intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. I (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

I put notice of Motion No. 2.

Mr. Speaker, since you have now called upon me to do so, I move formally …

Order! I have just been reminded by the Secretary that the hon. member for Yeoville’s motion appears further down on the Order Paper and cannot therefore be put now.

Mr. Speaker, if that is so, why should it be that one motion is allowed to be moved while the other is not allowed to be moved? This happens to be the second Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, and in accordance with the Standing Rules and Orders Notices of Motion should be taken before the first Order of the Day.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the House arranges the sequence of Orders of the Day on the Order Paper. This has been done in terms of the arrangements made by him.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders, is it not the custom of the House that Notices of Motion should be taken before Orders of the Day? The way the Order Paper has been arranged to me appears to be a deliberate attempt that my motion should not be moved and debated.

I must point out to the hon. member that the Order Paper is arranged entirely at the discretion of the hon. the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central entitled to say, after you have given your ruling, that it is a “cover-up”? Is that not a reflection on the Chair? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, by saying it was a cover-up it was a reflection not on your ruling but on the fact that the hon. the Leader of the House has apparently ruled that a Notice of Motion appearing on the Order Paper in the name of an hon. member of this party, which we considered to be most important, has been put right at the bottom of the Order Paper, obviously to prevent any discussion of it.

Order! I accept the hon. member’s explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

South Africa is familiar with natural disasters caused by droughts, floods and earthquakes. A disaster which appears to be a world-wide phenomenon, and which is peculiar to our time and which also arises from man’s inhumanity unto man is terrorism. We in South Africa have on several occasions seen the suffering of innocent and harmless people, caused by acts of terrorism. These disasters not only generate powerful emotions, but also arouse the spontaneous generosity of the public at large as was evident during the recent disaster at Laingsburg.

For this reason the Cabinet has decided, immediately after the recent terrorist attack in Pretoria, that a bank account be opened to receive unsolicited contributions, and that a State President’s Fund be established for the rendering of aid to victims and to their dependents of that particular attack and any possible future attacks.

*Although the relief provided in the event of natural disasters and that provided in the event of disasters resulting from terrorism have a great deal in common, they are nevertheless different. As hon. members know, in terms of the Fund-raising Act, in the case of natural disasters, relief is only granted if the relevant event is declared to be a disaster by the State President. All disasters resulting from terrorism must, however, be judged by the same standards. It is for this reason that a separate fund called the State President’s Fund is now being proposed.

Another important reason why the establishment of the State President’s Fund is now being proposed is also to ensure the preparedness of South Africa and its inhabitants when it comes to fund-raising and the granting of material assistance to the victims of acts of terrorism. It will also give every citizen an opportunity to make his contribution, however humble this may be. It is important, as far as this matter is concerned, that every individual, community, organization or authority should be involved and should feel itself to be involved.

The envisaged State President’s Fund will be run on the same lines as the three other funds already established in terms of section 16 of the Fund-raising Act, 1978, i.e. the Disaster Relief Fund, the S.A. Defence Force Fund and the Refugee Relief Fund. These funds have been a success and have stood the test of time.

The proposed fund will therefore also be an independent body corporate and be controlled by an independent statutory board.

With the introduction of this measure I want to call upon the patriotism of everyone in this country and ask them all to give the fund their liberal support. Let us not merely reach out for handkerchiefs when we witness or contemplate the suffering caused by terrorism in this lovely country of ours, but let us also reach for our purses.

I thank hon. members in anticipation for their support.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition will gladly support this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has just said, section 16 of the Fund-raising Act already provides for three funds. Firstly there is the Disaster Relief Fund; then the S.A. Defence Force Fund, and also the Refugee Relief Fund. This Bill now adds a fourth fund namely the State President’s Fund.

Clause 2 of this Bill, however, adds a new provision to section 16 of the Fund-raising Act, 1978, and also provides that the funds can be applied in aid of the victims of any act of terrorisn in order to assist them and their dependants in respect of medical treatment and rehabilitation. In addition to that, the victims and their dependants who suffer financial hardship or financial distress caused directly or indirectly by any act of terrorism can be assisted.

Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Act make provision for how a fund of this nature is to be administered. Section 17, in particular, provides that each fund is to be managed by a board, and section 19 provides for the establishment of a committee to act on behalf of the board, half of the members of the Board to be people who stand outside the Public Service. No doubt such a body will be appointed in this particular instance to look after this fund across the country. Then, of course, provision is made for the general powers in terms of which the board can in fact function.

Relief sought through other disaster funds has shown, as the hon. the Minister also indicated today, that the public of South Africa are indeed generous and give freely of their money. Commitments are made by local authorities, by large corporations and also by individuals in South Africa. Donations of this kind, however, should automatically be free of tax as far as donations tax is concerned. The question also arises whether donations should be made deductible for income tax purposes. I think the Government should give this matter its urgent attention because as far as this relief fund is concerned special application will have to be made to the Receiver of Revenue for exemption from donations tax. I think the time has come for the Government to amend the Income Tax Act so that donations to all four of the funds provided for in this Act will be deductible for tax purposes as well.

The amendment in this instance relates directly to victims of any act of terrorism, their loss of income, their rehabilitation and also their dependants. It is indeed a sad reflection on our society that it is necessary to provide for relief of this nature in connection with acts of terrorism. The bomb blast in Pretoria on 20 May is still fresh in the minds of the public of South Africa and indeed of the world. The toll was heavy. There were 19 killed and 216 injured. No distinction was made between Black and White. There were 11 Whites killed and eight Blacks. The bomb blast occurred, as we know, in the heart of the city of Pretoria during the rush hour. It was the first car-bomb act of terrorism and certainly the worst such act so far. It was reminiscent of the actions of the IRA in Ireland and the PLO in Lebanon. This Parliament at the time conveyed its condolences and its deep sympathy to the victims and their families. Now, with them in mind, we are passing this legislation to provide for some financial relief on a national basis. We do so sadly, but also willingly. The act of terrorism in Pretoria was followed by another incident in Bloemfontein, which fortunately did not result in any loss of life.

What has happened was a copy of the many acts of terrorism recorded internationally. Sabotage, hijacking and violence are signs of the unfortunate times in which we are living today. South Africa, took has its record of acts of terrorism. In The Argus of 21 May 1983 there is a full list set out of such acts. They total 35. I certainly do not intend reading out the details of all of those, but the article starts off as follows—

That takes us from the present time right back to 23 January 1980.

We unequivocally condemn these acts of terrorism in the strongest terms possible. These acts are dastardly, they are cowardly and they are devoid of any regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. They amount to nothing but mass murder. What is more, these acts are counter-productive. We will certainly not stand by and allow any organization to take over the Government by force. Force begets force and one would then have to rule by force. International terrorism has shown that it is ineffective as a means to promote political change. Most people in South Africa appreciate that we need reform, that we need to give everyone a meaningful stake in the country, that there must be a form of power-sharing, and that acts of terrorism and violence are counter-productive because they can only slow down the process of reform and send people converted to reform scuttling back to the laager, to the status quo and polarization.

The party presently in power in South Africa, the NP, knows that it cannot sit on its hands. It knows differences must be settled, not by shooting from the hip but by shooting from the lip. The hon. the Prime Minister has said clearly that we must adapt or die. We do not want to die. Therefore we must adapt. I think the Government must know that the winds of change have blown ever more strongly down Southern Africa over the last 23 years since that famous statement was made by Mr. Macmillan. I think the Government knows that it does not dare to drag its feet on the road to reform. However, the reform must be real. It must be meaningful, more rapid and it must embrace the whole population of the country.

Again, in supporting this Bill, we wish those who have been injured a speedy recovery. We trust that the funds to be provided by the State President’s Fund will assist the victims in their recovery, in their medical treatment—it is expensive today—and, more important, in their rehabilitation from the severe shock which they must indeed have suffered. These funds will also be utilized as assistance to their dependants, those who have been left widowed or without a parent. The loss of breadwinners have obviously brought financial distress, so that this Fund can directly and indirectly assist all those who require assistance.

A substantial sum has already been donated. The hon. the Minister made reference to that. We also congratulate local authorities who have started off making substantial donations. This no doubt will encourage other local authorities in South Africa to make donations to the Fund. However, charity begins at home. I believe it is incumbent upon this Government to make a very substantial donation towards this Fund. In fact, I want to go further. I believe it is incumbent upon this Government to accept full responsibility for the total cost of compensation for all acts of terrorism, not only compensation following the recent acts of terrorism, but for all acts of terrorism from which people are still suffering, even of those many years ago. I believe the Government should take a firm decision on this as a matter of policy. There is a precedent for this in other countries where governments accept responsibility for compensation in matters of this nature. However, because this may take some time and because the need for compensation at the moment is pressing and urgent, we will support the Bill through all its stages so that the legislation can be promulgated without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy speaking after the hon. member for Hillbrow. One thing we must understand very clearly this afternoon is the fact that the measure with which the hon. the Minister has come to this House is not the first measure in terms of which the Government has wanted to make its proper contribution in the case of a disaster or emergency. In section 16 of the Fund-raising Act, provision is made for the establishment of a Disaster Relief Fund, the S.A. Defence Force Fund, and the Refugee Relief Fund. In this legislation we are discussing this afternoon, a very special fund is being launched, i.e. the State President’s Fund. I think there is a great deal of merit in the hon. member for Hillbrow’s proposal that companies or individuals ought to obtain tax relief in the case of contributions made to these funds. I think this is something that could be referred back to the department so that it can be brought to the esteemed attention of the hon. the Minister.

I also want to agree with what the hon. member for Hillbrow said about the fact that regardless of the nature of an act of terrorism, whether it be Black or White terrorism, nowhere in the world, and therefore not in South Africa either, could acts of terrorism ever be condoned or approved. The time has come in South Africa for all those, in any population group, who are a party to these acts of terrorism, to be treated in exactly the same way. I want to state categorically this afternoon that as far as I am concerned, there is no difference whatsoever between the actions of the ANC which, at Nedbank in Pretoria, used 40 kg of explosives in an attempt to blow that building sky-high and to kill and injure people there, regardless of who they were, and the actions of, let us say, self-declared members of the AWB who wanted to use 70 kg of explosives for more or less the same purpose, i.e. that of blowing up some or other objective somewhere. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference whatsoever between radicals of the left and the right in this country who, when all is said and done, create the same complications for South Africa.

I have said that this amendment Bill, which the hon. the Minister has introduced, contains a very special amendment. I say this, because the amendments to the Fund-raising Act hide a whole mountain of drama. The State President’s Fund is not merely a sudden urge, on the part of the Government, to establish another body. This fund was born of distress, the distress of our nearest and dearest. Let me refer here specifically, as spelt out in the measure before us this afternoon, to the medical treatment and rehabilitation of the victims of any act of terrorism. In this connection I want to refer, for just a moment, to the most intensive treatment that can and must be given to people who, as a result of acts of terrorism, land up in hospitals and institutions and have to remain there for long periods of time. It is not merely a matter of physical treatment, the amputation of a limb or whatever the case may be. Here we are dealing with people who have undergone a completely traumatic experience and who need multidisciplinary treatment. The treatment they receive must therefore be the very best that the experts can give them.

Secondly, let me refer to those victims and their dependants who suffer financial hard-ship or are in financial straits as a direct or indirect result of any act of terrorism. A fact of life is that one looks for security, whether it be security in one’s job or in one’s family context. This is particularly true in the case of an injured person who has a family or next of kin. It is specifically when such a person is lying seriously wounded in hospital that he is extremely worried about the security of the members of his family or his next of kin. In this measure before us now, not only will we be looking after the person lying in an institution or hospital, but also his next of kin and, in many cases, those who remain behind, because not all victims of acts of terrorism have the opportunity of full or even partial recovery. If one were to visit the cemeteries of our country, one would find untold numbers of monuments erected to these victims of terrorism whose numbers are ever on the increase in our community. What is involved here is therefore the granting of aid to victims and the dependants of the victims of acts of terrorism. It is therefore fitting for us to refer to the fund as a fund for the victims of terrorism.

Acts of terrorism are only the tip of the iceberg in a full-scale war that is already raging. I do not think that members of the general public always realize that South Africa is actually involved in a low-profile war. The terrorism taking place here is merely a symptom of a war in which the struggle must inevitably be a bloody one. It is happening on our borders—this is general knowledge—it is happening in our cities, it is happening in far-off places and it is happening deep within enemy territory where our forces go on follow-up operations to locate the perpetrators of these acts of terrorism and have them account for their deeds. In this I believe that the S.A. Defence Force has the full support, not only of the House, but also of members of the general public.

To put it in a nutshell, let me say that the war I am referring to is a war between Marx and Christ; a war between the forces of hell on the one hand …

No …

… and the forces of civilization on the other.

I notice that there is an hon. member of the PFP who disagrees with my saying that this is a war between Marx on the one hand and Christ on the other. If one does not know what is going on, one cannot simply chip in with a “No”. As I said, I was merely putting the matter in a nutshell, and that is exactly what the situation is. The members of the general public must know about those PFP members who try to chip in with such denials.

You must not be so reckless. We also have other people in South Africa.

I should like to have hon. members’ attention for the important factors or facets we have to look at. In this overall set-up, in this overall syndrome of terrorism and warfare that we have to deal with, there are three cardinal elements, and if they cannot be dealt with, social problems will be created that will eventually prove unmanageable.

The first to which I want to refer is the stress syndrome or the symptoms of stress prevailing wherever there is conflict. One is not relaxed when one is walking down a street or finds oneself in a situation in which one is an enemy target. I therefore just want to say, without going into the matter in any further detail, that we in South Africa do find ourselves in a stress-producing situation. It is also true that any situation of stress, whether engendered in the victim of terrorism or wherever, cries out for crisis-treatment.

Speaking of crisis-treatment, let me say this afternoon that this is one of the most difficult and complex types of therapy or treatment that can be furnished in a hospital set-up, the paramilitary hospitals or wherever such treatment is given. I merely want to say that crisis-treatment demands the attention of every member of the multi-disciplinary team. Whether it be the psychiatrist, the psychotherapist, the physiotherapist, the chaplain or whoever may be involved, if ever there is a situation in which one must reach out to help, it is that in which the victims of terrorism find themselves. The object is not merely to reconcile them once more to the meaning of life and existence, but to bring their families to a realization of that meaningfulness and significance so that they can understand what it is all about and why one must go on.

The third cardinal facet is that one must bring the injured person and his family—this is what this measure makes provision for—a new sense of the purpose and meaning of life. I want to state that long after the dust has settled, the bomb-shards and the injured have been removed, the people have all gone home and virtually everything has been forgotten, there is still that stress that rests heavily on fear. For example, the S.A. Defence Force has taught us, by way of its chaplain services, that the injured soldier wants his chaplain to be close at hand at all times. What does it all mean? In that traumatic situation in which the shadow of death falls across him, he just wants to breathe a sigh of relief in the knowledge, which the chaplain has brought home to him, that in God he has a Father who loves him. Religious preparedness is therefore the best answer to any problem of stress that might develop.

In regard to the crisis treatment of those persons who find themselves in such a traumatic situation, I want to point out that interactional crisis therapy is a method of defusing the stress that has built up as a result of any catastrophic event. There are various phases of stress that can manifest themselves in human beings. In this regard we must make use of absolutely professional aids, by way of the disciplines that can furnish them. It is therefore a question of re-introducing the meaning of life and bringing God back into the lives of those who are involved. Actually it is God who gives meaning to life.

I want to conclude by referring to the third facet, i.e. bring new meaning into the life of the injured person. Most people do not mind adversity, as long as they can just find some meaning in what they have to endure. People will even endure the worst suffering imaginable as long as they can know that behind this suffering there is a divine aim or plan. Victor Frankl, one of the greatest psychologists living today, and leader of the Third Viennese School, said in one of his many books that the search for meaning is actually the same as the search for God. He referred to the victims that emerged from the hell-holes of Dachau, Auschwitz and other places like that. Take or think God out of existence, and what is left? Certain questions arise in this context. One only has to visit young men in their hospital beds. I wish I had the time to tell hon. members this afternoon of the Coloured soldier in whose body an unexploded mortar-shell was lodged and who is now lying in 1 Military Hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte. I spoke to a young serviceman, one of the so-called “medics” who was responsible for nursing that young Coloured soldier. In such a situation the finest human character traits come to the fore. Whether one is a patient lying prostrate in the shadow of death, or whether one is a young man doing medical service in the Defence Force whilst completing his military service, this is something that frequently happens. A bond develops—I almost want to say a covenant—between the two young souls, the one struggling in his search for the meaning of life and the other trying his best to convey the meaning of life to the injured man. I wish that many of the radicals who run around peddling stories about what the Defence Force does, would pay tribute to those people in the Defence Force who, in all kinds of circumstances, give the best possible treatment to any member of the Defence Force, regardless of what population group he belongs to. We must not forget that the young people who are the victims of terrorism always ask what they have done to deserve this. They ask why it could not have happened to an older person rather than to someone as young as they are. They ask what the meaning is behind their suffering and how God can allow this to happen. With great respect, the answer is very simple. There are three things involved. In the first place—and I have already said it in this House before—there is the tremendous role that our Chaplain Service in the Defence Force and the Police plays to bring home, to our young people in the Defence Force, the right idea about God in the situations in which terrorism manifests itself. They must also give the youth of South Africa a correct historical perspective so that we in South Africa do not merely live on an ad hoc basis, but can rather single out that significant golden thread that is part of the overall view of history, in the wonderful knowledge that there is a pattern of meaning in history, and can convey to those who have been injured in acts of terrorism, and to their next-of-kin, that there is indeed meaning and significance in suffering. This sets one firmly on the road to a new and better South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we in the CP would very much like to support this Bill. The abominable evil of terrorism that is sweeping the world has unfortunately also made its appearance in various guises in South Africa. Its appearance in South Africa has gone hand in hand with certain consequences, which have frequently been very tragic consequences that have brought many people a great deal of grief. Terrorism, in whatever guise, is something we all reject completely. That is why I am glad to endorse what the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Brits had to say in this connection. I also want to endorse everything the hon. member for Brits had to say about the esteemed services of the S.A. Defence Force, the S.A. Police and the Chaplain Service, about which I have previously had an appreciative word to say in this House, and I also want to underline what he said about the importance of religion in this connection.

We accept the fact that one cannot argue away terrorism in this country, and where this abominable evil rears its head it inevitably leaves victims, in some or other form, in its wake, either killing people or horribly maiming them so that they subsequently have to get along without the use of a limb. Wherever terrorism has walked, it leaves a trail of bloodshed, destruction and mutilation.

