europeans and non-Europeans, Very often they have created difficulties between native and native. In the process of the competition which existed between the various societies, they eventually placed the native in such a position that he was completely confused and did not know what was right and what was wrong. A very interesting feature in connection with this is the fact that the Hollanders in the East Indies soon realised that if they gave free reign to the various missionary societies, they would create great confusion and that eventually it would do the natives more harm than good. They wisely decided to delimitate areas. They gave perhaps one or two islands to one society. Where it was a big island, they divided the island between two or more societies. In that way every missionary society was given its own delimitated area, which was possibly bigger than the area which it had previously to do its work, with the result that they did not have the position which we have in South Africa where two or more missionary societies work alongside each other and compete against each other, as so frequently happens in this country. The result of this was that they gave the native nothing which was of value to him but took away from him something that was his own, with the result that he was left in the air with something which he did not understand. In that connection an investigation was instituted about ten years ago to ascertain whether it was not possible to do something in South Africa on the same lines as in the East Indies. The matter was raised in the Select Committee on Native Affairs. It was discussed at that time in view of the dangers which then existed and the confusion which existed even at that time. It was decided to investigate the possibility of the demarcation of territories for the various missionary societies, so that everyone would have a monopoly in its own area, an area which was bigger than the area it had previously. As a result of this investigation which lasted for three years, it was found that the position in South Africa had developed to such an extent that we could no longer revert to that policy. It was impossible to effect a demarcation and to give greater areas to the various societies in that way. If we get central control of native education in this country, however, we will be able to eliminate to a great extent that evil which we now have as a result of the existence of a large number of missionary societies. We cannot get a demarcation of areas, but we can get uniformity as far as the curricula are concerned by laying down definite directions, and in that way we can eliminate the confusion which has been created to a great extent by the missionary societies in South Africa. What the Minister proposes in this Bill will not eliminate that evil; it will perpetuate it. It will only be possible to do something in that direction when native education is centralised under the Department of Native Affairs and when fixed principles are laid down. The hon. member for Wonderboom said a great deal in regard to the difference between the detribalised native and the native who still maintains his tribal relationship and in regard to the different types of education which is needed for them. I do not want to go into that. I think it is essential that there should be a difference in the spirit and in the direction of the curriculum of natives who have become detribalised and who are going to be employed in the industries of the cities, and those natives who still retain the tribal connection in their own territories and who are going to live there. However, I do not want to enlarge on that. But there is one point to which I should like to have a reply. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give me a reply now. But if native education had fallen under the Department of Native Affairs, I would have got a reply to this question. We have two directions in South Africa. The one direction is that of the Nationalist Party, namely, that wherever it is possible to do so, the native should be kept in his tribal state, and that he should be educated and developed as far as possible in accordance with his customs and traditions. The party on the other side is divided on that question. A large section of them, like the hon. member for Vryheid, agrees with us that the native should be allowed as far as possible to retain his tribal connection. The representatives of the natives in this House go to the other extreme. They, the Communists and the Socialists and those people, believe that the native should be set free from his tribal customs, and as one hon. member put it, that he should be made a black European. The majority of people in South Africa who have given attention to these matters, and who are concerned about the future of the natives and also of the Europeans in South Africa, whose aim it is to have a good relationship and understanding between black and white, do not want us to interfere with the tribal customs, and not only do they not want us to interfere with the tribal customs, but they want us to oppose any departure from those tribal habits and customs. We have heard from people who are authorities in the sphere of native affairs that the tribal habits and customs of the natives are of great value to them as a standard in life. I should like to mention one case here. It is a very interesting case of which I was told by the previous Secretary of the Bunga, the Native Commissioner pf Kingwilliamstown, Major Apthorpe. He told me that natives frequently return to the Transkei from the Witwatersrand where they have been working on the mines. When they return a police report concerning them is sent to the Transkei. Often they are described as the greatest and most dangerous of criminals on the Witwatersrand. They return to the Transkei and it is expected that there they will continue their career of crime. For that reason they are kept under observation. But the very opposite happens. When they return to their own tribal habits, customs and traditions, they abandon the career of crime which they followed on the Witwatersrand and they become good natives in their own environments, and frequently they become leaders amongst their people, the reason being that they return to their own customs, habits and traditions which they understand, to something which is their own. The result is that they immediately change from criminals to the best citizens of that area. I made enquiries to ascertain to what factors this change was attributable. The general opinion of the people who have made a study of these matters is the following. A native is taken away from the Transkei with the result that he is cut adrift from his tribal customs and traditions and from an environment which he understands, and he is placed in the environment of the European and is brought into contact with the customs and civilised habits of the European, which he does not understand. He is separated from his background and placed against a new background. The result is that that native becomes confused, and that state of confusion later leads to uncertainty. That creates a sort of vacuum in his morals and that vacuum is then filled by bad influences of the white man, and the native becomes a criminal. But when he returns to the environment with which he is familiar, those influences no longer operate and he again comes into contact with things which are his own and with a background and environment which he understands. When the native is introduced into the environment of the Europeans on the Witwatersrand, he has no conception of the traditions, the standard of life and the outlook of that environment. There are laws to be observed, but he does not understand those laws. When he returns to his own territory, however, he understands the environment and the customs of his people. I could give many other examples of this, but I mention this one example merely to point out the dangers which are attached to the detribalisation of the natives. And now I would like to know from the Minister what their policy is going to be in connection with this matter. What direction are we going to follow? Must the native be detribalised; must the tribal connections be weakened, as my friends on my left would like to see? Or is the direction going to be to retain the tribal connection as much as possible and to educate the native in that spirit? If our policy in connection with native education is going to be to sever the native from his tribal customs, I am convinced that our native education, if it is not going to suffer shipwreck, is going to produce serious consequences for the future. I am quite convinced that if native education is left to the Department of Native Affairs, that will definitely not be the direction which they will follow as far as native education is concerned. But when we have all sorts of other departments, with their theoretical ideas on native education, also having a say in the matter, then I am not fully convinced that the wrong policy will not be adopted. I do not want to go into the other aspects of this matter, because enough has been said in that regard. There is the direction which ought to be followed in connection with native education, and in regard to which the hon. member for Wonderboom has already said a great deal. May I just be permitted to say this, that it is generally felt not only as far as native education is concerned, but as far as education generally is concerned, that in any event it is of too academic a nature. The modem trend is that education must more and more be adapted to the needs and environment of the children, as well as to the cultural background of the child. If that is of importance in connection with Europeans, if the argument that education must be less academic holds good in the case of Europeans, that it should be adapted to the background, culture and environment of the child, it is all the more necessary that that should be borne in mind in connection with native education. If the argument holds good in the case of European education that it must be adapted to the traditions of the child, then it also applies to the native. We must bear in mind that the history and the background of the native is completely different, that his culture, customs and habits differ from and are on a different level to ours. We must bear in mind the geographical position of native territories in this country. I merely say that if it is essential to bear these things in mind in connection with the European, all the more attention should be given to it in connection with native education, and I say that with a Bill such as this Bill which the Minister has now put before us, it is going to be very difficult to devote sufficient attention to those various considerations. It is for that reason that I support the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom. In the first place I feel that there should be an investigation to ascertain whether it is not desirable and essential to place the whole question of native education under the Department of Native Affairs. In the second place I say that the people in South Africa, generally speaking, know little of native education, and because so few of us really know what the needs of native education in our country are, I feel that it is necessary to institute such an enquiry before this legislation is passed.

I need hardly say that we on these benches—I use the expression advisedly—and I believe many on the Government benches welcome this Bill. It is a measure which in my opinion is long overdue. We have had the position that the reasonable demands of native education have increased very rapidly during recent years, and it has had to be subsidised annually by a contribution of £340,000 plus so much of the general tax as this House was prepared to grant. I think that to limit native education in that manner is wrong in principle. I feel myself, and my colleagues are prepared to say so, that the Bill marks the parting of the ways in respect of what has been a very unsatisfactory position. Whatever funds we are going to appropriate for native education should be debated on the floor of the House, we should know what we are doing and do it with our eyes wide open. I am satisfied that those people in this House who have given sufficient thought to this matter will always support a reasonable appropriation for native education. Before dealing with the Bill I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). I am sure the House is indebted to him for his review of native education during the past 30 or 40 years. But if we take the background of native education we realise the futility of the solution he put before this House. The “background” to which the hon. member refers is the period when the natives lived in their own reserves and did not go out into European areas for employment. What is the position today? There is hardly a native in the Transkei who does not go to the Cape Province or the Transvaal. Once every three years every adult male native in the Transkei leaves for the Cape or the Transvaal for a period of nine or ten months. No fewer than 90,000 to 100,000 of them are away every year. What is their background; what is their problem? It is the same as my problem and the same as your problem. Native education is not something that is separate, that is quite distinct from education as we know it and that we give our European children. If we think that, we have a misconception of the whole problem. Education is a thing of itself and it is a question not for the Department of Native Affairs to deal with but the Education Department. The hon. member for Vryheid quoted from a report of the committee that was presided over by Senator Welsh. I would remind the House that Senator Welsh was one of the most successful administrators we have had. What was the conclusion that committee came to? It was that native education must be financed by the Central Government and that it must be dissociated from the Native Affairs Department. That is the definite finding arrived at by one of the most valuable committees that ever sat.

What about the question of Union control?

The question of Union control is a constitutional issue. We have to face up to that. I say it is right that it has not been attempted in this Bill to deal with this constitutional aspect. The hon. member for Vryheid suggested that native education should have a definitely Native Affairs Department bias, and that we should have native education based on the different types of people they would have to deal with. How are you going to bring it about. He visualised three different types of native people who, as far as I understand, each require a different type of education, and he was apparently going to set up a different department for each. I do not see how one department could have dealt with each of these three types or how it could have provided the necessary machinery, or have divided the one from the other. To attempt to divide them into different classes is impossible. I go further and say that in view of the fact that the commission, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that native education should be divorced from the Native Affairs Department, in view of that fact I say we would be wrong to act in the face of that recommendation and place native education with the Native Affairs Department. Education is education, nothing more and nothing less, and only one man in this House can possibly deal with education, and that is the Minister of Education. I am sorry in a way that the Minister has already decided that the Union Advisory Board should be presided over by the Secretary for Native Affairs. I know the Minister, I know the Secretary, and I am not saying this in lack of appreciation of their qualities, but I feel that the Secretary for Education should be chairman. I feel that very strongly, and I am convinced that would be the bettter course. I believe it was recommended by the commission that sat under Senator Welsh. I think that is a reasonable attitude, because I do not believe it is the intention of the Minister to create a board with necessarily a large bias in favour of the Native Affairs Department. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that is what might happen, and whilst I have every respect for the Native Affairs Department, they have not and never have been interested in education and educationists. Why it is essential that the Native Affairs Department should fill a very prominent rôle in the formation of this board? What is the purpose? Is it the intention to give to the native people education with a particular bias—a bias which I do not understand. It is not as if you are going to introduce a new type of education. On the contrary, the natives do not want a new type of native education but the type we are giving to European people. I cannot understand for the life of me what all this talk amounts to about education with a bias. I still ask the Minister to reconsider that question and whether he would not rather have the Secretary for Education as chairman of this board and leave the Native Affairs Department to Native Affairs. Their departmental function is not one pertaining to education; education forms no part of native affairs whatever. The natives themselves regard education as their life blood. They are clamouring for it. They are not clamouring for any new sort of education but the same type as the Europeans get. I think we should go further as soon as we are able to and start bringing in compulsory education for the native people, particularly in reference to urban areas. I am satisfied a great deal of our difficulty in the urban areas today is due to the fact that there is practically no education whatever of the native children. Schools serve a dual purpose; they educate the children and they discipline the children. They teach the children to control themselves. But what is the position of the native boys in the towns? The father is engaged in one kind of work and the mother in another kind of work. What is the consequence? These boys hang about the town and become delinquents. They must become delinquents. They would be wonderful persons not to become delinquents. Whatever money you spend on native education, and particularly on compulsory education, would be money well spent indeed. It would pay handsome dividends. Money would be saved by a decrease in native delinquency and money would be saved in relation to prisons. Juvenile delinquency leads to adult delinquency, and that leads to gaol; and that is the path our native boys in the towns are travelling. For that reason we should concentrate on giving education of the ordinary type to these ordinary people. Do not give one type of education to the man in the Transkei, another type to the man on the farm and another to the man in the towns. If you like, give us different standards of the same education. But to ask the Native Affairs Department to give this education some sort of bias cannot be described as sound or intelligible. No one has suggested for what purpose the Native Affairs Department should be represented on this board by their secretary. I am not decrying the Native Affairs Department. I am merely emphasising how ridiculous it is to give a body of men who are concerned with the ordinary native policy of the country a share in the problem of education, which is something quite separate from their normal activities. It has nothing to do with native policy. The natives have still to learn to read and they have to learn to write, whatever the policy is. That is all that is contemplated in the Bill. We deal with the ordinary education of the ordinary man in the street. Therefore I am entitled to make the point that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) is not acceptable. It has been pointed out a hundred times, one commission after another has investigated it and all have come to the same conclusion, there must be education for the native, and the question before us is not the type of education but how to pay for the education we shall give them. I think we do rather lose sight of that fact. I do not follow the reasonings of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) or understand what he meant, nor do I think there is anything material in what he said. The purpose of the Bill is the financing of native education on a proper and just basis. Let us decide in this House how much money we are going to give. I believe in facing facts as they are, and I believe if the hon. member for Vryheid had faced the facts as they are he would not have spoken as he did today. I urge this House to pass the second reading without any amendment.

