Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are going to take the somewhat unusual, and yet, we believe, very important step of opposing the motion of the hon. the Minister that leave be granted to introduce this legislation. Although the title is short, it is quite clear from the hon. the Minister’s motion that the Bill deals with a fundamental matter, namely the question of independence for what is at the moment an integral part of South Africa. We want to deal with this because we do not believe that this is in the interests of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it is an historic occasion for the hon. members opposite because it is in a sense the climax to the separate development policy enunciated first by Prime Minister Verwoerd in his “new vision” speech in this House in January 1959. But, Sir, it is also historic from the point of view of South Africa, for what has been a single constitutional entity is now to be fragmented. In other countries this happens as a result of war or as a result of secession, but in South Africa this is going to happen, if the Government has its way, as a deliberate act on the part of the Government. [Interjections.] The granting of independence to the Transkei is tied in with a vision for the future of South Africa, a vision which hon. members opposite have quite clearly, namely a vision of a country which is fragmented into a number of independent States on an ethnic basis. On the other hand, there is another vision, the vision of those of us on these benches, a vision of a single South Africa in which 25 million people will co-operate without the need for independence of any one section of it.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that we oppose leave to introduce this Bill to grant the Transkei independence because we in these benches do not believe that the solution of the problem of South Africa lies in the establishment of independent homelands, be it the Transkei or any other. Secondly, we believe that if what the Government is seeking by asking leave to introduce this Bill is economic progress and national security and the elimination of race discrimination, this is best done within the framework of one country in which self-governing provinces co-operate. The mere fact that this Bill is being introduced, shows that under the policy of separate development the Government intends to grant independence to the Transkei. We want to make it quite clear that we believe that the Government’s action, based on the information before us at this stage, is wrong. Thirdly, we do not believe the move which is envisaged by this motion by the Minister will eliminate any of the areas of potential conflict existing in South African society today. Indeed, they may well generate new areas of conflict—over land, over citizenship and over the treatment of people from the Transkei in South Africa. Nor will it help to resolve the cardinal issue facing South Africa, and that is the sharing of political power in the economically active areas which are shared by Black and White. Finally, why we oppose a motion for leave to introduce a Bill to grant independence to the Transkei in these specific circumstances is that there has been no proper choice put before the people of the Transkei or the people of South Africa. The choice was not a choice between full citizenship in the Transkei or full citizenship in South Africa; it was a choice between full citizenship in the Transkei or nothing in South Africa. It has not met the essential prerequisite even at this stage of there having been a referendum on this issue. We believe that the people of the Transkei who are affected by this measure, and the people of South Africa, who are also affected by the fact that part of their country is now going to become independent, have a right to express their view by a specific referendum in which the options are pointed out to them.

So we are opposed to the introduction of this measure. This is perhaps what the Government claims, i.e. a watershed for this generation of South Africans, a watershed because the intention is to fragment South Africa. But we have sufficient faith in the essential strength of South Africa to believe that the people and the communities of South Africa, will in due course come together again in one unfragmented South Africa. Because we believe that this proposed measure is fundamental, because it deals with our vision of the future and the Government’s vision of the future, because it deals with the fragmentation of our country, and because a proper choice has not been put before the people clearly and expressly by way of a referendum, we oppose the introduction of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition will support the First Reading of this Bill. We are a federal party with a federal ideal for South Africa and we do not believe that the federal alternative has been placed before the people of the Transkei. By the same token, Sir, there is no doubt that the people of the Transkei have asked for independence. They have been promised independence and they are so far on the road to independence that we feel that this is a matter which should be left to their own self-determination. Whether this Bill contains the necessary machinery for the type of constitution they should have, whether it is a satisfactory Bill to us, we cannot yet say. But as it stands at the present moment, we believe that this Bill is entitled to a First Reading because of the wishes of the people of the Transkei as expressed through their duly elected Assembly and because it gives them that measure of self-determination to which we believe they are entitled. We will keep our options open until we have studied the Bill. We shall then decide what our attitude is to be.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he does not want to withdraw the insult he paid Chief Minister Matanzima and the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. Sir, here we have a request by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei for independence, for self-determination. However, the hon. member for Sea Point alleges that this request by the Legislative Assembly is not a reflection of the opinion of the inhabitants of the Transkei. In other words, the hon. member for Sea Point maintains that Chief Minister Matanzima, his Cabinet and the Transkeian Legislative Assembly are out of touch with the true aspirations and feelings of the Xhosa nation. He now wants to prescribe to them, in the typical old imperialist colonialist manner, what is and is not good for them.

On the other hand we have a National Party, a party which believes that every nation has a God-given, inalienable right to self-determination, the right to determine its own fate. This is the policy of the National Party and this is the opportunity the National Party affords other nations living in South Africa, just as it claims them for itself. I was absolutely amazed to hear this political stupidity, impudence, presumption and insult towards the people of the Transkei from the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon. I say again: It is a repetition of the old colonialist imperialist mentality which still lives on in that party. People are prescribed to from elsewhere as to how they, in turn, should prescribe to other people in other places. What the big boss says, has to be done. Once again this afternoon we saw this illustrated here very clearly. The hon. member said: “It is not in the best interests of the people of South Africa.” This is the “one vision” of which he spoke. The “other vision” of which he spoke, is an undivided unitary state in South Africa.

They as a party, who are so concerned about human rights, human dignity, discrimination and similar matters, want to create a unitary state in South Africa in which the rights of minority groups are protected. There is only one way in which to protect the rights, the privileges of minority groups and their human dignity, etc., and this is by means of this very policy of separate development, a policy which gives every homogeneous national group sovereignty over itself and enables it to protect its own identity. A small nation like the Ndebele cannot maintain themselves in a unitary state. They would be unable to protect their identity in a unitary state. Nor could they acquire sovereignty in a unitary state, because they would become the slaves of the majority groups in South Africa. Do the hon. members of the PRP not want to learn the lesson of Africa? Africa does not share power. Either the one or the other is master. What is becoming of the minority groups in Angola? Can those hon. members tell me where Dr. Savimbi’s people are and what became of the rights of the people of the FNLA? Can they say what happened to the rights of the minority groups in Mozambique? Are the rights of such groups recognized there? Are their rights respected there?

The PRP is striving for a policy which will bring about the downfall and obliteration of the identity and sovereignty of all minority groups in South Africa. This is what would happen if we were to follow their policy. In contrast to this, the policy of the NP is one of the freedom of peoples. It is a policy which does not impose a ceiling on people. It is not a policy in terms of which people may be tricked with all sorts of constitutional gimmicks. It is an honest policy, a policy which gives every nation its inalienable, God-given birthright, namely the maintenance of sovereignty over itself and the protection of its own identity. This involves the inter-dependence of coexisting in peace and prosperity in a country with other sovereign entities.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lydenburg spoke very passionately about the problems of minorities. I want to agree with him that Africa … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I did not shout when he spoke; the hon. members on the other side may as well give me a chance, too. I want to agree with him that the problem of minorities in Africa is a critical one. However, the important point is that the hon. member wants to make out that the policy of the Government solves the problem. The fact, is, however, that the policy of the Government does not do so. The legislation we are now considering must be seen as the culmination of the Government’s plan to solve the problems of co-existence in South Africa. The issue, therefore, is not merely the independence of a particular tribe; in fact it is the co-existence and continued existence of Black and White in South Africa, and the legislation must be judged as such. As such it must be seen as part of the plan of separate development by means of which the Government proposes to solve the problem of minorities. We in these benches, however, are convinced that this cannot be done. I should like to mention one point to which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself referred during the debate on his Vote. I should like to read from Hansard, 1976, col. 5559—

By saying this, one is saying by implication that one is going to take away the citizenship of people in the urban centres. I want to ask the hon. member, in all honesty, whether he really thinks that this will contribute towards the solution of the problem of conflict with which we are faced. Does he really think that this legislation will be of any help in solving the problem of the co-existence of White and Black in cities? The hon. the Minister also made the following remark—

If one supports this type of legislation, one supports this philosophy by implication, and after all, we have never done this. Indeed, I do not believe that any Opposition party accepts the philosophy that national areas should be worked out on a geographic basis for the Coloureds, let alone for the Indians! [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister only referred to the Bantu, but what about these two groups? It is these central, fundamental problems which come to the fore when legislation of this type is considered. The issue is not merely a specific group of people who are becoming independent; the issue is actually the fact that this type of legislation is being put forward as part of a great policy, a great plan for the solution of the race problem in South Africa. This is why we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that when we reach this stage in the development of the homelands and a political party opposes legislation of this nature, its opposition should be fully in accordance with its basic approach. I therefore want to point out that what the PRP did today was in conflict with the basic approach they have expounded from time to time since 1972. Not only did they have a committee in 1972 which looked at their policy and found that such great progress had already been made along the road of constitutional development in South Africa that the PRP had to revise its policy, but that in the revision of their policy they also made provision for a federation. Before the hon. member for Rondebosch was elected as a member of this House and before he could say that no opposition party accepted geographic separation as a solution, the hon. member for Houghton said in answer to a question in the House that when the homelands became independent, the PRP would invite them to be part of their federation. [Interjections.]

That is right.

In the pamphlet which bears the photo of the hon. member for Sea Point as the leader of the party, their policy is set out, and it is indeed full of loopholes, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development pointed out. In it the hon. member for Sea Point says that the components of their federation will be self-governing areas. In other words, the PRP themselves foresee the possibility of independent, autonomous components within their federation. However, they now object to the first step in this direction. It is absolutely immoral of a party to go back entirely on what they have said and put forward these arguments. The hon. member for Sea Point also quoted a typical argument which we had not had clearly presented by them before. When we have accused them of association with the HNP in the past, we have not had very strong grounds for doing so. The hon. member for Houghton has always been here and I could never see her as a bed-fellow of Jaap Marais. However; the hon. member for Sea Point built his argument around the element of fear. He phrased it very carefully. He made out that we wanted to endanger the security of South Africa. The hon. member introduced an element into this debate which will place under suspicion everything the PRP says from now on on behalf of the Blacks. This is undoubtedly the case.

In conclusion, I want to say that the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch in connection with citizenship is absolutely presumptuous at this stage.

I quoted the Minister.

Nothing he quoted, gave an indication that we and the Transkei will not find and understand one another completely on this point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West clearly has no understanding whatever of the policy of this party.

Nobody does.

Order! The speakers on Government side were given a relatively quiet hearing and I ask the same for the speakers of the PRP.

Sir, I would hate to cast any aspersions on the general level of intelligence of members in this House on the strength of the hon. members saying “nobody does”.

What do you mean by that?

I leave it to your intelligence to guess what I mean. The point I am trying to make is that the hon. member for Bloemfontein West says that, by taking a stand against the introduction of the Bill to grant independence to the Transkei, we are going contrary to the policy we have always advocated. Quite the opposite is true. We are being completely consistent. [Interjections.] Sir, raucous and rather forced laughter from the unfortunate member for Durban Point, who has suffered some grievous shocks recently, is not in any way going to avoid the arguments he is going to have to face on this issue.

I have not changed my policy.

The point I am making is that we have always stood for the maintenance of one multi-racial South Africa with power being shared among its population of 25 million people. We have always advocated a federal system under which the different federal States would be able to belong to this one multi-racial country. What is more, we have always opposed the fragmentation of South Africa, and this Bill will precisely have the effect of fragmenting South Africa. It constitutes the beginning of the fragmentation of South Africa. I have always understood that the Official Opposition was against the fragmentation of South Africa.

That is correct.

Well, Sir, the title of this Bill makes it very clear that the Bill is going to give independence to the Transkei.

Have you seen the Bill?

I do not need to read the Bill. The title of the Bill tells us exactly that independence is going to be granted. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, do you think you can get them to be quiet for a moment? The title of the Bill makes it absolutely clear that, as from the time that this Bill is passed by this House, the Transkei will no longer be an integral part of South Africa. We are against that fragmentation. We stand for one multi-racial South Africa, and that is not in conflict with our policy as was alleged by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. We have said that, when the PRP comes to power … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, for a party that is disintegrating so fast that it can barely split any further, this type of laughter is very ironical. However, we have said, and we still maintain, that any homeland which has become independent under NP government will be invited to join the federal Republic of South Africa. That still stands.

