Mr. Chairman, I should just like to refer the hon. the Minister once again to clause 8(1)(g) where we find the words “senior secondary school”. I am doing so, as I pointed out yesterday evening already, with reference to the Coloured Persons Education Amendment Bill, a Bill which is still to be discussed in this House, and in which, in clause 2, the words “Senior” and “junior” are deleted. Yesterday evening the hon. the Minister promised that he would consider this matter, and I therefore just want to know from him whether or not he intends to effect an amendment to clause 8.

Mr. Chairman, I considered the suggestion made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. We discussed it with the law advisers. It is true that if other legislation is passed the word “senior” could soon become irrelevant. I am so certain that the other piece of legislation will in fact be passed that I should now like to move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as-amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to refer to the matter already dealt with by the hon. the Minister yesterday evening in his reply to the Second Reading debate. That is the question of not introducing in this Bill what has commonly become known as the conscience clause. That is the stipulation pertaining to the test in respect of religious beliefs. Should that be introduced, it would mean that a person’s religion would not be a consideration in the case of either his appointment or dismissal as a staff member, or his admission as a student, of any university.

The hon. the Minister indicated yesterday evening that this provision appeared in the Bill relating to the Durban-Westville University. He said in that instance there had been a specific request for that stipulation. On the other hand, he said, that stipulation did not appear in the Bill we are discussing now because there had obviously been no request for it. I just wish to point out that I believe that is not really an adequate reason, and therefore I should very sincerely request the hon. the Minister to consider the introduction of that specific stipulation into this measure as well.

The Coloured community includes probably a greater variety of religious beliefs than any other race group in this country. If for no other reason than that, I believe, such a stipulation is of great importance. I also believe that the mere fact that the university authorities of a particular university do not specifically ask for such a stipulation at any given time cannot really be regarded as a sufficient reason, because the very issue to be covered by such a stipulation is that the appointment of staff or the admission of students to such a university should not be influenced by religious considerations. I wish to point out further that if, in terms of procedures, it were possible for us to move an amendment to this effect we would have done so. Unfortunately that is not possible, and therefore we have to leave it at that, and merely ask the hon. the Minister to give his sincere consideration to this issue. He can also, if possible, discuss it with the university authorities at some future stage in order to try to rectify this position.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Green Point, and I have no difficulty in giving the undertaking that I will discuss the matter with the university authorities. Should it then appear to be necessary, I can always come back to this House later with the necessary amendments to this measure. In any event, I shall advise the hon. member of the outcome of my discussions with the university authorities.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, we in the CP definitely have problems with this clause, and shall therefore not be able to support it. I do not want to elaborate on this to any great extent now. There is in fact another Bill on the Order Paper which, when it comes up for discussion, will afford us the opportunity to formulate our standpoints in this regard in detail, particularly as regards our attitude towards the place and role of universities in our community.

In view of the new developments during the past 15 to 18 months concerning the differences between the NP and us in connection with our views of the future dispensation in Southern Africa, I just want to point out that universities play a very important role in the entire set-up of a constitutional dispensation in South Africa. On this basis I think that the relevant clause is a consequence of the standpoint—a new standpoint as far as I am concerned—of the Government in connection with universities. For that reason it is not in line with the standpoints of principal which we in the CP have adopted.

There is one further remark I want to make in this regard. In South Africa with its ethnic diversity, and with the possibility for full independence for all the respective population groups—something which we hope will become a reality—we feel that every population group should have the right to establish its own universities as it sees fit. Then every population group will also be able to take its own decisions on tertiary education.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was rather vague in the formulation of his objection to this clause. It may be as well to explain what is involved here for the information of those hon. members who have not made an in-depth study of this matter. Clause 18 of the Bill now under discussion provides as follows—

1. (a) admit a graduate of any other university or any institution considered by the senate to be equivalent to the University, whether in or outside the Republic, to a status at the university equivalent to that which he possesses at such other university institution or university; or
2. (b) admit as a candidate for the honours degree of bachelor or for the degree of master or doctor of the University any person who has passed at any other university, whether in or outside the Republic, or at any institution considered by the senate to be equivalent to the university, such examinations as are, in the opinion of the senate, equivalent to or higher then the examinations prescribed for a degree of the University which is a prerequisite for such honours degree of bachelor or degree of master or doctor of the University.

The hon. member therefore objects to the University of the Western Cape being empowered here to accept the degrees of other universities. By implication he is therefore objecting to students from other universities undertaking post-graduate studies at the University of the Western Cape, unless presumably they are coloured persons. However, if we do not include this provision it would be doubtful whether even a coloured student who had studied at a university abroad, would be allowed to study at the University of the Western Cape, because the specific authority to recognize that degree has not been given.

In the second place I want to mention that I made inquiries from most Afrikaans-language White universities in connection with their practice since 1977 and although the date may differ slightly, I found that at all of them—I am not saying at most of them, but at all of them—the practice is that post-graduate students of colour are also allowed to study there. I should like to ask the hon. member for Rissik—he is the MP of a constituency in which a university is situated—whether he has objected to this? I have never heard any of those hon. members object to post-graduate students of colour also being allowed to study at our Afrikaans-language universities and the degrees of the University of the Western Cape or of Durban-Westville or of any other university being recognized for this purpose. Here we now have a manifestation of the change which has taken place in the minds and attitudes of these hon. gentlemen to politics and to the matter of proper ordering of our relationships in South Africa. Surely what is good for the one has to be good for the other and our Afrikaans-language universities which had traditionally adopted another attitude, have now seen the light in this regard since 1977 and have said that at postgraduate level it is sometimes of the utmost importance for a student to study under a specific lecturer because that lecturer is an expert in the field in which the student is studying and also has specialized knowledge. If there is such a lecturer at the University of the Western Cape under whom a student from Stellenbosch or Potchefstroom or Wits or wherever wishes to study owing to his specialized knowledge, why do those hon. members now want to deny White students that right and why do they want to deny the University of the Western Cape this opportunity to enable lecturers of that calibre to accommodate and give the best guidance to some of the best students in the country who want to study under them?

I am afraid that the hon. member has not been at all scientific in his motivation of his standpoint in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that we are discussing a specific clause of a specific piece of legislation and I therefore want to act sensibly and not give you any reason to point out to me that I am discussing matters that are not covered by this clause.

In reply to a few matters to which the hon. the Minister referred, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister in the first place that this side of the House differs in principle from that side of the House with regard to our view of South Africa. This specific clause may sound vague to the hon. the Minister, but it is part of a specific pattern in which the governing party is operating and in respect of which we differ.

In the second place I want to tell the hon. the Minister that although he suggested that while we were together in the same party this side of the House did not have this specific view of university matters nor did we discuss these matter or point out the differences, it is characteristic of many senior members of the party that they do not take notice of or are unaware of what is going on in the study groups of the NP.

The hon. the Minister can ask his colleagues who served with me on the national education study group since the publication of the Van Wyk de Vries Report on universities what actually happened. There were not only discussions in the study group of the NP, but there were also discussions with some of his senior colleagues. The hon. the Minister would do well to ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development because at the time when this in-depth and topical discussion was taking place in the study group of the NP, it was a fact that some of the assurances given by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development with regard to the presence of non-White students at White universities came to nothing. The trend and the direction in universities in South Africa nowadays is absolutely in conflict with the standpoint of the CP. The hon. the Minister repeated this matter today as if we had never discussed it, and I think he should have known better.

I was affiliated to the University of Pretoria for many years as a student and as a lecturer. I have also represented that constituency in this House for many years now. I just want to point out that there is no one who had any doubt about my personal attitude, even when I was a member of the NP, to universities in South Africa, and in particular my attitude to the University of Pretoria.

Mr. Chairman, I can still remember very clearly that the hon. member for Rissik once objected in principle in the study group of the NP on national education to people of colour being admitted to White universities. I remember very clearly that the then Minister of National Education, Mr. Van der Spuy, gave the hon. member every opportunity to state his case. Then Mr. Vander Spuy stood up and said: Mr. Van der Merwe, a decision on the principle of the admission of a non-White to a White university was taken in the Act of 1959 under the premiership of the late Dr. Verwoerd. The hon. member for Rissik thereupon resumed his seat and did not raise any further fundamental objections.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one thing in reply to the hon. member for Kimberley North.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Randburg that, while he is accusing the CP of national socialism, there was a time when his own father was accused of … [Interjections.]… being a Malan-Nazi.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I do so gladly, Sir. I should like to reply to the hon. member for Kimberley North. When subsequent legislation is discussed we shall have an opportunity, as far as the Chair permits it, to discuss the background to this matter frankly. I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. member for Standerton did not get up and say what the hon. member has just said.

What is wrong with me? After all, what I said was the truth.

If what the hon. member said was part of the truth, it was a very small part of it. [Interjections.] The background since the publication of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission Report goes a great deal further than the hon. member intimated here. As far as this is concerned, I shall not pursue the matter now. We shall discuss this matter again. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to become involved in the argument as to who said what and what standpoints were adopted in the past. The principle advocated here by the hon. member for Rissik, namely the principle of separate universities for separate communities, is at best a bad principle. However, when one tries to absolutize it, it becomes utterly ridiculous and impractical. If the hon. member for Rissik and his party were to implement this principle all the way, namely to adhere strictly to separate communities as far as lecturing staff, graduates, etc, are concerned, a university like the University of the Western Cape could not even be established because there is no other Coloured university on earth. Where could one get the lecturing staff from? Where could one get staff for the Black universities in this country, etc.?

I want to point out here and now that it was music to my ears to listen to the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this matter. He adopted a very pragmatic and enlightened approach when arguing with the hon. member for Rissik about this matter. One can only hope that in due course that argument will be carried through to its logical conclusion and that we shall get away from this compartmentalization of training and education in this country, particularly as far as universities and other forms of tertiary education are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record I want to make it clear that the CP’s argument with regard to this clause is that in principle they are opposed to a White postgraduate student studying further under the guidance of a professor or a senior lecturer of the University of the Western Cape.

That is the effect of their objection.

Yes, that is its effect.

We shall discuss this again. [Interjections.]

If that is the standpoint of the CP, I want to tell them now …

We shall put our own standpoint. [Interjections.]

No, but if that is the CP’s standpoint, I want to tell those hon. members right now that they are discriminating against the Whites. [Interjections.] Allow me to give a practical example of this. I have practical experience of this matter. At this university there is an eminent professor who lectures in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is an Eastern language which is only taught by a few lecturers. The lecturer at the University of the Western Cape is a person of colour. I can well imagine that there are White students who would like to know more about Sanskrit. Now the CP wants to deny these White students the right to learn more about Sanskrit. That is quite absurd. If the CP wants to kick up such a fuss about the rights of separate communities, what is it in actual fact doing? If its standpoint in this regard is analysed, what it amounts to is discrimination against the White student. The CP is denying the White student the opportunity to study further and to improve his academic skills.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik dealt a blow in passing to the hon. member for Virginia and I in consequence of our silence. At that stage I was the secretary of the NP study group on National Education. Three of the members of the study group were told to prepare an assignment and to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister. I prepared my specific section with reference inter alia to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Separate Universities Bill which was published in the ’fifties. The hon. member for Virginia prepared his section and I prepared mine. However, we are still waiting for the section the hon. member for Rissik had to prepare. I challenge the hon. member to tell me that I am telling a lie.

You are telling a lie.

That is how much interest was displayed by the hon. member. Now, however, he is criticizing this legislation which is aimed at creating opportunities to develop. To this day he has not submitted that assignment of his.

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to unleash such a long debate, but it is perhaps a good thing that we are discussing these matters.

I want to return to the provisions of the clause. On the basis of an interjection made by the hon. member for Rissik, suggesting that the hon. member for Bellville may have misrepresented the standpoint of the CP, I should like to have absolute clarity on this. This clause provides that the University of the Western Cape is authorized to recognize the degrees of all universities for purposes of post-graduate study. That is the essence of clause 8. As I was able to extract the objection of the hon. member for Rissik from his three speeches, it was that the degree of a White, Indian or Black student could be recognized by the University of the Western Cape and that that student may undertake postgraduate studies at this university. As far as I am concerned the essence of his objection in this connection is clearly linked to the essence of his objection to an Indian, Coloured or Black student also undertaking post-graduate studies at a White university. Is there anyone in the CP who wishes to reject this summary of the debate thus far? The CP still have a few opportunities to speak and they can rise and tell if I am wrong.

Against this background my argument simply is that in view of their objections to this clause the Committee is entitled to come to the conclusion that the CP and the members of the CP are so rigoristic in their approach to race relations that they are simply not prepared to allow any cross-pollination between universities. They object in principle to any form of cross-pollination.

The second conclusion one is entitled to reach, is that in this regard hon. members of the CP have changed their standpoint since they left the NP and established the CP. I do not know what was said in the study group, but I do know what the spirit of the discussions in the Cabinet was. Two hon. members of the CP served in the Cabinet at that stage. In the time they were members of the Cabinet, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, the Cabinet gave its blessing to the custom of allowing students from one population group to become students at universities for other population groups, and those hon. members never objected in the Cabinet when such decisions were taken.