I cannot understand why the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) should recommend that the native education policy ought to be controlled by the Native Affairs Department. I think the proposal of the Minister—which I read to mean that each provincial administration shall be in charge of its own particular native education policy within limits—is a preferable course to that suggested by the hon. member for Vryheid. Actually we may argue as we like, but we cannot get over the difficulties of the person chiefly concerned, the native. We must realise, Mr. Speaker, that the language subdivision of the native population very closely follows the boundaries of the present provinces. You may take the ethnological differences between these people and you will find, for instance in the Province of Natal you virtually have a population which is largely Zulu-Swazi in their language, with, in the south, a certain number who are Pondo or Baca people. All members of the Natal sub-division speak a language everyone of them understands. Whatever dialects are used the body of natives as a whole all understand one group language. You have only to cross the border into the Transvaal and you will find the majority there are Sesuto speaking people, with a fair number of others who were of Swazi-Matebele origin, and who to that extent speak a dialect of the original Zulus very far removed from the present Zulu language, and much more akin really to Sesuto than Zulu. You may go to the Free State and you will find the Sesuto language practically prevalent throughout. And in the Cape Province you find the Xosa, Baca and Pondo languages. It is idle to say that it is an easy problem, and that education should be disseminated from the one source with the Secretary for Native Affairs radiating all the necessary knowledge from Pretoria. My view is the more this matter is entrusted, dedicated if you like, to the several provinces, the more successful your methods will be. The natives themselves— you may argue until you are brown in the face—will not be convinced they have first to shed themselves of all the matters of origin that belong to them. You have only to consider what the present education has been capable of doing. It has done a great amount of good and a considerable amount of harm. But take the question of the native’s own home and what he belongs to, what he represents. Every native of Zulu origin is proud to belong to some particular clan. Some particular totem belongs to him; that is his own. And whether his origin was that he belonged to the skilled workers in iron in the Zulu tribe, or whatever other handicraft he or his people belonged to, he is proud still to be known by the family totem or surname handed down to them from one generation to another. His surname remains and throughout his life he is proud to retain that surname as part of his name and the name he shall be known by in the church, in the courts, or wherever he may be. But you find very wide variations in matters of this sort between one Province and another. That is where I claim the Minister should have a right to his Advisory Board, to see that some better uniform system can be worked out and adopted as a permanent one from the outset of the native scholar’s career. The hon. member for Vryheid referred to the rudimentary sort of education or training the natives got under their own tribal system. That education, rough though it be, supplies an inspiration and it has as its bedrock, the idea that the native himself is in training to give the best result possible to the tribe, the clan to which he belongs. If that inspiration could be retained as the driving force of our education and again made the inspiration of the native’s career, it would be all to the good. That, I think, was suggested some years ago to the educationists in Swaziland, that the Paramount Chief should regiment the youths into schools for a course of education. Many of them revolted at the thought and said it was a barbarian idea, but it actually had the germ of a very good idea, because it would have retained the native’s pride of race and pride of origin in his own kind of institution, and, with all respect to my educationist brethren, who know most things a great deal better than I do, there is much to be said for the idea of inspiration among the natives in the matter of education. I am not in favour of the suggestion of my hon. friend the member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) when he suggests that native education should be holus-bolus handed over to the Secretary for Education, to let him lay down the kind of education the natives should have. I have great confidence in the Secretary for Education, but I think this is outside his sphere, and you want people who spend more of their lives in connection with the education of the natives and know the good and the evil of it, before putting the Secretary for Education in charge of this policy for some years to come. I am in favour of the matter of education being in the hands of the provincial authorities. The provincial authorities in close proximity to the natives under their charge, and any errors and any mistakes that occur in the education of the natives will more quickly reach the provincial authorities than they would be likely to reach the Secretary for Education, who is immured in Pretoria in magnificent surroundings, far beyond the homely contacts that reach our provincial authorities. I believe that the transfer of this matter to the authorities in the several provinces will yield better results in any case for many years to come than any other course that we may think of at the moment. And I am speaking as a practical man who has lived a long life amongst these people, and who though anxious to see them speeding on and living up to their opportunities and becoming more useful and more intelligent and better educated, considers that that can best be done by their remaining with the provincial authorities, where I am sure, under the guidance of a proper advisory body, a great deal of good can be infused into the new type of education to be given them. I demur to the proposal of the Minister to appoint a board whose qualifications are not even mentioned. He, or his successor, could appoint—I do not suggest for a moment the Minister would do so—but his successor might appoint the most illiterate people to the board, and nobody could say him nay. Nobody could go to the courts and say that these men should at least be qualified and know the A.B.C.; or at any rate that a useless creature should not be appointed to the board for no other reason than that he has failed at the last election and now, having had his wounds bound up is to be nurtured for an indeterminate length of time at a generous remuneration in return for the services that he renders on the Board of Native Education. Under the wording of the clause presented to us by the Minister any living soul, anybody who has a hair on his head—or who has not—could be made a member of the Advisory Board.

Do you want academic members?

A man on the board must have some kind of education, European or otherwise.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member would probably draw me into criticism such as appears in his weekly journal. But some unfortunate people like myself sometimes disagree with him. There is another point. Although the Minister has told us that money is to be voted—I hope freely—if I understand him correctly, for the purpose of native education, he takes to this Advisory Board the right to say the manner in which any moneys paid to a Province under subsection (2) shall be utilised by it. Is not that going rather too far? I am not for a moment saying it would be proper merely to give the provincial people the right to employ these moneys as they thought fit, but as long as they are employed in carrying through this policy of education I think interference of the Advisory Board might rather be productive of the same stupid arguments that arise between public servants and are carried on to a standstill in many departments to the detriment of the public service. I think the Minister might at another stage of the Bill, agree to modify that clause, i.e. as to the manner in which moneys paid to the Provinces under subsection (2) shall be utilised. I hope, Sir, the Minister will understand the suggestion which I make. I do not want to promote a controversy between those enthusiastic fellows, which will take up a great deal of public service time to no purpose. I want to say that I am in favour of education being left with the Provinces, in the first place, because the Provinces themselves contain a population that in most respects are kindred to each other, and secondly the Provinces are the best custodians and the best spenders of the money that is going to be entrusted to them, because where cases may occur in which the money is being misspent or not spent to the best advantage, the provincial authorities will be the first to hear of it. And in addition to that I have a very great respect for those who in the past have laboured in the field of native education in all the Provinces. I think it would be a disparagement of their work, and a very ungrateful disparagement of their work, for us to say at this stage that we are going to take this work away from them and that we are going to look to the Native Affairs Department or the Native Affairs Commission to instruct them in the future. I think the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) did refer to the Native Affairs Commission. I do not quite know what his suggestion was in that respect.

I said they should be on a board.

I cannot agree with that. I cannot agree that the members of the Native Affairs Commission should be on the board, with the exception of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), who in the matter of education knows the wants and the wishes of the natives. I do not think one could raise any objection to his appointment, but there are members of the Native Affairs Commission and there are members of the Native Affairs Commission; and I should not for a moment be in favour of that being laid down as a qualification for membership. In regard to the other qualifications for membership of the Advisory Board, the hon. member for Tembuland has had long experience amongst the natives and I should certainly favour his appointment, but I think a great mistake will be made by taking this work away from the provincial authorities for the reasons I have mentioned:

It is almost perilous for anyone dependent on farming to intervene between the professional men in connection with this matter, but nevertheless I would like to say this, that with this legislation, although I welcome it we are treading on delicate ground. It has transpired clearly today that a great difference of opinion exists in so far as concerns the application of legislation regarding native education. I for my part wish to say that I am very anxious about the position unless we lay down a very sound policy regarding native education. The reason is this; if we go a little too far in respect of the suggestion made here that some of the children on the platteland should attend school, the future of South African agriculture may in my opinion drift into a very precarious position unless we lay down as a basis that the European will be able to make a living alongside the native on the land. We who have an acquaintance with the native population know how eagerly the native clings to his traditions as long as; he possibly can, and the native is not so anxious that his child should be highly educated. He is very desirous that his child should learn to read and write but I can assure you that the great majority I come into touch with tell me that they would rather see their children anchored to their own customs and to the land in their own reserves—and that is my firm conviction. If we encourage them to take the children away from there we shall not be conferring a favour on the native, but we shall be injuring him and I fear that it is not only the native we shall injure, but that the white man will also suffer. It has been stated here today that we should place native education under the Department of Native Affairs. There is a great deal to be said for that, but as one who has made contact with the provinces I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that the missionary societies have done a great work and that they have ripe experience in reference to education in the different provinces. But the danger lies in this: As we have compulsory education for European children in the four provinces I should like to see what competition there will be between the Native Affairs Department and the various provinces. If we should place native education under the Department of Native Affairs and that department should decide to make education compulsory for all native children. This would create an unhealthy state of affairs if you had these two departments alongside each other, one department for the European child and the other department for the native child. The upshot of it will be in the Cape we would have to have a third department, and that is an education department for the coloured children. It seems to me that it is impracticable. I honestly consider that we should place the matter under the department that has had experience and training in connection with this educational matter. I agree with the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) that this proposed legislation is a very comprehensive one. Our farmers say that you can squeeze a wagon and 18 oxen through the law. It appears to me that you can squeeze through this Bill a wagon and a team of 24 oxen. There are many delicate points in this legislation. In the first place it is not stated how much money should be allocated. If we have to go so far that this department should be attached to the Department of Native Affairs, if we have to impose taxation or grant funds per capita, as has been suggested here, I should like to know where it is going to end if it is to be per capita for the native child vis-a-vis the European child. It is going to create an unholy mess in South Africa if we have to collect money for compulsory native education from the European. I maintain that if we institute that in South Africa the white man may as well pack up and clear out of the country. But we go a little further. In connection with the constitution of the board I feel as does the hon. member for Pinetown. I do not wish that the members should be all cultured professional men. I think we should have practical men who come into contact with the natives throughout the day and whose children actually play with their children and who know what the native’s attitude is towards the education that he has obtained from the European. I want to say this, that it is not always the education we give to the non-European child that is of the soundest character. It has been stated here today that every missionary society is intent on impressing its own individuality on the native child. That means that there is a lot of unnecessary competition between the various missionary societies who are bent on educating the native child. I am speaking now from practical experience. I have instituted schools for native children where we have given them practical knowledge not out of the book but we have taught them in the way that has been referred to here to use their hands, to gain an acquaintance of the things with which they deal throughout the day, and of the things with which they have grown up. May I say this. We take for instance the native child and we teach him to build a rondavel and to put a window into it without using a plumb-line, but that instead he should use his eye to fit the window squarely into the wall. In this way we bring home to the native child a consciousness of his own talents. I should like to see that type of education expanded and developed. The native can do this; he has the ability. We teach the native child to strip the local trees of their bark in order that when he has slayed an animal he may tan the skin without using any instruments, and to determine by the sense of touch when the skin is ready. We teach him manual labour. What is the result? Not only does the native make the boots that are required for his chcildren, but he makes the harness that is necessary for the draught animals, his donkeys. We teach the native girl how to take the wool off these skins so that she can make a nice blanket for herself. We endeavour in a practical way to give them the best education. That is the whole idea. When a native has been away to Johannesburg or Pretoria it must be a pleasure for him to return to his home. There he should have the very best. We are taking up the attitude that we must provide the best for the native. I want to tell the native representatives that in my neighbourhood the natives are as clean as can be. We know that a large number of natives who go to Johannesburg and other cities return with all sorts of diseases. I am now referring to what I have been told by medical people. In our whole area only 3 per cent. of the natives return from Johannesburg with contagious diseases, and I attribute the low percentage to the fact that we give them a practical education designed to improve their habits and to keep clean. I should like to submit this idea to the Minister for his consideration. When he constitutes the board he must ensure that there are people serving on the board who mean to be honest with the native population, who will not want to uproot the native from his tribe, but to develop him in his tribe and in his environment. What I find is a difficulty in the proposed legislation is this. We see here that the board will be constituted, but no policy is laid down that it will take over or that it can pass on to the various provinces. There I think we really must ask the Minister to lay down a policy that can be instituted with uniformity throughout the Union of South Africa as a whole in regard to the educational system. We do not want to ram down the throat of the native child how he is to be educated, but we must have a definite system on which to work. I am also concerned over the following point that arises from the Bill. No provision is made for the number of members who will serve on the board. I feel like the hon. member for Pinetown that there should be something concrete. I believe that we should indicate how many members should serve on the board and what sort of members they should be. Then I should also like to ask the hon. Minister this; whether he Will proffer advice to that board as to how the money should be utilised when it is handed over to the different provinces, and whether he will also give some thought to the native children receiving industrial education in the various areas, and whether that money will only be used for the purchase of books and buildings. The hon. Minister spoke this morning about the sum of £340,000 which has been made available now over the course of 20 years. I must honestly say that I do not know whether we shall get results from that sum. If we obtain results I doubt whether they will be results on which we can pride ourselves. There is something wrong, and what I feel is that the old custom in the Cape Colony was that every family had certain periods set apart in which a modicum of education could be given to the native. During certain seasons every evening was set apart for this object. The result was that the old natives were absolutely reliable. The employer could leave his house with his mind at rest and hand over the key of the house to the old native. Frequently I have seen in the neighbourhood where I reside the employer leaving for the Nagmaal and giving the key of his house to the old servant. That education that the servant and the children received in the home was of such great value that they never disappointed the employer. I am speaking now from personal experience. I can leave my house and hand my key over to my servants. I can return in the middle of the night and I will find mv native there. He will supervise things and I can leave the house with my mind at rest. I think we must teach the natives that sense of trust-worthiness and not only fill him with book learning. That is the sort of education that is very necessary in South Africa. I do not want to detain the House any longer. But I notice that the Bill states here—

I should like to know how that money will be utilised under this legislation when the board is constituted. I ask again that the Minister should kindly see that when he constitutes the board that we should at least pass on to the provinces something that will be interpreted in the interests of the Union as a whole and not in the special interest of each individual province.

