Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) that the education in schools—
   1. (a) should have a Christian character, with due regard to the religious convictions of the parents and the pupils; and
   2. (b) should have a national character; and
2. (2) that education should in its content keep pace with the new demands being made upon the youth in the political, economic and social fields, with special reference to mental and economic preparedness.

In the first place, I want to express my sincere gratitude to you and the House for the opportunity afforded me to discuss this motion—in my opinion a very important one—in this House today. I do so in the light of the fact that we are all aware of a number of important matters relating to education which have come to the fore in recent times. In the first place there is the announcement of the new salary and posts structure for teachers, which in my opinion has been very well received and welcomed in all quarters, despite a few matters which will undoubtedly be given the necessary attention at a later stage.

I do so, too, because we know that the S.A. Teachers’ Council is already in operation, a council one of whose principal functions will be to act as a watchdog in respect of the status of the teacher. We are looking forward to the code of conduct which will be published shortly. These are for the most part circumstances and matters relating to teachers as such. Then, too, we could add the exceptional advantages of the differentiated education system, a system implemented to provide the best education for our children.

We also do so in the light of the tremendous explosion of knowledge which has occurred in recent times, because it is evident that in many cases the increase of knowledge has become the primary task, perhaps at the expense of various other aspects. It is in consequence of this that I feel it necessary that we take a penetrating look today at the essence or basis of those aspects fundamental to education, not only in this country but throughout the world.

To be able to do so it is also necessary for us to take a brief look at the onslaughts against which our youth have to steel themselves in present times. The first onslaught which I want to mention very briefly is the onslaught of liberalism. It is necessary for us to investigate this because this is what the youth are being confronted with. It is therefore the task of education to assist the youth in its efforts to counter this onslaught.

When we think of liberalism, we think of the absolute glorification of freedom, the issue of liberation from coercive authority from outside, the authority of the State, the Church, dogmas and prejudices. We find that liberalism concentrates on liberation from national and cultural bonds. Liberals preach that all men are equal. World citizenship is the ideal. One’s individual nation, tradition, culture and religion are exchangeable for what is common to all with equal facility. No national pride, patriotism or colour bar is preached by the champions of this ideology. The State is not a God-given authority. The Government governs merely on behalf of the individual. The Church may not concern itself at all with artists or writers, nor may it prescribe to them. Science must be detached from any religious dogma. Universities must open their doors to all so that everyone can drink of all waters. This is what we find in liberalism. However, where does it lead?

It leads to paralysis of the spirit and of the will to resist. It leads, too, to moral degradation. It leads to devaluation of labour. The nobility of labour has to give way to love of ease, love of comfort and holidays. As if that is not enough, the youth is further confronted with statements such as that in Herbert Marcuse’s “Counter-culture” in which he urges the youth to destroy entirely Western society and all forms of authority and self-discipline. As part of this chorus we have Jerry Rubin saying—

It is as if an organized and vigorous effort is being made to destroy nationalism, which gives the children of a people identity, so that we can all lose our identity in one big international nationhood.

There is another onslaught on youth in the realm of politics. It is important that we take cognizance of what the youth is faced with today and what they are being confronted with in that sphere as well. Looking at the domestic political problems one is struck immediately by the following: the various developing peoples which we have in one plural community in the Republic of South Africa as well and, arising out of that, the recognition of the diversity of peoples within such a plural community. But then the youth is also faced with the specific problem of being confronted with certain problems in these circumstances in its daily contact situation. The first problem in this regard is that in this set-up the youth must try to maintain its own identity but also to recognize the otherness and the human dignity of other peoples. When we consider our external problems, we see a hostile world which applies double standards and which is out to seek the downfall of the Whites in the Southern hemisphere. That is what the youth, including the school-going, youth are faced with in these times.

As far as economic pressure is concerned, too, we find that it is compelling the youth to adopt a way of life to which they are largely unaccustomed. It is well known, and we are very grateful for this, that we have been through a decade or two of prosperity and that the youth who are growing up today are not really acquainted with economic pressure. It is true that in earlier years, those of us who are a little long in the tooth were made aware of the demands set by this, but among the youth of today this is not the case. Now they are being compelled to do something about these economic circumstances in a certain way, and this also demands certain adaptations on their part.

These, briefly, are the reasons for our wishing to discuss this specific motion in this House as it is worded and as it appears on the Order Paper. It is important and necessary that we should begin by taking note of the importance of education in any country. Let me state without mincing words that the fight for the survival of any nation will have to be won or lost in the educational institutions of such a country, and not on the battlefields nor in this House nor in any other council whatsoever. Our nation will continue to exist if the providing of knowledge is linked with the development of spiritual values such as character, national pride, morality, loyalty, dedication, patriotism, idealism, etc. Communism teaches that education is the mightiest tool wherewith to effect change in the views, attitude and vigour of a nation; that it is therefore the mightiest weapon in the process of forming a nation. If that is true—and we want to accept it as such—then it is necessary that our schools should be capable of countering the onslaught on the national spirit, of preparing our children for the onslaught on our minds, of making them proud of this one and only fatherland with which Providence has endowed them. Our schools must accept the challenge of, besides instilling knowledge, educating the child as part of a nation. Education must therefore be nationally oriented. The issue here is the education of a person, of a specific kind of person, different to the product of communism and even to that of the Americans. The communist indoctrinates the teacher and the child in regard to communist ideology. Why should we not do the same with our White children, but with regard to Christian national education and also—this is important—wish the Coloureds, the Asians and the Black people to have the same as far as the education of their children are concerned? I ask in the motion that education should have a Christian character. What do I mean thereby?

It means that education should be in accordance with the principles of the Holy Scripture. It must not be determined by the dogmatic concepts of any specific church or organization. I also unequivocally request that our education should have a Christian character because we are a Christian nation because we have belief and faith in God. We recognize religious freedom and if anyone has a conscientious objection to religious education with a Christian character, then in terms of present practice he may obtain exemption. To respect religious convictions but also to subject people to a consistent Christian education is by no means a trick played by the State. It merely constitutes recognition of the obligatory character of a religious approach to life, as every pupil must evince whether in a classroom or outside it by way of extramural activities.

In the second place it is also necessary that our education should have a national character. What does this mean? National education implies that our children should be instructed in love of and loyalty to this country and its people and that the heritages of each people be preserved and honoured. It is not linked in any way with any political or language group. That is why we teach our children to be proud of their origins and to love their language, history and fatherland. In this spirit of internationalism in which we live, in terms of which there is an endeavour to bring about a homogeneous world community—I have already made a brief reference to that—the State may not stand aloof from the development of a healthy national pride in the coming generation. Indeed, it is the right and duty of the State to ensure that the school makes a positive contribution to this. It is not only among us that this is the case. I quote to hon. members what Prof. Kgware said in a conversation with Otto Krause—

At the end of a conference of African States in Addis Ababa in 1961, dealing with the development of education in Africa, the African States set themselves the objective of promoting their own culture on all levels and in every possible sphere of education.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that I will be accused of indoctrination if I preach that the teacher should encourage in the child pride in his own nation, his own traditions, his language and his history and in the same way cultivate the right attitude to life. However, I want to state frankly today that we must indoctrinate our children. We must indoctrinate them in the schools. We must indoctrinate them to be true patriots and to guard jealously their own culture, their traditions and character, inter alia, Christianity, love for their church and loyalty to their nation and country. It is the right of any nation to indoctrinate its children in that way.

Some hon. members opposite will accuse me of dragging politics into the schools. To those people the Festival of the Covenant, the FAK and mother tongue education also constitute politics. After all, it is true that when the Afrikaner wants to realize himself, he is accused of politicking. Politics concerns the highest and most enduring interests of a nation, be it the Afrikaner nation, the German nation or the American nation. It concerns its national festivals, its national identity, its cultural identity, its continued existence and also its education. However, this does not constitute party politics nor may it ever become party politics. However much our critics may accuse us of being engaged in politics, I believe that we may not neglect to teach our children to recognize their national identity and guard over it jealously.

Having said all this, the question occurs as to how we are going to give expression to these things in practice in education; in other words, in the content of education. In my opinion, the school ought to form the centre from which a positive, directive culture of national identity should spread.

I know of course that it is the primary aim of the school to instill knowledge, but I also believe that the positive forming of our school-going youth—viz. the cultivation of a fundamentally sound approach and attitude and a positive, religious and purposeful national pride—is the other leg of the primary task of education and we certainly cannot neglect this in the search for greater knowledge. In his book Die Weste op die Dwaalweg, Raoul Stephan, the Parisian Christian littérateur warns against the danger that education will be sacrificed to teaching. He makes this extremely important statement—

One could speak about that at very great length with conviction. It is indeed true that although that the acquisition of further knowledge entails major advantages, the acquisition of further knowledge must never be the downfall of true education. Therefore there must be a sound balance between the instilling of knowledge and the attention given to the spiritual assets peculiar to every nation. A feeling for those things must be cultivated in every child.

How do we achieve this in practice? When the Christian character is discussed I say it is my conviction that we cannot say that the school must have a Christian character, without adding that in its day-to-day school atmosphere, the school must truly breathe a Christian atmosphere. I know it is exceptionally difficult to describe these things, but nevertheless I want to make an effort to indicate what I mean thereby and how we are to achieve it.

Although I believe it is necessary and important that we should have the compulsory periods of religious instruction in the school—one period per week per class—this is by no means sufficient. This alone will not result in a Christian atmosphere in that school. I believe that the further sound custom should be introduced—this is indeed something which is implemented by many headmasters—of opening the school every morning with prayer and a reading of the Scripture. What occurs in practice? We often find that a headmaster argues that in his school time simply cannot be found for that; the school is already overloaded with regard to the subjects and the scope of the syllabuses and consequently five to ten minutes cannot be set aside in the morning for reading of the Scripture and prayer. This is rather to be done by every individual teacher in the classroom. I do not wish to make out that the teacher is incapable of this, but what I do maintain is that it would be an evil day if we could not spare five to ten minutes in the morning to read the Bible to the children in a Christian atmosphere. That is why I say that that sound custom must be pursued in each and every school, whether it be a primary or a secondary school. I want to add that this same Christian character must be pursued in the class by the teacher irrespective of the subject he teaches. That is why it is so terribly important that no teacher may enter the teaching profession unless he himself is orientated towards Christian Nationalism.

It is all so unreal! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I want to ask that the activities of the Christian associations be included in the extramural programme: provision must be made for them. I fear that in practice this is quite often lacking.

So you feel …

The hon. member will have an opportunity to make a speech if he wants to. He might as well be quiet now. [Interjections.]

I want to go on to indicate how we wish to express the national character in practice. In the same way that we introduce the Christian character into the schools, we must introduce the national character so as to create a nationalistic atmosphere in the school. Here I do not refer to the NP but to the concept “nationalistic” in its broader context. By that I also mean that we should not preach party politics in the schools. However, we must at least make the child realize who he is. He must realize that he is a Christian Afrikaner, the descendant of an Afrikaner people. The youth preparedness period alone is insufficient to bring this about. Together with that period and all that is praiseworthy in it, it is necessary that we should honour our national symbols so that the school atmosphere may also radiate national pride. How are we to achieve this?

We shall achieve it by having the national anthem sung daily. This is done in Germany and many other countries. Why should we in the Republic of South Africa not also sing our national anthem with conviction. Before it is sung, the true symbolism of the national anthem must first be explained to the people. In addition to that the symbolism of the national emblems such as our motto, our coat of arms and our flag must be brought home to the child every year. We must allow the national pride to be expressed in the school atmosphere by hanging on our walls the photos of patriotic national leaders, both English and Afrikaans speaking, irrespective of the party to which they belong. We must display photographs of our leading churchmen, cultural leaders, artists, poets and sculptors. We must let them relive our history by means of the photographs of our heroes and heroines. We must plant indigenous South African trees and shrubs in our school grounds so that in this way, too, we can bring out our national pride. When we do these things we are not engaged in party politics or “verkramptheid”. We are showing the world that we are at least proud that we are what we are.

Furthermore, in our schools we must warn the youth against the “isms” threatening us, inter alia, internationalism, communism and liberalism. This must be done in the youth preparedness period, but also on every other conceivable occasion which presents itself. We must afford our children the opportunity to maintain their own identity in their schools, but also teach them to recognize the human dignity of other peoples and also not to begrudge them their nationalism. To this I have no objection.

As far as economic preparedness is concerned, I want to say that the scholar must be faced with the reality of the economic challenge during the youth preparedness period and also by means of talks given by the headmaster. It is of cardinal importance that the scholar be made aware of the personal contribution by the individual to his own economic welfare and also the economic welfare of the State through his own personal capital formation by means of productivity, balanced spending and thrift. It was with great appreciation that I took note of a group of people who call themselves the Persoonlike Geldbestuurvoorligtingskomitee, a group of representatives of major financial institutions who came together and, in co-operation with the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council, and with the approval of the Committee of Heads of Education, are engaged in drawing up a manual for teachers to be used for this purpose in schools during youth preparedness periods. I think this is an outstanding effort which is being made and I want to praise those responsible and express the hope that a financial contribution to this effort may at a later stage be made by the State as well.

I am convinced that the youth, the school-child of today, has a need for strong leaders and an example worth following, and not heart-stirring sermons. May it never happen that our children tell the teachers and us as parents that they cannot hear what we are saying because the example we have set has deafened their ears.

I want to conclude by quoting a very well-known motto which is to be found on the wall of many headmasters’ offices today and which will undoubtedly hang there in the future as well. It reads as follows—

May they, and we too, be capable of setting our youth this example.

Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion before the House of the hon. member for Virginia, as follows—

1. (1) take into consideration the needs of our diverse society;
2. (2) in its character and content strive towards a common unity by overcoming prejudice and fear and inculcating tolerance and courage; and
3. (3) be administered at all levels of government by one department for all races”.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member’s elucidation of his motion. There are many principles contained in it which I as an Afrikaner can endorse. I should like to see these principles being taught with certainty, enthusiasm and conviction and being inculcated in the youth in our schools. Although I am not indifferent or hostile towards a great part of the hon. member’s proposals and explanation, there is one aspect of his speech to which I have a very strong objection. If hon. members had listened as carefully as I to the speech of the hon. member they could come to no other conclusion but that he only has the interests of one group in the country at heart. He did refer to other groups in passing, but all the schemes and the content of the school education he proposed, are indeed aimed at a single group. This House is not concerned with one group only. This House makes laws and regulations for everyone in the country. It does not only make regulations for the 942 000 White scholars; it also makes rules, regulations and laws for the 3½ million Black scholars and for the 687 000 Coloured school-going children. When we have a general motion of this nature, as widely worded as it is here, and when we talk of nationalism, we talk of nationalism for everyone and do not concentrate only on our own people.

You understand nothing.

Some of our White children—that is the phrase the hon. member who moved the motion used …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

I am not prepared to answer any questions. Hon. members opposite have tried that tactic before. If this debate proceeds any further today and analyses in depth the insight and understanding of the whole problem, of education in our country too, I hope, we may eventually achieve clarity on where the NP line of thought breaks away from and takes a different course from that of this party. There is already evidence which I pointed out that one single nationalism aimed at the White children is being advocated, and one single religious conviction also aimed at a certain section of the population.

You are distorting.

In the process hon. members sitting opposite will draw the attention …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May that hon. member say that the hon. member is distorting?

Yes, he is distorting.

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must withdraw the word “distorting”.

Sir, I withdraw with reluctance.

We gave the hon. member for Virginia a decent hearing but what we have here is unmannerliness.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that. [Interjections.]

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Why are you so unmannerly?

Mr. Speaker, this is the whole basis of and difference between the philosophy …

Order! Did the hon. member repeat that those hon. members were unmannerly?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw that and refrain from saying it again.

I shall refrain from saying it, and I hope there will be decency.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. The party to which I have the honour of belonging … [Interjections.] has a completely different standpoint from this narrow view which became apparent this morning from the elucidation of the motion by the hon. member who moved it. We hold the view that it is our greatest task not to create, strengthen and accentuate dividing lines between people, but to blur those dividing lines, to make them fade away to such an extent that mutual and reciprocal enrichment of each other’s culture may occur. That is the most important task awaiting us in the years to come. We simply cannot cause the 3,5 million Black children to disappear from the schools by wishful thinking. [Interjections.] We can … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should please give the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Neither can we cause the 687 000 Coloured children to disappear from their schools by way of wishful thinking. They are going to be with us for all time in the future. We have to reach an understanding, on the cultural level as well—and that is in the school—and we have to reconcile ourselves with our otherness, with our differences and our respective cultural identities.

Hon. members opposite are very quick to accentuate the difference in identities, the diversity of our society, but when it gets down to brass tacks—this matter is a case in point—hon. members opposite are, in my humble opinion, too inclined to forget that we have so many different people in this country, that we have so many different cultural interests here and that the school is the place where not only mutual enrichment should take place, where not only differentiation should take place, but where reconciliation, too, should take place. We worded this principle so authoritatively: “The party guarantees all our people the right to maintain their respective religious, language and cultural heritage, as well as the right to develop those heritages, a process in which the school should naturally assist, provided it makes no inroads into the rights of others.” Live and let live. That is the principle.

We would, for instance, grant the Mohammedan inhabitants of our country the fullest right to continue and to maintain their kind of worship and divine service, as at present. Under no circumstances would we try to impose another kind of religion or faith on them by means of the Government, however indirectly. Part and parcel of our education policy is religious freedom, the recognition of group differences, freedom of movement and freedom of association. Language freedom is also intrinsic to our educational policy. We believe that all teaching, informal as well as formal, should be in the language with which the child is best acquainted, in the beginning at least. Therefore an acknowledgement of differences between groups is contained in that as well.

The cultured person should maintain and develop his heritage to the best of his ability. As something he received from his forefathers, it is certainly important to his spiritual growth. He should receive at school the encouragement and opportunities of which he has a real need. What this amounts to, therefore, is cultural freedom and an acknowledgment of the otherness or the differences between groups. In this way cultural differences are acknowledged and maintained at school but at the same time this recognition and this freedom are subject to conditions. The first condition is that the differences of the one group should not be maintained at the expense or to the disadvantage of the religious and cultural life of any other group. No reasonable person will object to this. It is quite self-evident.