This is another example of the drastic changes in standpoint of hon. members of the CP, of their renunciation of the standpoints they defended for years. This indicates what this country can expect if that party should ever reach a position of power in the country. As far as university matters are concerned, they are striving for such a degree of rigoristic division that absolutely no cross-pollination will be possible and no student will be allowed—no matter how good a case can be made out for this—to study at a university for other population groups.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 20:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, as with the Bill dealing with the University of the Western Cape, we are quite happy to support this Bill too as it creates a situation of full autonomy for the Durban-Westville University. I must fully agree with the hon. member for Umlazi that the Indians do have a very strong feeling for education and all levels of their particular culture. However, I am afraid I cannot accept his criticism of the Natal Provincial Administration in respect of Coloured and Indian education as being a just criticism. Whilst I accept that since the removal of education of Coloureds and Indians from the provinces their standards have improved enormously, I believe, and this is in fact the case, that this is because the Government has literally poured money into Coloured and Indian education which, during the period when the provinces were handling this education, was withheld. I might add that it was not withheld only in Natal.

They had their own taxation system.

All the other provinces had the same sort of situation. The hon. member for Umlazi says that they had their own taxation system. He knows as well as I that he is talking nonsense, because the major part of money, even in those days, came from Government grants. So please, you are dealing with a man who also has had provincial experience. Of course educational standards were poor under the provinces, but I submit that that was as a consequence of the Government policy of the day and, as I said before, it applied to all the provinces. To single out Natal as being any worse than the others is a total misrepresentation of the facts.

However, to get back to the aspects with which I do agree, the Indians, as I have said before, are very culture conscious indeed. They have made considerable effort and sacrifices to maintain their culture, particularly in the fields of religion, their languages, music, art and dancing. Such being the case, whilst we do not subscribe to the principle of ethnic universities—this in fact being something of a contradiction in terms in my opinion—there is more merit in this university perhaps than in most such institutions as it has created an important focal point for Asiatic culture in addition to the usual functions of a university.

I have visited this university on a number of occasions and I cannot help but feel that in the design of the buildings we may have missed an opportunity to give a special character to this campus. Oriental architecture, for those who have travelled to any extent in the Orient, is very attractive and it has been totally omitted. We have solid Western-style architecture there. As I say, I cannot help but feel that in this we have missed an opportunity. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that in future development perhaps a little consideration could be given to inculcating a little of the oriental touch to that university? As I say, I believe we are missing an opportunity. It is the focal point of oriental culture in South Africa and perhaps it should be considered.

The hon. member for Klip River made comment on the long service of Prof. Olivier and the great work he performed in bringing that university from virtually nothing up to the standard that it is today. I must fully support his attitude towards Prof. Olivier. He was a great asset to that university and he did a great job. I believe that all of us who know him and the work he did whilst he was the rector of that university fully appreciate his outstanding accomplishments. Not only do we who were connected with the province and other official bodies in Natal appreciate his work, but I firmly believe that the Indian community also appreciate the work that he has done. I am sure his successor will apply himself as assiduously as did Prof. Olivier. While on this aspect I should like to make the point that perhaps the time is fairly close when the Indian community itself should start filling the top posts in this university. I am not suggesting that appointments should be racially orientated. Appointments should be on the basis of the best man for the job, irrespective of the university. However, it should be borne in mind that in the peculiar circumstances prevailing in South Africa today an Indian has very little opportunity of getting to the top in an educational institution such as this other than the University of Durban-Westville. So I hope that when the time comes the Indian community will get this opportunity. I believe there are Indian academics waiting in the wings who have the necessary experience and expertise to fill the top jobs. In fact, in regard to the medical school I know that a number of top Indian medical people have become professors and have taken extra courses, e.g. in administration, etc.

Another point I should like to touch on, and I think this is a rather serious point, is the political activities and political activism at this particular university. I know it is part of university life to take an active interest in politics and students are generally rather inclined to be boisterous and ultra-liberal with strong, though perhaps ill-matured, views on the social scene, and certainly have a very well developed and a rather simplistic sense of human rights and justice. This is a phenomenon one finds on the campuses of all Western-type universities. However, I should like to suggest that the actions of the irresponsible students who were offensive to the Chief Minister of kwaZulu on more than one occasion went considerably outside the bounds of acceptability. I should like to point out to them that for the Zulus an insult to Chief Buthelezi is an insult not only to their political leader, whom they hold in very high esteem, but also to the Zulu people themselves. May I therefore suggest that such actions are damaging to the Indian community as a whole. I am aware of the fact that the actions of the hot-heads were strongly disapproved of by almost the whole Indian community. But, Sir, hot-heads from the other side might not bear this in mind if they should go beserk. It is indeed very fortunate that nobody was hurt in a very recent incident when one of the escorts of Chief Buthelezi drew a pistol. As I have said before, it is something that must be borne in mind that if somebody is hurt in the process, there is no saying how it will be contained, if it can be contained at all. We have had two incidents in Natal which culminated into bloody riots covering a wide spectrum of the Indian and Zulu communities. We do not particularly want to see this again. So I would recommend strongly to these hotheads: By all means have your political activities; enjoy your political fun, if you like; try to push your political views across, but act reasonably and with responsibility, particularly across racial lines.

Finally, I should like to touch upon one further point which is very dear to the hearts of many Natallers who have been involved in the education scene. That is: Will the hon. the Ministers concerned, i.e. the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of National Education and the Minister Health, get together to see whether we cannot get rationalization—a word which is much favoured in Government circles these days—on the question of medical students being educated for all race groups in Natal? As it stands I know this is not directly involved with the University of Durban-Westville, but it is partially so in respect of the special courses that are held in the health sphere at this University. It is ridiculous, however, that we should have two very, very substantial universities in Natal, and that we still cannot get our young White people from Natal into a medical school in their own province. The Orange Free State, which is a much smaller province, can have White medical students, and the other two provinces, relatively speaking, have no such problems at all. We in Natal, however, with our two large universities still cannot have White medical students in a medical school in their own province.

Wait till the CP takes over.

Oh, you will give it to us, will you?

Yes, of course. [Interjections.]

Good show! Well done! [Interjections.] Be it as it may, Mr. Speaker, this is important to us. Surely between the two universities we have in Natal the hon. Ministers concerned should be able to resolve this problem.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say once again that we are appreciative of the developments at this university. We are happy that this university will at last have full status and autonomy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support and that of his party. Firstly, he made two suggestions, the first of which is that I should do something to advance the promotion of oriental culture at the University of Durban-Westville. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to state that I am all in favour of any cultural group taking steps to advance and promote their own particular culture. What the hon. member for Umbilo, and also other hon. members, should realize, however, is that we are dealing here with the granting of autonomy to a university. I will not be the boss of this university in the sense that I will in any way be expected to interfere in the domestic affairs of that institution. We are granting that university full autonomy. The sort of Government control which remains is exactly the same as that which exists in respect of all other old and well-established universities. Therefore many of these arguments should be addressed to the University Council and to the university authorities. We must get away from the assumption that these universities are still tied to the apron strings of the Government, and that the Government simply prescribes and retains the same sort of control which it has in respect of primary and secondary schools.

I do, however, agree with the sentiments expressed in this regard by the hon. member for Umbilo. This also applies to the question of the so-called Indianization to which the hon. member has referred. The Government’s approach in that regard was clearly set out by my predecessor. I have made a careful study of that and I abide by the point of view advanced by him. Political activism and irresponsible action in connection with political and semi-political matters at any university should be condemned.

Finally, the hon. member for Umbilo and also the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I believe, referred to the question of medical schools and other faculties. They referred more in particular though to the question of medical schools. I should like to remind the hon. member that I replied yesterday to a question put to me for oral reply, and that I clearly set out the Government’s intention to look into this matter afresh. I also indicated in my reply yesterday that an announcement in this connection would be forthcoming.

Furthermore I should like to remind hon. members that the creation of a new medical faculty in terms of existing practices also involves the erection of a new academic hospital. We are, of course, talking now not about millions of rand, but of hundreds of millions of rand involved in such an undertaking. Therefore, just because it seems advisable, we cannot simply create medical faculties, apart from the other difficulties that I mentioned yesterday. However, all these matters are receiving attention and an announcement in regard to how we can approach this matter and rationalize the situation will, I hope, be made within the not too distant future.

*The hon. member for Greytown tried to play a little politics yesterday when he expressed his and his party’s support for this Bill, for which I should like to thank him. I want to put this question to the hon. member: Is he in favour of the University of Durban-Westville? Does he want the Indian community to have it?

I want Natal to have it.

Sir, he wants Natal to have it, but not the Indian community. Does the hon. member think that the Indian community would have been able to keep up this fine record I referred to in my introductory speech and which hon. members elaborated on so intensively and fully, and that they would have been able to enjoy these benefits, had that university not been established for that community? You see, Sir, those hon. members believe that a Utopia of wonderful harmony will dawn and that everything will be fine as long as one throws something open. Over the decades the institutions that are largely controlled by those who share their philosophy have not succeeded in creating anything like adequate opportunities at the tertiary level for members of the Coloured and Indian population groups. It was only when these two universities which we have debated yesterday and today were established that a new day dawned for these two population groups as far as tertiary training is concerned. They stand today not as the success for the NP, but as evidence of the fact that education and training are indissolubly bound up with the culture of a community and with the specific needs and the specific circumstances of specific population groups.

The hon. member repeated that it was unfortunate we did not have one Department of Education. Did the hon. member not take note of what is contained in the constitution Bill? Did he make a study of it and see that common elements are recognized and given effect to, whereas there are “own” elements in education which are also given effect to to in terms of the distinction between “own” decision-making about “own” affairs and the joint managing of common affairs? Can we not leave that old spectre alone?

Secondly, we are making this university autonomous. There is minimal Government control. What little control there is refers to matters which will surely be debated more fully in another Bill. Furthermore these universities are in a position to regulate their own affairs and the very purpose of this Bill is the extension, the maturing of that autonomy. Therefore it is not a question of a university under White control, as the hon. member said, whether the political control is White or Indian. Political control of universities is minimal in South Africa. The hon. member should have considered this matter in a more mature way rather than pouncing once again on a small gap to hold out that pot of gold beneath the rainbow of integration which they hold out as the only vi-able solution for South Africa. He repeated that once again, unthinkingly and without having done his homework properly.

The hon. member for Klip River gave a fine review of the history and standards and the scope of the University of Durban-Westville. I should like to associate myself with the tributes he paid to Prof. Olivier and Mr. Gawie Heystek. I support him when he says that they performed an enormous, a monumental task in developing this excellent institution. Today, I think, everybody can join them in looking back with pride at what they have accomplished.

The hon. member for Umlazi gave an extremely interesting historical analysis of the political onslaught on this university by the various political parties, an analysis which must have caused the PFP and the NRP to blush about their murky past as far as the Indians and tertiary education are concerned.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort made a very interesting correction to previous utterances he has made. On one occasion he spoke of the Coloured population group, or words to this effect …

And then you objected.

Then I said that what he said clashed somewhat with his hon. leader’s latest definition, because since leaving the NP, his hon. leader has decided that the Coloureds were a people. The hon. member replied that he agreed and that actaully it was a mere slip of the tongue; he was speaking about the Coloured people. I should like to inquire from the hon. member whether we have a White people in South Africa; do we have an Afrikaner people in South Africa, or do we have both in South Africa?

Go and have a look at the constitution and at the programme of principles of the NP.

We on this side of the House will expose to public contempt this confusion and this unscientific playing around with this concept for political purposes. [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred to the question of medical faculties, but I think I have already answered him on that score. Apparently he has the same objection to clause 20 as the one we discussed during the Committee Stage of the University of the Western Cape Bill. I assume that we will discuss it again during the Committee Stage of this Bill. I think I have now replied to most of the arguments.

You could at least thank us for our support.

I should like to thank all hon. members for their support of the Second Reading. I am pleased that we were able to discuss this Bill, at least, during the Second Reading, in a constructive spirit.

For the Indian community too, this is an important moment. I am pleased that hon. members did not sour it for them with unnecessary politicizing. We congratulate the University of Durban-Westville on its coming of age, with its full autonomy, and we wish them everything of the best on the road ahead.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

The amendment is aimed at making the establishment of toll roads subject to the approval of Parliament.

During the Second Reading debate we in these benches stated our approach to this Bill and in particular to this clause which is the principal clause of the Bill. We stated that in our view the powers given to the National Transport Commission to establish toll roads should be subject to the scrutiny and control of this House. We still adhere to that view and we hope that the hon. the Minister has now had time to reconsider his attitude to our suggestion during the Second Reading debate when we put this point of view.

