Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House next week I should like to announce on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House that the Third Reading debate on the Railway budget will take place on Monday, 17 March. The Post Office budget will be introduced on Tuesday, 18 March, and the hon. the Minister will reply to the debate on Wednesday, 19 March. The Third Reading debate on the Post Office budget will take place on Thursday, 20 March.

For the rest we shall follow the Order Paper as printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) the objective of the education policy; and
2. (2) the requirements of the education system.

The motion breaks down into three clear subdivisions: the objectives, the requirements of the education system, and the importance of the selection of teachers to achieve these objectives and satisfy these requirements. While the three subdivisions will be dealt with separately by hon. members on this side of the House, it should be most strongly emphasized that they are inseparably interrelated.

Allow me to make a few points by way of introduction. There are two basic truths that must never be overlooked in a discussion of any aspect of education and the educational task. In the first place: The educator is in the service of the parent profession of all professions. Every category of profession, from the humblest to the most prestigious, owes its origin, its continuation and its fulfilment to some tutor or other, the teacher. In the second place: Every teacher holds the future, the destiny of the child and therefore also of the nation, in his hand. The development, the prosperity, the happiness and the survival of every individual, and consequently of every nation, is determined to a great extent by the inspiration, the dedication, the motivation, the creative influence of the teaching profession which operates on the child in his process of development Therefore it has always been, it is still and it will always be true that education and the task of education are of primary importance in every national economy. They should constantly be accorded the highest priority. In the first place, therefore, the teacher should never lose sight of the supreme importance of the task of education. He should constantly derive inspiration and his motive force from the enormity of his task. In the second place, the State authorities should never remain aloof from or be unsympathetic towards the task of education and the educator. The government or the nation that neglects its educational task, has no future and will perish. Bound up with this, and this is of cardinal importance, is the fact that the status of education and the educator, of the teacher and the teaching profession, should under all circumstances be upheld and maintained at a high level by everyone. Since thousands of people are making it their life task to be engaged in this cause which is of such supreme importance, viz., the task of education, it is self-evident and of primary importance that all individual endeavours should be co-ordinated and combined for the realization of a collective ideal. Such an effective co-ordination and combination of endeavours and activities in the educational task is only possible with the framing of a clearly formulated objective. The English educationist Alexander stated—

There are four reasons why it is absolutely essential that clearly formulated aims should be stated. In the first place, the teacher derives his inspiration from such an aim. It determines the extent of his devotion and enthusiasm. It determines his strength of purpose and forms the basis of his own motivation. This inspiration, enthusiasm and dedication will inevitably be imparted to pupils entrusted to his care. In the second place, it is essential to state an aim since it determines the nature and contents of the curricula Whatever is not directly or indirectly related to the attainment of the goal, must be eliminated. In the third place it is essential to state an aim, since the aim determines the criterion in the selection of teachers. It stands to reason, after all, that the aim to be pursued with a task, determines the nature and quality of the employee, the worker. In the fourth place, the aim to be achieved determines the nature, the quality and the contents of the training of the teacher and of the teaching staff. It is particularly essential that the teacher should have a thorough understanding and insight into the objectives, since the teachers who have obtained clarity with regard to the objectives pursued with the educational policy—

As the American educationist Brameld put it That brings us to the question of what the nature and content of the objective should be. I suggest that in the first place the objectives should be worth pursuing. They should be so exalted that they can conjure up great prospects on the part of both the pupil and the teacher, yet they should not be beyond the reach of human capacity and potential. The objectives should be visionary enough to fire the imagination of all concerned, that is, the pupil, the teacher and the parent Furthermore the objectives should be clearly defined and should leave no room for doubt as to content or meaning, yet they should nevertheless leave sufficient scope for personal initiative and enterprise. Then, too, the aims of education should be of such a nature that they satisfy the general, normal human aspirations and desires of the individual, with due observance of national requirements. These general, normal human needs and aspirations may be summarized as an urge to social self-fulfilment The concept of social self-fulfilment is defined by Brameld as—

This definition is related to the educational law that education should never be detached from the cultural milieu in which the task of education is performed. In other words, there should never be any deviation from the principle that education should have a national character. Consequently, it is laid down in our own educational legislation that one of the principles, i.e., objectives, shall be that education should have a broad national interest.

If that is a generally accepted educational principle, surely it is necessary that we should bring ourselves and the teaching profession to a clear account of what we understand the concept “national” to mean. In the definition and description of the objectives there should be no doubt as to what we mean by the concept “national”, particularly in view of the present inundation of our world with the changing and modified views and ideas on what national means and entails. It has become high fashion not to regard the concept “national” as the goal of national endeavour, national existence and the preservation, upholding and promotion of national identity, but merely as the first step, the preparatory step towards and subservience to the concept of internationalism, of the world citizen who seeks the obliteration of all boundaries and of whatever serves to distinguish nationalities and the substitution for whatever is national of the universal, the international, where world citizenship is to be regarded and pursued as the highest ideal—in education as well. Think of the confusion in the mind of the child exposed to the abovementioned dual interpretation of the concept “national”. The State authorities dare not leave it to the teacher to attach his own interpretation to this concept, with the resulting confusion and frustration in the emergent generation.

Mindful of the other educational law that education should seek to achieve the complete and balanced development of man in his totality, i.e., intellectually, physically and spiritually, which is also related to the social self-fulfilment aspiration of every individual, it is self-evident that the principle, the aim that in a Christian State, education should be of a Christian nature, could never be supplanted, because it will for ever remain true that man cannot live by bread alone. But here, too, account must be taken of the fact that in respect of the concept “Christianity,” there is a dual view in the modern world. One school of thought is that man’s religious practice and devotion consist in a vertical relationship to God and that the horizontal relationship to his fellow-man is derived from that That is the old, established view and concept. As against that, there is a growing insistence that the highest manifestation of Christianity should be regarded as the horizontal relationship to one’s fellowmen as preached, inter alia, by the World Council of Churches. Here, too, it is absolutely essential for the religious well-being of our children, our youth and our nation, that the teacher should have absolute clarity and certainty in respect of the meaning we attach to the word and the concept of “Christianity”.

I am concluding with the strongest possible emphasis of the necessity for the clear and distinctive definition of our aims in our educational task, since there is such an extremely close relationship between the selection of the teacher and the aim pursued, for when one knows what one wishes to achieve, it follows as a matter of course that one will know whom to select to join one in the pursuit of this objective. Since it is not possible to amend a statute time and again merely to formulate and emphasize the aims,

I wish to urge that we should consider ways and means of regularly stating the aims we are pursuing in our educational task, and impressing this upon the teachers and the teaching profession so that this should always be the guiding star, because a person who does not know where he is going, will get nowhere. That also applies to the task of education. If it is necessary to effect changes in objectives in view of a changing world, we should never lose sight of the fact that the basis of the educational task, namely the national and Christian principles, may never be changed.

May it be that our teaching profession will again make a penetrating analysis of the content and meaning of our objectives—and I repeat this—so that “they come to feel that they are members of a great profession, because it is a profession of great purpose”.

Mr. Speaker, the House is indebted to the hon. member for Kimberley North for introducing a motion that focuses upon the task, responsibility and importance of the teacher and of course, by direct implication, the importance of the growing child as well. I must confess, however, that I have some difficulty with the wording of the motion. [Interjections.] I have this difficulty, firstly, because it is remarkably vague and, secondly, because I would have thought that this is a matter that really would be debated more fittingly in the provincial councils of our country rather than in this House in particular. [Interjections.] Thirdly, I am afraid that this motion does a disservice, in one sense, to the teaching profession as such because it limits the focus to White teachers only. [Interjections.] I regard this as very unfortunate. [Interjections.] I believe that teaching is very important. [Interjections.]

Order!

Whether we like it or not we are going to have to live with one another in South Africa, and I would have thought that the selection of all teachers is of paramount importance. I cannot, of course, develop this point because I would be ruled out of order.

Having stated those qualifications, however, let me nevertheless repeat what I said right at the beginning. We are very much indebted to the hon. member, because when we talk about the importance of teachers, and teaching as a profession, in particular the importance of the selection of teachers, I think we are at one in this House. There is no doubt in my own mind that here we find common ground. There is no doubt too—and I am again in agreement with the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member who moved this motion—that the teaching profession is a calling. I would even go so far as to agree that it is the mother profession of all other professions, because without teachers we would not have any other professions at all. It is a calling that sets the teacher apart. It is this factor that must be uppermost in our minds when we talk about the selection of teachers. The demands are such that it is highly unlikely that a prospective teacher would stand the pace, and the demands made upon him or her, without that special dedication, that sense of calling. In talking about selection and the qualifications that are required of a teacher, one finds the list to be endless. It is difficult, in any words, in any speech, in any debate, to try to sum up the desirable characteristics of a teacher. Those who have taught, either at school or at a university, as many of us in this House have, will know something of what I am talking about. The demands are enormous. One could list some of these qualifications. Obviously when one selects a teacher, one is looking for certain basic academic qualifications and not only that, but also the ability to communicate, because unfortunately it is one thing to have the knowledge in theory and even to have a string of degrees, but if one is unable to communicate something of that to the child, the growing person or adult, it is a dreadful waste. Thirdly, I would say there must be a very real commitment not only to the profession, but also to the child itself. Fourthly, I would believe that if one is looking for qualifications in a teacher, one would, in selecting that teacher, look for someone who is aware of the need to nurture the child, nurture in terms of protection, care and compassion. At the same time any teacher worth his or her salt must be aware of his or her responsibility not only to nurture, but also to expose.

Sometimes I think we have made a mistake in some of our teaching and some of our approach by so putting the child in cotton-wool, so protecting the child from its own immediate environment that when it is finally exposed to that on leaving school, it finds it incredibly difficult to cope. The temptations, the battles, the choices, the competing loyalties which a child has to face when he or she leaves school are enormous, are very real. I believe that the responsibility of the teacher is not only to nurture that child in the fundamentals, but also to expose the child so that it is equipped to make the necessary choices in the real world and not merely in the world of the classroom.

I think that in terms of selection, one also has to add this slightly different point: If one wants to select the best teachers, then not only must one look for qualifications, but one also must offer an attractive career opportunity. We must because I believe that we are in a situation in South Africa now where there is a great deal of strife and uncertainty in this whole profession. I think we must all agree that, whilst we accept the calling of the teacher as imperative and whilst we admire their devotion to duty and their dedication in their work, they cannot live on dedication alone.

It is not fair to expect teachers on whom enormous demands are made to try to survive on a salary and wage structure which is often hopelessly inadequate. I think that many of us in the House would agree as we look back over the years that teachers have been taken for granted, that they have not been afforded the normal bargaining mechanism which is part and parcel of other professions and as a result we have not kept pace. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that in many respects in terms of reward teachers have been shabbily treated over the years.

We know that attention has been given to this, but I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of National Education to remind us when he replies to this debate that there is nothing demeaning about a teacher wanting some financial security. There is nothing taken away from the calling of a teacher simply because he wants to try to make ends meet I hope the hon. the Minister is going to tell us today that he has talked with the hon. the Minister of Finance and that, on 26 March, there is going to be some very good news for those in the teaching profession, because if it is true that the destiny of our future generations lies very largely in the hands of the teachers, we have to strengthen their hands and we have to help them to understand that we care about them, that we believe in them and that we want them to work with a sense not of strain but a sense of realizing that they can cope, that they do not have to worry and that they do not have to look constantly in the pages of the Sunday Times for a new job because they cannot come out on their salary and cannot maintain their standard of living. I believe that is of the utmost importance.

They do not read the Sunday Times.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg says he does not read the Sunday Times. My impression is that he does not read at all. [Interjections.] Well, I hope the hon. member will listen carefully because this is an educational debate and there is much to be learnt from it.

They read much better newspapers than the Sunday Times. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, whilst I have great respect for all teachers, I sometimes wonder what kind of teacher the hon. member for Verwoerdburg must have had. Furthermore, I believe the hon. member should not blame his teachers if he simply cannot absorb what is offered to him now. [Interjections.]

I want to move on now and try to outline what I believe to be the fundamentals in terms of the goals of education or the task of the teacher. Firstly, I should like to suggest that education is for investment. We are investing in successive generations. This, I believe, is a very basic approach. Let me state it quite simply. The purpose of education is to enable people to earn a living. Just that, by way of introduction. It means that the educationist or the teacher, at different levels, must equip people—children and adults—with a confidence in industry, in commerce and in agriculture. We should not apologize for this fundamental purpose. It is one thing to talk in terms of lofty idealism, and of course we must do that. I shall return to that, however, in a moment.

If we are not, however, equipping the child to find his or her place in the world and to earn a living, I believe the teaching profession has failed. This, I believe, is a fundamental aim. Let me put it in another way. Skills, thinking and judgment are, I believe, in very short supply in South Africa and we do need to produce and to develop these human talents for the future. I shall put it again in another way. There is, as I understand it, a utilitarian character to the task of education, which is a central purpose. Nevertheless, I hastily go on to say that there is much more to it than that. Secondly, I want to suggest that it is an education for citizenship. The hon. member for Kimberley North talked about Christian national education and I suppose we must concede that there will be differences of interpretation immediately regarding an understanding of what it means to be Christian, to be national.

You will not understand it, anyway.

Let me try to spell out how I understand it. I want to explain it in this way. Education for citizenship, I believe, could be defined in these terms: To enable and to assist the new generation in the art of living together.

Explain that, please.

I shall repeat that. It is to enable and to assist the new generation in the art of living together. I shall explain this in a moment. Education must have what I should call a communal thrust, an awareness of being part of a community, of being citizens of a land and of a situation. Communalism, a sense of being part of society which rises above mere or sheer individualism, develops an awareness that one lives in society and that what one does and achieves is in large measure determined by one’s ability to find one’s place within that society without being overwhelmed by it. I believe this is a lesson which needs to be learnt and relearnt throughout life. One simply will not learn it merely in the days of one’s childhood. I think that to plead for education for citizenship is something quite different from what the hon. member has pleaded for earlier. I want to put it in another way. It is to help the growing, the developing individual to ask not only the question of identity, “Who am I?”, but also the consequential question “Who are you?” In other words, one is not living unto oneself, but in a community which makes certain demands upon one. One cannot merely live unto oneself and must therefore be aware that there are other individuals asking exactly the same questions as one is asking. This, of course, implies the third question, viz. “Who are we in this land? What are we struggling to do, what is our future and what is our destiny?” The one point I want to underline is that our destiny is bound up with one another. Immediately we forget that, I believe the destiny of all of us is in jeopardy. I believe, to state it quite bluntly, that there is a need in the South African context for individuals and groups to become aware of it that there are others who exist alongside them and will simply not go away. It is important for teachers, as they pursue their important task, to realize that there are other teachers, other children and other groups who are also struggling with the basic existential question of destiny, of life and of survival. Unless we are aware of this, we are living in a dream world. Unless they take the aspirations of others into consideration, their own aspirations, no matter how lofty they might be, will fall by the wayside. The fact of the matter—and herein lies the tragedy—is that perceptions are being shaped now for the future generations of young people in South Africa, perceptions which are often being shaped in isolation, the one from the other, and therefore breeding not mutual commitment, but distrust and fear. This is the problem.

What does that have to do with the motion?

It has everything to do with the motion, because we are talking about the task of education. We are asking what education is all about and what our objectives and aims are. If we are going to restrict ourselves so narrowly as the hon. member for Virginia seems to suggest, we will, of course, continue on our narrow path like a bunch of lemmings until we reach the precipice. What I am saying is that education cannot be bound in this way and cannot be so restricted. The teacher’s responsibility is to try to throw open the windows which have been frosted over in the coldness of prejudice and separation. Until such time as that happens, the future and the horizons of the child are artificially narrowed and hampered. I believe this is not necessary. I believe the teacher’s task is to open and extend those horizons so that we can understand that we are living together. Unless we do that, I believe we have failed in our task. That is the point I am trying to make.

Let me try to put it another way. During the last couple of weeks quite a great deal of fuss has been made about sport, and there are educationists who believe, and I believe I am one of them, that not only culture, not only faith, not only history and heritage, but also sport itself has a part to play in the development of education. If that is true, then I find the chairman of the Transvaal Onderwysers-vereniging sadly lacking in his understanding of education. I think Rapport has answered him very well indeed under the writing of Pollux. If we are going to talk about sport as a necessary part of education and as an attempt to develop the wholeness of the child and if we are going to use sport as Prof. Maree states “as part of the development to find a group identity”, then I believe—to use the words of Rapport—we are digging our own grave spade by spade.

The final point I want to make is that in the task of education we have to have not only the citizenship approach and the understanding of being part of society, but also education for individuals, of the importance of the individual. This is a paradox, I know, but it is of the utmost importance for the teacher to understand that every child is a unique creation of God and therefore has opportunities and possibilities unlike anyone else. I believe that if we can provoke young people to pose the question which I mentioned earlier on, the question “Who am I?”, then I believe that child can begin to understand that it must not be bound by the past, but that it should take that which is good and build on it for a new future. The former State President in a speech yesterday mentioned that he tried to avoid creating expectations. I believe this is unfortunate. I believe a teacher must create expectations in the life of a child. When we are selecting teachers we ought to look for people who are dynamic, not static and sterile. If we do not create expectations, we are creating death and stagnation.

The final point under this heading—and this is where I should like to move my amendment—is that education, the task of the teacher and the selection of teachers are so important that we must select teachers who will provide an education which is relevant to our times, that it is not something which we can simply hold back as belonging to the past. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (1) making our education more relevant to the changing realities of the world in which we live; and
2. (2) equipping our children to meet the challenges posed by these changing realities.”.