Freedom, and freedom of movement, on one side should presuppose the same thing on the other side as a matter of course. Where the State uses taxpayers’ money to maintain this freedom for the school-going youth and to create the freedom of movement to allow those cultural assets to grow, the ideal should be to create equal opportunities for all cultural groups.

Unfortunately, this is an ideal which, as a result of various circumstances, is still nowhere in sight at the moment. That, however, is not the most important element. The most important condition is that the religious and cultural differences should be guided in a positive and not in a harmful direction by the content and the spirit of the school and of its teachers. If the child is taught at school that his own culture is advantageous to his development as a person, it is a positive and enriching process for him, and an asset to the group to which he belongs as well as an asset to the whole community. But if the mental attitude of the child is formed in such a way, or is formed as such at home and is not contradicted at school, that his culture makes him inclined to despise the cultural assets of other people, then the end-product will be a negative contribution to the community.

But who does that?

If the community is taught at school that there is a lot of truth in the saying “Unknown is unloved”, and he accepts the otherness of other people from the stronghold of his own culture …

Order! I have to draw the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 123 which provides that hon. members may not read their speeches.

Our party emphasizes healthy, understanding contact where respect for others goes hand in hand with respect and recognition of the value of one’s own national culture. Our formulation reads as follows: “All citizens should have the right to associate freely in an open society in which individuals or groups can determine their relations with each other themselves without being prescribed to by the Government.”

He is reading again!

That is a quotation I have just read. Special emphasis is placed on the Afrikaans language, the Afrikaner and his cultural interests, and quite rightly so, because he is one of the most important groups and elements in the composition of the South African state. The question arises, however—and it is a question touched on by the mover of this motion—whether the Afrikaner’s culture needs the protection of a political party at this stage.

But who said that?

The Government itself, in its approach to the many sidedness of our community, came to the conclusion that there was nothing strange about an English speaker, for instance, belonging to the NP. Therefore there is no objection either to someone who is Afrikaans speaking belonging to the Opposition, for instance. The hon. mover of the motion conceded that. That same spirit should be carried over and developed in school, because in this way we will get a unity of patriotism in South Africa, a unity of national pride in our nation—and I use the concept “nation” in the broad community sense—so that we are glad that everyone is here in South Africa, with all their diversity, and that everyone can contribute to the development of our mutual cultural life and, where necessary, will stand together to defend our fatherland.

Mr. Speaker, I have very great respect for the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I say this in view of the position which the hon. member occupied in his profession, but I must add that he is a very poor pedagogue, and perhaps a very poor politician too. The hon. member is accurately and beautifully interpreting the spirit of the world in which we live today, a spirit of horizontalism, of secularism, of existentialism and of all the “isms” one can think of. The hon. member wants to make everything equal and uniform as far as possible, i.e. for the total population of South Africa. He says the hon. member for Virginia, who has moved a fine motion in this House today, is interpreting the philosophy of the NP, which is only a one-way road. He says it deals only with the interests of one population group.

However, I want to tell him what the philosophy of the NP is. The philosophy of the NP revolves around one central idea, and this is that the NP recognizes the diversity within the unity of the creation. That makes all the difference. The person who does not have the Bible, religion, as a background, does not have any principles. A nation which does not know its history is not aware of its heritage and does not need to preserve that heritage either. Those people do not fight for what they have. At the same time, those people wish other people to have the same things that they claim for themselves. The intention of this motion is not to exclude or ignore other population groups. This motion calls for mental preparedness, and preparedness is also concerned with relations, of course, good relations, but each in his own field. I cannot be a man and a woman at the same time. No more can I belong to two nations at the same time.

You find it difficult to be a human being.

That is a charming thing to say!

Why say a thing like that?

However, I need not hate another nation for that reason. The fact remains that this motion is a fine one. It is a motion which we could discuss for weeks on end, for teaching and education lie at the root of nationhood. In speaking here of teaching and education, I speak of a balance between the teaching, i.e. the knowledge, and the education, i.e. the higher things. I am speaking of the education of man as a whole so that a balanced person may emerge. In the world in which we live today, with all the onslaughts which are made on his spirit and his soul, and all the challenges to his sound judgment and his decision-making, the demands made on teaching and education are becoming increasingly heavy and more and more priority ought to be given to these. Francis W. Parker said—

Character includes a great many things, of course. It is also concerned with the things that are characteristic of a certain group. Furthermore, it takes account of other people who do not have the same orientation as you have.

Because this is such a fine motion, because it is such a wide motion, because it is a motion which has a bearing on our entire nationhood and which asks us to reflect on it, I should like, before coming to the aspect I should like to discuss, i.e. economic preparedness, to request the Minister today to arrange an education year. In fact, I want to plead for this and I do so in all earnest. I do so for various reasons. In the past, the parent, the school and the church used to be educational institutions, but in the times in which we live today, it is no longer the task of the parent, the school and the church only, but it has become the task of the community, of society as a whole. Society is therefore the fourth partner in this educational task, and in order to involve that fourth partner and to achieve better co-ordination between parental home, school and church, I want to advocate that we should have an education year. This motion is so important that I almost want to say we could talk about this motion and nothing else for a whole year. Therefore we must involve the nation as a whole. It must be a national attempt to instruct and prepare our young people, and not only to prepare them, but to give them mental and economic readiness, for there is really a difference: To be prepared means to be able to defend, but to be ready means to be able to take the initiative, and initiative is what we need in the times we live in.

The content of our whole educational system will have to be subjected to a fresh scrutiny. The purpose of teaching and education, too, will have to be carefully examined. We shall have to examine not only the objectives, but the transmission itself, for as the hon. member for Virginia said, the time in which things have to be done is extremely short.

There is another problem which I have, and that is that theory and practice are too far apart, that the connection between theory and practice which I should like to see is lacking—I may come back to this later. Somewhere along the road, education is lost. When we look at schools and school-grounds, we see discipline and self-discipline there. We see that those grounds are beautifully neat, but when we emerge into the outside world, we see those characteristics disappearing. Among adults they have disappeared. We go camping in nature to admire scenic beauty and to enjoy it. But then it is polluted with beer cans and so forth. Then people must come to clean up. Somewhere along the way, something in connection with education is lost. That is why I say that education has to be a task for society as well and not only a task for the three institutions. There must be continuity in education. This is another matter which could be examined during an education year.

I want to express my thanks to the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumers’ Board and to various financial institutions which have co-operated to give joint instruction in connection with the personal spending of money. I must also take this opportunity of expressing appreciation to the Committee of Educational Heads, of which the Secretary for National Education is the chairman. The reaction of this committee is encouraging and the reaction of the provinces is also encouraging. If we have to look at economic preparedness— let me rather call it economic readiness—we must also look at thrift. We shall have to concentrate more in education on the promotion of thrift as a part of the programme for preparedness. Our nation can save much more. When one looks at people’s lifestyle, it is clear what a high standard of living they maintain. It is also clear that people buy wrong and unnecessary things in our country in particular. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest truths I have learned in my life I got from a teacher—I think I was in standard IV. He always said: “Children, never see what you can do with in your life one day; rather see what you can do without.” That does not mean that I am advocating stinginess, but I mean that we should look only at what is essential. People, and especially children, must be taught how to buy. They must be taught to compare various products and to compare the prices of those products. By comparing products and quality, one is promoting productivity and at the same time one is promoting the quality of the products that are manufactured.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the question of waste. It is said that the lights in many great buildings have to bum all night because more electricity would be used if the lights were switched on and off. I do not know whether one can accept such an argument. There are buildings, after all, where switching the lights on and off will not consume so much extra electricity that they should not be switched off. Unnecessary electricity is being consumed.

The fact remains that we shall have to subject our whole educational system to a thorough scrutiny, and for that reason I shall conclude by repeating my plea for an education year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hercules said some things with which I can agree. I refer in this connection to his remarks about thrift and the fact that there should be no wastefulness. He also said that it was a fine motion. Well, it might have been a fine motion if it were not for the fact that certain things have been said from which the hon. the Minister of National Education will, in my opinion, have to dissociate himself before we reach the end of the debate. I shall come back to this later.

We are engaged in a discussion which deals primarily with what should be the fundamental objectives in education. When one has a discussion in South Africa about fundamental objectives, one must take into consideration various aspects of society. It is a fact that in all countries there are people and organizations—sometimes the State also has a part in this—who want to reach objectives through education which have nothing at all to do with educational objectives, but which are in fact simply political objectives. Under the cloak of education other objectives are pursued, and to my regret I have to admit that such objectives are usually sectional. Traditionally it may be an attack from left to right or from right to left.

When one wants to determine educational objectives, one must keep in mind that in South Africa there is a powerful organization which is in fact a secret organization. It is generally known as the Broederbond. [Interjections.] I mention it specifically. [Interjections.] I am not going to argue about the Broederbond as such, because I am a layman as far as that is concerned. There are, however, enough hon. members on the other side—perhaps there are some of them in the Opposition benches as well—who can tell us more about that. I merely raise this matter because … [Interjections.]

Order! The brothers must now keep quiet! [Interjections.]

When the brothers, all 168 of them, have finished, I shall continue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of information: Should that brother not keep quiet as well? [Interjections.]

I raise this matter in the light of the recent disclosures in the Sunday Times. We are told that the largest percentage of the members of the organization are educationists—20,36%or 2 494 out of a total of 11 910 members. We know, too, that the brothers are requested, inter alia, to apply for appointment to posts such as educational director and head of department. I quote further from the Sunday Times of 15 January, 1978—

The hon. member for Virginia said that only a person with a Christian and national orientation may teach. Does the hon. the Minister agree with that? What about the Jews who teach? There are still other examples I could refer to. The report in the Sunday Times, however, mentions “certain attitudes and attributes”.

†It points out that the new post will control the following functions in every school’s programme—

The matters which are mentioned in this report are also included in the motion and we have heard quite a lot about them today. This is the only reason why I have quoted the report. When a secret organization shows such intense interest in education and singles out those activities which could lead to the inculcation of specific attitudes, its intention is quite clear, viz. to achieve sectional aims and objectives through the manipulation of the young people at school. Under these circumstances it is perhaps more urgent and necessary in South Africa to have clear, pure and concise educational aims and objectives. This is why we, as politicians, are here in the House. We as politicians must assist educationalists who do not wish education to be manipulated by a small, but powerful, section, whether it is a right-wing or left-wing section. For this reason I want to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) should have a broad national character which acknowledges the sovereign power of God, with due regard to the religious convictions of parents, pupils and teachers;
2. (2) should be free from any party-political bias; and
3. (3) should aim at the development of social competence among the youth of the country.”.

Mr. Speaker, you will notice that we use the phrase “broad national character”. I find it rather strange that the hon. member for Virginia today only used the phrase “national character” when in the National Education Policy Act, Act 39 of 1967, the phrase “broad national character” is used. Whereto are we moving now? I used the phrase “broad national character” because we in the NRP are always very conscious of the fact that South Africa has a plural society and therefore, if we speak of the character of education, we must out of necessity refer to it as “a broad national character”.

We want our schools to have a religious basis, especially in the particular day and age in which we live. That is the reason why I refer to this aspect, in particular, in my amendment. However, we must consider the other sections of our plural society as well. There is no argument that the White community will always have, naturally and out of its own free will, a more or less Christian character, but there are other sections of the South African population; hence our specific wording. While the motion before the House does not refer to the position of the teachers, we want to safeguard their position in particular, and for that reason we mention in the amendment that due regard should also be had to their position and religious views.

I want to come to the other aspect, i.e. the need for a clear educational aim as such. The specific aim to which this party is dedicated is the development through education of social competence among the young people of South Africa. Let me add that I am not only referring to people who happen to be Christians or people who happen to be Whites, but to all the young people and the whole population of South Africa.

*The idea that is at issue here is the “broad national character”. We in this party want to achieve social competence. We want to try, by way of education, to prepare young people to take their places in the community as people who are socially competent. I believe the aims we are pursuing here are educationally meaningful and significant. The concept “socially competent” is an inclusive concept. It suggests the development of the person as a whole, something which is absolutely essential in today’s circumstances. Someone who is socially competent will be able to resist that which the hon. members for Virginia and Hercules fear. Such a person will be able to resist anyone who tries to influence him to do things which are against his wishes. To create a reasonable being, school education must be aimed at enabling people to take their places in the community. Whether it is in the social or the spiritual sphere, one will find that the socially competent person will in fact be prepared. One of the reasons for this is that such a person will not be an indoctrinated person. I do not believe that the objective of education should be, as the hon. member for Virginia said, to indoctrinate young people. One cannot make a leader out of every pupil. What can be done, however, is to lay a solid foundation to ensure that every pupil can find happiness in society, not only as an individual, but also as a part of society. That is the biggest educational task that awaits us.

The preservation, the realization and the continued development of an individuality of his own is the characteristic of the socially competent person. A person who has, at one time or another, fallen a victim to brainwashing or who has been indoctrinated, loses his individuality for ever. That is why I say that the hon. member for Virginia cannot say, as an educationist, that one’s aim should be to indoctrinate people, because then one does not act according to one’s beliefs as an individual or as a person who is fit to make a socially competent judgment, but merely as someone who is being manipulated by certain sections. That is what we have to prevent. Once such a person has been manipulated and indoctrinated, he loses his ability to make a sound judgment and then he is incompetent in society.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I shall reply to a question in a little while.

Order! The hon. member does not want to reply to a question.

He is scared.

We must prevent that at all costs.

Order! The hon. member for Bellville must withdraw the words “He is scared”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Someone who leaves school with biased emotions and obsessions can and will never be socially competent. For that reason we in the NRP try instead to direct the attention to purely educational aims in order to ensure that our young people will never become the prey of sectional organizations. On the other hand we do it to ensure that they will be able to satisfy the demands of modern society. They must be able, as I have said, to resist attacks from the left as well as from the right, and to live in happiness and peace in this complex society in South Africa. If they are unable to do that, because they have formed certain opinions at some stage, they are socially incompetent in our society and we are creating for ourselves not only economic problems, but social and political problems as well. Therefore we, as politicians, must encourage educationists to concentrate on purely educational objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I want to say right at the very beginning that one is grateful to the hon. member for Virginia for introducing a motion that deals with education, because when one knows the educational policy of a party, then one knows the object of that party for the future. When one discusses education in this House, the incredible gap that exists between that side of the House and this side of the House becomes quite clear. I want to illustrate that in two ways right away. In the first instance I want to say that from the motion moved by the hon. member for Virginia it is quite clear that there is no reference whatsoever to race. One would imagine, therefore, that the hon. the Minister of Education and Training would be in the House when we are discussing the education of the total youth of our country. Or are we only talking about one section? One wonders where the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs are today. Why is it that it is only the hon. the Minister of National Education who is going to respond to this debate? It is not his responsibility alone. It is the responsibility of the total community. We are talking about all the young people in South Africa. As soon as we isolate one group from the other, we are sowing the seeds of our own downfall. That is the big difference between that side of the House and this side. When we talk about education, we talk about education, and not White education or Black education.

The second point I want to illustrate this— and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban Central—is that indoctrination is a very, very dangerous concept. The hon. member for Virginia made it even more dangerous by coupling it with communist Russia. He says the communists in Russia deliberately use this method and asks why we in South Africa should not follow their method, even though the content would be quite different. How on earth can we talk in this fashion? Any educationist, anyone who has done any study or training at all in this field, knows that to manipulate a child or an adult, no matter how good our intent may be, is to fly in the face of education itself. Therefore I say it is a scandalous thing to suggest in this House that we should use this particular method. I say to that hon. member that the Government must stop looking to Russia for its methods in South Africa. That is what we must do.

When we talk about education, I believe we must consider both the goals of education and the environment in which we find ourselves, where the education actually takes place. I think an attempt was made by the mover and then by the subsequent speaker to the motion to distinguish between, on the one hand, the content and, on the other hand, the specific situation in which we find ourselves. I want to do the same, but I think my approach will be very different. Because actions speak louder than words, we must be aware that education to be true education must have a disturbing and a disruptive quality. I say to the hon. the Minister of National Education that it is not a question of that it might have, but it must have, a disturbing and disruptive quality if it is going to be true education at all. A famous educationist, the Frenchman Jean Piaget, put it this way—

That is not the approach of the hon. member for Virginia. He wants to impose a certain bloc of tradition and information upon all the children of South Africa. When one thinks of the great teachers, e.g. of Socrates, and when one thinks specifically of the great teacher Jesus of Nazareth, one is reminded that education is not a series of platitudes, not merely the transmission of a body of information, but something decidedly uncomfortable. The same Frenchman speaking about the primary goals of education said—

I think this is the element which we find totally missing in the motion of the hon. member for Virginia, and in his speech as well. There is no tackling of the new and of the exciting, and the need for innovation which is so desperately required in the South African context today. If we take that as some sort of background as to goals of education and look now at the context in which we find ourselves, I want to refer to several factors quite briefly.

Firstly, if one is going to have to consider the context in which education takes place, one must realize afresh that the world is now what is being termed a global village. This was brought home to us with force when the astronauts landed on the moon and looked upon the earth as we know it, and it looked to them like a small coloured marble. We are all in that village together, whether we like it or not. It was not very long ago that children of this nation in South Africa travelled across the flat lands and the mountains of South Africa by ox-wagon. Now we know that we fly over it in a boeing.

So what?

I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member for Kempton Park will then understand. It was not very long ago that our children sat around the fireside listening to the stories and the traditions of the past.

Now they sit round the television!

That is correct. Now they sit around the television watching programmes bouncing off satellites. The point I am making to those dull hon. pupils over there, is that because of this shrinking of the world any education must be aware that there will be other factors filtering into the minds and the hearts of young people from outside. One cannot expect to confine them to the classroom. [Interjections.]

Tell me who expects that?