Throughout the Second Reading debate Government members and others used the fact that we attempted to improve the legislation as recommended by the Select Committee to suggest that the hon. member for Walmer and 1 had repudiated the report of the Select Committee which we had previously supported and signed. That is of course absolutely nonsense. I want to reject those allegations with the contempt they deserve. Nowhere in the speech I made during the Second Reading debate or in the speech made by the hon. member for Walmer is there any suggestion of that. In fact, we went out of our way to praise the way things were handled in the Select Committee. I believe that anyone re-reading our speeches objectively would concede that we dealt with the report of the committee as faithfully as possible. We dealt with the problems the committee had addressed relating to the financing of our road system in South Africa. We gave our account of the committee’s approach to that problem, as we did during the course of the discussions of the Select Committee. We in no way indicated that we were opposed to the recommendation in the report that toll-road financing should be accepted on a selective and specified basis. We quoted from the report’s recommendations with approval and we highlighted the priorities suggested in those recommendations.

I want to repeat them. If one looks at the committee’s report, one reads there (par. 2)

Your Committee has further found that projects suitable for toll financing are generally very costly but from only a small portion of the total number of required road projects.

In the Second Reading debate I also dealt with the final suggestions and recommendations, inter alia (par. 8(a))—

I also referred to par. 8(d) as follows—

1. (i) an investigation be undertaken by the Department of Transport … into the methods of providing these funds; and
2. (ii) the National Road Fund receive a fixed percentage levy on fuel sales, rather than a fixed amount which is subject to negotiation from time to time

We stand by those recommendations entirely. There has never been any suggestion that we do not.

In the spirit of those recommendations, some of which I have read out, recommendations which clearly relate to specific projects only as a small part of our road financing system, we still believe that the Bill before the House could be improved by providing control to ensure that the principle will be applied to limited and specified projects. It is strange that, despite a good deal of the histrionics which were a feature of the Second Reading debate and the attempt to score political points, the hon. the Minister actually agreed with our point of view. The hon. member for Walmer made this precise point in his speech. I quote from his Hansard (6 May 1983, col. 6470)—

There was then an interjection by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs as follows—

One then wonders what all the fuss was about. If the hon. the Minister agrees that the system he is introducing should be monitored by Parliament, as the hon. member for Walmer suggested, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude to the amendment I have moved, because all we are asking is that, once we have accepted that this principle should be applied in a limited and specified way, this House should have the right to monitor and approve specific toll road projects in the future. That is all we are asking and that is the only difference between us on this side of the House and hon. members opposite. I hope that the hon. the Minister, having had a few weeks to consider the matter, will indicate that in the spirit of his interjection on that occasion, he will be prepared to improve this legislation by allowing Parliament the opportunity to consider each new toll project suggested by the National Transport Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on the following point of order: I contend that the amendment of the hon. member for Berea, as it appears on the Order Paper, is not acceptable to this Committee because it is irreconcilable with the principle of the Bill as agreed to by this House at Second Reading. I ask that you permit me to motivate and elucidate my point of order.

Clause 4 introduces a new section 9 into the principal Act. The proposed new section 9(1) (a) reads—

Therefore, the principle laid down in the Bill is that the National Transport Commission is the body vested with the power to declare a road, a bridge or a tunnel as a toll-road. This is the principle against which the amendment of the hon. member for Berea is aimed. He wants to change this specific clause and insert the proviso that the commission may declare a toll-road “subject to the approval of Parliament”.

I submit that what the hon. member’s amendment amounts to is that the power the Bill grants the National Transport Commission is to be replaced with another principle, and that is that Parliament must be the final body that exercises this power. We know, of course, that this is the very problem that those hon. members—the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Walmer—raised during the Second Reading stage of the Bill. No one has any doubt as to the principle that the National Transport Commission will be the deciding body. In this regard I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. He said (Hansard, col. 6219 of Tuesday, 3 May 1983)—

Here the hon. the Minister stated quite unequivocally the principle that the commission would have the supreme authority. That is just the point that the hon. members of the PFP objected to at the Second Reading stage. They said that they were not in favour of it because they believed that Parliament should have the supreme authority. The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition also said it. The hon. member for Berea spoke just after that and said the following with regard to clause 4 (Hansard, col. 6225)—

He goes on in the same column—

He is objecting to that principle that he himself recognizes is embodied in the Bill. What is more; The hon. member says in column 6227—

He advances this as motivation for the amendment he moved during the Second Reading. He goes on in column 6228—

I think I have motivated this sufficiently to indicate that those hon. members themselves recognized that the principle contained in this Bill as the Select Committee submitted it to the House is the principle that the National Transport Commission is the body that can take the final decision on toll roads.

The hon. Chief Whip of the PFP made the same admission. I want to refer hon. members to what the hon. member said by way of interjection during the Second Reading speech of the hon. member for Wellington. The hon. member for Wellington said (Hansard, 6 May 1983, col. 6474)—

He is referring to hon. members of the PFP—

They are the same arguments that the hon. member for Berea has just advanced—

Then the hon. member for Groote Schuur made the following interjection—

Therefore the hon. member for Groote Schuur already knew at that stage that an amendment in the form that the hon. member for Berea has now submitted to the Committee would have been out of order. That is why they tried to move it during the Second Reading.

I also want to refer hon. members to column 6477, where the hon. member for Greytown makes the same admission. He says—

He is referring to the PFP—

The hon. member for Greytown was of course quite correct in the statement he made then. He was correct when he said that if they had moved a similar amendment in the Committee Stage it would have been ruled out of order.

Sir, there are various other passages that I could submit to you but I believe that I have motivated this sufficiently to indicate that the amendment of the hon. member for Berea is out of order. I therefore request that this amendment be ruled out of order.

Order! As I read the Bill, the main principle of this legislation is to make provision for the levying of tolls on sections of national roads. The fact that the administrative control over the decision-making process is granted to the National Transport Commission is not, therefore, the main principle contained herein. Accordingly I cannot uphold the hon. member’s point of order.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the motivation given by the hon. member for Berea, I should like to ask him some questions, which either he or the hon. member for Walmer may reply to. My first question to the hon. member for Berea is whether in the light of circumstances and the knowledge which he has today of what was recommended by the Select Committee, he would still sign the report as he signed it originally, or has there been such a change in the thinking of hon. members of the PFP that in the light of their knowledge and thinking today that they cannot sign the report as it is printed today?

The second question I want to ask the hon. member for Berea is the following: Did he at any time during the sittings of the Select Committee on Toll Financing of Roads raise this problem that he has raised both during the Second Reading and here today in the Committee Stage? If he did not raise it, then what actually motivates him now to come with the amendment that he has moved to this particular clause?

Do you not think it is an improvement?

No, I do not think it is an improvement at all. In fact I think it is totally irrelevant. Hon. members of the PFP will know that there is an implicit responsibility that rests on the Minister because the National Transport Commission, which will be exercising authority here, is directly responsible to the Minister. Does the hon. member not believe in delegation of authority? Or does he want the hon. the Minister to carry responsibility for all the detail of decision-making throughout his department?

Do you know how much money is involved?

Yes, of course, we know how much money is involved.

How much?

Of course we know. If that hon. member does not know he must ask his spokesmen on the matter. That is a red herring by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. They are trying to get off the hook that they are wriggling on because the hon. member for Berea did a somersault and in that is supported by the other hon. members of the PFP. There is in fact a hidden reason why they have come with this amendment and why there has been this change of attitude. I want to ask the hon. member further: If they are consistent in their attitude do they believe it should be obligatory upon the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to come to this House every time he wants to change the postal rates. Must he get prior approval from Parliament or can it be done post facto? There is an implied responsibility upon the Minister to take political responsibility for the decisions made in his department and its subsidiaries. Therefore I believe there is a hidden reason why the PFP has moved this particular amendment.

There is no hidden reason for what you are saying today.

No, of course not! We operate in the open. There is no problem at all. The reason why the hon. members of the PFP have decided to change their minds is because they do not want to be seen to be voting with the Government on something that is going to cost the taxpayers money. That is what it is all about. The credo of that party in the general election of 1981 was that they were going to fight the Governement tooth and nail on an increase in the cost of living. They are incorrectly interpreting this Bill as contributing to inflation and an increase in the cost of living. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition let the cat out of the bag at a public meeting in Waterkloof when he said that his party was a politically expedient party. That is what it is all about. Therefore this is a covert attempt to place the interests of the PFP above the national interest and the building of national roads in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has sketched the background to this debate. I want to refer briefly to the Second Reading debate when the hon. the Minister said that “if one could no longer rely on a person’s word of honour it is a disgrace”. “I will not accept your word again”, he said in relation to members of the PFP. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a couple of questions in this regard.

The first is: Who were the parties involved in these deliberations? Were they not the Government, the Opposition and the public generally? These were the only groups with an interest in these deliberations. My second question is: In whose interests were we deliberating? It certainly was not in the interests of the PFP and I am sure it was not in the interests of the Government. So it must have been in the interests of the public that we are deliberating.

Let me draw a little parallel here. Suppose the hon. the Minister and myself were asked by some institution, e.g. an old-aged home desirous of making some expansions, for assistance and advice, we came together and decided on a certain method of finance. The day after that, however, I went to the hon. the Minister and told him that that would be the wrong way to set about it and suggested we could supply the finance far more advantageously in a different way. If I did that would I have broken my word? Of course I would not. I had no personal interest in the matter; nor did the hon. the Minister.

I therefore consider that we owe it to the public to consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Berea on its merits and decide whether acceptance of his suggestion would make of this a better or worse Bill. I want to use as my base the point of agreement we reached, the hon. the Minister and ourselves, when in col. 6470 of Hansard of 1983 I said—

To that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs made the following interjection—

Sir, we are not alone in this; not alone at all. This was also the concern of expert witnesses before the Select Committee. Furthermore it was the whole tenor of the deliberations of that committee in an attempt to reconcile the many disadvantages of toll-road financing with the urgency of getting important work done and not to delay them indefinitely. Almost nobody liked toll-road financing. For instance, it is expensive, and we on the Select Committee attempted to assist the Government with this problem. We know that the cost of collecting toll can easily be 25% of the money collected. This makes it expensive money. This is common cause between that side of the House and this side of the House. The hon. member for Kempton Park has made it clear that toll financing should only be a last resort. It would not have been necessary, he said, if the Treasury had been able to find the funds. Therefore, he said, it seemed to be the only way to meet the immediate problem. The recommendations of the Select Committee make it perfectly clear that it was an ad hoc measure of financing certain projects while in terms of paragraph 8(d)(i) of the committee’s report further methods of providing these funds were being investigated. In paragraph 8(d) (ii) it specifically recommends that a fixed percentage levy on fuel sales be imposed in order that planning and provision of road facilities be stabilized. This Bill in its present form is doing something which was never intended and something which various prominent witnesses before the Select Committee were frightened of. It places in the hands of the executive, power to promote toll-roads financing into a major method of meeting the costs of highway construction on a long-term basis.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at the evidence which was given before the Select Committee on this point. Let us start by looking at the evidence of Dr. Mullins, the economist of the Economic Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister. On page 23 of the report of the Select Committee [S.C. 9—’82] he said—

This is very important I believe. He continues—

Then we get the evidence of Dr. De Loor. On page 42 of the Select Committee’s report he says—

Mr. Chairman, I have puzzled over the question of why the Government will not go along with the proposal of the hon. member for Berea. The only conclusion I can come to is that interdepartmentally co-ordination has broken down completely; so the hon. the Minister is forced to create for himself a separate empire to try to get the funds he needs. I have sympathy with him, because anybody who had the interests of his department at heart would want the money. He requires for expansion but it is not in the interests of the country as a whole. To return to the hon. the Minister’s speech this is what he said. It confirms what I have said—

Mr. Chairman, that was never intended by the Select Committee. This problem must be seen in perspective. In the first four projects alone more than R300 million is involved, more than in one-third of the Votes that we have spent as many days discussing. If this House loses control and if the Treasury loses control of this type of expenditure we will be breaching a cardinal principle, and that might have serious consequences. Dr. Mullins said on page 38 of the Select Committee’s report—

There are two principles involved in this, Mr. Chairman. The first is that Parliament and the Treasury cannot let go of the pursestrings and, secondly, while the National Transport Commission is a Government department, toll levies remain a tax. We must decide whether it is part of the public or the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, I endorse the proposal, of the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo moved a point of order and requested permission to address the Chair in that regard. You, Mr. Chairman, ruled that you could not uphold the point of order. Accordingly I wish to point out, with respect, that clause 4 of the Bill under discussion, in terms of which a new section 9(1) is inserted in the principal Act, is the only provision in which reference is made—in the proposed new clause 9(1)(a)—to the levying of tolls and the declaration of roads as toll-roads.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I submit that the hon. member for Roodeplaat is querying a ruling from the Chair. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, you have given a certain ruling, and the hon. member for Roodeplaat is now casting doubt on that very ruling of yours, I submit. [Interjections.]