As far as we are concerned, what we are dealing with in this Bill today involves the victims of such an outrage, and because that is what is involved, provision is made in the Bill for a need that arises as a result of the acts of terrorism. Provision must be made for this need. We accept the fact that the authorities must necessarily accept responsibility, as far as they are able and with the means at their disposal, of providing for the needs of the victims and their dependants. This goes much further than that, however, directly involving the community as such, and because it involves the community as such, there is also a need in the community, in members of the public, in the church, in associations, in individuals, to make a contribution for the benefit of the victims and their dependants. This Bill provides for people and institutions to make financial contributions in order to provide for the needs of these people. I therefore think it is essential for us to pass this measure and to appeal to the public for their charity and their support. I just want to ask, Sir, if it is at all possible—and I trust the hon. the Minister will tell us that it is indeed possible—that money collected for this purpose also be utilized for the benefit of past victims of acts of terrorism, and not only for victims of acts of terrorism dating from the Pretoria incident. What I am asking for is that previous victims of acts of terrorism should also be helped by this fund, wherever people come forward and show that such a need does exist. We also trust that this fund will grow so strong that it will fully be able to meet the needs of victims of terrorism and their dependants.

We gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for the fact that he supports this measure on behalf of his party.

On these few sheets of paper we have here in front of us, very concisely, provision is being made for an amendment to the Fund-raising Act, 1978, with the aim of establishing a fund to render aid to victims of acts of terrorism as well as to their dependants. The announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister that a relief fund had been established in this connection, came amidst reports of the financial losses suffered by victims of the Church Street bomb and amidst country-wide sympathy for the hundreds of victims of that explosion. That it was decided to establish such a fund is commendable and it is necessary for us to make arrangements by means of this measure for the proper administration of such a fund. It fills one’s heart with gratitude that the public, both individuals and organizations, are contributing generously to this fund. But that dit is at all necessary to make provision for the hardships and distress caused by acts of terrorism, such as the act we experienced in Pretoria, makes one realize with a shock that this is something we shall have to take into account today, tomorrow and the day after. It is of no avail for us to ask if this is necessary and if it can be true. It is anything but a dream. This is not something which only happens in Belfast. It is not a scare story. We dare not close our eyes to this. It is part of an onslaught and is certainly not the incidental ephemeral and foolhardy plan of a psychopath. It is one of a series of well-planned attempts as part of a total onslaught on our country and its people. It is a plan which is being deftly orchestrated elsewhere, and which is sometimes carried out with perturbing precision, and of course it has only one goal, namely to create disorder and chaos and to undermine a stable and orderly State dispensation.

There is the danger that incidents of this kind can convert the fear in people’s hearts into panic. This is what we have to try to prevent for the sake of everyone living here. Now more than ever before we have to endeavour to ensure that deeds of this kind compel everyone who could be affected by them to join forces to ward off the onslaught. The enemies of this Republic are filled with hatred because a stable Government is at the helm here. Indeed, this remains the most difficult resistance or obstruction for them to overcome. Our enemies are doing everything possible and are devising all possible plans, and are also adopting all possible measures in order to ensure that growth and prosperity will not be part of our success story. It will be a sad day and a painful experience for our enemies if we indeed succeed, as is stated so clearly in the new Constitution Bill, in getting the people in this country to want to stand together to strive for and attain our national objectives.

We have to realize—and we should not have any illusions about this—that the successes we achieve in whatever field, will serve as an incentive for our enemies to resort to the cruellest attack mechanisms and to use the most ghastly methods against us. We have to tell our people this repeatedly; not to engender fear in people, because fear leads to disbelief and panic, and can even result in irresponsible behaviour. No, we have to engender something other than fear in the hearts of people—the will to survive, to live and let live. We have to engender love for their fellow-man in the hearts of all our people. This we can only achieve if we ourselves set an example worth emulating. In the hearts of our people we have to engender the desire to accept the challenges of the future with confidence and even with a touch of daring, and to carry through our plans.

If we take all this into consideration and, as far as this amendment is concerned, reconsider what this involves, we shall realize that it requires positive action from each one of us, as well as immediate decision-making. We have to decide that we will contribute—and contribute extremely generously—to the new fund to be established; that each of us will have to make a contribution to make a success of all civil defence activities. This means that we shall also have to involve people of colour in order to achieve success with our counter-offensive. This also means that no one should think with aversion of his obligations with regard to the defence of the country. We should all participate in and take part in a process of seeking and making peace in a world in which hate and envy are threatening to get the upper hand, but a world in which there are still far more people who prefer order to chaos, and peace to discord.

If we accept these challenges, an old truth suddenly has new meaning for us. This is that we have not chosen our fellow-inhabitants in this country, but that we have to make peace and live in peace with them. More people than we ourselves or those people we represent here could become the victims of acts of terrorism such as those we have already experienced here. Indeed, we were informed that both Whites and people of colour had to be rushed to hospitals, and that many of them even died. Both Whites and non-Whites suffer a direct and indirect loss of and shortage of money, or even have to receive medical treatment as a result of such acts of terrorism. The distress and the suffering can be enormous. We know how many bomb-blast victims there were. We also know that some of them are in hospital. It is and remains a good idea to make provision for a loss of income and for physical disability by means of insurance coverage, but a clause in any insurance contract provides more or less that notwithstanding the provisions of a specific clause which makes provision for the payment of a certain sum of money, the benefits do not accrue if the disability was caused by an injury or illness resulting directly or indirectly from, or which can be attributed to, any of the following: Military or enemy action, or an act apparently aimed at overthrowing or influencing the existing authority by means of violence or terrorism. It is a fact that hardship of this kind may ruin people financially. There will of necessity be those people who cannot be assisted in any other way or who did not make provision for that additional financial burden, who will have to receive assistance from such a fund.

There is one matter I am in no doubt about: Even if our Defence Force has the best weapons and the most sophisticated war deterrent systems in the world, even if we drive on the best tarred roads in the most expensive motor-cars, even if Sasol manufactures every drop of petrol we need, if our relations politics do not succeed and if we do not make peace with our fellow-man and live with him in peace, no relief fund or State President’s Fund will ever contain sufficient money to meet our requirements. I feel it is necessary for us to amend the Act as proposed and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rustenburg is quite correct in his motivation of his support for this measure. I look upon this Bill as introducing something that has become a necessity that is born out of the tragedy of the times in which we live. I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow when he said earlier that it is indeed a sad reflection on these times and our society, not just the South African society but indeed society world-wide. One has only to look at the horror that is Northern Ireland. One has only to think of Mrs. Thatcher, who was recently re-elected. She has reminded us of the loss of one of her outstanding colleagues, Mr. Airey Neave, due to an act of terrorism in Britain within the precincts of the House of Commons a few years ago. We only have to think back to the Middle East to the time immediately after World War II. We think of the horror of terrorism on both sides in the conflict that has raged around the Middle East since 1945-46. We think of the Baader-Meinhoff gang in Germany. We think, too, of the Olympic Games in Munich. Then, when it comes to South Africa, we are reminded of the Johannesburg railway station. All such acts and the Pretoria bomb blast leaves us all, I believe, with a feeling of repulsion because it is the innocent who are maimed and killed, and usually those innocents who are maimed are not just severely injured bodily but are also mentally damaged for the balance of their natural lives.

I want to put one thing on record here this afternoon on behalf of this party. That is that we believe, as I think any right-thinking individual should believe, that terrorism can be looked upon as being nothing more or nothing less than cold-blooded and premeditated murder. A death resulting from an act of terrorism is a death that was premeditated, and it is therefore murder. The laws of our land prescribe certain penalties for murder. We believe that those who would commit this crime, in any name, call it murder, call it terrorism, must be prepared to pay the price for that crime. The terrorist shows no mercy. He therefore cannot expect any mercy to be shown him.

It is our sincere belief that the South African public will once again rally as it has in the past. It is our belief that the South African public will follow the examples that have been set, by some of our cities in making generous donations to this fund. It is our fervent hope that the State President’s Fund which is to be established will grow and will do the magnificent work it is intended to do under the provisions of the Bill before us this afternoon. We have no hesitation in supporting this measure whole-heartedly.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in a debate such as this, when so much unanimity is prevailing. It goes without saying that this Bill is also of such a nature that there can be nothing but unanimity on it in this House.

The amending Bill before this House today seeks to amend the Fund-raising Act to make it possible to raise funds and to render assistance to victims and the dependants of victims affected by acts of terrorism. This is usually the result of a revolutionary onslaught. To view the phenomenon of revolution or revolutionary warfare in the ’eighties objectively is virtually impossible. Since 1945 this phenomenon has been an integral part of the game of power politics on the one hand and of revolutionary ideals on the other. It is usually used by groups who see this as a possible means of overthrowing the existing order and it is consistently inspired by communist revolutionaries who use it to further their goal of world domination. Others see revolutionary onslaughts as a way or rectifying grievances against suppressors of oppressed nations. No matter what the approach may be, revolutionary wars, although perhaps not originally inspired, organized and led by communists, do in fact receive moral support and encouragement from international communism and, when circumstances allow, also specialized advice and material support through training and arms supplies. Revolutionary leaders are inclined to adapt a communist technique. Southern Africa is a striking example of this. It is usually aimed at breaking and eventually destroying the will to survive of the community against which it is aimed. It is intended to break down the spirit of the victims. Such acts of terrorism are becoming more common in the RSA and we can expect them to increase in number and in intensity.

The attack in Pretoria on 20 May was the worst our country has ever experienced. It shocked every right-minded person. The public learned of it with horror. Obviously one knows very little about the intensity of suffering experienced by the victims. What is important is that everyone has to realize that these sorts of attacks are going to escalate, some are going to be worse and some are going to be less serious. What we should also realize is that, as was the case in Pretoria, tremendous losses are going to be suffered. It may be loss of property. In many cases the property may be insured, but most important is the loss of human life where dependants are left without support. In the second place, there is physical disablement which may lead to that person being unable to work for the rest of his life. In the third place, there is the matter of medical expenses resulting from injuries and there are also innumerable possible causes of destitution.

This Bill is establishing a fund which will be known as the State President’s Fund. The intention is to raise funds and to offer fair and reasonable assistance to victims of any act of terrorism, in connection with their medical treatment and rehabilitation and to assist those victims and their dependants experiencing financial hardship or penury caused directly or indirectly by any act of terrorism. I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up some of the points raised by the hon. member for Middelburg. It is perhaps correct to say that in any society that society must protect itself against violence and terror. That society must also show compassion to the victims of such terror. That is what is being established by this legislation and in this respect there is a welcome degree of unanimity in this House. I do not wish to dwell at great length on the question of terrorism itself. I should just like to express one thought in this regard. I sometimes ask myself whether the object of the acts of terrorism that we are experiencing at the moment is in fact to bring about a change in our society or whether it is actually to bring about change with power being placed in the hands of those people who are directing those acts of terrorism. One asks oneself what degree of change and what speed of change it is that would satisfy the people who are directing these acts of terrorism in order for those actions to cease. One also asks oneself whether these acts of terrorism would ever stop if the actual objective was power and not change. That is one of the fundamental questions that we have to ask ourselves. We also have to ask ourselves whether it is not a major national priority to deal with the situations so that the community will be equipped to combat terrorism and meet a situation which, as some hon. members have said here today, appears to be escalating. The issue is not merely the use of palliatives. The issue is getting to the fundamentals of that problem, and that may perhaps be the major challenge to South Africa—how actually to deal with this problem from a long-term point of view.

I should like to deal with some of the more technical aspects of this measure and to make a number of remarks in this regard. I want to say in the first instance that nobody in this House objects to the assistance that will be given to any victim of terrorism. However, I should like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact that there are also other people falling into that category whom he may perhaps consider at some future date including in the group to which the State President’s Fund can give relief. Let met give an example in this regard. I am talking about the people who assist the police to do their duty and who are injured in the process. I think that one of the faults that exist today is that there is actually no machinery in terms of which to compensate such people other than, perhaps, the odd ex gratia payment. Bearing in mind the escalation of crime, the need to contain crime and the danger that is inherent in the escalation of crime in that it has a destabilizing effect on society, I wonder whether we should not include those particular individuals and those people as far as relief from the State President’s Fund is concerned. It must therefore be an encouragement to the public that when there is a problem, they should not walk away from it because they are afraid of what might happen to their dependants or otherwise, but that they should be secure in the knowledge that there is some way, if something should happen to them, in which they could be compensated. I should like to make that appeal to the hon. the Minister and also to the other hon. Ministers concerned, particularly the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and the hon. the Minister of Finance who are concerned with this matter.

If this is only to be in respect of terrorism, then perhaps we should have called this the Relief for the Victims of Terrorism Fund, because the other Funds specifically identify what the disaster or the problem is that has to be dealt with whereas in the case of the State President’s Fund I regard it as a possibility that that Fund could be extended to cover other people of a deserving nature.

The second point I wish to make concerns the question of insurance on which the hon. member for Rustenburg, if I am not mistaken, touched. We had a debate in the House in respect of the S.A. Defence Force because there was the situation that insurance policies existed in terms of which the risk ceased to be covered if a man was killed as a result of enemy action of some kind. Again in South Africa we have many, many policies where the risk of injury or death from hostile action such as terrorism is excluded from the policy. I think we as legislators have a duty to apply our minds to that in two ways: Either we must pass legislation to say that a policy should not contain such a clause so that when a man comes to his death as a result of terrorist action, then the policy should not be void but there should be a payment, or alternatively we must do what we did in respect of riot insurance to provide a means of covering people against this kind of risk.

I think what is desirable in South Africa is not that there should only be a form of what one may almost say social conscience action to compensate the victims of terrorism, but there should be, as there is in other countries where they are plagued by terrorism, a form of national insurance to see to it that when people who are injured or killed as a result of terrorism, they or their dependants receive compensation and relief.

The hon. the Minister may or may not have looked at some of the provisions which exist in Northern Ireland in this regard—we hope we do not ever degenerate to the extent of terrorism which they have—but I think we have to deal with that situation. I believe we should look at it in that light.

Lastly I want to touch on the question of encouraging donations, not donations from local authorities or from public bodies—I support what the hon. member for Hillbrow has said about the Government itself making a contribution, and I think we should have that announcement coming and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance would take this hint to do it—but donations from the ordinary people of South Africa in order to show a degree of understanding of and solidarity with this. Attention has to be drawn to two things. The first is whether there should be an exemption from donations’ tax and the second is whether one should be allowed to deduct the amount which one donates from one’s income for income tax purposes.

The only provision for that at the moment lies in section 18(a) (ii) where one can deduct if one makes a donation to recognized educational institutions. I wonder whether in this session of Parliament we can amend the Income Tax Act—we still have to deal with that legislation—to extend that provision so that not only is a donation made to an educational institution, but also a donation made to a designated institution in terms of section 16 of the Act deductible. In regard to the second matter, the question of exemption from donations’ tax, we hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us in his reply that he has already spoken to the hon. the Minister of Finance because that does not require an amendment to the Act; all it requires in terms of section 56(1) (i) and (j) is a statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance that he is satisfied that it is in the public interest that these donations should be made. We hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will make an appeal to the public also to contribute to this fund without running the risk of donations tax. We hope there will be the deduction from income as we have suggested and which presently exists in respect of educational institutions in terms of section 18(a).

I therefore express my support for the measure and want to say that I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has introduced it.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to thank hon. members for the discussion that took place here this afternoon and for the support, from all quarters, for this Bill. Let me therefore thank the hon. members for Hillbrow, Brits, Koedoespoort, Rustenburg, Umhlanga, Middelburg and Yeoville for their contributions.

It is unnecessary to reply individually to all hon. members who spoke. The gist of the speeches of all hon. members was that the fund should be supported and that the public should make its contribution. As can be expected, here and there there was a dig at the Government, but one accepts that.

Here one is dealing with a tragic situation. Terrorism is no respecter of persons or things. One is reminded, for example, of the attack on a member of the British royal house when Lord Mountbatten died as a result of a terrorist attack. Victims are not selected. It is merely a question of terrorism committed by people bent on destruction. One cannot say that this or that is the cause. Basically it is a question of certain people thinking that by destroying things and by maiming and murdering individuals they can bring people to new insights. In such cases it is necessary for the State to lend a guiding hand in persuading the public to make their contribution towards looking after the victims of such terrorist onslaughts. It is not merely a question of making a contribution in regard to the victims of terrorism, for one must also come to a realization of the problems of the modern world which are also being experienced in South Africa.

This fund is not being called the Pretoria Fund, the Bloemfontein Fund or any such fund. It is being called the State President’s Fund and is therefore a fund which is under the auspices of the State President himself. Like the Disaster Relief Fund, the S.A. Defence Force Fund and the Refugee Relief Fund, it will be a statutory fund that will be under the protection and control of a board. The statutory board will decide what this fund is to be used for, how the funds will be spent and, bearing in mind what money is available, the board will use its discretion, within the framework of the Bill, in granting very ample aid. The majority of the questions hon. members put will have to be answered or decided by the board that is to be appointed. In this regard I am grateful to be able to announce today that with a view to the appointment of this statutory board, I have already approached a number of persons who have declared themselves to be willing to serve on this board. It is a special privilege for me to be able to announce that Dr. Hilgard Muller, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, has agreed to act as chairman of the State President’s Fund. Hon. members will agree with me that it is with a great deal of gratitude that this House learns today that someone like Dr. Hilgard Muller, even after his retirement, is still willing to help with this particular matter. I want to thank him very much for that.

I also approached a few other people. The mayors of the four provincial capitals have all agreed to serve on the board of the Fund. They are Mr. Kosie van Zyl of Cape Town, Mr. E. A. Fichardt of Bloemfontein, Prof. Van Jaarsveld of Pretoria and Miss P. Reed of Pietermaritzburg.

What about Johannesburg?

What about Kimberley?

I am speaking of provincial capitals. Then there is Mr. Lesley Frankel from Johannesburg; Mr. Hanson Lloyd from Durban; Admiral Edwards; Mr. Christie Kuur from Pretoria; Mr. Anker Burger of Cape Town; Mr. Piet De Wet from Franshchoek; Mr. L. P. Bartell from Bloemfontein; Mr. Jan Van Vuuren, former MP and chairman of the Free State Agricultural Union; Dr. F. P. Retief, the Director-General of Health and Welfare and Mr. Wessel Meyer, the Deputy Director General of Health and Welfare.

*As secretary it is my intention to appoint Mr. Arthur Barnard, one of the directors of the Department of Health and Welfare. As hon. members know, an arrangement has been made with all the banks that any contribution to the fund can be paid in at any bank. Those amounts will then be transferred, free of charge, to the fund’s account, which has provisionally been opened with Volkskas in Pretoria. The bank account number is 000652113. One does not, however, have to remember the number. One can go to any bank, or any branch of any bank, and one’s contributions will be transferred free of charge. I am grateful for contributions that have already been received, even though no official canvassing has been done as yet. I think that at present the contributions amount to R143 000, which is an exceptional start. The Government will also do its share. I do not think, however, that it is my job to make this announcement.

I have listened to hon. members’ representations about tax relief, etc. I shall bring hon. members’ proposals to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and if announcements have to be made in this connection …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister, firstly whether the nomination of mayors to the board means mayors in their capacity as mayors or the mayors in their personal capacity? Secondly, will the hon. the Minister not also consider Johannesburg, which has already made a very substantial donation?