We must help our children, not to further prejudice, but to break it down. We must develop in our children, and therefore also in our teachers, an attitude of tolerance, tolerance in terms of religion, tolerance in terms of language, tolerance in terms of race and tolerance in terms of different ideas and approaches, for if we do not do that, we are finished. Our children are growing up in time of change, of accelerated change, in a time of diffusion of values, a time in which in many ways many young people believe there is a sense of impending disaster, and yet by contrast a time in which they find themselves part of an affluent society. I can best sum up what I am trying to say in the words of Jean Piagét—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands referred inter alia, to teachers’ salaries. I must tell the hon. member that I wish the teachers the best salaries the South African economy can allow them.

No.

I do not wish to enlarge on that because I think the hon. the Minister will have something to say about it.

The hon. member for Pinelands went further and when he was discussing teachers I agreed with several arguments he used. But I could not agree with him when he was discussing the educational system as such. The hon. member advocated a system which would actually amount to a levelling process, a system within which separate cultural heritages would vanish. The present educational system in fact makes provision for the recognition of separate cultures. There is nothing in the educational system and the education policy that does not recognize the existence of the other person.

It is a fact that education is orientated to nationality and culture. This profession makes exceptional demands. Society makes exceptional demands on the teacher in connection with the professional services he has to render to such a society. The demands of society may be summarized in the general objective reflected in the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967, namely that the education policy shall have a broad national character and should be purposefully conveyed to the pupils. That entails that every pupil’s knowledge of his fatherland, his language, his cultural heritage, his history, his traditions, his customs, and the national symbols, should continually be inculcated in them. It is in this respect where the hon. member for Pinelands and his party and his people fall short.

Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the objective that education shall have a national character. This objective emphasizes the importance of the selection of teachers. But since it is also important that the particular religious beliefs of the pupils and their parents should be respected, it is essential that well-balanced persons should be admitted to the teaching profession. We need people who have sympathy and understanding for the individual.

I now wish to confine myself more specifically to the requirements of education. It is essential that in the selection of teachers, the requirements of the educational system should be satisfied. A natural corrollary of this is the need to determine these requirements. These requirements can be determined, inter alia, by the socio-economic conditions of the community in which education has to be practised.

It may have become essential, owing to economic straits, or a lack of manpower and other considerations, or else the parents may have decided that it has become essential that the mother should work. In certain cases, this entails uncared-for infants, which in turn creates a need for nursery schools. Consequently a new element arises in the selection of woman teachers. These teachers have to meet specific requirements. These specially selected and trained nursery school teachers have an immensely important task to perform. It is their task to be a substitute for the mother.

Although the age in which we live, is known as the age of the child, there are many instances where the child is pushed aside and thrust into the background by material and economic considerations. This is done to a greater extent in the urban areas than in the rural areas, because it is a fact that in the countryside, children still have space in which to play and live in a less demanding world. The part played by the mother in this family sphere is that she has to create a safe haven which is essential for the child’s sense of security. In the absence of the mother, the nursery school teacher has to be a mother surrogate. She has to ensure a sympathetic and loving authority and guide within a sphere in which the child can fulfil himself and feel secure. I am placing particular emphasis on the infant stage of the child because it is such an immensely important stage in his life.

An enormous knowledge explosion has occurred. In the course of the years, we have acquired more knowledge of the needs of the child and its educational process. It was previously an accepted view that a child should be left to its own devices until its sixth or seventh year, that it should then go to school, and that the actual learning process would then begin. This increased knowledge of the mental development and personality growth of the child has contributed to the realization that the pre-school period of the life of the child is extremely important. The success achieved at this stage of his education will, to a great extent, determine the success of his school career. Some form or other of organized pre-primary education has therefore become necessary, where the child will have the opportunity of being informally guided to practical experience and so explore the world around him. In this way the child is also prepared for his subsequent formal instruction.

This organized pre-primary education, of course, creates a new need, and consequently new elements which are sought in the selection of woman teachers, namely the ability to lead the child in this stage between infancy and the time when he formally attends school. It is a very important preparatory process for the child. We therefore need a specifically selected, trained teacher for this child.

In respect of technology we have had a knowledge explosion that has vastly expanded the levels of requirements in society. This knowledge explosion in the field of technology has brought about a far-reaching change in the curricula which, in turn, is reflected in the process of selection. To satisfy the needs that have arisen as a result of the technological explosion, it is necessary to seek for the teacher who can absorb this wealth of knowledge as far as is humanly possible. We do not realize what a vast amount of knowledge has been added during the past two decades alone, knowledge that has to be processed. What is more, the teacher also has to have the ability to impart this knowledge to the pupil.

As a result of South Africa’s vast distances and the centralization of its educational activities, many of these pupils are accommodated in hostels. In many cases, particularly in the rural areas, the pupil stays in the hostel from his first school-year until Std. 10. The important educational task in the hostel rests almost exclusively in the hands of the teacher. The hostel father and mother take the place of the rightful father and mother as long as the child lives in the hostel. This fact emphasizes the need for a system of selection that will attract only the best people to this profession.

The generally accepted educational principle that the individual should be developed in his totality, that is to say, mentally, physically and spiritually—we always used to say to the whole of the child came to school—creates the need, inter alia, for sports coaching, which must of necessity also have an effect on the process of selection, since it is expected of every teacher to play his full part in the educational and training programme of the school. Thus there is a need for that theacher who is prepared to sacrifice his or her weekends for the extra-mural activities of the school or institution.

The fact that education shall have a broad national character entails that the teacher cannot detach himself from the obligation of guiding the child and inculcating a love for his own culture in him. Consequently the teacher has to be prepared to provide guidance and to assist in those activities of the school that would lead the child to an appreciation of his own cultural heritage. I am referring here, for example, to participation in the Land Service Movement, the Voortrekkers, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, etc. Here, we are involved with an element in the process of selection that has to take account of this identity of the teacher, the ability he has to extend his influence outwards, which is a very important element in the educational process. Educational institutions have become aware of the fact that there is a need to make greater provision for professionally orientated curricula for pupils within the framework of the manpower requirements of the country.

At the same time, of course, due account has to be taken of the inequality of the pupils. They differ, inter alia, in respect of intellectual capacity, physical ability, sensory perception, temperament, aptitude, interests, and emotions. This distinction between pupils creates a need that has to be taken into account so that education can take place in accordance with the abilities of the pupil or student. For that reason the educational requirements in the schools for the blind, the schools for the deaf, the schools for the physically handicapped and industrial schools, would also differ. The deaf, for example, has no real communication with his fellowman. He is cut off from his fellowman. Here we have the need for a teacher who has the ability, and the patience and who is equipped to help the deaf, particularly in a professionally-orientated direction of study, so that he can ultimately be taught to help himself. There are also the blind. They can be trained as telephonists, for example. Since the State is the guardian in the case of industrial schools and reformatories, the teacher performs the function of a father or mother in this case as well, and these are facts to be taken into account in determining the needs.

The educational needs of apprentices at technical colleges would in turn differ from those of other pupils. Every trade has its own determination of needs. The teacher, lecturer or instructor has to import knowledge, but not only that. He also has to know the working conditions of the artisan. The diversity of needs, from the level of the infant to tertiary level, creates a diversity of specific tasks for the satisfaction of those needs. Consequently, the importance of selection of teachers for a specific task for the satisfaction of a specific need can never be over-emphasized.

With this I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Kimberley North.

Mr. Speaker, basically I have no fault whatsoever to find with what the hon. member for De Aar has said. By referring to the problems of nursery schools, to the circumstances in which one is compelled to have hostel conditions and to the various special or professionally orientated branches of education, he has in fact indicated very clearly to the House what an important subject we are discussing at the moment, i.e. the selection of teachers.

We ought to be grateful to the hon. member for Kimberley North for introducing a motion which ought to receive the attention not only of the House, but of the whole country as well. I should like to point out to him that as far as the importance of the selection of teachers is concerned, there ought to be no difference of opinion in this House. Fortunately there is no difference of opinion. We all agree that teachers should be selected on a proper basis so that one will have in the profession only those people who belong there. For too long have we had the attitude that the teaching profession was simply open to anyone. We had the attitude, too, that it was a profession which could even be used by people with material aims. Teacher training was also to a large extent made available to many people who, after leaving school, did not really know what to do. So it happened in the past that we had an influx of many people to the teaching profession who did not really belong there. The hon. member for Kimberley North pointed out to us very specifically that it was essential to lay down certain criteria.

†By means of his motion the hon. member more or less evaluated the process of selection. He did this against the background of the present education policy and the requirements of the present system. That is one way of doing it. I concede immediately that certain advantages can be derived when such a method is followed. The only problem I have with such a method is that should there be certain deficiencies in the present system and policy, one would not be able to obviate such deficiencies even if one followed a strict selection procedure. I therefore consider it wise that we should try to extend the spectrum, and so that we can move outside the concept of the present limitations, I move as a further amendment—

1. “(1) the overall educational requirements of the country;
2. (2) the better utilization of available qualified teachers; and
3. (3) the attainment of proper educational aims and objects,

and expresses its concern that in the past not enough attention has been given to these aspects of education.”.

My amendment is very complementary to the motion and not entirely contrary to it.

In the selection process a number of issues must be taken into consideration. In the first place one can ask: What are the attributes of a teacher, let alone of a good one? This is a legitimate question and it must be decided when one wants to establish criteria for selection. What we are selecting is obviously not the trained teacher, but the student we believe would, with training, develop into a teacher, and even a good one. I do not wish to create the impression that the attributes of a saint are necessary, but in our training of teachers we should more or less aim to achieve the following which I admit I arrived at by adapting a definition of Gilbert Highet in The Art of Teaching. I also included some of my own ideas.

The good teacher is of course a person who knows his subject More important than that however, is that he is a person who can communicate knowledge. He should be able to do this with enthusiasm so that he can awaken the enthusiasm and interest of his pupils. To his pupils he is the interpreter of the adult world, and in order to succeed it is essential that he must understand and also sympathize with the world to which his pupils belong. He must be prepared to like his pupils and to get to know them individually. While approachability is essential it is wise that he should always be reserved and maintain a certain distance between himself and his pupils. Whenever it is difficult for him to make his subject matter relevant he must have the ability to make himself relevant. Good humour and the ability to laugh at oneself are good teaching aids, whereas negative humour, mocking and satirizing should be avoided like the plague. He must be able to show initiative, perseverance and patience. That means that possibly a politician will qualify as well. [Interjections.] He must be able to be modest about his own achievements.

That is your strong point, is it not? [Interjections.]

He must also be able to admit his errors. That, of course, immediately disqualifies a politician. [Interjections.] Evenness of temper is another asset, as is the ability to avoid pettiness and prejudice. These are of course irreplaceable prerequisites for fostering a positive pupil-teacher-classroom relationship. To this I also wish to add that it should be a relationship aimed willingly and spontaneously at the greatest degree of co-operation. In spite of all this the teacher must still also possess the ability to assert authority and to impose discipline and rules.

Having said all this, I should just like to add that one does not need to be a saint to be a teacher, but it does help. [Interjections.]

When one considers the process of selection, the process of deciding who should teach and who not, one method is, as I have already stated, to try to ascertain and determine the personal attributes of a competent teacher. The selection process, however, must also coincide with the aims and objects of education as such. In this respect note should be taken of the fact that in my amendment I referred to proper educational aims and objects. When one speaks of aims and objects in education there is sometimes a tendency to put forward a number of vague value judgments, most of them completely meaningless and worthless. It seems that there is never a lack of confidence in those who draw up lists of the aims of education. Among the most common aims one usually finds the forming of character, the preparation for complete living, the creation of a sound mind and of a sound body. Such aims are often too easily formulated, and may even be found to be quite satisfactory until we ask what kind of mind and what kind of character we want to form. Only then do we realize that we cannot give a satisfactory answer to the question of what complete living really means, because what is complete to A may be spiritual death to B, and what is sound for C may be ridiculous to D. From this it is clear that questions of value are not questions that can primarily be answered by file dissemination and the assessment of factual evidence.

We must still have proper aims, however, in order to give direction to those who are to enforce and to carry out those aims. It should also include some guidelines in terms of which it could be tested. In spite of these general criticisms of value judgment educational aims will always have some element of value judgment in them. I should therefore put forward as a worthwhile educational aim—and on this point I do agree with the hon. member for Kimberley North, who also mentioned it—the attainment through education of what I want to call social competence, naturally with due regard to the diversity, possibilities, interests and aptitudes …

Social what?

Social competence. “Sosiale bevoegdheid. ” The aim must be that every pupil as a social being should, as a result of his education, be in a position to advance into real life with every chance in his favour to find happiness and—and this is very important—a sense of self realization in society, in his work, his family and also within himself as an individual. In this respect I wish to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that within the concept and aim of social competence one would of course include the ability to live in a far greater society, in what is sometimes referred to as the universal community. In education it would be an impossible task to educate for the universal man, because there is no such creature. That greater world community or society still consists of individuals who are based upon their own society.

It was Paul Woodring who stated—

Immediately it can be asked whether that is not a value judgment. I am satisfied to incorporate this idea into an educational system by which we aim to produce persons who, because of their education, will be able to develop into social competent people capable of making wise decisions. The teacher who has to produce this commendable end-product must therefore be selected carefully and wisely.

*If we were to continue the practices of the past, particularly those of the various provincial departments of education—and I am not exempting any of them—and simply offer training to just about anyone who is prepared to come forward, we would be creating tremendous problems for ourselves for the future. I just want to mention an example. In the past it was common practice that loans were made available, for example by the provincial administrations, without ever being paid back in cash. They were paid back in the form of service, in the sense that one had to serve the same number of years that one had studied.

Are you opposed to that?

I am not opposed to that, but my problem with that system is that it was practised without consideration for the real educational needs of the country. That is why this situation has developed. I suggest that selection take place with due regard for the general educational needs of the country. Surely we know exactly what is going on in South Africa today. If one were merely to count heads, one would find that we do not have a shortage of trained teachers. However, there is a shortage of trained teachers who specialize in specific fields. Up to now selection was not accompanied by proper guidance and direction. I can foresee that the stage will be reached when the departments will have to display the courage to tell people that if they want to undergo training in a field for which there is no need, loans of this kind will not be available to them.

[Inaudible.]

Hon. members do not seem to agree with me. However, if one does not do so, one is going to end up with people who cannot be utilized properly. Those are the practical problems which confront us. It is for this reason in particular that I am glad that the hon. member moved his motion, so that one can point out to the authorities in a proper manner—and here I am not using the word “authorities” merely to mean the central Government, which in fact has very little to do with this matter, but the actual administrative bodies which deal with it—that there is indeed a tremendous problem and that it is all very well to say that we are now able to select teachers, but what is the use of selecting people according to a system in which no real attention is given to the specific utilization of those qualified teachers?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has said quite a number of things with which one can agree. He spoke about the ideal teacher and so forth. However, I regret that the hon. member made two statements which prove that he most probably did not have enough time to reflect on the motion. In the first place, the hon. member is opposed to the fact that the objectives of education are so vague. As an alternative, he proposes that we should rather think of social (“maatskaplike”) competence as one of the objectives.

Social (“sosiale”) competence.

“Sosiale” competence, if he prefers. That concept of social competence is much more vague than the objectives defined in the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967. Nor did the hon. member succeed in explaining to me what he actually meant by social competence. I shall leave it at that.

At the end of his speech, the hon. member pleaded that when bursaries—not loans—are granted to persons who wish to study teaching, then …

No, loans.

There is no such thing as a loan in the teaching profession. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. They are bursaries that are granted, because he has already explained that the loans are not paid back in cash, but in years of service.

He said that when the bursaries were granted, cognizance should be taken of the needs in the schools. On that basis, the bursaries should be granted or withheld. However, this practice is already being followed. With great respect, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I want to leave the hon. member at that.

I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. He was not very friendly to begin with. He blamed me for not being kind to the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member for Pinelands said, in the first place, that the motion was rather vague. If the hon. member says that the motion is vague, then it is because he does not want to confine himself to the motion; in fact, the motion is concerned with the selection of teachers. With great respect to the hon. member for Pinelands, he made very little reference to the selection of teachers. In all likelihood he had not thought about it. He also said that the motion should perhaps rather have come before the Provincial Council.

Yes.

The hon. member says “Yes”. I say he should at least have taken the trouble of studying the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967. Did he study it?

Yes.

Then the hon. member probably did not get round to examing section 4(1)(a) and (b). Section 4(1)(a) already provides for matters regarding selection. It affects the provinces, but also the selection of teachers in respect of the things which concern the Department of National Education. Why does the hon. member wish to make such a statement here?

I am relating it to the two legs of the motion.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that “education on citizenship enables and assists the new generation in the art of living together”. The hon. member then goes on to say that it is not only who “I” am that matters, but also who the other person is. It is who “we” are that matters.

A socialist!

It is said in the preamble to the Constitution Act—

We agree with that, but it does not mean what the hon. member believes it to mean, i.e. that we should now nurture a kind of world citizen in our schools. That was the hon. member’s argument.

I did not mention that word.

We know the argument of the PFP in respect of education. They want one great educational system. Now I want to tell the hon. member at once that what I shall presently say about the selection of teachers I should recommend with equal conviction for the selection of teachers for Black, Coloured and Asian education. However, we must understand that when we are talking—and the hon. member also mentioned this—about identity, then we allow ourselves the same identity; in fact, we demand it. It is our right, our God-given right. On the other hand, we wish the other colour groups to have it too and we should like to have it promoted among them. Therefore the objectives of the hon. member for Pinelands can most appropriately be achieved within the system we have, but from an educational point of view, the aims of the hon. member for Pinelands are unjustifiable. One cannot do it in that way. The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to this. I shall leave the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands at that.

Thank you very much.