Order! I have not gained the impression that the hon. member is querying a ruling by the Chair. The hon. member for Roodeplaat may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. However, I can understand why the hon. Whip of the official Opposition is oversensitive about this Bill. After all, the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Walmer appended their signatures to a decision that was taken unanimously. However, the hon. member for Yeoville upset their plans. Then, of course, they had to appear in this House ashamed and disgraced. I said during the Second Reading debate that I felt sorry for the hon. member for Berea. Now the hon. member comes up with this same amendment of his. The hon. member for Berea agreed 100% with what was stated here. However, let us look at the logic of the hon. member for Berea as reflected in his amendment.

The hon. member asks that clause 4 be amended to provide that the National Transport Commission may do certain things subject to the approval of this House. That is exactly what we are doing here today, Mr. Chairman. In terms of this legislation this House is today giving the National Transport Commission that very right to do those things; the same things that the hon. member is asking for. Is that not true?

The hon. member for Walmer floundered about a great deal today. However, let us forget about that for the time being. I first just want to know something from the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Berea knows that the first toll project is being handed over to the National Transport Commission by the contractors tomorrow, the 10th of June. Surely the hon. member knows that. They are the bridges along the Garden Route in the Eastern Cape. However, the hon. member knows more than that. The hon. member also knows that the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel is also to be a toll-road project. Then, too, the hon. member knows that the construction of a new road past the south of Johannesburg is being envi-saged. I think that the hon. member is also aware of the toll-road project at Keversfon-tein. Does the hon. member want the House of Aseembly to have to sit down and make decisions every time projects of this nature are planned? After all, these are things we cannot do overnight. It takes years to plan these things. Speaking in practical terms, how does the hon. member want to use this House of Assembly? I want to know how he wants to do it.

The hon. member for Berea sat with us in the Select Committee when we discussed these matters. At the time we said that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs reported to Parliament on these things from time to time. Surely the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is discussed in this Parliament. Surely we can query all these projects then, if we want to. At the time the hon. member for Berea agreed with us. Now, however, in view of the objection raised by the hon. member for Yeoville in his party’s caucus, the hon. member for Berea wants us … [Interjections.] I am of course speaking under correction now, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Yeoville wants everything to be changed again. He asked sneeringly what it would cost. I can tell him what it would cost. I can mention every amount. He put these questions to the hon. member for Durban North. However, I can give him the details. The project at the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel will cost more or less R4 million. The toll-road project along the Garden Route costs R2 million. The toll-road project between Frere and Keversfontein costs R4 million and the toll-road project between Warmbad and Nylstroom costs R2, 7 million. That was what the question which the hon. member for Berea asked in a disparaging tone, was about. However, there he has his answers.

I now want to know from the hon. member for Berea whether he agrees with me that we ought not really to build those toll roads, that we ought to leave it to the private sector. We ought to instruct enterprises like the Old Mutual or Sanlam to build, say the toll-road project at Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel, and then to give the enterprises in question the right to collect the toll for 20 years, subject to a certain degree of control by the National Transport Commission.

Or Savage and Lovemore.

Or Savage and Love-more, yes. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member agree? Is the hon. member satisfied with that? Does the hon. member not want us to use private initiative to build these roads? You see, Sir, when it suits those hon. members of the PFP who are big business-men, they say one thing, but when they encounter problems in their own caucus they say something completely different. We really cannot operate on that basis. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Berea made a fuss about all the evidence we had heard. Does the hon. member know of any other country where there are toll facilities in which the Government of that country, be it Hong Kong, Taiwan or America—to mention only a few—has to sit down and make a decision in respect of every one of it toll facilities? Does the hon. member know of even one— not two, just one? [Interjections.] No, he does not. Of course, Sir, It would be totally impracticable. It would be stupid. Surely these matters are planned over many years. We cannot simply sit down and take a decision and say “Now we are building the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel”.

I think that the hon. member for Berea is just as anxious as any other member of the Select Committee that there should be minimum delay as regards the construction of a road or bridge or tunnel scheme. After all, the hon. member is honest when I ask him whether that is so. He agrees. We do not want delay. Why, then, should we do things in this way? Unfortunately that hon. member is being sacrificed to the expediency of other hon. members of his caucus. I want to put the matter like this: The National Transport Commission is the only organization that can take decisions on toll matters. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he does not want to display the courage of his convictions by withdrawing his amendment, because we are unable to support it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Groote Schuur, the Chief Whip of the PFP, gave me the undertaking that if I treated them very nicely they would allow me to take the Third Reading of this Bill today.

That was before the speech by the hon. member for Roodeplaat.

No, no. We have an agreement among the three of us. It has nothing to do with the hon. member for Roodeplaat. Tomorrow, unfortunately, I have to be present for the handing over of the first toll bridge at Bobbejaankrans and accordingly I want to accord those hon. members very friendly treatment. I have sympathy for the problem of the hon. member for Berea. He turned a somersault, but that happens in many families where a man changes his opinion. I am not going to rub it in.

You have got your Third Reading. You can sit down.

Do I have the Third Reading? Thank you. [Interjections.]

*The hon. the member for Berea again stated his case in the same way. Last time I referred him to his questions to Dr. De Loor. Dr. De Loor was asked by the hon. member who took the decisions. Dr. De Loor’s reply was—

He then said—

The questions were asked. There was an open discussion in the Select Committee. I looked up the principal Act, and the principal Act provides that at the moment we build roads with the R157 million we get from the Fuel Fund. We do not come to Parliament for approval. This has been traditional since 1910.

A moment ago the hon. member for Durban North asked how much this cost. He probably read in the newspaper that the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel cost us R108 million. We envisage paying off that tunnel in 20 years’ time and this means that we shall have to collect an amount of R5 million per annum by way of toll payments. One can do a calculation every time. It is not so complicated.

I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North for his contribution. I also thank the hon. member for Ermelo. He raised a point which you, Sir, did not accept. I also thank the hon. member for Roodeplaat.

*The hon. member for South Coast asked me a question in the lobby. He wants it on record that this will not be applicable to old roads, but only to new projects such as bridges and tunnels provided there is an alternative.

*We are not going to introduce a toll if there is no alternative route. If anyone is not content to pay a toll he can use the old road; we shall not bother him. The person who wants to travel by the new road and make use of the new facilities has to contribute a few rands.

I am sincerely grateful for the fine contributions and the spirit prevailing here. At this point I also wish to express my gratitude that we shall be able to dispose of the Third Reading now, too.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

According to the final accounts of the S.A. Transport Services for the financial years 1981-’82, certified by the Auditor-General, expenditure amounting to R78 707 774,43, incurred during that financial year, must still be made available by this House. This expenditure has already been reported to the House by the Select Committee on the Accounts of the S.A. Transport Services, with the recommendation that this be made available by Parliament.

I should like to furnish the following particulars: The overspending on the capital programme for the financial years 1981-’82 amounts to approximately R69,4 million. Included in this there is an amount of R30 million voted for the House Ownership Fund, but not employed for this purpose. In clause 1 of the Bill the amount of R30 million, in terms of section 72(5) of Act 65 of 1981, is being withdrawn from the House Ownership Fund and utilized for other purposes.

After the utilization of this amount, the net overspending on the capital programme, which must be appropriated by this House, amounts to approximately R39,4 million. This overspending relates chiefly to the construction of railway lines and new works on newly opened lines and can be ascribed to the quicker completion of contracts and the fact that prices have escalated more than was expected. When economic activity levels off and there is a decrease in the allocation of new contracts, contractors are inclined, in the short-term, to employ available production means for existing contracts so that more rapid progress can be made. It was specifically in the last month of the financial year that greater expenditure was incurred than had been expected, and at that stage very few corrective steps could be taken.

The amount of R39, 4 million includes R6, 7 million in regard to working capital. Although the accumulated appropriation in regard to working capital exceeded R59,2 million on 31 March 1982, in terms of section 24 of Act 48 of 1977 I approved the fact that the accumulated appropriation could, temporarily, exceed 10% or R52,5 million. This temporary measure has meanwhile been authorized in Appropriation Acts. The fact that this amount was exceeded can, in particular, be ascribed to the following: The fact that supplies were delivered earlier by suppliers, greater escalation and the weakening of the Rand against other monetary units, particularly the American dollar.

The fact that the amount appropriated by Parliament for the Revenue Services was exceeded by R9 293 688,35 can chiefly be ascribed to the greater volume of traffic, as well as greater price increases and financing rates than initially budgeted for. The increase in the traffic also resulted in revenue for 1981-’82 increasing by R23,1 million as against the revised estimate, resulting in an improvement of R13,8 million in the results of working as against the results expected.

†Included in the excess spending in respect of revenue services is an ex gratia payment of R15 857,17 in respect of the outstanding debts of a catering club at Germiston operated by the staff themselves and which was taken over by the S.A. Transport Services as a staff cafeteria during 1981-’82. As various creditors were paid and no individual payment exceeded the R10 000 limit, no specific provision was made in the Appropriation Acts of 1981-’82 in this respect. There is, however, merit in the Auditor-General’s argument that, not withstanding the fact that individual payments were made to creditors, this in fact represents a payment to the catering club. In the circumstances the matter has been reconsidered and it is agreed that it should be regarded as one ex gratia payment. As such it should be validated by this House.

No specific appropriation was included in the Appropriation Acts of 1981-’82 for the losses on staff cafeterias. These losses were previously debited to the General Institute Fund and, as such, no provision was needed in the working expenditure budget. After the additional appropriations for 1981-’82 were approved, it was decided to debit these losses to the Net Revenue Account: Miscellaneous Expenditure (Railways) with effect from the 1980-’81 financial year. No provision could therefore be made for the losses on staff cafeterias in the Appropriation Acts concerned and the amount of R103 550,03, being the total losses on such cafeterias for 1980-’81, is submitted for sanction.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, the items referred to in the Bill relating to unauthorized expenditure are items which were pointed out by the Auditor-General. They were considered very fully by the Select Committee on the Accounts of the S.A. Transport Services and I believe that, generally speaking, the answers received from the management were satisfactory. As far as the R30 million is concerned for which we are asked to give sanction—this money was previously voted for housing—we have the assurance that this did not result in less money being spent on housing. One knows that housing is provided for by parliamentary appropriation and also from the Superannuation Fund. Nonetheless, it needs to be drawn to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the House that the Auditor-General, while indicating that this had not meant a reduction in the number of houses built for personnel of the SATS, also indicated that from the point of view of budgeting this was obviously something which should be avoided in future because, if there is an underestimation of funds, it makes it very difficult for Parliament to know when to appropriate the necessary funds from loan funds and so on. Clearly the Management is aware of the problems involved and one would hope that that sort of thing will not occur in future and that there is better anticipation of what needs to be appropriated for housing purposes.

As far as the rest of the unauthorized expenditure is concerned, the answers given in the Select Committee about the problems of increased costs which could not be anticipated and the fact that certain contracts were completed before the anticipated time and that the expenditure was therefore necessary even though it had not been budgeted for, are things that one must accept will happen, particularly if one has regard for the extent of the funds which are budgeted for an undertaking of the size of the S.A. Transport Services.

In relation to the matter of the ex gratia payments to cafeterias, I think it should be mentioned that the Auditor-General has indicated that this is not the first time that this item has appeared. One can only hope that the Administration is learning from its experience and will try to exercise greater control so that the payment of such ex gratia payments will not become necessary year after year.

With those comments one recognizes that this Bill is necessary in order to correct items of unauthorized expenditure and we obviously support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one can appreciate the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member is a member of the Select Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services and is, without doubt, aware of what happened in that Select Committee.

The hon. member raised the point of the R30 million which, in terms of the Bill, has been withdrawn from the House Ownership Fund and used for other purposes by the S.A. Transport Services, I want to show the hon. member that although we were told that R130 million was appropriated for housing, the S.A. Transport Services is in a position to use money from its Pension Fund for the housing of its staff. The S.A. Transport Services began adopting this policy eight years ago. Therefore the pressure on other funds that the S.A. Transport Services needs has decreased dramatically during that period. One can foresee a time when only money from the very strong Pension Fund will be used to provide staff housing.

This legislation gives effect to the recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on the Accounts of the South African Transport Services which was submitted to the House a few months ago. The Select Committee paid special attention to paragraph 4 of the report of the Auditor-General on unauthorized and unappropriated expenditure for the 1981-’82 financial year. Note was taken of the Auditor-General’s comments on this. I think that there are hon. members who have the unpublished copy of the evidence at their disposal, since the reports are only published at a later stage. It is however, quite clear that the Auditor-General was concerned about the fact that such a large amount had to be approved for unauthorized expenditure on this occasion. The explanation of the management of the S.A. Transport Services was also given thorough consideration by the Select Committee, and it was struck by the fact that the emount for the capital programme exceeded by such a considerable amount. The answers to the questions that were put, however, were satisfactory. The hon. member for Berea made mention of this. That is why we reported to Parliament that the amounts contained in this Bill should be appropriated. The report was accepted unanimously by the Select Committee.