I do not intend speaking at great length. I do not think any important issues are involved other than that of control. It seems to be purely a question as to whether the Native Affairs Department or the Department of Education should take over the control of native education or whether it should remain under the control of the Provincial Councils. As far as the Provincial Councils are concerned, I came to the Cape Provincial Council as long ago as 1913, and in those days I happened to represent a constituency where the native vote was preponderant, and it was very necessary for me to take a very keen interest in native education in those days, and I have always found that the thing that native education has been able to inculcate into the native is a very deep sense of politics. They all take a great interest in politics. That is the first thing the natives learn, so it was necessary for me in those days—and I have continued to do so—to take a great interest in native education. I may say that in 1919 when I was still in the Provincial Council, a commission was appointed by the Provincial Council to deal with this question of native education. As far as I know that was the only commission ever appointed in this country on which Europeans and natives sat together. Four natives sat on that commission, and it is rather interesting to read that the representative of the Union Department of Education was Mr. Tengo Jabavu, who at that time edited a native newspaper in Kingwilliamstown. It was under the chairmanship of the late Dr. Viljoen who I think was very well known throughout the country. It was a particularly strong commission representing natives and representing every section of the Europeans who were interested in native education. The great problem that was facing the country then, as far as I recollect, so far as native education was concerned, was the question of control. The natives were agitating at that time in regard to the question of missionary control. They felt that they had reached the stage where they could take over the control of their own education, and today that also is the position as far as the natives are concerned. They are reacting against missionary control. They are saying that there should be a change in connection with the matter. Coming back to the question of Provincial Councils, the Provincial Council as a body has always taken very little interest in native education, and I challenge any of the hon. members opposite or any member on this side of the House to quote any reports of the Provincial Councils in the different Provinces, showing that native education is even discussed. In fact, it is stated here that in one Provincial Council, the question of native education was not discussed for six or seven consecutive years, and that is the general position as far as native education is concerned. The Provincial Councils are responsible for native education. They are responsible for spending the money, and they just do not care how it is spent. I am not talking about the official side now; I am talking about the representatives on the Provincial Councils. The education officials take a very real interest in the general administration of native education. That is left entirely in the hands of the department concerned. And here I would like to pay a tribute to the department of the Provincial Council which controls native education. During the course of this debate I have heard some disparaging remarks about the Native Affairs Commission, but I can say that for the last ten years, that body, as a commission, has been very closely associated with native education, and the procedure that it followed is frequently to get into touch with the four directors of native education, with the officials from the different departments, and to have a round-table talk under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Native Affairs to discuss policy and expenditure and everything else. As a result of that—or not altogether as a result of that, but as a result of that and the liberality of the Government in the last ten years the expenditure on native education has increased from £742,000 to approximately £1,800,000. There has been an increase of nearly 300 per cent., and I make bold to say that in this country as a whole much more interest is being taken in native education today than ever before. The bodies that meet there report back to the Natives’ Representative Council. The Natives’ Representative Council discusses the estimates; it goes through it with the representatives of the different Provinces and a basis is arrived at which, I think, has been very satisfactory oh the whole. When the Welsh Commission sat it recommended that native education should be taken out of the hands of the Native Affairs Department and placed in the hands of the Union Education Department, and the reasons which they advanced were in themselves sound. The reasons were, in the first place, that the duties of the Native Affairs Department are so multifarious and the burdens of that department were so great, that they simply could not carry the heavy load. I am very much inclined to agree with those views. The Native Affairs Department as a body is infinitely bigger today than it was ten fifteen or twenty years ago. Today with the wage legislation, with the various types of legislation that are being passed in this House, the Native Affairs Department is an extremely important body. It has to keep in close touch not only with the native but with practically every other department of State. It is continuously in touch with the Social Welfare Department, the Department of Public Health and other departments, and the duties of the Native Affairs Department are certainly much greater today than they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago. The second reason is that the Secretary for Native Affairs is not an educationist, and therefore he should not be on that body. I do not want to suggest for a moment that the head of a department must necessarily be an expert. You want an able administrative officer in order to control the department. We frequently find that the head of a department is not an expert in that particular line. In the Department of Agriculture, for instance, the present head is a veterinary surgeon, and he runs that department. So you can go to every other State department and you will find that frequently the head of the department is a man who is not an expert in that particular sphere. It is the function of the Union Department of Education to take over native education. They have special machinery. The Native Affairs Department has no machinery at present. They will have to create machinery. I myself am not an educationist, but I think generally speaking it would be better for the Education Department to take over this control. But I look at this matter from another aspect too. I have always felt that the Native Affairs Deparment having an intimate knowledge of native affairs and having an innate sympathy with the development of the native generally, would probably have a more sympathetic outlook towards native education and would therefore be able to do more for native education than any other department. It is purely from that point of view that I felt—and I think the Native Affairs Commission on previous occasions recommended— that native education should remain under the control of the Native Affairs Department. Heaven knows, I do not wish to impose greater burdens on the Native Affairs Department than it has at the present moment; nor do I suggest that the Native Affairs Commission is able to run native education better. But I do suggest that we as a body have more sympathy for native ideals and for native aspirations than any other department. If the Department of Education is going to take over the control of native education, I wish the hon. Minister luck. It is a pretty tough job. Another reason advanced by the Welsh Commission against control by the Native Affairs Department is that if native education is placed in the hands of the Native Affairs Department, the natives will imagine that they are getting a system of education different from and inferior to the present system. I think that there is very little in that argument. The fifth reason is that the Native Affairs Department is considered purely as a taxing body and for that reason the natives look askance at it. That has gone by the board. I think that the Native Affairs Department during the last 10 years has shown such keen interest in native affairs generally that they are not now looked upon with suspicion. Hon. members opposite ask that a commission be appointed to consider this matter. If you go through this Welsh report and consider the careful information you have there, if you consider the previous reports which dealt with native education, it does seem to me that we cannot get any further information by appointing another commission. But I do suggest that one of the first duties of this board to be appointed would be to make a very careful survey of native education as it is today. I do not think it is satisfactory. I think that many things can and should be changed, and I think that a small departmental commission should be appointed with other experts if necessary which might examine the position and see where changes can be made. For that reason I think that although I am not opposing the Bill or the projected change which will become necessary in the future, I feel for the present that the Native Affairs Department would be the body most sympathetic towards the natives in their present state of development. I am not going back to the question of conditions 50 years ago. The Minister said that if we had started with a clean slate the position would have been different. Of course it would have been. I remember Mr. John X. Merriman 30 years ago referring to Johannesburg as the finest university of crime in the country. Unfortunately since then we have had other places which might compete with Johannesburg in that respect. But fortunately since those days we also have a university for the natives and we have a number of higher educational centres where we are trying to teach them the decencies of European civilisation and life. And that is how I think we will have to face up to the position as far as the natives are concerned. By a more and a better type of education. They are continually clamouring for more control and more power, but in this particular commission of 1919 we created the machinery to give them more power and to give them some control of the own schools. But the missionaries found that it was a hopeless policy because they did not appear to desire to interest themselves. Even today where we provide food for the schoolchildren, the natives ask that we should appoint a secretary and a treasurer who will be paid. They ask that committees should be set up for feeding the children who should be paid. The natives always want something for nothing. Generally speaking I think that this board, when it is appointed, will have to go very carefully into the whole question of native education and find out where we are drifting, because in many ways we are drifting. Again I repeat that I am pleased to see the reception which this particular matter had in the House. In this matter we are touching on things which will affect the future of the country for 100 years, and it is pleasant that we in this House in future will be able to discuss how much money we can spend on native education and to raise the question of how the money is spent, but I still think that it is unfortunate that we have to find the money and to give it to a minor body such as the Provincial Council who will not pay much interest and whom we cannot question. We cannot question the Provincial Administrations as to how the money is spent. It does seem an extremely unfortunate way of dealing with major matters in this country and I hope it will be rectified before very long and that the whole control will be in the hands of this House.

I would like to say a few words about this Bill on the financing of native education. It is to be regretted that the Minister of Education has not explained to us the object of this Union Advisory Board for native education and that he has said so little about its composition and its functions. If he had explained these points to us there would perhaps have been greater unanimity regarding the Union Advisory Board. This Bill and the Advisory Board are accompanied by greater financial expenditure. As we are making an alteration in the educational system, as we are instituting such an Advisory Board and as we are interfering with the system as it at present stands, we should be very careful. The existing system has its faults. Alterations must be made, but we should be very careful when we effect them. We should not apply a system of education that is in conflict with a policy of separation. We should be very careful how we handle the matter. Today the provincial councils are dealing with native education. It is true that in a great measure they are subsidised by the Union Government, but each province has its difficulties and its responsibilities in connection with it. Now it is proposed that an Advisory Board should be created and the system may be transformed by that board. The Minister has stated that the board will be advisory in character, but prudence is demanded. We may for instance, as has been mentioned already, detribalise the natives with the education we impart to them and turn their feet in the wrong direction. In fact in the past we have had societies, so-called church societies who have done very deleterious work in respect of native education. I know of some people who came from Basutoland to establish schools in the Free State. They describe themselves as church societies but they are political organisations, they are communistic agitators. I know of instances where during the evenings they have had interviews with the teachers and the worst influence has been exercised on the natives, so that the farmers have difficulty as the result of the influences that emanate from those schools and effect the native labourers on the farms. They are incited. They are taught that this is their country, and the only motive is that they should try to gain back their country and that the white man should be driven into the sea. This is what societies of this sort are doing, and it is of the greatest importance in connection with the relationship subsisting between European and non-European that we should maintain control over the bodies that impart education to the natives. It is easy to teach the natives these things. It seems pleasant to him when he is told that he should assert himself against the white man. He is like a child and he is easily incited with that sort of thing, if he is told that he has rights that the white man is withholding from him. He is not fond of those who teach him that he should be subject to the white man and do his duty. Our church in the Free State has in proportion to the number of church members not got such a large number of schools and pupils as it ought to have. The reason is that the sort of societies I have referred to come in there and teach the natives all sorts of things. The natives who attend their schools are insolent towards the white men, so that they will not even pass the time of day with the white man properly. That is the sort of thing that is taught them, and consequently I want to sound a note of warning that we should proceed very cautiously with these matters. We should be very careful in connection with the control of native education. We in the Free State have been endeavouring for many years to raise compulsory education up to Standard VIII for Europeans. The difficulty is we cannot afford it. The European population feel that when we have to neglect our own interests because we have not got the money that is necessary for the objects we think desirable, we should not devote such large sums on native education as will injure our interests. The two come in collision with each other. We find that during the last financial year there was collected from the natives an amount of £1,744,636. That includes poll tax, hut tax and ground rents. There is devoted to native interests the sum of £7,137,200. If we compare the two with each other we find that the Europeans are overpaying the natives £5,393,000. This includes what is paid for native education. We should now go to work on conservative lines so that we should not make the Europeans feel that they are being used to give the natives their learning while their own interests are being neglected. If we compare the position in the Union with the position in Basutoland where the Imperial Government is ruling we see that there is no comparison to be made between the facilities that the natives in the Protectorate enjoy and those that they enjoy with us. When we take these steps and expend more and more on the natives the natives must realise that an obligation is imposed on them to contribute a share to this sort of expenditure. I can give the Minister of Education the assurance that there are natives who have not paid poll tax for the last five or six years, that they have simply ignored it. But on the other hand it is expected of the European population to contribute every threepence and then to take the view that the interests of another race should be promoted at their expense. I want to lay emphasis on this because if we go too far with this sort of thing the time will arrive when these two races will be at daggers drawn, and then we can expect difficulty in setting matters aright again. I am in agreement that the problem of native education should first be investigated properly by a commission of enquiry. All the defects must be seen to and we should see to it that native education should be of such a standard that it will conform to the requirements of the country. We should not give the natives an academic education, as some people are too prone to do. If we do this we shall later be burdened with a number of academically trained Europeans and non-Europeans, and who is going to do the manual labour in the country? We have to be very careful in this respect. I am in thorough agreement with the view that we should so conduct our schools that the native who attends those schools will know that to a great extent he must be the labourer in the country, and not the man who sits with a pen behind his ear. I warn everyone. I hope that the Minister of Education will give this matter thorough consideration when he appoints the Advisory Board in the event of this Bill being adopted. We must proceed very cautiously so that we shall not incite the two races.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the country will welcome this Bill. It will be welcomed by educationists, by the Provinces, and by the African people, welcomed not the less because of the fact that it is now proposed to bring the finances, and by implication a good deal of the policy of native education, under the Union Department of Education, and for the time being, under the present Minister of Education. This Bill lays down the principle that the State, in regard to the social services which must be integrated on national lines, for example, public health and native education, and for which the State must provide all or the larger part of the funds, must have sovereignty in the control of these services, the Provinces to be the administrative organs with powers of initiative relative to local conditions. That is how I understand the Bill and its implications. I shall be glad to have from the Minister certain assurances in regard to some of the implications in this proposed legislation. Under the Minister I assume that a Director of Native Education is to be appointed; he will be advised by the Union Government of Native Education, i.e. in regard to finances; and by implication in regard to policy. In that way there will be centralisation of finance and policy. On the other hand it is implied in the Bill— and that was made clear, I think, in the Minister’s speech to the House this morning —that the administration will be to a considerable extent decentralised. That raises the question, always an important question in Natal, as to adequacy regarding provincial interests and provincial powers. The Provinces now have certain advisory bodies in regard to native education. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the powers of these bodies will be extended, that the basis of their representation will be broadened in order in that way to give to the Provinces more authority than by being merely represented on the National Council for Native Education. I am referring in particular to powers like the following: Adjustments of curricula; language medium problems; local control; and initiative in the development of native education. I believe that these matters should be left to the discretion of the Provinces. I hope too, in this connection, that consideration will be given to the appointment of missionaries and representative natives. What would be wrong in having a secretary for native education for the Union, a representative and qualified African? We should provide not only representation for the natives, but for the Universities on the National Council, or on any Provincial Councils which might be established. The magnificent contribution which the missions of this country have made to native education, in providing facilities, putting up buildings, and appointing staff, at a time when the State was passive, and apparently not very actively interested, should not be forgotten. The missions must be given representation. I feel that they should be incorporated, as an integral part, of the whole scheme of native education. The alternative is a system exclusively of State schools. That policy, I submit, at the moment will not be acceptable. It will go against the view of the Inter-departmental Commission of 1936. Referring to the possibility of transferring mission schools to the Government the commission reported—