At this stage I should like to make a few statements. I refer to section 2 of Act 32 of 1961—

I want to refer to the National Education Policy Act, in which three main principles are spelt out, namely that education should have a Christian character, that it should have a broad national character and that the mother tongue should be the medium of instruction. Furthermore, I also want to refer to the professional code of conduct of the Teachers’ Council, in terms of which a teacher—

Against this background I ask myself what the task of the teacher is, because it is only by examining the task of the teacher that I can come to the selection of the teacher that has to perform the task we expect of education. I want to say at once that it is the duty and privilege of the teacher to regard the education of every child as a sacred duty and—this is very important—to accomplish this through the example that the teacher himself sets the child. Education is essentially a transmission of culture. One can never separate the culture of a nation from the education of its children. The school transmits and develops the tradition and the culture of the people to which its children belong. We can never get away from this. As a part of this function, it fosters patriotism, develops cultural history, emphasizes traditions and history, and so forth. I also want to allege that it is the task of the teacher to instil certain qualities of character into his pupils. I am referring to qualities such as love of one’s own heritage, readiness for service, industry, sacrifice, enthusiasm, enterprise, perseverance, discipline, and so forth. It is a fact that the teacher is the leader who has to train, nurture, form and mould leaders. The teacher has to act as an opinion-former in his local community, i.e. on the religious, cultural, political and every other level. A teacher cannot escape from this. Having said all this, it is very clear that when we talk about teachers, we are dealing with important people. I should like to quote what the American historian Henry Adams wrote about teachers—

The communist believes that the teacher, together with education and teaching, is the most powerful means of effecting a change in the views, attitudes and vigour of any nation. In fact, the communist believes that education is the most powerful weapon in the process of building a nation. Do we always realize that during one teacher’s term of service of approximately 40 years, about 8 000 pupils sit at his feet? Certain influences are therefore exercised by one single teacher over 8 000 pupils. And in the light of this fact, we are indeed dealing with extremely important people when we discuss matters of education.

This brings me to the selection of teachers, which is actually the most important aspect of the motion which is before the House. It is important, therefore, that we should discuss this. The two previous speakers on this side of the House have already dealt with the two subdivisions of the motion. When we come to the selection of teachers, I should like to relate this to a quotation of J. K. Norton. He has the following to say about teachers—

This is quite true. The youth of our time, the scholars of today, are looking for strong leaders who can inspire them and guide them in the right direction through their example. Character-building results from the example set by the men and women who provide instruction, and not primarily from the knowledge that has to be transmitted. This reminds me of a beautiful saying which hangs in the offices of many school principals, and which hung for a very long time in my office as well—

This is indeed true of these men and women who are ready to devote their lives to the children who are sitting at their feet.

I should now like to say a few words about the conditions of service and selection of teachers. I agree with hon. members of the Opposition who said that in order to attract men and women of quality, the conditions of service—I am now talking about conditions of service in the global sense, which includes salaries and so forth—should be appropriate. We cannot get away from that.

However, the salaries should not attract fortune-hunters to the teaching profession, for it that were to happen, we would have a problem. The salary should be in line with what we expect of the teacher. We get carried away when we say that the teacher is a special person who makes a special contribution. I think it is only fair and justified to bring the conditions of service and the salaries into line with this as far as we possibly can. However, we should be careful, when we come to the selection of teachers, not just to say that we are improving the conditions of service because we are dealing with special people; we should also think of higher qualifications for admission to this profession. It is unfortunately true today that many of the professions sometimes refer somewhat slightingly to the teaching profession because the academic qualifications it requires are not high enough. I believe that if necessary, we could raise the academic qualifications required of the teacher in order to enhance his status and to give him an even more valid reason for saying that he is entitled to ask for better conditions of service and a better salary. Regarding the possibility of higher academic requirements, I want to refer to an investigation conducted by one K. M. Evans in respect of the “ability of the teacher”. He says, inter alia—

In other words, students who do well academically tend to be better teachers than those who do less well in the academic field.

I should like to refer bursaries and selection. I want to say that bursaries should not be used by students to obtain a degree, practise the teaching profession for only a limited number of years afterwards and then leave. The student can study at a university free of charge because he has received a bursary, he works for the prescribed number of years, as he is expected to do to work off that bursary, and then he leaves the teaching profession. It may be true that teachers are unhappy at the moment about the conditions of service and that this is advanced as one of the reasons for this situation. I concede that, but I also want to say that in selecting future teachers, we should try to eliminate in some way the man who only wants to use the teaching profession to reach the point where he can eventually practise another profession.

I want to refer briefly to what is happening in practice today. The purpose of the selection is obvious. It is to find the ablest candidates. At the moment, the selection is done mainly by the school principal and the inspector of schools. The norms they use are the personality of the prospective teacher, his intellectual abilities and achievements at school and to some extent his view of life. I want to tell the hon. the Minister this morning that I find certain shortcomings in the existing system. I want to point them out briefly—unfortunately my time is too limited to elaborate on them.

The first shortcoming is that it is not strict enough and that it varies too much from one principal to another. I shall presently suggest a possible solution in this connection. In addition, this selection is too subjective and lacks definite criteria which can be applied by all principals. Often it is based on a single meeting between the selector and the candidate. It is true that the principal knows the candidate very well, but the inspector of schools, who also has to make a selection, may talk to the candidate for 5 or 10 minutes and evaluate him by way of a symbol. I want to allege that this is not good enough. I also want to say that intellectual ability plays too dominant a role. It plays an important role, but I want to allege that this role is too dominant, because the teacher’s equipment involves much more than just academic or intellectual abilities.

I want to propose that objective criteria such as IQ and personality tests, character, view of life and family background should be taken into consideration, because the teachers are the people who are going to educate the children of the nation and they must do so on the basis of a particular view of life. Therefore this plays an important part. I want to advocate a selection committee. The task should not rest with the inspector of schools only. I do not mean to detract from the work done by the inspector of schools. In the selection committee I am proposing, the school principal and the staff should play the leading role and should judge according to criteria that have been laid down. Continuous selection during training is extremely important, of course, because it would not serve any purpose if the candidate were selected and then went astray during his period of training. Therefore there should also be selection in respect of academic achievements and his general attitude towards the teaching profession.

My time has almost expired. I just want to say that I think the question of the selection of the teacher is equally applicable, of course, to the selection of the lecturer. It would not serve any purpose to select the prospective teacher but not the lecturer who has to instruct the future teacher. He should be subject to the same norms. Therefore I am advocating this as well.

I should like to conclude by quoting of Mr. B. J. Viljoen, who for years was the secretary of the FAK and who is presently on the staff of the University of the Orange Free State. I make this quotation in a spirit of great seriousness, for it would be a great day if the child could say of the teacher what Mr. Viljoen speaks of in his quotation. If this could happen, we should have succeeded in our process of selection. Mr. Viljoen says the following—

That is, the child’s—

May we be able, through our process of selection, to find men and women who can serve as teachers and to whom the children can give this kind of testimonial.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the thanks conveyed by the hon. member for Pinelands to the hon. member for Kimberley North for having submitted this motion to the House for discussion. Of course, I agree with the criticism—and I believe it was moderate and positive criticism—expressed by the hon. member for Pinelands in connection with the other things that could have been contained in the motion, but which were unfortunately omitted. However, I want to add that the way in which the hon. member for Kimberley North opened the debate was acceptable to us on this side of the House. We can associate ourselves with his argument, something we cannot necessarily say about the last contribution in this debate, the one by the hon. member for Virginia I shall come back later to what the hon. member for Virginia said.

However, I want to say at once that it is a pity that this motion is in a certain sense somewhat unrealistic, merely because there is a shortage of teachers in South Africa, especially for certain subjects, and the degree of selection one would like to see is therefore not possible. This immediately brings me to a question which has already been mentioned by other speakers, and that is the position of teaching as a profession, a choice of profession for children leaving school, people on the threshold of a new profession. There is no doubt about the fact that the teaching profession has in many respects become an extremely unattractive proposition for children who are leaving school. It is not only a question of the payment which teachers receive, i.e. the position regarding their salaries. These, of course, have not only lagged behind those in the private sector, but behind those in the rest of the Public Service as well in recent years. This is something which in my opinion certainly deserves drastic attention.

The teacher is a person who is actually on duty 24 hours of the day. The teacher has to be a teacher for the full 24 hours of each day. He does not necessarily have to sit in an office or stand before a class, but he must be accessible and he must be at the service of the children and the parents, and often this means very abnormal working hours. This makes greater demands on the teachers, therefore, than is often the case with certain persons in the private sector or in other branches of the Public Service. The teacher often has to use his own car, for example, to convey children to sporting events, etc. Often, too, he has to use his own house as a meeting place. However, there is no provision for compensation to be paid to the teacher under those circumstances. I want to concede at once, of course, that it would be very difficult to find a formula according to which a teacher would specifically be compensated for that extra service he has to render in the teaching profession. That it is why it is so important that we should keep those elements in mind in determining the teacher’s basic remuneration.

Another aspect is the fact that the wife of the teacher, or the husband of the woman teacher, is often drawn into the duties which strictly speaking belong to the teacher himself. In this way, the family works together as a team to perform the duties of the teacher. This, too, should be borne in mind in determining the remuneration of the teacher.

The concept of “Christian national” has been mentioned again and I want to repeat that the interpretation given to this by the hon. member for Kimberley North is in our opinion unexceptionable. We have no problems with the way in which the hon. member described it and based his argument upon it. He spoke about a broad nationalism, and we have no fault to find with the fostering of a broad nationalism.

Perhaps I should just refer briefly to a speech made by the hon. member for Virginia in 1978 when he moved a motion dealing with education. On that occasion, he referred sneeringly to the American educational system, although he was actually talking about communism. I just want to say that I think we in South Africa have reason to be envious of the degree of national pride displayed by Americans. They have a very great national pride and we could perhaps learn a great deal from them. Their educational system is more open, and in spite of that, America does not produce citizens who loathe or despise their country. That is not what is happening there. [Interjections.]

The “Christian” part of the concept of “Christian national”, as interpreted by the hon. member for Kimberley North, is also acceptable to us, on the understanding that an essential characteristic of a Christian approach is tolerance and acceptance of the interests and the religious convictions of others as well.

Humanism has nothing to do with it.

The hon. member does not seem to know what it is all about.

There are other concepts which are often used by persons in the teaching profession and by persons in this House and which I believe are often made to look ridiculous in the process. These are concepts such as “patriotism”, “people”, “nation”, etc. These concepts are employed for a certain purpose which is unfortunately counterproductive. A few months ago I had the privilege, along with the hon. member for Kimberley North, of addressing a group of school-children who were about to go abroad in terms of an exchange scheme under the auspices of the Rotarians. There were also some children who had returned to this country from abroad. We served on a panel to discuss political questions with these children. It was very interesting to see how mature these children were in their approach and how well informed they were, and in my opinion, these people will undoubtedly do credit to South Africa when they have to represent our country abroad and when they have to discuss South Africa’s problems with our critics as well as our supporters in that territory.

However, I have to express my concern in this debate about the fact that we sometimes detect a somewhat narrow-minded attitude in educational circles. I am saying this with regard to the educational authorities. The hon. member for Virginia himself actually demonstrated in his speech here, and also in his speech in 1978, what I mean by this narrow-minded attitude. The hon. member spoke, for example, about a basis for the selection of teachers, and said that a candidate’s view of life should also be examined. When we talk about a view of life, we shall have to define it very carefully, otherwise we shall have enormous difficulties. What is interesting is that the first reaction to that standpoint of the hon. member was an interjection by another hon. member on that side of the House who said that in that case no person in this party could ever be a teacher. That is exactly what I mean. [Interjections.] These concepts are exploited for party-political purposes, and therefore hon. members cannot expect us to have any sympathy with that concept and with the laying down of vague rules and vague guidelines. A recent product of this narrow-minded attitude, as the hon. member for Pinelands has already indicated, was in fact the struggle that developed around the arrangements with regard to the Craven rugby week. [Interjections.]

Oh man, you are flogging a dead horse.

As the hon. the Prime Minister also said quite clearly, it is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to get involved in a struggle of this nature, especially in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself today.

I even want to allege that those who are opposed to the meeting of children of different races on the sports grounds—and unfortunately there are many of them in the teaching profession—are doing those children, those future citizens of South Africa, a very great disservice. It is so extremely important that people should come to know and understand the circumstances and needs of our fellow-citizens of colour, especially during the school years, that we dare not deny our children this specific privilege. If the direction of education in South Africa is concentrated so exclusively upon ensuring a blind faith in the existing dispensation, especially the existing political dispensation, while failing to inform the children of other alternatives, I can assure hon. members that we are doing those children an injustice and we are doing nothing to prepare them for their future role in politics or in whatever profession they may choose.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to follow the line of argument of the hon. member for Green Point apart from saying that we obviously agree with some of his comments.

I should like to begin my speech by stating briefly—and I do not intend to elaborate—that I wish to make it clear that the NRP would have been happier if the motion before the House had dealt with all teachers. I do not believe I need to elaborate on that either apart from saying that under present circumstances and in the way in which we are obviously developing, we would have preferred to see that. [Interjections.] I am not going to take this point any further, however. Obviously that point of view is unpopular with hon. members opposite, but I am nevertheless leaving it at that.

The selection of teachers is obviously a point which deserves to receive a great deal of attention, and the process of choosing implies that one has available more teachers than one can utilize. In that respect I do not believe that we are at present in that fortunate position in which we can afford to be choosy and can therefore necessarily pick the best people for the posts that are available. I think it is quite obvious that at the moment the problem is that one is not attracting as many of the right kind of people as one should like to see entering the teaching profession. Again I think one must be realistic and realize that the main reason for this is that salaries do not compare favourably with what people with equivalent qualifications can get in commerce and industry.

I should like to come back to that a little later when I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister, and I should like him to comment on that suggestion when he replies to the debate. If one did find oneself in the perfect position of being able to choose one’s teachers through the selection techniques available today, one would realize how important this is to every aspect of education, right through from the pre-primary to the matric stage. I know there are people who would ask why the pre-primary school-teacher should be of such great importance. I should merely point out, however, that in those first formative years one should in fact put more emphasis on the right selection of teachers because they are to handle the children who are going through the development which in later life will reflect back on the care and attention and the approach to which they were subjected during the pre-primary school years. I therefore regard that as being of primary importance in the whole educational system.

If one gives it a moment’s thought, one sees that it is extremely important that, despite the fact that we do not wish to differentiate between groups of children in our schooling system, in those early years the teachers of the pre-primary school child should be able to recognize the signs of potential leadership, the signs of extraordinarily gifted children. Without necessarily making these children feel different from their co-pupils it could be part of an ongoing reporting process on these children in view of the fact that they have special talents which can be utilized if such talents are encouraged in a way in which only really the teacher, and to a lesser extent perhaps, the family can do it. I do not have to emphasize the teacher’s importance in finding, identifying and reporting on those children and in opening avenues for them whereby their capacities will be utilized to the very best. At the other end of the scale, too, it is terribly important that those children with learning difficulties, e.g. who find it difficult to concentrate, should be identified so that remedial teaching can be applied where necessary, not always through a special remedial school, but through processes which we could evolve if we were to broaden our educational system.

In regard to the first leg of our amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, I want to say that we should be looking at the possibility of turning more young people into the field of further technical training. I believe that in some respects a stigma is attached to further technical studies. I believe that what this country needs desperately is more technically trained people. I believe that the education should be geared to showing certain categories of youngsters that their talents lie in that direction and that there is no stigma attached to being technically trained as opposed to enjoying the so-called advantages of a university degree.

In regard to the better utilization of teachers, I should just like to say briefly that if one could choose specifically one’s teachers for high schools, one would not always end up in the position one finds today in which there are large numbers of unmarried women teachers at boys’ high schools. I think the hon. the Minister will be aware of the problems that have recently arisen in this regard at a senior school in Durban. I am not saying that they should not be women teachers at high schools, but I am saying that it could well be a prime requirement that those teachers be married, because very often they are dealing with young men in their late teens and early ’twenties, and I think a married teacher is in a far better position to deal with difficult youngsters in that age group.

I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in regard to better salaries. It is not realistic just to say that teachers’ salaries should be improved. I should, however, like to put a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. At present teachers work from 08h00 to 14h30. The dedicated teachers are involved in sports activities after school hours. Some teachers, however, finish work at 14h30, walk out of school and that is the end of their responsibility. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to conduct research amongst teachers and through teaching associations as to the advisability of extending the official working hours of teachers from 08h00 to 16h00 in the afternoon so that all teachers work on the same basis. That represents roughly a 25% increase in the official teaching time.

I think the hon. the Minister’s hand would be strengthened if he were to bargain on the basis that he could grant teachers a substantial increase in salary, but that this is what he would like to see. The advantages to the children are obvious. One is going to keep children from broken homes off the streets, one is going to be able to render extra services to children who are having difficulty with certain subjects and one will be able to offer facilities to children who are not necessarily players of the major sports like cricket and rugby, but who will be interested in other extra-mural activities. I foresee that the teachers who cannot coach major sports could find societies whereby children with interests in stamps and collecting various things could be catered for during the hours from 14h30 to 16h00. I believe there are enormous advantages in this. Some children from institutions have no supervision over their homework and teachers would therefore be available on an agreed basis in certain classrooms to help those children. The advantage it has for the teachers is that there would not be this discrepancy between the working hours of teachers. Only some teachers are putting in extra hours, but in terms of this all teachers will be working the same hours.