Let us look at a few of these excess amounts. On revenue services there is an amount of R9,2 million. This merely constitutes 0,2% of the total working expenditure. The reason for the increase is, as the hon. the Minister has rightly mentioned, the result of the increased volume of traffic. It was originally estimated that the volume of traffic for that year would be 178 million ton, whereas in effect it was 180 million ton.

There were also considerable price increases. Diesel prices were expected to increase by 11,2%, whilst the actual increase was 12,2%. The same applies to increases in electricity prices. Price increases of 10% were foreseen, whilst the actual increase was 13,4%. One must also note the increase in the financing rate. In the 1981 financial year the financing rate for loans was 10, 1%. In the year under discussion, 1981-’82, the financing rate increased to 13%. A gratifying aspect, however, was the fact that there was an increase in the volume of traffic, which afforded the S.A. Transport Services additional revenue to the tune of R23, l million.

The position in regard to ex gratia payments is quite interesting. The Germiston refreshment club was initially run by the staff members themselves, but they could not keep that up. Consequently the S.A. Transport Services took it over. It was, of course, necessary to pay the debts that had been incurred.

The item that is actually of interest is the operating loss in regard to staff cafeterias which amounted to approximately R103 000. It has a strange history, though not strange in the sense of something having been wrong. A change of policy took place. In the past the industry was responsible for shortages in the service. Subsequently, however, losses were made good from the General Institute Fund. The liabilities of the General Institute Fund, however, grew to such an extent that it could not continue making good its staff cafeteria shortages either. Recourse was again had to the old policy of writing off shortages against working expenditure. With this change, these matters were left unattended to, and retrospective provision has had to be made. This now forms part of the R9, 2 million on revenue services that now has to be appropriated.

The hon. member for Berea mentioned the increase in regard to the capital programme. I do not want to elaborate on that. Possibly other hon. members on this side of the House will, if necessary, make further reference to this.

On this occasion I want to say that there is wholehearted co-operation in the Select Committee. We also encountered a spirit of open-heartedness on the part of the Attorney-General. At the same time we also obtained satisfaction from the management of the S.A. Transport Services. It is therefore with the utmost sense of responsibility that we feel ourselves free to request the House to approve this legislation. I think it is in the interests of the S.A. Transport Services, and we are satisfied that it is being well-managed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for De Kuilen, who is chairman of the Select Committee, has comprehensively sketched the background events that gave rise to this Bill. I am actually just standing up to say that the CP is giving its support to this Bill. We are satisfied that employees will not be adversely affected by the withdrawal of the R30 million from the House Ownership Fund. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that a printing error has crept into the Afrikaans short title of the Bill which reads—

The hon. the Minister is a difficult (“omgekrapte”) customer, but I do not think that was the intention of the short title of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who is the NRP’s representative on the Select Committee on the Accounts of the S.A. Transport Services, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have no problems with this Bill. We are aware of the reasons why the various courses of action, requiring the approval of the House today, were taken. I just want to add that in regard to the reasons which the hon. the Minister gave the House for expenditure from the capital account, we do appreciate the fact that the Railways, like private industry, is subject to market dynamics and that expenditure of this nature is sometimes unavoidable, for example, in that goods are delivered on a date on which they are not expected, or earlier than planned; that the S.A. Transport Services is weighed down by high interest rates, as mentioned by the hon. member for De Kuilen, and variations in the exchange rate, for example, between the US dollar and the South African rand. One can, however, also benefit from this in the sense that if goods are delivered earlier than expected, they can be put into service at an earlier stage, thus enabling one to generate income.

We have no problem with this Bill. It therefore has the full support of the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take the floor in such calm and pleasant circumstances. This discussion is in sharp contrast to discussions earlier this year when the main budget of the S.A. Transport Services came up for discussion. I also want to thank hon. members of the PFP, hon. members of the CP and hon. members of the NRP very sincerely for their positive contribution and for the fact that they have also, at long last, come to understand the problems encountered by the S.A. Transport Services. During the discussion of the budget we were accused of a lack of planning and so on, but I think hon. members have now showed a great deal of understanding for the problems, and I believe that things can only go better in future.

I do not want to waste any more time, except to say that I also support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Berea. He made a few points and I think we ought to pay attention to these points. The hon. member said that in order to avoid certain of these problems in the future we should anticipate better. But of course, the hon. member also realizes that contracts may be completed earlier than anticipated. The hon. member for Durban North also referred to that.

*The hon. member for De Kuilen is the chairman of the Select Committee, in which there is whole-hearted co-operation. I should just like to say thank you very much to those hon. members who quietly go about their work in the Select Committee. The members of the committee are Mr. D. M. Streicher, the chairman, Messrs. G. C. du Plessis, W. N. Breytenbach and J. J. Niemann, Dr. P. J. Welgemoed, Dr. H. M. J. van Rensburg, Messrs. H. M. J. van Rensburg, F. D. Conradie, N. J. Pretorius and K. D. Swanepeol, Dr. L. van der Watt, and Messrs. R. F. van Heerden, G. S. Bartlett, G. B. D. McIntosh and R. A. F. Swart. These people perform a valuable service for us. They are actually our watchdogs. I am glad that they approach this matter in this light. The only thing I still want to make mention of is the fact that we saved R30 million on housing. I know that there are hon. members who are concerned about our staff being short of dwelling accommodation, but in the 1981-’82 financial year we spent another R327 million on housing, as against the previous year’s R242 million. We therefore do not have any financial shortfall.

I thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

House Resumed:

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill has two principal objectives, both of which have a bearing on important aspects of Government policy in respect of universities. The first objective is that the Universities Act, 1955, which has hitherto been applicable only to the autonomous universities falling under the Department of National Education, should be made applicable to the Universities of the Western Cape and of Durban-Westville as well as soon as autonomous status is conferred upon them. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the University of the Western Cape provides university training facilities for the Coloured population group, and the University of Durban-Westville for the Indian group, and both of them fall under the control of the Minister of Internal Affairs. It has been decided to confer full autonomous status on the two universities concerned, and Bills aimed at achieving these objectives have already been considered by this House. As autonomous institutions, they will then have the same legal status in every respect as the existing 11 autonomous universities, and their status and powers will be defined by the general provisions of the Universities Act, 1955, supplemented by the specific provisions of their own University Acts, as in the case of each of the other autonomous universities.

It is desirable that the general policy of the Government in respect of universities in this country be determined and implemented in a uniform manner as far as possible, especially with regard to the autonomous universities. This objective will to a large extent be achieved if the Universities Act is made applicable to the Universities of the Western Cape and of Durban-Westville as well. The Universities Advisory Council will then be able, as a policy advisory body, to make recommendations to the Minister concerned in respect of these two universities as well, and their reactors will be able, as full-fledged members of the Committee of University Principals, to deliberate and to give advice together with the other members of that Committee on matters of common interest to the universities. Hon. members will have noticed that this House is in fact being requested, in a Bill which is still to be discussed, to convert the Universities Advisory Council into a Universities and Technikons Advisory Council, with considerably increased powers, which will enable it to advise the relevant Minister even in respect of the non-autonomous universities, sometimes called State Universities, which have been established to serve members of the Black peoples. The Government is also considering the creation of a suitable form of liaison between the rectors of these State Universities and the Committee of University Principals. The Universities of the Western Cape and of Durban-Westville have acquired a status and prestige which require that their continued academic and physical development should take place in co-ordination with those of the universities that are already autonomous, in the interests of the administrative as well as academic efficiency of the whole university system. I have consulted the Committee of University Principals as well as the Universities Advisory Council, and both these bodies have welcomed these steps.

The Bill provides in clause 1 for the term “university”, as defined in the Universities Act, to be amended to include the Universities established for Coloured persons. In addition, the definition of Minister is being amended to include, for the purposes of the application of provisions of this legislation to the Universities of the Western Cape and of Durban-Westville, the Minister of Internal Affairs, acting in the interests of co-ordination, with the concurrence of the Minister of National Education in certain cases, and after consultation with him in other cases.

†Mr. Speaker, the second main aim of this Bill is to change the procedure for the admission of students of other population groups to autonomous universities which by policy, as expressed in legislation, are established to serve a specific population group, respectively Whites, Coloureds and Asians. [Interjections.] Section 31 of the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 and section 22 in the existing Acts on the universities of the Western Cape and of Durban-Westville, require that the relevant Minister must give his written consent for each person from another population group to register with or attend such a university. It is now proposed to repeal these provisions (together with the related sections 17, 32, 33 and 40 of the Extension of University Education Act) thus entrusting the admission of individual students to the university authorities, but subject to a new provision in clause 9 enabling the relevant Minister to specify conditions, including a numerical quota or ceiling, for the admission of students of population groups other than that of which the student body of the relevant university at the present time mainly consists. [Interjections.] These conditions may also include quotas in respect of different study courses or different population groups, although this distinction is likely to be used only in exceptional cases or, for example, to exclude Chinese students and post-graduate students from any limiting conditions.

It is the intention with this measure to introduce greater flexibility in the admission to universities of students of population groups other than those for which the university concerned is primarily intended. The decision about individual admissions thus becomes largely depoliticized and also decentralized so that there is a much larger scope for university autonomy. [Interjections.] I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that since the passing of the 1959 Act strong opposition has been expressed against what has been considered an infringement of the autonomy of universities to decide upon the admission of students. The HSRC report on education and the Committee of University Principals have both recently recommended that autonomous universities should have the right to decide themselves about the admission of their students. [Interjections.] However, when the Retief Committee on Education for Blacks in White Areas in 1980 also recommended that universities for Whites should be allowed to admit Black students without ministerial permits, it recognized that such freer admission could have noticeable effect on the distribution of available State finances to the different universities, and so suggested: “Dit is minstens in die kort termyn dus moontlik dat ’n beperking op studentegetalle in veral sekere populêre studierigtings oorweeg sal word.” [Interjections.] When consulted on this matter the Universities Advisory Council felt that on the one hand a university should in principle be free to select its students in accordance with its own wishes and character, but that on the other hand it is the right and function of the Government to establish a social order which it deems fit. The UAC recommended that a compromise could be found by allowing universities the right to select their own students within the limits of numerical proportions determined by the Government, and with this view the Government concurs. [Interjections.]

So it was not your idea at all.

While the Government holds the principle of university autonomy in high esteem … [Interjections] … it has always emphasized that this is not an absolute autonomy. It considers the duly elected Government entitled to lay down parameters of broader policy of state within the limits of which the university has to exercise its autonomy.

Apartheid rules!

The proper authority for defining such broader policy constraints is not the academic authority of the university but the political authority set up by the electorate. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that it has become an established practice that an hon. Minister is allowed to address the House uninterrupted when he delivers a Second Reading speech. I should like hon. members to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Sir.

At the same time it is imperative that the Government of the day should be sensitive not to lay down such limitations as would inhibit the university in exercising its legitimate claim to academic freedom. There seems to be, however, no sound grounds for claiming complete autonomy in the admission of students as an essential ingredient of academic freedom. While the right to decide what to teach, how to teach and who shall teach may rightly be claimed to be essential parts of academic freedom, a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Natal in 1971 …

Who was he?

Owen Horwood.

No, not Prof. Horwood. If the hon. members had their historical recollections correct, they would have realized that I was referring to Prof. Francis Stock.

A former vice-chancellor of the University of Natal in 1971 correctly questioned the claim that the right to decide whom to teach is also vital to the concept of academic freedom.

In the opinion and declared policy of the Government it is necessary, in the overall interest of the population diversity in South Africa, that also on the level of universities and technikons separate and differentiated provision should be made for education of the different population groups, although it is accepted that these institutions should be granted authority within certain limits determined by State policy, also to admit students from other population groups. In this regard admission to post-graduate study and to specialized courses not provided for at the institution serving the population group of the students concerned is one of the important considerations for greater flexibility in this regard.

The institutional autonomy of our universities is also in several other respects subject to limitations laid down or approvals to be granted by the responsible Minister. Such ministerial decisions are given on the grounds of policy considerations forming part of the Government of the day’s political assessment of the broad national interest. Such decisions are e.g. those concerning the institution of new faculties or new departments, of new degrees or study courses, the determination of the duration of degree courses, and the legislative granting to certain professional bodies outside the universities of supervision over study courses. It is an undeniable fact that the unique diversity of population groups is as much part of the South African reality as are considerations of manpower needs, financial resources, economic growth or demographic tendencies—all factors which the Government has to assess and with regard to which the Government has to lay down, as a matter of political consideration, the parameters within which the universities should exercise their institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

When I explained to the Committees of University Principals, in July 1982, the intended legislative changes regarding the admission of students to universities, I was left with the distinct impression that though certain universities again insisted on the restoration of full autonomy in respect of student admissions as before 1959, they all clearly welcomed the proposed change as an improvement bringing about a more flexible and practicable system. I am open to suggestions on the part of any university which could establish a mutually acceptable understanding ensuring in a reasonable way the maintenance of its predominant orientation towards service to the population group concerned, especially in view also of the enhanced discipline likely to be effected in respect of student admissions by the proposed new university subsidy formula.