I would urge that, on the Union Board of Native Education, missionaries, representative native teachers, or representatives of native teachers’ associations, and native educationists should be appointed in order to link up what is, in regard to native education, with what the Minister in this Bill, intends should be. Mr. Speaker, this Bill establishes a very sound principle, namely, that native education will from now onwards be a national responsibility: I hope that it will mean the end of the bad old days when the natives had to pay almost exclusively for their own education. There is, too, hope in this Bill, that it will not be long before every native child will get free education up to Standard VII, and not be long before we establish at strategical points in the Provinces, schools providing for vocational training in industry and agriculture, thus enabling the Minister to let free a vast store of creative energy now lying dormant and not at the service of the South African community. I hope the Minister will more clearly indicate, before this debate closes, his policy in regard to the extent of the provincial powers as visualised by him under this measure, and the place of the missions in connection with the Union Board of Native Education.

Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister intended it or not, his speech and the contents of the Bill leads me to infer that he pays lip-service to the retention by the Provincial Councils of primary education, because in Section 4 (f) it states that the Minister may make regulations with regard to the manner in which any money paid to the Provinces under Section 2 shall be utilised. May I remind the House that when Natal came into the Union the basis on which they came in and the basis on which the plebiscite was taken was the control of primary education in the Province of Natal, and this method of dominating and directing the Provinces in the utilisation of the moneys to be provided by Parliament savours very much of an attempt to detract from the Provinces a certain amount of control over primary education. When Natal entered the Union it was on the specific understanding of the relationship of the Provinces to the Union Government, and although I see from the perusal of the relevant section of the South Africa Act that primary education was in the hands of the Provincial Council for a period of five years or such further term as the Parliament might decide, or until Parliament decides otherwise, the control of primary education was the basis of Natal’s entry into Union. There were other matters but I think that was the chief of them, and I think it should be realised by the House and by the Minister that we in Natal still adhere to our desire to retain the power of directing primary education. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) this morning, and it seems to me that with all its excellence—and I might say that I appreciated its excellence —he had one idea in his mind and that was the destruction of the provincial system in South Africa. I can come to no other conclusion than that, because if you take away primary education from the Provincial Councils, you might just as well take away every power they were endowed with, and although an attempt was made on several occasions since Union, and one within a very short time of Union, to effect that, so far they have failed. I remember only a few years ago when Mr. Havenga was occupying the bench over there, that he queried a certain statement in a speech from this side of the House and said: “Do you want to destroy the Provincial Councils?’’ And he got the reply, and then he said: “You try it. I tried it and failed”; and I hope that any attempt, even at this stage, to destroy the power of the Provincial Councils will meet with the same fate. With regard to native education I must confess that I do not know very much about it. I am not an educationist, but still, for 45 years or more, I have been in Natal and I can claim that I have come into contact with the natives and have seen the results of education upon them. Mostly it has been missionary education and some of the results seem to me to be rather harmful than of a beneficial nature, although probably the predominant trend has been in the direction of improvement When people criticise the Provincial Council for not doing enough for the development of native education, one is confronted with this aspect of the matter, and that is that they never have sufficient money to develop it in a proper manner. They never have had sufficient money and moreover if they have not the money to prepare and train the teachers to take up appointments as teachers of natives and if they have not the money to erect buildings to accommodate the children, you cannot expect the children to receive education. Without facilities of any kind, how can the provinces provide the necessary education? At this late stage, the Minister has come to the House with concrete proposals and so far as the provision of finance is concerned, I think it is a step in the right direction. But I should like to know from the Minister whether the amount which he is going to pay over to the provinces for native education forms part of the 50—50 expenditure of the provinces.

Oh, no. Of course not. I made that clear when I introduced the Bill.

I am sorry. I am only hoping that the amount which is to be provided for native education in the provinces will be sufficient for the provinces to get on with the job. There is one aspect of native education which has come to the notice of most people and that is that when the native acquires sufficient education to obtain a degree, and he takes up a certain profession, whether it be law or medicine or anything else, he does not use his knowledge for the benefit of his own people. He clings to the European branch of the profession he has adopted and lets his countrymen seek advice from others. He does not utilise the knowledge he obtained at the expense of others for the benefit of his own people. I would like to see directions given in that regard.

Whom are you speaking about?

Of these lawyers and others. A large number of these legal people go into the town and not only are they practising on behalf of other people than the natives, but they seem to neglect the native population altogether. I hope that a diretcion will be given to people of that kind so that the natives themselves may reap the benefit of such knowledge as they are able and willing to acquire, not only for their own aggrandisement, but for the benefit of the natives generally.

I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). In the first place this Bill deals with the financial position. The Europeans have to pay for native education. The natives are not doing that themselves. It amounts to nothing else than that the European is working for his own downfall. I have gone into the matter of how native education has progressed during the last ten years. The number of native pupils is about twice as large as the number of European pupils. We thus see the tremendous start that they now have. Then we can investigate how the thing has grown in the last twenty years. The number of teachers has increased from 2,000 to about 4,000; the number has doubled. The expenditure has increased about four times. Let us take note of that. The result must be that the natives within a short time will be powerful competitors with the Europeans in every sphere. They are given the same education as the Europeans, and it will not be long before they dominate on account of their tremendous majority. That is a very great danger, and it is not our duty to bring up the natives on the same lines as the Europeans. I have the following figures regarding post-matriculation education. While previously there were only 40 or 50 at Fort Hare, there are now at the moment in the Cape and the Transvaal and Natal, almost 500—that is to say natives who are receiving higher education, post-matriculation. In every respect the natives are beginning to expand and they number 8,000,000 as against the 2,000,00 Europeans. We are providing the money and encompassing our own downfall if we do not deal with things intelligently. Even as Parliament we have no say over education because the money is given to the provinces and they expend it. I am, however, mainly disappointed with the Bill itself. I was surprised when I read it. The whole Bill is summed up on one page, but you see immediately the intention of the Bill. It is to be able to govern by way of regulation. Under Clause 4 the Minister can promulgate a number of regulations in connection with education. I have drawn up hastily a few provisional regulations. The Minister may perhaps not approve them, but I think he will consider them. These are the sort of regulations we can expect from him. The first is that the period of office of the board should be about five years. Then there will be no colour line, in other words Europeans and natives will sit on the board. This will fit in with the policy of the other side. If anyone one the board is not a negrophilist he will be replaced, because the power is given to appoint, to suspend or to discharge by regulation. If anyone is not a negrophilist he will not be able to have a seat on it. The board will be qualified to define the nature of the education, for instance whether it should be missionary education as we know it, or not. The board will give the lead. But what will be specially emphasised is that if it is felt in the Native Representative Council that anyone on the board is not of the same mind as them, or if any of the members of Parliament who represent native interests do not want a particular member, Then they will undoubtedly see to it that he is discharged. And if they are going to give it that direction then we know what it will signify. It will signify that native education will develop in the same direction as that of Europeans. As regards the medium, I think the regulations will lay down that the main language will be English. Of that there can exist no doubt at all. We have already in connection with four or five Bills proposed language equality, but it has been rejected. Afrikaans will only be inserted here and there as a matter of grace. Native languages will also not be taken into consideration although there will perhaps be natives sitting on the board. So much for the regulations. Now I should like to mention a few other ideas. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has proposed a thorough investigation and I want to emphasise that. Why? We find that in the Cape Province the schools are being inspected by European inspectors. The ordinary inspectors who inspect the European schools also inspect the native schools. Again in the Transvaal we have separate inspectors, native inspectors, and the same applies in regard to the Free State and Natal. Why the difference between the various provinces? Let there be a degree of co-ordination. This point should also be investigated. In regard to the management of schools one finds in the Cape that generally the native parsons are in control, but in the Free State, Natal and Transvaal it is usually European missionaries who are in charge. Why the difference? This is another point for investigation. There ought to be uniformity. Then we come to the syllabus for natives. I have made some little study of the bulletin of the Department of Education that was published by the research institute and which discontinued publication in 1941. They reveal that the primary school education that the natives receive consist of history, English and Afrikaans. There is a note that states that Afrikaans has only been introduced recently in certain provinces and that it is not being taught in all schools. English is the language that is being used, Afrikaans has only recently been brought in. That too is a matter for enquiry. In regard to the native languages they are only mentioned in the third place. One would expect in respect of a native school that the native languages would come first as the mother tongue, but they come third on the list. Then we get hand work. This is a good thing, but what sort of hand work are they taught? Perhaps a little basket making and home industry. The native should be trained to do farm work, to be able to act as foremen in order to make other natives plough and do other work. Then we have here nature study and agriculture. What sort? Then comes health. That is fine. Let them learn a little how to keep themselves clean. Then you get arithmetic, history, geography, singing and drill exercises. In other words, it is all based on the syllabus for the European schools. There is not a word about farm labour, not a word about their history, nothing about Bantology. There is no mother tongue education at all there is nothing about moral behaviour. The natives are conspicuously a nation who are dishonest. Their conceptions do not in any way correspond with ours. If the natives steal and are not found out it is all right. Only when you are discovered is it a fault. In regard to drill exercises I should like to know what sort it is. In regard to singing I have found that it is usually the Sankeys that are sung in the native schools, none of their own native songs at all. Whether the drill exercises include Chaka’s drill exercises I do not know, but I fear it is only the usual “left, right; left, right”, something that does not suit the natives at all. There is no pure native education that would strictly apply to them. This has been published by the Department of Education itself, and it states that the high school education is the same as that for the Europeans.

Does this refer to Union education or to the Cape Province?

Provincial education.

I am now engaged on Union education.

This is the provincial syllabus, but it has been published by the Union Department, and consequently I say that it is reliable. They close with the junior certificate or the matriculation examination. It does not admit of doubt that the education is on the same basis. Now we turn to the training of teachers. There are three stages in the training of teachers. After Std. VI they receive instruction for three years to be trained as teachers; after Std. VIII there is a two-year course, and after matric two years as well. It is exactly the same as in the case of training schools for Europeans. The whole education system for natives is based on the European model. There are about 4,000 ordinary schools for natives, but only about 38 of them are for industrial training. That is the sort of vocational training where they are taught to be blacksmiths and manual workers and where they learn agriculture, where they learn to do work that is of great importance—but there are only 38 of those schools. There are twelve in the Cape who give similar education after Std. VI and five in Natal. This is for the little kaffirs—they describe them here as youths— but I am referring now to little kaffirs. For the native girls there are ten schools in the Cape, three in Natal, four in the Transvaal, and then there are four agricultural schools. There ought actually to be 4,000 which give practical instructions to furnish the farmers with natives who can work properly on the farms, who can use their hands, who can handle and repair a plough, who can inspan oxen and who can make harness out of leather. But instead of that you get the sort of arithmetic that is given to them, and as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has stated, some are virtually being made black-white men, or was it white-black men? I agree with the hon. member for Wonderboom when he says that native education ought to fall under the Department of Native Affairs. The hon. Minister has stated that they do not want to take anything out of the hands of the provinces because there is an agreement, but I think that the provinces would always welcome it if native education went under Union control. The Afrikaans Church Synod, for instance, are unanimously in favour of that course, and the Dutch churches are naturally powerful organisations in South Africa. They are in favour of native education, because it is a native affair, falling under the Department of Native Affairs. At the moment the Education Departments are pedagogic institutions which are not so conversant with native affairs. The Department of Native Affairs has its experts who have knowledge of native affairs and who can treat the matter on a sound basis. The education must not be modelled on that for Europeans. I should like to turn to another point, and it is that we are in favour of a policy of separation. Why should a European department do what is virtually the work of a native department? Why should the European Education Department do the work for the natives? Why not have a separate Native Department with a separate Director of Education? Let there be a Native Education Department under the Department of Native Affairs. I want to close by pointing out to the Minister that the general purpose of education is to prepare people for life. What upbringing has the native necessary in South Africa? The great majority of them are labourers. Very few follow any other course. Let them be prepared for that work. That must be the principal purpose. Then they will be better equipped for life. Accordingly I feel that it will be best to place this education under the Department of Native Affairs. In any case it is a problem for thorough investigation.