If the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had only listened to the hon. member … I do not blame him for not listening to him. The hon. the Minister is fortunate he missed the speech of the hon. member for Virginia. The hon. member said nothing about this at all, as though we could carry on in the same old way injecting people and expect a transmission of knowledge to safeguard them from all the perils outside. [Interjections.] Now, that is the whole context within which we find ourselves. [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly, there is the incredible growth of technological power which offers greater freedom to man, but which also gives him more choices. Therefore the young people of today and the future adults of tomorrow are going to be confronted with many more difficult choices than ever we have been faced with until now. We must ask ourselves the question as to the kind of preparation that is required, the kind of teaching, the kind of approach that is required in order to give them the grounding which will enable them to make their decisions.

Some of the other factors which we have to keep in mind are these. In the next generation the population of South Africa will grow from 22 million to 81 million people. That is by the year 2020.

They are going to need jobs, training and adaptability, and it is clear that by the year 2020 we are going to be living in a world which is going to be very different from the world which we know today. However, the kind of people who are in our schools today are going to have to cope with that kind of world, and not only with the kind of world in which we find ourselves. Children who are growing up today are spending 1 000 hours a year in a classroom under an educational system where they are being prepared for a society in which they are going to live as adults. However, it is going to be a very, very different society from the one in which they find themselves today. How will they look upon South Africa when there are more than 60 million Blacks, more than 9 million Coloureds and Indians, and the same number of Whites? There is also something else we must bear in mind. I presuppose, unlike the mover of the motion, that we are talking about the preparation and the education and the development of all the children. We must therefore also ask this question: How will the Black adults of tomorrow look upon the 9 million Whites of tomorrow? How will the Coloureds or the Indians look upon the Whites? That is the kind of future that awaits us. It is the kind of development and training which takes place in our schools and the universities of today which will determine what our future is going to look like realistically.

The third factor is the process of urbanization. In 1904—and I quote from figures given by Prof. Sadie—53% of White South Africans lived in the cities. By 1970 this figure had risen to 87%. As far as Africans are concerned, in 1904 the proportion of urbanization was a mere 10%. In 1970 it was 33%, and up to the present time this figure has wellnigh doubled. This is an irreversible phenomenon which is inextricably tied up with the economic growth, and this is one of the points which I had hoped would be referred to by the mover of this motion. The process of urbanization is going to continue. The cities are going to be bigger and they are also going to become Blacker in the sense that there is going to be a much higher proportion of African people living in them. [Interjections.] There is a question which we have to ask ourselves in all seriousness in this connection. One would have hoped that this debate would have been educational in character, so that even the hon. member for Mossel Bay would at last learn something instead of just keeping his mouth open continuously. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that I ask too much and that I am far too optimistic. I realize this, and I have learnt the error of my ways. But, to be serious, if my facts and description of the future are true, then the question arises as to whether the children of today and the adults of tomorrow will approach the problems that I have outlined in a human sense, girded by a faith, or whether they will approach the question as a racial problem from which they must run away. That is the distinction. [Interjections.] That, I think, is the fundamental question which we have to ask ourselves.

The fourth factor is income distribution. In 1970-’71 Whites, making up 18% of the population, were responsible for 74% of private consumption expenditure. Africans, on the other hand, constituting 70% of the population, spent only 19% of private consumption expenditure. There are individual exceptions, of course, and they are growing more, thank goodness. The fact of the matter, however, when we talk about wealth and poverty, is that we are talking in terms of White and Black. That is another think that the young people of today, the adults of tomorrow, are going to have to realize and cope with. In our education policy we have to help these young people to face that kind of future and overcome it, so that instead of being afraid of diversity they will in fact be able to celebrate diversity.

Your halo is pressing tightly on your brow.

You know nothing about the subject. [Interjections.] In terms of language, there are approximately 4 million people speaking Zulu, 4 million, both White and Brown, speaking Afrikaans, 4 million speaking Xhosa, some 1½million speaking English as a home language, and the same number speaking Sotho and the same number speaking Tswana. In an educational policy, as we prepare for the future, we therefore have to ask how we so educate people and so give them an opportunity to be made whole that they can cope with that kind of diversity as well, and not try to smash it down or be afraid of it. They must be able to live in it and to celebrate it.

Finally, I want to take note of the basic statistics relating to education. In the past generation there has been a very big increase in the number of Africans at school. In 1935 only 5% of the Black population was enrolled. In 1955 that proportion had doubled to 10%, and over the last 20 years it has doubled again to reach 20% by 1974. So, too, in recent years in particular, there has been a substantial increase in the expenditure on Black education, but no one would want to deny that in terms of expenditure per pupil the figures for Black children are woefully inadequate when compared with the figures for White children. Very few would argue with the fact that there is a vast difference in the quality of education for White and Black children. Here one obviously thinks of the teacher-to-pupil ratios, double sessions, poorly trained teachers, inadequate facilities and, above all, the drop-out rate. For every 100 Blacks entering school, only two complete their schooling. In 1970, in the population older than 16, 35% of the Whites had matric but only 0,5% of the Africans had matric. The question then, on the broad front, is: Are we preparing ourselves adequately for the future which is coming nearer all the time?

What are the reasons for the fear, suspicion and racial intolerance which is practised in this country? The reason is that we live in a country in which we are isolated from each other. I believe that to be really and truly educated, we must find the opportunities for young people to overcome this isolation. As long as we are apart, the disunity and discord will continue. We have to help teachers in this country realize that they are not merely transmitters of the past, important though this is, but also preparers for the future. This is what education is all about, and this is why I say to the hon. the Minister of National Education: Let us for once accept that education is an enormous, exciting task, but let us also accept that he should take it as his responsibility for the entire South Africa and not split it up into Black and White any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my learned colleague and friend, the hon. member for Virginia, for having asked me to share with him in this motion which he has introduced. I also want to say, for the information of the House, that all three members of the NP who are going to speak on this motion are former teachers. The hon. member for Virginia was a school principal for many years and the hon. member for Hercules was a vice-principal of a school. For that reason I am glad that we can have three teachers speaking on our side. I also want to say, for the information of the House, that the hon. member for Hercules is the chairman of our study group on national education, that the hon. member for Virginia is the chairman of the study group on education and training and that I myself am the chairman of the study group on Indian affairs, as well as a member of the study group on Coloured affairs. Although we are probably not the best that our side of the House could produce, I nevertheless think that all three of us are quite competent to discuss the education of the various nations of Southern Africa with a certain measure of insight and knowledge.

This is a special occasion this morning, for each one of the parties in this House is getting an opportunity to restate its policy in respect of education in South Africa, to revalue it or—as in the case of the NP—to reaffirm certain principles of its policy. I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for his consideration in having sent me a copy of the amendment which he has moved.

I can tell the hon. member that I think we have a great deal in common—I hope I am not harming his image by saying that—in respect of the amendment which he has moved. However, I think that the motion before the House is better. Nevertheless, I appreciate it.

Since its inception, the NP has placed a very high premium on the education of the children of our people and of the children of the peoples of Southern Africa. The parents and the authorities have been very closely involved in this and have kept a close watch on the interests and labours of the teachers, showing great appreciation for them. Because the NP was the political instrument which helped to stabilize and preserve a particular nation and its ideals, it has naturally been careful to ensure, too, that no other facets of its way of life was neglected. In other words, it is a part of the political facet of the pattern of life to preserve all the other facets of this pattern of life. Over the years, we have guarded against the educational facet of the pattern of life being invaded by elements which will destroy the political and educational sovereignty, thereby exposing or making vulnerable a flank of the political facet of the pattern of life. A nation’s struggle for survival is a perpetual struggle which is carried on in respect of all facets and on all levels of the nation’s pattern of life. The person who denies this is either ignorant or foolish, or he does not care about an orderly survival.

When one says “teaching” and “education”, one must also say “philosophy” and “view of life”, as well as “conduct in life” and “lifestyle”. I believe that few people have formulated these things better than Prof. H. G. Stoker—and I quote him—

Modern man, with all his books, all his knowledge and all his creations, has to a large extent neglected this essentially human quality. The person who wants to discuss teaching and education and who wants to make a contribution must also say “philosophy” and “view of life”. Educational principles, policy and methods, as well as educational ideals, must be well-founded— only then can they be meaningful and only then can they have a beneficial influence within the community which is being served. What, then, are teaching and education?

Who wrote that speech for you?

I want to quote what was said by Prof. J. Chris Coetzee—I think the hon. member for Durban Central will remember him. He said the following—

Some, like the hon. member for Pinelands, still seem to be a little helpless—

Therefore education is an activity of the parents or the adults by means of which the child or the adult is trained to maturity. It is an activity which presupposes at least two persons, a mature one and an immature one, an adult and a child. It is an activity which has a specific purpose, namely training to maturity. It is an activity which has a specific premise, namely the immaturity and the helplessness of the child. It also has a specific purpose, namely to be trained, adult and mature. Education is therefore a systematic, purposeful activity. Education is infinitely more than just the transmission of certain factual information and knowledge. Education not only needs a basis from which purposeful work can be undertaken, but is also intertwined with the whole human existence. It is true that the direct involvement is to be found on the part of the parent, the child, the teacher, the church and the authorities, but society as a whole not only benefits from education and teaching, but is equally involved in it.

The NP is reaffirming its standpoint in respect of two matters in educational policy this afternoon. The one is that it has to have a Christian character, with due regard to the religious convictions of the parents and the pupils. Secondly, education must also have a national character. The hon. member for Durban Central objected to the fact that we had not referred to a broad character. All the word “broad” means in the Act is “all-inclusive”. I do not think we are excluding the intention of the Act today; in fact, we do not want to narrow the definition. If the hon. member would like, I shall also speak of “a broad national character”. I am aware of the criticisms which have been made by the anti-Christian and non-Christian thinkers over the centuries. I am aware of the history of dogma and I am aware, too, of the history of Christianity and of the Church. As a believer in the Christian faith, I am just as conscious of the mistakes which have been made by leaders and thinkers in the course of the history of Christianity. In spite of this, I cannot imagine, with my knowledge of the modern world, that man wants to banish God from the dimension of time and space in which he lives, making man the central point around which everything revolves. I am not an apologist for the Christian religion. In fact, I try to promote it. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to our Great Teacher, Jesus Christ. The principles and truths enunciated by Christ are immutable. For this reason, when looking back into the past, one should not discard something merely because that standpoint or doctrine is a thousand or two thousand years old. That is my problem with hon. members like the hon. member for Pinelands. They want to discard everything which happened yesterday. However, it is not as simple as that.

I said I did not want to live in the past.

Prof. Rautenbach, a well-known philosopher and theologist, said a few years ago, when we were dealing with the national education legislation—

He goes on to say—

In our educational history there was a desire, even before the passing of the present Education Act, to have the word “Christian” written into our educational policy. I want to adopt this standpoint this afternoon and I want to discuss it, especially with regard to the Opposition. The Opposition often gives the impression—I do not know whether it is deliberate or not—that the English-speaking people in South Africa are not at all keen to have the Christian religion as a basis. I now want to read to the House what happened in those years. I am not alleging that the Opposition is doing this, but they, as well as the English Opposition newspapers, create the impression that the English-speaking people in South Africa do not set much store by a Christian educational system or an educational system based on the Christian faith.

I have a quotation here of what Winston Churchill had to say about the subject, but I shall leave the matter at that. I should like to read to the House what was said by the English-language churches a number of years ago. I am quoting from the collected writings of Prof. Rautenbach—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinelands was a member of this organization at that time or whether he was still attached to Wilgespruit—

In this document, the following was said—

1. (a) voorop word die geloof in God in sy openbaring in die wedervaardighede en heilsgeskiedenis van Israel met spits in die voile en finale openbaring in Jesus Christus as eerste brandpunt-fokus vir Christelike onderwys geplaas.
2. (b) deur die Heilige Gees en deur die Kerk word daardie heilsverkondiging oral aan alle mense uitgedra.
3. (c) die supplementêre brandpunt in die Christelike sig op die onderwys word bevind in die siening oor die mens, ook weer aan die hand van die openbaring in Jesus Christus wat menswees is en behoort te wees, word ontdek aan Christus.
4. (d) geloofsoortuiging, karakter en gesindheid van die onderwyser moet swaar beklemtoon word en menslikheid en medemenslikheid moet benadruk word in Christelike onderwysverband.

I am quoting these things because the Opposition and the various newspapers create the impression that English-speaking South Africans do not attach great importance to the basic principles to be instilled into their children. I want to state very categorically that we cannot ignore these.

We want to emphasise once again that our education must have a national character in addition to the Christian qualities we insist upon. As far as the national character is concerned, I want to bring the following matter to the attention of the House: Knowledge is required to give a national character to education. We are living in a world in which people speak a great deal about knowledge, but certain basic aspects of knowledge must be emphasized. One of these is knowledge of a philosophy of life. I do not want to turn this into a political speech, but I do want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that what struck me in his approach today, and this applies to the hon. member for Pinelands as well—I understand that the hon. member for Rondebosch will also speak—is that they have not told us what the philosophy of the PFP is.

They do not have one.

Only when we know that will we be able to conduct a meaningful debate on education in the future. What is also important in this connection is a knowledge of history. Hon. members may think that I am obsessed with the past because I just live in the past. However, I cannot find any sense in my own existence if I do not have the necessary historical depth. It is essential that we should have historical depth in our schools as well, for only when one has historical depth can one understand one’s own pattern of life, the values and the norms of the pattern within which one lives. Only when one knows one’s history does one know one’s shortcomings as well as one’s enemies. Only when one knows history does one know the value of symbols such as one’s flag, one’s national anthem, one’s national festivals and one’s ideals. The hon. member for Pinelands—I am not referring to the Afrikaans-speaking members of that party, for I see them in another light— can only have a really meaningful conversation with me when he has laid down certain basic truths and set out his true ideals. We are a variety of people today and the hon. member will concede that.

However, he never says what place is occupied by my language, culture and ideals. The hon. member keeps asking for the Black people, the Brown people and the Indians to be included. What party in South Africa has wanted to deal with the population problem over the years? The NP is a thousand times more eager to find a solution to the population problems in South Africa than the hon. member. I want to preserve and protect the things that are important to me, and that is why we are eager to solve these problems. The hon. the Minister and my hon. colleagues are struggling every moment of the day with the problems in respect of the Brown people, the Indians and the various Black population groups. However, the hon. member always involves the Black people in a debate about our mutual affairs. The hon. member does not do that to improve us or to help the Black people.

The motion does not refer to Black or White.

I want to conclude my speech by saying that we want to plead for patriotism. The hon. members may ask the hon. the Minister of Defence about this. If ever there was a time in our history when we wanted to have this kind of thing, such as patriotism, instilled into our children, this is the time. What we want now is discipline and young people who make the most of their talents. We want to have and to educate people who render a service, not only to themselves, but to all the communities.

For this reason I wholeheartedly support the motion of my hon. friend and I want to say to the PFP that when we come to the debates on Coloured affairs, teaching and education and the Vote of the hon. the Minister of National Education, which will come up for discussion later this session, we shall subject the educational system which they advocate and their educational policy to the closest scrutiny. I want to warn the hon. member for Johannesburg North to stay out of these debates, because he is going to get hurt.

Mr. Speaker, the whole subject of religion in education is obviously a highly emotional subject, but at the same time I should like to say that we in these benches welcome the fact that the hon. member for Virginia has seen fit to bring the motion before the House because this enables us to get to grips with the problem. I think, particularly, of his concern that what he is advocating here is the preparedness of the youth of South Africa to face the future. Education is part of the broad fabric of life in South Africa. It is one of those institutions which mankind has put together in order to ensure that, firstly, his society and, secondly, his values in that society will survive despite the onslaught from the outside world.

There were a number of hon. members, but particularly the hon. member for Virginia, who told us about the dangers of the -isms and how these were going to undermine our basic Christian values in South Africa. [Interjections.] However, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that he go along and have discussions with certain other members of his party, namely the sociologists, like the hon. member for Bellville who is not here at the moment, and the political scientists, like the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, before he comes to the House to tell us that he is bringing forward a plan of action to save the youth of South Africa and all South Africans from the horrors of the future, and at the same time advocate a technique, namely indoctrination, which is retrogressive. We could expect this from people who are scared of the future. [Interjections.] I do not know if the hon. member is scared for himself or for the youth, but I should like to tell him that the youth of today are probably better prepared for the future than he and I were when we were at school. [Interjections.] I am scared of people who are in educational posts and who are advocating antiquated systems, systems which are indeed indoctrination. Now all of a sudden the means justify the end. However, I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Virginia that he ought to have a discussion with the sociologists in his party, because they will tell him that the world is moving forward; it is not standing still. They will tell him that the demands on the youth of today and the adults … [Interjections.] It is a matter of relativity: If the NP is not moving forward, we are. [Interjections.] If they have not discovered that the world is moving … [Interjections.] I am sure that the hon. member for Bellville will during the lunch interval enlighten the hon. member for Virginia as to what is happening to society today.

Historical facts will prove to the hon. member for Virginia that the requirements of the youth of today and tomorrow are flexibility and adaptability, not entrenchment, “verkramptheid” or solidarity. If the world is changing, how can people who stand still adapt to it and survive? The hon. member for Virginia is advocating that we must indoctrinate people with values which have been established 30 years ago—and I am not referring to Christianity. [Interjections.] I am talking about education and values such as “buigbaarheid” and “aanpasbaarheid”. [Interjections.] I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Virginia that he takes note of the fact that we have to keep up with technology and technological developments in the world. The world is shrinking. The hon. member for Pinelands has told us that we are now living in a global village. If we expect the youth of today to adapt to that, we must exercise the option and say whether we are going to keep up with the technological advancement in the world or whether we are going to stop the world and get off. That is the choice we face today. If we agree that we want to keep pace with the world and we still want to retain our values and our social system, the last thing we in this country require is indoctrination. The thought is father to the deed. Indoctrination—when the word slipped out of the hon. member’s mouth one could see that he was very experienced and practised in the use of it—is the tip of the iceberg, what other things lie underneath it? The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the omission of the word “broad” in the hon. member’s motion as compared with the Act, which uses the term “broad nationalism”. Why was that word omitted and what has the hon. member in mind? Does he want to stop the world and get off? [Interjections.] Hon. members are as perturbed as I am about this. If the hon. member for Virginia speaks to some of his more enlightened colleagues he will find that society has moved and is moving away from a very basic, traditional and tribal system in which the freedom of the individual is severely limited. I can take a typical tribal Zulu society of 20 or 30 years ago as an example. In that society the freedom and the choice of the individual was extremely limited. A person in that society could not decide for himself what job he wanted, how he would practise religion and what his station in life should be. In that situation one uses indoctrination and fear to make sure that the man conforms to that “kragdadigheid” and to the values enforced upon him.