*I should like to mention a few further practical considerations regarding the introduction of the proposed new system. In spite of the requirement of ministerial permits, the number of non-White students annually admitted to White universities has already increased to more than 4 000, representing 8% to 12% of the total number of students at some universities. The administrative task of dealing with these permits, from the point of view of the ministries involved as well as the universities and the students, is very time-consuming, and inevitably causes a great deal of trouble and many delays, as well as inconvenience and frustration, especially on the part of the students involved. In the interests of administrative efficiency, but also to establish better overall control in order to achieve the real objective of the Government, namely the maintenance of the orientation of each university towards its particular community, the new system is being proposed. It also takes into consideration the non-Whites’ well-known aversion to permits. It enables the responsible Minister and department to ensure more effective co-ordinated planning for the growth of the universities for which they are responsible. While the new university colleges which were established in 1959 had to be protected against a fierce ideological boycott onslaught aimed against them as so-called bush colleges, they have since developed into established universities with their own character and proven academic reputation as well as a record of success in the sphere of remedial education in respect of students with adjustment problems, so that they have far less need of the protection of a strict ministerial permit system.

Apart from correcting obsolete expressions, the remaining provisions of the Bill are intended, among other things, to adapt the constitution of the Universities Advisory Council (clause 2); to bring about representation of South West Africa on the Joint Matriculation Board by means of the territory’s National Education Council, since that body is representative of all the educational systems of that territory (clause 5); to abolish the power of the Recognition Board to conduct examinations, in accordance with the position in practice (clause 8); and to repeal the Technological Training Advancement Act of 1960, since it has been replaced by improved arrangements in respect of exemption of income tax on donations to higher education (Schedule 1). Furthermore, Schedule 1 provides for the repeal of the existing provisions in university Acts in terms of which the institution of and any change in the designation of degrees must be laid down in the statutes of every university, a cumbersome process which has been replaced, at the request of the Committee of University Principals, by a new arrangement in clause 6, in terms of which university councils are authorized to approve these matters themselves, subject to the prior consent of the Minister.

In conclusion, I wish to point out that I intend to move an amendment to clause 9 during the Committee Stage in order to exclude the University of South Africa from the provisions of that clause and, furthermore, to propose that provision be made in the final clause for the various provisions of this Bill to come into operation by proclamation on various dates.

The Broederbond will be proud of you.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody in South Africa was under the mistaken impression that this Government intended to bring about real reform in our country, the speech by this hon. Minister this afternoon will have effectively dispelled such a false impression.

It is shy reform.

I cannot understand how in the year in which the Government is presenting South Africa with new constitutional proposals and in which it is attempting to persuade South Africa and the world that it wants to remove race discrimination and bring about real reform, it can permit the hon. the Minister of National Education to present to the Parliament of South Africa a Bill that is so flagrantly racialistic and so blatantly discriminatory and which will give such offence to people of colour in our country.

The CP is going to say the exact opposite.

Just two days ago the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in this House that apartheid was dead. He qualified it by saying that apartheid as the outside world sees it, was dead. Apartheid as South Africa sees it, is apparently alive. Today the hon. the Minister of National Education, by introducing this Bill, is signalling to South Africa and to the world at large that apartheid is alive and well and living in the hearts and the minds of the members of the NP Cabinet of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of National Education came to this Parliament with a brilliant intellectual and academic record. He had the enviable reputation of a man who could set objectives and who could achieve those objectives with remarkable competence and style. I was a witness of that Minister’s organizational ability. For this reason educationists in South Africa and all those who are interested in education were filled with hope that this Minister would pluck education out of the quicksand of apartheid and make of it a dynamic force for peace and progress in our society, but South Africa has been sadly disillusioned and the best interests of education have once again been betrayed by the NP Government.

Not only has this hon. the Minister not met any of the expectations created by the report of the De Lange Committee, but far worse, he has now become the instrument for perpetuating some of the most deplorable aspects of the apartheid ideology in our educational system. This Bill is deeply offensive to the victims of its repugnant racialistic provisions, and it is equally offensive to the free universities of South Africa that will by its provisions be compelled to become the perpetrators of its abhorrent provisions in a situation where these universities are the strongest and most forceful opponents of those provisions. By casting the open universities in South Africa in this unfortunate role the hon. the Minister of National Education has outdone Machiavelli at his worst. I believe the hon. the Minister of National Education will in fact live long enough to see the eradication of the evil of apartheid from our fair land. When I look at him, he looks reasonably healthy. But he looks a worried man and sometimes he looks like a depressed man. Sometimes he looks like a man who is fighting a losing battle. I am sure that he has fought many a losing battle in the NP caucus and Cabinet. If, God willing, the day comes soon that apartheid is wiped from the face of South Africa, I believe that the hon. the Minister will look back in shame to the day he introduced this legislation in the Parliament of South Africa.

It is time that the Government gave some thought to their status in South Africa when they do things like this. They are not a Government of the majority. They do not govern with the consent of the majority of South Africa’s people, because nine out of ten of all South Africans are implacably opposed to this Government and its policies. In the fullnests of time this Government will be seen to have been just a temporary aberration. It would therefore be wise if this Government would stop offending people of colour in our country with whom Whites will have to live as equals in the future. It would be wise if the Government would take the initiative to start building bridges of understanding, friendship and co-operation between the peoples of our country. It would be wise if the Government would start to communicate with people of colour in order to meet their legitimate reasonable aspirations and to take steps to bring about the changes which would respect the dignity of all South Africans of all races, all creeds and all colours. In every respect the main provision of this Bill achieves the exact opposite of those ideals, because in its crude and offensive racialistic provisions it hurts and humiliates ordinary South Africans on the basis of the colour of their skin. Nothing could be more dangerous for the future of our contry than this step by the Government.

What is almost totally inexplicable is the Government’s remarkable rejection of the major recommendations of the De Lange Committee report, one of the finest scientific and human achievements in the history of our country. This report resulted from the enthusiastic and dedicated work of a large team of some of South Africa’s foremost educationists, fine citizens of our country, working hard and long hours in the interests of our society. What was the point of commissioning the investigation in the first place if the Government had no intention of listening to the wise advice that came from the De Lange Committee? The Government will yet experience the adverse consequences of the disillusionment and disappointment that have resulted in the ranks of educationists and among all the people in South Africa because of this blind rejection of the recommendations of the De Lange Committee. One of these recommendations reads as follows—

Nothing could be clearer than the wording of this recommendation. If the Government had had the courage, insight and intelligence to accept this meaningful recommendation it would place South African universities on a par with all the universities of the free Western nations. It would have removed the major stigma of racialism attached to our universities. It would have created pride, self-confidence and a new basis for progress and achievement for our universities. It would in fact have ushered in a whole new era of freedom of association and freedom in education for our universities. Human freedom and academic freedom are indivisible. One cannot have the one without the other. The Government cannot pay lip-service to the first if it is not prepared to meet those essential requirements in order to achieve human freedom. It is pointless to speak about human freedom, it is pointless to speak about the removal of discrimination, it is pointless to speak about a society free of apartheid if the very pillars of apartheid, the very pillars of the ideological policy of apartheid, remain intact and if the hon. the Minister of National Education is not capable of removing even one of them.

It is clear that the recommendations of the De Lange Committee inspired not only all educationists in South Africa but also the leaders at all our White universities. At a meeting of the Committee of University Principals the principle that all university councils should enjoy autonomy as far as the admission also of their students is concerned, received the unanimous support of all the principals present, both from the English language universities and the Afrikaans language universities. Thirteen universities are represented on that committee. That committee met subsequent to the publication of the report of the De Lange Committee and all 13 principals of our English and Afrikaans language universities unanimously committed themselves to the support of the principle of autonomy for their institutions with regard to the admission of students. With such unanimity and with such significant intellectual and academic support it should have been possible for the hon. the Minister to shed the shackles of apartheid and to proclaim the introduction of an era of free university education in South Africa. What went wrong? Why did the hon. the Minister fail? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister: Did he even try? What did he say to the Cabinet when he went to them on this particular point? Did the hon. the Minister go to the Cabinet and represent the best interests of education? Did he go to the Cabinet and speak on behalf of the De Lange Committee? Did he go to the Cabinet and speak on behalf of the universities of South Africa, having the mandate from the meeting of the Committee of University Principals? Or did the hon. the Minister go to the Cabinet and meekly submit himself to the dictates of apartheid? This hon. Minister—and I have said this before—has to take a fundamental decision if he does not want to go down in ignominy in the educational history of our country. He is the Minister of National Education. His main concern and primary purpose in life is good education for all South Africans in our country in the interests of South Africa. He will have to take a decision. Either he is going to be a good educationist looking after the best interests of education in South Africa or he is going to be an apartheid puppet dancing to the strings of that ideology. Sooner or later this hon. Minister will have to take that decision.

He has taken it.

If the hon. the Minister did try, then he clearly failed and he probably failed miserably. He probably failed because his Cabinet is petrified of the rise of the right wing CP in South Africa. In the end the best interests of education in south Africa once again had to be sacrificed to the dictates of the selfish and short-sighted and destructive policy of apartheid. I wish the hon. the Minister would allow this thought to sink into his head. Apartheid and the best interests of South Africa are contradictions in terms and particularly so in the field of education. Can it be that the hon. the Minister does not understand the implications of the vehement opposition of the free universities in South Africa and of many other people in our society to this legislation? Has he not listened to the responsible, urgent and compelling representations from these universities? Has he not studied the decisions that they have communicated to him? For months now there have been reports, representations and pleas to this hon. Minister and to the Government to think again, but the Government has been silent until today when this hon. Minister stood up and quite clearly indicated that all those representations had gone past him. It was like water off a duck’s back.

At a special meeting held on 8 March 1983 the senate of the University of the Wit-watersrand stated—

*Moreover, Mr. Speaker, a joint statement was issued by the vice chancellors of the Universities of Cape Town, Natal, Rhodes and the Witwatersrand. I want to read certain extracts from that statement to the hon. the Minister. The statement was issued after a meeting which was held on 11 April of this year, and deals with the legislation under discussion. I quote as follows—

†It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that neither the hon. the Minister nor the Government can grasp the feeling of abhorrence that is felt so deeply by decent and civilized people and societies when confronted with or subjected to the harsh and evil oppression and humiliation of this special brand of racialism, namely apartheid, which the NP Government have made its own, and which it applies as a philosophy and a practice in all its policies and systems.

I should like to quote just one more passage in an attempt to bring this home to the hon. the Minister and to the Government. In its Great Hall the University of the Wit-watersrand has a plaque which proclaims the following statement of dedication to university freedom, to South Africa, to its students, to its staff and to all the peoples in our country. That university’s opposition is based upon its long-held belief, enshrined in the words of the plaque at the entrance to the University Great Hall, and which reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister should think about these words. He should think about them very seriously. If those words were to be his statement of dedication to South Africa, he would have brought about a major and meaningful reform that would be welcomed with gratitude and would meet with keen participation on the part of all people in South Africa who are interested in higher education.

In connection with the philosophy of open universities I should like to quote the following passage from the book The open universities in South Africa, and I want to do it as a matter of interest. I want the hon. the Minister to listen to these words because I hope they will help him to grasp something of what is meant by people who talk about free education and of university autonomy, and why these things mean so much to educationists in South Africa. I quote as follows—

The Government must realize, Sir, that the perception of disadvantaged people of separate education is that it is unequal. Disadvantaged communities believe fervently that if they are prevented from entering educational institutions reserved for the privileged group—in our case, the White community—they are being excluded from participating in and benefiting from an educational system which is superior to the system to which they are compelled to restrict themselves because of the colour of their skins. Even if it were possible to provide separate educational institutions where the accommodation, the equipment, the teachers and the courses were of the same standard, thus theoretically achieving equal education, in a multiracial and multi-ethnic society such as South Africa is, such an educational system would be inadequate and incomplete since it would be deprived of the advantage of contact and communication between the diverse elements of our society and the social and intellectual enrichment that this would bring as well as the understanding and respect and co-operation that would come about as a natural and inevitable consequence among the different peoples of our country.

Who wrote that?

I wrote it myself. I promise you. It entailed a great deal of hard work and it occupied a great deal of my time, but I wrote it myself.