In connection with this matter and the position of the Provincial Council the. Minister has informed us that the Advisory Committee of the Provincial Councils dealt with the matter and that they have no objection to this measure provided they are represented on the Advisory Council. Hon. members here have however pleaded that the matter of native education should be taken out of the hands of the Provincial Council. That would not be in accord with the attitude of the Provincial Councils themselves. I know that the Executive Committee of the Free State Provincial Council definitely refuses to yield any of the powers which the Provincial Councils have today. In connection with this I may say that the Free State Provincial Council and the Dutch Reformed Church in the Free State have done much for the education of the natives. The Dutch Reformed Church years ago built the Stofberg Memorial School for the training of native teachers and much good work has been done there. The Free State Provincial Council also has a training school in Bloemfontein today, called the Strydom Training College for native teachers. The fact that the name Strydom was given to the school shows what part the church played in connection with the matter, because the school was named after the mission secretary of the Free State, the Rev. J. G. Strydom. The Free State church and provincial authority have always been greatly interested in native education, and where they have not done something which they might have done it is purely due to lack of the necessary funds. But that they are sympathetically inclined towards native education of the right type is not to be doubted. Now there are hon. members, and I respect their opinions, who feel that native education must be taken away from the Provincial Councils. I repeat that that is contrary to the attitude of the Provincial Councils and in particular that of the Executive Committee of the Orange Free State.

All four of the Provinces adopted that attitude.

I am speaking specially of the Executive Committee of the Free State. The point was raised that native education should fall under the Department of Native Affairs. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom arid the arguments which he used and which were used by others, they are based on the principle that when advice is given, as is put in prospect by this Bill, that advice must come from the Union Department of Native Affairs and not from the Department of Education. The policy must fall under the Department of Native Affairs. I have no objection to that and I think that the Provincial Councils will have no objection. The idea is that where mention is made of the Minister of Education, that should be changed to the Minister of Native Affairs, and that the latter should appoint the Advisory Council. In that respect the Department of Native Affairs would exercise control. I have no objection to this because that Department and its officials and its Minister made a special study of requirements of the natives, how they should be educated, etc. Hon. members have mentioned that the Department of Native Affairs adopts the policy that natives should not be detribalised but should be educated in their own manner and should learn to be good natives as tribal natives, and should not be imitators of the white man. That is the policy which we favour and in my opinion it is the only sound policy. Somebody once said that there are people who think that if you dress a native in a pair of trousers and nut a shilling in his pocket he is civilised. The native should not imitate the white man in everything. Unfortunately he finds it much easier to imitate the bad properties than the good ones. As far as the amendment is concerned I may say that I am in favour of it so far and I am of opinion that the provincial authorities are also in favour of it so far as I have indicated namely that the Native Affairs Department should give advice and policy, but that for the rest the Union Government should make funds available to the Provincial Councils for native education, that the Provincial Councils should be represented on such an Advisory Board, and that the board should be appointed by the Department of Native Affairs. The Provincial Councils are concerned about the fact that from time to time some of their powers are taken a way, powers which were guaranteed to them by their Constitution, and they object to these powers being taken away piecemeal. And I see no necessity for depriving the Provinces thereof; it can remain with the Provinces. The requirements of education in the various Provinces, in the various parts of the country, differ from each other. The education of natives in the Free State should not essentially be the same as in the Transkei. Differences may arise. Just take for example the language and medium question. It may be that in one part of the country more stress will be laid on one official language than on the other official language, in view of the requirements of that part, while—I am not talking about the European languages— in another part a different official language will be stressed. The Provinces are of course afraid that if the whole thing is centralised and all powers taken away from the Provincial Councils, a policy can be forced upon the Provinces in regard to the education of natives which is not in the interest of that particular province. We do not want that. This amendment asks for investigation, and I think it is a good idea to have an investigation as to how far the policy and control should be vested in the Department of Native Affairs, but we as Free Staters do not want the control of native education to be taken completely out of the hands of the provincial councils. For that reason I have said a few words to clarify the attitude of the provincial councils, and especially that of the provincial council of the Free State. Then there is another point of view, namely that while the provincial councils have rendered services to the natives in the past having provided native education, they had no right to tax the natives for it. Much is done for the natives. I am not one to say that the natives must not be treated justly, that they have not the right to all sorts of conveniences in relation to their circumstances and requirements; but the danger remains that the Europeans have to pay for it all. Take for example hospitalisation. Today the position really is that there is free hospitalisation for natives. There are very few, if any, natives who can pay medical fees and hospital fees. As a result the large majority of them, if they become sick and receive free treatment by the district surgeon, or in a serious case, in the hospital, are a burden on the Europeans. I do not know what goes on in the Department of Inland Revenue, but I should like to have information about what the position is of the native who today has a high income, an income which is taxable for income tax purposes. I know of natives working in hotels as cooks who earn up to £35 a month and have free lodging. Do such natives return a statement of their taxable income, such as Europeans have to do? Natives are today receiving high wages in comparison with earlier times, and many receive from £15 to £35 a month. Do they pay tax? Do they fill in a form as the European has to do who has an income? Is the ordinary income tax levied on them?

Yes, there is no difference as far as that is concerned.

I wonder. I should like to know what measure of control there is, and how many natives in South Africa pay income tax, apart from their ordinary native tax. I welcome the fact that the Union Government evidently according to this Bill wants to give more conveniences to the provincial councils for native education, in view of the fact that the provincial councils must make available these conveniences and receive practically nothing in taxes from the natives. The provincial council does not receive the Poll tax and the other taxes bring in very little to the pocket of the provincial council. It will be necessary to know to what degree the State collects taxes from natives, in view of the fact that in the meantime natives have begun to earn wages which they did not earn at the time the law was passed. I will support this amendment, but it must be clearly understood that I do so only on the understanding that it is not the intention of the amendment that native educaion should necessarily be taken away from the provinces.

I think that the Minister of Education ought to be convinced that as far as this Bill is concerned there is no unanimity, not even on his side of the House. I listened this morning to the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and this afternoon to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers), and it is very obvious that they have objections to the Bill as it has been drafted. But is there unanimity in the Government in respect of this Bill. I see that the Minister of Native Affairs who has a big interest in this Bill is conspicuous by his absence.

His department drafted the Bill.

If his department drafted the Bill it is very peculiar to me that everyone who has spoken on the opposite side of the House and who has dealt with native affairs has pointed out that the Department of Native Affairs has done so much for the natives, and then they proceed to point out that one of the foremost functions of that department has now been taken away from it and transferred to another department. What sort of control is this going to lead to if the matter falls under various departments? The Minister stated that the provincial councils would like to retain control over native education. I want to accept that so long as someone else raises the money for that. As long as it is not necessary for the provincial councils to find the money for it they will of course be prepared to look after anything like this. But now I ask the Minister: What about the Act of 1922 that prevents the provincial councils from taxing the natives for their own purposes? Why not rescind that Act and give the provincial councils the right to tax the natives for their own education? What I cannot understand is this. The Minister of Education is intent on granting more privileges to the natives than to his own people. The European is taxed in order to pay old age pensions to the natives. The European is taxed to provide the natives with education; the European is taxed to pay wounded natives and coloured people and to buy land for them. Some £10,000,000 will be expended in the purchase of land for them. Every year the Minister comes and he states that the amount is steadily increasing that has to be devoted to native education. During the last eight or 10 years it has swelled to £2,500.000. What is going to be the end of it? Has the Minister made a survey of what it is going to cost the Union Government when the amount on native education increases like this yearly. Will it not in a few years’ time run to £10,000,000; and does the Minister of Finance foresee the possibility of the white man alone paying that taxation while the native derives all the benefit? The white man must pay for the purchase and improvement of ground for the natives and for all these things I have referred to. Now the Minister comes here and says that as far as concerns the provinces we must give the money to them to enable them to attend to native education. It will not end there. If I have understood him aright we are also going to see to it that schools and halls are constructed for the natives. We have to pay for it, and is it fair towards the white man that he should have to pay for all this for the benefit of the natives? Everything is being done for the natives, and it is doing them more harm than good. I do not object to the natives being educated and developed. I have no objection to them learning their own history and learning to read and write; but the communistic propaganda which is spreading through the country amongst the natives is being disseminated by educated natives and we must be careful. If the native wants education I have no ojection to raise to that. But I do object to the white man having to pay for the education of the native. The native has not paid for the white man’s education. The white man has had to pay for it himself, and now he has to pay for the native’s education. No, I am sorry, but I cannot support this Bill of the Minister’s; and as there is no unanimity about it on his side I should like to express the hope that the Minister will not act as a dictator and tell his followers that they have to vote for the Bill. If he does that it will not be long before he regrets that this Bill was forced through before there was proper enquiry. We have here an ill-considered Bill. We do not know how many million pounds it is going to cost the white man and I object to it very strongly. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has mentioned the various subjects in which the native is being educated under a syllabus. He has shown that the native is being taught drill. A moment ago the Minister intimated that there was unanimity on his side. But only a few days ago the Prime Minister stated that the natives were not going to be drilled and armed. But now we hear that they are being drilled. That certainly does not show that there is unanimity on the other side. The one Minister contradicts the other, and we ought of course to have unanimity in the Government. I know that the Minister of Education is obstinate, and no doubt he will push the Bill through, although I have appealed to him not to follow this course. But the country will call him to account if he forces this Bill through. We are standing on the eve of administration by this side of the House. We cannot permit that the European should have to pay for everything while the native has the benefit of everything. I am not averse to the native being educated and civilised so that he may be of greater service in his sphere. But we must be on our guard against the wrong kind of education. I have had experience of that. Only last week there was a strike in the plantations of Piet Retief, and it was these so-called educated natives who were active with their communistic propaganda. I have many native labourers on my farm, and the most reliable are those who still adhere to their tribal customs and who do not fall under the influence of that so-called learning, or all the thieving and such like things that we come across amongst them. Take the theft, murder and robbery that is being perpetrated at places like Johannesburg, and in three places out of four you will find that it is the so-called educated native who commits these crimes. The native is becoming educated. The European has to pay for it, and the European is suffering under it. If the native wants to receive education we must teach him to pay for it himself. It is because he gets it for nothing from the white man that he misuses it. He receives his education for nothing. He does not feel that he is paying for it, and thus we get these agitators and strikes and all these things. These are not things that characterise the native who abides by his tribal customs. If the payment for native education comes out of their own pockets they will learn to appreciate it more. As far as the native problem is concerned the Government is going altogether too far. I think that the time has come for the Minister to call a halt. I do not want to dwell on this subject at any length, but I would like to express the hope that the amendment will be adopted. It is a fair amendment which is tantamount to asking that the whole matter be investigated fundamentally, so that we can ascertain whether a preferable measure may not be evolved. The whole question at the moment rests on the Provincial Councils. I do not make any objection to that, but it is very easy to administer a policy when others are paying for it. We know the old proverb that says that it is nice to cut broad riems out of another man’s hide. This will be the case with the Provincial Councils, that on every occasion they will ask for more and more, because it is the Union Parliament that must pay. Accordingly, the Minister ought to agree to this Bill being withdrawn and to the subject being thoroughly investigated. We object to it because it is an ill-digested thing. It has not been properly investigated. It is something that the Minister himself will regret, and he will certainly have to come along next year with a Bill to amend this Bill, because there will be a cry that he should make so much more money available. I hope therefore that the Minister will take this question into serious consideration.