I hope that in the very limited time at my disposal I have created a train of thought on which the hon. the Minister may comment and which we may be able to follow up at some future stage in debate.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity we have had of hearing the views of hon. members on both sides of the House on such an important subject I am especially grateful to everyone for the fact that this discussion took place in such a spirit of goodwill and responsibility. I agree that we owe the hon. member for Kimberley North a debt of gratitude for directing our attention once again to this very topical question, which is being widely discussed in the outside world, so that we could deliberate about it again in this House. I listened to him and to the other hon. members as well, and listening to the hon. member for De Aar, my thoughts involuntarily went back for a moment to the time when I went to a hostel as a young child. This brought home to me again the truth of his words when he warned this morning that in so many respects, the task of the teaching profession is the task which a father or a mother has to perform in a large part of a child’s life. I have with me a letter which I received a few days ago from a teacher who is a member of the teaching profession and who is a son of a teacher for whom I had the highest regard in my life, a teacher at the Lydenburg High School. I want to mention his name in this House. It is Mr. Snyman, who was taught mathematics and who was well known throughout the country, or throughout the Transvaal, in any event. His son, who is now a teacher—I am not saying this to make propaganda for him—at Belfast, in a provincial school, could have had an appointment as head of a section in another department. He wrote the letter to say that he would rather not accept it, for the simple reason that he believes that the role which the teacher has to play these days in the life of a nation, in these years to which the hon. member for Pinelands as well as hon. members on this side of the House have referred, the task he has to perform in the classroom to build the characters of the children and to build the future of this country, is so important, in his opinion, that he would prefer to stay there. I thought to myself that this was a tribute which a child was unwittingly paying after many years to the example which his father had set in forming the Afrikaner people.

I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution, and I also want to express my thanks for the suggestions made by the hon. member for Berea and others regarding the utilization of the time of the teachers. These are things to which we shall have to give attention, in the years to come.

Apart from the role played by teachers in building the characters of children in schools and hostels, there is also the very important contribution they make on the sports grounds after school hours. There is a great deal of misunderstanding—and I am only referring to this with your permission, Mr. Speaker, because it has already been mentioned—and reference has been made to many things that have been said recently about the role of teachers in connection with the organization of Craven Week. I just want to refer to this in passing by saying that the teachers who came to see me acted in the most responsible way in their interview with me and that the matter was not discussed from a political point of view, which is the impression that has unfortunately been created, but that, rightly or wrongly, they argued their case from a standpoint which has regard to the interests of the educationist, whatever the decision to be taken. However, it is important to know that those extra-mural activities in which our children take part and the way in which they take part also help to build their characters. Those matches are not organized by me; they are organized by the teacher and the trainer, and I entrust my child to his care for that period of the day, so that they may put it to good use in building their characters, apart from developing their physical abilities.

We all understand the very great importance of the teaching profession and the teacher as the agents which carry out the education policy in our national life and in the life of our country. I regret to say this afternoon that there have been developments over the past few years which have not yet been solved and which it will not be possible to solve this year either. Let us understand the matter clearly. These developments have brought about an alienation between teachers and communities. Like the hon. members for Pinelands and Durban Central and of the SAP, I urge that if there is one field in which this House should speak with one voice for the sake of the future of our country, and in which we should not try to score debating points, it is the training, up to high school level and beyond, not only of our children, but also of people of colour in this country who will grow up with our children and who will have to work together to build the future of our country. In any event, I believe I should say that one matter should perhaps be identified on which we may disagree with one another. However, I hope that this will be done in a spirit of goodwill. It should not be done in a spirit of trying in this way to gain political victories over people. Surely, as the responsible Minister, I have made my standpoint quite clear, and let it not be misunderstood by supporters or opponents in performing the task of education.

I think there was once an unfortunate time in our history, when we tried to win the favour of Black and Brown fellow South Africans, who had been placed in this country together with us. Sometimes wilfully, but in the vast majority of cases without any wilful intent, our playing with colour not only lost us the respect of people of colour, but also caused us to loose our own respect for our history and our pride in our culture. I want to make this clear so that there will be no misunderstanding. I do not share the sense of guilt expressed by some people, as if there were thousands of millions of people who had been wronged over the years, who had been humiliated by Whites, and who had had to struggle to make a bare living. This is simply not true. The Whites in this country—English-and Afrikaans-speaking—have no cause to harbour any sense of guilt. They do have cause to feel a sense of duty, but by accepting a sense of guilt, we are doing an injustice to our history and to our future. Why should love of one’s own heritage necessary imply hatred for those of others? This is simply not true. Love of one’s own heritage means in fact that one is enabled to love somebody else’s as well. After all, if I may speak to an ex-colleague in the ministry, it says in the Bible that “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The criterion is “as thyself". The respect and love which a person has for himself should be used to enable him to show respect and love to others as well. The hon. member for Kimberley North said that when the vertical ties are there in the realization of the Christian character of our people, the horizontal ties will follow. It cannot be otherwise. The horizontal ties will not be dominant; they will not create a class of world citizens. The important thing is that the realization of the vertical duty and love will also enable us to live horizontally, and thus to care for the interests of others, especially those who are less privileged than we.

In the debates we have conducted here I have often heard the suggestion made—I hope we shall be able to discuss this again in the debate on my Vote—that we should have a comprehensive department of education or that such a department of education is essential for the salvation of South Africa. I want to make it quite clear, and I have said so in a previous debate, that I cannot subscribe to that. To me, education is also a cultural task that is undertaken. It is not only concerned with knowledge being drummed into the pupils by the teachers. It is also concerned with transmitting a culture. Along with this sense of guilt, a feeling has also developed that one should be ashamed of one’s own language and that if one admits to loving one’s own language, one is actually despising other people. Why then is a Black man in Africa not ashamed of his language, identity and culture? I want to read to hon. members what Africa has to say about the selection of its teachers. Let us forget what the rest of the world has to say about us and let us concentrate on what Africa itself says about its future. I read from a treatise about what is being said on this subject in the Black states of Africa—

It could not be put more clearly. In 1976, they found it necessary to make it even clearer. On 27 January 1976, “the Ministers of Education of African member States” spelt out the objectives of their system of education to all the member countries as follows—

What does this mean other than that in the whole task of education, from the pre-primary level throughout life, a person’s association with a culture and with a people’s heritage and its history are part of that educational task? It cannot be otherwise. It is accepted by India and by all the other countries of the world. I see no reason why we in South Africa should be ashamed to say that we also want to do it in that way. As the hon. member for Virginia said, we want to give the best we can to White education—because the motion is concerned with White education—but then we also want to give the other nations the very best in the shortest possible time.

I cannot reply individually to all the points raised by hon. members, but I am glad that the hon. member for Pinelands mentioned a very important aspect, one which I want to repeat for the sake of White education. With the development of the technicons, new directions at the tertiary level, differentiation in education and many other aspects, a new dimension has been added to the demands which will be made on the teachers of Whites in South Africa. I am not referring to the Black people in South Africa in a derogatory way. I hope they will always accept it in that spirit, but I emphasize that anyone who has eyes to see, who has ears to hear and who has a mind to understand these things knows, without disparaging the Black people, that as nations they have not yet attained the level of civilization of the Whites in this country. They have not had the opportunities to do so. We shall not go into the reasons for that.

The fact is, they do not have it, and to be quite sober and practical, they will not receive the training for many years which Whites are privileged to receive. It will be our task to expedite this process. However, it is wishful thinking to say that within the next 10 or 20 years, the Blacks will have attained the same level of development that the White child will then have. It is wishful thinking to dream that it will be possible in 30 years’ time to spend the same amount of money, percentage-wise, on the training of Black children and other people of colour in this country as is being spent on Whites today. However, this does not give us the right to sit back and wait instead of expediting the process and bringing this about as soon as possible. There will be an interim period which we must regard as a challenge, not a challenge to rule over others and to maintain supremacy just because one has a White skin, but a challenge to build a country. Because we have an advantage over the Black people who have been placed with us in this country, we must retain that advantage so that we may train those people to fill the posts which they will have to fill eventually, perhaps even in the near future.

What is the use of buying the finest aircraft for one of our homelands if they cannot use it? In saying this, I am not dragging in a colour connotation. If any hon. member of this House had intended to give me a 747 aircraft on condition that I use it myself, I would have had to decline it. What I mean by that is: What is the use of the finest aircraft if one does not have the human infrastructure to use it? What is the use of the finest agricultural machinery if one does not have the farmers to work the fields and to maintain the tractors? What is the use of giving post offices to the homelands if there are no people who can use those instruments and repair them if they break down? It is essential that Black people be trained and that this be done more rapidly and in greater numbers for the sake of us all in South Africa, and that task of training, not only for White South Africans, but where people of colour will also have to be assisted, will be the responsibility of those people who are privileged to have a civilization of many years behind them, namely the Whites of South Africa.

The selection of teachers has been discussed here. I cannot emphasize enough that the new demands which are being made in respect of our relations with our fellowman will also be made on our teachers. An hon. member, or perhaps it was more than one hon. member, said that it is easy enough to tell a man that one plus one are two. However, he cannot go into the world with that knowledge. He must also be taught to communicate with people, to appreciate the cultural heritage of others as well as his own, to be proud but not haughty in his life, to be humble but not servile in his work. It is up to the educationist, to the father and mother of every child, to teach him those things. This imposes an enormous task on the parents of this country, the White parents in the years to come. But those parents can only work hand in hand with the teachers with whom they entrust their children for such a large part of the day. That is why selection is so extremely important, as the hon. members rightly said. There will be differences of opinion at times about the quality of the teacher. However, I cannot see that the high requirements that are laid down for admission to the medical profession—and I have a high regard for this profession—should not also, in a different way, be laid down for the teachers who are entering the teaching profession. The doctor does extremely important work with regard to the physical fitness of people, but after all, the teacher is entrusted with the task of helping children to develop their spiritual preparedness for life. To be able to perform that task, we need the best people and we must treat them in the best way to keep them in the profession. Suggestions were made by the hon. member for Berea and others. I shall give more attention to these aspects during the discussion of my Vote. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. Whip of the NRP to stop talking to the hon. member for Pinelands for a moment, because I have to reply to his speech. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to ask this. Whether it be a junior or a senior member, I show everyone the necessary courtesy. If that hon. member wants to ask a question, I shall be glad to answer it. I am not asking this for my own sake, but for the sake of a subject which is important to this party and to which other parties also want to give attention.

In the interests of the teachers, I want to indicate that this matter cannot be dealt with in a haphazard fashion, as has sometimes happened because of circumstances beyond our control. I have requested hon. members to pay attention because I now want to come to an announcement, and the document concerned was prepared by my predecessor. Therefore it is not something which has come into being in the immediate past It has been found necessary that education as a whole should no longer be treated in a piecemeal fashion, but that attention should be given continuously to the problems which exist in education. In 1979, the comprehensive machinery was created in which the whole spectrum of education—from the pre-primary level up to the tersiary level and beyond—is represented to give attention on a co-ordinated basis to the improvement of educational structures all along the line. Attention should not, at one moment in time, be given to those at universities and technikons, and the next year to those in primary and secondary schools. The spectrum as a whole should be covered. The same applies to tertiary education. This committee is known as the Committee of Educational Structures and has a permanent working committee which has been constituted to give attention on a continuous basis to the improvement of all aspects of educational structures. This includes salaries, pension benefits and all the other related benefits. Inputs made by the Department of National Education in the annual draft estimates in respect of improvements to educational structures are initiated in this body and then submitted to the other committee for its consideration. Even though we may not achieve everything we should like to achieve this year, therefore, I want to give the assurance this afternoon—and I am grateful for the opportunity—that attention will be given on a continuous basis to education and the importance of White education in this country. A project committee has also been appointed to carry out a research project to give continuous attention to the status of the educationists in South African society. We hope that this committee will be able to determine the needs for the next 20 years, and I may express the hope this afternoon that the first interim report will be available towards the middle of this year.

We have spoken about the importance of the teaching profession, and we have listened to people who have discussed the importance of this profession and of the knowledge that has to be transmitted. I am glad that this has been brought to our attention. There is a very old little English poem which occurs to me when I think of the fact that we should attract the people with the best character to the teaching profession, and not only the people with the best knowledge or the best brains. This is the poem—

I pay tribute to them this afternoon, the members of the teaching corps who helped to raise my own people from the dust. I also pay tribute to the teachers who are serving under difficult circumstances today. I pay tribute to the teachers who are serving the other population groups of South Africa under difficult circumstances. Finally, I want to say that I am confident that we can now withdraw this motion and leave the subject in the knowledge that we shall be united in building a fine future for the education of the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the discussion which has taken place on the subject of this motion, and with the approval of the House I now withdraw the motion.

With the approval of the House I withdraw my amendment.

With the approval of the House I withdraw my amendment as well.

Agreed to.

With leave, amendments and motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

For many years the lot of the elderly has been the subject of debate in this House. This has been so since the early years, and it has also been discussed in various debates in the course of this year. I think that the person who has probably had one of the biggest shares in this—I want to pay tribute to him—is the hon. member for Umbilo. He has stated this case very strongly in this House over the years. There has never been a lack of sympathy for the cause of the pensioner. That is the case both within and outside this House. However, there is always the reality of the situation, namely the fact that the State can only do so much and no more, the fact that the number of elderly people is increasing steadily, and the fact that the cost of living is rising more rapidly than the State can afford to increase pensions.

The aim of this motion is to bring about a situation at some time in the future in which the elderly will receive a liveable pension, as a right rather than as a privilege, irrespective of their income or possessions. A national contributory pension scheme is necessary for this. It is an absolute and vital necessity. Every year that this matter is postponed, the problem is aggravated and the eventual establishment of such a scheme becomes more difficult.

The recommendations of the Pienaar Commission of 1926 contributed to the passing of the Old-Age Pensions Act in 1928. The terms of reference of this commission were, firstly, to consider the introduction of old-age pensions and maintenance allowances and, secondly, to investigate the possibility of a comprehensive social security scheme. The Government of the day decided against such a contributory pension scheme.

What a pity that scheme was not begun at that stage, so that we could have been reaping the fruits today! Such a scheme would by now have been 54 years old with reserves built up over the years. Even if the State had had to pay a substantial amount into the fund annually for purposes of administration, or as a grant-in-aid, it would nevertheless have entailed a major saving in comparison with the pensions at present being paid to our elderly people every year.

The need for some type of scheme has grown rapidly since 1928, when old-age pensions were approved and paid for the first time. This has been the case to such an extent that in 1957, the then Commissioner of Pensions described the increase in applications for old-age pensions as disturbing. He expressed his concern about the fact that there were so many people who still, despite the good conditions prevailing then, had not made adequate provision for their old age. In his report he mentioned the following—

The old basis is the basis of old-age pensions which still applies. He continued—

If that was the case as long ago as 1957, how much more will it not be so in the year 2000! With a view to consideration of a scheme, the Government sent an observer overseas in 1958 to attend the 13th annual general meeting of the International Association for Social Security in London. At the same time he also investigated various other schemes in Europe. This shows that interest was in fact shown at that time and that there was also an appreciation of the need for such a scheme.

During 1963 the Minister and an official of the department also investigated European schemes, but the present system was reconfirmed due to problems that existed at the time. In 1964 the Cilliers Committee was appointed to recommend steps to be taken to promote transferability of people’s rights and the obligations of the existing pension funds. This committee found that the pension system would only function satisfactorily when all employers had pension funds to which their employees could belong.

Since then we have certainly made a great deal of progress in this direction and today there are very few employers who do not yet have pension schemes for their employees. However, there are still large numbers of employees, who do not yet belong to pension schemes. This brings me to what I regard as the most important reason why we in South Africa still need a contributory pension scheme and why it should be established without delay.

The wage gap between the various races in South Africa is narrowing in all respects and we are approaching the time when total parity will be achieved. Earlier this week in the Railway debate we heard that positive efforts were being made to bring about parity in wages in the Railway Administration as well. I rather think that the hon. the Minister said that this would be achieved by about 1994. The day that the wages of people of all races who have the same qualifications and the same responsibilities are precisely the same, will be the day when there will be no further justification for a difference in pensions. That day is coming. It is essential that that day should come. Indeed, we are moving rapidly in that direction. Old-age pensions are already a heavy burden on the State coffers. How much heavier will that burden not be when the stage is reached when there is an overall parity in wages, and when a concomitant parity in pensions will therefore be essential? It is for this reason that a contributory pension scheme should be introduced now, a scheme to which everyone will contribute so that when that day comes, that scheme will already be in operation and will, if not entirely, then at least in part, afford relief to the State coffers.

During 1967 the then Minister and some of his senior officials again visited overseas countries to investigate social schemes. It was found that the schemes in the USA and in Canada were indeed good ones because what they had in those two countries were in fact insurance schemes, and not really welfare schemes, and that the contribution of the State only served to cover the administration of the scheme and to ensure that the scheme was at all times actuarially secure and sound. Nevertheless, after this investigation it was decided not to recommend such a scheme. The problems that existed due to our multinational community were advanced as a reason. These problems do exist, and we shall have to bear them in mind. The scope of the administration of such a scheme was described as enormous. Now, we can ask what the biggest problem will be for South Africa. As I have already said, the day will certainly come when there will be total parity in salaries and wages. We must therefore determine what problems will be preferable—the extent of the amount which the State will have to provide annually, or the tremendous extent of the administration of a contributory pension scheme. As regards the levying of the contributions to such a scheme, in my opinion there are two simple methods. The first is by way of deductions similar to those we have today with regard to the levying of income tax. In the case of people who are not attached to a specific employer, deductions can also be made by way of the Receiver of Revenue, who in turn can pay the money to the pension fund. As far as payments are concerned, there will not be any problem as far as I can see. For that we have post offices, banks and building societies at our disposal.

It goes without saying that questions will crop up, such as whether the scheme should be uniform, with a uniform tariff, or whether it should be linked to a person’s income. The purpose of the scheme in Canada is merely to ensure a reasonable level of income for all, rich and poor, to ensure that they will receive a pension in their old age which will improve their position. The details of the scheme must, of course, be fully investigated. One cannot embark upon the scheme precipitately. Consideration must be given to the benefits offered by such a scheme and the question whether existing pension schemes that are linked to people’s income can ensure additional revenue for those pensioners. However, right at the outset the principle of a contributory scheme must be accepted. That is what I am advocating today.

At this stage—it is true that it is a late stage, but with a view to the future it is an early stage—let us accept the principle that such a scheme must be introduced in the future.