Then we entered the age of technology, the introduction of the machine and the industrial revolution, with the result that the ideas of mankind had to change. The people who did not become extinct like the dinosaur were able to adapt and to recognize what the world was all about. They adapted themselves and they did not remain dinosaurs, but changed into another form without sacrificing the values of life. I want to tell the hon. member for Virginia that his problem is that he has the right idea but the wrong priorities. The reason for this is that he wants to use antiquated techniques to ensure a future which he cannot match up with existing standards.

After the industrial revolution we came to the world of high technology, typified by America. In this world the mass media are playing a tremendously important role in determining the values of society. We must prevent the youth from being led away from the true values of life. We must have flexibility and social competence as the guarantee that in future they and these values will survive.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me very great pleasure to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central this morning. I wish to tell hon. members, especially the hon. member for Virginia, that we in this party are just as anxious to maintain and promote the values and the pattern of life in South Africa. What should, however, be realized, is that the world is changing. If we can preserve those values, the pattern of life which is so dear to us, we must realize that we should not go back to a practice which was perhaps relevant in the old days, but which can only bring about a fragmentation of, a departing from the educational function of the schools at the moment.

We are concerned about those values and for the very reason that these matters are very dear to us, we should like to ask hon. members to think with their heads and not their hearts when we consider matters here this afternoon in the light of the motion and the amendment. I think hon. members will be surprised to know how many members of the White and of the non-White population in South Africa, powerfully support those values which those hon. members supported here this morning. If we abuse the education function, which has a very specific function in one’s way of life, and use it for indoctrination, we shall find that two results will flow from that. The one is that when one imposes thoughts, ideas and principles on people to whom they are not suited or which they do not wish to support, we shall find that the preparedness which we should like to develop in the children, is developed artificially and cannot prepare them to resist the factors which seek to deflect the children, the youth and even the adults of South Africa from their course. That is why it is necessary for us to move a wide amendment. We do not wish to cause an alienation of our values or lifestyle in South Africa, but we should like to have an association with and a truly spontaneous support for those values.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very important debate in this House today. I rise in all modesty to make just one contribution as Minister of National Education in this connection. I am saying “in all modesty” because one feels very incompetent when one considers what exactly is involved when one speaks on a motion such as this.

In the first place I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Virginia and also to thank him sincerely for a brilliant proposal and an excellent speech which he has made here. I also want to express the wish that it may elicit wide response throughout South Africa. Let me say right at the outset, in order that there might be no misunderstanding about that, that the motion by the hon. member for Virginia accords with Government policy as provided by law, as I shall shortly try to indicate to hon. members. In the second place I wish to thank the hon. member for Hercules, the chairman of the NP’s group on educational matters, for the characteristic contribution he made in this connection. I have great appreciation for that. In connection with the question which the hon. member has put to me, namely whether the time has not come for us to have an education year, I want to tell the hon. member quite frankly that we have had so many “years” of different sorts, that I cannot support the idea of an education year, but that we should rather devote attention to an alternative which will have to be more original and more relevant to the specific need which the hon. member has sketched. In that connection I fully agree with the hon. member that we should exchange thoughts, within the group and elsewhere, in order to give effect to the basic idea which the hon. member wanted to put across, but perhaps just in another and more original manner than to have another “year”—in this case, an education year. We shall therefore devote the necessary attention to that.

To the hon. member for Rissik I should like to say that in his characteristic manner to which we have become accustomed, he has again today made a forceful contribution, a contribution which is also appreciated by the hon. members of the Opposition. Time and again the hon. member for Rissik succeeds in dragging even the hon. members of the Opposition into a line of thought—and they think only with difficulty—which compels them to think for once about the basic things which are after all relevant in this epoch in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is a fact that our ancestors attached great importance to the education of their children. When I talk about ancestors, I mean the ancestors of all of us— the Voortrekkers, the 1820 Settlers and all the others. Hon. members on the opposite side would do well to give that careful thought. Our ancestors attached much importance to the education of their children, and gradually, as they settled on the outposts and obtained a roof over their heads, they also very successfully created educational facilities for their children.

It is against this background that I address myself to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. When that hon. member rises and speaks the way he has spoken here today, he really shakes one. Hon. members of the Opposition talk about indoctrination, just as if indoctrination were wrong. But on the other hand their deeds and actions, and especially the specific action of the hon. member for Johannesburg North here today, is attests as clearly as possible to the grossest and crudest indoctrination I have ever seen in South Africa. It is the indoctrination of a super-ficialized Western world which wants to make everything equal, an indoctrination of which the hon. member, after only a few months in the ranks of the PFP, has so much become a part that he is no longer even able to converse meaningfully when the subject is the most important thing in the continued existence of our nation, namely the education of our children. [Interjections.] Then, believe it or not, those hon. members even drag in the Blacks. That is precisely what the hon. member for Pinelands has also done. He cannot speak sensibly in this House about those things which, to the children of South Africa and to those to whom the continued existence of this nation is important, are absolutely fundamental matters. The hon. member for Pinelands is simply incapable of making a sensible contribution about the Whites in this House. [Interjections.] He and the other members of his party are those people who … [Interjections.] I want to say immediately that if I shocked those hon. members now, I am still going to shock them much more. We must understand one another clearly. Not in a long time has there been a debate here in the House in which the Official Opposition appeared so shameless and naked in South Africa as they did during this debate. [Interjections.] Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh, I shall come to that too. [Interjections.] Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because this concerns the basic issue which is essential to the nation, to any nation, namely the education of its children. Nobody can be bluffed about that. Nobody can take that lightly. A basic issue is concerned here.

Now there is something very interesting. It is, in fact, one of the most interesting aspects of this debate. Do you know what it was, Mr. Speaker? It is that the NRP talks about the Broederbond, but at the same time the Official Opposition does not say a single word about the Broederbond. [Interjections.] Do hon. members know why? [Interjections.] The PFP does not say a single word about the Broederbond. They are as quiet as the grave. Why? Because they have brother Kowie in their ranks. That is the reason. [Interjections.]

That is a lie! [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Johannesburg North say it was a lie?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.]

It is untrue in any event! The hon. the Minister ought to know it. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member says I ought to know it. Of course; I am now speaking of matters that I know about! [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Sir, hon. members have now already laughed away five minutes of my valuable time. If there is still time at the end of my speech, I shall give the hon. member an opportunity of asking me a question. [Interjections.]

Order!

On 12 November 1977 such an excellent article appeared in a newspaper that I am sure you will not blame me if I read the odd sentence from it. I quote—

[Interjections.] The article continues—

[Interjections.] If the hon. member for Houghton had been here, I would have said: “Oh, sister!” Yes, Sir, we are making progress.

I want to say in the first place what are the permanent, the constant, the unchangeable, the eternal principles in our education. These principles are not changed by time or circumstances. I am grateful to be able to say a few words about that on this occasion. The schools in South Africa which are maintained, managed and controlled or subsidized by the State, have both a Christian and a broad national character. I am not saying that they should have it, but that they do have it. There should be no misunderstanding about this matter. I should like to say something about this to the Official Opposition. In 1959 I sat in this House as a visitor while the then Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, let slip through his fingers a wonderful opportunity. That was when Dr. Verwoerd came to the House with that historic statute, the Bantu Self-government Act. It is still vivid in my memory how Sir de Villiers Graaff on that occasion rose to oppose that legislation. When he had rejected it with all his authority as Leader of the Opposition, I sat back in my seat and knew that a terrible thing had happened in this country. I want to say to the Official Opposition this afternoon that, as surely as I am standing here speaking, unless they reach the point recognizing the diversity of peoples in this country, not only with lip service, but also in practice, they will not have a snowball’s hope of becoming an effective Opposition in this country.

This country has no chance unless you listen to us.

The hon. member for Pinelands who has just spoken, is one of the greatest exponents on that side of the super-ficialization which has taken place in the world. In that sense he is a prophet of doom, not only of this country, but also of the entire Western world. [Interjections.] I have no patience with that hon. member’s point of view in this regard. I should now like to prove to that hon. member that I find myself in very good company but that those hon. members opposite do not, even in international circles, find themselves in good educational company. I am now going to quote from Unesco’s report, Economic and social aspects of educational planning (1976, page 93). I have no time now to quote the whole piece, and I am therefore only going to quote a few sentences from it—

This is also true in South Africa. I quote further—

It is not I who say this. It is Unesco that says that. I continue—

Unlike that hon. member, they do not talk about a world community.

Tell us something new.

They do not feel any need to belong to a world community which is so drab, colourless and shallow that it does not even have roots. Unesco sees very clearly that education should be applied in terms of nations and countries. Sir, it is almost frightening to think that when we talk in this highest council chamber of the country about the education and training of the White child, not one of them can make a worthwhile contribution. All they do is come along with this superficialization which they are engaged in.

They do not belong to a nation.

The gravity of the matter only becomes evident when one realizes that this policy which we are discussing here, this important matter which is under discussion, has been embodied in legislation passed by this Parliament. Therefore those hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Pinelands, are speaking out of turn. With all due respect to that hon. member, I do not think he knows what he is talking about. In section 2 of the National Education Policy Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, ten principles are laid down. The hon. member for Pinelands must now listen carefully, because I am talking about an Act of Parliament, within the framework of which the Minister of National Education, after consultation with the Administrators and the National Education Board, lays down the general education policy for all schools, preprimary and secondary, i.e. schools which are maintained, managed and controlled or subsidized by the Department of National Education or by a provincial administration. The first of those ten principles is the following, and I quote—

If, therefore, we have to abide by that legislation, and especially at the present juncture, and must see to it that the Act and this policy are implemented, is it necessary then for the Official Opposition to come forward with all their derogatory and scornful remarks as they have done today?

Shame!

Is it fitting to run it down as though this side of the House were doing something unholy and wrong? Is it fitting to come here and say we are not talking about the Blacks, the Coloureds or the Indians and to ask where the Minister of Coloured Relations and the Minister of Plural Relations are? With that question they put themselves to shame, because one of the most important things in South Africa was under discussion here.

And you ignore them at your peril.

The policy which has been laid down in terms of this principle by the Minister of National Education, is inapplicable only in the case of schools which are not subsidized; apart from that, it is applicable to all schools. That is a legal obligation. I wish I had the time to discuss all ten of the principles. The second principle reads, and I quote—

Yes, “broad”!

As far as the Christian nature of education is concerned, the policy is further defined. According to a Government notice in the Government Gazette of 12 November 1971, in terms of the Act the instruction in schools—

I can therefore fully support the motion by the hon. member for Virginia and I am not only able to support it. I can also say to him: “Thank you, because you are making an important contribution towards the welfare of South Africa and its peoples.”

As far as the national character of education is concerned, the hon. members on the opposite side quickly added: “Yes, but one must talk about a broad national character.” We indeed talk about a broad national character, but as far as that is concerned, it is laid down in the same policy that it must take shape—this is in terms of the Act—by the deliberate development of each pupil’s knowledge of his fatherland, of his language and cultural heritage, of his history and traditions. When the hon. member for Virginia says “bring us heroes, that they may look at them”, then he does the right thing according to the law, and it is good and in the interests of all of us that this be done. But then the hon. members on the other side come and say that we are want to indoctrinate.

But he said so himself.

They are Rip van Winkles.

He said we must indoctrinate like the communists.

The Act does not only mention language, cultural heritage, history and traditions, but also national symbols. When the hon. member for Virginia and other hon. members therefore talk about our flag, our national anthem, our crest, etc., it is laid down in the Act that it is right that this should be done in the schools.

It does not say a word about indoctrination.

Then the hon. members opposite come along and talk the way they have done. The Act further lays down that provision must be made for the diversity of population. Let me say immediately that this is one point on which I do not differ with the hon. member for Johannesburg North in regard to his amendment. On that point I agree with him, because it was laid down in the law that this must take place with due allowance for diversity of population in South Africa. Social and economic circumstances and geographical diversity must also be taken into account.

What about my question?

I shall try give the hon. member a chance just now. National achievements must also be taken account of. Then surely I do not misinterpret the hon. members who have spoken today, when I say that they create the impression among us that they would like to see every national achievement which may be accomplished, totally belittled.

Nobody said that.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Pinelands is in the habit of putting his foot into it time and again. Now I have again caught him neatly in the trap. He has just put his foot in it again. The hon. member asked: “Who does that?”

Order! The hon. the Minister must please tell me about that trap too.

Yes, I shall. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked: “Who does that?” I would not have referred to that, if it had not been that the hon. member for Pinelands had put that question. I shall tell you who does it. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, brother Kowie, does it.

Does what?

I shall tell the House what I am referring to. In the February 1978 art calender—I have it in my hand—under the heading “Aspects of 1978 art” and under the name “J. F. Marais”, that hon. member wrote certain things. I think he will learn that whilst everybody listens to one on the Bench, in this place everyone speaks when one has spoken, especially if one has been a judge and does not want to relinquish the judge-ship while one is in politics. What did the hon. member write? While we are going out of our way to keep our relations with the Western countries as sound as possible …

You have done your best to ruin it.

… do you know what that hon. member is doing? In February 1978 he wrote under the heading “Aspects of 1978 art”, under the name J. F. Marais—it is written here …

Yes, that is I.

He wrote there—

He is now writing about how difficult things are in the “arts”, as if it gives him pleasure. He writes—

Right or wrong?

He goes further—

The fact of the matter is that West Germany has to date not yet terminated its cultural agreement with South Africa. But that hon. member writes in an important publication that West Germany has terminated its cultural agreement with South Africa. But that hon. member writes in an important publication that West Germany has terminated its cultural agreement with South Africa. Mr. Speaker, can you see now what the hon. member has put his foot into? [Interjections.] All I can say to that, is that that hon. member ought to apologize to his fatherland for having done that to his own fatherland. That is not done. This is the type of conduct we get from hon. members on that side.

The law lays down that education must have a broad national character. That leads to an attitude of patriotism founded on loyalty and responsibility towards the fatherland, its soil and its natural resources. Do hon. members on that side of the House honestly want to argue that that character should not be instilled by the White schools in this way? Every pupil must attain a balanced perspective within South Africa, but also in the world outside. A feeling of unanimity and cooperation must be brought into being in South Africa.

The carrying out or implementation of these Christian and national principles in the classrooms of every school is of course dependent in the last instance, and to an incalculable degree, upon the teacher in charge of that class. It has been said before that the struggle for the survival of a country and a nation is often won or lost in the classroom. Our country is no exception to that rule. How successful this policy will be—that is the policy which I have briefly described to hon. members and which was given concrete expression by this House— depends in the first place upon the personal outlook on life of every teacher. In the second place it depends upon the quality of the tuition provided. This is therefore of paramount importance. In this connection I should have liked to quote something about the teacher, but unfortunately I cannot find the quotation among my papers. I wanted to quote that the teacher is actually the person who, after all, plays the most decisive role when it comes to the struggle for survival of every nation.

As regards the training of teachers, too, the government exercises the necessary control. I this connection I should have liked to quote from the policy laid down in Government Notice R. 1192 of 20 June 1975, but I have not the time now to go into that fully. In that, full effect is given to the principle that every student teacher at every teachers’ training college in this country, must be trained in accordance with the principles of Christianity and broad nationalism. As long as that is the position with us in South Africa, it will go well with us in the Republic of South Africa. I have not the slightest doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he heard the hon. member for Virginia this morning when he said that indoctrination should be the policy? Will he also tell us whether he agrees that it should be the policy?

Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with the question of indoctrination. [Interjections.]

*My reply is simply: In my view, the hon. member for Virginia was 100% correct in the statement which he made in this House today. What is more, he expounded a policy, and went on to state the legal position as it applies in this country. If that hon. member attacks him because he did not refer to a broad national basis, then the hon. member has the right to do so. However, I know the hon. member for Virginia and I know that what he said and what he intended, is laid down in the Act and therefore concerns the broad national basis of the educational policy in South Africa.

I want to close by saying …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question.

Mr. Speaker, I definitely cannot give that hon. member a chance to ask me a question now. My time has expired and I should like to conclude by making one more point.

[Inaudible.]

I can understand why if one slaps a cat square on the rump, it yowls loudest, as that hon. member is now doing.

I want to conclude by saying that the greatest task of education is to give pupils that guidance so that they will not be obsessed by the immediate material needs of every day, but will strive for spiritual richness, for those values of which no one can ever deprive them. The greatest task of every person who has an interest in the education of the country and its people, is to lead the children to the greatest Leader of all time, Jesus of Nazareth. That is the Christian basis of our nation and of our country, the basis of which we are proud, rightly and with good reason. As long as that is the case, the nation will survive and will, to the honour of the country, represent the country with distinction among the comity of nations, even though they might at the moment be attacking us in every possible way. Then we shall overcome.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I trust that my motion, especially in view of the stormy end to the debate on the previous motion, will be received in a more restful atmosphere than the amendment which the Official Opposition moved to the previous motion. The subject of my motion, i.e. the Port Elizabeth Opera House, has often been discussed in the past, especially in the Cape Provincial Council and of course quite frequently in the Press, which has had quite a lot to say about it. I sincerely hope that today will be the very last time that we shall have to talk about this matter and that in future it will not be necessary to debate who should have access to the Opera House and who should not. The matter was linked to the question of the Nico Malan theatre even before that theatre had even been opened. We all remember the controversy about the opening of the Nico Malan theatre to all races. The discussion of this matter, especially in the Cape Provincial Council, was accompanied by a great deal of politicking throughout.