I do not rise to take part in this debate because of any claim to exceptional knowledge of native affairs. But as a citizen of the country I am equally responsible for a peaceful future in South Africa and for healthy relationships between European and non-European as any other person, and especially in view of the implications of this Bill I would be answerable to my constituents if I did not bring certain aspects of the Bill to the notice of the hon. Minister. The Minister should understand that I do not believe one of us on this side of the House is opposed to the provision of education to natives. No one can assume the responsibility to be averse to reasonable education and upbring for the natives. But there is, of course, a difference between education and education, between education which takes the line of forming character, and education which is demoralising and denationalisation; education that merely furnishes book learning and education that is calculated to develop the feeling of independence of the citizens of the country and to impart to them a realisation of their own worth. Consequently I want to give the Minister the assurance that we have no objection to the provision of education to the native as such. There are in any event important implications in connection with this Bill that this House must realise, and for which it will in the future be held to account by the people. We are not hostile to education as such, but it is one of the big defects in this Bill which occasions us concern that in no respect is an indication given of the kind of education that is envisaged by the Minister or by this Advisory Board for which provision is made in the Bill. As far as I am concerned education should have the following foundations. In the first place it should give to the native the opportunity to develop what is his own and to build on the foundations of the centuries, and what their forefathers have woven into their being by experience, b*y evolution and by circumstances. There ought to be development of what is inherent in the native. That should be promoted with a view to the formation of character, independence, and self-esteem. It should not have a tendency to denationalise the native as such and perhaps to make him a coloured European. One of the fundamental things that South Africa must face up to squarely in respect of every section of its population —it applies to the European population as well as the non-European population—is that äs many members pf the community as are adapted for it and as are necessary for it should be trained for the platteland. That is all the more necessary in respect of the natives who have so much leeway to make up in civilisation and who at the moment are making such misuse of the ground that it can only have most serious consequences in the future. It is generally known that some of the best parts of South Africa are being hopelessly misused and destroyed as a result of lack of education and training in respect of the natives. There we have a big field of labour in regard to education—the native must be trained to make better use of the reserves that have been granted to him. We frequently make reference in this House, and commissions have also made reference to the future of the native and the service that the native can give if he is trained for absorption in the industrial life. I would not for a moment give the impression that I believe that primary education could impart such a tendency to the inherent talents of persons that will eventually find expression in industrial life. But that tendency can be sought out in good time and those who can be attached to the platteland by education with a view to making a living there can be placed in that position all the earlier by being given education according to a syllabus. I think that the Minister will agree with me—and I have also listened with pleasure during this debate to several members who have taken this line—that the foundation of native education in South Africa must be Christian. This is the conception of our whole national fabric and also the basis of our philosophy of life. This is the direction in which we are striving, and when provision is not made for the perpetuation of that tendency in education, we cannot regard the future without concern and without anxiety. We cannot hope unless the objective of our education is Christian, to build up a contented and permanent society in the country. The education that we impart to the native must bear the clear distinguishing feature that the border line between European and non-European may not be eliminated. The education that will be the greatest blessing to the native must develop from the standpoint that the native in South Africa will remain a non-European, that his civilisation will not be retarded by that, that it will be the greatest blessing for him and for the Europeans if that dividing line is maintained. If that border line is removed it can only lead to the abyss. Every tendency in education to eliminate the separation policy in the country must be combated by every right-thinking person in the country. I listened with surprise to the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming), when he stated that education knows no border line. The standpoint of South Africa should be that that border line must be admitted in education because if it is not acknowledged there will be no future for the Europeans, but there will only be a mix-up in the country. As far as I am concerned I should like to pay a tribute to the pioneering work that has been done by societies who have devoted themselves to the education and training of the natives. In the past I have had the opportunity as an official to pay visits to various of these undertakings in the native areas to inspect them from an industrial viewpoint rather than the educational. I do not want to mention names, but I have had the privilege to observe marvellously valuable work at various centres, and it is my duty in the name of white South Africa to pay tribute to the sacrifice that so many men and women have made to do this work. I think that it is not only our privilege but also our duty to praise and to appreciate that work. During the present Session this House has repeatedly discussed native legislation and native affairs. I do not think I am going too far when I say that during this Session history has been made with the discussion of native affairs. Whether effect will be given to it is another matter. But even though there is no execution of those ideas at the present stage the future of South Africa will nevertheless be influenced by the discussions that have been conducted in this House during the present Session. I should like now to pass to a consideration of the Bill itself. This Bill demands from the taxpayers sums of money for native education without there being any indication of the education that will be given to the native. If the Minister comes to this House to ask the House simply to sign a blank cheque he cannot expect that we will give it to him without our knowing what the amount is going to be and for what it will be used. We have seen the working of this process up to the present. We must accept in the absence of any other indication that there is not going to be any alteration in the character. In this House and in the Press observations have been made with a certain measure of regret on the retrogression of the natives in more than one sphere by people who do not stand alone in their views. We have seen the influx to the towns that has actually been encouraged and also what the effect of that has been. We have learnt with sorrow of the retrogression that is going on. We have seen a certain measure of demoralisation that has occurred. I want always to make a difference here. I do not want for a moment to bring the House under the impression that I am charging all education and all natives. But the education has not conduced to the general building of character of the native, as we expect from education. The Minister and I have had the privilege of being reared in a parental home where we underwent character formation. The natives have not that privilege. They have to attend school in the district so that their characters may be formed and so that they may gain a realisation of their own worth. We have learnt with sorrow of the influence of foreign doctrines, and there is no indication in this Bill that a policy will be introduced to enable us to discriminate against those influences that do not make for the building of character for the native. This House has also learnt with great regret of the progressive deterioration in the relationship between European and nonEuropean. If we do not go to work conscientiously to remove that bad relationship and convert it into a mutual and cordial relationship, there is no future in South Africa for European and non-European. We in South Africa certainly do not grudge the native a place to live in this country; we do not grudge him educational development, but then it must occur on a broad foundation of instruction that eliminates mutual misunderstandings and that is based on the foundations that I have already described. And now the Minister comes and he proposes a Bill that affords us no indication of what the content will be of the education that will be given to the natives, or what the drift of it will be or the policy. In Clause 3 the Bill lays down that an advisory board shall be appointed. That advisory board has to give advice to the Minister of Education and also to the provinces. But now it must at once be clear that this Bill does not alter the constitutional position. Constitutionally the Provincial Councils maintain their supreme authority as far as concerns native education. Here we have a new body that may give advice to the Minister of Education and to the Provincial Councils. Assume now that that advice is given. It may be good advice, but the Provincial Councils may prefer not to accept that advice. Then as I interpret the clause the Minister has no power to intervene. He can apparently come to Parliament and ask for a reduction in the grant to the provinces, but he has no direct power to force the provinces to accept that advice. The Minister wants a safeguard himself in advance against such a dispute by the provision that this advisory board that gives him advice may also influence the Provincial Councils with the same advice. But suppose that the Provincial Councils do not accept that advice the constitutional position in my opinion is that the Provincial Councils will win the day. Suppose now that in a special case the advice of the advisory board is wrong, having in mind the greatest interest of all sections, then the Minister has absolutely no power to act contrary to that advice if the Provincial Councils accept it. I believe that just as this Bill is making a new start with the financing of native education there should also be a new start made in regard to the policy. I am one of those who believe that there could easily be a second problem in South Africa that will be just as portentous and significant for the future of South Africa as the native problem and native education in connection with it. Accordingly I believe that the policy in connection with it of the national government of the day must hold. The government of the day is largely responsible for future relationships. It is the national government of today that is responsible for the carrying out of the measures that will have their effects in the future, and they should reveal wise statesmanship and take into account those effects in the future. When an alteration is introduced the national government must accept the responsibility and not leave it to subordinate bodies. It is necessary to have a unified policy. It is not necessary that there should be uniformity of policy right through the country, but there must be unity of policy for which the national government is responsible. I should like to say that I appreciate that as a result of the combination of circumstances with which we are faced today, there exists a sensitiveness on the part of our Provincial Administrations. I appreciate this. In many cases they adopt the standpoint that I adopt. But that does not remove the fact that we have to deal here with national problems for which the provinces cannot be held responsible. I do not want to suggest that I should be prepared to eliminate the provinces entirely. In so far as the provinces are equipped to carry out the policy of the State, they must utilise the means that they have at their disposal. With the knowledge that I have today I cannot indicate any other policy than that the Government should accept the responsibility, and that the Government should in turn pass on the responsibility to bodies it regards as competent. No one doubts the capacity of the Minister to be helpful in respect of the development of native education. Nor would I cast any doubts on the board that he is going to appoint. But as we are going to form an educational board, the educational board must be linked up with general native policy. Where we go so far as a result of our trusteeship to create a separate native department and a Minister for it, and to appoint commissions and other officials, the unity of policy must repose in that department. The utilisation of what is the native’s very own, the intimate knowledge that the department possesses of natives, should all contribute to make a success of a sound policy, and accordingly I support the suggestion that the responsibility should rest on the Department of Native Affairs, and the argument cannot be used that there should only be one body responsible. In the past South Africa has suffered as a result of water-tight compartments in a department. Where we have to do with national problems a Minister should be responsible, but national problems should be discussed by the whole Cabinet, and consequently in the future all Ministers should accept joint responsibility for our entitre native policy, although there may be only one Minister for the administration of that policy. I would like to offer the following objections. The Minister asks us to accept the financial responsibility. Well, I think that in the last resort it will be difficult to find argument whereby we could free ourselves of joint responsibility, but as I read the clause there is no question of joint responsibility. I think too that the hon. Minister this morning when he introduced the Bill spoke in the sense that Parliament must accept complete responsibility for the Bill. I presume he had in mind the voting of funds. Now the question immediately arises: As the people are conscious and as the country is conscious of the relatively low income of the native, has the State the right to ask the Minister for an estimate in reference to the expenditure on education over a period of years? Five-year programmes are now the order of the day. Why cannot the Minister tell us: In the course of the next five years I expect this will be the amount that Parliament will be asked for. I should be disloyal to my constituents if I went back to my constituency and admitted that I had voted for a Bill for native education without being aware of its implications. I do not think that the Minister can expect that we should accept responsibility without our taking our constituents into consideration, and accordingly I shall be glad if the Minister can tell us in his reply what the implications are going to be. But closely connected with the question of the responsibility of the House is the other question of a thorough investigation into the capacity of the native to pay. I know it is abnormal at the moment, but from the nature of the matter it is possible that the native could pay more today. I know that the native representatives differ from me, but I would submit this as a proposition, that before the House can be expected to find out of the ordinary revenue from taxation special contributions for the financing of native education, a thorough enquiry should be instituted into the income of the natives. I believe that the question of financing education stands in close relationship to the income to which the native is entitled on account of his contributions—I know I am making a dangerous proposition here—but on the basis of the earning capacity it is possible that the native can contribute more in respect of his own needs. We shall of course now have an opportunity to discuss the details from time to time. The Minister will apparently give a report in this House from year to year, but then we shall only be able to discuss the details. The policy will then have been laid down and approved, and we shall only be able to discuss the details after the work has already been done. I think that is unsatisfactory. I think the House should have in advance further knowledge of the direction in which the Minister is steering native education before we place ourselves in the position that we can only ask for the details later on when the die is cast. Now I come to my objections to the Bill itself. I want to make this observation in regard to a serious objection, that if the Government refuses to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) we shall have to vote against the Bill. This Bill carries very noticeably the hallmark of Party political legislation in respect of a national problem; it bears the Party political mark on a national problem. That should not be. No Government, no Minister may introduce Party legislation in such a momentous problem. That is the attitude that the Government subscribed to in respect of the 1934 legislation. I do not want to go into that now. I believe that it is ultra vires. But we will leave it there. If the Government bases its experience on the ground of the findings of the commission of enquiry then it is going into ancient history. Since 1936 revolutionary changes have come about in South Africa which today no longer justify the findings of 1936. A period has arrived when the Government must take into account new circumstances the circumstances that have developed since the most recent reports, and that is the only justification for having a big national commission in the broad sense, a national commission appointed to investigate all these matters. It should not take so long as the Public Health Services Commission. I think it can be done within a year. If the Minister would hold this Bill back so that he might within a year’s time bring forward a Bill based on the findings of that national commission, he will not only be able to expect more support from this side of the House, but he would then have the right to ask the general public for support if he brings forward a sound Bill. But at this stage the Minister cannot lay claim to that support. Now I have a few serious charges to make in respect of the Bill itself. It does not help matters for there to be a discussion in this House about legislative powers by way of regulation. Let us turn to Clause 4—

1. (b) the powers, duties and functions of the board.

He can define the objectives by way of regulation. He can lay down their powers and their duties by way of regulation. How can the House agree to give such far-reaching powers to the Minister by way of regulation? We as members of Parliament should expose ourselves to self-condemnation if we entrusted such powers to the Minister. Clause 4 ought to be fundamentally revised. The Minister has no right to expect powers and duties that he can pass on to his department; these are rights that belong to Parliament. We shall not allow him to go as far as that. If the Minister pushes the Bill through in its present form, if he takes the right to make regulations in reference to the powers of members, the following Parliament will not be in a position lightly to rescind those powers. How can you with respect to your commission members curtail their powers? No, it is a matter to which this House must grant its approval. Under Clause 4 (f) the Minister is also taking tremendous powers. I think this Bill is of such significance so far as the future of South Africa is concerned, that we are entitled to make an Appeal to the Minister not to proceed with the Bill at this stage. Many of us are just as anxious as he is over the opportunity that should be granted. There is no atom of truth in the idea that we want to suppress the native. On the contrary, we want to contribute to his development, but we must first have a thorough investigation.