To realize fully how serious the matter is, it is necessary to look at the figures and to see how the number of pensioners, and the amounts paid to them, have increased in the past. In 1968 there were 98 134 old-age pensioners receiving an amount of R35 587 000 per annum. Eleven years later, in 1979, there were 137 760 old-age pensioners to whom an amount of R142 553 000 was paid out every year. Over 11 years the number of pensioners has increased by 39 626 and the amount paid to them in pensions, by R106 966 000.

On the basis of this criterion I want to make a projection over the next 20 years. I want to adopt the premise that from now on there are to be no pension increases. We all know that this is something that is adjusted almost every year. However, for the sake of argument I shall take it that there will be no pension increases. Working on the present basis, we shall find that in 20 years there will be 216 952 pensioners receiving R352 485 000 per annum. I am referring to Whites alone. What would the position be if other races were included and annual increases were taken into account in this regard? I do not want to think about it; the amount would be astronomical.

One of the aspects relating to pensions which causes the majority of problems today is the means test, which must disappear if a contributory pension scheme is introduced. At present, the means test discriminates in various ways. I do not want to give attention to all of them, but I do want to refer to one of the most important. Let us take as an example two people, one of whom has made some provision for his old age, while the other has not. The one who has built up a nest egg for himself from which he draws a small income every month or every year, in many cases finds himself in the position that that nest egg can count against him and can determine whether he will receive a pension or not, whereas the person who has blown everything in his lifetime—and there are many such people who live from day to day, who make no provision for their old age, have put nothing aside and have no income in their old age—qualifies for a pension.

Moreover, the existing system of payment of old-age pensions is undoubtedly to the detriment of the sense of responsibility of people. Some people have a reckless approach to their old age and rejoice in the fact that they will receive an old-age pension when, in the case of men, they reach the age of 65 years. They know that if they have nothing, they will qualify for it. This also discourages healthy old people who can still work. We all agree with that. I think it was the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who referred in a similar debate last week to the service officers in this building. We are all in favour of the idea that elderly people who are still capable of doing so, should work and keep themselves busy, but the means test can cause a person who takes a job to lose his pension. Fortunately, I think, our service officers in Parliament are all railway pensioners, with the result that the small amount of extra income does not affect their pension. However, if one of them had been an old-age pensioner, the work he performs as a service officer for the period of five months in the year would lose him his pension. If the means test were abolished and the old-age person belonging to a pension scheme was able to work, he could keep himself busy, improve his own financial position and be of great assistance in the economy of this country.

Another aspect of the means test which could be regarded as discriminatory is the calculation of the unencumbered value of fixed property. As in the case of savings, the position of a house can also influence one’s pension and can be to the detriment of a person who has paid off his house throughout his life so that he, too, could own his own property one day. This is another case of the person who has not saved and has not bought himself a house, being able to draw benefits as a pensioner without let or hindrance. The pensioner with his own house, despite its value, ought to receive a pension on an equal footing with others, particularly in the case where the property does not provide him with an income. In this regard a contributory scheme would also serve as encouragement for persons to purchase their own houses and accordingly to receive a burden on the State to some extent in that the State need not then provide housing, since the person sees to his housing himself.

Notwithstanding the problems which a contributory scheme could give rise to in its first years, particularly as far as administration is concerned, we are convinced that a scheme which can be introduced as rapidly as possible—and that is important—will be a good investment over the long term. It will be a good investment, not only for the taxpayer and the pensioner, but, most important of all, for the State as well. The additional expense which such a scheme would entail during the first years of the scheme would certainly be heavy for the State, but it would entail major benefits as the scheme became older and built up more reserves. When the scheme is fully functional, the State will necessarily benefit from it greatly, even though it may still at all times have to bear part of the cost, such as the administration costs of such a scheme.

This is why the Commissioner of Pensions recommended in 1957 that if a contributory pension scheme were introduced, it would have to be done during a period of prosperity and not during a depression. This being the requirement of such a scheme, there has been no better time for the introduction of such a scheme than now. Our plea is that a plan be made now. Do not wait until the problem doubles yet again.

The biggest problem is that the Government will be obsessed by the tremendous scope of the scheme, and I say this because throughout the history of a contributory pension scheme and the investigations carried out, it has been evident that the Government has always objected to the tremendous scope of the administration. Despite this we think that the tremendous scope of the scheme in 20 years’ time, when equal pensions may be an everyday matter, must be compared with the present situation. Twenty years from now, when the number of beneficiaries has doubled and perhaps trebled, this tremendous scope will be even greater. I am sure that if the situation today is compared with that which will obtain 20 years from now, the objection to the tremendous scope of such a scheme at the present stage will disappear because we shall realize that the sooner we introduce the scheme, the sooner South Africa and the elderly will benefit, and the greater the benefits will be. We therefore ask that serious consideration be given to the introduction of such a scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of appreciation to the plea of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and I feel that most hon. members on this side of the House have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that he raised, particularly with regard to the many pensioners in our country.

It was a very interesting experience for me to be able to be in Europe a year ago, where I attended an international congress and also took a look at what is being done with regard to contributory pension schemes in four countries. I am referring to Portugal, Spain, West Germany and Switzerland. I want to use those four countries with four different systems as examples to substantiate my point. I want to make the point that we should learn from the mistakes of other countries and when we look at a possible contributory pension scheme for South Africa, we must realize that we are dealing with a very complicated matter, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central correctly mentioned. However, this does not prevent us from taking a fundamental look at this matter and asking ourselves where we stand, and what is possible and not possible.

In my modest opinion, there are three very important entities that we must bear in mind. Firstly, as one of the entities we have the insurance industry which also deals with pension funds and schemes. In the second place we have the function of the State, the role that the State must play. In the third place, which is possibly the most important, we have the pensioner, the public who have certain rights and privileges.

Now we must ask ourselves exactly what is entailed in the motion that we have before us, which was introduced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central this afternoon. We have a request for a national contributory pension scheme for South Africa I emphasize “South Africa” because one cannot do it for Whites alone because apart from Whites, we also have Coloureds and Asians in the economy. We must take a special look at this difficult aspect because we are a heterogeneous community, very varied.

In principle I want to say that I am keen to support what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is requesting, viz. that a scheme like this be introduced. However, we must look at certain conditions and qualify certain matters. In the first place I want to qualify what we mean by the concept of “national” in the sense of “national contributory pension scheme”. We are not dealing here with the State on one hand nor the private sector on the other, in the sense that one of the two will have to exercise total control over such a scheme. In other words, by saying this, I am vehemently opposing any form of what may be socialism on the one hand, by which the State would take complete control and one would have poorer quality services for more expensive privileges, or on the other hand the danger which is also relevant of a monopolistic system taking control. We must be very wary of the dangers which such a monopolistic system could entail.

In the first place, let us look for a moment at the whole broad field of the insurance industry which includes the pension funds and schemes to which I have already referred. Then we must not forget that the private sector also plays a large role in this regard. We shall refer to this later. We must take into account the fact that life assurance and pension funds have taken on the proportions of a powerful economic giant in the past decade. In the past year alone, it has increased to twice the amount of the gross domestic product. This gives hon. members an idea of the extent of the economic power which the funds and schemes have.

Furthermore we must bear in mind that two of the largest businesses that administer these schemes, viz. Old Mutual and Sanlam, generate R5 million in new finances for the economy every day as a result of their business. In all fairness, it can be asked what they do with this money and where it is employed. Firstly, it is employed on the Stock Exchange where it is an important factor in supporting the Exchange. Secondly, large sums are paid in taxes which fall to the State and thirdly it is employed in industries like the new Sasols and to assist the infrastructure of the country. If we make a survey of this entire matter, we must take note of the fact that we are dealing here with an economic giant which is a great asset to South Africa. In other words, it is one of the very best assets that we have.

If I am reading the signs correctly and anticipating future legislation, these giants will rather grow and flourish in future than be phased out. Here I mean in the first place that if pensions are going to be made transferable—I want to ask for this—and secondly if pensions are going to be strengthened and entrenched—I am asking for this too—we can expect such steps to have far-reaching implications for this entire industry. A growth of 20% in premium and investment revenue is being predicted and anticipated by economists for the following 12 months. This will equal last year’s record and is an improvement of 4% on the record amount which was collected in 1978. This could lead to a total income of approximately R3 000 million for 1980 in comparison with an amount of R500 million in 1970. If we look at these figures, the most interesting fact is that the group funds, in other words the pension funds, represent the most rapid growth in the industry.

I have already referred to the fact that two large companies like Old Mutual and Sanlam have shown a growth of more than 30% per annum over the past 10 years. I want to give an example in order to illustrate this. One of these companies has recently exceeded the R1 000 million notch over a 12 month period for the first time. They administer 32% of the total pension funds to the value of R3 000 million.

If we look at pension funds in the insurance industry, however, we must also take into account that a great deal is also being done by other people in the private sector, in providing for pensions. As far as this sector is concerned, I want to ask that we should lend them a very sympathetic ear in the positive sense of the word, because they are also making a tremendous contribution towards stabilizing pensions for people who have contributed for a number of years of service. I should like to mention a few figures in this regard. In 1972 there were 6 570 pension funds, of which 784 were private and at the moment there are more than 12 000 pension funds, of which approximately 700 are private. Therefore, hon. members can see that the proportion of pension funds in the private sector has decreased. We dare not allow the private sector to be supplanted by the huge giants that I have judged favourably, because the economy will be adversely affected should an imbalance arise.

Experts in this industry are expecting a strong growth in pension funds in the ’eighties and they give five important reasons for this. The first is the economic boom that South Africa is experiencing at the moment. The second is the very important aspect of Blacks, Asians and Coloureds entering this market. One of these funds received 45% of its subscriptions from the Black market during the past year, which is an indication of how strong this market is becoming. The third is the protection of pension rights. I want to link this up to the fourth and fifth aspects which I want to point out, i.e. the compulsory contributions to the funds which we anticipate and the elimination of the outflow of capital funds because there is no control over these funds. As the hon. member said, people resign their jobs for reasons of convenience, receive a sum of money and spend it on a car or a fridge. Later they come back to the same position. In this way they interrupt their contributions and upset the balance. We foresee the things that I have pointed out now, will be strong possibilities in the future dispensation.

I just want to come back briefly to the first point that I made this afternoon, viz. the power of the insurance giants in the insurance industry. This compels me to declare this afternoon that the economic giants are here to stay and that they have become an indispensable factor in our economy because they generate money for the economy, stimulate industrialization and act as a tremendous provider of employment which one cannot remove from the economy because one will not be able to fill the subsequent vacuum and it will create a grave shortage for us. That is why it is very important that the State should not nationalize the funds. Due to the fact that the State is responsible for social and other pensions to a very large extent, and will remain so in the foreseeable future, for the next 10 to 20 years, I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to allow the State to forfeit its control over the proposed schemes or to lose that control and that they should not take them over completely either. I am asking this for four very good reasons. The first is the socialist principle: If the State nationalizes, we are moving towards a welfare State. This is unhealthy and we cannot accept it. In doing so one impinges upon the free market mechanism, one of the corner-stones of our country’s economy. Furthermore, a situation like this gives rise to a monopolistic movement which we cannot accept either. Possibly most important of all, is that there are always unforeseen circumstances like wars or some disaster or other over which the State has no control. If everything remains in the hands of the private sector, it will nevertheless by implication still be the duty of the State to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for those people. I almost want to go so far as to say that the State will be put into a difficult position and will be forced to do so. This holds good for everything from the funds to the pensioners. That is why I am asking that we should be level-headed in this regard.

In conclusion I want to refer to the rights of the pensioner. I am referring now to those who have contributed towards funds whilst they were economically active. I think this may possibly be the most important part of my argument All I am asking for these people is a fair pension based on their contributions to the fund in order to enable them to maintain their previous standard of living. Secondly, I am asking for the maintenance of the buying power of their pensions. In other words, the fund will have to protect their pensions from inflation. Employers should also see to it that non-pensionable grants become pensionable and pension funds should insist on this. Now I request the hon. the Minister to see to it that the imbalance between private pensions, with a figure of 40% and social pensions, with a figure of approximately 60% be phased out. It has already been said that the State cannot afford to pay high pensions at low rates. John Citizen has his duty. Now I come to the most important aspect of the new scheme which is being considered. We must bring the State and the private sector together so that they can negotiate and decide together on what will be best for the State, the private sector and the pensioner.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to reply directly to the comments made by the hon. member for Brits. I shall, however, be commenting on some of the points he raised in the course of my speech. At the outset let me congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on his motion because I think it is most timely. At the present moment, as hon. members of this House will know, there is an interdepartmental committee investigating the question of pension and provident Funds. This question has also been the subject of a number of commissions and committees of inquiry on pensions in general and a national contributory Fund in particular.

The argument for a national contributory scheme is a compelling one. At present there are 1,65 million aged people in South Africa. This figure will grow by 1,3 million over the next 20 years. The annual cost to the taxpayers at present is in the neighbourhood of R250 million. Can hon. members imagine what the cost would be if we have to provide social pensions for an additional 1,3 million people? Obviously this would place a strain on the taxpayers. There are other factors, however that also have to be considered. Firstly it must be realized that an increasingly large proportion of the South African population is becoming aged. At the present moment one out of 10 Whites falls within that specific category. We are fortunate, however, because in the United States of America and western Europe the ratio is one out of five. I have seen population projections for the year 2000 and the year 2020 indicating that one out of three people in those countries will fall within the aged category. The implications of this are that a decreasing sector of the population, viz. the economically active working force, will have to provide the social and pension benefits for an increasingly growing proportion of the population. In South Africa the problem is even more urgent. At present less than one out of 20 non-Whites falls in the aged category. At the present moment the life expectancy of a White female is 73 years, and merely as a comparison, let me say that the life expectancy of a Coloured female is 57,2 years. With the improvement in the standards of living of our non-White population we can anticipate that their life expectancy will increase and that more non-Whites will qualify for social old-age pensions. This will also place a strain on the taxpayers of the future. For example, out of a White population of approximately 4,3 million people, roughly 139 000 receive social old-age pensions. This is 3,2% of the White population. Out of a Black population of 18,6 million, approximately 188 000 receive social old-age pensions. This is 1%. If the proportion for Blacks—just Blacks—was the same as for the Whites, we would have to provide social pensions for an additional 380 000 people, in other words virtually double the number we are providing for at the moment, which means social pensions for approximately 405 000 people.

There are, however, two further problems. Firstly there is the increasing urbanization of the Black population. At present 88% of the White population reside in the urban areas. The corresponding figure for the Black population is 35%, but this will change. We shall find that one of the results of the economic development of South Africa will be the increasing urbanization of the Black population. One may ask what the consequences of this will be. The answer is very simple.

Increasing urbanization leads to the breakdown of the extended family unit. The result is that the aged are no longer housed and taken care of within the family environment, but are left to themselves to provide for their accommodation and their financial wellbeing. The net result of this urbanization is that in the future we can anticipate a rapid increase in the number of non-Whites claiming social old-age pensions. Secondly—and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central pointed this out—we in South Africa are committed to the equalization of pensions for all races in South Africa. This will also place burdens on the taxpayers of the future. The consequences for South Africa were spelt out very clearly by the report on an investigation into the possible establishment of a contributory pension scheme for South Africa, when it was said, with reference to the increasing cost of old-age pensions—

I think that there is no doubt that it will result in an increase in tax. This has been the case in the USA and in western Europe. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked what the consequences of these factors would be. If we were to look at the picture for the next 20 to 25 years, we would see that we could face the situation where, if the same proportion of Whites receive social old-age pensions as is the case at present, we would have more than 200 000 White social old-age pensioners. If we assume that with increasing urbanization, the increasing life expectancy of our non-White population and the fact that their economic standards will be slightly less than that of Whites for some time, and if we assume that 75% of the aged in the Indian, Coloured and Black populations will qualify for old-age pensions, we realize that we shall have to provide for 1 673 000 people in 20 to 25 years’ time. In other words, there would be approximately 1,873 million social old-age pensioners in South Africa. That is more than a fourfold increase as compared with today’s figures. If there were no increase in the amount paid to social old-age pensioners, but we equalized the pensions and gave to each aged person proportionally the same pension he is getting now, we would have to find R2 180 million per annum in 20 to 25 years’ time, an increase of more than eightfold as compared to what we are paying at present. If social old-age pensions were to continue to increase at the rate at which they have during this decade, however, we would have to find an amount of approximately R17 000 million in 20 to 25 years’ time. The answer is clear. South Africa must prepare itself to meet the old-age boom.

How prepared are we? At present we have 10 175 pension schemes, covering approximately 3,9 million members. It should be remembered that some people belong to more than one pension scheme. Nevertheless, it would seem from these figures that 38,8% of the economically active population in South Africa belong to a pension scheme. That was the figure in 1976. The corresponding figure for 1970 was 34%. In other words, there was an annual increase of approximately 1% in the proportion of the economically active population belonging to a pension scheme. If the same rate of progress were maintained, we would reach a stage, in the year 2040, where every economically active South African would be covered by a pension scheme. Clearly this rate of progress is too slow. Action must obviously be taken now to ensure that every working South African contributes to a pension scheme. If we do not take such action the burden on the taxpayers of the future will be frightening. Indeed, I make so bold as to venture that the position of the hon. the Minister of Finance would be one which will only be given to hon. members of the Opposition because it would be so dangerous to hold. The only solution to the problem is to ensure that every South African becomes a member of a pension scheme.

Has Van der Merwe influenced you again?

I assure the hon. member that this is no Van der Merwe joke. [Interjections.]

†There are various ways in which this could be achieved. I believe that the best way would be for the State to establish a national contributory pension scheme which would exist—and in this respect I agree with the hon. member for Brits—side by side with the pension schemes established by the private and Government sectors as they exist at the present moment. I think that companies which do not have a pension scheme should be given the option of either establishing a pension scheme with an insurer, or a privately administered pension scheme, or of joining the national contributory pension scheme. The criteria could be that the benefits under the private pension scheme are at least equal to those derived from the national pension scheme. I believe the same criteria could apply to existing pension schemes in order to ensure that their benefits are at least equal to those provided by a national pension scheme.