Mayors will be appointed in their capacity as mayors and not in their personal capacity. I know Johannesburg is the largest city in South Africa. But what about Durban? What about Port Elizabeth? What about East London and what about Kimberley, etc.? That is why I have restricted myself to the mayors of the capitals of the provinces. Whether the hon. member agrees with that or not, I think it is reasonable.

*As I have said, hon. members’ representations about a tax rebate will be conveyed to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think that an announcement in this regard must come from him.

Sir, I again thank hon. members for their support and would like to express the hope that their support will not end in this House, but that they will continue to make a material contribution.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquiry from the hon. the Minister what the extent of the contribution of the Government will be?

It will be substantial.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Friday I was saying that what was particularly sad about this legislation was that it reflected no change in the attitude of the Government since the first Bill in this connection was introduced in 1959. The hon. the Minister in his introductory speech suggested that this Bill, by prescribing quotas for universities in regard to the number of students they may admit instead of the present permit system, constituted a move towards increasing the autonomy of universities and depoliticizing the issue. With great respect, Sir, a statement like that is absolute nonsense. I was here 24 years ago when the Bill which was euphemistically called the Extension of University Education Bill was introduced and debated. I think of the members in the House then only the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. the Minister of Manpower, are now members of the House again. The Bill of 1959 effectively destroyed the principle of university autonomy in respect of the question as to whom universities may admit as students. It was that Bill which laid down that there should be racial separation in tertiary education in South Africa. It opened a way for separate White universities, for separate Coloured universities and for separate Indian and Black universities and decreed that attendance at White universities of members of other racial groups could be allowed only by a system of permits. The Bill of 1959 was not an educational measure. It clearly was an apartheid measure. It followed the pattern of the apartheid and baasskap philosophy of the Government during the 1950s. For instance, it followed the Group Areas Act, which enforced residential segregation; it followed the Population Registration Act in so far as race classification is concerned and it followed the Separate Amenities Act setting aside separate amenities for the different population groups. These were the pillars of the baasskap philosophy of the NP in those days. The so-called Extension of University Education Act became yet another pillar in this philosophy. It was designed not only to set up ethnic universities for the different Black ethnic groups. It was specifically designed to prevent English-language universities, e.g. the University of Cape Town, the University of the Witwatersrand, Natal University and Rhodes University, from having a choice as regards the admission of Whites and Blacks to their campuses. Therefore it was a measure which was politically inspired by a party totally committed to racial separation at every level of our society without regard to the consequences for the country and certainly without regard for the standing of South African universities throughout the academic world. There is a wealth of evidence already of the damage that measure has done to the standing and stature of South Africa academically throughout the civilized world. There has been an alarming erosion of academic brainpower, both so far as students and lecturers are concerned, and there has been a brain-drain from South Africa. This ought to be cause for alarm, particularly in a country such as ours, which is a developing country. There has been a persistent questioning about our right to be admitted to and recognized amongst the academic fraternity in the civilized world.

But despite this and I think to the credit of the tenacity of our university authorities and academic leaders, through their repeatedly pronounced opposition to Government philosophy and by their well-known and well-publicized objections to Government interference in university autonomy, by their dedication and rededication to the principle of academic freedom, by their firm opposition to harassment on their own campuses, because of these attitudes the university authorities managed to maintain some tenuous links with the outside academic world and have managed to retain some respect therby. But these links remain very tenuous because there is still a great deal of reservation in the academic world about the university institutions in South Africa. Sir, I believe that our academic integrity is still much in question as a result of the Government’s interference in university autonomy. Our youngsters with university degrees obtained in South Africa are still suspect because we are a racially orientated society and because our standards on the issue of race is so repugnant to the academic community at large. But the fact that through it all our universities, and particularly our English-language universities, have been racially exclusive has been partially excused because the choice has not been of their making. They have been forced into it since 1959. They have been forced into this form of racial exclusiveness by the policies of the Government of the day. The academic world, or part of it at any rate, have recognized that and as a result our academics have managed to retain some academic integrity in the world outside.

But now we have this measure. It is being introduced by the hon. the Minister in the name of reform. It is being introduced as a Bill aimed at restoring some measure of autonomy to our universities in respect of the admission of students. I say that claim is a total farce; it is a totally hollow claim. It is ironic that such a claim should even be made because if the introduction of this Bill is not a stupid and naive step on the part of the Government, then it is a totally diabolical one. The measure of 1958 placed our open universities into an academic straitjacket. It was imposed upon them as a result of the apartheid ideology of the NP. This Bill empowering the Government to prescribe a quota, a quota which the universities have to apply merely forces universities to put on their own straitjacket because they will have to apply the restrictions. They must reject student applicants when the number of applicants exceed the quota allowed. I believe, Sir, in every sense this Bill in its present form is really a “passing-of-the-buck Bill”. It places university authorities in a totally untenable and impossible position. Nowhere, I believe, will this be more keenly felt than in the province of Natal, where the White university serves only 9% of the total population of that province. Of the remainder, 80% are Blacks and about 11% are Asians. In this situation it is hardly surprising that the advent of this Bill has produced the most unanimous, the most outright opposition from university authorities, from the staff, from the senate and from the students alike in the province of Natal.

The hon. the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is aware of this situation. He is aware of the protests that have been voiced, as well as of the representations which have been made to him. There have been marches in the city of Pietermaritzburg, marches led by the principal and staff of the universities; orderly marches, but marches held in order to protest against what is being done in terms of this Bill. These are not being inspired by political motives. These have been genuine protests reflecting the concern of those involved. I should like to quote an extract from a speech made by the principal of Natal University, who said—

It goes on to say—

It is this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, that is put at peril by a measure of this kind.

I want to quote what another member of the staff of the University of Natal said at one of these protest meetings. He was trying to indicate the concern felt by university staff. He said—

That is the depth of the feeling of concern expressed by some of the university authorities.

As I have already said, it is not inspired by political motives. It is inspired by the reality of the situation and by the very real fear of the consequences for university authorities should they be compelled to do the Government’s dirty work by rejecting students on the ground of race.

The Government’s grounds for introducing this measure are, among other things, that they fear that the character of existing universities will be changed if there is to be an influx of other races in the student intake. The Government apparently also fears that the character of the ethnic universities, which have been created for other races, will also change. I want to point out that if those are indeed the grounds—a fear on the part of the Government—I believe that they are totally without value. During last week the Government boasted, in respect of other Bills relating to universities, namely the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville, that those universities are now to be given real autonomy. They said we had now created real universities, universities that would decide on their future themselves. If the Government is sincere in that belief, why then do they not allow universities themselves to ensure that the character of their institutions is maintained and developed by those institutions themselves?

The question has already been asked of why the character of the so-called White universities in South Africa has not changed as a result of students of different White races and cultural backgrounds being enrolled in them. We have had the example mentioned of the University of Stellenbosch, with its very much increased English-speaking enrolment. That has not changed the character of the University of Stellenbosch.

Last Friday we listened to the hon. member for Gezina, who spent a great deal of his time talking about the character of universities. He said the character of universities had to be protected. He said that character had to be protected through usage, through conventions that had been built up through the years. That is true, but I want to ask why the hon. members on the other side respect character only when it is the character of their own type of university. Why do they not show the same respect for the character of other universities?

Twenty-four years ago in the Third Reading debate on the Extension of University Education Bill, dealing with the same argument, I stated, and for once I want to quote my own speech (Hansard, 10/11 April 1959, col. 3642)—

I said that in 1959—

So one went on, dealing with the character of English-language universities in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he does not show the same respect for that character as hon. members on his side indicate has to be shown for the character of other universities in South Africa. That was a point made by the hon. member for Gezina who dealt at length with the so-called character of institutions. The hon. the Minister must realize that there is a difference, that there have been open universities in South Africa and that those universities have valued their autonomy as academic institutions to determine for themselves whom they should admit to those institutions. They believe—and I think it is an absolute truism— that it is to the benefit of society generally that young people who have the intelligence and the ability to attend institutions of tertiary education and to graduate from them should have the opportunity to get to know the people with whom they are going to live and work during the rest of their lives. This is another advantage of allowing universities to determine the intake to those universities.

The hon. the Minister has said that there can be no absolute autonomy for universities as regards the question of whom they should admit on their campuses. He has also stated, as was said in 1959, that they must comply with Government policy. I want to say again that we regard this to be a total contradiction of the whole question of university autonomy and that we believe that it is irreconcilable with what real university status should be.

We oppose this Bill because it further underlines the Government’s attack on university autonomy and because it forces universities to reject students on grounds which are totally repugnant to the academic world. In my closing remarks I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. If the Government is so determined to ensure that there is no swamping, if it is the real fear behind a measure of this kind that there should be no swamping of existing universities which could change their existing character, if this is their fear, although I do not believe that it is a real danger, why can they not find some form of compromise and allow some measure of pragmatism to see whether the situation they fear will in fact become a reality? Because of financial and administrative considerations no university is going to allow its enrolment to increase alarmingly because it simply would not be able to cope with such a vast increase. If, therefore, as a compromise the Government were to say to universities—the hon. the Minister has heard this argument already because I know it has been put to him, but I should like him to answer it—that the Government will allow, say, a 5%” annual increase in their overall enrolment, which I believe might be acceptable, certainly as a second prize; if the Government were to say to the universities “We will watch the extent of your enrolment, and you must limit your overall increase in enrolment to, 5%” and universities were not restricted as to the race of the additional students they could admit, would this not in some way allay the fears of the Government as to the question of the character changing and the question of swamping? This would at least have the effect of regulating the intake in order to ensure that an impossible situation of overcrowding or swamping would not take place and it would place the universities in a far more tenable position than this Bill will. I should like the hon. the Minister in his reply to respond specifically to that sort of compromise which I would put up as a second prize because, while it is not as good as giving full and unfettered autonomy to the universities, it would, I believe, at least go some way towards meeting the situation. On this sort of basis there would be nothing to stop the Government from reviewing the situation from time to time. If it felt at some future date that there was an abuse and that the universities were being badly affected, it could then deal with the situation. On the present basis, make no mistake about it, this Bill is going to have a totally unsettling effect on university staff and students in this country. It is going to have an effect which is going to bring them into disrepute amongst large sections of the population in South Africa. It is also going to bring them into disrepute in respect of the rest of the academic world. The proposed quota system will only be seen as a racist system, just as the present system, the permit system, is seen as a racist system. It cannot bring credit to our university institutions. It shows that the Government is not prepared to take the crucial step of recognizing that racial considerations are not relevant to higher education.

I should like to quote from one notable academic at Witwatersrand University who, in dealing with this issue, made the following remarks—

This is the genuine feeling of people who are concerned with the status of our universities. It is a feeling which is not politically inspired or politically motivated. The hon. the Minister knows the considerable disquiet which the advent of this Bill has caused amongst university authorities. He knows the consequences which they fear will flow from this measure. I believe it is in the interests of the status and the standing of the universities in South Africa that this Bill should not be proceeded with. We therefore oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the hon. member for Berea during the course of my speech, but since we are now discussing universities, you will probably allow me to say a few words to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member has just returned from abroad. He attended a graduation ceremony at the University of New York, at which his daughter, Veronica, obtained a degree in television and drama, a wonderful achievement on her part. I think this House can congratulate the hon. member and his family on this fine achievement by a young South African girl, all on her own in that vast country, America. [Interjections.]

Where are all your members?

I shall be coming to the hon. member for Bryanston in a moment.

The origins of the present discussion of this Bill can be traced back to the point of departure at which we began to deal with the philosophy of the various parties. Unfortunately the hon. member for Koedoespoort is not here. He will probably return in a moment and I shall then refer to his speech. He said one thing that was profoundly true.

Since the hon. member for Barberton is present, however, we can continue the discussion with him. After all, they both adhere to the same standpoint. The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that the parties could not deny that the debate was being conducted from the point of departure of the difference in philosophies of the various parties. His words were—

In a paragraph of his unrevised Hansard he made a major admission when he said the following—

This is a major admission. When it comes to the movement of people, then the concept of total isolation does not exist. It does not exist, it does not occur in actual and practical co-existence. I agree with this paragraph. There are many factors which make an input in the social structure. The hon. member for Barberton can tell me something: The running of his own household is absolutely his own affair as far as he and his family are concerned, but moving about in that household are persons of colour as well. They are under his control, but that household is not a closed unit which completely excludes other people.

But they determine the quota themselves.

In the households of every hon. member sitting here one finds that movement of people. It is true that it does happen under their discipline and control, but it is there all the same. The concept of total isolation does not therefore exist in communities, and particularly not in South Africa. This is a perfectly natural thing. I admit that the hon. member is correct. There are various inputs into one’s social structure which play a determining role in the weal and woe and the development of people, but in the same way it does not exist as far as the policy structure of the hon. members of the PFP is concerned, because they say: Throw everything overboard and let everything be fluid and find its own level. Surely that is not right either.

The community organizes itself according to certain guidelines and this Government, with its great expertise, based its principles on those guidelines in the past as far as this party was concerned and moved outwards from there. The hon. member for Berea knows that the university legislation of 1959 contains sound principles, and that is why we are retaining it. However, when we want to change those principles where they are not entirely applicable, we should do that as well.

Since I am dealing with the hon. member for Berea now, I wish to put a few questions to him. The criticism was levelled at this Bill that it was allegedly racistic. I think I should rather put this question to the hon. member for Bryanston, because he is the main speaker of that party on educational matters. Is this amending Bill which we have before us a piece of racialistic legislation?

Yes!

Thank you very much! I want to ask those hon. members now: What is racialism?

What you people do.

Wait a minute. In August 1982 I read a short report in the Eastern Province Herald. It was published on 5 August 1982. The report read as follows—

The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Yeoville are not here. I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston which side he would have been on in those fist fights. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir. I wish to put a few questions to the hon. member myself. He must please resume his seat. The hon. member may put his question in a moment. My question to him is a reasonable one. Which side would the hon. member have been on in those fist fights? There was a group of White students and a group of Black students and each group thought it had a good case. [Interjections.] I have an idea which side the hon. member for Houghton and her broomstick would have been on. [Interjections.] I have no doubt at all which side the hon. member for Yeoville would have been on. [Interjections.] Now one can see what racialism is.

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

I shall reply to the hon. member’s questions later.

If the CP students and the NP students start.

The hon. member must not talk about students now. The students to whom he is referring simply felt like getting stuck into one another. It might just as well have been Intervarsity or some other football match, but then the people stopped them.

We are discussing this matter in a light vein now, yet it expressly demonstrates to us the principle that: One seeks out one’s own kind, one looks after one’s own interests. The hon. member for Rissik is laughing at such matters, but I mean this very seriously. The hon. member can laugh at me, but I want to tell him that I can say that I am an Afrikaans-speaking South African with as much justification and pride as he is able to do. In fact, I can say more than he can. Perhaps I do not have the education which he has—after all, he frequently says that he is a learned person—but I can spell certain words which he cannot spell, because certain words occur in my lexicon which do not occur in his. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the point of departure. Hon. members must know that when the Government comes forward with this legislation, what it is concerned with is not the idea of racialism, because there is an underlying pedagogic principle at stake when it comes to this legislation. We had that point of departure in the early ’fifties. Hon. members would do well to read this report again. Perhaps the hon. members are not even aware of it, but the hon. member for Berea ought to know about it, because it happened in his time.

Is it the De Lange report?

The hon. member for Greytown is still very young; he may as well learn something, it is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Separate University Education Bill.

I wish to refer to a single paragraph in the report. The members who served on the commission at the time and who dealt with the investigation into the establishment of separate universities comprised of a formidable team of people from the various parties. I read in the report that a Zulu chief stated the following view very appositely and picturesquely at the time of the session of the Native Education Commission at Eshowe in 1950—these were words which the man was speaking from his heart when he said to the commissioners—

Do you agree with him?

This man was telling a profound truth. It was a Black man speaking here. There was wasteful exploitation in the sense that we were depriving the communities of those people of their leaders and alienating those leaders from their people. I want to refer the hon. member who is making such a noise there to Mr. Justice Snyman’s commission of inquiry into the riots at the University of the North. There was much criticism, but inter alia the leader of Saso said that the Black man had to use his own strength to fight his way to the top, and that in the process they should forget about the White man—this is quite a militant fellow speaking—for although he might have good intentions—he was referring here to the liberals—he was too condescending and dishonest. This is what the Black people testified before a commission. Recently we had legislation on the University of the Western Cape before us when speakers of the official Opposition had to admit that excellent progress had been made, regardless of the disputes of earlier years. Let us consider the results of the most recent of those universities, namely Medunsa. I quote—

This was the pass rate for students at that university, in its particular disciplines. In comparison with any other universities in the country, these are outstanding achievements. These people have every right to feel proud of their achievements. Earlier on an hon. member opposite said that there was a resistance to our students abroad. Surely that is not true. These students are much sought after material for study at universities abroad. This is the truth. We know what we are talking about.

In this Bill we are not encroaching on the overall academic freedom of a university, which people are opposing so vehemently. The Government is retaining its say, and that is no more than right. As regards the freedom of a university, there is a broad field which it can cover. With this Bill we should like to give further impetus to the development of universities. We wish to afford universities for Coloured persons the opportunity to develop, as they have every right to do, and to retain their students, while they may also admit the students of other population groups to study for postgraduate qualifications under promoters at those universities. Despite the universal character of a university, we wish to ensure that every particular university will possess its own climate, its own character and its own essence. Every university and its community occupies a special place in the national set-up. The diversity within the area occupied by the existing universities of the Republic of South Africa imparts a great gift to the various peoples in this country. With these few words I should like to pledge my support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, to justify the presence of people of colour at White universities, the hon. member for Standerton used the example of a household. He said that the household was a “own” matter but that people of colour, too, were active in this household. Surely the hon. member knows full well that the person of colour who is active in his household does not form part of that family.

Or does he?

Do not start with your insults.

The argument the hon. member advanced with regard to this closed situation is in line with the argument of the PFP. The PFP said that the universities themselves should be able to decide whom they want to admit. If the hon. member wants to use the example of the family household, I want to say to him that mine is a closed unit. It is an “own” matter and I decide on who will be admitted there, not a Minister. The hon. member’s argument is in line with that of the PFP.

I found it striking that one moment the hon. member for Standerton was advancing CP arguments and the next he was arguing like the PFP. I want to say to hon. members on that side of the House that the standpoint they are trying to adopt is the standpoint adopted by the old United Party when they said: “You want it, we have it”, a standpoint which meant that they were constantly alternating between the PFP and the HNP or the CP. This is a standpoint which will lead to the destruction of that once mighty party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Standerton spoke about points of departure, the points of departure of the various parties. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also referred to that. What the hon. member proved this afternoon was that the NP has moved away from the fundamental principle of separate development. This Bill is an example of that. The NP’s point of departure for its actions and approach to every matter in the past used to be that there was a diversity of peoples in the southern tip of Africa. That was the point of departure against which all decisions of the NP were tested in the past, the old NP to which I had the privilege of belonging. However, what is the present point of departure of the NP? It is one nation of White, Brown and Indian. I want to say to the hon. member for Standerton that legislation such as this is a point of departure on the road to integration.