I feel that this Bill has had a less warm welcome than it deserves in this House. It is a Bill which meets an immediate and urgent problem, i.e. the problem of the financing of native education; that is a problem which has been pressing for the last two years and it had to be decided on some general principle in the near future. This Bill proproses to solve that problem in the only reasonable way in which it could be solved, i.e. by placing on the Central Government the responsibility for this national service. But it also deals with another issue which has also been becoming increasingly urgent and which, in fact, should have been met a long time ago, and that is the question of the responsibility for the spending of money on native education. The circumstances under which the Native Trust Account has been excluded from the control of this House is one of those curious incidents in the history of Parliament by which it so lavishly handed away its own control. Under the terms of this Bill we are now getting back some of that control which we have handed away; and in a Parliament which has shown an increasing anxiety about the whittling away of its own powers, that fact and that fact alone should have commended this Bill to a considerable portion of this House. That fact would have commended the Bill strongly to me. This House should bear and retain the responsibility for all money spent. But in addition to both these things, the Bill does something else which seems to commend it to a considerable number of members in this House although they have said very little in its favour, that is, it increases the centralisation of control over native education. Quite obviously that is a development which is strongly supported in this House. In fact the general tenor of this debate suggests that the Bill has not gone far enough in this respect. Yet the circumstance that the Bill is for the first time providing some possibility of unification in our native educational service, has gained very little support, very little welcome, from those who are plegded to this type of development. The bases of that lack of welcome seem to be mainly two; one is the simple one of the range of finance involved; the second is the type of control through which centralisation is to be exercised. Clearly there is still a big anxiety on the part of a considerable portion of this House—and not only on one side of the House—that the native shall derive from the financial resources of this country more than he gives to the financial resources of the country, an argument which has come from an amazing quarter today, a quarter from which I should have expected a little more appreciation of the character and sources of national finance, if not a little more generosity. I was completely amazed to hear the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) telling the House that he felt that educational services for natives ought to be paid for by natives.

I said eventually.

Even “eventually” seemed to be an amazing proposition, in this House, in the face of the character of our present native population. But I will concede the hon. member the point that he said “eventually”. But even if he said “eventually”, it showed that type of lack of realism which was a surprise to me in the speech he made this morning. But I would remind the House of what the hon. Minister of Education, speaking as Minister of Finance, said a few days ago, that practically every source of finance in this country comes primarily from our native population. The fact that we have the revenues that we have in this country today, the fact that we have had the revenues which we have had in the last ten, fifteen or twenty years, is due to the fact that we have a cheap native labour force, from which we rake off not only most of what we get from the mines but much of what we get from industry and commerce as well. That is a fact which I am surprised a member on the Government side should overlook. But I want to come to the main point of criticism against this Bill, and I am sorry in that regard that I miss the point which was made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). Unfortunately someone spoke to me just as he invited our support to one of his contentions. But I might just add before leaving the question of finance, that I think the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) was a little worried about the range of taxation, of our native taxation. He felt that in these days of progressive social development of the native population, that population is equal to a great deal more taxation than is now imposed upon it by way of the poll tax. I would remind the hon. member for Winburg what perhaps he has forgotten, namely, that the native comes under the income tax laws as soon as he comes within the range of income tax.

My point is this; are these taxes ever collected from them?

They are definitely collected. I can assure the hon. member of that from my own experience. As a matter of fact, a number of African commercial men in Johannesburg took great exception a year or so ago to being called upon by the Receiver of Revenue not only to pay their current income tax but arrear taxes in respect of a number of years. They went to the Receiver of Revenue and put up what I consider a perfectly reasonable claim, although not a legal claim, that since they were subject to poll tax, they were not subject to income tax. In other words, they claimed one of the privileges of a segregation policy. But our laws are so balanced that while the native gets the disadvantages of the policy, the privileges are never his. They cease to be natives in terms of the Native Taxation Act and become citizens of South Africa for taxation purposes when their economic circumstances raise them to income tax level; and, furthermore, the money derived from them in these circumstances go into the ordinary resources of the country and not to the Native Trust Account.

Have you any information as to how many natives pay income tax?

That is a much larger question. It would no doubt be possible to find out how many natives pay income tax. I cannot answer that question, but what I can say emphatically is that the Receiver of Revenue imposes the obligation to pay tax wherever he has any reason to suppose that the person is liable to pay; and the Receiver of Revenue does not allow much to escape him.

There is no colour bar in the income tax law.

That is the point I am making. There is no colour bar in the income tax law and the Receiver of Revenue does not let much escape his net. Where organisations of African commercial people come into existence, there is the Receiver of Revenue on the spot to find out at once what is the standard of their returns and to get his share. So I think the argument about the source of financial provision for native education falls away. Now I want to come to the main ground of attack on the Bill. It is based on the circumstance that the Minister has placed the responsibilty for the working of his proposed Advisory Board in the hands of the Department of Education, although the board, he tells us, is to function under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Native Affairs, that the ultimate control is to be with the Department of Education. The argument with which this proposition is supported is that the problems with which this board is going to deal and the work on which the money voted is going to be spent, constitute educational problems and education, and that in the circumstances, the person answerable for that expenditure and for those services should be the Minister, who is at the head of a technical department trained to handle educational problems. That argument is challenged on both sides of the House; and it is challenged in terms of something that is called the direction of native education. Now I have listened with the very greatest care to everything that has been said on this topic, and I may say, with a little educational experience myself, that I end this debate as I began it with a firm conviction that the decision of the Government in this respect is absolutely sound. I have not heard one argument today to shake my confidence in that decision. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) began by giving us a very interesting history of native education in this country and he told us how in the preEuropean stages of South Africa native education had been controlled by the elders of the tribe, that it was based on a well thought-out plan which was suited to the circumstances and the needs and the obligation of the community, that the native within this plan was taught two things. He was taught, first of all, to understand the job he was going to have to do in life, the job on which his livelihood was going to depend, and secondly he was going to be taught how to serve the community as well as himself in this regard; and behind this teaching was a development of character in him which would make him a responsible citizen of the tribe or community to which he belonged. In other words, that the training which the youth of the pre-European settlement days in South Africa was to get, was training which would enable him to understand the surroundings and the needs of the community and to do his service to the community efficiently in terms of his own needs and the need of the community as a whole. Now that is a diagnosis of the objectives of education, which I think any educational expert would endorse and accept with both hands. That is exactly what we want out of our educational system. But when he came on to the post-European settlement period, the objectives of education seemed to get a little confused. I fancy that the reason why they got confused was that the hon. member knows very little—I say it with all respect—about the organisation and the character of the society in which he lives today; he does not really know as much about that as he knows in broad outlines about pre-European settlement societies in South Africa; and that is really where his difficulty arises. He proceeds at once to tell us that what we need in the education of South Africa, as the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) pointed out are three different types of education, one for the natives in the reserves, one for the natives on the farms and one for the natives in the towns and cities. I wish to suggest to my hon. friend that when he got to the question of the natives on the farms, he had begun to realise his own confusion in this regard, because when he got to that point he found it necessary to say to the House what was, I think, quite the most important thing he said in the whole of that extremely interesting speech, and that was that what we needed was a change in the education of Europeans and natives alike on the farms. In other words, he got to the point that what we needed was a re-adjustment of our educational ideas to enable those who live on the land to live a little better. Then he suggested as far as the reserves were concerned, that what the native needed was to learn to use his resources—I think that is what he said—to use what he had there and to use it to the best of his ability. But he seemed to have an idea that there was some special circumstance in the reserve area which he could learn by means of a special type of education. I am inclined to think that there probably is, but I do not think it is quite the type of thing the hon. member himself had in mind. First of all, I want to remind him of what the hon. member for Transkei said, and I am not apologising for repeating what was said by him, because I think it needs to be repeated in this House very often; the hon. member for Transkei said that the population of the Transkei, like the population of every other native area, does not stay at home. It is not even a rural population. It is as much an industrial, urban population, as it is a rural population, and that goes for practically all the reserves. And if the hon. member disagrees with our views on this matter, just let him consult the Department of Native Affairs, in which he places such great confidence. We will take their word for it too. He will find that even in Natal considerable pressure has been brought to bear on the Zulu reserves in order to force the Zulus out of work; and, Sir, that is a circumstance which, I think has got to be faced, that we are not dealing in the reserves even with one type of population; in the reserves we are dealing with a population which is part agriculture and part industrial. I venture to agree with the hon. member that it is very important that the native of the reserve ought to be trained to use the resources which he has there considerably better than he does, that he ought to be trained to have a better understanding of the conditions under which he lives. But I want to suggest to the hon. member that what is needed there, as what is needed in the towns with which he dealt later, expressing the view that there was a special need for a particular type of education there too, that what the native needs in both cases is to learn to understand his surroundings and to take some sort of control of them so that he may be able to develop his resources, such as they are, within the limits of his position and to the best of his ability. But I shall come back to that in a moment. I must first of all consider the speech of the hon. member for Ceres. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) also developed this theme of the type of education to be given to our native population. He will forgive me if I have not all his points down, but I have put down as many as I could. At first sight it would appear that the hon. member for Ceres does believe that there is an entirely different type of life to be lived by the native from that lived by the European. That I think, was in his mind when he spoke of the need of native education to develop what the native has of his own. That I took to mean to build on and preserve what was best in the native culture and tradition. He then went on to talk about the building up of character. He then, I rather think, stressed the necessity for developing a national spirit. There was one point I missed because somebody spoke to me. But finally the hon. member suggested that the whole basis of native education should be Christian. Now the introduction of the principle of Christian education to my mind rather cancels out the idea of an entirely different type of background and a different purpose for native education, because the emphasis on the Christian side of native education—which I entirely support —immediately lifts its basis out of tribal society into a type of society which endorses our ideas and our objectives. Now the point I am trying to make is this, that in what has been said by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and by the hon. member for Ceres—several other members spoke in broad and general terms—every point they have made has been intended to suggest that there should be something different and particular about native education. But I contend that every issue they have raised in respect of the education of the native is an educational problem and not a native problem. The hon. member for Vryheid and members on this side of the House maintain that we must build up native education on the basis of native tradition and native background. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) told us that the content and direction of European education had, through experience come to be based upon the whole background of European experience, that it must take into consideration the cultural, the traditional and even the geographical background of European children, and he said that if that is the case for European children how much more for native children. I am prepared to agree with all those things. I think we ought to build up native education on the tradition of what is best in native culture. I think that of all things education should build up character; and I hope that education in this country will extend its Christian basis, and I hope it will build up a sense of national pride in the people. But my contention is that every one of these objectives is an educational objective, an objective in regard to which educationists are trained and for which nobody else is trained. I cannot imagine anything more illogical than to place problems of this kind in the hands of an ordinary civil servant. And I say this without any intention to belittle the civil servant but to hand on the responsibility for these issues to persons untrained in this field seems to me simply to throw away all the experience and wisdom we have gained in the history of education.

We can establish an educational committee.

Of course we can establish an educational committee. And that is what we are planning to do—but within the Department of Education. We seem to think we have unlimited resources in this country and can afford to create an unlimited number of committees and boards. Why must we create a board outside our Education Department to do what is the business of the Education Department? Our friends here argue that, if you put native education under the Education Department, you will remove it from the influence of political direction. So you will. That is exactly what you will do. But that does not mean that you will change our native policy. Our native policy is not made by the Department of Native Affairs; it is made by the Government and Parliament and it is administered through a diversity of departments. And we are following that practice in this case as obviously the most reasonable and satisfactory course. I personally will always support educational control of educational services. As I have said, every single problem that has been mentioned in this debate in respect of the educating of the native is an educational problem. In the last resort that is the fact we have to face, and let us remember that we are dealing here with primary education, the mere problem of teaching people to read and write, without which they are hopelessly handicapped in this generation. That is the real problem before this country; to abolish illiteracy and to develop the capacity of our native population to increase the wealth of our country. At present our native population is producing a great deal of the wealth to this country but it is not producing anything like the wealth that it should produce. If it were trained as it ought to be trained, the wealth of this country would increase at a rate that would probably make social security possible; and that must be our objective. We belong to an industrial age and it is an industrial age which has fixed the standards of living and well-being to which we all aspire. But the whole foundation of the industrial age is a trained working class. If the Transkei native is going to make any use of his land and if the industrial native is going to make use of the opportunities offered to him he does not need to know about Dinizulu or Chaka— although those things foster national pride and he should be encouraged to know about them—but he wants to know how the modern machine works. The salvation of the Transkei lies in the application of modern agricultural methods, not in tribal tradition. It is tribal tradition that is killing the Transkei. And what the native in the town needs to know is how the machine works. If England had never pressed ahead with her elementary education she would never have attained anything like the industrial supremacy she did. Every industrial power has had to educate its people to the best of its ability in order to make possible the application of scientific knowledge to the development of its resources. Even if our objective is merely the miserable one suggested by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink), that the future of our native population is merely that they should be workers—which I hope was not the implication of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ceres that we must be very careful not to interfere with the line between black and white—that was what the hon. member for Christiana asked namely what is to be the future of the natives, are they not only to be workers? Even if that is their ultimate function they will need an education in modern methods and modem ideas that they may be good workers. That is the crux of the situation. And who is better able to provide this type of education than those whom we pay as experts to understand this sort of thing. This type of education does not involve any new direction in policy. It is not a question of whether you are going to have a segregation policy that maintains your tribal system. I do take some exception to the defintion given by the hon. member for Humansdorp of those of us who sit here as being committed to the policy of communists and socialists— though I do not object to it on that ground —that in contrast to his Party, we are out for a complete breakdown of the tribal system and the most rapid detribalisation possible. My only objection to his statement is that it suggests that this is our policy and our policy only. Actually it is the simple logic of events in South Africa. It is the simple logic of our industrial development. If our friends do not want industrial development then they may shut the door on the natives’ advance and they may be able to maintain tribalism. But they still have to prove that they do want industrialism. They all enjoy and enjoy thoroughly the standards industrialism has enabled them to enjoy in this country. Their only anxiety is these are not sufficiently secure. In the circumstances I cannot see what is to be gained by putting this policy under the Native Affairs Department, which is essentially a political department, instead of under a technical department, to enable us to get what we want, with the direction of policy still in the hands of the Government. With the Native Affairs Department already overwhelmed with work, and it has already indicated that it does not want to take on this extra service, and as the department has agreed to this set up—as was said by the Minister in an interjection— I cannot see why there should be anything against the acceptance of the Native Affairs Department’s own plan in this matter, and to supporting the principle on which the whole of our public service is built up, that we take our technical advisers where we pay for them and hold them responsible for anything that goes wrong. I fully endorse this measure.