Do you suggest the Government should run the national contributory pension scheme?

I am coming to that. I believe that any national scheme should be funded on conservative lines that will not impose onerous obligations on future generations of taxpayers. Consequently the contributions paid by both employees and employers must not be unrealistically low. It is generally accepted, in the private sector today, that one must contribute something like 18% of the employee’s salary. This is the contribution by the employee and the employer. If we have a look at West Germany, contributions to the national scheme are also set at 18%, 9% by the employee and 9% by the employer. As a matter of interest, in the case of a self-employed person the contribution is 18%. I am not saying, however, that we must lay down a figure of 18%. I believe, however, that the figure must not be unrealistically low.

At that level of contribution, however, one would be able to provide most people with a pension of between 60% to 80% of their final years’ earnings. Personally I am strongly against a pay-as-you-go concept. The results of such schemes are to be seen in the financial chaos which existed in New York city.

Consequently I believe that a national contributory pension scheme should be fully funded and that the benefits received should depend upon the amounts contributed. One point that must be made is that if people are to derive the full benefits of belonging to a pension scheme, the criteria set up by the 1966 Cilliers Committee must be met They pointed out that the pension funds movement would only function satisfactorily in all respects when all employers contribute to a pension fund, when all funds are more or less standardized and when all accrued benefits are fully transferable. The committee was of the opinion that the preservation of pension rights should be made compulsory by legislation. I agree. The great pity is that such legislation was not introduced 14 years ago. I also believe that the employee should be entitled to both his contributions and those of the employer. I believe that only by accepting the concept of transferability and preservation of pensions can one ensure that every South African will derive the benefit he or she should from an employer’s contributions to a pension fund.

There are obviously various ways in which these can be funded. I just mention, as an example, that we could perhaps create in South Africa something like we already have for motor vehicle assurance, a national pension scheme run by a consortium of insurance companies, with the State administering the pension scheme and ensuring that it is actuarily sound. The important point, however, is that such a scheme should be established as soon as possible. Even if it is not perfect, it is better for people to get a fair pension rather than no pension at all. Already we will have to pay the price for our delay.

I am sure the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will not take it amiss if I move an amendment in which I seek to add to the scope of his motion. I therefore move the following amendment—

urgency in order, inter alia—

1. (1) to enable the aged to receive a more equitable pension;
2. (2) to reduce the number of people subjected to the present complex system; and
3. (3) to reduce the applicability of the means test”.

Mr. Speaker, I have no real fault to find with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Edenvale. I want to emphasize two points he raised. It is true that the number of aged people in proportion to the number of economically active people in South Africa is steadily increasing. It is also true that this will consequently place a greater burden on the shoulders of the taxpayer.

I want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for introducing this motion. I found him just a little reproachful when he said that it should have been done already, but on the other hand he also admitted that one could not rush into this type of thing.

The Government is giving constant attention to the introduction of a contributory pension scheme in South Africa. This is demonstrated by the fact that various investigations were carried out and that a report was published in 1976 in which attention was given to this matter. At the moment an interdepartmental committee, under the chairmanship of the Registrar of Pensions who is attached to the Department of Finance, is also investigating this matter in depth.

I should like to support this motion and advance certain reasons for supporting it. However, I have certain reservations about it, inter alia, that it will not be nationalized by the State or administered by the State only, but will instead be managed by a consortium, and that all the considerations and factors have to be taken carefully into account in the introduction of a contributory pension scheme for South Africa It has become an urgent necessity, but must be done carefully. If I have time, I shall try to point out the problems that will have to be overcome and the conditions attached to it.

I want to begin by advancing a few reasons why a contributory pension scheme has become imperative for South Africa and ought to receive very serious consideration. We do not believe in socialism and should guard against degenerating into a welfare State. It should be realized, too, that it is, in the first place, the responsibility of the individual, society and the private sector to ensure that people will be cared for when they can no longer be economically active. Too often people lay claim to this as if it were a right and not a privilege and insist that the Government is compelled to assure them of a livelihood, even one equal to that to which they were accustomed. Aid from the Government is intended merely to be supplementary to people’s requirements.

Some employers exploit the situation by paying people less—this happens in particular when they are performing some minor task after their retirement—in order to escape the means test so that they may qualify for further Government aid.

In the next instance this type of aid is not only concerned with the person who receives the aid but also with the person who has to pay for it, in this case the taxpayer. His interests must also be protected.

The present situation results in people asking why they, too, cannot receive aid to ease the burden of their old age. They maintain that for years they spent money paying taxes and in making provision for themselves for the period after their retirement, but that they are not entitled to receive anything, whereas those who never made any provision, receive money from the Government without having had to make any sacrifices in this regard. They say: Those people enjoyed themselves and did not make provision, whereas I had to make those sacrifices and had to forgo certain amenities to make provision for my retirement. This causes people to apply for a pension which they do not really need.

The fact that people are able to receive aid from the State in any case results in parents giving away their possessions and then not only asking the State for aid, but expecting that aid to be on a par with what they were accustomed to. In many cases this results in the poor taxpayer having to make sacrifices for wealthier people and to the benefit of the wealthier person’s heirs. This creates problems. The existing situation results in too many people too readily terminating their service in order to receive payments of money which was originally intended for their old age. Too many people are dependent on the State in their old age. This encourages dependence rather than promoting independence, which ought to be the case.

For good measure the State makes funds available for the provision of sub-economic housing for social pensioners, which results in people being taken out of the community to be housed separately, whereas the aim has always been to maintain them in the community for as long as possible.

As a result of these and other reasons we find an upward trend in the payment of grants and social pensions. To illustrate this statement, I refer to the increase in the case of White old-age pensioners in the Republic of South Africa, as an example. In the year ending 31 March 1968, R36 million was spent on 98 000 pensioners, whereas in the year ending 31 March 1979, R143 million was paid out on behalf of 138 000 pensioners. If ex-servicemens’ pensions, disability grants, pensions for the blind, maintenance and family allowances are added, this amounts to R215 million for the 1978-’79 fiscal year. I have no objection to the State also making a contribution on behalf of the employee. The employer as well as the State can be involved in contributing to such a contributory pension scheme. All these factors contribute to a blunting of pride in oneself and a weakening of the desire for independence, something which is detrimental to the individual as well as the State. One could still enlarge on this, but I shall content myself with what I have said and should like to make a suggestion in this regard. There are also a few problems which will have to be overcome.

With the introduction of a contributory pension scheme for South Africa I should like to propose that consideration be given to the incorporation in such a scheme of a scaling-down system so as to afford people the opportunity of paying in more, according to their means. If, for example, a person has a little extra one month to put away for this purpose, he ought to be able to do so.

A South African provident fund of this nature should not be administered by the State, but, as I have said, by a consortium of financial institutions. However, the State will still have to play its part in this scheme by keeping an eye on the security of a fund of this nature; i.e. so that the pensioner’s money will be secure and that he will have the assurance that nothing will go wrong with the fund.

One of the advantages attached to the introduction of a contributory pension scheme for this country will be to make our citizens far more responsible. It will also mean that our citizens will decide that they will have to provide and look after themselves for the future, for the day when they reach retirement age. This will stimulate the economy and the whole country will benefit. I definitely think that it will be worthwhile to re-examine the introduction of a scheme of this nature for South Africa. In particular it will also mean that people who have retired will obtain a better income, and I again want to refer to the fact that a social pension should not be regarded as a right, but that it should be regarded as supplementary to the pension of retired persons.

Therefore, if this scheme exists for the whole of South Africa, it will mean that everyone who has retired will have an income on which he can live. Of course there are problems attached to the introduction of such a pension scheme, but I believe that these can be overcome. In 1883 Bismarck introduced such a scheme in Germany in order to counteract socialism, and the provident funds he introduced at that time are still in operation in Germany today. There is no country in the world where a pension scheme of this nature is being administered by the State. They are administered by the private sector. It has worked in Germany, and I believe that, if the necessary attention is given to this matter, it will also work in South Africa to the benefit of this country and all its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hercules and other hon. members who have spoken, and in particular the mover of the motion which is now before the House, have all indicated the necessity of up-dating our present system in South Africa, whether it be through the medium of private pension schemes or of a national contributory pension scheme. I think this is very different from previous debates we have had from time to time, where there has been a considerable difference of opinion in connection with the principle involved in bringing about a situation where all are covered by a pension scheme, irrespective of whether it is done by means of a State pension scheme for those who are not covered by a private pension scheme or whether it is done through the encouragement of private pension schemes. Indeed, over the years one has seen a tremendous increase in the support for a contributory scheme which will ensure that all people are covered by a scheme. The latest report of the National Council for the Care of the Aged also points to the encouraging signs that have come to the fore in recent times suggesting that it is possible that we can reach a situation in South Africa where this will be the position.

I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for introducing the motion which is now before the House. It is a matter which concerns all of us as members of this House, the matter of dealing with the position of the senior citizens of the country. It is necessary to know the difficulties they face under the existing scheme which involves the means test and other factors. Obviously the means test will have to prevail until such time as a contributory scheme has been introduced or until everyone is covered by a pension scheme. So it is indeed pleasing to find this attitude in the House. We in these benches will of course support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in his motion. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale also, serves to highlight the urgency of finding ways and means of improving our present system.

Over the years one has seen numerous committees and commissions of inquiry investigating various aspects concerning pensions. Some of those inquiries have been referred to this afternoon. Many of them are indeed under the purview of the hon. the Minister of Finance, particularly those pertaining to pension fund matters because the administration of the relevant Act falls under the hon. the Minister’s jurisdiction. I also want to make mention of the long period that has elapsed since many of these recommendations were tabled in the House. The report of the Cilliers Committee of Inquiry into Pension Fund Matters contained a number of very important observations and recommendations. This committee was appointed in 1964 and the report was signed in 1966, so I presume it was submitted to the Government in 1966, which is some 14 years ago. Yet, we still find the situation today that no specific action has been taken by the Government in regard to implementing some of these recommendations. We have debated this matter in the House on a number of occasions with the various Ministers of Finance and we were always told that the matter was receiving attention.

A committee of inquiry was also appointed to investigate the possibility of instituting a contributory pension scheme in South Africa. In 1974 an announcement was made by the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, Senator J. P. v. d. Spuy, after he had received a report from that committee which also made important observations. Indeed many hopes were raised at the time that we were approaching a situation where legislation could be introduced during the course of the succeeding three or four years which could perhaps make of that scheme a reality. We know that the suggested scheme had certain shortcomings. It was not a funded scheme but a pay-as-you-go scheme. We also realize that there were certain shortcomings in regard to the actuarial viability of that scheme. Unfortunately, the vested interests and people in the private sector were prepared to damn that scheme as soon as the report was made public and one can recollect the headlines in the Sunday newspapers which referred to the scheme as “the pension monster”.

Subsequently we have seen the appointment of an interdepartmental committee involving the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions which was given a mandate to investigate the question of the transferability of funds, the preservation of pension benefits and the question of providing a scheme for those who are not covered by a pension scheme at the present time.

Those were the main recommendations contained in the Cilliers report.

Yes, the Cilliers report was published very much earlier. I indicated that there was a long time lapse …

You said nothing had been done, but that is based on the Cilliers report.

Yes, but there was a very long time lapse between the time when the Cilliers report was tabled and the appointment of the interdepartmental committee which was to investigate virtually the same matters that were investigated by the Cilliers Committee of Inquiry.

I am stressing the time that has elapsed since the former report was tabled. That is why I am hoping that the hon. the Minister will give some indication in his reply as to whether any further steps have been taken or are contemplated in regard to that interdepartmental committee because earlier this session, on 27 February, I asked a question to which the hon. the Minister of Finance replied that the Government has not yet received that report and that consequently it is not at this stage prepared to say whether any legislation will be introduced. I think this is a very unsatisfactory situation because there is a great deal of speculation amongst many people as to what that report will entail and what legislation could be forthcoming. There is indeed the possibility of people resigning from their employment so that they will escape the effects of what they believe will be legislation of a retrospective nature which could be introduced. I think it is of the utmost importance that the hon. the Minister should give us some indication of what is going to happen or make a statement in regard to the question of this interdepartmental committee which is investigating the whole question of the transferability of pensions.

The motion before the House deals with a contributory pension scheme. One can indicate the various steps that should be taken in instituting such a scheme. We have seen how schemes have been introduced overseas and how those schemes have had to be amended from time to time. We in turn can also learn a great deal from those schemes so that we will be able to adopt a scheme in South Africa that will be suitable to our needs. The Government has not yet given a definite indication that it accepts the principle involved in respect of such a scheme. Therefore I should just like to say that, as far as the longer-term position in South Africa is concerned, it is imperative that we do adopt such a system in order to eliminate a number of the shortcomings that presently exist.

As far as the advantages of such a scheme are concerned, obviously it would create a situation where more funds would be available to pay higher pensions. It would also eliminate the disparity in regard to the pension benefits that are paid to members of the various race groups in that the extent of the benefits would be related to the contributions. It would also mean the eventual abolition of the means test and this would serve to remove another aspect, that of the racial ratio of 4:2:1. The means test has caused a great deal of concern amongst the various race groups.

The whole question of the means test and the anomalies that exist in that respect can of course be raised under the hon. the Minister’s Vote and we intend doing so. Many of them are anomalies that have been raised before and we hope that when the budget is presented at the end of the month there will be some relief forthcoming as far as the means test is concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the whole question of resignations from Pension Funds. If one looks at the situation today, one finds that where there is a means test income ceiling of only R164 per month for a married person and the person to whom this applies is reaching retirement age, he can seriously consider resigning from his job in order to obtain his resignation benefits which he can then invest, after which he and his wife can qualify for an old-age pension of almost R100 per month each. This means he could get approximately R200 per month from the State as an old-age pension for himself and his wife. If the private pension he qualifies for exceeds R164 per month, then even if he has no assets he does not qualify for a pension for himself or his wife, whereas if he receives his resignation benefits and his total assets do not exceed R22 400, both he and his wife are entitled to receive maximum social pensions without any reduction and at the same time he has his investment earning interest as well.

One can therefore see that the present means test limitation militates against a person serving his full period and retiring on pension should that pension be less than R200 per month, because it would not be in his interest to receive such a pension when he could receive a full pension from the State. I think this is just one of the aspects which shows that, as far as the means test is concerned, there are a large number of deserving people who are precluded from obtaining any form of social pension because of the very low limitations. This means that those people, although in accordance with Government policy they belong to a pension scheme and are contributing to it, feel they are being unjustly treated because they are expected to live on a small income which is insufficient for them to be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

The other important aspect of course is that the proposed scheme would provide security in old age. At the present time many old people face their old age with fear because they realize that the present rate of inflation makes their financial position very insecure. It would then mean that we would have a far greater degree of social security without necessarily becoming a welfare State. We already have a Workmen’s Compensation Act and we have an Unemployment Insurance Fund which provides for those contingencies of life that might occur, but we do not have any form of security as far as the old-age pension situation is concerned, of course apart from measures adopted by the private sector. Obviously, if a contributory scheme were introduced, it should not be one that would replace the private schemes. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government if it does agree in principle to the introduction of such a scheme, which should rather be complementary to private pension schemes to ensure that private pension schemes, which play a major part in the economy of this country, are not adversely affected. People would then be able to qualify for a pension related to the contributions they have made.

One immediately asks what form such a pension scheme should take. We—and by this I mean myself and other hon. members—have from time to time indicated how we see such a scheme working in South Africa. Briefly speaking, a contribution would be made by both employees and employers, there would be contributions made by self-employed people and there would also be contributions made by the State. Obviously there would be the cost of the administration of such a scheme, and this would have to be borne by the State if it is a national contributory scheme. The amount of the contributions would have to be a percentage, with a certain minimum and maximum amount laid down and related to a person’s earnings, perhaps over the last five years of employment. The amount of benefits would also be related to the amount of the contributions made, with a certain minimum and maximum amount laid down. This would mean that everybody would be making a contribution towards his old age, towards the time when he can no longer be employed. The person would then be in a position to receive the pension as a right.

It is my belief that such a scheme should not only incorporate old-age pensions, but should also include disability pensions and blind persons’ pensions. I also believe that war veterans, who are now considered as social pensioners, could also receive their retirement benefits, but the amount that is received in lieu of a war veterans’ pension should come from revenue because I believe that this is a debt the State owes to those persons who answered the call and undertook service as military servicemen. As ex-servicemen they should receive those war veterans’ pensions. The amount to be paid will obviously have to be adjusted in accordance with rates of inflation. This is one of the great ravagers of any pension scheme. One of the most difficult things to do is to have to try to keep up with a high rate of inflation. Indeed, the private pension schemes have endeavoured to build in escalating clauses to ensure that benefits are at least able to keep pace with the rate of inflation, although of course many of them are unable to do so because of the restrictions that are placed on them, one of these being that their types of investment are governed by statute. I believe that such a pension scheme is a feasible possibility. I do not believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of our country to devise a scheme that will suit our needs.

We know that the Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians all require pension benefits and must receive that degree of security. Consequently, if a scheme is introduced, it must be one covering all race groups. On this basis members of all race groups would qualify for pensions relative to the contributions they have made. Time, however, is going by very rapidly. We are still a young, industrialized country and we have certain demands and social responsibilities that have to be met. Although we have a limited form of social security, it is imperative for us to move on to embrace the question of the aged and those who are permanently disabled so as to ensure that they receive some measure of security. I think the time has passed for the appointment of further commissions or committees of inquiry.

Time for action.