The hon. member for Brakpan said that ethnic universities should be put in a position to develop to their full potential. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan and I want to stress that ethnic universities must be put in a position to comply with all the requirements, to meet all the needs of the ethnic community they serve. However, as far as blowing hot and cold is concerned, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Stellenbosch by way of example. He spoke about ethnic universities and in the process sneered at the reference made by the hon. member for Brakpan to ethnic universities. The hon. member for Brakpan said that ethnic universities should be put in a position to serve their people to the fullest. To that the hon. member for Stellenbosch replied—

Those were the words of the hon. member.

What kind of ethnic university is Wits?

I should prefer to put a question to the hon. member. Only a little later in his speech he said (Unrevised Hansard)—

Now I want to ask that hon. member: When are we to take notice of him? When are we to take notice of him when he speaks about ethnic universities? Can we take notice of him when he says that the CP is foolish if it takes ethnic universities as its point of departure?

You are playing with words now.

No, I am not playing with words. I should like the students of the University of Stellenbosch to go and read their hon. member’s speech because he contradicts himself in the same speech. I ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch: Is the University of the Western Cape an ethnic university?

Make your own speech. Do not ask me questions.

Just say yes or no.

I asked the hon. member for Vryheid: Is the University of Durban-Westville an ethnic university?

First answer my questions.

Sir, they cannot reply, because they are now running away from this thing. I asked hon. the Minister of National Education: are the Universities of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape ethnic universities?

I shall reply to you later.

The hon. the Minister says he will reply to me later. I want to ask the hon. member and those hon. members, who are now too afraid to answer, whether the question of an ethnic university is becoming a problem for the governing party.

Why was RAU founded originally? [Interjections.]

Is the question of ethnic universities perhaps becoming a problem for the NP? [Interjections.] Each of the hon. members of the NP, as they sit there, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Parys and the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who was not present at the time, used to say, with Mr. John Vorster, that the Coloureds were a nation in the making (“’n volk-in-wording”.)

Oh, really, that is not true. Surely you know that.

Mr. Speaker, that same hon. Deputy Minister said, with Mr. Vorster, that the Coloureds were a nation in the making.

That is not so. Mr. Vorster did say it, but we did not all agree with it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, who agreed and who did not? [Interjections.] Those hon. members said, with Mr. Vorster, that the Coloureds were a nation in the making. Now, with the hon. the Prime Minister, they say that the Coloureds are not a nation in the making.

Of course they are not a nation in the making. After all, you ought to know that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members of the NP are nothing but a lot of political parrots. They imitate everyone. [Interjections.] Just as the ethnic universities have become a problem for the NP, the ethnic parliaments, too, have become a problem for that party. I want to prove this by quoting from an NP information document. I do so because I am afraid that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is now going to tell me that the NP has never advocated separate ethnic Parliaments. In this information document the following is stated, and I quote—

Mr. Speaker, over the years the point of departure of the NP was that there was a diversity of peoples in South Africa. Now, however, those hon. members are running away from that. [Interjections.] They now say that they are not ethnic Parliaments, nor are they ethnic universities, because now there is only one nation in this country; one nation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] In order to pursue that ideal of theirs the doors must be thrown open at all our universities; those doors must be kept open.

Are the universities only being opened to the Coloureds and the Indians?

No, surely you are throwing them open to the Blacks as well. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North knows that ethnic parliaments have also been created for the Black people here in South Africa. This was done by the NP. Ethnic parliaments were created that today serve the various Black peoples in their own countries. This is important, and the CP is in favour of it. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North is running away from that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, since he is speaking about ethnic universities I should like to know from the hon. member for Kuruman whether, when there are Afrikaans-speaking, Greek-speaking, English-speaking and Portuguese-speaking people at one particular university, it is an ethnic university?

Have quotas been determined for them?

Mr. Speaker, the University of Stellenbosch is an Afrikaner university. However, it is not a university that is closed to the other components of the White nation; they form part of it. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if the hon. member for Potgietersrus has become a problem.

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

Oh no, really; I have had enough of this now. I am not answering any further questions. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stellenbosch also said that one component of the NP’s policy was that there were separate educational institutions for the various population groups, at the tertiary level as well. That is one component of the policy of the NP. That is correct. Now, however, the hon. member goes somewhat further and says: “That we are not, after all, introducing new restrictions on the admission of students of colour who want to study at predominantly White universities.” I now come to the important point in the hon. member’s speech. He says: “that by means of this measure before the House the Government seeks to depoliticize, decentralize and facilitate the existing process of the admission of students.”

As far as I am concerned the NP is running away from separate development and they are doing so by way of this measure.

Let us look at what has already happened in the world of sport. Formerly we practised separate sport in South Africa. The hon. members of the NP normalized separate sport into multinational sport, into multiracial sport.

Who was chairman of the group in question?

Forget about the fact that I was chairman of that group. I am on record as not agreeing with the policy of the NP.

Where is that written?

I can show the hon. member the letter. He can ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who was at the time responsible for sport, about it.

Who was Prime Minister at that stage?

The hon. the Minister of Community Development and I explained the sport policy at a meeting at Postmasburg, and I said there that the standpoint of the party was that each people was organized at club level and at provincial and national level but that we should not prescribe it in legislation. However, when that hon. Minister and I came here that Monday, two Coloureds were playing in the Defence team. I then asked: How did they manage that? Surely it is unnecessary to introduce legislation in regard to the Defence Force to prescribe that these people must play for their own clubs. In any event, as a result of that letter the Government met and decided that the clubs should be able to do as they liked.

What did the congresses of the NP say about that?

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that as far as sport is concerned, the Government did not want to take upon itself the blame for the integration in sport. It placed the responsibility for that on the shoulders of the sport administrators.

[Inaudible.]

If the people in the constituency of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation were to ask him now: “What is going on now with this integration in sport?”, he would say that the Government would do nothing about it because it is a matter for the sport administrators to decide on.

That is an untruth, and you know it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to say that the hon. member was guilty of an untruth and that he knew it was an untruth?

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

The governing party is placing the responsibility on the sports bodies in this regard.

As far as the universities are concerned, the situation is that the responsibility as regards the admission of people of colour is now being transferred from the Government to the universities themselves. If the voters of the NP, the people who still believe in them, ask them: “Fellows, what about the integration that is taking place at Stellenbosch?”, the NP can happily tell them *The Minister and the Government can no longer say anything about this because the universities themselves decide about it”. In that way the Government is running away from its responsibility.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch also said that this matter had to be depoliticized and decentralized to the local level. However, we must consider who is in our universities today. What friends of the NP are in the University of Stellenbosch today? What advisers of the NP does one find there? There is Prof. Willie Esterhuyse, the man who wrote the book Afskeid van Apartheid. Then there is Prof. Sampie Terreblanche, who is well-known for his liberal statements, a great friend of the NP who regularly speaks at the youth conferences. If he were to become rector of that university and control were to be placed in his hands I wonder whether the Minister’s quota would apply for much longer.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch went on to say—

You have already read that.

But I am going to strike a second blow that will be even more painful than the first. The Government is making it easier for the universities to admit people of colour. Then the hon. member for Stellenbosch came up with this gem—unfortunately he has disappeared now, although I asked him to be present. He said that this Bill was a simplification and a facilitation of the procedure of admitting people of colour and he then said with reference to the PFP—

He went on to say—

He went on to give them advice, saying—

Here the hon. member for Stellenbosch is telling the PFP that they must not protest but should support the legislation.

I note that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North is getting nervous. Sir, we were in the Eastern Cape over the weekend, and that hon. member certainly has reason to be nervous.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch asks the PFP to support the NP. In fact he says that the NP wants to open the universities gradually and that they (the PFP) should not be hasty, but should rather be patient. He asks the PFP just to agree. I want to say to the hon. member for Bryanston that the PFP need not be concerned if this is not done quickly. The PFP’s ideal will be accomplished gradually by the NP. Mr. Speaker, I have now referred to what hon. members of the NP say. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries differs with the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

You are talking nonsense, and you know it.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch says: “The PFP does not play along. If they cannot get everything they want, then they want nothing.”

Let us go further. The Government is constantly taking steps to facilitate integration at all levels.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Stellenbosch said it. Here we have a fine example. In the past it was the point of departure of the NP that people of colour could be given the opportunity to enrol for courses at White universities that were not offered at their own universities. This was done on condition that when courses were introduced at their own universities, those present at White universities would be phased out. That was the point of departure of the NP. Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were only admitted to White universities when they were unable to enrol for their selected courses at their own universities.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Randburg should just go and read the speech by the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

I am not talking to you any more. I am talking to Cas.

The hon. member is making such a noise that I took it he was speaking to me. I think the hon. member for Bryanston gave the hon. member five candles the other day. I think that he can already give the hon. member for Stellenbosch about three candles.

While in the NP we were assured that when courses were presented at “own” universities, the permit system would become superfluous. The ideal the NP set itself was that the temporary integration at White universities would be phased out by the development of universities of their own for the other peoples. That was the ideal. The hon. member for Stellenbosch mentioned the example of the Department of Physical Education which was established at the University of the Western Cape. I made a speech at the time—the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was then Minister for sport and recreation—during discussion of the Vote in question in which I asked for the introduction of such a faculty at the University of the Western Cape. I pointed out that Brown people took part in sport and needed sport administrators. I pointed out that it was essential that sport administrators and physical educationists should be trained for the Brown people. I said that I thought it was a disgrace that some Brown people had to follow courses in physical education at the University of Stellenbosch. I said to the hon. the Minister that we had to see to it that physical education was presented at the University of the Western Cape as soon as possible. I was grateful to hear that the course had in fact been introduced. This would have meant that no further Brown students would be enrolled at the University of Stellenbosch for physical education.

The permit system is now being replaced by a quota system. Surely that is going to mean that a quota system will be laid down for all universities. This ensures that there will always be people of colour present at every university. This entrenches a situation of integration at our universities.

The definition of “quota” is very vague in the Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: “Is he going to specify a general quota for all the universities, a quota of, say, 10%, or is he going to determine a quota for each university?” Looking at this, it is very important that we should know that. At the University of Cape Town 14% of the students are people of colour; at the University of the Witwatersrand the figure is 10, 5%; at the University of Natal, 22%; Rhodes, 11, 84%; the University of Port Elizabeth, 9, 9% and the University of Stellenbosch 1, 16%. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if he is going to introduce a general quota of, say, 10%, this may mean that if the 10% of the University of Natal is full, the other 12% will be referred to other universities such as Stellenbosch, Potchefstroom, the Free State and Pretoria if they decide to throw open those universities? [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify this matter for us.

In Schedule 1.2 of the envisaged constitution it is provided that education at all levels is an “own” affair. This Bill will be a general one and under clause 89 of the envisaged constitution, all Acts on the Statute Book before the introduction of the constitution will remain law. In other words, this is a general law on an “own” affair, education, with a built-in integration mechanism. On the basis of the legislation before us, education, which is a so-called “own” affair, is being singled out at university level as a matter of common interest. We expect the hon. the Minister to give us a very clear answer in this regard.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has already said that a university is more than just an institution for the acquisition of knowledge. We all know that a university consists of more than merely classrooms, laboratories and libraries. To me the University of Stellenbosch was far more than just that. The CP wants to say to the Government that if the Government allows a Coloured or Black person to attend Stellenbosch University, he must be able to become a Matie in every sense of the word; he must also be able to stay in the hostel, participate in the “sokkiejolle” and the rag and other aspects of university life, and a Matie of any specific colour must be able to participate in this with a Matie of another colour. If the Government states that that is its standpoint, then it must be consistent.

The CP says that everyone in South Africa, irrespective of race and colour, must be given the opportunity to progress to the highest academic level. It must be seen to that every people is able to educate men and women, through its own university or universities, so that they may become leaders to serve the community of their own people. Under the policy of separate development of the CP and the creation of separate freedoms, it is essential for every people that men and women be prepared for a fine but challenging future, a future full of opportunities. Here the various ethnic universities have a tremendous role to play. The various ethnic universities must be supported and helped in this by the Government. The policy of separate development created an opportunity for the Black peoples and made of a country like Bophuthatswana a country of opportunity for the Tswana people. This policy makes it possible for the Tswana in this country to be a farmer, doctor, advocate, attorney, judge, businessman, teacher, professor, public servant, rector, Minister and Prime Minister. The University of Bophuthatswana will play a vital role in the success and prosperity of this country. The policy of separate development of the CP also makes this possible for the Coloured and the Indian. The CP says that the University of the Western Cape, under the leadership of a Dr. Van der Ross, must be put in a position to put forward men and women, people who will be able to act as teachers, attorneys, businessmen, clergy, professors, engineers, town clerks, public servants and political leaders to serve the Brown people, to be of service to their own people in a creative way.

We regret the introduction of this legislation. We had hoped and trusted that under the quota system, by providing all courses that are essential to the other people in their own universities, the integration that did exist could be phased out. However, by means of this measure the Government is ensuring that there will be continued integration in our system of tertiary education.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset the hon. member for Kuruman sounded very resolute when making some of his political statements. I want to deal with them. I must say that towards the end of his speech he became so confused that it was very difficult to make out what he was saying.

I did not try to insult you.

I am not insulting the hon. member. [Interjections.] At the end of his speech the hon. member made a few statements concerning which I want to say that they could in any event take place in terms of the present policy of the Government.

I stated our policy.

The hon. member said that he would like to see Black professors, judges, teachers, attorneys or whatever, being able to progress to the highest rung, but surely that can happen. The hon. member referred to the University of the Western Cape and expressed the hope that it would afford Coloured students the opportunity to progress to the highest rung. Surely that is happening in any event. What, then, is the hon. member’s problem? I want to put this question to the hon. member. The CP is obsessed with the idea of an ethnic university (“volksuniversiteit”). What is meant by the concept “ethnic university”? In any event, do we have any university in South Africa today that can lay claim to being a fully ethnic university? The answer is no. There is not a single university that can lay claim to that.

What about RAU?

I want to inform the hon. member for Barberton that at the moment about 15% of the students enrolled at RAU are English-speaking. Is that, then, an ethnic university?

But do they not form part of the White people (“volk”)? [Interjections.]

There we come to the crux of the problem as far as that party is concerned. The hon. member for Langlaagte has put his foot in it. He put his foot in it because they cannot distinguish between the concepts “people” (“volk”) and “nation”. It is incorrect to content that any White university in South Africa today is an ethnic university. If the statement is true, I want to ask why the hon. member for Waterberg studied at the University of Cape Town. Did it change his identity while he was studying there? Still less do I believe that he succeeded in changing the identity of the University of Cape Town.

Why bother about a quota then?

Mr. Speaker, I think the CP must give us an indication of where they stand in this connection. [Interjections.] I want to put this question specifically to the hon. member for Kuruman and the other hon. members of the CP: Will they please explain to us clearly what they mean by the concept “ethnic university”?

May I please ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

What I want to ask the hon. member is this: When the Speaker reads the prayer in Afrikaans he says that we meet here as the representatives of the “volk”. What does the hon. member understand by those words?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in an argument about that, but in my personal view it would be more correct to speak of “nasie”, rather than “volk”, in that context. I think this is the correct terminology we ought to use. After all, we are not a White “volk”. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Pretoria Central pointed this out very effectively. We are not a White “volk”. The hon. members opposite can stand on their heads, but we shall not be a White “volk”, either today or tomorrow. At most we can speak about a White nation.

I should like to come back to a statement made by the hon. member for Kuruman and make a contradictory statement. When he says that due to its policy, inter alia with reference to the measure before this House, the NP is on the road to integration in South Africa, I want to say that in the first place that is untrue. In the second place I want to say that that party is on the road to confrontation in South Africa, the end of which we in South Africa would not be able to control. I shudder to think of the possibility of their ideas gaining acceptance in South Africa.

With regard to a further statement made by the hon. member for Kuruman, I wish to point out that he tries to create the impression that we on this side of the House are running away from the idea of the diversity of people that exists in this country. He also tries to imply that in the formulation of our policy we do not provide for the structuring of the ethnic diversity of South Africa. That is the impression, the misconception that that party is putting about in this country. It is untrue, it is a misrepresentation of what the NP stands for. The hon. member knows as well as I do that it is still NP policy to provide for the solution of the country’s problems by way of an ethnic structuring, because one cannot get away from it, since it is part of the reality we are faced with.

Are the Coloureds a “volk”?

The Coloureds are not a “volk”. At most they are a population group consisting of a variety of communities…

Of what “volk” do they form a part? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are interjecting too much. The hon. member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

The debate that is taking place in this House at present, is indeed an example of the diversity in this House. What is in progress here is a typical example of the process that is taking place in South Africa at present. On the one hand we have the PFP who say that we are not going far enough with the measure. They say that we are nowhere near where we should be. In contrast we have the CP, who are digging in their heels and saying: No, not one step further.

In the final instance I just wish to say this to the CP: Nowhere do they spell out to us whether they would be prepared at any stage to permit a student of another colour group, say at post-graduate level, to study in a specific field at a White university of his choice. I think it is time they spelt out their standpoint for us on that as well. I say that the measure before this House is a typical example of the process taking place in South Africa.

But one cannot have one’s cake and eat it, and that is the problem.

I think it is necessary for us to be aware that in the process we are speaking past one another to a certain extent. In that regard the hon. member for Koedoespoort was perhaps right—it is the only point in respect of which he was right— when he said that we approached the subject at present before the House, from different angles. On the one hand we have the ideological commitment of the PFP to the approach of a non-racial society in South Africa.

We are all just people.

Basically that is what the PFP says.

Quite right; we are against discrimination.

It is a commitment to the approach of a non-racial society in South Africa. That is what the PFP is committed to.

You are for discrimination.

In contrast we have the CP who are committed to a rigid misuse of the term “volk”, as it has begun to crystallize to an increasing extent over the past few weeks. This leads them to speak about ethnic universities (“volksuniversiteite”) …

If the Coloureds are not a “volk”, why is there a quota for them?

Order! I again appeal to hon. members to refrain from delivering a running commentary. The hon. member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I should like to conclude my discussion of this point by saying that not one of these two approaches, neither that of the CP nor that of the PFP, can be right if measured against reality in South Africa. Measured against not what we say, but against the physical reality of South Africa as it presents itself to us, not one of these two approaches can be right. On the one hand South Africa is, after all, a country with various cultures and various group entities, expressed in different ways and in different institutions. On the other, it is also vital that there should be an interaction among those groups, to broaden and enrich our daily experience. One cannot deny one of these moments of reality when one looks at the South African reality. One has to try to structure both if one is to achieve any harmony. Therefore the NP’s view with regard to this Bill is the only one that is in line with reality. I think this is well expressed in a Bill which perhaps does not achieve the whole truth if measured by all objective academic standards. On the other hand, however, one must take into account the population structure towards which universities inter alia are oriented and which, in the nature of things, universities serve. A university cannot be separated from the society it is supposed to serve.

I support this measure, with specific reference to clause 9, for four reasons which I should like to detail briefly.