Sir, there is not yet an independent Transkei; this Bill is the mechanism whereby the Transkei is going to become independent, and we are not about to encourage that. That is not part and parcel of our policy, and, for the benefit of the hon. members behind, that has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of land under the 1936 Land Act, when the question of independence was never discussed. [Interjections.]

It was the essence of the Bloemfontein resolution.

That was a flat promise that was made to the Africans when they were deprived of their common roll franchise in 1936. That was made absolutely clear by Gen. Hertzog. It had nothing whatever to do with the independence issue. That issue was used as a ruse by the then hon. member for South Coast and his cohorts in order to try to win a few cheap seats in Natal. We would have nothing whatever to do with that idea and that is the reason why we … [Interjections.]

It cost you people a lot of money! [Interjections.]

It also cost the UP … [Interjections.] Perhaps it cost us a lot of money, but it cost the hon. members many seats, and it is yet going to cost the hon. member for Umlazi his position as a member of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I state again that our opposition to the First Reading of this Bill is completely in keeping with our policy. We are not going to assist the Government in carrying out its grand plan for apartheid, because, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has said, the granting of independence to the Transkei, or to any other Bantustan for that matter, is the penultimate step in the carrying out of the so-called grand plan of apartheid by the Nationalist Government. [Interjections.] We have always rejected the NP solution of the so-called problems of co-existence in South Africa. We do not believe that by attempting to remove, firstly 3 million to 4 million people in the form of the Transkei Independence Bill, to be followed later by the remaining Africans in their particular homelands, from the body politic, from the citizenship rolls of South Africa, will ensure their disappearance from the Republic of South Africa; the White Republic of South Africa. That, of course, is what is behind it all. What is behind all this, is the Government’s intense desire to prove to the rest of the world that South Africa has in fact a White majority Government, because the peoples of the different Bantustans will be excised from the population of South Africa by the granting of independence. That is the main reason why the Government is pushing ahead with this with all deliberate speed. We on these benches are going to do all that we can to block the passage of this Bill by voting against it. [Interjections.]

Are you going to let Harry talk?

If he wants to, he will talk.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated, during the Second Reading of this Bill, that this side of the House supports it. Consequently, we shall also promise our support of the Bill as far as the Third Reading is concerned. In other words, we welcome the provision which is being made for the improvement and extension of the in-service training of Bantu employees. We are sorry that the Bill does not go further and that we are not at this stage making proper provision for the training of Blacks as skilled workers. Naturally we have dealt with the Bill in the form in which it was presented to this House. We believe that the Bill would have functioned better and would have been more effective if the hon. the Deputy Minister had been prepared to accept some of the amendments which we moved during the Committee Stage. Indeed a considerable number of questions which were put in the Committee Stage to which no satisfactory answers were provided. I do not want to use the same expression which the hon. the Minister of Community Development used a few days ago when he spoke of Tupperware, because it would be plagiarism. But the discussion during the Committee Stage debate reminded me a great deal of the stupidity of the proverbial block-head. Questions were put in connection with training in the mining industry. This is excluded from the Bill.

As far as the Chamber of Mines is concerned, it is clear that that training is being provided, but it must be added that there could be a large number of smaller undertakings, in various mining activities and not in gold or diamond mines alone, where assistance in regard to in-service training could fulfil an essential function. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s answer to this was that as far as he knew, this was done in terms of a Cabinet decision. In all honesty, surely this is no answer. If this is the case, the Cabinet should be here to tell us why this decision was taken. It seems to me as if a possible reason for the exclusion of the mining industry could be the type of problem which might be caused should some of our other friends acquire representation in the House. I was very acutely reminded of that problem when I read in Rapport on Sunday what Mr. Andries van Wyk reported from Washington. I am going to read this to hon. members here because the same kind of sentiments were expressed here by the hon. members for Hercules and Vanderbijlpark. This columnist from Washington had this to say—

Then he quoted this—

I can only say that these same sentiments have been expressed in this House and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether, before he quoted that passage here in the House, he had contacted Mr. Arrie Paulus personally. He only has to say “yes” or “no”.

No, Sir, I did not. I am quoting from a report which was furnished by this correspondent from Washington, about what appeared in an American newspaper.

My advice to you is to contact Arrie Paulus.

Sir, the hon. member for Carletonville must not become so excited. As I said, the same sentiments have been expressed in this House by the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Hercules. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Carletonville whether or not he agrees with this alleged statement of Mr. Paulus.

May I reply?

Order! No, the hon. member may not reply to questions.

At least I was in contact with Mr. Paulus and therefore know what the facts are. [Interjections.]

Sir, surely that is no answer. The basic issue here is the question whether Blacks should also be trained as skilled labourers. It is that simple, and all I asked the hon. member for Carletonville, was whether or not he is in favour of it.

Sir, there are also other aspects in respect of which we expressed misgivings. We asked whether or not, in terms of clause 11 of the Bill, all the other training facilities which have been made available in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, therefore also become illegal now. We also indicated that we believe that assistance for schemes should also be offered to employers, in the manner envisaged in the Bill, outside the so-called economic development areas. In addition we said that in our opinion the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill went much too far and were unsound. However, I do not want to repeat those arguments.

Before I raise other matters, I just want to say that we trust that the Department of Bantu Education as well as the Ministry and the council which is being created here, will display a great deal of initiative in putting this Bill into operation. We know that there are employers who want to make use of these facilities and we on our part, wish to express the hope that employers will make full use of the possibilities and the facilities which are being created by this Bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you must allow me to reply to certain points which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned at the end of the Second Reading debate. In other words he mentioned those points at a stage when we were no longer able to comment on them. On that occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted Van Wyk Louw to illustrate what he said. Sir, I have far too high a regard for the person of the late N. P. van Wyk Louw to drag him into a petty party-political dispute in this House. His was a great spirit and he was an open person, and I am therefore not prepared to drag him into this. But for every passage which the hon. the Deputy Minister can quote from N. P. van Wyk Louw, I can quote another. In fact there is a quotation from him in the latest edition of Rapport. However, I do not want to quote Van Wyk Louw now, and I want to say that I really do not think it is necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to go to Van Wyk Louw when he has a case to put here. As a result of our views on the Bill, the hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that we had allegedly made an error of reasoning. With reference to Van Wyk Louw he referred to the hon. member for Hillbrow and said—

This is that we in South Africa are not simply dealing with a total population of 25 million, but that we are dealing with groups, etc. Sir, no thinking person in this country can deny the existence of the diversity in our population structure. He would be making a fool of himself if he did so. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister at once that to suggest that we deny the existence of that diversity, is not correct. But it is not the existence of diversity which is of interest—nobody denies this. What is of interest, is to what degree that diversity provides justification for the withholding or the granting of rights, privileges, obligations, responsibilities or whatever.

Order! I allowed the hon. member to reply very briefly, but I must point out that the Bill is before this House for its Third Reading, and it deals purely with the training of Bantu in the centres which are being created for that purpose, and with the financing thereof. Therefore, the hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Thank you very much, Sir, but I must also ask you for a little guidance. I have already said that this deals with a speech which the hon. the Deputy Minister made at the end of the Second Reading, when there was no further opportunity to comment upon it.

I allowed the hon. member to refer to it briefly and reply to it briefly. However, I cannot allow it to be debated again.

Thank you, Sir. Then I shall proceed to the next point which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned, with reference to Prof. Murray, etc. As far as this is concerned, too, I want to say at once that it is quite inexplicable to me, for arising out of the statement of Prof. Murray, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister reconciled himself, he said that Prof. Murray referred to ethnic corporations. Sir, I am returning to the question of labour now, since the hon. the Deputy Minister raised it in his speech. He said Prof. Murray calls the people Black ethnic corporations and then the hon. the Deputy Minister went on to say—

In all honesty, what has this to do with the in-service training of Bantu labourers?

Who is being a blockhead now?

I can still understand it if the hon. the Deputy Minister refers to the Bantu in the homelands who are able to export their labour, but where are the Coloureds and Indians going to export their labour to? What can they provide apart from their labour? No, an argument is being used there in connection with the in-service training of Bantu which does not hold water. The hon. the Deputy Minister was reacting to a question asked by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked whether there was a difference between the in-service training of a Zulu and that of a Xhosa. He asked what the difference is between a Zulu and a Xhosa mechanician. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister replied—

He continued in this way. What has this to do with the Bill? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to allege that we should have different training centres for different groups of people? Should we tell an employer that his training scheme will be approved only if he provides separate training facilities for those who speak Sotho, Xhosa, Zulu, or whatever? If this is not the case, what is the meaning of all the words which were used here? However, if this is the case, the hon. the Deputy Minister must now tell the employers that his department is not going to provide them with assistance unless they create separate facilities for the various groups. If the hon. the Deputy Minister had said that it would have been better, owing to language differences, to provide separate training facilities, we could still have understood it. However, this is a question of in-service training. Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that this sort of motivation has done the in-service training far more harm than good. This statement reveals a complete lack of logic. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has a good case, he must not spoil it by dragging in a lot of totally unnecessary and inappropriate ideological arguments.

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. member for Edenvale, I thought right from the outset that the hon. member wanted to agree with us that this legislation concerning in-service training was essential. However, the hon. member beat about the bush and tried to say that what the hon. the Deputy Minister had said in his Second Reading speech, had nothing to do with the in-service training of Bantu. In the process, however, he only succeeded in showing that what he had to say himself, had nothing to do with the in-service training of Bantu.

I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. One hears more and more today about an insistence on higher wages and the narrowing of the wage gap, while regard is not always had to the fact that higher wages must be accompanied by higher productivity. Without that we would never be able to achieve economic production. Increased productivity, in turn, can only be obtained by training and an increase in skill. This, again, is only possible as a result of the availability of effective and orderly training and training programmes. Seen in the light of the need for economic development and the combating of stubborn, negative and incorrect influencing of the human spirit, efforts to provide education, information and training may not be slackened. On the contrary. They must be developed by every nation concerned until it becomes a South African slogan. Specialized knowledge and skills must achieve a status much higher than that of general education merely for the sake of education. Experience has taught us that a positive line of action forms the basis for better, sound labour relations and particularly Bantu labour relations.

In general, education and training are a collective function, and the responsibility of the State towards its inhabitants for the purpose of developing to the highest possible level the potential for achievement in both the individual and the community, to the best advantage of the national economy. This responsibility is carried out in conjunction with a large number and variety of other responsibilities which cause a particular order of priority to develop according to which the State takes action, taking into consideration the limited means at its disposal and the multiplicity of requirements which have to be complied with. Since the resources of the State are very intimately bound up with the income-generating ability of its subjects, it follows as a logical conclusion that in the first instance there ought to be sufficient employment opportunities through which efforts can be made to attain to this achievement. This means, therefore, that the creation of employment opportunities and the generation of income may be the highest priority of the State under certain circumstances, particularly if there is an acute shortage of employment opportunities in the national economy concerned. To put it differently, the creation of employment opportunities is extremely important in a country like South Africa with its ever-increasing rate of population growth, where unemployment may lead to extreme distress. However, if there are indications of full employment and there is confidence that such full employment is reasonably stable, the pattern of priorities may change and education and training may enjoy a higher priority, taking into consideration the initiative of the State and the larger percentage of State funds which will have to be used for this purpose.