We believe that it is now possible, with all the information that the Government must have accumalated over the years, for the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, in the not too distant future, to be able to come to this House with a proposed scheme embodied in a Bill which could, if necessary, be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. That Select Committee could then consider evidence and other matters in an effort to iron out problems that could possibly arise. Obviously it is not a simple matter. It is, in effect, a complicated matter. Research has been done. The time has now come for action. Let us hope that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will tell us today that he hopes to come forward in the not too distant future with a scheme incorporating a contributory scheme so that all in this country can receive a greater degree of social security than they have at present.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member who has just been speaking. Over the years we have come to know him as a person who has actually become known as the spokesman or champion of the pensioners, a person who knows his subject and can always discuss it in an interesting and penetrating way. The only fact to which I want to refer is his criticism of the long period which has elapsed since the previous commission’s report and its implementation. However, I think the hon. member realizes as well as we all do that this matter is tremendously intricate, particularly in a country such as South Africa with its particular population structure, which to a large extent aggravates the problem. I also think that the hon. member ought to know by this time that he is dealing with a responsible Government which acts only after it has considered all the consequences and implications of such a step.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who moved this motion. I believe the motion was timely and perhaps even necessary, and I want to tell him that he brought about exceptional unanimity in the House, to such an extent that my only real task ought to be to say that I agree with all the other hon. members; amen to that!

However, I want to raise a few matters. The history of the pension idea or policy is rather interesting. The principle of pension benefits dates from as far back as the days of the Roman Empire. Up to the 18th century these pension benefits were rather elementary and confined more to disability grants, travel expenses (as a matter of interest these were for soldiers in particular), and covered more aspects and were more comprehensive in respect of burial expenses. It is interesting that, in the old dispensation, when the people had a far less sophisticated economy and way of life than is the case today, people were apparently more concerned about a dignified departure from this earthly state than a comfortable old age. I can recall from my early youth that the half-crown contribution to AVBOB was virtually the only method of insurance.

By the end of the 17th century the idea of old-age insurance had already begun to take root. Subsequently there was a gradual development of the idea that a person, while he was productive, had to make provision for his old age. The real movement to the modern concept of pension gained momentum only towards the end of the 19th century. Up to that stage people were rather agriculturally orientated, and had what virtually amounted to a subsistence economy. The cost of living was low and the family circle was very closed, and a very large percentage of the people had greater security as a result of the fact that they owned land which could always be regarded as a production unit. Possibly this also had the result that the parents at that time had a stronger bargaining capacity vis-à-vis their children in forcing them to care for them in their old age. In exchange for that the children would inherit the land. It seems as if there has been a real decline in children’s sense of responsibility to and feeling of compassion for their parents in correlation to the raising of the standards of living and of civilization. Perhaps we should refer to a renewal or modernization of standards of civilization. The fact of the matter is that since industrialization there has been a dramatic increase in the need for people to make provision for their old age as long as they are economically active.

The modern concept of social pensions began to take shape in South Africa only in the ’twenties, and proliferated after the ’fifties. This is something to which reference has already been made. I should just like to point out a few figures. In 1961 the amount paid out was R31 million. In 1979 it was already R250 million.

Social pensions are really a symptom of a changing way of life to which man has not yet adjusted himself successfully. It is also the symptom of a large measure of irresponsibility among the citizens of the state. During this period there was also an equally dramatic growth in the membership of pension funds as well as the number of pensioners. I shall mention only a few of the figures. In 1950 there were 675 000 social pensioners plus members of pension funds, with 14 000 pensioners. In 1973 there were already 2 342 500, with 83 000 pensioners. In 1968-’71 there was a dramatic increase of 188% in the membership of pension funds. During the same period, however, there was an even more dramatic increase of 360% in the number of pensioners, the privileged people to whom I shall return later. In 1971 there were 1 950 000 members of pension funds out of a total number of economically active workers of 5 298 000. This brings one to the realization of the absolute need for a well-considered national contributory pension scheme.

Then, of course, there is also the case—and we are aware of this; from time to time all of us are faced with heart-break cases in this regard—of pension benefits that are so inadequate that those receiving them simply cannot live on them. Then there are also cases of business enterprises that are too small or unstable and that eventually become insolvent, only to cause those who have contributed to that pension fund to suffer a total loss in many cases. This means that such a pension contributor is left without security and totally defenseless in his old age.

Consequently this demonstrates the necessity of the particular recommendations in the 1974 report, a report which, in my opinion, is a very good one. The report recommends that if a national contributory pension scheme of this nature is introduced, all schemes paying their members poorer benefits than the national pension scheme, either have to bring their benefits into line with those of the national pension scheme or have to be incorporated with the national pension scheme. However, as hon. members were correct in remarking, such a national pension scheme must only be supplementary to existing funds in the private sector.

What is important with regard to other recommendations in respect of the maintenance and transferability of pensions is the fact that the improvement of pensions up to this standard will offer workers greater security, and that this will also bring about a standardization of benefits, and this is important when the question of the transferability from one fund to another crops up. One constantly hears people alleging that they have problems when the contributions of poorer pension funds have to be included in the wealthier pension funds. All of us, particularly hon. members here, are constantly dealing with the unfortunate cases of people who, in their young and productive years, unthinkingly drew on their pension benefits from time to time and spent them as part of their normal income, only to leave themselves indigent in their old age.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said here that the man who did nothing to entrench himself eventually revelled in the fact that he could obtain a maximum old-age pension. However, that is not a very satisfying enjoyment and I think the hon. member is fully aware of that.

At least it is better than nothing.

It is quite true that there is justification for people having to be protected against their own youthful indiscretions. The necessity of such a step is also demonstrated by the following fact. During the years 1970 to 1973 an average annual amount of almost R60 million was paid out in the form of benefits other than those payable in cases of death or the attainment of a specified age; in other words the pension benefits refunded to a person during his productive life. Hon. members will realize what the extent of this is, if they take cognizance of the amount I have mentioned. In addition one need only consider additional impact it has on the inflationary trend in our economy, when, without any good reason, such a large amount of money is poured into the economy every year. This side of the House is in favour of better care for the aged, but this scheme should not be introduced precipitately. As I have already said, this Government is a responsible one which does not lend itself in any way to any scheme which smacks of a welfare state situation, because few things could be more detrimental to a country such as South Africa. Personally I am in favour of everyone’s security in his old age being based on the particular contribution he has made during his productive life. One of the hon. members mentioned the concept of the equalization of pension benefits, something I am not in favour of at all. The only justifiable and economically acceptable way of doing things is eventually to remunerate a person in proportion to the contribution he has made during his life. I also state as condition that it should not, as has been said earlier, be guaranteed and administered by the Government. All of us have a consortium of private organizations in mind, with the State acting in a supervisory capacity. In addition I want to say that I believe that the Government is acting on the basis of commission reports and is moving in the direction of the meaningful implementation of the idea which was in fact expressed here.

A scheme of this nature will be able to generate a tremendous amount of development capital for South Africa, and every contributor to that fund will eventually be able to become a partner in miniature of South Africa. If it is administered in this way, it can only be in the best interests of South Africa and all its people, and therefore I gladly support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, basically I agree with what the hon. member for Sasolburg has said. We cannot see a national contributory scheme taking the place of all the present pension schemes that are available today in terms of present legislation. We would like to see a situation in which every South African is, in fact, covered by a pension scheme.

We regard such a national contributory scheme as supplementary to the system as it exists in South Africa today. That is why the hon. member for Edenvale has moved an amendment in terms of which the aged could receive more equitable pensions. We want to reduce the number of people who are subjected to the present complex system. We cannot phase out all of them because we have a maintenance grant scheme in terms of a provision in chapter 7 of the Children’s Act, family allowances and also social relief schemes. What we do have as far as the aged, the war veterans and the blind are concerned, is a very complex scheme. This scheme, which operates in terms of the Social Pensions Act today, is inadequate as payments, which range from R57 to R97 per month, are too low. It is also inequitable, because only half of the above-mentioned amounts are payable to Coloureds and Indians, and only half of that in turn payable to Blacks. It is insufficient, as it is merely the policy of the Government to supplement one’s income. It is complex in the scope of its administration.

It is difficult for people to understand and confusing to the public because of the intricacies of the means test. I briefly want to explain the complexity of it. Of course one has to be elderly to qualify for an old-age pension. To many people the means test they are subject to is only slightly less complicated than Einstein’s theory of relativity. The way to find out whether one is entitled to a pension—this also depends on the colour of one’s skin—is to go to the relevant department which handles those matters. Employees of these departments consult a handy chart to see to what the applicant is entitled, if anything at all. They can also do it the hard way. There is a basic formula for determining the means of White applicants. The formula in respect of Coloureds and Indians is similar, although the figures are different. As far as Blacks are concerned it is, of course, a whole new ball game entirely. I want to set out the basic formula in respect of White applicants. First one must add up all one’s assets, including the municipal valuation of one’s house minus any bond that one still owes on it. Next one takes into account the full value of one’s savings, less of course the income one derives from it. One takes the full value of agricultural property, but not the income derived from it. Then the capital amount of any annuity one possesses must be calculated, and the amount of the usufruct of the house one occupies must also be taken into consideration if one occupies it free of charge. Any assets of the last five years which have been disposed of, must be added. Then one must deduct R9 800, which is the amount the Government regards as being free assets. Then one must take 4% of the total and call it income. One then adds up one’s other income, the amount of any private pension or the income from any money held in trust, and one adds to that the net profit of any business one owns. If one owns a farm one adds R144. If one receives fees one deducts one-quarter of those. If one rents out rooms, for two rooms one must deduct one-quarter. If there are more than three lodgers one-quarter must be deducted as well. If one is unmarried, one’s total salary is added, and if one is married, half the salary is added. If a husband’s salary is less than 50%, or his wife’s salary is a quarter of his salary, the combined salaries are added together and divided in half. One then adds one’s income to the 4% one took from one’s assets, one deducts R504, which is a free income, and if the figure one is left with exceeds R584, one probably does not qualify for a pension. Nevertheless one should apply in any case because one’s calculations might be wrong. If one is R1 out, it may be the difference between receiving a pension and not receiving a pension. As far as that is concerned, the commissioner in the Peninsula recently said that there is no definite formula at all in terms of which the income of Blacks is calculated. The amount paid depends on the circumstances of the pensioner. Each application must be treated on its own merits, and there are certain safeguards. With this complex system in operation, I think it is only reasonable …

What do you suggest? Do you suggest that there should be no formula at all?

No, I am not saying that at all. The only reason I am saying that is because I am trying to strengthen the argument for reducing the number of people who in future will be subjected to the means test. The way to achieve this is to introduce a national contributory scheme so that this complexity will no longer exist, either for the people themselves or for the officials. We know that there are 137 760 Whites alone who are affected and that R180 million is involved in schemes at the moment, including the war veterans’ pensions. This figure, as the hon. member for Edenvale has told us today, is going to grow astronomically.

We now have to consider the alternative, and the alternative is not to phase it out, but to supplement it, as the hon. member for Sasolburg says, with a national contributory scheme. Hon. members opposite are well acquainted with the report and the recommendations in 1974, i.e. that firstly all economically active people who do not belong to any pension fund or scheme, or who do belong to a fund or scheme the benefits of which do not at least equal those of the proposed pension scheme, become members of the scheme. This then makes it available to all those who are in employment, and this will cover a large section of the population. As the hon. member for Edenvale pointed out, 40% of economically active people are already covered by schemes. Secondly, all occupational pension funds or schemes, the benefits of which at least equals those of South African pension schemes, be allowed to contract out. Therefore if they can contract out, the position will again be left wide enough open for those to participate in a national scheme.

The system of the transferability of pension rights was also to be made compulsory. It is significant that in the report that deals with the matter two aspects of a contributory pension scheme were considered. The first was the contributory system and the second was the preservation of pension rights. Certain recommendations were made and certain arguments took place in this House after the report was tabled and was debated in 1977. Many arguments were raised. For example, one of the arguments raised was that the scheme would destroy large sources of investment capital, and it was also argued that it would interfere with the insurance industry and probably do it irreparable harm. It was argued that the scheme would drive private pension schemes off the market. It was also argued that the scheme would be unjustified intervention in the activities of the private sector by the public sector. It was also argued that the scheme was not financially viable and would give rise to serious financial problems. It was also argued that the scheme was socialistic and would push up the inflation rate. However, in that debate the then hon. Minister said that he had evidence, from both sides, which had been submitted to the committee, and in the evidence submitted in favour of the scheme was that of a well-known actuary who actually expressed no disapproval of the scheme itself and felt that he could, in fact, support the scheme. It is interesting to note that the then hon. the Minister himself said (Hansard, Vol. 68, col. 6877)—

I was not here then, although other hon. members here today might have been present. That was the then hon. Minister’s summing up of that debate. So it seems there is a lot of merit in the recommendations of the commission because many of the objections mentioned by me and summarized by the hon. the Minister, can be overcome. There are certainly disadvantages, and to a certain extent the insurance companies and private enterprise could be drawn in. We wondered at the time whether Dr. Wassenaar’s book Assault on Private Enterprise—the freeway to communism did not frighten the Government off at that stage with regard to the whole scheme they had in mind.

The book only appeared in 1978.

Judging from the discussion which had taken place in the House today there has perhaps been a shift in emphasis and a change in attitude, and in the circumstances I think we should provide for a pension which at least partly offsets inflation, in order to counter the effect of inflation. I think we should provide for a larger pension than is provided for at the moment. I think we should be in a position to relieve the State of an enormous financial burden. Such a scheme would prevent employees withdrawing their pension rights and thus being indigent in old age. Finally, I believe we must now do something, and do it urgently. We must stop talking and come to the aid of all these people, who require adequate pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the hon. members who took part in the debate this afternoon and I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for having launched the debate with the motion he introduced this afternoon. I have known him for years. He is a man of great good sense. I do not always understand why he is not on the NP side. In any event, if he acts with such good sense, then it does not seem to me as if his path to this side of the House is completely closed. I want to thank him sincerely for the way in which he introduced the motion. [Interjections.] It is clear that the hon. member has made a very thorough study of the whole matter. He has also considered the various factors which have contributed to this whole problem.

I also want to thank the other hon. members who have made contributions. In a moment I shall dwell briefly on the contribution of each. One thing is very clear to me. I think it was the hon. member for Sasolburg who said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had been a “conciliatory factor” in this House this afternoon. It is a pity that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did not make his speech yesterday, because it seems to me that since yesterday there have again been changes in the House in regard to which reconciliation was necessary. I am not sure if the hon. member for East London North knows which side he wants to go to.

He is going to the Progs.

Perhaps this shows once again that often something can come of confusion. If the hon. member had only known whether he was going left or right, then that could also have been a factor giving rise to further reconciliation.

I want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his contribution. He sketched the history of the pension situation very clearly and I think that he stressed one point very strongly—and every other speaker this afternoon has done so too—namely that this is not an easy matter. I want to say to the hon. member for Umbilo that one cannot rush into this matter too hastily. I can understand his point because the hon. member has been making a study of this matter for years now.

†The hon. member has obviously spent a lot of time studying this subject, but I do not think that we must race headlong into this. He said there is no need for a further commission, but there is one thing that does worry me—and I shall give my opinion on what has been said in a moment—and that is what the financial implications of this whole set-up will be. What will the financial implications be for the Government? It is easy to say that we are now going to live in a Utopia and that we are going to dispense with some of the other pension schemes because they will all be included in such a pension scheme. However, if there should be a recession or even if everything goes well but a person, who has been contributing what he could, finds when he starts drawing a pension that it is not enough to exist on, the Government will still have to make a contribution. Also, one cannot get rid of some of the other things and there will still have to be a means test. I therefore think one must get away from the idea that, if one plunges headlong into this national contributory pension scheme, we will be able to live in a state of euphoria, or a Utopia will suddenly descend upon the country and we will be able to sit back and close our eyes because the aged are all cared for. If there had been such a scheme, the whole world would have grabbed it immediately.

The report hon. members have quoted contains one history after another of such schemes. In fact, Great Britain has for years had such a fund. They made alterations to it in 1975. They then introduced another type of scheme in 1978 and in 1979 they again made alterations to that Hon. members on the other side of the House have quoted what has happened in the past and said that now is the time to do these things. Perhaps it is a case of “cometh the hour, cometh the man”. However, I would hate to be the man who would have to alter the Act next year and who would for years to come have to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for a further R263 million to cover the mistakes we have made. I think we must get to a certain point, and I think we have reached that point, where there is agreement that there should be a scheme like this.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central listed a few points as to how a national contributory pension scheme could be brought into being by way of deductions from income tax and so on. These are very interesting ideas and I think that all these matters will have to be looked at again. By that, however, I do not mean that we shall look at this again in a few years’ time, because I am opposed to commissions that sit for years. Sometimes the whole situation they had to investigate has creased to be relevant a long time before they issue their report. The hon. member said that payments could easily be made by way of building societies, post offices and banks, but it is not as easy as that. The hon. member also stated clearly that one should not act precipitately in tackling such a scheme. I think that that is the key to the whole matter to which I must reply to this afternoon. The hon. member raised a number of other matters and it is clear that he prepared himself very well. However, he said one thing which troubles me a little. He said that if a national contributory pension scheme were to be introduced, the means test would have to disappear. In this regard I want to refer again to the person who makes a small contribution to the fund because he has a small income. When he eventually retires on pension, he finds that his pension is inadequate. How, then, is he to obtain extra money other than by approaching the Government again? How are we going to determine whether he may ask the Government for money or not? How are we going to determine whether he may or may not fill in the form sketched by the hon. member for Hillbrow? He may fill it in and then tear it up because he feels that he does not qualify. I think one will simply have to live with the means test. We shall always find that at whatever level we set the means test, with the aid of the hon. the Minister of Finance, there will always be someone who is going to be a rand or two outside the limit I want to say at once that the abolition of the means test is out of the question. We cannot abolish it. I said recently in a debate that if we were to give a pension to everyone above the age of 65 years, whether he were Harry Oppenheimer or anyone else, it would immediately cost the State another R263 million per annum. It would be better to double the present pension, because that would also cost the State approximately R260 million. At least that would mean that all of those who are now drawing a pension would certainly receive an income enabling them to live a decent life. The hon. member also stated that the Government should not be obsessed by the scope of the administration of such a tremendous scheme. However, we must be concerned about that very point. We must look at this because it is going to create a problem once we start to administer such a scheme, because as soon as we begin to do so, we shall have to have very lengthy forms, as the hon. member for Hillbrow has indicated.