It was also accompanied by threats of boycotts, and I am convinced that certain hon. members in the House will still remember that. It gave rise to unpleasantness and did nothing to promote racial harmony. It woke up sleeping dogs and even those who had never been interested in opera or in the theatre also had something to say. Looking back now, I come to the conclusion that at the time the debate served to prevent the Nico Malan theatre from being opened to all races from the very first day. It was partly responsible for the fact that for a few years, the Nico Malan theatre was used only by Whites. It became a stick with which to beat the Government and the provincial administration. Nothing is further removed from my mind than to repeat the same unpleasantness here today or to lend a political flavour to the debate. It is not my intention to start an agitation here today which will further delay the opening up of the Port Elizabeth Opera House. I sincerely hope that hon. members who are going to take part in the debate today will approach the matter in the same spirit. For this reason I want to make an appeal: Let us, for heaven’s sake, act responsibly in this connection. Let me make this clear. We are discussing the Port Elizabeth Opera House and related matters, and we have nothing to do with any other institution. To those hon. members who intend to exploit this opportunity in order to make political capital out of it, to make reproaches, encourage boycotts or drag in other matters under the pretext of supporting the motion, I ask in all courtesy: Seek another platform for your standpoint and do not further bedevil an already delicate matter. [Interjections.] It seems as if that shot went home. [Interjections.] That is not what we have in mind. We are moving this motion in all earnestness and in all sincerity in an attempt to remove an irritation, to remove another stick from the hands of the agitators and to make an end to the constant accusations about privileges which the Whites enjoy, but which members of other races can only enjoy conditionally. I want to make it clear that we are not advocating the interests of any race group; far from that. We merely ask that the arrangements in connection with the use of the Opera House in Port Elizabeth should be brought into line with the arrangements for the use of the Nico Malan theatre in Cape Town.

Then you would be intensifying the precedent.

The hon. the Minister will surely reply to the debate and I am therefore not going to react now. If the arrangement is good enough in Cape Town, it will be good enough in Port Elizabeth. I can see no justification for the different arrangements. We are moving the motion in the light of the present circumstances and with the conviction that there can no longer be any doubt, not even on the part of the Government, that at the level of opera, the sharing of existing facilities cannot contain any threat to the social order. It is surely logical and acceptable to most reasonable people that where separate facilities do not exist and also cannot be supplied, or cannot be justified, existing facilities must be shared.

If there is any doubt about the desirability of the joint use of an opera house, we can look at the precedent which has already been created. Since the opening of the Nico Malan theatre, matters have run smoothly and according to my information, there has, up to now, been no reason to find fault with the decision to open the theatre to all races. I can also point out that the permit system whereby people of colour may use the Opera House in Port Elizabeth is also functioning smoothly and that so far, no one has taken exception.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of paying tribute to Capab and their staff for the manner in which they have thus far handled this matter in Port Elizabeth. I also wish to express my thanks for the service which they render there. I wonder how we managed without the Opera House all those years.

†Hon. members will no doubt say that if the permit system works satisfactorily, why this motion and why not leave the matter as it is. Certain people consider it an insult that a permit should have to be obtained before they can attend a show, even though the onus is on the producer to obtain such a permit.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to sketch the background and the motivation for this motion. The present procedure is that the producer must apply to the Department of Community Development to obtain a permit for other races to attend shows. In all fairness I must admit that to my knowledge no application has yet been refused. There have been no problems in this regard. If it was a show for one night only, a permit was granted and where the show ran for any length of time, say for six or eight performances, permission was usually granted for at least half of those shows. I may mention that the same principle applies to the use of certain municipal halls. Although this is not relevant to the motion, it nevertheless affects the situation in Port Elizabeth and it is part of the motivation for my motion. Should persons or organizations of other race groups wish to use municipal halls, they have to go to the city council for permission. Even if the city council has no objection and is quite prepared to let the halls to them, they still have to apply to the Department of Community Development for a permit.

*Certain people object to the fact that they have to apply for a permit. I must immediately point out to the House that the Port Elizabeth municipality have not been dragging their feet over the years. They have definitely made provision for halls in Coloured townships, but nevertheless a real need arises from time to time for other race groups to make use of certain municipal halls, like the well-known Feather Market hall, a hall with facilities which cannot be duplicated in other halls, for example the number of seats, a built-in organ, a stage which has been built to accommodate a symphony orchestra, etc.

Many of Capab’s performances in the Opera House cannot be performed in the Coloured townships, because the halls there do not meet the requirements. As a result of that, a deputation of the Coloured and Indian management committees approached the city council last year with a view to the possibility of obtaining subsidies from the provincial administration in order that facilities, including an opera house, may be supplied in the Coloured area. We all realize that it is not the responsibility of the provincial administration to grant such subsidies. The only alternative would therefore be to approach the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations.

Because the city council was unable to grant the request, it is being charged with hiding behind the provincial administration’s refusal to pay a subsidy. It is also being said that if the city council were sincere in its intentions, it would nevertheless grant the request to provide such halls and facilities. There can be no doubt about the fact that the City Council of Port Elizabeth cannot finance something like that. I doubt whether the Department of Coloured Relations can meet such a need or even consider it.

One cannot help wondering, however: even if the funds and the subsidies had been available, would the duplication of facilities have been justified, especially in the light of the fact that the Opera House in Port Elizabeth is, at this stage, not being used to its fullest potential? I may mention that the existing facilities will be quite adequate if another arrangement were to be made to allow other race groups there. If one considers this from the viewpoint of Capab, the question arises whether additional performances exclusively for separate race groups are justified. The answer to both these questions is a definite “no”. The solution to this problem is clear. The City Council of Port Elizabeth holds the view that it should have the right to let halls at its own discretion without the necessity of a permit. I am merely mentioning that by the way, because that is not under discussion now.

As far as the opera house is concerned, the city council feels that it can lend its full support—and it has in fact done so—to any attempt to have the opera house opened to all racial groups. The council felt so strongly about the matter that it instructed the mayor last year to come and discuss the problem with the hon. the Minister here in Cape Town. That, by the way, was done. I believe that this has since been followed up by a detailed memorandum by the town clerk.

What is involved here is not the admission of people of colour, because they are already being allowed into the opera house in Port Elizabeth; we are mainly concerned here with the application for a permit.

†The bone of contention is the fact that a permit is required. I hasten to say that some of the people who object to the permit will more than likely never see the inside of the opera house, with or without it having a permit. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I want to repeat that we are not pleading the cause of the agitators.

Most people do not like culture …

I was not talking about you. We want to end an unnecessary controversy. We want to remove the stick which is being used to beat the Government, the provincial administration and the city council of Port Elizabeth. We must not make the mistake to think that the opening of the opera house to all races will satisfy the agitators and the boycotters; nothing will satisfy them. The opening of the opera house to all races will, however, be a step in the right direction to further racial harmony between the Whites and the moderates amongst the other races. I may add that those people are in the majority.

The decision to open the opera house to all races will be correctly timed if it is done now with present developments taking place. I want to assure hon. members that there is a tremendous amount of goodwill towards the White people in South Africa and towards the Government’s efforts to find co-operation amongst all races. We must take this opportunity to capitalize on that available goodwill. The opera house should now be used by all at all times, without the need of a permit, so that the people of goodwill and the genuine opera-lovers will be entitled to take their families and friends to enjoy an evening’s entertainment without first having to ascertain whether a permit has been obtained, for fear of embarrassment at the door, or the fear of being told: Sorry, you may not attend tonight. This is especially so if the same people have attended shows on previous occasions in that same opera house.

*I can frankly say today and give the assurance that the public, and in particular the opera fans, have not taken offence up to now because people of colour have visited that opera house. There is no reason either why they should object in future. I am merely mentioning this by the way in order to reassure the Government that there will be satisfaction if this decision is made.

To conclude, I want to summarize briefly. What we are doing here today is not to precipitate a situation, but to do the correct thing at the correct time in order to utilize still further the goodwill which exists, and to make an arrangement, at a level where it will entail the greatest benefit, which will promote and ensure racial harmony and co-operation. But most important of all: We are taking the wind out of the sails of those who exploit every situation for instigation purposes. The decision about the Nico Malan theatre was the correct one, and there were no adverse results. All that is necessary now is the courage and the conviction to take another correct step, a step which will promote racial harmony and ensure co-operation and close a chapter which has, up to now, been an unhappy one. Our appeal to the Government is that it should decide to declare that Opera House open to all who can afford it and who are willing to buy their tickets. It ought not to be necessary to talk about this matter again in future in any council, whether Parliament, the provincial council or even the city council. I am convinced that if this decision is made, the debate about it will be over within a day or two. That is what we should like to see. We want to remove that stick with which we are being beaten.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, really made a great effort to present this delicate matter in a pleasant manner. I appreciate this and I think it is good that one acts and talks in a responsible manner about a matter of this nature. I should like to say in passing that the hon. member is a very respected resident of my constituency. Consequently he is a very respected voter of mine.

Does he vote for you?

Of course! And one does not easily pick a quarrel with one of one’s respected voters. What is more—and perhaps hon. members on the other side will appreciate this—in my opinion a general election is not a suitable time to pick a quarrel with a man who is fighting a Prog opponent. This hon. member had a good fight. He came through with flying colours and is sitting here today and is able to tell us his story.

To return to the matter which is now under discussion, I should like to refer to the Opera House itself before I return to the hon. member’s argument. It is important because if we want a sensible discussion we must know the issues involved with regard to this Opera House. It is interesting to know that the Opera House was built by a group of businessmen in 1891-’92. It is also interesting to know that the Opera House in Port Elizabeth was opened with great ceremony and with many festivities on 1 December 1892. Perhaps I could mention—it is not relevant now—that the Port Elizabeth theatre is the oldest building in South Africa which is still the home of the performing arts. This might not be relevant, but perhaps at some time in the future, someone could request that that building be declared an historic monument. In 1967 the provincial administration bought the building for the sum of R250 000 and after it was properly restored and renovated, it was handed over to Capab, by whom it is still being controlled and administered. The provincial administration remains the owner of the building, however.

It is also interesting to know that the Opera House seats 650 people, that it has a small foyer, an equally small refreshment room, a comfortable lounge and a most beautiful concert hall. In other words, we in the Eastern Cape are actually very proud of that cultural centre of ours. But one mistake we should not make is the following. We should not compare that project with the might Nico Malan. There is no comparison between the two. If the opera house in Port Elizabeth did offer the necessary facilities, it could regard Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage and Despatch as the area it serves. This is an area with a population of more than 500 000 people, of whom half are Black, one-third White and the rest Coloureds, etc.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated these facts to you briefly because they are relevant to the discussion this afternoon. To return to the arguments of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central I wish to state at once that I was somewhat surprised when I read his motion and analysed his wording. What does his motion imply? It implies two things. Firstly, that various population groups have no access to the opera house at Port Elizabeth. Secondly—and this is worse—it implies that various population groups are denied access to the Opera House unconditionally. Surely that is not correct. I do not think it is fair to put it that way. What is the actual position? Here and there the hon. member elaborated at some length, but in summing up I should like to explain what the real position is as regards the Opera House in Port Elizabeth.

In the first place I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that since 1 April 1976, when the Opera House was first opened to multiracial audiences, 53 separate performances have been attended by multiracial audiences. In the second place I want to concentrate on performances with a mixed cast. In this respect I wish to compare the attendance figures of the Port Elizabeth Opera House with those of similar performances at the Nico Malan theatre. What do we find then?

In 1975 there were 14 such performances in Port Elizabeth but not a single one in the Nico Malan theatre. In 1976 the number in Port Elizabeth was 20 against the nine of the Nico Malan theatre. In 1977 six such performances took place in Port Elizabeth against the 21 in the Nico Malan theatre. So all in all, there were 40 in Port Elizabeth as against 38 in the Nico Malan theatre. I should like to refer you to more figures. Let us have a look at completely non-White casts. I am mentioning the comparative figures again. In 1975 there were 48 in Port Elizabeth and 64 in the Nico Malan. In 1976 there were 23 in Port Elizabeth and 16 in the Nico Malan. In 1970 there were five in Port Elizabeth and none in the Nico Malan. That gives us a total, over three years, of 56 in the case of Port Elizabeth and 85 in the case of the Nico Malan. Now, Sir, a question arises in this regard. Actually I must admit that it is a temptation, and who am I to resist temptation? I am tempted to ask the hon. member what must be opened in terms of his motion and to whom must it be opened, if I may use the word “open”. Let us put it in another way. The hon. member said by implication, when he moved his motion, that we should follow the example of the Nico Malan, but, Sir, would we not have had a much more meaningful debate on this issue today if the hon. member had referred to the procedure in regard the letting of the place? Let me state at once that it is a very interesting procedure. I wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to Capab for the fact that they have tried at all times to maintain the highest standards in both opera houses. They are doing it with a well-organized procedure which they have established over the years. Although that procedure is cumbersome, we should not change it, because we should ensure that the standards are not tampered with. In other words, whether one is White or non-White, one cannot simply hire the Opera House in Port Elizabeth or the Nico Malan theatre. One must submit an application. One must hand in one’s script. One must state who the artists are going to be. In terms of these regulations one makes an application. In the case of Port Elizabeth the manager sends the application to the Deputy Theatre Director here in Cape Town. Under certain circumstances he can immediately agree to one’s application. In other cases, where the script may perhaps contain daring material or its contents may be daring, where there is possible contravention of the law or the interest of the country or where there is doubt about the standards, the matter can be referred to the executive committee. There is therefore an orderly procedure which has to be followed in the case of applications and which everybody has to follow. That we cannot change. It must be like that.

A second type of application is found when other population groups are involved. In that case permits are applied for. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central assumes, when he uses the word “open”, whatever that might mean, that a permit is not required in the case of the Nico Malan. Of course the procedure in the case of the Nico Malan involves a permit. If the hon. member had asked us to debate the system of issuing permits, the desirability of these permits themselves, to determine whether any irritation or problems arose from these permits, then I should say we could have had a very meaningful discussion. I want to admit at once that there are indeed irritations and problems. I can mention a very good example of this. A very good example of this is that the commercial concerns feel that it takes too long to obtain the necessary permit every time. This causes irritation. If the hon. member had mentioned that, I would have said that we should put our heads together to try and improve the system. We must not, however, proceed on the assumption that there should not be permits because the Nico Malan does not require permits. We must not assume that everything will be in order if we simply throw everything open.

Why not?

I wish to summarize briefly. Firstly, I wish to state that since 10 April 1976 all population groups in our vicinity have been able to utilize our Opera House. Secondly, no permits have been refused since the end of 1976. Thirdly, not a single member of the general public has objected to these performances. Fourthly, no one—no White person or non-White person—has the summary right to hire the Opera House in Port Elizabeth or the Nico Malan in Cape Town. An orderly procedure must be followed. Fifthly, we do experience problems with our existing system. On this side of the House we have put heads together and we shall keep on doing so, to try to solve these problems because we wish to share these privileges in a good spirit.

We wish to share them in such a manner that there will be no irritation or other problems when those rights are obtained. Sixthly, if we want to evaluate these things correctly, we must realize that these things did not come about by themselves. These are not just phlegmatic or illogical institutions. These things exist because the principle underlying them is the following—

Where it is not practicable, however, and the needs overlap, the population group which does have the facility may share it with another population group, subject to the particular provisions of the law. If, as I have already said, we consider these things, we have to admit that there are problems with the existing system. We shall try however to remove these irritations, as I have called them—for example the delays. We shall streamline our whole system. Therefore I finally …

Do you vote for the motion?

I cannot accept this motion, as it reads at present, because in the first place it is based on incorrect implications and secondly, because it can create the wrong impression. Therefore I move as an amendment—

1. “(1) this House takes note of the fact that, owing to the absence of adequate separate facilities for the various population groups in Port Elizabeth, the Port Elizabeth Opera House is already being used by all population groups in accordance with declared Government policy and subject to existing legal requirements; and
2. (2) this House requests the Government to ensure that, unless and until comparable facilities are provided for the various population groups on a separate basis, the present system be continued and, where possible, be applied in a more streamlined way, in accordance with Government policy.”

Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy with both the hon. member who moved the amendment, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and the hon. member for Newton Park, who opposed it. My sympathy arises from the fact that both members, like the forty odd members of the NP present in the House this afternoon, probably find themselves in a labyrinth of Government policy.

Do we now have to listen to nonsense for another half an hour?

This is clearly evident from the two conflicting arguments advanced by the two hon. members mentioned by me. In supporting the Government’s point of view, as it would seem, they completely contradicted each other however.

What is the Judge saying?

Although a definite policy was laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister, we recently had to witness the odd spectacle of questions being put, in an open letter in the Press, to the Administrator of a province by a member of this hon. House who belongs to the same party. In the letter they tried to ascertain what was in fact the Government’s policy with regard to another opera house which was still under construction. From that it became apparent that the Administrator, who had been appointed for a third term as the personal representative of the Cabinet, held one view as to the meaning of the policy, while the hon. member for Pretoria Central, a member of this House, held a view diametrically opposed to that. We have witnessed the spectacle here today that while the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is asking that in the case of Port Elizabeth a certain cultural facility be opened to all races, the immediate reaction of the Minister of Community Development, under whose jurisdiction this matter seems to fall, is that if one opens the Port Elizabeth Opera House one intensifies the precedent created with the opening of the Nico Malan.

Do you agree with that, or was it a wrong statement?

It is quite contrary to the Government’s policy as laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Was the statement I made wrong then?

You are just jealous because you cannot become a Broederbonder.