†Surely the Government understands that it is the task of the university to provide the leaders of society at every level of the activities of our nation. This is the task of our universities and of our whole educational system and all its institutions. It is the responsibility of the university to provide leaders in education, in commerce and industry, in science and also in politics. Surely the Government realizes that in all of these activities White, Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans will have to work together and achieve together, and the level of their success, of their joint efforts will depend upon their ability to understand and communicate and co-operate with one another. Surely the Government realizes that such a desirable situation, which is in the vital interests of South Africa, can only be achieved if these young leaders of tomorrow have the opportunity to practise communication and understanding in their formative years in particular whilst they are accumulating knowledge and experience in the years they spend at school and university. Surely the Government should also realize that when it prevents young people from communicating with one another and understanding one another, it is erecting barriers between people, that it is contributing to suspicion and to prejudice and that it is undermining the future security and prosperity of our nation and the country as a whole. When the Government prevents people from communicating, it prevents people from understanding one another. It prevents people from finding ways and means of co-operating with one another in the national interests and in the interests of our society as a whole. When the Government does that it effectively undermines the whole of our society and all of its institutions and, by so doing, undermines the future security, stability and prosperity of our country.

It is a fact that among White university students who have not had contact with Black university students at university there is a greater degree of prejudice against Blacks. That is a fact. It is equally a fact that Black students at the exclusively Black universities leave those universities with strongly developed anti-White feelings and, in many cases, an implacable determination to destroy the White system in South Africa. If one examines this situation, one finds that it is because they have not had an opportunity of learning to understand their compatriots of other colour groups. They have not had the opportunity of debating with members of other race groups their aspirations and their feelings. They have not had the opportunity of developing a common patriotism and common purpose as far as their fatherland is concerned. The Black universities have been described by White academics who have visited them—and these are not PFP White academics; these are NP White academics to whom I have spoken—as factories of anti-White hate. What greater indictment can there be of this system of racially segregated universities which the hon. the Minister so enthusiastically supports and promotes?

One wonders whether the Government is aware of the immense damage that has been done to South African universities, South African university students and South Africa as a whole by university apartheid in our country. Not only has immense damage been done to good relations between the various race groups, irreparable damage that has undermined the security and the prosperity of our whole society, but huge damage has also been done to universities as a result of loss of brilliant academics and students who left our country to study elsewhere because they did not wish to be stigmatized by association with educational institutions that were racially segregated.

Equally our universities and our country have suffered tremendously as a result of the refusal of talented academics from other countries to teach at our universities because it would have been a blight on their academic records if they had associated themselves with racially segregated universities.

Overseas academics who would have liked to study and work at South African universities told me that they could not take the chance internationally of having included on their curricula vitae a statement that they spent time at South African universities.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense; it is a fact.

And what was your reaction?

People who wanted to work here and people who could have made a major contribution to the university system of South Africa were prevented from doing so, because it would have been a blot on their records, and that blot would be there not because of the universities, their staff or their students or because of what they teach or what they do; the blot would be there because of the policy of apartheid, a policy which is in fact a blight on the whole life and society of our country.

You are sucking that out of your thumb.

The doors of educational institutions, research foundations, technical institutions and a vast array of other organizations have been closed to South Africans who taught at or were educated at our universities for the same reason.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to read his speech? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you. Sir. I just want to point out that I have been in Parliament for three years, and that this is the third speech I have prepared on this basis. Sir, I plead your compassion.

†Universities find it difficult to place staff at overseas universities for sabbatical purposes, some of our degrees are not recognized overseas and we often have difficulty getting the work of South African researchers published in certain international academic publications.

Who can contend that the price we have to pay for apartheid can be justified, even remotely? It is the contention that certain disastrous consequences will flow from the application of the provisions of the Bill, and it is the considered opinion of academics at the four open South African universities who have warned seriously that if the Government should go ahead with this legislation and if it were applied in practice, the following might well be the drastic consequences of the legislation: South African degrees not being recognized overseas; South African graduates and academics being turned away by overseas universities for purposes of further study; South African academics being barred from international conferences, sabbatical visits or publication in overseas journals; increased pressures to dissuade foreign academics from visiting this country or from applying for posts; the withholding of books, microfilms, international library loans and photocopying services, etc., and a refusal to accept subscriptions to overseas journals from South African academics or university libraries; and the withholding of scientific and technical information and co-operation.

These are not unreal risks that South Africa runs; these are real risks and the Government must decide whether they are prepared to take the risk of depriving South Africa of these advantages for the mere satisfaction of carrying out their policy of apartheid.

Apart from the deplorable racialistic aspects of the Bill, if one looks at the practical consequences, one realizes how unwise this Bill really is. Does the Government realize that, if we compare the figure for 1982 with the projected figure for 1990 regarding matriculants in South Africa, if we take Black, Coloured and Indian matriculants together, there were roughly 15 000 of them and roughly 26 000 White matriculants in 1982, whereas only eight years later, in 1990, according to a prediction contained in the report of the De Lange Committee, there will be 38 000 Black, Coloured and Indian matriculants and only 34 000 Whites. What I am trying to indicate is that there is an explosion of Black children qualifying at schools in South Africa, an explosion which will continue during the course of the next 20 years in our country. It is also predicted that by the year 1990 White universities will have achieved their maximum rate of growth whilst the number of Black university students will double every 2i years. This simply means that the future growth of our White universities will depend on their taking in larger numbers of Black students because there will not be sufficient numbers of White students to accord those universities effective continuous growth. Apart from the philosophical considerations, the compelling realities will force this Government to reconsider its attitude. The question I want to ask is the following: Why then is it necessary to do so much harm to our country by being so stubborn, so short-sighted and so stupid when in the end, as we all know, the Government will once again have to capitulate to reality?

In the field of teacher training the compelling reality of the requirements for the future shows us how unattainable the policies of this Government really are. In order to achieve parity in respect of pupil density by the year 2020 with a ratio of 30 pupils per teacher the following numbers of teachers will have to be trained between 1981 and 2020: 245 000 or nearly a quarter of a million Blacks; 7 000 Indians; 23 000 Coloureds; and 25 000 Whites. These figures are alarming enough, but they become even more alarming when one considers the academic qualifications of the teachers. The percentages of under-qualified teachers are as follows: 85% of the Blacks, 19,7% of the Indians, 66,14% of the Coloureds and 15,36% of the Whites.

What does all this mean? It means that the Government has failed in the past to provide adequate education, both in terms of numbers and in terms of quality, for the people of South Africa. It means nothing else. It means that the Government has failed miserably in its responsibility in that regard. Why has it failed? It has failed, not because this country does not have the ability or the money to provide that education, but because the Government clung to its policy of apartheid which required of it to segregate people in education and to provide education of an inferior quality for the other race groups in our society.

In the field of skilled manpower the policies of this Government in regard to the education and training of members of other race groups has had its most devastatingly destructive effect. Time and again the opportunity for growth and expansion in the commercial and industrial fields has been frustrated by the lack of skilled manpower, and in every case it can be traced to the Government’s refusal to scrap its apartheid policies and to launch massive programmes for the education and training of skilled manpower on a non-racial basis in our country. The full potential of our human resources cannot be unleashed until such time as all education is freed from the policy and shackles of apartheid. This Bill, instead of moving away from apartheid, instead of freeing our society from apartheid, is once again shackling our society to the policy of apartheid.

For all the reasons I have set out, I am compelled to brand this Bill a grave disservice to South Africa. It will further seriously undermine good race relations in our country. It will undermine our prospects for growth, stability, prosperity and security. It will bring our country into disrepute among the free and civilized nations of the world. It will strengthen the case of our enemies and bolster the progress of Marxism in our society. Because it is our patriotic duty, as people who love their country fervently, to protect our country against our enemies, because it is our duty to fight against the cause of communism in our society, we wish to record our total and unmitigated opposition to this Bill. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a statement with which I shall also conclude my speech, and this is that the hon. member for Bryanston has found it expedient to make his contribution purely from a political-philosophical point of view this afternoon. The hon. member for Bryanston formulated his entire argument around a political standpoint, in spite of the fact that the hon. member accuses this side of the House of approaching education from a political-philosophical point of view, which is not true.

I find it curious that hon. members on the other side should be so quick to quote a particular report when it suits them. Since the appearance of the De Lange report, we have repeatedly been told by that side of the House of the recommendations which it contains. I want to say at once that the Government has accepted the 11 principles contained in the De Lange report. Of course, we do not want to dismiss the De Lange report as an inferior report. In fact, I believe that it is an important scientific report. What is important, however, is that having studied the Bill, the Government published a White Paper in which the standpoint of the Government was set out and in which the Government’s premises were stated and the 11 premises with regard to the provision of education were accepted. This Government has committed itself to these.

Arising from what I said a short while ago, that hon. member for Bryanston was approaching the matter from a political point of view, I want to point out that he made the statement that nine out of ten persons in South Africa were opposed to this Government. We know the argument that 70% of the population does not have the vote, etc. The assumption is that all people of colour must be against the Government. Such an unscientific statement is not worth replying to.

Hold a general election in which all South Africans can vote.

I did not interrupt the hon. member and he must give me an opportunity to make my speech. The hon. member attacked the Government, suggesting that we did not have successful and effective education in the Republic of South Africa because of the existence of separate universities. I want to ask the hon. member whether he believes that the education provided at the Black universities, at the Coloured university and at the Indian university is of a lower standard. The hon. member now turns his back on me. That is the courtesy which the hon. member shows, but we expect it of him, of course. I must say that his back view is better than his front, in any case. That is the problem one has. I shall repeat the question. Is the hon. member suggesting that the education provided at the Black universities, the Coloured universities and the Indian university is of a lower standard than that provided at the White universities? This is what the hon. member is suggesting to us. The hon. member cannot reply affirmatively to this, because he knows that if he does …

But were you not listening?

Yes, I was. That is why I am asking the question.

Then you do not understand it.

The hon. member went on and tried to suggest to this House that all the university principals had rejected this new legislation out of hand. That is not true. There are university principals who have conceded that this legislation has distinct advantages.

I want to make only one more remark, and then I shall leave the hon. member at that. The hon. member made certain threats to the effect that if we proceeded with this legislation, there would be boycotts, degrees would not be conferred, etc. Of course, only an irresponsible Government would fail to take account of international opinion. On that I agree with the hon. member. However, to expect the Government to take certain decisions merely in order to comply with the wishes of the international community is not realistic, and this idea will not get the hon. member anywhere.

Who said that?

You read it.

Yes, but he did not read his speech, which had been written for him, before delivering it.

I shall come back later to the question of academic freedom and autonomy to which the hon. member referred.

There has to be development in any country in the world. In the Republic of South Africa, too, there has been development in various spheres. However, all these developments are taking place within the parameters of certain norms and guidelines which are characteristic of the people who live here. This does not apply to South Africa only, but to any country in the world. In this way, too, our educational system has developed from the pre-primary level to the tertiary level. On the basis of our population structure and also on the basis of certain educational principles—this is imporatant—our education has developed into different systems for the different population groups. This is also why we have autonomous residential universities for Whites and separate universities for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. Realities as well as practical considerations have led to the present position, where other population groups than those for which particular universities were established are also being allowed to attend such universities on certain conditions. This has not happened because the system of separate universities has been a failure. On the contrary. The achievements, the student numbers, the study courses and the standard and production of graduates, even in a wider sphere than the community from which the student comes, prove the success of the system which has developed.

Universities for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are so well-established today that no artificial protection is required any longer. This, together with the enormous rise in student numbers, has made it essential that the system according to which people of colour are admitted to universities be amended. That is why we have this amending legislation before us today.

Clause 9 of this Bill contains nine important principles, and I want to refer to these briefly. The first principle is that the Minister—according to the definition, this is the Minister of National Education as well as the Minister of Internal Affairs—may determine certain conditions.

With regard to general affairs or specific affairs?

The hon. member for Rissik must just wait a minute. I shall explain the principles to him if he has not studied the legislation. The principle or conditions which may be determined under clause 9 may include conditions subject to which a student from a student body other than that for which the relevant university was established may be registered at such university. An Indian would be able to register at a White university, therefore, and a Coloured would be able to register at an Indian university.

Does he then acquire full student status?

Just let me finish. The hon. member can ask questions later. There is a third principle which flows from this, namely that these conditions could also provide for a student from another student body to register for a particular study course at another university. For example, an Indian could register for a specific study course at the University of the Western Cape.

There is yet another principle. These conditions may also include a basis for the calculation of the number of students from another student body that may register at a particular university or for a specific study course. However, there is yet another principle involved here, namely that the conditions may also include a prohibition on the registration of persons from a particular population group as students for a study course at a particular university. A further principle is that different conditions may apply to different universities as well as to different study courses. Different bases could also apply to the different population groups and at different universities. This is the basis of clause 9, which, in may opinion, is the most important clause in this Bill.

I want to come now to the argument which has been advanced by the hon. member for Bryanston, among others, and which we have read about in the newspapers, namely that this legislation violates the academic freedom and the autonomy of the university. In my opinion, we are using the concepts of “academic freedom” and “autonomy” too loosely, without first having ascertained whether we are talking about the same thing when we use those two concepts. Allow me, therefore, to try to formulate these two concepts briefly. In my opinion, autonomy is largely concerned with the management aspect of the university, while on the other hand we have academic freedom, a concept which relates to the circumstances under which staff and students work, including the absence of what is perceived as improper interference in teaching, study, investigation, publication and the expression of opinions. The fact is that there is no such thing as absolute autonomy. It does not exist, and this standpoint is endorsed by many people in many countries of the world. Secondly, one cannot isolate a university from the community which it serves. I want to quote what the rector of the University of Stellenbosch says in this connection, namely—

This is not only said by academics in the Republic of South Africa. It corresponds with the view of the fourth international congress of universities held in Tokyo in 1965.