In particular, the priority which will have to be accorded to the training of Bantu labour in South Africa, must be viewed in the light of, firstly, the need for trained manpower in the various sectors of the economy and, secondly, the ability of the State and the individual to bear the costs involved in this—once again, seen in the light of the sectors in which the creation of employment opportunities and income may be effected most rapidly. It is general knowledge that the creation of new employment opportunities in the primary sectors of mining and agriculture are connected, on the one hand—in the case of mining—with new discoveries of minerals or a sudden increase in the demand due to technological breakthroughs, for example, and the higher price levels which make the mining of marginal deposits economical, or, on the other hand—in the case of agriculture—with a large-scale rapid change-over to more intensive exploitation and utilization of agricultural resources. Apart from the level of national priority accorded to training as a collective responsibility of the State, it must also be very purposeful and practical to be able to comply with the many special requirements of the total economy. Otherwise it may lead to a state of unemployment among trained people in the one category, and a lack of manpower in another category. Training must therefore never be a goal in itself, but must always be a means or an instrument for achieving an aim, because otherwise it may result in far-reaching disadvantages. Incorrect priorities as far as training is concerned, may have extremely harmful consequences for the economy of the community, over the long term, especially where such training programmes are introduced outside the natural operation of the market mechanism. In South Africa, owing to a conservative and sound economic policy, we have fortunately had conditions of full employment for several decades, and to such a degree that the demand and need for artisans and technicians is still increasing. This demand can be ascribed chiefly to factors such as a sustained and successful expansion of the economy in accordance with various targets aimed at, the extraordinary employment opportunities which arise as a result of the practical implementation of our policy of multi-national development, the gradual inclusion of skilled Bantu labour as a result of mechanization and cost-saving techniques, the stringent requirements set in respect of quality and the high standards set by world markets for our export products and, in conclusion, the desire and willingness of the Black labourer to develop himself, to exploit and apply his own potential more effectively to the advantage of his own people and to achieve a higher standard of living for himself.

Although sufficient statistics are not yet available, the information at our disposal already indicates that the demand for trained manpower already constitutes more than 32% of the total demand for manpower in the building industry, for example—that is to say, one in every three. According to the figures for 1970, the economically active population in the homelands is therefore already 1 472 000. On the basis of a ratio of 1 : 20 of trained as against unskilled, this means that there is already a demand for 73 600 specially trained people, whereas in the White area, with a general ratio of 1:10 it may mean a demand of approximately 350 000. If we take into consideration the fact that the expansion increases at an average rate of 40% per annum— everything indicates that the expansion rate will continue at this rate for a long time—it means that it will not be possible to satisfy the demand for specially trained manpower for a long time. Information is available which indicates that there is a considerable shortage of staff to fill available posts in various categories, but similarly there is another tendency in other categories, a tendency which indicates that there are already more trained people than there are available posts. These opposing tendencies are a typical result of successful development programmes in developing economies. That is why it is so imperative that the authorities, by adopting specific measures, must take the greatest care to ensure that the limited number of trained people are trained in well-balanced proportions. There are departmental training centres for the purpose of the necessary training, situated in centres distributed throughout the country, the total cost of which is borne by the State. There are also private industrial training centres, the capital cost of which is provided by the State, while the running costs are borne by the employer himself. Furthermore, centres already exist where farmers can have selected labourers educated in a variety of practical agricultural subjects at their own expense. Over and above the formal training, it has been found that a combination of formal and in-service training is by far the most economical, and for this reason tax concessions have existed since 1974 in terms of which employers who offer approved training courses to their labourers, are entitled to deductions. There is a great deal of evidence that the already existing training programmes of the central Government can be carried out with a fair amount of success and that in this way steadily improving Bantu labour relations may be achieved. The total net result, at the very least, could involve major advantages for every separate population group in the broader Southern African economic and international political context.

I am full of confidence that greater successes are a practical reality, and I believe that South Africa and all its various peoples deserve this. This legislation envisages the orderly regulation of in-service training of Bantu employees, as well as the advancement thereof in the interests of industry and the country’s economy. It is also in the direct interests of the particular employer himself. Therefore I should like to support the Third Reading of this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, we supported the Second Reading of this Bill and I now want to speak in support of the Third Reading as well. The hon. member for Middelburg has made some important observations, one of which in particular, is the link that always exists to link higher wages—the lowering of the wage gap—with increased productivity. That, of course, means that, if one is going to go for this, one must also link that with training. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the Bill before us is so important and so far-reaching. It has not only something specific to say about in-service training, but I believe it bears commentary on the entire economic system which we have in South Africa.

This is an important piece of legislation. I believe it is a further pointer that it is now generally accepted that the Black worker in South Africa has an indispensable role to play in the growth of the economy of South Africa. This emphasis on the Black worker as an important component in our economy, together with the recent increase of wages paid to Black workers, reflects, what I believe to be, the beginning of a process away from a labour intensive, low wage, low productivity economic system, which characterizes the early years of an industrial society; a moving away from this kind of system to a capital intensive, high wage, high productivity system, which characterizes advanced industrial countries. This is the dilemma, I believe, that we face in South Africa, that on the one hand one has a First World situation, and yet, cheek by jowl, one has also a Third World system. What one has to try and do, is to build a bridge between a First World, highly industrialized system and a Third World, low trained— sometimes uneducated—mass of workers. In-service training, of course, is one of the best ways in which we can build that kind of bridge. That is why we are supporting this Bill.

Obviously the emphasis on training, whether it be in-service training or other kinds of training—there is a wide variety available today—can only be of direct benefit to all South Africans and to the South African economy as a whole and not merely to the Black workers concerned. I also agree with the hon. member for Middelburg when he makes the point that the State has a very real responsibility in this regard. I should couple this with the very real responsibility employers have. Together with the hon. member for Edenvale one sincerely hopes that employers will take advantage of this. But, as I tried to stress during the Second Reading debate, unfortunately some employers have not taken advantage of the incentives which have been given in recent years. One hopes this will not be the case as the in-service training centres are further developed. I should also emphasize that the responsibility does not rest with the State or the employer only, but a tremendous amount inevitably depends on the willingness of the individual worker himself. While all the facilities and opportunities can be afforded by the State and by an employer, if the employee himself is not willing to take advantage of the further training, then nothing that either the State or the employer can do is going to be worthwhile in the long run.

I also hope that the emphasis on in-service training will create an even deeper awareness. Those of us who advocate so strongly that the private enterprise system is the system best calculated to raise the standards of life and to open doors of opportunity to all, must demonstrate very urgently and clearly that the private enterprise system and its attendant benefits are not marked for Whites only. I think it is well known that private enterprise is under attack in many parts of the world, including our own country. I believe that one of the best ways to guarantee the continuation, the development and the entrenchment of the private enterprise system is to make it possible for as many people in South Africa as possible to participate in the responsibilities and the privileges which flow from the private enterprise system. This, I believe, is one of the reasons why in-service training is so vitally important. Unless people are trained adequately and sufficiently, they cannot really participate in the private enterprise system as they ought to, and therefore this in turn holds a threat within the system for all of us.

During the Second Reading debate I said that the Bill as set out placed what I described as an emphasis on control rather than on the promotion of training. I said that was the emphasis. In reply the hon. the Deputy Minister assured the House that this was not so. I hope this will prove true in practice and that the emphasis will be on encouragement and on promotion rather than on control. Inevitably some control mechanisms are necessary but I hope that the emphasis will be on promotion rather than on control.

I also expressed concern about existing training centres which were not registered in terms of the Bantu Education Act. As I do not think that there was any direct reply to this concern as I expressed it during the Second Reading debate, I do hope that provision will be made for provisional registration or temporary exemption until the formalities of the Act can be complied with. There are some of these training centres, and I mentioned as an example the garment industry in the Transvaal.

Finally, in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill, I reiterate the view made during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage, that the co-ordinating council which is going to bear a great deal of the responsibility will do its work more effectively if Black persons with intimate knowledge of in-service training, problems and needs were to be included in its membership.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, at the conclusion of the Third Reading to thank my hon. colleagues and other hon. members for their contributions. I want to thank the hon. member for Middelburg for the interesting and well thought out contribution which he presented here. One can certainly follow up the ideas he suggested. I also want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands sincerely for the remarks he made and for the positive contribution he made to the discussion. The hon. member rightly pointed out that the emphasis must be on the advancement of the in-service training of Bantu employees. I am convinced that this is in fact the purpose of this legislation, even though in clause 11 the emphasis is more on control, but there is a good reason for this. In the wider context, the whole machinery is set in operation with a view to the advancement of the in-service training of Bantu employees. The hon. member raised important facts in connection with private initiative, but I think that in a country like South Africa, with the many problems we experience not only on the level of labour, it is necessary that this should take place in an orderly manner. I think the hon. member agrees with me on that score.

I want to thank the hon. member for Edenvale for having supported this Bill on behalf of the UP. It is a good thing that a Bill like this should come into effect with the support of all the parties in the House. The hon. member for Edenvale again put questions to me in connection with the schemes under the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. I think I made a remark about this, but perhaps it was a little brief. However, I told the hon. member that certain private schemes could continue as usual, but should such schemes enter a field covered by the provisions of the Bantu Education Act, they would have to take account of the fact that they could not, by way of a private scheme of this kind, provide training to which the Bantu Education Act, from which these functions are now excluded, applies. However, if the employees of more than one employer are being trained, then in terms of clause 11, this legislation seeks to exercise control over this because in all the discussions we have held with employers and employees, they foresaw certain problems and asked us to provide for those problems. Organizations and existing centres will be afforded the opportunity to be approved in terms of the provisions of this legislation. Sufficient time will be allowed should they want to involve themselves under the provisions of this Act in order to savour the advantages of the legislation by way of tax concessions.

The hon. member for Edenvale seems to be so friendly and sociable after his speech that I do not really want to react to his image of “so toe soos Tupperware”. I think I must leave it at that because I do not want to conjure up an image for him too. However, someone once called another person as “toe” as the bar at Koekenaap between one and two. However, I am not quite sure that it is very “toe”, otherwise it could possibly have been applicable. However I shall leave it at that.

Koekenaap does not even have a bar.

But then it is really “toe”.

As far as the mines are concerned, the fact of the matter is that they have a very good system of selection, recruitment and training. In other words, the mines do not need a stimulus for in-service training by means of this legislation. This is my first argument. The second is that these people did not approach us with the request that they be allowed to link up in this regard. The discussions were held with both employers and employees. The hon. member for Edenvale can shake his head—I do not hear anything inside it. But this is the position.

I do not want to repeat the argument about which he became so heated. The hon. member for Hillbrow followed the whole argument and was so friendly towards me later on that I thought he would cross to this side of the House at any moment. The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about the separation and the distinction we were drawing between the various national and race groups in South Africa. What his argument amounted to by implication was that we should try and stop this differentiation and distinction between the various national groups, something which we are now also extending to the training of workers. As far as that standpoint is concerned, I then said that he was making a fundamental mistake if he wanted to shut his mind to the idea of separation and distinction and extend that shutting of his mind to the distinction, to the labour level as well. This was the origin of the argument. I then told the hon. member that if he wanted to shut it from his mind, I too could quote good authorities to the contrary. That was how I came to Van Wyk Louw. Now, I do not know why the hon. member is so afraid of quoting Van Wyk Louw. He was very welcome to do so. Even we who sometimes argue a little from the Bible say, for example: “But after all, it is written that…” Then the other man is very welcome to say “But it is also written that …” The one quotes Paul and the other quotes Jacob. They are very welcome to do so. Paul is even quoted against himself. The hon. member was therefore very welcome to quote Van Wyk Louw. However, I quoted a clear statement by that honoured author, the statement that whereas the liberals are so quick to speak of one nation of ten million people—of course, it is already 25 million people now—he criticizes that idea as an error of reasoning because they do not take the major race differences into consideration.