I will not devote much time to the argument of the hon. member who has just resumed her seat. I think everyone in this House can understand the argument. The hon. member is endeavouring by her words to conceal the real position, but she has nevertheless allowed it to escape in her speech that the hope that she cherishes is absolute liberalism in regard to native education in this country. That hope she sees more chance of realising through the Minister of Education than under the Minister of Native Affairs.

No.

It is very clear. The hon. member should not attempt to throw dust in our eyes. The hon. members representing native interests have made misuse of their position as representatives of the natives to such a degree that members of the Government party who are sitting beside them have begun to take up the standpoint that if we really want to have segregation in South Africa we shall have to segregate the native representatives out of this House. It is not we who say that. It is often said that we are inimical to the natives. It is not we who say that, but members on the Government side who say so. They have now had enough of that standpoint of the hon. members representing native interests, and they say we should segregate them out of the House. It is quite clear what the hon. member has up her sleeve when she speaks in favour of control under the Minister of Finance and not under the Minister of Native Affairs. So much as regards her argument. Then I should like to remove a misunderstanding that possibly exists. The question was put by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) to the Minister of Finance in how far control will be exercised over those natives who have increased their income to such an extent that they come under consideration for income tax. That was referred to by the hon. member who has just spoken, and while it was being touched on the Minister of Finance said: “There is no colour bar as far as concerns the incidence of income tax.” I want to remind the hon. Minister that on a previous occasion when we had legislation in this House in connection with the grant of old age pensions to natives the question was also put to him whether he personally thought that the possessions of natives could be properly controlled. He replied that it could be done, that he really saw a chance of that. We said then that we challenge him to exercise such control on the native possessions so that the means test could be applied in connection with the grant of old age pensions. At that time he said that he did see a prospect of being able to exercise control. What has been the result? After the lapse of a year he has had to admit there were administrative difficulties, that it was not possible to control the position. My argument in that connection was, and I repeat it today, that you cannot control the possessions of natives. When it comes to native possessions for taxation purposes the native says that part of the property is not his, that it belongs to his brother-in-law or his son-in-law, and you will find it impossible to assess it, and the Minister of Finance has not the slightest idea of how many natives are residing within the boundaries of the Union who are in possession of so much property that they should come under consideration for taxation.

The hon. member may not go into that any further; he must keep to the Bill.

The question of taxation has a great deal to do with that, because education must be paid out of taxation. If the Minister states that coloured people and natives must be treated on the same footing for taxation purposes then I want to ask whether he knows how many natives cross and re-cross the border. I assert that the Minister of Finance has by no means got the complete control that is necessary. Now I should like to refer to the debate that has taken place. The question was put to the Minister why the Minister of Native Affairs is not present today during a discussion of such an important matter, and one which everyone will agree also relates to the Department of Native Affairs. It is necessary that there should be contact between the two departments in this connection, and on that account it was urgently necessary that on a day such as this, with a debate such as the present, the Minister of Native Affairs should be in his seat. Why is he conspicuous by his absence? Why does the Minister of Finance choose a day when the Minister of Native Affairs cannot be here or does not want to be here, for such a debate? The explanation given by the Minister of Finance is that the necessary contact has taken place. The Bill has been drawn up by the Department of Native Affairs, and he has only come as Minister of Education to guide the Bill through Parliament. If this is so it is all the more necessary that the department that has drafted the Bill should remain in touch with the matter, and that the Minister who administers the department and the officials who framed it, should be present when such a Bill is being discussed as the one they have drawn up. It is no excuse for the Minister of Finance to say that they drafted it but that they are not present here. Matters may crop up of the utmost importance to the department that drafted the Bill. Objections may be raised to the drafting of the Bill, and the people who drafted it are not present. The Minister of another department is introducing the matter. It is not only this side of the House but from all quarters there are complaints over the lack of contact that there is between the departments in reference to matters of this nature. The Minister of Finance has approached the whole matter from the financial standpoint, but if there is one thing that should be clear to him now then it is that when you come and ask the House to vote contributions for native education you are not only touching the financial aspect of the matter but there are many other matters standing in very close relationship to it that are also being affected. The Minister however only approached the matter from the financial aspect, whether this House is prepared to vote money for native education, or whether it is prepared to accept that in the future the same formula shall be applied. But this whole matter, as has appeared from the debate itself, hangs together with the question of the nature and character of the education that will be imparted to the natives. If money is being voted and if the Minister asks for a large amount then it is obvious a debate must take place on the character and nature of the education, seeing it is of the utmost importance. It is therefore necessary in connection with a Bill of this nature to take this matter into consideration; we may not proceed hastily with this matter, and consequently I am moving that a commission should be appointed to make proper enquiry. It is necessary that there should be an enquiry into the character of the education. Training, education and development are links of the same chain in human life. Between these three things in the course of development of the human being there is an eternal unbreakable link. Training and education and the objective of development are linked together, and accordingly it is necessary and unavoidable that in a debate such as this the question is also being put not merely what the financial position is going to be, but also what the development will be in connection with other aspects; and when we come to education, training and development of the native it immediately has a very important bearing on our society in the relationship between race and race, between the natives on the one side and the Europeans on the other side. This relationship between the two sections of the population is nothing new, but it has been a problem during all the years throughout the centuries that have passed, and if ever mistakes have been made in South Africa they have been made in connection with the relationship between the Europeans and the natives in the country. This question of race relationships in the country is also intimately affected by this measure that is now being proposed, and when we come to the race relationship in the country and if we look back on past history we will see that there are mainly two policies in the past. One is, as historical development shows, the Christian trusteeship whereunder the native has gradually developed in the course of the years from the barbarism in which he was embedded. That has been one of the main policies. I shall call it the policy of Christian trusteeship, and the upbringing and education and development has continued under this Christian trusteeship. Where the contact has taken place between the Europeans and the native population, and where contact has occurred with the native’s traditions and mode of life and outlook on life, right through history proof has been furnished that this sort of trusteeship has produced the best and most valuable natives. That is the one line of policy, the line of Christian trusteeship over the natives, that was exercised especially by the Boer population and that exerted a very wholesome influence on the natives that came under the control of the farmers on our farms. You can go as far as you like and you will find that this is the soundest method of control, and of upbringing and development. The native who today is causing difficulty to the Minister of Native Affairs and the Minister of Finance, the native that is roaming round without a pass and turns up tomorrow or the day after tomorrow under their noses, and with whom they do not know how to deal, the native who is extreme, this is not the native who has been under the control of Christian trusteeship, but he is mainly the native that has come under the influence of the other policy which has also been perceptible throughout history, namely the policy of equality that mainly came through overseas influence in the history of South Africa. Every time you find that influence comes from people overseas who have no knowledge of affairs in South Africa. They have worked for the policy of equality in South Africa and this must lead to a clash of Europeans on the one side and natives on the other. The result of that policy has never been the creation of a sound relationship between natives and Europeans, but has always resulted in clashes and even clashes that have led to bloodshed. As upbringing and education and development are links in the one chain it is necessary when the House is asked to adopt a measure such as this, that we should at least know from the Minister something about the direction in which education will be applied and the nature of development. The Minister of Finance knows that the migration and influx of natives to urban areas in the past few years has been very large, that he have never known such an influx, and that it is just in recent years that influences from outside South Africa have also taken root in our fatherland—the influences of foreign nationalities outside South Africa that have no understanding of the native and his instincts and traditions, and that aim at making him an imitation of the white man and wish to apply doctrines which are not at all adaptable to the native. As the result of those influences which are being asserted the Minister of Native Affairs and the Minister of Finance are confronted with new problems, and the Government are at their wits’ end and do not know how to handle the position. They are a spectacle of powerlessness in connection with the problem. This is the result of the doctrines that have been imported from overseas, and it is necessary that we should be fully aware of the position. In connection with the financing of native education I should like to say a few words. On a previous occasion when I put a definite question to him the Minister of Finance systematically avoided answering the question, and I want to put the question again, and it is necessary that we should have a clear answer. I put the question to the Minister of Finance whether he could say that the demands that are being made, the money that has been devoted to native education in recent years has assumed dimensions different to those of preceding years. I recently put that question to the Minister. My contention is that since the present Minister of Finance became responsible for financial control in our country expenditure has been on a more lavish scale than previously on native education. The Minister in his speech thought fit to be vague on this point. He only talked of “recent years” and then of “greater expansion in recent years”. But he systematically avoided to tell us when those “recent years” were. My contention is—and the Minister of Finance must tell us plainly what the position is—that since he has occupied that seat expenditure in connection with native education and native development has mounted much higher than it was previously. The Minister comes here and he talks in general terms to the effect that the requirements are now larger. We have stated that the expenditure is now higher and higher for native education, and continuously it is being required from the European taxpayers to shoulder the burden of these services on behalf of the native. No one else than the Minister himself has, together with the native representatives, accused this side of the House of illwill towards the natives, because we have alluded to this aspect of the matter. But can the Minister see how far it has now gone? I have previously spoken on this matter. Now it is no longer we only who speak about it. But from all sides of the House the Minister now hears that it is time to call a halt, that the services of the natives are being expanded more and more and that the European taxpayers have to pay for them. Did the Minister listen to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp)? The Minister was quick to charge the Nationalist Party with wanting to oppress the natives when we pointed out that the income of the natives is being augmented, and that they can be called on to make provision for their own requirements, and that it should not be demanded only from the European to pay for their services. He stated that we only want to oppress the natives. But now he hears that language from his own side, from the hon. member for Vryheid, who has stated that it is high time that the native realised that he eventually will have to pay for his education. I would only point out to the Minister of Finance when he states that during recent years requirements have increased in regard to the development and education of the natives, that we can expect that those requirements will increase much more in the coming years. We remember the other day the Prime Minister said in connection with the influx of natives into urban areas that provision will be made for housing accommodation for those natives and also for education. Provision must be made in the urban areas for the natives who are streaming in and also for their education. I should now like to know from the Minister of Finance whether he intends to make provision that all these facilities should be provided for the people who are streaming in to the urban areas and that the Europeans should pay for them. When these natives come to the towns they earn considerably more money. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) told us the other day that natives went from the reserves to the towns and earned their £10 a month. They have not the slightest idea of the value of money and instead of spending it properly they squander it. There is no control over that income. It is time that natives should understand that they must contribute from their revenue in the urban areas for the education of their offspring. The Minister of Finance speaks a great deal here about the expansion of the native’s needs, and it is now time that he should ascertain how far the native can himself pay for those services that he requires. The Minister spoke brilliantly. It is an art that he understands well. He said that the native tax is not elastic. His proposition is that the poll tax is £1 and that it remains £1; you cannot increase or reduce it. However, on a previous occasion I have indicated that the yield from that tax sometimes nevertheless contracted. It may not be elastic according to the Minister, but it sometimes shrinks. I have previously given the figures and I shall not repeat them here. The Minister comes along here with a mellifluous phrase about the revenue from native taxation not being elastic, and because the income from native taxation is not elastic Europeans will have to go on paying for all the services that the natives enjoy. I hope that the Minister will reply to the question that was put by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) in connection with revenue from natives in the reserves. I should like the Minister to answer that question, because we have already seen that there have been seasons when the revenue from poll tax diminished while the natives themselves increased There is also another reason. We learnt that an amount of £10,000,000 will be expended over a period of years for the improvement of the reserves as, for instance, in the combating of erosion. The Europeans cannot obtain an amount of £10,000,000 for that object, but the Europeans must make that amount available for the natives. When the income from the natives improves as a result of the improvements in the reserves, the native must realise that he must contribute his share in respect of that money that has been expended. Has the Minister control over the income of the natives so that he can collect with certainty the taxes that they ought to pay? But I want to say that it is now time to call a halt as far as this question is concerned, and before the House adopts a measure such as this there ought to be a proper enquiry such as is asked for in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). Let me tell the Minister again that he should not talk of repression or oppression of the natives when I say that we must call a halt to this process which the Minister is directing. It is not only we in this Parliament who say that it is time to call a halt, but it is also question that has been dealt with by the commission appointed by the Government. I have before me a summary of the report of the National Health Services Commission. On page 8 the commission describes in the form of a summary the principal medical services of the country, and it discusses the question where the money for that scheme should be found. Amongst other things it is stated that the commission proposes that there should be a health tax levied on every group. It will be expected of all to make a contribution, however small, even if it is only a nominal amount, so that the people may feel that it is their service. They also specify the natives in the native reserves. When a public health service is instituted it must be required of them to contribute a portion of their income towards the financing of that service because it will also be their service. That is the principle that was adopted by the commission, and it is the principle that we are here advocating.

At 6.40 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 4th April.