In the first place, the measure takes into account the desire of universities to maintain their group character, At an earlier stage the hon. member for Berea said that we feared that the group character would be forfeited. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that account must be taken of the desire. I should like to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether there is anyone in charge of a White university in South Africa today who would be prepared to sacrifice the predominant group character of those universities.

Of course not.

Therefore he agrees that no university authorities would be prepared to sacrifice that group character.

They can decide for themselves.

Therefore, at least as far as this matter is concerned, the Bill is in line with the idea of keeping the group character of each university dominant.

Talk about Stellenbosch.

I am talking about the dominant group character of every White university. The University of Stellenbosch would prefer to remain an Afrikaans university as far as its dominant character is concerned, just as the University of Cape Town would prefer its English-language character to remain dominant.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is convinced that the University of Stellenbosch wants to retain its basic Afrikaans character, is the Government prepared to set a quota on the number of English-speaking students, or are they prepared to leave it to the university?

I think that this is a matter which has been determined by the course of the history of the Whites. [Interjections.] If the hon. member laughs about that, it only means that he denies the historical reality we are dealing with. Surely we know what the White universities developed out of. We know that the universities for Blacks and the university for Coloureds are basically young universities. We know how the relationship between the broad White community and the coloured communities in South Africa has developed. It is pointless comparing them with one another as parallels. There are situations that have developed naturally at the Universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town.

I should like to put forward another point to support this Bill. I think that this measure is an important one as regards keeping student life at our universities depoliticized. With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Pinelands, is it not true that as the numbers of a specific group increase at a specific university, they can cause new group tension at such a university? This could introduce a kind of politics that would not be healthy for our campus life or for academic freedom. Therefore I say that this measure will help us to keep our campuses depoliticized.

You have got no case.

I accept that the hon. member speaks from a completely different ideological point of view.

In the third place this measure, represents a relaxation of and an improvement on the existing permit system. Those who say that the existing permit system imposes a restriction on the autonomy of universities, must also admit that this measure is an improvement because it affords the university authorities a greater degree of autonomy. If it is said that this is merely a shifting of the responsibility for a decision from the Minister to the university authorities, then I ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he wants the permit system to be upheld.

No, not at all.

If the hon. member were to choose between the two, which would he choose? Would he want the permit system or the quota system.

It is a false choice; there is no real choice.

The hon. member does not want to make a choice. But on close inspection it is clear, after all, that this is an improvement on the permit system, because in terms of the Bill universities are being left a greater freedom of choice.

In the fourth place I want to say that by its nature, the measure is less hurtful, specifically because decisions are now being left to the university authorities, and it will not be necessary for any individual to apply for a permit to be admitted to a university. Then, too, it may be possible for masters and doctoral students, for example, to be excluded from the quota, since at present they still have to apply for a permit.

In conclusion I should like to make a remark about the concept of autonomy and I should like to quote what the rector of the University of Stellenbosch had to say about this in his comments on the Bill at present before the House. He said—

This brings us back to the point that by their nature, universities are not merely there to achieve a self-chosen ideological ideal, but also to serve the community of which they form part and to take into account the reality of their surrounding circumstances.

In the final instance I should like to say that I think that this Bill represents a step in the right direction. It is a measure which reflects development in South Africa, a measure which will certainly not meet the requirements of the PFP, but one which—we see this from the objections raised by the CP—is a positive step in the right direction with regard to greater autonomy for our universities and with regard to healthy academic interaction among the various population groups in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the latter part of his speech the hon. member for Johannesburg West made a number of points in relation to the PFP. I should like to respond to a couple of the points made by him. The first one is the point made in connection with the question of a non-racial society. Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, even that hon. member should concede that the PFP is perfectly aware of the fact that the South African society consists of more than one race group, of different language groups, ethnic groups, colour groups, etc. Therefore, actually to suggest that South Africa is a non-racial society is obviously not correct.

Do you suggest that it is a non-racial society?

No, of course not. There are many races in this country. This is a multiracial society. The point is, however, the question of what laws are being brought about. Do we aim at making our laws racially discriminatory or are we aiming at making our laws non-racial in character? That is indeed what it is all about. The point Mr. Speaker, which hon. members of the NP in general, and the hon. member for Johannesburg West in particular, also in terms of his speech, do not seem to be able to come to grips with is the question of the possibility of voluntary association—the possibility of people associating with others on a voluntary basis; a basis which does not have to be prescribed by law. If we do look, for example, at sport, we notice that people can choose first of all what sport they want to play, and then, secondly, they can choose what club they want to join. The club regulates its own affairs and decides whether such a person or such category of persons can be admitted as members. By the same token there should be no reason why people in this country should not be able to choose what course of study they want to pursue, and then, should they meet the academic requirements of a university and there should be room for them there, why they should not go to that particular university. There is no reason therefore why this has to be prescribed by law.

When he tried to defend a comparative situation such as the University of Stellenbosch and the admission of English-speaking White students to that university, I believe, the hon. member was obviously on rather shaky ground, and consequently made a quick duck by beginning to talk about historical realities and moving on to other aspects as fast as he could.

Yes, he ran away altogether. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, referring to universities serving their community, the hon. member for Johannesburg West made a crucial point, to which I shall refer again later in my speech. That is the question of who decides how a university serves its community. Does each university decide for itself or should the Government decide on behalf of a university? Finally, in respect of the hon. member for Johannesburg West, I have to point out that he touched, I believe, on a key difference between us when he said it was important that the university maintained its group character. I think I am correct in assuming that that is what he said.

The tradition with many of us on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that the important thing for a university is to maintain its academic character, and that its group character as such is by far of subordinate importance.

Do you recognize the existence of a group character? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Mossel Bay has never come across a group culture or a group language in his life it is not my problem. [Interjections.]

One point I should like to stress, not however as a point of major objection—I should merely like to draw attention to it—is that in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he referred to various things said in the report of the Retief Committee on Education for Blacks in the White Areas in 1980. The hon. the Minister will know that the report of that committee has not been made available to all hon. members of this House. There are some hon. members on this side of the House who were members of a Select Committee and who have had sight of that report but it is not available to hon. members in general. It is a confidential report. I do not think it should be, but it is. Moreover I do believe it is an undesirable practice, and that it could, in certain circumstances indeed, be an unfair practice for an hon. Minister to quote from a report which is confidential and which other hon. members have not seen, and then to draw certain conclusions from that particular report. I do believe one cannot conduct any debate on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is I believe a further serious interference in the affairs of our universities. I am really not sure whether the hon. the Minister understands that at all or not. He said in his opening speech—

I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister believes he is speaking the truth. I am not accusing him of anything. However, I find it almost unbelievable, in terms of what has gone on in the last few months alone, that the hon. the Minister really believes that this measure is going to depoliticize the issue of admissions to universities. One does not remove a bone of contention by ramming it down the throat of the aggrieved party. I want to quote to hon. members just one small part of a statement made by the University of Cape Town—

I do not think that that can by any stretch of the imagination be described as depoliticizing the issue. On the contrary, it politicizes it more than ever.

Looking at this whole subject, I think it is interesting to see what the Government’s standpoint is in a more general context. I should like to quote from two sources. The first is the interim memorandum on the report of the Human Sciences Research Council, the De Lange report. This interim memorandum was published in October 1981. I should like to draw attention first of all to two of the principles the Government said it accepted. Not wishing to distort anything, I concede readily that the Government made a point of saying that the principles had to be seen in toto. However, I want to quote two principles because I think that on their own they are pretty self-explanatory. First of all, principle 3 reads—

That is something to which the Government maintains it is committed. I do not know whether in the hon. the Minister’s terms the Government’s interpretation is that that is only the freedom of choice of what White university one can go to or what course one can follow at a White university, but I certainly would not think that the Bill we are discussing today falls within that category. Then, principle 6 reads—

I think that, again, this Bill falls far short of that. Thirdly, in paragraph 3.1 of the interim memorandum the Government in its comment speaks of “the right of self-determination which is recognized by Government policy for each population group”. That is the right the Government is recognizing in educational matters: The right of self-determination for each population group.

There is a final passage I should like to quote as background to Government thinking. It comes from Hansard of 30 April 1982, col. 5754, where the hon. the Minister himself said—

Reading those things, one is led to believe that in the matter of admission of students the Government is a strong proponent of university autonomy to allow the various people to achieve self-determination. What does the hon. the Minister say, however, in his introductory speech to this Bill? I quote—

We obviously agree with that. He went on to say—

He uses that then to carry on. First of all, I think the hon. the Minister, in relation to English-speaking universities at least, would agree that the 1971 view of that vice-chancellor in relation to the right to decide whom to teach is a minority one. I believe that right is an essential part of academic freedom. Looked at in this particular context there are certain things which a university should attempt to do. I should like to list some of them: First of all, to search for the truth; secondly to strive for excellence, thirdly to provide the stimulus of what the hon. the Minister calls “the cross-cultural experience”, and fourthly, to try to be relevant to the society that they operate in. I believe if they are going to be relevant to the society in which they operate, if they are going to provide the cross-cultural experience, if they are going to strive for excellence and search for truth, they require the right to decide whom to teach. If in fact they have a homogeneous student body in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, they can hardly claim to be relevant or providing the stimulus of a cross-cultural experience.

The critical aspect is this: It is not for the hon. the Minister himself nor for me to decide whether that is part of academic freedom or whether it is necessary for a university to have the right to decide whom it shall teach. It is surely a key aspect of the right to self-determination of those universities and the peoples that they represent.

We have heard various fears expressed by Government speakers during the course of this debate. The one is the fear of the White universities being swamped to one degree or another thereby losing their cultural identity or, what the hon. member for Johannesburg West referred to, their group character. I should like to look at the realities in this regard. I hope the hon. the Minister will listen carefully because I think it is terribly important. The hon. member Prof. Olivier on Friday quoted some figures and I should like to take that analysis a bit further.

First of all, I want to refer to the growth that can be expected at the existing universities for the various racial groups. Let us take the years 1978 to 1982, the past four years, as a base period to look at. During that period the University of Durban-Westville grew at a rate of 3, 7% per annum. If it continues to do so, by the year 2000 it will be in a position to admit 9 100 students. The University of the Western Cape grew at 5, 75% per annum and at that rate would in the year 2000 be able to accommodate 10 500 students. The Black universities still under the control of the Department of Education and Training grew, in terms of student enrolment, at an average annual rate of 23% over these four years. To be able to accommodate 26 000 students in the year 2000, which is the upper estimate of the De Lange Committee—its lower estimate was 16 000—these universities would have to grow at less than 5% per annum over that period, as opposed to 23% in the recent past. Just as a comparative figure, if they were to grow only at a rate of 10% per annum, they would be able to accommodate 61 000 students as opposed to an anticipated demand of only 26 000 in the year 2000.

In 1982 some 84 800 White students were enrolled at White universities, and it is projected that by the year 2000 there will be 108 000 White students. That would require these universities to grow at a rate of less than 1,5% per annum, which they are obviously going to achieve very easily. When one looks at the year 2000 and one assumes that all the Indians who want to go to university in the first instance will go to the University of Durban-Westville, that the Coloureds will go to the University of the Western Cape and the Blacks to their universities, one finds the following figures in respect of people in these groups who cannot be accommodated on those growth assumptions: 1 025 Coloureds, 5 195 Asians and zero Blacks. This is obviously an averaging process and there would be certain groups, particularly among the Blacks, who would want to do a particular course which is not provided for at their university and that would require admission to a so-called White university. However, on average, that is the situation.

The fact remains that the fears of the NP that White universities will swamped by students of other races are unjustified and in conflict with the facts. The De Lange Committee, as I pointed out, projected student enrolment for the year 2000. These are their figures: Whites, 108 100; Coloureds, 11 500; Asians, 14 300, and Blacks, 26 100. I have indicated in detail that if one assumes very modest growth in student numbers—about 5%—at Black, Coloured and Asian universities, the number of students of other races at White universities would total a mere 6 200 students or 5,4% of the total enrolment of those universities compared to 5,9% at present. The possibility of the character of White universities changing substantially is thus very remote indeed. Actually, the possibility of White universities being overwhelmed by students of other races is non-existent. Nobody’s cultural identity is going to be threatened by outsiders. So that cannot be advanced as a valid argument. The only thing with which one is left once one discards that, is naked racism, or a deliberate denial of opportunity to some Black, Coloured and Indian students to benefit from education at an open university.

There is the possible argument that Blacks, Coloureds and Asians will not want to attend their own universities and that if one allows a free admission policy, they would actually flock to the so-called White universities. To comment on that, firstly, the practicalities would prevent large numbers gaining admission to White universities. I think that should be common cause. Secondly, the Government cannot have its cake and eat it. Either Blacks want to protect their cultural identity by way of separate universities, or they do not. If they do, there will obviously be no problem as all of this indicates. If they do not, the Government is only talking about enforced ethnicity and cultural identities that people do not want. The Government is forcing this on the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians as population groups and on English-language universities in general. I do not believe that these can be the real fears. One wonders therefore what the real fear is. Is it possibly that open universities may be too successful and so destroy the myths upon which apartheid is based? Or is it the fear that the CP would make capital out of it if the quota system and the permit system were removed and universities were allowed to decide for themselves? I suspect that that is what it is really all about, but neither is a valid reason. I ask the hon. the Minister to think again, to restore university autonomy to all universities in this respect and to give English-speaking South Africans what they are asking for. What English-speaking South Africans, including myself, are asking for is for the freedom to choose for ourselves. English-speaking universities must be given the right to decide for themselves what the specific needs of their communities are. The Government claims to stand for cultural independence and self-determination. The hon. the Minister knows full well that Afrikaners suffered from cultural imperialism earlier this century, but this NP-Government continues to insist on forcing its cultural norms down the throats of English-speaking South Africans. This is something that is bitterly resented and remains a highly divisive factor in our society. Universities are not inanimate objects. They are living organisms. They have souls. The spirit of a free university is easier to feel than to articulate but that spirit is alive and very real. Interference in the affairs of the English-language universities strikes at the heart of the English-speaking community, its language and its cultural heritage. That cultural heritage is not an insular, introspective or inflexible one, and to interfere unnecessarily with the English-language universities threatens the growth and vitality of the English-language culture in South Africa. It is, I believe, an unwarranted and unjust interference in the affairs of a major section of our society.

The hon. the Minister must not underestimate the anger and bitterness that he is causing. The English-language universities detest apartheid. Many churches have declared apartheid to be heresy. Now the Government is demanding that those universities do its dirty work for it, but they defy their own consciences and consciously administer apartheid regulations. There is a fundamental difference between being forced to endure a regulation imposed in terms of an unjust law and being required to become part of the enforcement agency. Universities are there to search for truth. It is unwise, unfair and dangerous to expect academics to compromise their academic integrity by trying to force them to apply racial yardsticks when assessing academic merit.

I would hope that this hon. the Minister would like to be fair and reasonable. I want to ask him therefore to tell his Government to get off the backs of English-speaking South Africans when it comes to language, educational and cultural matters and to grant all universities the autonomy that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens began his speech in a quite respectable fashion. He also confined himself to reasonably statistical arguments until, at the conclusion of his speech, he made those far-fetched statements. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. member that at the conclusion of his speech he was trying to drive a wedge between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in this country. [Interjections.] This is going to have bitter repercussions for him. Let me put it to that hon. member that he is not even speaking on behalf of the English-speaking community in South Africa. [Interjections.] At most he is speaking on behalf of a few “pinks” sitting there with him, but he does not speak on behalf of the English-speaking community of South Africa. [Interjections.] In the course of my speech I shall be coming back to the remark the hon. member made.

When one rereads the debates of 1959, 1969 and 1975, and looks at the speeches made about this matter in this House, it seems as if history has stood completely still since 1959, as if there has been no progress, no increase in the population, no improvement in living standards or increased aspirations, greater humanity or self-realization amongst the various groups in this country. It also seems as if the character of the Republic of South Africa has not changed at all since then. In my view the hon. member for Helderkruin made a beautiful remark here on Friday when he was discussing the speeches made by the PFP. He said that if they stand on the steps of the University of Cape Town, staring out across Cape Town, they see only people. They are obsessed by this apartheid syndrome or the apartheid politics of South Africa. They deny the question of the diversity of South Africa. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has just said it is not so that they do not see these individual groups, but a little later he whipped the mat right out from under his own feet by again indicating that he saw only one solid, uninterrupted bank of people. For 35 years now those hon. members have been wriggling around, in various guises, amongst the voters of South Africa in an attempt to make some progress and obtain some support for their cause. For 35 years now the Government has been given a mandate by the people, specifically because it acknowledges ethnicity, specifically because it acknowledges the diversity of the peoples existing in this country. For 35 years now the Government has been growing and gaining support amongst its people in the sense that this is the way they want to be governed. It is in this light, too that we have put forward our education policy.

The PFP fights against this concept of ethnicity and grouping in university life, but this concept involves nothing more than protecting the will and the opportunities of these people, but also with having them come into their own, develop and grow. Deep in their hearts they have the Oxford/Cambridge snobbishness. If they really want to get somewhere some day, they go to Oxford or Cambridge. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with that, because they are two fine universities. What is it that is so deeply rooted in them? An ideal born of the rich historical heritage of a group of people who, having travelled a long road, have eventually reached the specific living pattern and philosophy of life they have today.

In South Africa we have equipped universities specifically for them, as we have equipped universities solely for the Afrikaans-speaking people. Since the NP came into power, there has been a reasonably steady flow of Afrikaans-speaking people going to English-medium universities, but now we are finding a greater flow of English-speaking people to Afrikaans-medium universities. There are English-speaking families, not only in my consituency, but throughout South Africa, who are sending their children to Afrikaans-medium universities as a result of the liberalization of the English-medium universities. That is, after all, a fact.

It hurts those people to have to send their children to a university where they must first struggle a bit before they get into the stream of things. They send their children to the Afrikaans-medium universities, however, merely because they no longer want to expose their children to what is going on at English-medium universities. So if the Government pulls them up now and then and tells them that we govern in accordance with our own wishes, and are not going to consult them about that because we are governing in accordance with the mandate our people have given us, we are also saying it on behalf of a few thousand English-speaking citizens of South Africa.

I ask myself whether the whole fight going on here, under the leadership of a small group of hon. members of the PFP, does not have its origins in the fact that in order to check the dwindling numbers attending certain universities, the rectors and convocations of those universities are specifically registering students of colour, because it is also important for them—to their own advantage—that they do get a portion of the money voted by Parliament for the universities. Is that not what is behind all this?

Give us just one example of that.

For the sake of the subsidy they are satisfied with people of colour. They hide behind the hon. the Minister as long as he is the one who permits students of colour to be admitted, but as soon as the hon. the Minister wants to grant them the right to make that decision for themselves, they rebel against it. When the hon. the Minister wants to do it, they find fault with it. A short while ago the hon. member for Berea had the following question flung back at him: Which of the two systems do you want? [Interjections.]