On the basis of the race differences that exist, he says it is nonsensical to speak of one nation of ten million people. Now the hon. member says that it goes without saying that he endorses this, because he also endorses the diversity in the population. Sir, this is the case, and we almost want to say “thank you very much for that recognition” because this is a very important recognition. The recognition of the fact of diversity involves many implications. One cannot simply recognize that fact and then forget about it. The fact of the diversity of nations has many implications, inter alia, in the social, the educational, the economic and particularly in the political spheres. Against that background the hon. member for Hillbrow then asked: “What is the difference between a Zulu mechanician and a Xhosa mechanician?” I then said to him that, in the broader context, whether a man is a good mechanician or not, is surely not all that is at stake. Obviously one also has to see that man against the background of his social structure and his political structure. Against that background I quoted Prof. A. H. Murray in regard to the national corporations. As far as this is concerned, the hon. member tried to fish for information concerning the Coloureds, but Prof. Murray referred to a national corporation specifically in connection with the Coloureds, too, and about the export of their labour, and said that they should develop more than just a labour potential within their own areas— whether group areas or rural areas or whatever, not to mention the Bantu homelands. He said that they should develop their production there so that they could export the products they manufactured and accumulate capital in this way. This is also the argument of this side of the House.

Sir, I do not think it is necessary to say anything more. I think I have answered the points which hon. members raised. In conclusion I just want to express my sincere thanks once again for the support which came from all sides of the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As regards both this amendment, which deals with the question of the powers of the council, and the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central, which you may or may not allow him to move, Sir, I want to say that our attitude has been made clear during the Second Reading by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I shall therefore not waste the time of this Committee by repeating our attitude in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this particular clause, which basically is one containing definitions, I first of all would like to draw attention to the definition of “school”. Quite rightly the hon. the Minister has indicated in his Second Reading speech that this definition will in fact not be applicable to private schools. But there are one or two aspects which I would like to raise at this stage. First of all we should bear in mind that there are today very few genuine private schools as such and that most private schools are in fact receiving some form of subsidization. As such they will to a certain extent come under the jurisdiction of this Bill except, as the Minister has pointed out, in as far as it will be voluntary registration and that there will be no disciplinary powers possible over them. But the one point I think we must raise at this stage is that teachers at private schools are not prevented in any way from joining a teachers’ association, and that in fact they should go out of their way to do so. But there is of course inherent in this a weakness, in the sense that the professionally qualified teacher—in terms of the definition here of a “teacher”—who teaches at a private school will be able to become a member whereas unqualified teachers will not be able to become members or provisional members. The hon. the Minister knows that unqualified teachers in departmental schools, will in fact be able to register provisionally. I can appreciate the difficulty, but when we come to another clause, we will move certain amendments, the object of which is to overcome this inherent weakness which has been brought about as a result of this definition of school. I can only say to the hon. Minister that I hope he will be wise enough to see that we in fact have a point, and that we are not moving amendments to the definition of “school” at this stage in the hope that we will get a sympathetic hearing from him in respect of the other amendments.

Now, Sir, you will notice that I have two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I speak on them and before you, Sir, remind me that the principle of this clause has already been accepted at Second Reading, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that as a Minister and as a person with a doctorate I know that he knows all about functional literacy—to be able to read and comprehend—and having read and comprehended what has been printed he can now see how easy it would have been to overcome all these problems if in fact he had done so before the time. Sir, I would still like to move the two amendments, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 17, to omit “for Whites”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 16, to omit “White”.

Order! I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Central as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in the definitions in clause 1 no definition is given of “registrar”, although the registrar is referred to in clause 11 of the Bill. I do not know whether it is due to an omission or whether it was done intentionally. But if one looks at other legislation of a similar nature, the S.A. Medical Council for example, one finds that there they define “registrar” and refer to him specifically in a certain section of their Act. Also in the Pharmacy Act a definition of “registrar” appears in section 1 of the Act and the registrar is referred to specifically in a section of the Act. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister feels that it is desirable that the registrar should be defined in this particular Bill. If he does, I am prepared to move the amendment which I have prepared in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. It concerns clause (1)(xii), which reads—

We should like to substitute the word “council” with “committee”. The motivation for this may be found in clause 3, which concerns the objects of the council, that is—

We feel strongly that a council like this should also have the power of being able to decide on the qualifications of its members and the validity of such qualifications. I know there may perhaps be administrative reasons which the hon. the Minister may advance for its having been essential in the past, but with this legislation we are now creating a new institution precisely with the purpose of lending prestige to the teaching profession and promote respect for it. One of the most important characteristics of any such professional organization is after all the degree of earnest with which they see to the qualifications of their members. In the definition the council itself does not actually have a say about the professional qualifications of its members. Therefore I should very much like to support the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment.

I should also have liked to say a few words about the other amendments, but I shall do so later.

Order! They are out of order in any case.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately my position is such that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I cannot do so for the very simple reason that in terms of section 1 of the National Education Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, that is a function of the committee of heads of education.

As it should be.

That is the position in terms of that Act. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment unless I repeal the relevant part of that Act or amend the Act. I already stated yesterday, in my reply to the Second Reading debate, that after this council has been instituted, the committee of heads of education, the federal council and this council can have a round-table conference—and I shall see to it that this happens—and iron out this problem. My present situation is such, however, that I simply cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, the reasons being those I have already furnished.

I now come to the hon. member for Berea and his question about the definition of “registrar”. My department informs me that the legal advisers did not think it necessary to define that word because it is only used once in the entire Bill and that is in clause 11, if my memory serves me correctly. However, in view of the fact that the hon. member has raised this matter, I shall again ask the legal advisers whether it would not be advisable to define “registrar”. If they inform me that it would be advisable, I can assure the hon. member I shall give the matter my attention in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I realize that the term “registrar” only appears once in the Bill and that is in clause 11. My object in raising the matter with the hon. the Minister at this stage is to point out that if at any time in future it becomes necessary to enlarge upon or further define the functions of the registrar, it will be desirable to have the term defined in the definitions clause. I accept his offer to go into the matter and I thank him for his co-operation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal very briefly with the amendment which I have moved. I am appreciative of the fact that the hon. the Minister is going to consider it and I shall therefore not waste time. The only point that I should like to make is that because a subsequent statute which gives the power to another authority will impliedly repeal the previous statute, it will be proper to accept this amendment. I accept, however, that he wants to have consultations. I think it is a reasonable request on his part, and therefore we shall certainly not cause undue delay in regard to the matter. We rely on the hon. the Minister to produce an amendment at some future stage when undoubtedly he will have to give further powers to this council.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Order! I must point out that the principle contained in this clause was agreed to at the Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of the House I shall therefore permit only one member of each Opposition party to state their attitude to this clause briefly and the hon. the Minister to reply.

Mr. Chairman, in view of your ruling I shall not move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, but should like to avail myself of the opportunity, afforded me in terms of your ruling, to state once again the dilemma in which we find ourselves with this particular type of legislation. The hon. the Minister has pointed out to us that he will have multi-racial or inter-racial co-operation and that he will try to achieve that by means of the provisions of clause 18(g), which provides that the council may—

This is the reason which the hon. the Minister advanced in reply to the Second Reading debate why he wants to have a council which bears the name given to it in terms of the Bill, namely the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites. I take it that there will eventually be a multi-racial body.

I feel that if the name of the council could have been “the South African Teachers’ Council”, as we have proposed, the whole matter could have been regulated in terms of certain provisions contained in the Bill. There is another point which was only pointed out to me yesterday by members of a Coloured teachers’ association. They pointed out that every time a White teachers’ association or any White association, for that matter, wants to attend an international meeting or conference, the one point which immediately disqualified it is the very fact that the word “White”, contained in the association’s name, gives rise to an argument that the particular association is purely a racial institution with the result that in many cases the association is not allowed to take part in the international conference or meeting. However, if an organization had merely the description “the South African Teachers’ Council” as its name, the organization would at least stand a chance to be heard at and to be a member of international conferences.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling but there are a few points which, although they have already been raised, I should like to emphasize once again. The type of description or definition laid down in our legislation, will really be to the disadvantage of South Africa. One can look at a simple definition, inter alia, that of “teacher” or “council” and this racial connotation immediately strikes one. If this is the case, it becomes practically impossible to explain from international platforms what the logic, the view, is behind a definition like this, because nowhere else in the world will one find something such as this. I wonder whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister even to accept an amendment. Since the principle is contained in the definition, there is no reason why it should necessarily be included in the name of the council. I simply cannot understand it. In any event that principle is laid down in the definition concerned.

If the Coloureds form a council, what should we call that.

There are many names which can be used without referring to the race of people. After all there are many synonyms which one may use in this connection without referring to the race of particular people. It is possible. I cannot understand why the race of persons must be indicated in the name of the council in this case. The point has already been made earlier that this Bill affords us an opportunity to move away from this kind of word usage in South Africa. I believe that the hon. the Minister also desires to avoid such embarrassing aspects. Secondly it was mentioned that whereas attempts are being made to obtain greater co-operation on international level, this kind of word usage may definitely be a stumbling block. Therefore I really cannot see why it is necessary to retain the reference to race in this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move as an amendment—

The wording of this amendment is similar to that of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central. I want to motivate this amendment by saying that, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has indicated, the principle that this council is for Whites has been accepted and that, therefore, we cannot move an amendment which changes that principle. However, the name in itself could be changed. For example, instead of calling it the “S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites”, it can be called the “S.A. Teachers’ Forum”. There is no magic in the name as long as the principle has been accepted. In any event, we believe that it is in the interests of South Africa to delete the words “for Whites”. The hon. member for Durban Central was under the impression, wrongly I think, that such an amendment would be out of order nevertheless, we should like to pursue it.

Order! I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Yeoville, but I am unable to accept the amendment as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unfortunately not acceptable.

Order! There is no amendment to this clause before the Committee. However, the Minister may reply to the discussion if he wishes.

Yesterday I dealt with this matter very thoroughly during the Second Reading. Other speakers on this side of the House also made our point of view on this matter very clear. I do not believe there is anything I can add in this connection. I think we should rather leave it at that. There is apparently a difference in policy about this matter. Apart from this, there is still the additional argument which is very decisive, namely that we agreed on this measure with the Federal Council and the Committee of Heads of Education. Hon. members are proposing a drastic change which, as such, is unfortunately not acceptable to me.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Sir, I would like to point out that there is an error in the English version of the Order Paper. It shows this amendment to be on page 3, in line 24. It should actually be on page 5, line 24.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all members on both sides of this House will agree that the hon. the Minister of National Education is an enthusiast. One attribute that he certainly does not lack, is enthusiasm. His enthusiasm is sincere … I wish he could listen to me. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Because of his sincerity, his enthusiasm is also infectious. We saw him display this enthusiasm here yesterday during the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope the hon. the Minister will give serious consideration to the acceptance of my amendment and having done so—having accepted it—he will give it the impetus of his enthusiasm.

This clause sets out the objects of the council as being “to uphold and promote esteem for education and the teaching profession and the prestige of those who are engaged in the teaching profession”. Mr. Chairman, objectives such as these are highly commendable and will surely meet with the approval of all members of the teaching profession. However, I feel that all dedicated teachers will want to continually strive for higher standards of education, for higher standards in their profession. I am positive that this is an aim and an objective towards which teachers will work with a measure of dedication and enthusiasm. I firmly believe that people who enter the teaching profession, are people who do so with a dedication of purpose. Admittedly there is a larger or lesser degree of dedication, but I do not believe it can be denied that the dedication is there and is a very real thing. Equally I do not believe it can be denied that dedication, properly guided and motivated, leads to enthusiasm. I feel that in order to make the best possible use of these two attributes, namely of enthusiasm and of dedication, we should expand the objectives in this clause so as to permit and to encourage this proposed council to take whatever steps it deems necessary to improve, wherever possible, the standards of education. After all, this is what it is all about. Surely it must automatically follow that the higher the standard of education, the higher the esteem for and prestige of those who are responsible for achieving that standard. It follows, therefore, that an acceptance of this amendment will ensure the fulfilment of the very objectives that are currently embodied in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand how the hon. member for Umhlanga can move an amendment to the effect that this proposed council be instructed to improve the standard of education. If the teacher is given a more elevated status, and the status of the teaching profession improves, this will naturally mean that the standard of education will also be improved. However, if the council is entrusted with the specific task of trying to improve the standards of education from above, the council will in actual fact be trespassing on the field of the employer, the education departments, whose task it is to maintain the standard of education at a certain level. They have inspectors of education who go round to ascertain whether the standard of education in the schools is high enough. The council does not have professional officials and experts who can go to schools to see whether the standard of education is low or high. In any event, it would lead to a conflict of interests if the council as well as the Department of Education were to try and lay down a standard of education. The Bill and the establishment of the council will automatically cause the standard of education and the status of the teacher to improve, and consequently the standard of education will also improve. However, it is not necessary to write this into the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot go along with the argument of the hon. member for Algoa. Is this not, after all, destroying what one could call a basic ambition? Can one have a situation where one would want something to work from within as well as from without? One is not interfering with the rights of the employer. I cannot quite concede that it is correct to say that it should only be the employer who must lay down the guide-lines for the improvement of standards. Isn’t it a desirable situation to have the employee also participating in encouraging an improvement of standards? It is merely a matter of incorporating this as one of the main objects of the Bill, as an objective and as something for people to aim at. I do not see that there is any mileage to be gained by not encouraging participation at all levels in what must surely be the prime objective, i.e. the maintenance of the highest possible standards of education.