We shall have to issue certain directives to the private sector. I shall come to that in a moment. I believe that the private sector must make a contribution. One of the hon. members who took part—I shall come back to his speech—referred to the fact that the State, the employee and the employer would be the three key bodies in this total structure. To work out how much they would contribute respectively would create a problem.

It has been said here that the German scheme is the best in the world. However, it is also the most expensive. It also pays out most. But our society cannot be compared with that of Germany.

As hon. members have said, we shall have to involve all the population groups in the scheme. We shall not be able to have a scheme for Whites only. We shall have to involve everyone. One certainly could not permit the Whites to carry the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in regard to such a scheme. They would have to look after themselves. If they were unable to look after themselves, who but the State would have to make the additional contribution? We shall therefore have to give the whole situation very careful consideration.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Brits on his speech. It is a pleasure to listen to someone who has prepared himself well. It is also a pleasure to listen to an hon. member who can say that while he was overseas, he investigated these matters, and then states what he found there. He made the point that the schemes of virtually all the countries he investigated, were different. Surely this is a clear indication that there is no agreement as to what is best. Probably there are also clever people in those countries who would like to give the people the best Due to the composition of our population, and the situation one encounters in other countries, we cannot find anything that we could take over unchanged. The hon. member also stated very clearly that he supported the idea that the scheme would not be for Whites only.

Then he asked a very interesting question. I have already referred to this and the hon. member for Edenvale also replied to it. The question asked by the hon. member for Brits was: What is meant by a “national scheme”? Does that mean that it must be of national scope? What it must not mean—and I want to state this very clearly—is that is should be a Government scheme as a whole and that the Government should administer the entire scheme and be totally responsible for it. We as a Government will certainly take great care to ensure that when we consider the implications of this we shall provide that we, the employer and the employee will make a contribution.

As regards the other ideas raised here by the hon. member, I want to say that I shall have to have another look at the Hansard of hon. members’ speeches.

A board could be appointed.

Yes, that could also be done. We would just have to take care that with all the boards we have already, we would still have people to serve on such a board.

They would also want pensions.

The hon. member for Brits also said that we should counteract State control and a monopolistic system. I think that these are two absolutely key ideas as far as this scheme is concerned. If we have the scheme one day, the world will perhaps be able to use it, but at the moment there is nothing anywhere in the world which we can simply take over.

The hon. member also mentioned very interesting figures. What struck me in particular was his statement that firms such as Old Mutual and Sanlam generate R5 million daily in the form of new money for the economy. After all, we are dealing here with economic giants. If we add the others too, then I cannot see why they, the employers, the employees and the State—in other words, the private sector and the State together—should not make a tremendous success of this.

The hon. member raised an interesting point which is in fact the key to this matter, viz. that in the first place one must have transferability of pensions and, in the second place, conservation. The issue here is that of a man who belongs to a pension fund and who, because at present there is no transfer-ability to another fund or another scheme, gets his money back when he resigns. Whether he wants it or not, he gets it. He has to take it. It has been calculated that in the decade 1970-’80, an average of approximately R60 million per annum was paid to contributors in that way. Over ten years this is an amount of R600 million which people have simply taken back, and probably very few of them have ever reinvested it. I do not have a figure as to how many of them have reinvested the money but it is probably that very few of them have done so. This means there is R600 million back in the economy. These people probably spent the money on something or other. Perhaps they purchased cars or went on holiday or something of that nature. Accordingly, if those people took a new job, they had no pension or insurance for their old age.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the Cilliers Commission. However, the two most important matters which came to the fore in the report of the Cilliers Commission were these very issues of the transferability and conservation of pensions. After a few years had gone by, that investigation was followed up by the investigation of a subsequent commission appointed in 1974.

Arising out of that we had the present departmental committee appointed in 1976 which is engaged in its investigation and which, according to my information, will submit its findings to the Minister one of these days. I made a study of the whole situation recently, and on the basis of what I found, I have no doubt that the transferability of pensions is the key to the whole scheme. At this stage one must be able to transfer one’s contributions from one scheme to another, or else it is in fact meaningless to go further and start a scheme from the outset. We shall have to take the present schemes along with us. We shall have to consider what these contributions will have to be. We shall also have to consider factors such as inflation. It will be pointless a man contributing throughout his lifetime and then finding that he cannot even maintain the level set by the HSRC as what is required for a decent livelihood.

Once again I want to congratulate the hon. member for Brits most sincerely on his exceptional contribution. He also expounded very clearly the disputes relating to a nationalized fund. However, he in fact went further and said that the State should be requested to ensure that there be control, but that the scheme should not be taken over. Indeed, this is the basis of my own thinking. The hon. member also mentioned a few other points.

Why in fact does one have a pension scheme? The aim is to see to it that one can maintain one’s former standard of living. Surely that is why one should have a pension scheme. One’s purchasing power must be protected. When one enters the scheme, however, one must know that these two facets will be protected over the years by way of a certain formula.

One does not want to find at a very early stage that the State has to put so much money into a scheme of this type that it might just as well have paid the pensions from its Revenue Account. I say this because the payment is put away so that people can withdraw the money at a later stage when they get old. It is like a wheel that begins to roll. If one does not make provision at this stage for what is going to happen when the wheel really begins to roll, this scheme is just as doomed as that of many other countries. One of the fundamental ideas raised by the hon. member is that we must take very good care that both the State and the private sector make a contribution. I agree wholeheartedly with him on that score. I also want to thank him for his very sound contribution.

The hon. member for Edenvale, a new member in this House, also made a very well-motivated speech here. If he continues to prepare himself so well and make such good speeches, he will undoubtedly make a number of good speeches in this House. The field he chose to cover will also probably be one of the most important because we are dealing here with the welfare of our elderly people and indeed, to tell the truth of the State as a whole. In fact, therefore, this need never become a political matter. Even at election time, if pensions are not so high, one need not try to arouse emotions about the matter and say that it is the Government’s fault.

†The hon. member made a very interesting point. He gave a number of figures for Whites and Blacks. He indicated the percentages of the total population. He said that more and more people would be needing pensions, especially amongst the non-Whites. I think that is something one has to be very sure about.

*The hon. member for Sasolburg also raised another point which that hon. member touched upon. They both made the same point. They said that we should take care that when we have a pension scheme including all the population groups, we must take care that the idea does not creep in that there should be the kind of equalization which means that the man who contributes least should get out the same as the man who contributed most. Actually, the whole issue of pensions on a colour basis or a group basis will disappear. While I am discussing this, I just want to refer to something I saw last night in The Argus.

†It was written by John Richards and appeared under the heading: “Food for thought on emptiness.” I took part in that television programme a few evenings ago when I gave the Government’s point of view as far as pensions are concerned. I tried to explain that the Human Sciences Research Council had established that people needed about R120 per month to exist. I was only speaking about Whites, because the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions only deals with Whites. I said that if one took the facts into account one would find that a man could get a pension of R97 per month from the Government notwithstanding the fact that he had an income of R42 per month. If one had put approximately R5 000 away, one would, at the present interest rates, have about R42 per month. I said that if one added the R97 to the R42, it would mean that one would have, roughly, approximately R140 per month. That means that one’s income would be R20 higher if one had made that small provision for oneself. This chap obviously did not understand anything about pensions and when he wrote this article, he tried to bring a colour connotation into the matter.

*I sometimes feel despondent about the Press, because one cannot understand that young people who have no understanding of what they are talking about, and take no account of the very difficult population structure of the country, make wild statements. The author said—

He is now trying to be clever by comparing the R120 and the R97. I can explain this. He went on to say—

Thirdly, a stomach encased in a black skin costs as much to fill as any other, and inflation knows no colour bar.

†He is right, but he has absolutely no knowledge of what he is talking about.

*I have before me the figures from the investigation by the HSRC. They show that there is very little difference between the quantity of food consumed by a Coloured, a Black man and an Asian. Every month they consume food to the value of approximately R20 to R25. Their clothing costs between R11 and R14. Miscellaneous, whatever that may mean—probably radio licences, etc.—costs between R10 and R13. However, the amount which the Whites have to pay today for accommodation, electricity and water, amounts to R55, and the amount which the Black man has to pay—this was an investigation which covered a very wide field—in respect of accommodation and everything that that involves, is only R8. The other figures are more or less the same. Surely, then, hon. members can understand that in this case the Black man will get a smaller pension.

That is why I quoted these figures, because if we have a contributory pension fund, the idea of egalitarianism must not be promoted in such a way that the White man’s contribution must carry the Black man. That will be the task of the bodies that have to look after them. This may be a disadvantage, because we must accept, if one begins such a scheme, that it will be a total scheme and will result in an equalization of everyone who is a member. By equalization I mean that one can receive what one pays in.

The hon. the Minister who deals with this gave me a note relating to Black pensions and I said that I would read it out here. The note states that the national liaison committee, which includes representatives of all the important welfare organizations and meets quarterly under the chairmanship of a senior official of the Department of Co-operation and Development, have referred in the course of discussions to the problem that apparently, little is being done by employers to offer their Black employees a pension scheme. Their opinion is that many social problems could be overcome if more was done in this regard. I mention these things, as well as the matters and the recommendations which the administration boards have already advanced, just to indicate that the Department of Education and Training is giving attention to all these matters.

I must make haste. I have already replied to what the hon. member for Umbilo said. He made a few very interesting statements. The hon. member for Hercules also stated very clearly that the State should not nationalize the scheme. I think that all hon. members on this side of the House stressed clearly that what was in fact important in this regard was that the State, the employer and the employee should each make a contribution and that it should be ensured that a welfare state is not created. I think that is the accepted feeling of this side of the House. It has become clear to me from their speeches that hon. members opposite feel the same. Therefore no one here is advocating a welfare State. As far as this matter is concerned I believe that we are in agreement.

The hon. member for Hercules also stated the issue of the contributions very clearly. He also referred to the possibility that a member of the pension scheme could be permitted to contribute more money than he is perhaps required to. I believe that this is something which deserves attention. If, for example, a person is obliged to pay R10 per month, but for some reason he wants to pay R100, the system ought to work in such a way that he can pay his R100. We are clever enough, and moreover there are so many computers, that this ought not really to create problems. However, the condition ought always to be set that he cannot withdraw that money again. That is one of the important things. Such a pension scheme cannot be effective if a man is permitted to withdraw his contributions at will when he changes his job. He must realize that his contributions will remain in the fund until he dies, when his widow or other beneficiary receives it, or until he retires on pension.

What happens when a man changes his job?

That is exactly what I am talking about, the question of transferability.

†I am awaiting the report now of an interdepartmental committee that has investigated those two main facets. I believe the committee will recommend that when someone changes his job, his contributions to the fund will be transferable. I hope that will be the recommendation. I am not sure yet, but all the other previous commissions that investigated the same matter came forward with a similar recommendation. A member of the fund should be able to transfer his contributions to another fund when he changes his job. That will have to be one of the cardinal features of such a scheme. A member of the scheme cannot be allowed to withdraw his money at random and, when he reaches retirement, to fall back on the State for care and protection.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister what consideration is given to someone who changes his job if there is no pension scheme at his new place of employment?

I believe we are arguing on the assumption that there will be some sort of a pension scheme. Obviously, at present someone might change his job and find himself without a pension scheme in his new place of employment.

*I believe that the hon. member for Hercules also made a very sound contribution. I think that he too stated clearly that a social pension should be seen as a privilege and not as a right. The State feels that people must make provision for their old age. The State sets the example by way of all the institutions which it administers itself. Here I have in mind for example the pension fund of the Public Service and even that of the House of Assembly. Monthly contributions are paid by members and when they retire on pension, they receive a certain amount of money. Accordingly, when we realize that there are people who investigate these matters, we realize, too, how important it is that we should not be precipitate.

However, I want to advance another reason as to why it is most important that we should investigate this matter very thoroughly. The conservation of pension contributions, in other words the retention of money paid, or alternatively the transferability of a pension, in fact infringes upon a very important right of every man. That is his right to dispose of his own money as he sees fit, the right to do what he wants with his own money. We can deprive him of that money by providing that he must pay contributions which he may not withdraw, contributions which he can only withdraw when he retires on pension, or which are paid to his widow or beneficiary when he dies. This means, therefore, that the public should also be consulted in this matter. We cannot simply introduce legislation. It is very easy to do that. If I should deem it necessary, I could place a Bill on the Order Paper tomorrow. However I must point out that it would be completely half-baked to do anything of the kind, that within a year it would become a total fiasco and that we should then have to change the whole undertaking. I believe that every measure that infringes the financial freedom of the individual should be approached with great care. However, we must be able to put anything of this kind to the public. We must be able to educate the public to realize that the contribution he makes is not really to help the State—it is true that it will help the State indirectly—but to help himself. He must realize fully that it will help him and his entire family in his old age. I think I have now dealt with most of the matters touched on by hon. members. I still just want to react to one or two minor matters touched on by the hon. member for Umbilo.

†I have the utmost respect for the hon. member’s knowledge of pension matters. He has referred to the Cilliers report. The question of pensions and this kind of thing goes back a long way. Some of the first pension schemes were initiated in the 1890s in the old Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. That was our first contact with pension schemes in this country. Through the years there have been changes and alterations to the basic concept of pension schemes showing that there has been improvement but that a final solution has not yet been found. The Cilliers Committee’s report referred to certain points in this regard.

*In the two reports of 1974 and 1976, two factors in this regard were emphasized, namely that of a guarantee and that of transferability. A departmental commission was then appointed. I think the hon. member, who knows a great deal about this, will agree with me that one cannot be over-hasty about this whole matter.

†The hon. member did go into the question of the means test and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, etc. He said, by way of example perhaps, that one will not need to pay so much if there is a national contributory scheme. I accept that. I think the means test, which is part of our present set-up, might to a certain extent fall away with the introduction of a new national scheme, but it will not fall away totally.

The hon. member mentioned a few other points. He referred to the matter of the war veterans. He made the very interesting statement that war veterans’ pensions should be paid by the State because it is a debt the State owes to the war veterans. I fully agree with him. If I had my way, and there was enough money available, every war veteran would receive a pension. However, as with everything else, it boils down to the availability of money. I do not think that we must make provision, in this scheme, for the war veterans. War veterans must belong to a separate scheme which must be funded from Government income via the Minister of Finance. As I said a little earlier on to the hon. member, we must look into what it is going to cost. We must have discussions, which I shall initiate. He has asked me to make a policy statement. I cannot make a complete policy statement until I have received the last report on this matter. However, what I will say is that it seems to me, from the consensus in this House, that it is a matter which must be looked into urgently. That is the first thing I want to say in this regard. The second thing I want to say is that as soon as this report becomes available we must start looking at the financial implications of this.

Are you prepared to accept the principle of a national pension scheme?

I think we must be careful of the word “national”. I am prepared to accept the principle of a pension scheme, the implications of which we must work out, to cover as many people of the total population as possible. We must determine what the financial implications will be. It must be covered by the worker, the employer and the Government, the latter coming in as a junior partner for a change.

In other words, it is a contributory pension scheme?

I think that once we have gone into this, it would then be a matter for the Cabinet to decide if it feels that it wants to go on with it We do not have to wait. I am quite sure that if this interdepartmental committee says that we should implement the transferability of pensions, the Government could get on with that part of it so long, because that would be part of the total scheme. Next we have to look at the financial implications before we proceed with this scheme. It has been mentioned that everybody would have to be included in tins particular matter.

The last hon. member who spoke on this motion was the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is a man with a nice sense of humour. Probably he quoted from that form to give us an indication of how difficult it can sometimes be to get anywhere at all. Unfortunately, however, there has to be a means test and a form to fill in. There is nothing today for which you apply for which you do not have to fill in a form.

The hon. member went into the question of the means test and I presume that it was to seek information that he suggested that if we could get this scheme going, we would not need so many questions from the other side. I also want to thank the hon. member for his reference to what he has read about various hon. Ministers out of Hansard. I only hope that hon. members do not get the impression that where I have moved into this portfolio a short while ago, I must take on the role of Supermouse and fix up in a short while everything that is wrong. I can only say that I am sympathetic and that is probably why I was appointed as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I do not think that one could get on with this department unless one has a sense of humour and is sympathetic.

*Once again I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and to all those hon. members who made a contribution. There were sound contributions that were well prepared, and if we can conduct this type of debate with regard to the department, we shall solve many of these matters and inform one another better as to what the problems are.

Mr. Speaker, I now have an exceptionally pleasant task. In the first instance it is to express my sincere gratitude for the fine spirit of unanimity in which we were able to conduct this debate today. Since I am now discussing the fine spirit of unanimity and the friendliness prevailing here, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he made very friendly overtures to me to join the ranks on that side of the House. If I were to state my conditions here, you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order, but to adapt to this debate and to remain within the rules, I shall merely tell the hon. the Minister that if he wants to attract hon. members on this side of the House, he must ensure that the pension benefits on that side of the House are better than those on this side. [Interjections.]

I should like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who participated in this debate. It probably does not happen every day that we achieve this kind of unanimity. The purpose of this debate was to draw attention to a very important matter, and I think hon. members will agree with me that we succeeded in doing so. The hon. the Minister has given us the assurance, or rather he has convinced me, that this matter will receive attention and will receive serious attention in future. We express our sincere gratitude for that in anticipation. Consequently it is a great pleasure for me, with the leave of this House, to withdraw my motion.

Mr. Speaker, with leave, I withdraw my amendment.

Agreed to.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

As hon. members know, today is a day for the consideration of private members’ business and there is no further private members’ business for today. Consequently I can tell hon. members at this stage of the week: Oh come, all ye faithful.