What is the reality of society in South Africa?

We can argue about that later. Allow me to quote now what was said at that fourth international congress of universities, as paraphrased for us in the Van Wyk de Vries report on page 22. I quote—

A university does not exist and operate in a vacuum, but in a particular country, society, milieu and spiritual climate, and under particular political and other circumstances. This is a fact. The university must take into consideration the fact that it operates within the context of a specific community and that its interests and those of the community are intertwined. The university is the mirror image of society. It is not divorced from it: indeed, it occupies a central position within society. Hence the finding of the Van Wyk de Vries investigation, page 56, and I quote—

This is very important—

It is our desire on this side of the House to allow universities the greatest measure of autonomy and academic freedom, within the frame work of the premises I have just set out. However, it should also be done within the parameters of the responsibility which the Government has to a community, specifically on the basis of the arguments which I have just advanced. We cannot consider these things in isolation. The principles contained in this Bill will bring about a decided improvement to the present system. Why do I say this. I say this, in the first place, because university councils will now have greater latitude in laying down their admission policy and procedures themselves, which amounts to a greater recognition of their autonomy. It has definite advantages over the present system; advantages such as the elimination of unnecessary administrative work, the simplification of the admission procedures, etc. It also reduces the possibility of hurtful action being taken when a person applies for admission to the university.

On the other hand, however, it is equally true that the Government has a responsibility to the community, and that it has the right, by virtue of the following reasons, to take certain measures with regard to the admission of students to universities. One of these reasons is the continued development of community-orientated universities. This is a basic premise, and it is also a responsibility of the Government to ensure that it takes place.

In the second place, the Government has this right by virtue of the fact that it is responsible for the preservation of the entire structure of our country, of its forms and traditions. The Government must ensure that the will and the wishes of society are satisfied and respected as far as possible. In addition, the Government has the responsibility to ensure that the right be maintained to grant a student—both Afrikaans-and English-speaking, as well as speakers of other languages—admission to a university at which his own culture is dominant. If a university had the absolute and exclusive right to determine without any qualifications who should be allowed as students, who should be teachers and which study courses should be offered—a right based on the principle that race and colour are irrelevant in these respects, as the hon. member for Bryanston in fact maintained—I believe that the logical result would be that the spirit and direction of the university would run counter to those of society.

As in the case of Unisa?

We are not talking about a university which offers its courses by way of correspondence. The hon. member for Pinelands knows as well as I do that we are talking about residential universities. [Interjections.] Furthermore, the State and society would not be an integral part of the university, but the university would be completely isolated from them and would only maintain certain relationships with the State and with society.

However, there is a further argument on the basis of which the Government has the right to lay down certain provisions with regard to the admission of students to universities. Approximately 50% of the financial requirements of universities are met by the State. [Interjections.] Because this is so, Mr. Speaker, it is … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if that chorus would just be quiet, I could perhaps go on with my speech.

Order!

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely warranted that the State should take an interest in the activities of universities. Observing the conduct of objectors, and listening, for example, to arguments such as those which the hon. member for Bryanston advanced in his speech in this House this afternoon, as well as to other objections that are raised, I can only come to the conclusion that what is at issue is not so much the curtailment of academic freedom or educational principles that are being violated—as I have already indicated, in fact, this measure effects an improvement to the present system—but rather a protest against the political policy of multinational development which is being followed by the Government, and the consequent maintenance of universities on an ethnic basis. I want to prove this. I want to refer to a report which appeared in Die Vaderland of 4 May, in which Prof. P. G. Tobias, president of the convocation, made the following suggestion—

There is no reference to educational principles. It is purely aimed against the policy of the Government. Then there is the statement by Mr. W. Vogelman, the chairman of the Students’ Representative Council, who said on the same occasion—

If the approach is to evaluate education, whether at the pre-primary level or all the way up to the tertiary level, purely from the point of view of a political philosophy, this will not be in the interests of education. The point is that, as I have tried to indicate, we cannot divorce education from the particular people and society in which it functions. If we bear this in mind, we shall be able to find solutions in the interests of education which will indeed be of benefit to all.

Sir, I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, apart from a few innocuous amendments in regard to certain word substitutions and changes of designation which are of a purely technical nature and which create no problems for us on this side of the House, as well as other innocuous amendments in regard to specific arrangements, this amending Bill also contains clauses with principles with which we on this side of the House cannot associate ourselves, nor reconcile ourselves to.

You agree with the PFP.

I just wish to inform the hon. the member for Welkom this evening that we are going to oppose this Bill on the basis of an entirely different principle and standpoint to that of the PFP. I hope that he will have the insight to be able to see that the fact that we are doing this proves that there is a radical difference in principle, on the basis of which we are going to oppose this Bill, and that it is not a matter of our making common cause with the PFP as far as this matter is concerned. They look at this Bill from the point of view of their ideology of an open community. We, on the other hand, look at this Bill from the point of view of the principle of separate development. [Interjections.] I wish to express the hope that the hon. member for Welkom will understand this now tonight.

He differs with separate development.

I made the point that this Bill has certain clauses containing principles with which we cannot associate ourselves, nor reconcile ourselves to. Certain principles laid down in this Bill, for example in clause 9, are totally unacceptable to us on this side of the House. [Interjections.] It makes provision for the implementation of measures which are in conflict with the policy of separate development.

In clause 1, under the definition of “university”, coloured persons who were previously omitted, are now being included, and now only Blacks are being excluded. The line being taken now is that yesterday and during part of today, autonomy was granted to the two universities established for the Coloured and Indian populations. On those grounds they are now being involved in the existing White universities. The same applies to clause 5.

Clause 9 seeks, under the semblance of restriction, to regulate and stabilize integration on a tertiary level.

Why do you say “semblance”?

Surely it is a semblance; surely it is not a reality. [Interjections.]

I can quite understand why the PFP is bitterly dissatisfied with the Bill and does not wish to support it because the Government, in throwing open the universities, is not going far enough, because it is not bringing them to the degree of total openness which that party advocates. That is acceptable to me.

I understand why they are objecting, because the Bill and the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave in his introductory speech, is of such a nature that one is forced to drive on the crown of the road. One minute one slides down to the right and the next minute to the left, because between all the vacillation of academic freedom on the one hand, but with the statement that there is no ground for academic freedom, so that the university may have a final say in that respect, one slides over to the other side where there is mention of autonomy, but where it is nevertheless said that the autonomy is limited. Then one is driving on the crown of the road again and one slides down to the left with students that have to be admitted, and the next moment one slides to the right with restrictions on students who may be admitted. One also finds the situation that the hon. the Minister adopts one standpoint throughout, only to adopt another standpoint which is the opposite of the first. So he is trying to drive on the crown of the road to satisfy the new ideology which his party has accepted.

I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Virginia accused the PFP of approaching the Bill from a purely political-philosophical view while the NP on the other hand apparently did not argue on the basis of a political-philosophical standpoint. It would seem to me that they believe that the standpoint they are adopting is based solely on purely pedagogic principles. However, that is not true. In respect of the Bill, the NP cannot dissociate itself from its specific political view, just as the PFP, the NRP and the CP cannot dissociate themselves from their specific political principles when it comes to this Bill. These come first, and this communicates itself in the Bill and in the standpoints which the various parties are adopting in respect of the Bill.

The issue here is not merely an educational one. I maintain that politics, the economy and social life all play their parts. We cannot argue on the grounds that one party looks at a matter from a political-philosophical point of view only, and that another party does not look at it through those same spectacles. I wish to say that we differ with one another on the realities of South Africa’s social structure. Within this reality each political party views that society from the point of view of the principles of its own policy. In accordance with those principles it must find itself a method by means of which the contents of the reality of the various races can be organized in such a way that everything will be orderly and satisfactory and so that there can be peaceful co-existence side by side and separated from one another and not intertwined and mixed.

The Government party maintains that they believe that the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians will all have self-determination over their own education, and that each group will have its own university facilities. For that reason, says the Government, education must be viewed as an own affair of the various population groups. I should now like to express a few thoughts on this subject.

If the Government should perhaps succeed in having its new constitutional dispensation put into operation in future, if that should become a reality, then surely the Government is very intent on education being an own affair. In schedule 1 of the Constitution Bill, own education is, however, qualified as education “on all levels”. Now I want to ask: Does this also include the tertiary level, or does it include only the pre-primary, the primary and the secondary levels?

Do you not know what “all” means?

I did not go to a dictionary to find out what a word means, as hon. members of the NP do, and then tell the House that I have consulted a dictionary and for that reason I can now say what the word means. I know very well what the word means, but I am asking the hon. members of the NP whether “all levels” also includes the tertiary level. It is being said that own education is an own affair on all levels, but then provision is immediately made for exceptions by means of the word “but”, the great “but” which is time and again spelt out when it comes to own affairs. This is the “but” which excludes, the “but” of subserviency to general policy and general law. I wish to argue that this specific Bill which we now have before us is one of those Bills which has to be passed in good time so that it may subsequently be utilized as one of those general laws which will then exist and on the grounds of which exceptions may be made, on the grounds of which the tertiary level may be excluded as not forming part of own affairs, as not being part of “all levels”.

If education has to be an own affair on all levels and if that policy and standpoint is true, why is legislation such as this being placed on the Statute Book to lay down and establish integration within the university set-up instead of beginning to disengage the integration which exists, so that one can really talk about education on all levels as an own affair, a matter only for one’s own people? Why does this Bill not instead provide that students of a specific population group who at present still of necessity have to make use of the university facilities created for another population group because their institutions do not perhaps make provision yet for all fields of study, are to be phased out as and as soon as their own institutions do in fact make provision for such fields of study?

If that had been what this legislation provided, I would have said that there was a movement in the direction of making education an absolutely own affair on the tertiary level as well. That would have been a positive step towards implementing that specific policy. On the grounds that this Bill is trying to do the opposite, I place a big question-mark next to the entire question of education as a so-called own affair. I say that there should rather be a disengagement, so that each institution established for the specific population group for which it was intended will ultimately serve and be at the disposal of the people of that population group only.

I need not be reminded in this respect that it is very expensive, as we heard yesterday evening, to create new faculties at the universities for Coloureds and Indians or to provide for needs which do not exist at present. It was said that this is an expensive item. The question of where the available academic manpower should come from to staff those faculties was asked. I wish to ask a counter-question, viz. why then was the expense incurred of establishing separate institutions and a series of faculties which already meet specific needs. Why do we not proceed to create the other faculties so that the specific fields of study can be strengthened and made independent and so that they can meet all the needs of the specific population groups for which they were established? If this were done, surely one would be minimizing the need for the people of that specific population group to try and enrol at the universities of another population group in order to study there. Or should the cross-pollination of which the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs spoke be such that the situation will ultimately arise that one does not have a single university in this country which complies with the requirements for which it was initially established, namely to be a university for a specific population group? In terms of this approach every university must therefore meet the needs of all population groups. In this case I think the PFP have a point when they say that one should be absolutely honest and that all universities should be turned into open institutions, that the ceiling should be raised and all restrictions lifted and that every university should have the right to take in students of any population group.

When a person establishes a university for a specific population group, however, one knows in advance that one must have the teaching manpower in order to cause the university to function successfully. If this can be provided for specific faculties, I ask what justification there is for this applying in respect of faculties such as commerce and industry and dentistry, but not in respect of a medical faculty because there is ostensively not enough manpower? Surely this argument does not hold good. The fact of the matter is that when an institution is established as a tertiary institution, one creates the need—upon the establishment of the institution—for that institution to be fully developed to its full worth as a university within the community. One cannot therefore argue that such an institution need not have a specific faculty.

If education is an own affairs, why is clause 9 being offered in such a way as far as the conditions are concerned? Why is it being offered in such a vague way in respect of the quota which will be allowed? Why is it being offered in such a vague way in respect of a prohibition? Why is it not simply being candidly provided that a specific university may not allow students of another population group if the own university has a faculty offering undergraduate and postgraduate study? Why are we not simply providing then that undergraduate students may in no way be admitted by other universities than those of their own population groups? Or why do we not provide that while specific faculties do not yet exist, students may provisionally be admitted “until” and that one then works in the direction of the realization of this “until”? If that is our standpoint then we are also being perfectly honest with the other population groups in the country. If we lay down the restriction that universities may not cede students to universities of other population groups, so that they will therefore attract their own students at all costs, those universities will then be able to take their rightful place in the set-up and receive the full support of their own people. In that way we will best be able to develop these universities. Through the influx of the students of each particular population group to their own universities, the growth and development of these universities is going to be stimulated in such a way that they will become the pride of their own specific population group.