Mr. Chairman, we all agree with the last statement of the hon. member for Umhlanga. The question is: What is the correct thing to do in terms of the functions of this council and the functions of the other bodies which also deal with related matters in education? In this regard I can mention the Federal Council and the Committee of Heads of Education.

I really considered very seriously whether or not to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlanga to such an extent even that I had discussions with the Federal Council this morning. They told me that because what the hon. member for Umhlanga proposes it is not a function of the council, the amendment is not acceptable to it. They say that these two things will be in conflict with each other. Consequently, this amendment is not acceptable to me.

*I want to add that if the objects set out in clause 3 can be achieved, we shall at the same time have succeeded, in the proper functional way, in creating high standards of education. For this reason, too, I regret that the amendment is not acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the explanation given by the hon. the Minister. However, I should like to point out to him that there are other statutory bodies which state quite clearly that one of their objects is to assist in the promotion of certain aims. In the first place I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to chapter I of the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act—

And the first one is—

I should also like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Pharmacy Act, Act No. 53 of 1974. The first of the objects stated in the Act is—

Here one has two different statutory bodies, both performing health services, who are able, in their respective statutes, to have exactly the same subsection and object. I believe that under such circumstances the hon. the Minister should be able to overcome any difficulty he might encounter as a result of a clash of interests with the Federal Council or any other body. I say this because we have this example of two different statutory bodies with a common object.

Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent this reminds me of the argument of what comes first: the chicken or the egg? I should like to know if one could indeed attain the necessary esteem and prestige for the teaching profession if there is doubt about the educational standards of the teaching profession. The one goes with the other. I want to read out to the hon. the Minister what sort of criticism I received from an educationalist, a Scottish educationalist. The first point he made is that the object is merely to uphold. He pointed out that there was no indication that the object should also be to improve. If we refer to the functions of the Teaching Council of Scotland, then we find that they do not have any specific object stated. But under the general functions it is stated as the very first function of the council—

As the hon. the Minister has mentioned, and quite rightly, as far as our council is concerned, the only other council of this kind that existed in the world is the Scottish Teaching Council of 1965. There we find a specific reference to the standards of education. They use the word “review”. If one reviews something, one does it with something in mind. Is it to improve or to uphold? Quite frankly, that council does not only exist to uphold and promote the esteem for education and of the teaching profession, but particularly to investigate the standards of education. This is all we wish to achieve with this amendment, and I wish to express my disappointment that the hon. the Minister could not sell this to the Federal Council’s representatives. I am quite sure that if I was given the chance, I would have been able to sell it to them.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should like to add my voice in support of this argument. There is no doubt in my mind that if this council is to have any credibility, it will have to be given the object to look after the standard of education. The hon. the Minister seems to have a problem with the Federal Council. I can see no reason why the Federal Council and this council cannot both have this as one of the functions. I foresee that in time the Federal Council will become the trade union of the teachers while the council will have to set the standards. To my mind, one cannot leave this out as one of the objects of the council. It is absolutely imperative to its credibility.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should begin to argue about words here. The fact remains that the purpose of this Bill is to establish a teachers’ council. What is its object? The object of the council is to uphold and to promote esteem for education, for the teaching profession and for those who are engaged in the teaching profession. If one reads it in context, I do not see how one can fail to take cognizance of the term “esteem for education”, which is actually a vital aspect and which is the important matter we are concerned with here. I believe that the standards of education are already very high today. Constant attempts are made to improve the standards of education, and seen in the context of the objects of this council, as set out in this clause, I cannot see how we can replace the word “esteem” with “high standards of education”. The higher standards will follow in any case. After all, we have seen now that people do not have the esteem they should have for education. That is the problem we want to solve.

Order! The hon. member must not venture too far afield. The hon. member for Durban Central went all the way to Scotland and now it seems to me that the hon. member is headed for Cannon Island!

Sir, with great respect, the point I am making has a direct bearing on this clause. As I have indicated, if one reads the clause in its context, “high standards of education” cannot be substituted for “esteem”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the substitution of certain words by the words which I have proposed to insert into this clause. This is not a substitution at all. I have simply proposed that the words “high standards of education” be inserted in this clause. Surely it is not just the aim of this Bill to establish this council. We must also consider this matter in the broader field. If we want to do the right thing by this council, it should be given every encouragement to do its work in the way in which I am sure the teaching profession itself would like to see it operate.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 29, after “who” to insert “are South African citizens and”;
2. (2) on page 5, to add the following proviso at the end of subsection (1):

: Provided that an alternate to act in his absence may be elected or appointed, as the case may be, in respect of each member of the council in the same manner as such member.

Before I advance my argument in favour of these two amendments, I wish to refer to one sentence in the speech of the hon. the Minister. When he replied to the Second Reading debate yesterday, he said—

I hope that it is in that spirit that the hon. the Minister will consider these two amendments. I shall proceed now to tell him why I believe he should accept them. The first amendment is aimed at ensuring that one of the conditions for membership of the council shall be that persons so appointed or elected are South African citizens. I referred to this matter in the Second Reading and I do not wish to reiterate those remarks in detail. I do, however, want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there is nothing new in this principle. It was adopted in a slightly different form as far back as 1957, in the Nursing Act. In that Act it was stated that no person shall be appointed or elected as a member of the Nursing Council who is not a South African citizen.

This provision is also to be found in the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Services Act, No. 56 of 1974. There again the wording is slightly different, but the intention is the same. In section 6 of that Act it is stated that a member of the council shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a South African citizen. I believe that as time goes on, the status, the functions and the powers of this council will be augmented and broadened, and I suggest that at the highest level, where the teachers of South Africa, who are concerned with the education and training of the minds of young South Africans, are represented on this statutory body, this education and training should be in the hands of people who are dedicated to South Africa and are fully identified with South Africa. I therefore regard South African citizenship as an essential requirement for membership. Let me say again, just so that there may be no misunderstanding, that I acknowledge the significant contributions to education by teachers from the United Kingdom and Europe. I have indicated that that is a factor which I have taken into consideration, but I submit that South African citizenship should be a fundamental condition for eligibility to this council.

Then I would like to move on to the second amendment which deals with the question of alternates. Although perhaps in negotiations with the teaching organizations this matter may not have come under discussion and perhaps the teaching associations did not specifically suggest it, I want to point out to him that it is already so in practice. I have here a page from the Journal of Education of June 1975, where the officers and representatives of the S.A. Teachers’ Association are dealt with. On the standing committee of elected members provision is made for an alternate and furthermore under the joint council of the SATA and the SAOU, under the elected members, provision is also made for an alternate. So I believe that this is a system which is already entrenched in the set-up of the teachers’ associations in South Africa. But I want to go further and say it is also entrenched in legislation in South Africa.

For the Minister’s benefit I wish to quote some of the examples to indicate that this principle is regarded as a reasonably important principle in our legislation in South Africa. May I quote in the first instance the Unemployment Insurance Act, No. 30 of 1966. The Unemployment Insurance Board, consisting of not fewer than eight or more than 16 members, functions on the basis of the appointment of alternates. Subsection (2) of section 12 says “the Minister may appoint such a number of alternates as he may deem fit”. Then we come to the Architects’ Act, involving a specific profession. Here the provision is obligatory, because in that Act it states, in section 3(6), that there shall be an alternate member appointed in the same manner as such member of the council. Then we come to the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act of 1957, in terms of which the Brandy Board may not exceed five members. There again the Minister concerned may, subject to such conditions as he may determine, appoint an alternate to any member of the same board. We have the same principle accepted in the Bantu Affairs Administration Act of 1971, section 3(4). Here it says that for each member of the board there shall be an alternate member appointed in the same manner as such member. Sir, this also applies—and I will not go into details—to the Stock Exchanges Control Act, Act 7 of 1947. Incidentally, this particular Act was amended in 1971 to make specific provision for alternates. We have the same principle in the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Amendment Act of 1963. We have it in the Universities Act, No. 61 of 1955, where alternates may be appointed to the board for the recognition of land surveyors’ examinations. We have it in the Public Accountants and Auditors Act, No. 51 of 1951, another example where, like the architects, a professional statutory body operates on the principle of alternates. Sir, I have quoted some of these examples because I believe that this is a suggestion which could result in a much more efficient functioning also of this legislation.

I say this because if one considers the representation one finds that the hon. the Minister may appoint one person, and if that person is not able, for some unforeseen reason, to attend the meeting, as I understand it no possibility exists for the hon. the Minister to appoint someone else. This also applies as far as the Administrators are concerned. I think it would be regrettable for any province, for example the province of the Transvaal which represents probably the largest number of teachers and pupils in the Republic, if its representative appointed by the Administrator were in terms of this Bill unable, for some unforeseen reason, to attend the meeting. If the hon. the Minister accepts the amendment, provision will be made in the Bill for the appointment of alternates if this is considered necessary. My request is purely a permissive one. I believe it is a constructive suggestion that can only make for the efficient and smooth working of this Bill. I therefore earnestly ask the hon. the Minister to accept it.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I first want to state a point of procedure. The hon. the Minister will probably accept several of the amendments on the Order Paper. After having put a clause, therefore, I shall afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity of indicating which amendments he is going to accept. Hon. members should then only move those amendments formally and not discuss them. In that way we can save time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your guidance. It is a pleasure to me to inform the hon. member for Berea that I shall accept his first amendment. However, I cannot accept his second amendment, simply because this is a big council and consists of 30 members. I discussed the matter with the Federal Council this morning. The hon. member must remember that this is an agreed measure. After the officials and the Federal Council had discussed this matter in detail again in the light of the hon. member’s amendment, they felt that they would prefer no alternates to be nominated to the council, at this stage at least. Consequently I am not able to accept the hon. member’s amendment. In any case, it is not a very important matter. I hope the hon. member will accept my explanation and reconcile himself to it. If alternates do prove to be necessary in the future, we can reconsider the matter, but at this stage there is really no need for them. This is the way the Federal Council feels about it.

I come now to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central. I am glad to inform the hon. member that I shall accept his amendment.

†Unfortunately I cannot accept the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, because a teacher appointed in terms of clause 4(1)(b) may be an official of a particular Administrator. It is a general and accepted principle that it is the prerogative of such an Administrator to make such appointment for such period as he may determine. Changes in an Administrator’s staff position may compel him to make a change in his appointment to the council. For those reasons the hon. member’s first amendment is unacceptable.

However, the hon. member’s second amendment is acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of your ruling, and since the hon. the Minister has accepted my amendment, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I just want to take this opportunity of telling the hon. the Minister that I am sorry he is not prepared to accept the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. If one looks at the schedules, one sees that there will be quite a number of teachers’ associations which will be represented by only one member. In other words, the associations concerned consist of fewer than 2 000 members. Because of the fact that there will be no alternate for them, certain groups which could benefit from the attendance of certain important meetings will not be able to attend those meetings. However, the situation would have been quite different if they had been able to nominate an alternate if the elected member could not be present. I really find it a pity that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Papers, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 36 to 42, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
2. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 5(2), a member of the council shall hold office as such for a period of five years.
3. (2) on page 5, to omit all the words after “by” in line 45 up to and including “office,” in line 48.