If the hon. member wants a debate on the Broederbond, I am quite prepared to participate in such a debate together with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. [Interjections.] The Nico Malan, as far as the public is concerned, has been opened to all races. Now the hon. member for Newton Park tells us that the Port Elizabeth Opera House has also been opened to all races. When a comparison is drawn between the two, however, the hon. the Minister of Community Development says, “The one intensifies the precedent created by the other.” Mr. Speaker, have you ever come across such a maze of policy statements outside the Department of Sport and Recreation? It is a pity the hon. the Minister of National Education and of Sport and Recreation is not here this afternoon. He left early. He was probably tired out by the tremendous excitement which he had to go through earlier today. He should have been sitting next to the Minister of Community Development to show him how to evade the issue when it comes to explaining to the public a policy and its eventual application.

What about giving us a verdict?

The hon. member for Pretoria Central had his letter published. Such is the party of unity which proclaims: “We proceed in harmony because there is light at the end of the tunnel.” When we study the correspondence, we find that the most extraordinary things happened. The Administrator of the Transvaal based his argument on two things. The one was that the Nico Malan had apparently been thrown open because of an error—I do not know whether the present Minister had anything to do with that— because the attendance of performances in the Nico Malan by people of colour was minimal and consequently it need never have been opened—please note the argument that was used.

Now you are talking nonsense.

For that reason the opera house in Pretoria need not be thrown open either, because the attendance figure there would be even lower as the Coloured population of Pretoria was much smaller than that of the Western Cape. This is the kind of argument that was used.

What is overlooked however, is the simple fact that each ticket sold in the case of the Nico Malan or in the case of the Port Elizabeth Opera House or each ticket which will be sold in the case of Pretoria’s Opera House—incidentally it is not an opera house, but a theatre complex consisting of an opera house, a big theatre and a small theatre—is subsidized or will be subsidized with the taxpayers’ money to the tune of R2, R3 or R4. I do not blame Capab, Pact or any other organization for this state of affairs. From whom does the money come, however? Does every cent of that money come from the pockets of White taxpayers? I am putting this question to hon. members. From whose pockets does the amount of R3 or R4 come which is paid as a subsidy on each ticket? That money comes from the pockets of other tax-payers as well. Now, however, we are conducting an argument as if those people do not exist at all, an argument on how many Coloureds go to the Nico Malan theatre and on whether permits should be issued with regard to the Opera House in Port Elizabeth, although, according to the hon. member who spoke last, permits have already been issued. For that reason we can say that the Black people and the Coloured people are not really interested in our kind of culture. At the same time, however, we can use their money to subsidize our seats, our White seats. [Interjections.]

That is a very weak argument.

It is a very good argument.

Order! Hon. members must not make so many interjections.

If we were more sensitive to the feelings of other people, we would not have conducted these debates in public and we would not have had correspondence in the newspapers on the cultural level of the Coloured and Black people. This illustrates our absolutely introverted and inbred indifference and insensitivity towards other people. We are consuming the goodwill of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central spoke, and that goodwill is not inexhaustible. We must weigh our words and we must also teach our people to weigh their words, when speaking about the cultural level of other population groups in public. This party does not debate fundamental principles in the newspapers. We do not conduct such debates by making derogatory remarks about other people.

Do you have any principles?

We support the motion because its underlying principle is correct. I am speaking very carefully to the Government, since I do not wish to give the agitators—which supposedly includes us— any chance, but we cannot agree with the motivation behind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park, as there are no principles underlying his amendment. We shall support the amendment as it appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not the type of man to whom one wants to be unnecessarily unfriendly. However, I must honestly say that there was nothing in his speech, as far as I could hear, which would justify any reaction on my part. In fact, I was surprised that you did not point out to the hon. member that he seldom if ever came near the subject of the motion.

As far as the speech by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned, I am in broad agreement with the hon. member for Newton Park’s evaluation of his speech. I nevertheless feel called upon to say that in my opinion, the hon. member made a few remarks which were not at all calculated to promote a delicate matter like the one which he has put before us today. I do not want to go into this in detail, because I do not have the time. I do not think it is necessary or fitting for the hon. member, in a debate in which he is pleading the cause of a matter like this, to make a so-called appeal to the Government to “act responsibly for once, for heaven’s sake”.

No. I did not say that.

That is what the hon. member said and it is a bad reflection on the way in which the Government deals with these matters. I think it was unnecessary for the hon. member to allege that the Government was bedevilling certain matters. That, too, is extremely out of place.

The hon. member moved that the Government should take certain steps to open the Port Elizabeth Opera House to all races. I think it is necessary to take a brief look at the factual position. The legal position is that the right of access to theatres is controlled in terms of the Group Areas Act. Attendance by non-Whites is prohibited in a White area, except if this takes place by permit issued in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. The hon. the Minister has wide powers to approve of such attendance and he also has the power to lay down certain provisions which will apply to a permit like this. It is true that the legislation is susceptible to highly flexible application and this is a very good thing too. A permit with conditions for practically every imaginable situation can be issued, so that every case can be accommodated in the best way. For instance, if circumstances do not justify it in his opinion, the hon. the Minister can refuse a permit altogether. He can issue a permit like the open permit in the case of the Nico Malan theatre in Cape Town. He can also do so on an ad hoc basis as has been done so far in Port Elizabeth for the opera house there.

As far as the policy of the Government is concerned, regarding the implementation of the legislation, the hon. member for Newton Park has already sketched the situation and it is therefore not necessary for me to repeat it. All it actually means is that separate facilities are provided for the different population groups if possible, and where this is not possible, the sharing of available facilities is considered. However, it is not the policy of the Government to apply the absence of comparable facilities as a rigid criterion for the sharing of facilities.

When a permit like this has been requested and is being considered, various circumstances and factors are taken into consideration and weighed up against one another before a decision on this matter is reached.

This brings us to the question: How is the policy applied? The most important guideline which the Government follows in considering the proposals for sharing facilities is whether order and harmony can be assured or maintained in the relevant communities. This serves to prevent or eliminate friction and to bring about sound relations between the population groups of the community. Of course, the facts and circumstances which must be judged in this regard will also differ from one community to another and it is even possible that the circumstances in the same place may change from time to time. In some cases, opening up a facility to all groups will cause friction and disturb the harmony. This is an important consideration. It is just as conceivable and possible that in other cases, the refusal of a permit or refusal of permission to share facilities may result in so much discord and resentment in the local community that it may disturb the harmony and in this way the whole purpose may be frustrated. Indeed, this is largely what happened at the time when it was decided to open the Nico Malan. The sanction of the community is seen as an important factor in deciding on a matter like this. If the maintenance of the status quo will cause more problems or friction than the opening of the facility, one must seriously consider whether it would not be advisable to open it. Our guidelines are order and harmony. The test is the effect which a step like this will have on group relations in the community.

It therefore follows that one of the most important factors in the consideration of a matter like this is the sanction of the local community. The possible or expected reaction of the local community should therefore be decisive. The attitude of the community—one could call it responsible public opinion— should be gauged as accurately as possible.

I should like to give the House a brief sketch of the position in Port Elizabeth, if we should test the situation there against this general policy and the method according to which it is applied. The hon. member for Newton Park gave quite a number of statistics of attendance which has already taken place on a mixed basis and he also explained the circumstances in detail. I just want to deal with one aspect of the situation in Port Elizabeth, viz. the question of local sanction or local public opinion. In this regard we must note that Capab has received certain petitions, some in favour of and some against the opening of the opera house. I am referring here to the time before the system of permits on an ad hoc basis was begun. According to the information which was given to me by Capab, the position in this regard was briefly the following: As far as parliamentary and provincial representatives were concerned, petitions were received from three MPs. One was against and two were in favour of opening it. Petitions were received from four MPs who were all in favour of opening it. Apart from the one MP, petitions against the opening of the opera house were received from four individuals. This means that there were no petitions against the opening received from bodies or institutions.

As far as petitions in favour of the opening are concerned, I may point out that apart from the two MPs and four MPCs to whom I have already referred, there is a considerable list of persons and bodies which I just want to mention briefly. There is Mr. Frank Rogaly who made a petition as a representative of 13 professional companies; Mr. H. van Zyl Cillié, a member of the city council and a former MP; Mr. I. T. McPherson, the town clerk; seven English and Afrikaans cultural associations; Die Oosterlig, which advocated this in an editorial; Prof. Johan Potgieter; Mr. F. L. Erasmus, the chairman of the Coloured Executive Committee; Mr. Denzil Levy, a businessman of Port Elizabeth; Mr. Bruce Mann and Mrs. Ann Soplis, two inhabitants of Port Elizabeth; a correspondent in Die Oosterlig; the Port Elizabeth branch of the National Council of Women; Mr. James Kleynhans, former mayor of Port Elizabeth who has also become MPC in the meanwhile; Des and Dawn Lindberg, promoters; Mr. Ray Limbrick; Mrs. C. M. S. Gelvan, who is also a member of the town council; Prof. Frieda la Grange, a member of Capab; and Mr. Raman Bhana, a member of the Indian Executive Committee. These petitions were received before the present permit system was begun.

As far as the functioning of the system is concerned, the evidence, according to Capab, is that this system works fairly well in Port Elizabeth. According to my information, no complaints at all have been received from the public about sharing facilities in the opera house. Furthermore, it is said that no problems or friction of any kind have been experienced during any of the performances.

The position in connection with the use of the opera house in Port Elizabeth by all population groups differs considerably from the position concerning the Nico Malan theatre in one respect, viz. that the factor of a liquor licence, which may be a complicating factor, is not relevant at the Port Elizabeth opera house.

I just want to give a brief sketch of the way in which the Government deals with these matters. I believe experience has taught us that the Government can always be counted on to do the right thing at the right time. It is just as important to do something at the right time as to take the right decision. These very difficult decisions are often taken in spite of the opposition which does not assist us, but usually only hinders us. I believe that the time factor is very important. In this respect, the action of the Government is right every time.

In the light of all the circumstances, it would undoubtedly have been unwise and completely wrong if the Nico Malan theatre had been opened to all races from the first. On the other hand, if we had not opened it when we did, it would also have been wrong. By the way, I can give first-hand evidence of the whole history and circumstances surrounding the opening of the Nico Malan theatre in so far as they are relevant to this discussion. I was a member of the board of Capab for many years, as well as being chairman for a considerable time. Of course, as MPC, I was also co-responsible for the decision at that time to open the theatre. At that time many of us in the Cape felt some doubt in our hearts about this drastic step which was being taken. Some of us believed that a more systematic or a more gradual process would be more desirable, for instance by first opening the Nico Malan theatre for four nights per week only. Experience has shown us, however, that the fears which some of us felt at the time were unfounded and that the experiment has been an indisputable success, at least according to all the evidence which we have heard. I think that the same can be said of the position in Port Elizabeth.

The place concerned is, however, just as important. For instance, something which is right at a specific time in Cape Town does not necessarily have to be right in any other place, for example Oudtshoorn or Prieska. One must have the right touch in deciding on these matters and one must go about it with common sense; only then can one take the right decision at the right time.

We have already learned a great deal from our experiments and experience with both the Nico Malan theatre and the opera house in Port Elizabeth. As a result of that experience I feel that we have reason to believe that we can take another careful look at the position of the opera house in Port Elizabeth. For instance, the hon. member for Newton Park pointed one problem, viz. the delays in obtaining permits. These delays are actually unavoidable and I therefore think that we must not blame any Government department for this. Naturally, however, it is a system which causes delays and irritation and problems for the people concerned.

I do not want to dictate to the hon. the Minister, but perhaps the time has come to take another look at the situation. Perhaps the time is ripe for a more streamlined system to be applied after the analogy of the Nico Malan theatre, as the hon. member suggested in his amendment. The issuing of permits causes problems. I presume that the hon. member for Newton Park believes that that system could be reviewed, revised and applied in a more streamlined way. That is why it is a privilege for me to support his amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Algoa both came close to the solution and then they swerved away again. Eventually they decided not to say what they wanted to say. They actually wanted to say that they opposed the motion, but then they hid behind the official point of view. We on this side of the House, however, got the impression that they actually wanted to tell us that they support the motion. The only thing was that they wanted to act very cautiously.

†A nation, when it is prepared to allocate scarce resources to the promotion of the arts, can possibly feel justified in claiming that they have gone up a rung or two on the ladder of civilization. Civilization is a coin with two faces. On the one side of this coin we find the aesthetic values, as manifest in the many forms of artistic creativity, for instance, a nation’s theatres, opera houses, art galleries and, what is very important, the most enduring relic of man’s genius, its architecture. But to claim civilization for a nation such as ours, based on one aspect only, is in itself an exercise in the art of self-deception, for indelibly etched on the reverse side of the coin of civilization are three critical criteria for the quantification of a nation’s claim to a standard of civilization. The first criterion is the harnessing of the forces of nature, the state of the nation’s technology. In this respect South Africa compares with the best in the world. The second criterion is the quality of a nation’s system of justice, and the degree of humanity and compassion with which such justice is dispensed. Here, too, let me make bold to say, that despite our many internal and external critics, I feel we can still stand proud when compared with the rest of the world. The third criterion is the quality of life as experienced by the stock of humanity who collectively make up the whole of our population, and it is here that we find the true hallmark of civilization. It is in this quality of life, synthesized by the very nature of our inter- and intra-personal relationships between the various segments of our nation’s cultural groups, that we should search for our claim to be a civilized nation.

We in South Africa can be justly proud— and here credit must be given where credit is due—of the record which we have in the field of human endeavour, endeavour for the realization to quite a considerable extent of the latest artistic and creative potential which is harboured in the kaleidoscope of our humanity that makes up society in South Africa. Despite the many obstacles, at times even hazards, to our less privileged spectrum of society, they have persisted and they have struggled, often against the greatest odds, to reach at least one of the high levels of civilization, the creative arts.

I think it will be generally agreed that there are thousands of our citizens in South Africa from all segments of society who now share identical values, norms and aspirations with us, the Whites of South Africa, not the least of which is the desire and the ability to participate in and to contribute to the creative arts both in this country and overseas. Witness Shakespeare in Zulu, Umabatha, Ipi Tombi and the many non-White choirs that have become legends in their own time. It was nearly two years ago that the present Minister of Foreign Affairs promised the world and promised the people of South Africa that discrimination, based on colour alone, would become a thing of the past. Since then we have inched our way through the complexities of our society. Admittedly, some progress has been made in this direction. Note our Nico Malan Opera House here in our mother city, Cape Town, our international hotels and our very fine domestic and international airways service. In fact, wherever it has been impractical to provide duplicate facilities, we have recognized the sensibility of permitting members of all race groups—those who share a common need and those who are prepared to satisfy that need in a socially responsible manner, without detriment to a member of any other race group or to themselves—to utilize the amenities and facilities to satisfy those needs. Today, once again, this hon. House finds itself at the door of destiny. We have reached the stage in the development of the people of South Africa where we are able to see some of the first young fruits of our labours in the field of human development. We have created intricate structures for such development, but our people have achieved a large measure of acculturation and civilization.

This, I believe, we would not have had ten years ago in this country. However, the critical factor now, and the question we must ask ourselves, is whether we are, after this development programme, to deny these people the means of satisfying those needs. I cannot believe that hon. members of this House will be callous enough, under the circumstances described, to revert to discrimination on the grounds of colour alone.

Surely, the ultimate aim and intent of our socio-political programme in this country is to develop in all our people values consistent with the highest order of civilization, without denying them the means to satisfy those needs. If we deny the ultimate humane objective of our vision, the condemnation of the world would pole into insignificance as compared to the enormity of the harm we would have done ourselves. I think it will be common cause, unless we are to regress in this country, that where amenities are established with State funds and, for purely practical reasons, cannot or should not be duplicated, such amenities should be made open to all race groups without a permit system.

We in these benches would like to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for tabling his private member’s motion here today. However, we also feel—and this is our opinion here—that his motion literally does not go far enough. Nevertheless, we in these benches shall be giving it our unreserved support. We shall give our support to this motion by calling upon the Government to take the necessary steps, boldly and without hesitation, to have the Port Elizabeth Opera House opened to all race groups, to show that their vision of the ultimate objective of our system of Government is both sincere and of the highest integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Durban North. He did speak in terms which we would undoubtedly support. On the other hand, I have listened to hon. members on the Government side talk as though, when one wants to go to a theatre, one should obtain a permit to do so. They talk as though they regard this as freedom to go to the theatre.

How often have you had to apply for a permit before going to a theatre?

This I will not accept. I have never had to ask for a permit to go to the theatre. However, how often do they have to ask for permits for Black people to go to the theatre in Port Elizabeth? It happens all the time. I think that hon. Minister will have to admit that no Black person can go to that opera house in Port Elizabeth without a permit having been granted by his department.

I believe that I must ask hon. members opposite why this opera house has not been opened without the necessity of obtaining a permit. Why has it not been opened to all races before now? To me Government policy on this matter was made very clear at the time of the opening of the Nico Malan Opera House in 1975. It was made clear in a speech by that enlightened member from the Waterberg, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training. In a speech at that time—and I refer to the 1975 Hansard, col. 1183—he made it quite clear that in practice separate development means separate facilities as well. I would like to quote part of his speech. He said—

He then asked the question: “What did we do?” He was talking, of course, of Government action at that time and I quote again his answer to his own question—

I think hon. members will agree with him when he says that. He went on to say—

Well, there we have Government policy spelled out for us. That is Government policy in a nutshell. As long as Black people in Cape Town did not have their own opera house, it was quite legitimate for them to be allowed to use the Nico Malan, the so-called “White” opera house.

Here, Sir, I should like to refer to the amendment which has been moved to the motion, to the effect that the Port Elizabeth Opera House is already being used by all population groups. It is not being used on an equal basis. We cannot accept the terms of this amendment at all. There is not equality as far as theatre attendance in Port Elizabeth is concerned, between Black and White.