There is even a refusal to accept what is new. People are even prepared to incite the student masses to disobey the law. A rector is even prepared, in all his dignity, to lead marches through the streets in order to stir up feelings against the Government. The Government must maintain the social and political structure of the Republic of South Africa and keep order, but they, with personal, ulterior motives, go haring after concepts such as academic freedom. If these people want to live the idyll of using their social, economic and academic head-start to preserve the struggle in South Africa, they are in for a rude awakening. The Government, in governing the country, bears these realities in mind and does so with one eye on the future. The Government must ensure that in this country we live in accordance with a lawful and orderly pattern, and must also ensure the country’s stable development. The PFP is not really interested in governing. It just wants to be an opposition. During the 1981 election the only slogan on their posters was: “Vote for a real Opposition”, because they do not want to govern. Now, however, they sit here making so much noise that one would think they were governing the country.

The hon. member for Pinelands uses concepts such as “naked racism” and accuses us of Nazism, adherence to Hitler-type philosophies and the restriction of people’s freedom. Where are we restricting people’s freedom?

Do you not know what a quota system means?

Those are irresponsible remarks to make in this country. The day people begin their stone-throwing, does the hon. member think he will be able to take to his heels and say “I am English”? Those stones will also be aimed at him.

The NP’s concept of the diversity of people and the building up of the individual national characters of groups has a long history. At that time English-language universities were already in existence. It was chiefly as a result of the NP’s efforts that Afrikaans-speaking universities came into being. The NP also laid the foundation for Black universities. This Government laid the foundations for the university for the Brown people and the university for the Asians. When one consults the annals of Parliament, one sees that all these things were fought tooth and nail by the Opposition. Today those institutions are fine monuments in our country. What I find ludicrous is the fact that last Wednesday both those parties were crooning out their praises for the legislation on the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape. They extolled the fact that those institutions were gaining their independence. They crooned out their support for these people. What are they doing today, however? Surely one cannot simultaneously dish out compliments and curses for the existence of one and the same entity.

We are now in the year 1983, and I want to move a little closer to the arguments of the CP. They are aware of the fact that we are not in a financial position to make provision, on a 13-fold basis, for the regional needs of each group. Then we would, in any case, still only have the covering under which to house these people. We would not yet have the necessary manpower. The dire need to create, for each of these communities, facilities adequate to their needs, will surely not be possible in the foreseeable future. I think the hon. member for Brakpan made quite a reasonable speech on Friday. He said, however, that they would merely meet the needs of the various groups “as far as possible”. He did not say what he meant by the expression “as far as possible”. He said they would grant assistance as far as possible, but he did not qualify his statement. He said that there are permits for certain circumstances, but he did not say what those circumstances were. He does, however, level an accusation at the hon. member for Innesdal to the effect that universities are now being thrown open. That is not true. The hon. member for Innesdal said that State universities belonged to us all, but he did not allege that we were throwing open all universities. In speaking about these matters, I must say that we have not yet found out what the policy of that party is. Last week I listened to what the hon. member for Meyerton had to say, someone for whom I have developed great respect in this House, and what was it he was actually saying? He said that he went walking around in the Bergs with the NP manual, thereby acknowledging that he himself had nothing to say. He said that he quoted to the people from the NP manual to install doubt in the voters. He talked himself into doubting himself until doubt was all he had left.

What are you talking about now?

I am talking of a speech the hon. member for Meyerton made. The hon. member for Langlaagte had nothing to do with that. The hon. member for Lichtenburg was so embarrassed he could not move a muscle, and today he is not even here. The hon. member for Lichtenburg had thousands of Blacks enrolled in White universities by permit, enough of them to have started a brand new Black university. I myself was present in this House when the hon. member, with great excitement and enthusiasm, brought Vista University into being by way of legislation. He spoke of the fine future that awaited that university. That was in October 1981. On 22 February 1982 he packed his bags, walked out and left his policy for other people to implement.

The NP believes in self-determination. The NP believes in group universities. The NP believes in the existence of minority groups, each with its own culture, but also believes that we want to find strength in our diversity. We see dangers in an uncontrolled stream of people pouring into our universities. I want to tell the hon. members of the PFP that they must not think that with their opening up of the universities and their enrolment of people of colour in White universities they are going to open up the social structure in South Africa. My dear departed father once told me that one does not mend a puncture with a dropper. Hon. members of the PFP will not be able to prise open the social structure in South Africa by these means. That is why I believe that the hon. the Minister will take a close and responsible look at the composition of group universities.

He is warning you, Gerrit. He is saying: So far and no further.

I think that we also believe in the concept of universities having to be given responsibility, believe in the fact that each one will know, in terms of his local circumstances, what is best for him. One cannot, from now onwards, prescribe each and every step that universities must take. I think that the hon. the Minister’s principle of also giving universities the responsibility of arranging their own affairs is a sound one. The few universities objecting to this legislation are afraid of the day when they will have to take this responsibility upon themselves. What else is involved here? Nowhere in this legislation is it stated that universities “must” open their doors. Nowhere in this legislation is a specific quota specified. The most that is said in the legislation is that they can enrol those students if they want to.

This brings me to the hon. member for Kuruman. The hon. member for Kuruman made a terrible fuss here. Only at the end of his speech did he ask the hon. the Minister to tell him what he intended to do with this legislation, and what percentages were going to be applied to each of the universities. The hon. member does not even know that, yet he nevertheless carries on as if all universities are going to be opened up and as if there is going to be an enrolment figure of 10%. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that when a rector of a university makes irresponsible statements and says, for example, that he is not prepared to do the Government’s dirty work for it the hon. the Minister should tell such a rector to do one of two things. Either he must hang up his gown and enter the political arena in an attempt to force the Government to take the course he wants it to take, or he should, as a paid official of his university, who is also dependent on the Government for the financing of his university, take heed of what he is actually saying when he makes statements of this kind against the Government of his country. Academics who want to employ so-called freedom of thought to get at the Government of the country, must also take note of the fact that this is definitely not what we mean when we speak of academic freedom and the search for truth; the actual reasons why students ought to be at university.

I should like to support the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, earlier on today the hon. member for Kuruman quoted a statement made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I should also like to refer to that again, since it will from the basis of what is said and done in future debates, in the debate we are engaged in today, as well as in other discussions we are having at present. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said that he would have liked the hon. member for Kuruman to have used another term for ethnic university (volksuniversiteit), since we no longer speak of ethnic universities. Coming from the hon. member for Stellenbosch, of course, this statement does not surprise me in the least.

By the way, I just want to remind the hon. member for Stellenbosch of a meeting we attended together a few weeks ago; a meeting held at the University of Stellenbosch. The hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Durban Point were also present. It was a meeting organized by the Department of Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch. We had fairly in-depth discussions there that afternoon. Of course, I was not a very active participant in the discussions. I did not feel quite at home in that select leftist circle assembled there. [Interjections.] What was interesting, however, was that the hon. member for Stellenbosch had to do the spade-work in the discussion to explain the proposed new constitutional dispensation in South Africa. The Coloured leaders, Mr. Julius, Mr. Peter Marais and Mr. David Curry were present too. The hon. member for Stellenbosch would probably recall that the demands of the above-mentioned three Coloured leaders amounted to Stellenbosch becoming a university exclusively for the members of that particular nation, as Messrs. Curry, Marais and Julius saw it. Today I want to tell the hon. member for Stellenbosch that on that particular occasion he deserved at least three or four candles, as the hon. member for Bryanston would put it, for his explanation of the new constitutional proposals. He adopted a very left-wing approach in his explanation, and he did not take much notice of me either. [Interjections.] Of course, I can understand that, Mr. Speaker. I can very well understand why the hon. member for Stellenbosch no longer wants to speak of ethnic universities; why he would rather call it a national university (nasie-universiteit). In fact, the hon. member for Johannesburg West said that the prayer should no longer be worded in such a way as to include any reference to a “volk” either. Likewise, I assume that “die volkslied” will in future be knows as “die nasielied”. This fully accords with the views of the governing party. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Stellenbosch should take cognizance of the fact that during the past few weeks I have been addressing meetings at Stellenbosch on quite a regular basis. [Interjections.] I want him to know that there is a new spirit abroad in Stellenbosch; a spirit that will lead to the revival of the old ideal for the fulfilment of which the University of Stellenbosch was initially established. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the present Bill, the various parties in this House have to formulate their views, in the political idiom and in political language, of course, on the essence of a university, what they believe the functions of a university to be, what they understand by the autonomy of a university, by academic freedom, and all the other concepts associated with a university as an age-old institution in Western society. The difference in the standpoints of the various parties has already become very clear in the debates we have been conducting here since last week. We all accept that there is a diversity of groups of people, if I could use that relatively vague term, in Southern Africa. Certain universities have been established, White universities in particular, and I think we agree that each of these universities has a particular history, a particular background and particular ideals, as they acquired their own particular characteristics in the Southern African situation. It was in fact the post Second World War, founders of the NP whose principles were based on the one hand on the recognition of diversity in Southern Africa, and on the very strong ideal of establishing the Whites as a group on the other, who advocated universities for the Coloured community, the Indians and the various Black peoples. The CP still adheres to those principles today.

It has also become very clear from the debate that there are three broad streams of thought in regards to what the essence and function of a university in South Africa is. The middle stream is not very strong, but I shall come to the governing party in a moment. There has also been a liberal standpoint and a conservative view of political ideology, as far as the universities in South Africa are concerned. It is very clear to those of us who have followed, and participated in, the debate on universities in South Africa since the fifties, that there are these two standpoints, viz. the liberal and the conservative standpoints. It has been clear in the debate thus far that the PFP—and the hon. member for Green Point pointed this out in an earlier debate—adheres to a liberal standpoint with regard to universities. Regardless of whether they have done it well or badly, they have followed the old pattern we have come to know since the ’fifties. The CP has stated the standpoint that was stated by the old NP during the ’fifties and the early ’sixties.

No.

Then the standpoint of the Government is the standpoint of the erstwhile United Party. I shall come back to that at a later stage. I just want to say that the PFP’s view on universities is linked to an open society in South Africa in which there must be no laws that draw any distinction on the basis of race, colour, religion, etc. According to them, there should be no laws of that nature, but rather a completely open society. In a year or two this debate will once again be one between the PFP and the CP. Then we can again debate the true principles of this matter. Today, however, I want to leave it at that as far as the hon. members of the PFP are concerned, since I want to confine myself to the governing party.

The subject of this Bill became vitally important in the study groups of the NP, particularly after the report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission was published and the NP study group had studied it and began discussing it. At that time, because I was aware of both the liberal and the conservative news, as they had begun emerging within the NP as well, I had specific problems I wanted to discuss in the inner circle of the party. It subsequently became apparent that the left wing of the NP, in particular, did not really want to bring their standpoints, on certain essential questions which were put to them, out into the open. When one reflects on the politics of the past decade, it is clear to one why we were not permitted to conduct that debate within the NP. That, to a certain extent, is the background to the struggle that is in progress between the CP and the NP. Now it is interesting—I want to tell the hon. member for Standerton this and then leave it at that—that during the past year or 15 months that hon. member has often stood up in this House and entered into a debate with this side of the House, but not by way of arguments on principle or policy. He has never addressed himself solely to me. The hon. member often resorted to the old unsavoury kind of politics of attacking someone about what he supposedly said in a telephone conversation or in a particular circle and then taking the argument from there. He did this again last week in respect of certain standpoints we adopted. However, the facts he gave were only partially correct, and as is usual nowadays, the Nasionale Pers columnists snatched this up and drew a whole lot of inferences from it. I want to remind the hon. member that Haman once had a gallows built for Mordecai. We will see who will eventually hang from those particular gallows in the future political debate. The hon. member seems poised to ask me a question, but I do not want to discuss this with him now.

You made me out to be a liar.

Where is Tom?

The former hon. member for Waterkloof is at present busily engaged in making sure that he will be the next member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister disagrees with me, let him ask his bumptious Minister to resign again.

I now come to the hon. the Minister. In a previous debate on legislation pertaining to culture, I tried to show the hon. the Minister what his political philosophy was approximately a decade ago.

Quote correctly this time.

We shall have a nice discussion about that. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are still going to have many debates on this. He will not be in public life for very much longer, but we will still have many discussions on that subject. At the time I put a very simple question to the hon. the Minister, viz. when did he really become actively involved with the NP? My remark to the hon. the Minister was not meant in any derogatory way. The hon. the Minister gave me a very terse reply, however. I assume he answered in this way because he thought I had asked him a snide question. I want to tell him that that was not the spirit in which I meant it. The Hon. the Minister, however, replied to my question in a manner typical of the present establishment within the NP. I want to remind him of that today. He replied as follows—

The hon. the Minister is a man of science. He was a good scientist. His problem, however, is that he has exchanged the old values and principles he learnt in science for the cheap way in which the leader of the NP, the Hon. the Prime Minister, conducts politics in South Africa. Bearing in mind what the hon. the Minister said about me, I want to tell him that if he wants to make a contribution to present-day politics, he should confine himself to the style and principles he adhered to 10 or 12 years ago.

You want to teach me, but you cannot even quote correctly.

If, in fact, the hon. the Minister has changed, however, does he stand by that? Let us consider what the hon. the Minister went on to say. Referring to me, he asked: What has he really achieved in the concrete sense and what has he to show for his years of service besides the fact that he represents a constituency? He then went on to say: What has he to show for this? The hon. the Minister then wrote his own testimonial when he said—

That is the royal we—

The hon. the Minister also calls the CP names, although he only does so in academic language. He said the following—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister—and this is what the debate on universities is all about—that for more than three and a half centuries the struggle of this people has been a struggle against White liberals. It has been a struggle between Nationalists and their now fellow-countrymen who left the path of nationalism and began pursuing the paths of liberalism. I therefore want to tell the hon. the Minister that the culture of the Afrikaner, White culture in this Southern-most country, was established by those people who carried the principles of nationalism deep within them. They were threatened by the White liberals. The hon. the Minister must now choose which new path he wants to follow. As regards ethnic universities, as we see it, I want the hon. the Minister to recall what his standpoint was in respect of the concepts nation (nasie), people (volk), etc., in this country. We debated this last week, and I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what he said. In an address to the Afrikaanse Studentebond he said, and I quote—

That is Prime Minister Vorster—

The hon. the Minister subsequently said that he stood by that.

Of course.

Would the hon. the Minister repeat what he said? Does he still stand by what he said here, that the Coloureds are a separate nation, separate from the Whites?

They are a nation in the making, a constitutional concept.

What is very interesting about this kind of argument, however, is … [Interjections.]

Once again you are only citing half the facts …

No, I am quoting the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister must give me the opportunity of quoting these passages to him. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what he wrote in Die Burger at that time.

What has this to do with the Bill?

The debate thus far has been about the question of universities for particular peoples and groups, and the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Stellenbosch is that there is no longer anything like an ethnic university. In other words. Stellenbosch, where the hon. the Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development studied, is no longer an ethnic university. [Interjections.] Allow me to quote what the hon. the Minister wrote in Die Burger. [Interjections.] It is interesting. I do not want to quote the entire letter now, nor do I want to quote selectively. After all, I do not have the time to do so. The hon. the Minister wrote the following in Die Burger—

The hon. the Minister adopts a standpoint, but the moment he is attacked on that standpoint, it is the other person who is misrepresenting it. The hon. the Minister does the same thing to me. I quote further—

That is Prime Minister Vorster—

Then the hon. the Minister went on to refer to Mr. S. P. Cilliers, Prof. Hennie Kotzé and so on. Now I want to tell the hon. the Minister—he is shaking his head now because he does not want to understand this—that in every debate we conduct on this matter, whether it be here or outside, we shall always be reminding each other of our past. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg West that he can go ahead and submit his proposals on his “nasielied” and his “nasiegebed” to the Constitutional Committee. To the hon. the Minister I want to say—this is what the debates are all about and that is why we do not trust the NP—that there are many things the NP can no longer be trusted with, including the universities of this country.

The hon. the Minister is on the way to a new nation with this dispensation he is advocating. This new nation and the universities for this new nation remind me very much of the magazine Dr. Dennis Worrall published at one time, viz. New Nation. It is very interesting to compare the ideas that appeared in some of the articles in New Nation with the ideas of the new NP today. The CP stands for separate universities in this country. We also acknowledge that all universities have their own particular and inherent historical character. I shall come back to this point at a later stage. There has also always been an inherent conflict in the view on universities held by the English-language universities, which has not been the case with the Afrikaans-language universities. Furthermore, our standpoint is that a university is, in a sense, the last step in educational process, which begins with primary education and ends with tertiary education. The university should also aim at serving a particular ethnic community. The standpoint of the old NP, and the present-day standpoint of the CP, is that there could be universities—and I should like to refer to my friends in the PFP in this regard—that would meet all the requirements of a university and would be best equipped to train people who, depending on their specific disciplines, could render a scientifically exact service to a particular community. Separate universities, as we see it, and as they have emerged in South Africa, have also been of benefit to “world science”, and we are also contributing to that “world science”. The fact that one has a university which is set aside for a particular group, under certain circumstances, does not make that university less scientific, nor does it make the people it trains lesser scientists in comparison with those from other universities. I have a definite standpoint as far as that is concerned. I have also visited universities overseas—perhaps not as many as the hon. the Minister—and I have spoken to the lecturers and students there, and against the background of my own studies, I do not think the University of Pretoria need take a back seat to any other university. It may possibly lack things like money and may not have a very long history, but as far as the students we have trained are concerned, we need not take a back seat to any other university in the world. It has always been the standpoint of the old NP, and is also the standpoint of the CP, that we in South Africa, as the people who brought White civilization to this country, have always made the services of our people available to other population groups in order to teach them the basic facts of a particular science. The CP would like to do this, and we shall do so when we take over the Government. After all, there is contact between academics and between universities, but the point we feel very strongly about, is that we cannot allow the sovereignty, historical character and nature of the universities that have been established here within a particular ethnic environment to be affected. This could be done without harming science as such, and without selfishly withholding the knowledge one has from other students or other universities; and conversely, without being placed in a position in which one questions the scientific truths, if I may put it that way, of other universities. One could regulate this in such a way, however, as not to cause one any problems.

There is conflict in South Africa between the liberal standpoint on universities and the conservative way of thinking in that regard. That is true. We cannot explain that away. If the PFP were to come to power, it would in fact make laws with regard to the universities of South Africa which would clash with the ideas of a large section of the White population. If, however, the PFP were to come to power, I think they would have every right to introduce that legislation. Our ideas would clash. The converse is also true, however. The CP is not shying away from that fact. We are not intent on creating conflict in university communities, but as far as the more liberal universities are concerned we would at least make an effort to prevent the basic elements of a university being fragmented to such an extent that the real function of the English-language universities is affected. This is, however, a matter we shall discuss again in a year or two.

Can they co-exist?

I think they can co-exist when there are certain other elements present. I think we have seen this in South Africa over the past few decades. Despite that conflict, I keys has always done good work. Wits and all the other universities have also done good work. [Interjections.] That conflict will continue to exist, although I think every responsible Government would want to minimize that conflict, but I do not think they would eliminate it.