In regard to the second amendment, which the hon. the Minister has indicated he will accept, I shall say nothing at all, because that matter requires no further argument.

As far as the first amendment is concerned I want to express my regret that the hon. the Minister will not accept it. The difficulty which the hon. the Minister has can very readily be solved in terms of the provisions of clause 6(d) in that quite obviously any person who is an official and who resigns from the service of the department, can be asked to resign his post and quite obviously he will resign. The very object of the amendment is to try to ensure continuity in membership for the whole of the five years and to ensure security of tenure.

I regret that I have to say it, but I am not impressed with the arguments advanced against the amendment, because it is covered in terms of clause 6(d). I therefore think the hon. the Minister should reconsider the matter before the Bill goes to the Other Place. If he finds merit in the point which I put, he may then effect an amendment there.

In regard to the three amendments moved by the hon. members for Berea and Durban Central, we support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central and the first amendment of the hon. member for Berea. I just want to say one word in clarification of what our attitude is. Whereas we accept that, by reason of the importance of this council and its significance, the members of the council should be South Africans, we do not want our attitude to be construed that we agree with the attitude of the Government and some of the Provincial Administrations in regard to the employment of non-South Africans in the teaching profession. On the contrary, in our view the number of unemployed graduates who find themselves in the United States and elsewhere in the world, can very readily be used to solve our own problems in relation to the teaching of science, mathematics, biology and such subjects if we recruit these people to come to South Africa.

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

Mr. Chairman, I am just making it clear that there should be no misunderstanding, because whereas we accept the principle, we actually believe that in so far as teachers are concerned, the failure to recruit is one of the reasons for the crisis.

In so far as the second amendment of the hon. member for Berea is concerned, we support that amendment, but we say that we do not regard it as being fundamental to the Bill, and I do not think the hon. member himself regards it as such. However, if the hon. the Minister should decide to reconsider the matter—there is ample precedent for it—I should like to draw his attention to the fact that any acceptance of this amendment would require a consequential amendment to clause 6(b) by reason of the absence of certain office bearers mentioned in that subsection. In other words, the situation will have to be covered if an alternate is present to represent the actual member. I think that will require a consequential amendment if the proposed amendment is accepted when the Bill goes to the Other Place.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. L. F. Wood agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 6 is concerned, the first amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is acceptable. I regret that the second one is not acceptable, because an Administrator or the Minister must be able, for good reasons, to withdraw his appointment. Staff changes can make such a step absolutely essential. I hope that this explanation will be acceptable to the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 18, after “chairman” to insert “or the council”;
2. (2) on page 7, in lines 22 to 24, to omit “or if, having been appointed in terms of section 4(1)(b) or (c), his appointment is withdrawn”.

I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for accepting my first amendment. I therefore shall not motivate it. As regards the second amendment, I must say that, regrettably, I cannot accept the validity of the hon. the Minister’s explanation. The whole purpose of this amendment is to ensure security of tenure. If an appointment can be withdrawn, there is no security of tenure, and I have indicated that if a person who is in the service of the department is transferred, quite obviously he would resign if they wanted to replace him. Although I shall not pursue the matter now, I would nevertheless ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter before he goes to the Other Place.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendment (2) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to inform the hon. member that his amendment is acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting my amendment, although I must say that it is a most unusual thing for a member of the Opposition to thank a Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. the Minister accepted this amendment. [Interjections.] The clause provides that if the majority of the council requests a special meeting, the chairman has to convene such a meeting. What the hon. member for Yeoville suggests in his amendment, is that at least 25% of the members of the council should ask for this. Very well, how many members will the council consist of?

Thirty.

In other words, at least eight persons have to ask for a special meeting. I am of the opinion that the possibility exists that eight persons can, in different ways, make the life of the council unbearable by forcing the council to meet on insignificant matters. For that reason I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. As the clause reads at present, one member may try to influence the chairman and ask for a special meeting, but the chairman need not agree with it or the chairman may say: “ I do not agree with you, but I shall convene a special meeting in any case.” When is this provision going to be necessary? One will only need this when the chairman is not prepared at all to co-operate with his council. In such a case there would be an impasse. In that case I believe that the majority of the members, i.e. at least 16, should ask for a special meeting.

I just want to hold out this consolation to the hon. member by telling him that I shall also accept some of his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, let me very briefly deal with the points raised. I think that, if one refers to precedents, it is quite clear that in no case does one need a requisition by a majority in order to call a special meeting. All that is normally required is a reasonable percentage of the total number of members of the body concerned. This applies particularly in the case of a body with such widespread representation as this council, which makes it most undesirable for a majority to be required. In fact, one would imagine that also those who normally allege to speak for a minority would themselves say that a minority ought to be able to do this as long as it is a reasonably sized minority. Even the same sort of rules apply in respect of institutions that we are all a party to. If one always needs to have a majority, one can never have a meeting unless one already has a majority for what one seeks to requisition. So, with great respect, the so-called defenders of the minorities have today been found wanting.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville says that, unless there is a majority, it will be impossible to hold a meeting.

†Where does he find that here? If he reads clause 8(2), he will see that “a special meeting of the council may be convened by the chairman on his own motion and shall be convened by him at the written request of the majority of members of the council stating the purpose for which the meeting is sought”. In other words, if one or two members want a meeting, they can approach the chairman and request that a special meeting be convened. Although the chairman may not agree with their point of view, a minority can still be instrumental in calling a meeting. The only point against which we want to express ourselves, is the stipulation of “at least 25%”. We can play around with this. We could have made it 30% or 40%, but I believe that when it boils down to 25%, in a body where only eight people are needed in order to call a meeting, it can easily lead to abuse of the opportunity given to them. It is not a question that every meeting must take place following an agreement by the majority. A meeting can be called at the request of only a few members, and after all, the chairman has to use his discretion. He should realize at all times that, should he not listen to such requests from members—even if there are only a few of them—it could ultimately lead to a vote of no confidence in him as chairman. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to support the 25%.

Mr. Chairman, what we are thinking of here, and what the hon. member for Durban Central has in mind, is the smooth running of this council. I do not know why the hon. member for Yeoville has to bring in an exception here. As far as my experience counts, it is usually a majority that can call a meeting. We do not want to sound cynical, but I believe we can speak from experience— experience which the hon. the Minister has not had—that it is easy for a small, well-organized minority to make life very difficult for a majority. This is what we want to avoid being done to this council.

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—27: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

NOES— 92: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Boraine, A. L.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Eglin, C. W.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. R; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Lorimer, R. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. R; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pitman, S. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Suzman, H.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Waddell, G. H.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Question negatived and words omitted.

Proposed substitution agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to say that the amendment to clause 10 is acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting my amendment and am waiting with some interest for the views of the official Opposition in regard to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (iii) any other person whose education, training, fitness to teach and experience, in the opinion of the council, warrant provisional registration: Provided that the council shall from time to time publish, in such manner as it thinks fit, a statement specifying the principles upon which such provisional registration is made.

Clause 15 refers to the registration of teachers, whether qualified or not. If one looks at the definition of “school” and “teacher” it would seem that this registration is virtually subject to the veto of the heads of education because clause 1(xvii)(a), which deals with the definition of “school”, states—

This will include most schools, except for a very small number of entirely privately financed schools. The definition of “teacher” means—

In clause 15(1)(a) teachers may be registered in terms of their qualifications. This will include those teachers employed in private schools because they have academic qualifications. They can also be registered in terms of clause 15(1)(a)(ii) which refers to every other person who is employed in a school to teach. Our concern is that it leaves out one small body of teachers, viz. those who do not have academic qualifications and are employed in entirely private schools. We feel that although registration becomes virtually automatic for people who are in Government or subsidized schools—whether they are qualified or not—it also eliminates the small body of teachers I do not think we should not like to see as outcasts from the profession in view of the fact that they are doing a very good job of work. Therefore I move this amendment for two reasons, viz. to give the council some autonomy in terms of registering teachers and to avoid the elimination of this small section of teachers.

It also lays down some sort of norm, because they must take into consideration the education, training, fitness to teach and experience of the people whom they are considering for registration. Of course, the council will also have to publish reasons from time to time as to why they have considered a person to be fit for registration.

In conclusion I want to say that it does round off the whole of the teaching profession, and does not leave out a small group who are doing a good job of work simply because they do not fall under the categories as defined here.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I think the hon. member need not spend much time talking about his amendment, because it seems a sensible amendment to me.

Mr. Chairman, from your remark I take it that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment. For that reason I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should just like to mention a few further points in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

†Here again, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to make a trip to Scotland. As regards the question of registration, the Scottish council has the power to register unqualified teachers if in their opinion such a teacher’s education, training and fitness to teach warrants his registration. I believe that at the present moment it will assist the Committee of Heads of Education as well if there is a system whereby people can go directly to the council and register themselves provisionally. In fact, I believe that this will cut out a great deal of administrative red tape. In terms of clause 16, which makes provision for provisional registration, we find that the actual decision lies with a head of education because he makes a permanent appointment and all the council really does is to enter the name of the person concerned in the register. That person is then a provisionally registered teacher. I believe, therefore, that the administrative procedure will be cut down if a teacher can say:. “T have already satisfied the council personally that I am a provisionally registered teacher.” There is then no need whatsoever for the head of education to refer that individual person’s case back to the council. There is a further advantage in terms of this amendment, and that is that the council, like its counterpart in Scotland, will have to publish, from time to time, a statement indicating the principles upon which it has decided that such a person’s education and training warrants provisional registration. This, then, will serve as a guide-line for other people, and I think that if the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment, he will find that it will reduce the work considerably, as well as making possible the smoother functioning of the council.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the first two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 11, in line 39, to omit “with the concurrence of the committee,”;
2. (2) on page 11, in line 39, after “up” to insert:

The hon. member for Rondebosch will deal with the third and fourth amendments printed in my name. I should like to point out that my first amendment is substantially the same as the amendment which the hon. member for Durban Central has moved. His amendment provides that the council shall draw up a professional code of conduct “in consultation with” the committee. The effect of that is that the council will have the final say. I have not provided for that, because the council may in fact consult anybody it wants to consult. To all intents and purposes, therefore, whether the hon. the Minister accepts the hon. member for Durban Central’s amendment or my first amendment, there will be very little difference.

As far as my second amendment is concerned, I want to say that there is no provision in the Bill at the moment for the amendment of the code of Conduct once it has been drawn tip. I think there should be specific authority for the amendment of a code of conduct once it has been drawn tip, because if somebody is charged under that code, it may Well be argued that subsequent amendments—and obviously a code of conduct has to keep up to date with developments—are invalid, since all that is permitted in terms of the Bill is the code as initially drawn tip. That is why my proposal gives the council the authority to amend the code from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) On page 11, in line 56, to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”;
2. (2) on page 11, in line 56, after “shall” to insert:

Subsection (3) provides for a person’s name to be struck off the register if he does not pay his subscription in time and all these two amendments seek to do is to broaden the discretionary freedom of the council somewhat and to have justice done if particular circumstances should exist of which the council is unaware. In terms of this subsection the council is compelled to struck off a person’s name from the register and all these two amendments seek to do, is to provide for circumstances where the person concerned did not receive his mail, for instance. For instance, if he is on holiday or is abroad, he will not be able to react to the letter asking him to pay his subscription. In any case, the council has the right to struck off the person’s name if he does not pay his subscription, and these amendments can only lead to a specific case being dealt with more justifiably.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react briefly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I accept that in moving this amendment the hon. member and his party had a small group of people in private schools in mind, but if the proposal is accepted that a person could be conditionally registered by virtue of his education, training, fitness to teach, and his experience, the door would be Opened again to people who are not qualified. As a result of that the whole purpose of the Bill Would be watered down so that it Would no longer serve any purpose. The purpose of this Bill is for a person who teaches in a school to have a minimum qualification. The provision which is being made for conditional registration is only to accommodate those people who are already permanently employed in certain Schools, or people who will be permanently employed in future and who will have to be kept employed because they comply with certain conditions and have a specific knowledge of a subject for which no qualified teachers are available. If we were to establish a general provision for people to be registered conditionally without their complying with the specific minimum qualifications, we would be extending endlessly the conditional registration and destroy the objects of the Bill.