Presumably, when Government policy does come to fulfilment, we will have separate Black opera houses, Coloured opera houses and Indian opera houses, but until that time, as I understand it, the policy of the Government is that they should not be discriminated against. Whatever one thinks of that rather tortuous bit of rationalization from the hon. the Deputy Minister, he is quite unequivocal in spelling out what can and should be done within the framework of separate development. In that same speech the hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear that separate development was a policy of separate but equal and that separate development was only discriminatory if it was not equal. Well, Sir, one would have hoped that they would have opened all doors to a relaxing of restrictions on other places of entertainment and other amenities, such as the Port Elizabeth Opera House. I do not think that they should stop there, Sir, but until such time as there is an opera house for each of the other race groups in that area including, presumably, one for the Chinese as well, that opera house should be opened to all. I have never seen any denial from the hon. members on the other side that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech was an accurate reflection of Government policy, and therefore one must presume that it is accurate. If that is so, what is holding them back? While there are no separate but equal opera houses for other race groups, if the use of that single amenity is denied to them, then by their own logic they are being discriminatory, because attendance is unequal. If you have to have a permit while others do not, there is no question at all of equality. I must hasten to add, Sir, that we in these benches find that logic as expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister to be totally ridiculous. We have very different reasons indeed as to why the opera house should be opened, but as I see it, both sides of the House inevitably come to the same conclusion, i.e. that to exclude other race groups is discriminatory, and that even to require a special permit to attend is discriminatory.

Are you satisfied with the position at the Nico Malan?

The opening of the Nico Malan gave us a very clear lead. Whatever hon. members on the other side might have feared, the sky did not fall in when they had to sit next to Black people when attending performances at that theatre.

Does the hon. member commend us to follow the precedent of the Nico Malan theatre?

I would certainly suggest that they should follow the example of the Nico Malan theatre and that they should make it open to all races, and if it is to be on the basis of a permanent permit, I do not care, but a Black man should be able to go to the box office without having to ask on what night he may attend because he is Black. He should be able to go to that box office and say he would like to go to the theatre and buy his seat, without discrimination, without distinctions being made and with everything going smoothly.

No permits.

Are you making that speech?

I am giving you some sound advice.

As I have said, hon. members on the other side have probably sat next to Black people in that opera house, and the sky did not fall in. The end of the world did not come when they opened the Nico Malan fully and freely. That nasty bit of discrimination was thrown out of the window onto the scrap-heap, where I hope it will remain in total oblivion. I do not believe for one moment that we shall ever have, in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg or Pretoria, separate but equal opera houses for all the race groups. It is totally unrealistic. If one just thinks of the R47 million being spent on the Pretoria opera house, one realizes that this is economic nonsense. It is economically ridiculous and economically impossible. It is out of the question ever to provide separate but equal facilities of this nature. There is the cost factor alone. Let us just take the four main centres, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town—perhaps I should add Durban to that—providing for all four race groups.

Thank you. Howzat, Durbs!

Opera houses there for those groups would run us into costs in the region of R600 million or R700 million. Clearly, that is not possible. Are we then going to have the permit system for ever? Are we going to set aside special nights when Black people may attend and other nights when they may not? I hope hon. members on the other side, and also the hon. the Minister, are going to take their courage in both hands and support this motion unequivocally and not in the terms set out in this amendment. We also believe that it would actively encourage the extension of the principle to other centres and to other facilities and amenities as well. We should like to see this extended right round the country, not just to the Nico Malan or the Port Elizabeth Opera House. We should like to see the Johannesburg Civic Theatre, the Pretoria Opera House and many other theatres right round the country open to all races as well. Since that great interpreter of Nationalist ideology from the Waterberg says there is nothing wrong with it from the ideological point of view, what is there to stop them? This is what I cannot understand.

Why are you picking on me?

An argument that has been advanced in the past is that it is necessary to separate amenities. If the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is mumbling there in his seat, wishes to ask a question, the practice is to stand up and ask whether he can do so instead of mumbling like that.

Just leave me alone and read what I have said.

I want to ask whether any hon. member on that side can tell me of any racial friction that has come about as a result of the complete opening of the Nico Malan Opera House. Last year I went to the Nico Malan to see Verdi’s great opera Othello based on the Shakespearian play of that name. There we saw, on the stage, the frightful sight of a Black man in the first instance marrying a White man in clear contravention of the Mixed Marriages Act … [Interjections.] … I do apologize. It did not go quite so far as I inadvertently suggested. There we had a Black man marrying a White woman and we had the horrific result of that Black man murdering his wife. Did this stir up emotions? Were there race riots in the theatre? Was there racial friction as a result of that? Of course there was not! It is absolute rubbish! What actually causes friction between the races? I think this is very important, and I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to remember this.

What actually causes friction between the races is the exclusion of people of colour from the use of facilities like the Port Elizabeth Opera House. The greatest friction between races is caused by discrimination. It is nearly four years ago that the hon. the Prime Minister and our present hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs told the world we were already moving away from race discrimination in the various fields and that it was the policy of the Government to do so on a much more extensive basis. Here is consequently an obvious opportunity for this hon. Minister to prove the hon. the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs to have been correct. All we see, however, is a sign that the Government is dragging its heels. We live in a world where the spirit of man has got him to the moon, and here we are in the ridiculous situation of arguing whether or not Black people can go to a certain opera house on a Saturday night, a Friday night or a Thursday night. It is totally unreal! Let me just say to hon. members on the other side: “Do not be afraid. I do not even understand what you are afraid of. Why can you not withdraw those restrictions completely?”

Worry about sex changes, man.

Let them not be afraid, but let them take this very easy and obvious step which they have before them and then, having done so, having opened the Port Elizabeth Opera House, I suggest they extend their ideas and start along the road to opening all public amenities and facilities to all South Africans without having regard to the colour of their skins.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove underlined the difference in principle between the Opposition and the NP. I am afraid that the basic differences in principle between these two parties are completely unbridgeable. The hon. member argued from a premise of open societies. I see the hon. member for Johannesburg North is nodding his head in agreement. If that is so, we shall not be able to find each other on this point. In the course of my speech I shall return to the argument of the hon. member for Orange Grove, but first of all I want to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

With all due respect for that hon. member—and I have a great deal of respect for him—I just want to say that I think that he did himself an injustice today. I think he made an outrageous speech here. He should not take it amiss of me now for saying this here. He concluded with the pious statement that when we discuss these matters, we should weigh our words. Am I correct?

Yes, that is correct.

That is what the hon. member said. He said that when we reach the level where we are dealing with relations politics and the co-existence of people in the same country, we can find ourselves in dire straits if we do not weigh our words. However, what did the hon. member do? Just before he said that, he said, referring to the opera complex in Pretoria, that if we did not open that or any other complex completely, or if we imposed restrictions on admission, the reproach could be levelled at us by the other race groups in the country that they are also taxpayers and have therefore also paid for those amenities. Is that the argument of the hon. member?

That is the argument, yes.

Should the hon. member not have weighed those words?

It is a fact.

Let us analyse the argument. When the opera house in Pretoria was planned, it was the White man who decided on that and no one else.

Planned, but not paid.

Even if it were true that the taxpayers’ money of the non-Whites was also invested in that project, why should the hon. member virtually suggest to them that although their money was being used, they may not utilize the facilities of the opera house? Why did the hon. member put it like that? What about all the other facilities we are creating in this country for the non-Whites? What about all the facilities we created for the Coloureds and are still going to create, as well as those for the Asiatics and the Blacks? Whose taxpayers’ money pays for those facilities?

The taxpayers’ money of all of us.

If the hon. member would look at the pro rata contributions of the various population groups, where does his argument come in then? Sir, I really think that the hon. member did himself an injustice today.

Do you believe in opening the Pretoria Opera House?

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Johannesburg North talked about the opera complex in Pretoria. He referred to the maze of obscurity one encounters as soon as one deals with Government policy in this sphere. The hon. member for Orange Grove, who sits in front of him, has just spelled out the policy of this side flawlessly. He therefore knows what the policy is, but he is only opposed to it because it does not suit his premise.

He was also a member of the Ossewabrandwag.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North recently made the allegation—and he must say whether that is so—that when the opera complex in Pretoria was originally planned and when there were consultations about it, it was the intention, from the beginning, that the complex would be open for all races.

That was the understanding.

The hon. member says that that was the understanding. That hon. member is also an ex-judge. I do not intend telling the hon. member that he is telling an untruth. He said that that was the understanding from the beginning. I shall now call another witness to determine whether that is so. I read the following from the Hansard of the Provincial Council of Transvaal. The Administrator of Transvaal said the following on page 488, February 1978—

He is an unreliable witness.

Oh please, will the hon. member just give me a chance?

Mr. Speaker, I have now called a credible witness, while I cannot, as I have said, question the hon. member’s credibility either. If I have to choose between these two, I cannot choose and I shall have to give absolution, because it is the word of that hon. member against that of the Administrator of Transvaal. There is, however, another fact we have to bear in mind. Hon. members must remember that this story had its origin in 1964-’65. It becomes evident from the same Hansard that there was a meeting at the house of the then Administrator of Transvaal, the late Mr. Odendaal, on Saturday, 1 May 1965, at 10h00. On that occasion there were representatives of all the institutions that had to get this project off the ground. Amongst others there were Mr. Justice Kowie Marais—because he was a judge at that time—the Director of Works of the Transvaal Provincial Administration, architects, representatives of the Department of Public Works, as well as officials of the city council. The Post Office, inter alia, was also represented there by the then Minister, Dr. Albert Hertzog. If I now add all this information to complete the picture, it seems to me on the grounds of a preponderance of probability that the hon. member is wrong.

I should now like, however, to call his friend next to him, the hon. member for Hillbrow, as the next witness. These people are now making other people out to be liars and I want to prove that that is not so. In 1975—that is about three years ago—the hon. member for Hillbrow, when he represented the constituency of Orange Grove in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, participated in the committee stage of the budget debate in that council. He was discussing the money which had been appropriated in the budget for the complex and said the following (Hansard, Vol. 159, 12 June 1975, page 1287)—

He was, therefore, under no illusion that that was the intention.

There is surely a long time between 1975 and 1963.

Exactly. In the meantime, however, no one has ever disagreed about it. Now I have proved above all reasonable doubt that the hon. member is wrong. Another witness I may call in this regard is the hon. member for Maraisburg. This hon. member was from 1966 onwards the M.E.C. entrusted with works in Transvaal and I have the hon. member’s assurance, which I may use across the floor of the House, that this question was never discussed. The hon. member tried to maintain that a statement was made at the time which is again relevant now, but that is not so.

The hon. member for Orange Grove advanced an argument here with regard to the nature of our premise in this matter. I have already said that we argue the whole matter from the premiss of separate development. There is no argument about that. What is involved here is not a question of discrimination or non-discrimination … [Interjections.] We must, in this country where we have to co-exist as plural nations, also reach at that level the point where we establish separate amenities for each of the various nations. That is our point of departure. Various standpoints were stated in this regard and the standpoint of the Official Opposition—it seems to me that hon. members of the NRP are also siding with them these days, because they agree with them on these aspects—is that the solution to all the problems in the country lies in an open society. That cannot be the standpoint, because that is the way of capitulation and destruction. We shall never be able to survive that in this country. There is, however, another standpoint as well, viz. that of the Government. It entails the acknowledgement of every person as a creature of God and that everyone has the right to recognition of his human dignity as individual and his inalienable right as a member of a specific cultural society and of a separate nation. There can be no argument about this. We have to accept and admit this.

That is not an argument and it does not get you anywhere.

How can the hon. member say that it does not get me anywhere?

Of course not.

If we have to argue according to that hon. member’s standpoint, we shall not be able to survive in this country. We admit that we are a plural society and that we have to co-exist here for many years to come. That is the situation we have to deal with and which we have to solve.

You must learn to follow Louis Nel’s point of view.

Our policy is very clear. The leader of the hon. member for Orange Grove said the following in this House in 1976—

[Interjections.] That is the standpoint of those hon. members and it is also the difference between us and hon. members on the opposite side of the House. They maintain that everything one does in the direction of separate development is of necessity discrimination. Surely that is not the case. Surely that cannot be true. The hon. the Prime Minister adopted a very clear standpoint in this House last year as far as our policy is concerned. That standpoint has been in force for quite a few years and it applies to the Nico Malan theatre and the Opera House in Port Elizabeth, which are now being discussed. No one is uncertain about this standpoint. He said the following on 28 January last year during the no-confidence debate (Hansard, Vol. 66, col. 380)—

That is our policy and we are not ashamed to say it. The hon. the Prime Minister also said—

That is the policy, and it has nothing to do with producing a permit every time one wants to go to the opera, as the hon. member tried to suggest. Such an idea is neither true nor correct. The hon. member misrepresented the policy of this side of the House as far as that is concerned. In the White Paper on the Theron Report the Government stated very clearly—

Because we admit these things and because the NP states this basic principle, the Government will, when the time is ripe, also as regards the opera complex in Pretoria which will only be completed in 1980, according to this policy and in the light of the circumstances which will prevail then, decide whether it is going to grant an open permit or whether the opera house will function according to an ad hoc permit system. In other words, the decision will depend on the wishes of the local community.

Louis says it should be open.

No, I did not say that. The hon. member cannot make interjections from that back bench of his.

All the administrator did was to put it another way. I have his Hansard here. He just opposed the two statements and said—

He went on to say that the opera complex would only be completed in 1980 and that they would then examine the matter again. That is the point and there is no argument about it. When the Nico Malan theatre was opened, the hon. the Minister of Defence said in his capacity as the NP leader of the Cape Province—

The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, the NP leader in the Transvaal, adopted the following standpoint—

In conclusion, to finalize this point, I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said in a speech on 15 March 1975 in Ceres—

In other words, the principle was laid down very clearly. Every community will have to decide these matters for itself. The Government laid down the policy and there are no problems as far as that is concerned. [Interjections.] It would be a stupid government that forces a decision on any place, wherever it may be in the country, and that compels it by dictate simply to throw open a certain theatre or cinema. We have another duty as well, and that is to live together in harmony. We cannot create areas of friction in South Africa and if the time is not ripe in a specific community or if the situation is of such a nature that friction may be created, it is not wise to do that. That is the difference between the approach of us on this side of the House and the approach of Opposition members.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort in the course of my speech. I do not want to enter into the dispute between the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the Official Opposition because I feel that if I do that I shall only spoil a very good case. I am, in fact, sorry that the debate has veered away completely from the opera house in Port Elizabeth. When he introduced the motion the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central actually made an appeal to hon. members to confine themselves to the opera house in Port Elizabeth, but unfortunately his appeal fell on deaf ears.

The hon. member for Newton Park proposed an amendment in terms of which, firstly, the opera house can continue to be used under a permit system. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central merely asked for an open permit and that it should not be dealt with on an ad hoc basis as is the present case. We have also heard that the Government never refuses a permit, and that is why I cannot understand why they do not want to grant an open permit in this particular case. Why should there be red tape accompanying each of the applications when we have heard that all the applications have in the past been granted without any problems? The second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park partly reads as follows—

I want to say quite categorically that I have no doubt that no other opera houses will be built in the other townships of Port Elizabeth, not because the Government does not want to build them, but because firstly, there is not a demand for more opera houses, because secondly, there is no finance and because thirdly, the hon. the Minister of Community Development has said that he agrees that if there is additional finance he will be the first to queue at the door of the hon. the Minister of Finance to request that extra finance for housing and not for opera houses.

I am with you one hundred per cent.

The hon. the Minister is with me one hundred per cent, and I hope he is going to remain so throughout this debate. The hon. member for Algoa was Leader of the House in the Provincial Council in 1974 when the Government opposed the motion we introduced to plead for the opening of the Nico Malan. I am pleased that despite the fact that there was that opposition in the Provincial Council the Nico Malan opera house was opened to all races not long afterwards.

The NP speakers—actually I was listening to them carefully—supported the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. However, they really had to look very hard to introduce an amendment and to find points of difference. The last three lines of the amendment read as follows—

This streamlining is all the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has asked for, so I cannot understand what the problem is. If one looks at the last three lines of the amendment, it gives one the key, which is streamlining. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has shown us the way to achieve this streamlining, so I cannot see the difficulty. In fact, I can see the hon. the Minister nodding his head in agreement. Let us, in the circumstances, be reasonable and let this amendment be withdrawn. We in the SAP cannot support the amendment, which is negative, whilst the motion introduced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is a positive one.

During the course of this debate I have listened to seven potential opera singers. Today some of them have sung a fine tune, except some of them who went off on the wrong note or false key from time to time. Judging by the three Government speakers, this motion has been positively received. The most important solo has still to be sung when the hon. the Minister takes the stage. The hon. the Minister has a golden opportunity to make his voice heard and to reinforce the stated policy of the Government.

I should like to deal briefly with some of the background to this motion. During a debate in the Cape Provincial Council in 1974 I indicated, in reply to a question by the then Administrator, that the opera house in Port Elizabeth should be opened to all races. At various times we have raised the matter. In 1977 we did, in fact, put this motion on the Order Paper but, as hon. members know, we were not given the time or the opportunity to debate it.

The hon. the Minister will remember that during his Vote last year I raised this matter pertinently with him. He was most sympathetic on that occasion. In fact I had the impression that not very long after that debate there would be an announcement from the hon. the Minister’s department. I am still hoping that that announcement will be made today.

We do not take two years to give a judgment.

Nearly eight months, however, have gone past. I want to compliment the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on the very fine manner in which he introduced this motion. It was introduced to cater for a local situation in the Eastern Cape. Until a few months ago the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was serving his third term as mayor of Port Elizabeth. I think that is an important fact to remember in this debate. He has also been a city councillor for very many years. In addition to that he was a member of the Provincial Council for seven years and is now a member of Parliament. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central knows the pulse-beat of Port Elizabeth and the environs of Port Elizabeth. If he makes this type of appeal to the hon. the Minister I think hon. members can accept that he knows more than any other hon. member of Parliament for Port Elizabeth about this particular matter. In fact, the opera house falls within the constituency of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. There are other hon. members for Port Elizabeth who spoke in this debate, but I do not want to be unkind to them, but some of them need a guide to show them around their own constituencies.