I now come to clause 9. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this clause amounts to “bussing by quota”. We now find that the National Party is bringing students of other population groups into our Afrikaans universities and other universities in a way that does not seem to be obligatory. If there were a rector, a senate or a university council that opposed this while the governing party was in power, the governing party, together with its Press, would intimidate those people to such an extent that they would be obliged to give in eventually.

It is quite true that for different reasons we and the PFP are unhappy about this legislation. The PFP says that this legislation does not go the whole way; there should be no quota and many other things should be abolished. They are therefore saying that it is completely unsatisfactory in terms of the liberal view of a university. We in the CP also find it completely unsatisfactory, since we have another view, the old view the hon. the Minister would perhaps have adopted—I do not want to put words into his mouth—in the years when he was not unsympathetic towards a geographic dispensation for the Coloureds.

Perhaps he will find his feet again.

Well, one should never write someone off completely. I have learnt that much from politics. The hon. the Minister could change in decode-long cycles; perhaps he will feel differently by 1991.

This legislation is not purely university legislation, since it also forms part of the Government’s constitutional plan. Moreover, the constitutional dispensation the Government envisages for South Africa is not only applicable in the constitutional sphere; it must also create a completely new social order of the kind the hon. members of the PFP want in terms of their view of a constitution. That is why I am saying that the change we are dealing with in terms of this Bill forms part of a change the Government not only wants to bring about in the constitutional sphere, but also in creating a new nation in Southern Africa consisting of Coloureds, Whites and Indians, whatever the consequences may be. We shall debate this matter on another occasion, however.

It is part of the new NP plan—I am saying this to the hon. the Minister in all earnestness—to assail, on the one hand, the old, established characteristics unique to the Afrikaner.

Who is the Afrikaner?

I am pleased that the hon. member is present. That is, since the columnist from Die Burger is able to hear what he is saying. The other day the hon. member also made an interjection, and I want to place this on record now: That hon. member, who so glibly accuses us of adhering to national-socialism, must remember that Dr. Malan was called a “Malan Nazi”. All those who stood by Dr. Malan know who said that about him.

Is the Afrikaner a different “people” from the Whites? [Interjections.]

The very essence of Afrikaner institutions, which were established in this Southernmost tip of the country in the midst of struggles and under the banner of idealism, in fact under the most difficult circumstances, are, like many other institutions, being assailed by the hon. the Minister and his party. Apart from that, this not only affects our institutions, but also causes frustration in the English-language universities. There is still dis-satisfaction and conflict regarding this matter. Earlier the hon. member for Lichtenburg asked the hon. the Prime Minister what his vision for the future was, where-upon he replied that his vision embodied good relations. As far as universities are concerned, this legislation is causing an increasing amount of conflict among ourselves and amongst more liberally-minded individuals. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik referred at the beginning of his speech to the speech made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch on Friday and said that the statements made today would form the basis for the discussions of tomorrow. In saying that, he was implying that he would quote the statements that had been made in his future discussions. This is a good thing. After all, we often quote what was said in the past. However, I believe that the hon. member for Rissik should rather say that the things that are done by the Government, in other words, the actions taken in terms of its policy, are important for the discussions of tomorrow and the day after. I should like the hon. member for Waterberg to listen to this. If we take this as a basis for our future discussions, I want to refer to something which happened when the hon. member for Waterberg was Deputy Minister of Plural Relations. A letter was sent to his office concerning the residence of L. W. Matanzima, son of the Prime Minister of Transkei, on the campus on the University of Cape Town. In this letter, the University of Cape Town indicated that the applicant would be accommodated in a single room in one of the residences where he would share all other facilities with fellow students. In view of the special circumstances of the case, they requested that a recommendation be made, firstly, that he be allowed to reside on the campus, and secondly, that the authority should apply only to the current academic year. On 25 April 1979, the hon. member for Waterberg sent the approval and wrote in his own hand—

It is not only our statements, but also the things we do that we shall have to account for in days to come.

The hon. member for Rissik made a great fuss about the standpoint of the NP and the implementation of its policy. I want to ask the hon. member who ever prevented him from stating his standpoint in a caucus or during a group discussion. I know nothing about it, but I also want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg who ever prevented him from stating his standpoint in the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

Do you know anything about the Cabinet?

I specifically said that I did not know anything about the Cabinet, but I take it that if the hon. member for Waterberg was not happy about this situation—he does not seem to feel happy about it—he was forced to react in this way. What is quite clear to me is that the hon. member for Rissik said a very true thing the day he walked out of the Van der Hof Hall in Pretoria, the day they got that hiding and the hon. member for Jeppe miscalculated so badly in the sums he made. Now one can understand why that hon. member said, as he was leaving the hall, that it was the happiest day of his life. It was the hon. member for Rissik who said that, and I heard it. He said that it was the happiest day of his life. In other words, when we see this and all the other things revealed in this way, like a scenario, it is clear that some people had been living a lie. The hon. member for Rissik said a short while ago that White nationalism was being threatened by White liberalism.

Is it not true?

It is true, but it is not all that is true. White nationalism is also being threatened, among other things, by White radicalism, of the left and of the right.

In Waterberg Mr. Jaap Marais had a poster which said “Stem Jaap in die Volksraad”. If a person from outside had been listening to the debates in this House today and during the past few days, he would have wondered what was going on here. He would have had reason to ask: Has Jaap been voted into Parliament, then? References are continually being made in this House to a “new” NP, but there is a new HNP sitting here which has also taken the AWB under its wing. [Interjections.] It is very clear that every argument of the CP is concerned with one thing only; it revolves around one thing only, and that is White self-determination. There is no question in their minds of other people in this country also having a right to self-determination. The CP is practising a technique of withdrawal, just like the tortoise which is its emblem. They are practising a laager technique; they want to close their ranks. However, what will happen? With their head drawn into their shell, they will run up against reality and be destroyed by it, the reality of the circumstances under which we have to do and plan things in this country. However, the sun of reality will rise for them and then they will be scorched. Then they will not accuse the NP of not having involved them in the matter, because they were used to be involved in the plan based on reality which we are implementing, a plan in terms of which we are doing nothing more than we know to be necessary and important for self-determination, but with due regard to those things which one cannot ignore under the circumstances of this country. The hon. members of the CP seemed to be satisfied, but now we discover that they were not satisfied at all. During the debate on the Manpower Vote, the hon. member for Brakpan admitted that they had regretfully agreed. Their agreement was always regretful; we are now discovering that. Now, more than ever before, we are satisfied that the decision to establish community-orientated universities was correct and that the policy in this connection was also correct. The NP is engaged in a process of equalization in this country because, with regard to education, it wishes everyone to have …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik really should pay attention. He is sitting over there grinning. He should rather pay attention. [Interjections.] The NP wishes other people in this country to have those things which we demand for ourselves. [Interjections.] However, the position here is the same as it is in regard to the question of power-sharing, which the hon. members of the CP got so worked up about. We are not engaged in the process of equalization in the political and constitutional sphere, as the PFP wishes us to be. One thing is quite clear to us; one thing which we shall have to impress on the public as well. Incidentally, it is something which hon. members of the CP also seem to be satisfied with. This is that we shall have to understand the fact in this country that there are good reasons why provision will have to be made for the occasional utilization by people of colour of university facilities traditionally used only by Whites. The same applies to the universities for people of colour. There, too, the opportunity will have to be created for Whites to utilize the facilities of those universities, or the possibility will have to be created for them to share in the existing facilities at those institutions.

Bearing in mind the fact that it is not possible to institute study courses for students in every conceivable field at every university, we shall have to deal with this problem in a different way, as we have incidentally been doing up to now. The hon. member for Lichtenburg repeatedly gave his approval for this in the past. Therefore we shall have to go on in this way and to continue the process of cross-fertilization to which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will have to start working on his own cross-fertilization again. In fact, this will apply to every future Government, no matter who is in power.

A great deal has been said about autonomy in this debate so far; especially the autonomy of universities. The Government has a responsibility to its subjects. However, the Government also expects its subjects to behave responsibly, and this also applies to situations where those subjects sit on executive bodies established by this Parliament. Therefore every executive body which has the autonomous power to take decisions with regard to the matter which it serves must do so. In spite of the fact that it has the autonomous power to do so, it must also do so within the framework of the guidelines laid down by the governing party. This is beyond dispute. It would even be the case if the PFP were in power. We cannot argue about this, for after all, the PFP, too, would not allow an instrument created by Parliament to deviate from the prescribed course of action while it was in power.

I am sorry that the hon. member Prof. Olivier is not present at the moment. He made quite a number of statements and also asked a few questions. One of the statements which he made was that by the time we reached the stage where universities had been opened to all, society would already have accepted this. This is what the hon. member says. The hon. member for Bryanston nods his head. He sincerely believes that he wants all universities to be opened to all, that he wants the whole world to be opened to all so that there will no longer be any measures which bring about separation. As far as he is concerned, there is no such thing as community needs in any context whatsoever. How can the hon. member say, however, that the electorate would have accepted it by that time? The hon. member has probably been advocating it for years, but what has the result been? The result is sitting over there, and that is the way it will remain. Therefore it is not acceptable to the electorate. The hon. member Prof. Olivier also asked …

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

No, Sir. The hon. member for Greytown was fast asleep while his colleague was speaking, and now he wants to interrupt me. The hon. member Prof. Olivier asked whether English-language universities had lost their English character as a result of the admission of people of colour. Of course not, because there is only a small group of people of colour at the universities. However, it would have been different if between 50% and 60% of the students at the University of Cape Town had been Blacks or members of other race groups.

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

No, Sir.

Where are they going to come from?

The official Opposition argues from the point of view that multinationalism does not exist, although the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens admitted this afternoon that there was in fact such a thing as multinationalism.

There are also tables, trees, etc.

I should like to know what the newspapers that support them are going to say tomorrow, because they have also made some other statements. The official Opposition thinks that this process of total equalization could be easily brought about and just as easily implemented. However, if they ever came into power they would not be able to behave any differently from the way in which the NP is behaving today on the basis of what the NP has to accept as facts today.

Mr. Speaker, in the minute or so left to me before the supper break, I should like to put a question to the hon. members of the CP. It seems that according to them the presence of non-White students at White universities is a temporary phenomenon which would be phased out in the course of time. Is that correct?

Yes, in a certain way.

What does that mean? Will they be phased out and sent to other universities or not?

As soon as the facilities are there.

You see, Sir, that is the problem we have with these hon. members. I believe that this also used to be the policy of the NP.

We have nothing to do with them.

This is just as valid a question for the NP. Is it the policy of the NP to phase out the non-White students at White universities if and when facilities become available elsewhere? That is the problem we have had right through this debate, Sir. Nobody wants to debate the issues we raise or answer our questions. Perhaps the hon. member for Mossel Bay will tell me what the policy of the NP is regarding, let us say, Indian children who live in the Cape. Is it their policy to send them to the University of Durban-Westville? What about Coloured children who live in Natal? Is it their policy to send all of them to the Cape?

You ask me because I am the only one who shows you the courtesy of listening to you.

It is a very straightforward question. Are all the Coloured children in Natal going to be sent to the Western Cape? Sir, I get no answer. If that is their policy, who is going to pay? Must the students themselves find the money to come, or must their parents find the money? Alternatively, are we going to have another Coloured university in Natal? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will answer this question later on.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before we broke for dinner tonight I was busy bemoaning the fact that in this debate we have not actually got to grips with the Government on important issues which have been raised by this side of the House. We have not received answers to the arguments we put forward. I certainly hope that during the rest of the debate we will get some answers.

I should like to recap very briefly on a few points to ensure that my understanding of a few things is clear. I understand from the speeches of a number of hon. members on that side, including the hon. member for Johannesburg West and the speech last night by the hon. member for Gezina, that the Government regards it as its responsiblity …

Where were you last night?

I mean Friday afternoon. [Interjections.] I understand from these speeches that the Government regards it as its responsibility to ensure that each university maintains its own separate character. Is there anybody on the Government side who could answer that? Is this correct? [Interjections.] I am trying to get an answer because that is how I have understood it. If it is wrong, then someone must tell me later on. We on this side of the House do not see it that way at all. We do not see why it is necessary that there should be a law to ensure that a university maintains its own particular character. I have been associated with one university, the University of Natal, and I have the fullest confidence in the senate and council of that university to maintain those standards and characteristics which they believe are important. I do not see why a law is necessary. I have full confidence in the council of that university.

What I find ironic is that it is the English-speaking universities that have accepted most Black students. The hon. member Prof. Olivier quoted the figures the other day in the House. It is also the English-speaking universities who are raising objections to this particular Bill. So clearly the English-speaking universities do not feel that they are losing whatever character or whatever traditions they consider important. They are not bothered about it at all. So why the Government should try to force this legislation on the English-speaking universities, we do not know.

They are afraid of us.

That is probably quite true. Hopefully we will get some response to this.

Another point which Government speakers have made frequent mention of is the question of South Africa being a country with a diversity of communities. This has been mentioned by the hon. member for Helderkruin and a number of other hon. members. The argument follows that one should have separate universities to cater for each community. Again we do not agree with this. We do not dispute the fact that there is a diversity of communities in South Africa, but having separate universities for every community to our way of thinking does not make sense. We think it would be far more fruitful if universities could perform the function of bringing communities together and of getting people to understand one another better and to know one another better. Universities should start building the bridges between communities that we need. We do have a divided society, and where better to start than at this particular level? University life, I believe, can be enriched by contact with other cultural groups and other communities. I do not see why any university needs to fear this. Unfortunately, this is something which the hon. members of the CP fear, as we saw from the speech of the hon. member for Rissik today. However, the hon. the Minister himself, of all people, should know this—I believe he was a student who, at one stage, had a scholarship to Cambridge and who also attended the University of Leyden in Holland—how important this is in university life. Why cannot the universities be left to regulate and control this themselves? It is ignorance that breeds prejudice and fear of the other groups, and separate universities only serve to perpetuate this. I have friends and colleagues at other universities in this country and I know that the idea of separate universities and perpetuating this idea of separate universities only provides hot-beds for radicalism, prejudice and dislike between groups.

Mr. Speaker, a third point that we have raised during this debate, is the fact that the universities themselves are now going to have to apply apartheid legislation. Unfortunately, hon. members on the Government side do not seem to understand this point. As things stand right now, a university can in fact accept anybody it likes on the criteria which it may choose to set.

Up to 10%.

No, not up to 10%. However, with the new legislation, it is the universities themselves that are going to have to apply a selection process based on racial criteria. We cannot support this type of legislation and the hon. the Minister himself knows the problems that this is going to create for many universities. He was an academic himself. Many of the rectors of other universities were colleagues of his: he knows them and he knows that they have deep-seated feelings against applying this type of principle. These feelings that they have are not necessarily based on political criteria; they are based on their strongly held belief in academic freedom. Of course, something else that the hon. the Minister should also know, is that our universities generally have a good standing in international communities. There is generally a fairly free exchange between academics of the different universities. He should also know that we have enemies outside the country who are using any opportunity they have to try to attack us. This Bill provides them with more ammunition and it also makes life increasingly difficult for our academics in terms of getting scholarships, in terms of overseas travel and in terms of sabbatical posts.

Another argument which we have raised and to which no one on the Government side has responded, is that the Government seems to be afraid that the White universities will be swamped. The hon. member for Berea has pointed out a second best alternative that could overcome this problem and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has gone to some trouble with statistics to show that this is not really a problem at all. Up to now, no hon. member on the other side has responded to this particular argument. Therefore we shall be interested to hear the response thereto.

Another point that I want to raise is once again the question of the admission of Blacks to White universities. Just to mention overall statistics, there were 4 854 non-White students and 33 500 White students at the four main English-medium White universities in 1982. At the five main Afrikaans-medium unversities, there were 212 non-White students as against 48 500 White students. This points out one fact very clearly: The Afrikaans universities do apply racial criteria in their selection policies. There is no doubt about that. In fact, from my conversations with various academics whom I know at various Afrikaans universities, I can say that this does cause embarrassment in the international field. The question asked is: “Why is it that so few Blacks are registered at your universities? Is this because you have some sort of racial policy of selection?” In their whole student body of about 17 000, Pretoria University, for example, has only two. This Bill changes the whole situation from the point of view of these universities. What they can say now is that it is not they who are applying the racial criteria in regard to selection of students. They will say that they have no choice and that it is the Government that has set limits with regard to the number of non-White students they can admit. They can say that they are no longer involved and they can place the blame elsewhere. This then will place them in the same position as that in which the English-language universities find themselves but for entirely different reasons. This then means that the English-language and Afrikaans-language universities will be tarred with the same brush.

I know that the English-language universities would rather that this were not the case. If the Afrikaanse-language universities wish to apply racially oriented selection criteria, let them do so but let them then be seen to be doing so on their own. However, do not force the English-language universities be included in the condemnation of the rest of the world in respect of something that they do not want at all.

I believe that right throughout this debate we have not been given the real reasons as to why this Bill has been introduced. A large number of arguments have been advanced but I believe that the Government is too ashamed to debate the real reason as to why they want this legislation to be adopted. The real reason for the introduction of this legislation is so that they can continue the implementation of their apartheid policy. We have no doubt on that score at all. I have been looking for some evidence of this and I have read a number of books in this connection. I have a quotation here from a book that was written by the hon. the Minister himself entitled Ideaal en Werklikheid. I should like to make a short quotation from page 62 of this particular book where the hon. the Minister has this to say—

I can only assume that the hon. the Minister still clings to that view as his underlying philosophy. My point of view is that open universities or universities that are able to exercise or apply their own selection criteria represent the integration fears that he expresses in this particular quotation. They also seem to represent the wedge which the hon. member for Brentwood in his speech this afternoon also seemed to fear so much. We will be interested to know whether the hon. the Minister still stands by that philosophy.

In conclusion I should like to sum up by saying that there are certain questions put by hon. members on this side of the House to which I hope the hon. the Minister will soon be replying. The first of these is why cannot each university be allowed to maintain the character it sees fit? We are not suggesting that all universities should be exactly the same. There are various communities in this country and various universities will obviously be able to cater for them in the ordinary course of events. Why cannot they be left to run things as they see fit? Secondly, why has this legislation to be pushed through? The hon. the Minister who is a university man, as I have mentioned earlier on, realizes the problems which this is creating for some universities. He must also realize the problems which this is creating in the international community.

Thirdly I hope the hon. the Minister is going to reply to our arguments on the question of the universities being swamped because we do not believe this is going to be the case. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens gave statistics and the hon. member for Berea gave an alternative solution to that problem. [Interjections.] I may just repeat that the question with which I am dealing at the moment concerns the overcrowding or the swamping of White universities.

The fourth point brings me back to what I have said earlier on. I want to know why we must all conform to the same pattern. Is this because the English-speaking universities are in fact being made unwilling allies in a policy of which they do not want to be part?