The amendments moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North are, unfortunately, not acceptable to me. The Federal Council discussed the matter again this morning but remains opposed to the extension of conditional registration and is not prepared to extend this principle any further than what has been agreed to. Provision for this is being made in the Bill. When a person is conditionally registered by the council, such a person qualifies for permanent appointment, and when a head of education refuses to appoint such a person permanently he can appeal to the council. For these two reasons, both of which are well founded, it is impossible for me, however much I regret it, to accept the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

†I am, however, prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. The first amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville is not acceptable in the light of the fact that I have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central.

*But as far as the second amendment is concerned, this is not acceptable to me either, because the authority does exist to effect amendments from time to time. The Interpretation Act, No. 33 of 1957, in any case makes revision possible from time to time. For that reason it is not necessary to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. As far as the third amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch is concerned, I am also sorry to say that it is not acceptable to me, because if the word “may” is inserted it means that the council will have to exercise a discretion every time, in other words, the name of A is struck off but the name of B is not struck off. It is not really possible for a norm to be laid down, and provision is made for deferment of payment. To my mind the authority of the board can really not be watered down to such an extent as we would be doing if we were to accept the amendments of the hon. members. Surely, it has always been argued here that the council should be given powers. I cannot understand why hon. members come along with an amendment, the effect of which will really be that the powers of the board will be destroyed. Then we also have the fourth amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch. If the hon. members agree with what I have said in respect of the third amendments, it simply follows that the fourth amendment is also not acceptable to me. I hope the hon. members accept it in that way.

I am disappointed with the reply given by the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether he has considered that the woodwork teacher, who is skilled with his hands and has a tremendous amount of knowledge which he can impart to a child, can never while he is at a private school be admitted in terms of the definition of “school” and “teacher” and in terms of clause 16 of the Bill before us.

He does not have the necessary qualifications.

He can never be admitted, and so he is lost to the profession; he is lost to the school. He can only be admitted by this council. This is the only way he can possibly be admitted, through this council. The hon. member for Algoa says we are going to open the door for all manner of people who are not qualified, but I dispute that because control will be in the council’s hands. The council will have control over whom to admit. Surely we cannot be so shortsighted as not to admit people who are able to instruct, who are able, by virtue of the trade and the pride they take in their work and the ability, to impart the knowledge of their trade to young people. Why on earth do we virtually victimize these people, and why do we not have them admitted by this council? There is no other way for them other than through the council. So I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this again in this light and possibly have a re-think on it when it comes to the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I realize that the Minister has just indicated that he is not able to accept it in its present form. But I believe it has some merit, and I would therefore like to leave a thought with the hon. the Minister which perhaps he could consider with his legal advisers. And perhaps he might be prepared to amend this in the Other Place to make the provision for something which applies to other statutory bodies. I would refer him to section 19 of the Pharmacy Act and to the Mental, Dental and Supplementary Health Services Act, No. 56 of 1974, where it says that the council may direct the registrar to remove from the register the name of any person, and then I want to quote just the one which I believe is relevant to this particular subject “who has failed to notify the registrar within a period of three months as from the date of an inquiry by the registrar, by registered letter, to the address appearing in the register in respect of such person of his present address”. I believe that if one were to develop some amendment along those lines, it would be possible to cater for the intention which is behind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

I just very briefly want to deal again with amendments (3) and (4) on the Order Paper. Sir, the difficulty I have with the approach of the hon. the Minister is that he is in fact making it mandatory to strike a person’s name off the register, while we are suggesting that there should be a discretion. It would be so easy when a list is submitted to the council and the council then exercises its discretion, if in fact it is appropriate. But there can be cases where it will do a tremendous injustice to make it mandatory to strike a man’s name off. I would ask the Minister to look again at clause 20 and the consequences there would be for a man who, for example, might be ill in hospital and unable to attend to his affairs, who might be on the staff of the school and might be coming back to the school, and in terms of clause 20 if in fact he has not paid, there is then a problem for him in regard to his job. That can have the most serious consequences, and to make it mandatory seems to me to be quite wrong. I believe that even if the Minister does not want to accept amendment (4), which is about the question of giving him notice in writing, there can be no harm in changing “shall” to “may”. It is no hardship to the board and it makes it very much easier from the point of view of the individual. I would ask the Minister to consider this. It does not affect the powers of the council, because to have a discretionary power is something greater than to make a thing mandatory.

Mr. Chairman, I undertake to consider it again, and if it is possible to accept it, I will do it in the Other Place. But I want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of the clause—which he must read again carefully— the fact is it can be postponed endlessly. So what he says does not really, to my way of thinking, cut any ice. However, I will reconsider it.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. the Minister says he shall reconsider these amendments, because I think it is really necessary. But I want to come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. It is quite clear to me that a misunderstanding is developing. The hon. members on the opposite side, and also the Minister, think that what we are dealing with here, is merely to open the door even further. The hon. member for Algoa said we wanted to open the door even further. The fact remains that the door is already open for the unqualified teacher at this stage. All we are arguing about, is who should open the door. Our amendment says that the body that should open the door is the council, that the council should decide whether that person has the necessary qualifications and experience. As it stands here and particularly when one considers clause 16, the door is not opened by the teachers’ council, but by the head of education. He appoints the person. The council is the highest professional body and it is surely the first party to be consulted in a matter of this nature. I cannot see the objection of the hon. the Minister. Let us just understand this quite clearly. It might perhaps entail an increase in respect of the one case, in the case of the small number of purely private schools which exist. But the rest does not entail any increase. As far as the rest is concerned, I should just like to point out that it is extremely important for a profession as to who is going to obtain conditional registration. In the first place that decision has to be taken by the members. Initially the teachers’ associations insisted that only qualified teachers should teach. However, they decided to compromise with the hon. the Minister—and this I accept—because they should like this teachers’ council to become a reality. They should just not pay too high a price for it. Now all they have to do, is to sit back and to see to it that this most important decision is taken by the head of education. What task do they have to perform then? They simply have to wait until they are notified that certain persons have been appointed permanently. They have no choice and should merely enter the names concerned in the register. In clause 15 (1) reference is made to—

1. (i) every teacher; and
2. (ii) every other person who is on the date of commencement of section 5 employed in a full-time permanent capacity at a school to teach.

Now we want to add a third case in respect of which the board will be able to decide. One finds exactly the same kind of thing in connection with the Scottish council, and why did they do it? I put this question to the hon. the Minister. I understand why the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations was prepared to compromise. From the nature of the case they had to do it. However, it is our duty in this House to ask whether or not this clause is going to help them. It is on that basis that this amendment is being proposed. There should be no misunderstanding on this score. We do not say that the door should simply be thrown open. All we say is that it should be opened by the council.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a final word about this amendment standing in my name. My concern is that by not accepting this amendment, one would be discriminating against that small group of unqualified teachers in the private schools. The heads of education have their hands tied. There is nothing they can do about the matter. Their hands are tied in terms of the definition of “school”, “teacher” and by clause 16 of this Bill. The doors have already been opened. The hon. member for Algoa I think mistakenly let slip a short while ago that we were casting the net too wide. I disagree with him; the net has already been cast to accommodate unqualified people and they must be brought in. The only way in which one can do so is by way of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I see hon. members on that side of the House feel very strongly about this matter, and because I am fair and just, and because I do not want this matter being left hanging in the air and because the interests of the teachers are at stake, I shall again bring to their attention these points which have been raised and to which I have listened attentively—in spite of the fact that we have already discussed the matter with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. We shall reconsider this matter urgently. If I am able to affect an amendment I shall do so in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the reassurance given to us by the hon. the Minister that he will move an amendment in the Other Place.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. W. Mills negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper agreed to and amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz dropped.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived.

Amendment (1) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should like to motivate this amendment briefly. The clause provides—

In other words, once there is an appointment, his name must be entered into the register and he then is provisionally entered. However, in terms of clause 17 the council has a right to refuse a registration, whether a final registration or a provisional registration, on grounds which are connected with the person’s conviction of any offence or of any contravention of the professional code of conduct. Therefore, unless this amendment is accepted, the Minister can force upon the council the provisional registration of a person who has a conviction or who has contravened the code of conduct, circumstances which would have been regarded by the council as adequate grounds for refusing such a person registration. It seems to me clear that certainly people should not be imposed upon the register when, in fact, in the normal course of events their registration would be refused because of their conduct.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. We will support it.

I wish to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment does link with our thinking on clause 15 in that we feel that the heads of education and the council should be in touch as to the reasons why a provisional registration is made. After all, we are concerned here with establishing a norm, a standard, and I feel that the amendment will result in the council being informed as to why a provisional registration is made.

Mr. Chairman, I regard this but unfortunately I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. If I were to accept the amendment, it would make the task of the head of education absolutely impossible, because the primary task of the head of education is to ensure that there is a teacher in the classroom. My difficulty with the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is that it will complicate the task of the head of education a great deal and may even make it impossible. Therefore, I cannot accept his amendment.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North either, because his amendment will affect existing powers. There has been no opportunity to discuss this matter with the heads of education and the Administrators, and since this is an agreed measure, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. I shall discuss the matter with them at some later stage, and it is possible that we may come back to this House in this connection later on with a view to effecting an amendment. At the moment, however, it is impossible for me to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in what the hon. the Minister has said about the amendments I have moved. I am not sure that he actually appreciates the significance of what he said. He said, in fact that if a man applies to be registered provisionally and is turned down by the council because of a contravention of the professional code of conduct, all the man has to do to become provisionally registered is to go to the department and get a head of education to appoint him to a school. The hon. the Minister said the man has to fill the job, but what is then the point of this provision?

He can be appointed on a temporary basis.

With respect, Sir, that is the whole point. If such a man is appointed on a temporary basis, there is no need for provisional registration. I do not think the hon. the Minister appreciates the seriousness of what he is saying. The whole concept of this council is such that the council must finally decide who is going to be registered and who is not going to be registered, whether provisionally or otherwise. The vested interests of the people, who are holding down jobs at the moment, are protected. The question of not appointing people without registration is covered by clause 20. In other words, until such time as there are sufficient teachers, there is not going to be a closed-shop arrangement at all. However, once there is such a closed-shop arrangement, surely one cannot have the situation such that a mere desire to appoint a particular person can lead to the whole set-up being ignored. This destroys the whole fabric of the council and its authority. If some other reason had been advanced for refusing this amendment, I could still understand it, but the reason the hon. the Minister has just given—viz. that a post must be filled even if it is filled by a person with convictions against him, a person who is dangerous and should not be put onto the list—is a disastrous one in my opinion. All that I ask for in this amendment is that it should be possible to make this appointment subject to the fact that there are no grounds for refusing registration because of a conviction or because of a contravention of the code of conduct. However, one cannot circumvent the whole thing and destroy the power of the council by saying: We do not care whether he has been convicted or not and whether he is a danger or not; we are going to appoint him because there is in fact a vacancy. If that is to be done, we are playing with fire.

The hon. the Minister has been reasonable. Therefore I ask him not simply to reject this, but to think about it and take advice. If he then still adheres to his view, that is all there is to it, but if not, he can still do something about it. I should, however, like to impress upon the hon. the Minister that this is a serious matter.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to me, too, that, before this Bill reaches the Other Place, the hon. the Minister will possibly have to make an attempt to have consultations with the various administrators with regard to this specific clause, with these amendments in mind. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for intimating that he will give consideration to this, but such consideration will have to take place in conjunction with the administrators because they are the people who will have to make the concessions in this case.