The hon. member introduced the motion in a spirit of sincerity and in an honest endeavour to improve race relations in that area. Unfortunately certain other hon. members, instead of helping the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, introduced arguments which had the effect of virtually torpedoing his motion, even though they said they support the motion. I want to state quite categorically, so that there is no misunderstanding, that we in the SAP have no difficulty about the opening of the opera house in Pretoria. In fact, we favour the opening of the opera house in Pretoria, but that is a matter which is not under discussion at the moment since the opera house in Pretoria has not yet been completed, whilst the opera house in Port Elizabeth has been completed for very many years and is very pertinently under discussion.

*I am of the opinion—and I am sure that all hon. members on both sides of the House are of the same opinion—that we should rise above party politics and also that we should do everything in our power to keep and to promote race relations in this country on a decent and friendly level. I feel the time has come for each one of us to forget politics completely with regard to matters such as the opera house in Port Elizabeth. We should consider the matter as right-minded and fair people who want to do justice to all the people and races in this country. If we want to ensure the future for posterity, we must begin building the foundations today, and cornerstones also have to be laid so that our descendants may create a bigger and better South Africa for everyone in love and joy. We in this party are desirous of making our contributions to good race relations. We shall do everything in our power to accomplish this. This discussion is about human relations and race matters. These are not matters to be debated by unreasonable politicians. I would have liked to have seen a few of my friends, for instance the hon. member for Pretoria Central, enter the debate, but unfortunately he did not take part in the debate. If he wants some time, we shall give him some time.

I agree with Government policy one hundred per cent. The hon. member need not worry about that.

If the hon. member for Pretoria Central would give me a chance, he would see that I shall prove that the opening of the theatre in Port Elizabeth is in line with Government policy. Therefore, if he agrees with Government policy, he will agree with the motion.

What are you fighting about then?

Mr. Speaker, I am not fighting. This is a debate for people with vision, faith and sense and people who can perceive the realities of the South African situation. I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said in Port Elizabeth on 30 September 1976—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister continued—

†The hon. the Minister of Community Development and I were in agreement a few moments ago about the fact that one cannot duplicate facilities in Port Elizabeth, because there is not the need for them and because the necessary finance is not available.

You seem to be taking a long time to say that we agree.

With respect to the hon. the Minister, I have just said that if the hon. member for Newton Park had not moved the amendment, I could have finished my speech in less than a moment.

Having listened to the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, one sees that this motion, is in accordance with Government policy. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has the responsibility of carrying out Government policy by virtue of the position which he occupies and the department which is under his control. I should therefore like to make a sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister to grant a permit to enable all races to attend the opera house in Port Elizabeth at all times. I think we have so many very urgent projects that I do not think that the hon. the Minister of Finance will support the building of opera houses for many decades to come, and neither will his successors. That being so, surely there can be no hesitancy about this particular matter.

At the level of opera, as at many other levels, there can be no problem. We had the example of the Nico Malan Opera House, which has been mentioned, creating and fostering better relations between the other race groups in South Africa.

On 5 March 1968, the then Administrator of the Cape, Dr. Nico Malan, in his introductory speech, spoke with pride when he said that he would particularly like to mention the opera house at Port Elizabeth which was the first State-owned opera house in South Africa. It is the first State-owned opera house in South Africa and it is the one which has not yet been opened in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Worcester will remember that occasion particularly well, because on that occasion, a few minutes before the Administrator spoke, he was actually introduced as a new member into the Cape Provincial Council.

This motion merely asks the Government to implement its own policy. Therefore there should be no difficulty about the acceptance of the motion. There is no conflict with the stated policy of the Government, and as such the implementation of this motion should have the Government’s approval. We live in an era of change and challenge. I do not believe, nor does my party, in change merely for the sake of change. The changes must take place because it is the desire of all South Africans that they should take place. Changes are desirable from a position of strength and not merely because there has been pressure or agitation. Change must not take place because of agitation, because if it takes place as a result of agitation, it will be to the detriment of all South Africans. Changes that are made voluntarily, such as the one we are proposing, are in the interests of all the races of South Africa. My view is that there is a limited opera population in Port Elizabeth amongst all the races. So even if the finances were available, it would be an unnecessary expenditure to even consider building further opera houses in the other areas of Port Elizabeth. The restricted opera house population is further limited by the fact that a fairly substantial admission fee is charged. The Government, by its recent constitutional proposals, and the present situation, has created leadership positions at numerous levels. With an improved situation, and the economic upliftment of many South Africans, there is a greater demand for facilities such as the opera house at Port Elizabeth. There are members of the NP caucus in Parliament who have publicly supported the principle involved in this motion. They have done so because it is in line with Government policy. I believe that this sort of issue should be removed from the political arena as a matter of urgency, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development can do just that by assisting us in having this motion supported today. This is a golden opportunity for the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and we have provided him with the opportunity. Since the Government can improve race relations and it is in accordance with Government policy, there must be no hesitancy about the action that is taken in the matter.

In the circumstances I have much pleasure in supporting the motion as introduced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House is grateful that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised this matter today and afforded all of us the opportunity to state our points of view and our aspirations in this regard. I wish to congratulate him on a very good speech, but it is what I expected of him. During his speech I asked him whether he does not think that we should be accentuating or strengthening the precedent of the Nico Malan should we accept the question of Port Elizabeth as he had asked. He did not reply. However, it was necessary that I put the question to him, for I wished to indicate clearly that if we had granted special concessions to Port Elizabeth, we would not be able to refuse to grant the same rights in other similar cases throughout South Africa. I do not wish to evade this. I only want the House to realize—I think most of us have realized— that we cannot limit a discussion of 2½ hours on such an important matter to the opera house of Port Elizabeth. Neither can we take a decision on the opera house of Port Elizabeth without it affecting live theatre throughout South Africa and without it setting a precedent for similar cases in future. This is all I wished to say. Unfortunately the hon. member for Johannesburg North did not realize this. He passed a completely mistaken judgment on what happened there. Unfortunately he did not have two years during which he could decide what it meant. [Interjections.]

I wish to point out immediately that it is happening time and again now, that when we are conducting a worthwhile debate in this House, a debate in which we compare opinions and exchange ideas with a view to making progress in our thinking, one hears discordant notes from the PFP, as we had once again from their two speakers today. They are completely aloof to the stream of South African thinking and to South Africa’s endeavour and they prove to us that they wish to isolate themselves, especially from the White community in South Africa, and that they wish to seek their salvation in the interests of other communities. However, they do not realize that we in South Africa are as dependent as can be upon one another. [Interjections.] For instance, there was the contribution by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I really do not know why he participated in the debate, except that he once again revealed how lacking the PFP is in a clear direction. When the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke so glowingly of the fine precedent set by the Nico Malan theatre, I asked him whether he thought that the precedent of the Nico Malan should be extended to other theatres. His reply was that they would welcome this. I was pleased at this, because I believe that it was the correct solution to extend the Nico Malanzsystem to other theatres as well. However, this is a permit system.

Not the “system”.

This is a permit system. This was my question to the hon. member for Orange Grove. When he welcomed it…

[Inaudible.]

See, there the hon. member for Groote Schuur is immediately getting up on his high horse. [Interjections.]

My question was whether the precedent of the Nico Malan system should be extended. Then the hon. member for Bryanston shouted: “No permit! No permit!” The hon. member almost went crazy. Hon. members of the PFP are in ignorance of one another’s thinking. They do not exchange ideas. They have no unity, no direction. Their contribution to this debate was absolutely insignificant. It meant nothing. [Interjections.]

Therefore, I once again wish to express my gratitude very emphatically to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who moved the motion, and also to the hon. member for Walmer, who concluded the debate on a high note. I also thank the three hon. spokesmen on the Government side for their contribution. Such a debate is really worthwhile. I refer to the three speakers on the Government side. The hon. member for Walmer showed us clearly how special the position in Port Elizabeth is. He spoke with knowledge and authority and put his case with great control.

The second hon. speaker on the Government side, the hon. member for Algoa, showed us with great conviction to what extent the Government’s policy has already succeeded. The hon. member for Koedoes-poort, in turn, put it clearly that there has been a misunderstanding with regard to a certain incident. I do not wish to go into that now. In the course of his speech he placed great emphasis on this and made it clear that local option should always be one of the most important considerations in the determination of policy in thorny matters such as this.

However, I wish to return to the motion by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I should like to discuss it in the wider context as I have already indicated, and I do not wish to confine myself only to the opera house in Port Elizabeth.

I think it is necessary that we should first briefly sketch the policy background of the Government to the hon. Opposition. I cannot do it any better than by reminding hon. members who have been in the House for some time of a very important speech by the hon. the Prime Minister after the election of 1974. On 7 February 1975 the hon. the Prime Minister discussed a speech by the then ambassador of South Africa at UN—now the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs— here in the House. I should like to quote briefly a few of the things which the hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 383)—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister continued and indicated how the policy developed in three phases. The first was the phase in which it was necessary for the Government—the period after 1948—to separate that which was entangled together in an unhealthy manner. Then came the period of separate development, the period in which emphasis was placed on the development, on the creation of separate institutions, of a separate status and a separate dignity for the national elements in South Africa. On this subject the hon. the Prime Minister said the following in the same speech—

The hon. the Prime Minister then referred to the third phase. This is the phase in which multinationalism has been established in South Africa and during which we have to accept the consequences thereof, and also have to accept that there are levels at which we have to meet one another, at which we have to associate together because it is in the wider interests of the whole of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fact that other national groups now have their own elected leaders and how he can consult with those leaders—he as the leader of his people, with them as the leaders of their people. He said further—

We shall do these things in every field.

Today I wish to take a step forward with regard to our theatre policy with the full authority of the Government and with the full authority of the Cabinet. At the moment we are following a policy under which permits are granted on an ad hoc basis in deserving cases. Where this is done, we take certain factors into consideration. For instance we take into consideration the need among certain people for certain facilities. We also take into account the people’s need to use the facilities concerned. We take into consideration the location and quality of the particular theatre. We also take into consideration the fact that it is our duty to prevent friction between national groups in South Africa at all times. Furthermore, we also have to take into consideration certain problems, for example when liquor and the serving of liquor come into question. In such cases one sometimes has to take special precautions.

Above all we must see to it that our actions, even in the case of the theatre policy, must be aimed at promoting the particular identity of each nation in South Africa. I say this particularly in my capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs. In this field, the field of cultural activity, the theatre and music, their culture is different from ours, and they prefer to stage productions in their own theatres. As Minister of Indian Affairs I had to arrange, in consultation with the then Minister of the Interior, that we grant them special permits, in spite of the attitude of India towards South Africa, to allow us to bring groups of Indian musicians and others from India to satisfy their special needs. One has to take all these things into consideration when it comes to a theatre policy. The policy of ad hoc permits has long been based on the consideration that where facilities or even occasions cannot be duplicated, we should allow the people to participate on a multinational basis. Problems arose in the implementation of this policy. For instance, there is the question to which the hon. member for Walmer referred. I agreed with him immediately when he indicated that in these times, with the greater need for housing, for instance, one cannot consider duplicating luxurious opera houses. There are other things which should receive priority. We encountered the problem that when certain evenings were made available to one racial group and other evenings to other racial groups, and other people arrived and admission was refused them, those people— who were good people—were humiliated. It has always been the endeavour of this Government to avoid humiliation and offence. The people attending the theatre, are from the upper middle class. They are not the elite and neither are they the lower middle class; it is the upper middle class that is involved here, and we feel that we can mix with them on many bases in the interests of a peaceful, a useful and a valuable life in South Africa. With the view to everything I have just said, I should now like to make an announcement on behalf of the Government.

After careful consideration and after discussion with the theatre managements—we negotiated with the theatre managements for months—the Government has decided that members of different population groups will in future be able to attend live productions in certain theatres provided that certain requirements are complied with. As far as these requirements are concerned, the same policy is adopted as in the case of the Nico Malan. The hon. member for Orange Grove will heartily welcome this. The requirements which must be met, are the following—

1. (a) Permits, withdrawable at the discretion of the Minister, will be issued for mixed audiences in respect of only live theatre and only in certain selected theatres which comply with prescribed requirements as have been determined in consultation with organized theatre, provided theatre managements on 31 March each year submit a standardized report on performances, attendances, etc. during the year under review. For purposes of the report my Department of Community Development will draft a form and place it at the disposal of the theatre managers concerned and the facts contained in the report will serve as a guideline as to whether or not the discretionary permit should remain in force.
2. (b) Permits will be issued only to the owner, lessee or manager of a theatre after he has furnished proof that the theatre complies with the prescribed requirements and on receipt of a completed application form which has been drafted for this purpose and which will on request be made available to the theatre owner, manager or lessee.
3. (c) The applicant must attach to his application the written intimation of the relevant local authority and the owner to the effect that they have no objection to live performances in the theatre being presented to mixed audiences.

In other words, the principle applying here, is the principle of local option. We will not impose this on a community. We will want to be convinced that they desire open theatres.

What does the description “live theatre” include?

This is what is known in Afrikaans as “lewende teater”. It excludes cinemas, for instance. I quote further from the requirements which have to be met—

1. (d) The applicant will have to certify that a minimum number of live shows were presented in the theatre in question during the previous year and give particulars of the number of shows and the number of times each show was performed.
2. (e) In so far as theatres are concerned which do not comply with the prescribed requirements and a permit, withdrawable at the Minister’s discretion, has not been issued in terms of the conditions which I stipulated above, applications for the admission of mixed audiences will still be considered separately for each occasion on individual merit. In view of the concession being made to certain theatres, which comply with the prescribed requirements, to allow mixed audiences, and whilst everybody is now being afforded an opportunity to attend live theatre presentations under very favourable conditions, it follows that ad hoc cases will be considered strictly on merit. I should like to add that the Department of Community Development will act as co-ordinator in so far as permit administration in respect of applications of this nature is concerned and that the eventual decision will be taken by me in my capacity as Minister of Community Development after consultation with the Ministers of other departments involved. All applications for permits of this nature must in the first instance be addressed to the relevant Regional Representative of the Department of Community Development and further negotiations prior or subsequent to decisions must also be conducted with the Department of Community Development. I should also like to mention that on or before 1978-04-15 theatre owners, lessees and/or managers must submit applications for permits in respect of the theatres to the relevant regional representatives of my Department.

I must point out that these arrangements have no effect on the issue of the provision of liquor in accordance with the provisions of the Liquor Act or the issuing of visas to persons wishing to visit South Africa as artists. Those measures will, as has been the case up to now, be handled by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior, as the case may be.

I trust that theatre owners and managers who receive this permission in respect of their theatres for live theatre performances, will use it with great circumspection. The manner in which they act, will determine whether the concessions will continue.

†I should like to emphasize that this is a sincere attempt to make available, to all the peoples of South Africa who are interested in the living theatre, opportunities to enjoy the very best that South Africa or the world has to offer. We do not want to bring our peoples together in unsavoury circumstances, and therefore certain standards are laid down for the type of theatre, as in the case of international hotels, to which this dispensation will apply. I want to issue the following warning. Theatre owners who avail themselves of this opportunity, this further progress in the development of our policy in its third phase, should always bear in mind that in South Africa our people have certain standards. They are bound by a system of mores, as the old Romans called it, a system which is important to the people of South Africa. I want to warn them that one of the things we shall take into consideration in considering whether the permits should be retracted or not, is whether they respect and sustain the mores of decent people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is perhaps possible for him at this stage to enlarge on what is meant by “stated requirements” for a specific theatre?

If the hon. member will come to the office of the Department of Community Development, I can show him the application form. Certain questions are asked there about the size of the theatre, the number of seats, the quality of the seats, the size of the stage, the area of the theatre, etc. These are all technical things to ensure that it will be proper, true theatre and not merely decorated places which are built for ad hoc purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. To enable us to understand the motivation— because I think this is important…

Do not make a speech!

Can the hon. the Minister then explain why the criteria and the principle appear to be in fundamental conflict with the principle to be applied in mixed sporting facilities where there are … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! I submit that that is an argument and not a question.

Mr. Speaker, to me it is a very great honour and privilege to reply briefly to this debate. It was a special privilege for me to have had this privilege so early in my career here. Before I continue, I should like to clear up one misunderstanding. The hon. member for Algoa unfortunately— and I say “unfortunately” on purpose—read something into my speech which I did not intend. He said that I had suggested, or had warned against it, that the Government had acted irresponsibly. I want to quote from my introductory speech to show in which context I used the words “irresponsible action”. I quote—

That is the vein in which I spoke when I referred to irresponsible action. I should like the hon. member for Algoa to realize that I did not in any way mean that the Government had acted irresponsibly.

Dr. Verwoerd boycotted the Royal tour.

You boycotted the Nico Malan.

Very successfully, too.

Yes, very successfully. One hon. member stuck to the boycott. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I anticipated when I spoke earlier on, namely that we would be side-tracked with this kind of argument and that they would take the opportunity like the hon. member for Johannesburg North to make political capital out of this. I begged them and made it quite clear right at the beginning that we should confine ourselves to the problem confronting Port Elizabeth. However, they never referred to Port Elizabeth and brought in other matters.

Get up off your knees.

I may be on my knees, but you are on your stomach.

*I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank hon. members who participated in the debate, my own MP as well—he made a constructive contribution. I am his MP and he is mine and therefore we must be careful in what we say to each other.

Did you vote for him? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member comes to see me in my office, I shall give him an answer to that question.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he made a very fine announcement. We welcome that announcement, because it is in the same spirit in which we moved the motion. I do not doubt that the opera house in Port Elizabeth will comply with all the requirements and that the owners, Capab and the provincial administration, will send the application on with their approval. I can assure hon. members that the City Council of Port Elizabeth has already given its approval. That is how I have come to know the hon. the Minister. We former UP members can do our part. [Interjections.]

You are making the debate more and more complicated.

That is the kiss of death.

I want to give him the assurance that this announcement of his will be welcomed by the whole of Port Elizabeth. I hope, as I said in the beginning of my introductory speech, that this will be the last time that it will be necessary to argue about who should go to the opera house and who should not. Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to withdraw the motion with the leave of the House.