In respect of the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, I want to mention for further consideration that we took great pains with our amendments not to complicate matters for the heads of education. They may continue appointing people provisionally. As I said before, we had hoped that the permanent appointment of a person would enable him to be registered provisionally. We only ask that when the council makes requests from time to time, specific reasons have to be furnished for the appointment of certain persons. This is simply to ensure that the council, too, will be consulted in the matter. In terms of the clause as it stands, the council is not consulted at all in this vitally important matter. In my opinion, the hon. the Minister has to enter into further negotiations on this basis. I am also in full agreement with the plea made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. G. W. Mills negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is one of the most important in the Bill as it deals with the powers which the council will have. As in the case of the code of conduct, there are powers which have to be truly meaningful. I want to thank the Minister for the fact that the clause dealing with the code of conduct has now been drafted in a way which—so we believe—will render it more meaningful. I also want to point out to the hon. the Minister that we told his predecessor on several occasions in the past that if he were to propose a professional council, it would have to be a council having truly effective powers, i.e. he wanted such a council to have the full support of this side of the House.

The powers contained in clause 18, oblige me to tell the hon. the Minister that the disciplinary powers seem to be adequate, although the rest of the powers—I say this with respect—came as something of a shock to me. I believe it is our duty to improve on this. As you will note, Sir, three amendments appear in my name on the Order Paper. I now move all three as printed—

1. (1) On page 13, after line 55, to insert:
   1. (d) require a head of education or the Minister to furnish it with such information concerning details of teacher training from any institution training teachers as the council may require to ascertain if any aspect of that training militates against the recruitment for the profession and the achievement of the object of the council as stated in section 3;
2. (2) on page 13, in line 56, to omit “advise” and substitute “make recommendations to”;
3. (3) on page 13, to add the following proviso at the end of paragraph (d):

I first want to deal with amendments (2) and (3) of mine. These two amendments relate to the requirements for the training of teachers and to the requirements for admission to the training course. During the Second Reading debate yesterday, the hon. member for Virginia waxed lyrical about clause 18(d). He suggested that in future—in terms of the provision contained in clause 18(d)—teachers would be in a position allowing them to offer advice to the committee. I cannot understand how this can be something to make one wax lyrical. Clause 18(d), as worded at present—I say this in all seriousness—is an insult both to the teachers’ council and the teaching profession. It creates the impression that these professional people are capable only of giving advice to their employers; to the Committee of Heads of Education. The image is created that this is all they are capable of doing. For the rest the clause has no substance. It is as vague as vague can be. [Interjections.] I can hear one of the hon. members muttering away on the opposite side. If he speaks a little louder, I may be able to hear what he is saying.

The hon. member must please continue with his speech.

According to the law advisers there is a difference in meaning between the word “proposals” and the word “recommendations”. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that my second amendment mentions “to make recommendations to”. In Afrikaans this means “om aanbevelings te doen”. I also believe that they are at least entitled to be informed of the reasons why their recommendations are not acceptable.

†Mr. Chairman, I must say once again that this is very relevant to what we have been pleading for years. We said to the predecessor of the hon. the Minister that he should submit a Bill containing proper powers. I am on record as having said to him that he should take the Scottish council as a guide-line if he wanted our full support. In order to assess this particular matter, let us just look at the position regarding the Scottish council. In the case of the Scottish council the council can make recommendations to the Secretary of State. The council can make recommendations, and that is all that I seek. What actually happens in Scotland, is that the Secretary of State—should he find it inexpedient to put regulations into practice—has to refer it back to the council for modification. Should there still be no agreement, it is stated that he can go ahead and alter the particular regulations. However, he has to publish a statement giving his reasons. This is what I want to achieve in the second and third amendments I have moved. What I propose is the exact equivalent of the situation in the Scottish council which has been functioning well for a period of eleven years.

What are the advantages? The advantage for the council members is that they will officially know why their recommendations have been rejected and not implemented. In other words, they will feel they have a definite say in this matter. However, there are also advantages for the Committee of Educational Heads. When the council members decide on recommendations, and these are not accepted, they will know what the reasons are for their not being accepted. My information is that this in fact prevents the committee, or in the case of the Scottish council the Secretary of State, being flooded with irrelevant recommendations. When the council members know that reasons will be published to indicate why their recommendations cannot be put into effect, they will act very responsibly and make sure that when they do make recommendations those recommendations are worthwhile.

*I should like to deal briefly with the first amendment. In terms of the amendment there is a request for the council to have the additional power, to obtain, when they deem this necessary, information in connection with the training of teachers from the Minister or from the heads of education. Here we are dealing with a council, the object of which is set out in clause 3. However, what powers are we giving to the council to achieve its object? Apart from clause 18(d), which refers to advice, there is only the provisions contained in Clause 18(c) which provide that the council may require a head of education to furnish it with such information as the council may require for the keeping of the register. Nothing further is said. The council may give advice, but if one has to give advice about something, one must be properly informed. One may give advice concerning the training of teachers. However, one must be in a position to go to somebody and ask what exactly the position is in respect of the training of teachers in South Africa. At present training is given at ten universities and at various provincial training colleges. How many of the possible 30 members of the council will really be in a position to be able to say that they know exactly what courses are followed and how many people are being trained? Unless they may go to somebody who can give them the exact information, they will not be in a position to make proper recommendations. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry, but I am Unable to accept the amendments. I hope the hon. member for Durban Central and other hon. members will understand my position as far as this is concerned. I said during the Second Reading debate that this was an agreed measure. I want to point out to hon. members that the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations is a body with authority. The hon. members on the opposite side must not speak of it lightly as though it is a body the recommendations and findings of which one may simply brush aside. One cannot do this. It is an important educational body consisting of teachers, and one has to take it into consideration. The same holds good for the Committee of Heads of Education. Since we agreed on the wording of the clause after protracted discussions with those people, I want to ask hon. members to understand that I cannot change the wording of the clause. I have already said and want to repeat, that after legislation has been passed, there is the possibility of the council itself possibly giving attention to this and of the powers possibly being extended. My personal opinion is that the powers will in fact be extended. At this stage, however, I cannot extend these powers unilaterally in this House.

Now I come to the hon. member’s second amendment. In pursuance of the pattern of negotiations with the Committee of Heads of Education, I ask hon. members to meet me in this connection, too, because I have accommodated them as far as possible. Hon. members must give the council a chance. The powers will be expanded. However, I cannot do that in this Bill.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived and amendment (3) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

: Provided that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is being conducted shall have the right, either personally or through a representative, to cross-examine any witness not called at his request.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is not acceptable in its present form. However, I should like to move an amendment myself.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

To place the matter beyond any doubt, I move the amendment in another form.

Mr. Chairman, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. For that reason I do not move the amendment printed in my name.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Let me briefly motivate the amendment. The effect of this clause is that one may use a record in court proceedings as prima facie proof of the commission of an offence. One may do this without calling the witness. However, it may well be that when one has an inquiry there may well be allegations which are contained in the record as well as statements which were made and which could be challenged and approached from a different angle. The criminal proceedings are then res inter alias acta. They are not the same proceedings in respect of the same parties. For that reason one should have the right, if one so wishes, to test the allegations of anybody who gave evidence and whom one wishes to have called. It is merely in order to give this safeguard that I moved the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have considered the question of whether it is possible to accept the amendment. If I were to accept it, it would mean that a hearing would have to start again from scratch. In fact it would make the whole clause, as it is worded at the moment, meaningless. Officials have discussed it at length with the legal advisers. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have great regret about this. The effect of this amendment is not to start the proceedings again from the beginning, because the court proceedings are still prima facie proof of the commission of that offence. Nobody is asking for that to be deleted. In the proceedings there might have been, for example, 10 witnesses who gave evidence and it may be necessary, for the purpose of this particular situation, to have one of those witnesses recalled. Without having that right, the person who has been charged before the inquiry is substantially prejudiced. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not refer this back to the legal advisers and ask them to reconsider it. I think he will be advised that it does not detract from the fact that the court proceedings are still prima facie proof and that it merely means that he can cross-examine any person he wish in order to establish what has happened.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, both amendments of the hon. member for Yeoville are acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, after line 43, to insert:
   1. (c) the imposition of a penalty,
2. (2) on page 17, in line 52, after “register,” to insert “set aside the penalty”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The purpose of this amendment is that, in terms of this clause, the point to amend the schedules lies with the State President. He does it by means of proclamation in the Government Gazette on the recommendation of the hon. the Minister. I am particularly concerned with schedule 1, because there may be new organizations. I have deliberately taken a membership of 1 000 so as to avoid a small splinter organization. In terms of the existing situation, one can in fact have representation if there are 101 members. Therefore, by making it 1 000, it is by no means a splinter organization. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve that any association which is not presently on the schedule, but which has at least 1 000 members, is entitled to have its name added to the schedule. That is the sole purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain to the hon. member how this works. The council has to make recommendations to the Minister—as has in fact been done—and if I were now to accept the hon. member’s amendment here, I would, as it were, be creating a new principle and opening the door to a great many problems. I therefore ask the hon. member in a friendly way to understand the position in this connection. For that reason I am unable to accept this amendment. However, if the council goes into the matter and should feel at a later stage that if a teachers’ association consists of 1 000 members it is necessary that they, too, have the right to appoint a member, then this can take place. However, because this is a measure that has been agreed on, I am unfortunately not in a position to accept it at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the difficulty which exists here is that people who are in office have vested interests in the association concerned. I am not saying that there will be new organizations, because there will not. The issue is that people with vested political interests normally do not like new political parties to arise and in exactly the same way we do not like new teacher associations to arise. For that reason I should like to see these rights entrenched and that is why, while I regret that it will not be accepted, I hope that further consideration will be given to it.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that we appreciate the comments he made at the end of the Second Reading debate. It is quite apparent that this is an exploratory matter, experimental, and a forerunner of other amendments, which, as the hon. the Minister quite rightly pointed out, belong in the Copyright Act. We shall watch the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will bring in these amendments. The comments I made yesterday apply particularly to what will happen in the future.

Mr. Chairman, this is the crucial clause of the Bill and I briefly want to state our view on it. In the first place we believe that if there should be a registration office for copyright, then it should be a registration office for copyright in the broader sense, in respect of all copyright that can be registered. There may be some practical difficulties, but I think almost all copyrights should be registered. We believe that this is what any piece of legislation in respect of this matter should have sought to achieve. In the second place, we believe that in these times of inflationary conditions, additional Government expenditure, to create new offices, employ new staff and have additional expenditure, is not in the public interest. That is our attitude to the broad issue of clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, I took note of the arguments advanced by hon. members and I shall consider them when we consider the amendments to the copyright legislation itself.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one specific question relating to clause 5(1), namely whether, on the present wording, the intention is that employees of firms in South Africa who represent that firm, not in respect of advice, but in respect of these other actions, and who appoint attorneys, are intended to be affected. The way the clause is worded, that might well be the effect, and I cannot imagine that this is the intention. As I understand it, the intention is that only the direct matters with which the registrar is concerned, are affected. The way the clause is worded, the normal course of what happens …

I shall take a look at it, and if that is the position, I shall change it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I have is in respect of the opposition, all that the person who opposes sees, is the advertisement. I am reasonably sure that it is not possible to draft an advertisement which conveys to the public exactly what there is in the film, to see whether it is a matter which can be copyrighted or whether it goes against any existing copyright. What I should like to know is whether the hon. the Minister will not consider, perhaps before he goes to the Other Place, the fact that there should be a right to view the film before any opposition is entered. In other words, any person who seeks to oppose as a result of an advertisement, should have the right to view the film before he opposes it so that he knows exactly in what he is involving himself. If he does not view the film, it is almost impossible to decide whether or not there should be opposition. He might oppose it while if he had seen the film he would not have opposed it, or, on the other hand …

If he can see it on request.

That is right. In other words, he should as of right be allowed to view the film before deciding whether or not to oppose.

Mr. Chairman, all the relevant documents, including the film, are available to any objector.

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.