For those reasons we cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my experience this debate to which I must reply is a very formidable one. The debate has extended over a long period and a great many hon. members have taken part in it. I want to begin by conveying my cordial thanks to the hon. members on this side of the House who supported the legislation. I refer to the hon. member for Virginia, the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, the hon. members for Kimberley North, Pretoria East, Stellenbosch, Helderkruin, Gezina, Standerton, Johannesburg West, Brentwood and Rustenburg. I think that the hon. members on the other side who formed something of a phalanx to oppose the Bill, will all be replied to in due course when I reply to the debate as a whole.

To begin with, I want to draw attention to the fact that the debate has centred around clause 9, to the virtual exclusion of anything else. Except for the hon. member for Gezina, who also referred to the Joint Matriculation Board and spoke about the importance of maintaining standards there, not a single hon. member referred to other clauses.

The discussion of clause 9, in turn, centred almost exclusively around the concept of a quota. As I said in my introductory speech, I want to point out again that although the quota was certainly an important reason for moving clause 9, it was not the only possibility in respect of the regulation of community-oriented universities that is embodied in the clause. Both the hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Berea tried to make a strong case for considering alternatives which, although in their opinion still leaving much to be desired, would, according to them, nevertheless represent an improvement.

I wish to state clearly that as far as the Government and I are concerned, the primary issue here is not the means but the end, and the end of the Government is to maintain the system and practice of community-oriented universities here. We are not per se married to the ministerial permit system, nor do we regard it as an absolute. Nor do we regard the quota system as an absolute. What we do consider of very great importance is that means should be available to ensure the end, viz. the maintenance of community-oriented universities. Therefore I wish to quote what I said in my introductory speech—

Therefore, this is a point of departure that must be accepted if we are to speak to one another. I added—

I want to add at once that if, as some hon. members have contended, there could have been a suspicion that an additional consideration in recruiting students of other population groups is or was to ensure an adequate rate of growth, in view of the revenue derived by the university from the subsidy formula, the proposed revised subsidy formula will place a smaller premium on mere numbers and will therefore have a disciplinary influence.

Against the background of this statement that I made in my introductory speech. I want to repeat that I am prepared to discuss alternatives with universities and consider proposals, but that the point of departure must be the pursuit of this aim, viz. “the maintenance of its predominant orientation towards service to the population group concerned”. I shall illustrate the reason for this in the course of my speech. The Government regards it as necessary that the instrument embodied in clause 9, whereby to be able to exercise ultimate control—if necessary, and if a reasonable arrangement cannot be reached by way of mutual agreement—is essential as a replacement for the existing ministerial permit system, the repeal of which is proposed in the Bill.

Having said that by way of introduction, I hope that I have replied briefly to the remarks and questions of the two hon. members to whom I referred.

In the first place, I want to stress once again, in the light of the persistent complaints from the other side that this deprives students of opportunities, that the quota clause of the Bill, or the possible restrictions embodied in clause 9, are not primarily limiting, but broadening, in the context of the present state of affairs. It does not increase the rigidity of the system of admission of students to universities, but achieves greater flexibility. It is wrong to say that “students are excluded from the opportunity of university study”, as the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Pinelands, with his extremely distasteful reference to and comparison with what happened to the Jews in Europe, tried to intimate. It is wrong to say that “barriers are being erected against communication”, as the hon. member for Bryanston contended. Indeed, the standpoint of the hon. members of the CP pushed this very clearly in the opposite direction, viz. that there was too much admission and too many opportunities for contact.

†Students are in fact limited in respect of numbers but not excluded, and a greater flexibility is being introduced in the admission of students. I would like to repeat—and this is partly in reply to one of the questions posed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South at the end of his speech—that this proposal has a fairly long history in which I myself was involved. As I have said before, I gained the distinct impression that this proposal was welcomed even by leaders of the critical universities opposed to the concept of any limitation on student admissions. It was welcomed as a better arrangement than the permit system. I recall clearly the last meeting of the Committee of University Principals which I attended as its chairman in July 1979 when there was a virtual deadlock situation between the Afrikaans-medium and English-medium universities on this whole question of student admissions. At that meeting I suggested that on these lines I would try to negotiate informally with the Government. Unfortunately, I could later on only mention this matter in passing, because the very day after that meeting I changed my career and went to South West Africa. I also had personal discussions with members of the top management of other universities initiated by them, on the difficulties that result from the individual ministerial permit system. In these discussions the possibility of a quota system was mentioned. I had follow-up inquiries last year as to how far the Government had progressed with the idea of the quota system, because that would greatly advance their process of enrolment and obviate the necessity for a large number of individual ministerial permits which would have to be applied for during the course of the procedure then obtaining. I also explained this matter, as I mentioned, to the Committee of University Principals, in July last year. Although—I must repeat that—the principals of some of the universities concerned expressed their very strong opposition to any limitation on the universities’ discretion to decide for themselves about the admission of students, there was no doubt in my mind, and I think also in the minds of any of the other members present there, that the proposed system was considered to be a distinct improvement on the difficulties that were experienced as a result of the individual permit system.

I should like to emphasize again that this is not a matter on which there is only one authoritative and respectable opinion being held. I should not like to take the time of the House to cite it in full, but I simply refer to the important statement that was made by Prof. De Vries, the vice-chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch, in which he argued that this, from the point of view of the universities concerned, is a much better arrangement than the individual permit system.

Provided you believe in apartheid.

While considering the history of this matter I came across a very interesting matter. In 1979 a debate took place in this House about a Bill on Black universities. In that debate the hon. member for Houghton welcomed the greater flexibility introduced by that Bill, because for the first time White students would be permitted to register at Black universities, albeit by ministerial permit. I refer here to Hansard, col. 2114. In that debate the hon. member for Houghton launched a violent attack on the official spokesman of the NRP, then Mr. Sutton; she launched the attack on the NRP since they opposed the Second Reading of that Bill because, while they welcomed and praised the proposed step of admitting White students to Black universities, they said that the condition “with ministerial permit” still infringed upon the principle of university autonomy. The NRP said that as far as they were concerned, university autonomy was absolute and non-negotiable and for that reason they opposed the Second Reading. I must say that the hon. member for Durban North again adopted the same unrealistic and absolute standpoint in regard to university autonomy in this debate, if I understood him correctly. What is interesting about the debate in 1979 was that later in the course of the debate, the hon. member for Houghton had enthusiastic support from the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member who said to the hon. member for Johannesburg West this afternoon that he would prefer not to go back to the permit system. In other words, however, much he deplores the quota system, it does seem to me that by implication he has intimated that the individual permit system is even worse. The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton, the two high priests of the direction they advocate, attacked the NRP at the time for not being able to see that this was at least an improvement, and said that they should not see the matter in such absolute terms as only to be able to agree to an improvement of university autonomy which would result in absolute university autonomy. What is interesting is that none other than the present hon. Leader of the Opposition—and I quote from Hansard, col. 2868 of 20 March 1979—also argued against the NRP. He said that the NRP had reached the conclusion that the envisaged changes would not result in full university autonomy. He then went on to say—

That is interesting. We have debated this point at length. He went on to say—

He then said—

That was how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition argued at the time. Whereas in 1979 hon. members of the PFP were prepared to support the Universities for Blacks Amendment Bill, a Bill which introduced the supposedly liberal admission of White students to Black universities, something which was, moreover, introduced under the leadership of and on the initiative of the hon. member for Waterberg, I want to know why, if they supported the hon. member for Waterberg with regard to that legislation, they cannot now argue along the same lines. [Interjections.] Of course, I am not dependent on their support, Mr. Speaker. However, I just want us to be consistent now, consistent like the hon. members of the NRP, even though they do wrong. Let us just be consistent now. If hon. members of the PFP had supported the hon. member for Waterberg at the time, then surely they might as well support this liberal old Gerrit Viljoen this evening as well. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, since we now contend that this Bill is not restrictive, but broadening, I wish to say that the broader approach and flexibility that are being introduced in terms of this Bill should also, as several hon. members on this side of the House have argued, be seen against the background of the spectacular expansion of university education for non-Whites since 1960. That expansion has created an asset and wealth which could only be established, built up and extended with a considerable degree of statutory protection, particularly in view of the fanatical denial of and resistance to the whole concept of “own” university education for the various non-White population groups of the then and present Opposition. If the NP Government had not persisted in the face of this violent opposition, which was echoed in the academic lecture rooms of the world, and had not persisted in this expansion of university education opportunities for non-Whites, we should certainly not have got much further than that meagre number of non-Whites who were accepted at the open universities in the form of tokenism in 1959.

Since the hon. member for Berea had the temerity to refer here to the “euphemism of the Extension of University Education Act”, I want to point out that that expansion is one of the finest and proudest achievements of this Government over the past 20 years in developing opportunities for other people and other population groups. It is an exceptional achievement and I should just like to recall briefly the history of that development.

In 1959 university colleges were established. The University of Fort Hare, which had already been in existence for a long time, was converted into a State university college, and the University Colleges of the North, of Zululand, of the Western Cape and of Durban-Westville were added. Ten years later, from 1969 to 1971, those university colleges were converted into institutions with full university status. I should like to recall that an infinitesimally small number of academics from the English language universities were prepared to “contaminate” themselves by helping to build up these universities. It was academics from the Afrikaans universities, whose manpower was already strained to the limit—overstrained, as it were, due to the work they had to perform at their own universities—who made the greatest contribution in this sphere. Let us admit in all honesty that we have, fortunately, reached the stage today, thanks to the persistence of the Government, thanks to the dedication of those academics who went to work at those universities, at which no one on the other side of the House any longer denies such universities their full rights. However, Mr. Speaker, it was a very long, hard struggle to get them so far as to recognize that. [Interjections.]

I also wish to point out that those universities have already given rise to the establishment of satellite campuses at Zwelitsha, at Umlazi, at Umtata and in Quaqua. I want to point out that in several instances the independent national States have deemed it necessary to establish their own universities. For example there is the University of Transkei, which was established in 1977, and the University of Bophuthatswana, which I was privileged to be personally concerned with and which came into being in 1980. Then, too, there is the University of Venda which began its activities last year. To that I could add the establishment of Medunsa, with its opportunities for the training of Black students in medical and related professions. Then too, there is the Vista University and the uproar that was caused by its establishment. That university has already opened up totally new perspectives for Black students living in urban areas.

Let us just look at the numbers. In 1960 there were 1642 non-White students—I shall use this word to describe all the coloured groups—enrolled at all residential universities in South Africa. In 1982 there were 19 722—almost 20 000—such students studying at the various non-White residential universities, plus 5 310 at the White universities, including a large number at the medical school of the University of Natal. This gives a total of 25 000 students as against 1 642 at the time when these so-called Jew persecutors on this side of the House, these people who are compared with the regime of the Tsar, with Stalin’s regime and the Nazi regime, started their work in this regard. Let us differ with one another about what is right or wrong, but please, let us refrain from hurling unfounded insults of the kind used against us by the hon. member for Pinelands.

Apart from these 25 000 students studying on a residential basis, 20 369 students registered with Unisa last year. With all our faults and deficiencies as a Government we probably stand exposed to criticism, but let us at least be given credit for the fact that it is due to the initiative, the vision and the determination of the NP and the Government that it has been made possible for 25 000 residential and more than 20 000 correspondence students of the various non-White population groups to be studying at university level at present.

If hon. members want some nit-picking, let me return to a question put by the hon. member for Berea. He asked me whether I could give a guarantee that neither the permit system nor the quota system—he was in fact referring to the permit system—deprived or would deprive large numbers of Black students of the opportunity to study at a university. That is what he asked. Specific reference was then made to Coloured students who had qualified for study at a university and who wanted to become engineers, whereas no provision had been made for engineering at the Coloured university. I told him across the floor of the House, without further ado, that such students would definitely be given an opportunity. When the hon. member pressed me, I said: “I do not think Black students have as a result of the permit system been excluded in meaningful numbers.” In answer to that there was a whole chorus of laughter and jeering from that side.

I took this matter up with the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and he explained to me that last year, when he took this task over from the hon. member for Lichtenburg, in the case of the two biggest universities he and his department considered permits for Black students to register at White universities in consultation or discussion with representatives of the top management of those universities. He went on to explain that provision was made for the student who wanted to study in a field that was not offered at the university of his own population group and that personal considerations were also taken into account. However, he also told me that they did not have time for the student who chopped and changed—who chose a different field of study merely because he wanted to study at a specific university, and did not want to study in a specific field. That is the approach that was adopted in this regard. I think that this is an honourable and accommodating attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

I was not satisfied with that. I wanted to see what the numbers were and whether a large group of the Black students who had matriculated, did not fall by the way side due to the permit system. I have before me the following data: The number of Black students who passed std. 10 with matriculation exemption or university admission in 1981 was 6 096 and in 1982 the number was 6 358. Therefore, these were Blacks with matriculation exemption or university admission who qualified to enter university the following year. Now, I do not wish to link the enrolment at the university for a specific year too blindly to the matriculation results of the immediately preceding year, but I do wish to emphasize the two figures in this regard. The one is 6 096 and the other, 6 358. In contrast the number of Black students who enrolled for the first time at universities in South Africa in the following year—Black and White universities as well as Unisa—was 7 307. Therefore the figure is approximately 1 000 more than the number that matriculated in any of the previous two years. Therefore it seems to me that these universities enrolled even more people than there were to enrol. That is very “smart”. Here we are not even making provision for the large number of people with university admission—I do not have those precise figures—who preferred to study at technikons or teachers’ colleges. I think it is very clear from these figures that the reflection that the hon. member for Berea wanted to cast, viz. that a large number of students supposedly fall by the wayside as potential manpower due to this cruel Nazi system of the Government, is nonsense and an untruth.

If only one is denied, it is bad.

I concede at once that there may indeed be individual “hardline” cases. That, inter alia, is also why we are of the opinion that the new system will bring about a greater degree of flexibility and limit those individual hardline cases to the minimum. Against the background of this expansion of opportunities—not curtailment, limitation, restriction, excluding or erecting barriers—I reiterate that it is an absolute disgrace to try to bring this creation, expansion and enlargement of opportunities for university education for non-Whites into contempt by drawing a comparison with the Jewish quotas as the hon. member for Pinelands did.

That is absolutely right.

There is a total difference between the circumstances of those quotas he mentioned that applied in respect of a population group that were entirely deprived of opportunities to study. If they did not fall under the quotas, there were no opportunities for them at all. In contrast to countries where those people are persecuted, where they are chased out of the country or even liquidated, South Africa is a country in which expansion and development of opportunities have taken place, and where we have to implement influx control because everyone wants to come here to be oppressed, contaminated and unjustly treated! I want to add this: I found it difficult to swallow this remark by the hon. member for Pinelands, and I shall remember it for a long time. I represent the Afrikaner people and the white population of this country, and we can proudly tell the whole world that the Whites of South Africa are the only White population that has established itself outside Europe and still survives without subsequently running away again and without exterminating the indigenous peoples in the process or reducing them to insignificant numbers, as happened in all the other cases. Just go and look at what happened in South America, Central America, North America, Australia and New Zealand. They exterminated those indigenous people with brandy, syphilis and gunpowder. We in this country have the honourable record that we did not only stay, develop and establish ourselves; our forefathers applied the policy of live and let live, so that today there are far more of these people of colour who coexist with us in this part of the world. In those other countries their forefather liquidated their problem at the time, so that today their descendants can come and tell us with all Christian piety how to act in a Christian way.

Why do you then check the birth certificate and not the matriculation certificate?

That, too, is absolute nonsense. It is absolute nonsense that the hon. member for Pinelands uses in an effort to blacken our name abroad.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. the Minister a question?

No, I want to conclude now. In any event, the hon. member is not an expert in this field.

I may not be an expert; I merely want to test the truth of what you say.

The hon. member for Pinelands has now repeated that the system that applies here requires a birth certificate and not a matriculation certificate. That is the kind of story that he uses to blacken our name, whereas he knows that the University authorities require the matriculation certificate.

But the criterion is race. It is a racial criterion.

But surely it is untrue to say that a matriculation certificate is not required? Why is the hon. member distorting the facts to such an extent? Sir, I should like to turn to my next theme.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just to calm matters down for a moment: Can the hon. the Minister say that we “verdraai” the facts? I do not think he can say that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss a second point. I have now dealt with the claim that the new clause introduces a limitation and a restriction of opportunities. I think I have dealt with it effectively and I would like to turn to a second point. I should like to emphasize the fact that externally imposed limitations on university autonomy are nothing new and that such limitations are an accepted part of university reality both in this country and elsewhere. I spelt this out in my Second Reading speech and I mentioned several examples. I would not like to recapitulate them now but would simply emphasize that these restrictions not only originate from Governmental sources but are also imposed by professional bodies which are authorized by law to supervise training at universities for their professions. This is an area where universities often feel frustrated because of what they consider to be excessive interference on the part of professional bodies. However, this is also a reality in respect of the limitation of university autonomy.

We in South Africa have predominantly autonomous universities, as in Great Britain. We also have a number of State universities which are becoming autonomous. However, it is cultural arrogance to assume that autonomous universities present the only university model of the world. State universities are a general and an accepted phenomenon in several countries. I refer here to the United States of America where there are universities controlled by the different States. Hon. members might well recall what resistance there was in a certain phase of the history of California against what were considered to be the improper restrictions imposed by the then Governor of California. However, nobody denigrated the status of these universities as inferior or suggested that their respectability was low.

Where else do you have the quota system?

I should also like to refer to many countries of the European continent, such as Belgium and Holland, which have State universities. I can also refer to France and the Länder of Germany.

But they are open universities. [Interjections.]

The point that I am arguing, is that limitation on university autonomy originating from the State is a phenomenon found in many parts of the world as an accepted constituent of respectable university systems.

Where else do you have the quota system?

Where else do you have such a stupid opposition?

I am arguing about the concept of State limitation. I am replying to the argument of the opposite side that the whole concept of Government restriction of university autonomy is anathema, and I should like to point out that this is an unfounded charge. These State universities abroad are subject to decisions of Ministers and even subject to decisions of bureaucrats of Government departments, without having their international standing in any way put in question.

I should like to refer to a distinguished Belgian State university I happened to visit when I was still head of a university. I was introduced there to the new rector of that university. This rector received me very coolly because he was a socialist. He did not like South Africa. I was told by his predecessor that the university council or the university senate, whichever might have been the responsible body, had to submit three names to the Minister from whom the new rector of this university was a to be appointed. The Minister preferred to select number three because he was a socialist belonging to the same party as the Minister. This is the kind of thing which happens and which is openly recognized as happening, and against which we are safeguarded in South Africa.

Do you think that is right?

I do not think so, Sir.

Then why use that argument?

The point I wish to make here is that we are being painted black as though everything in this country was wrong. [Interjections.] I want to point out that governmental restrictions in respect of universities is something that occurs in many countries. I should furthermore like to refer to Canada and to certain countries in Europe that have imposed quotas in respect of foreign students … [Interjections.] … or even quotas in respect of students from other States. If such a student wishes to enter such a university irrespective of the quota he then has to pay three or four times the fee that is normally charged.

I have not argued the question of quotas based on population groups. I have merely argued the point that has been made repeatedly by hon. members opposite, or assumed or implied repeatedly, that university auton-my is such that the Government should never interfere and never prescribe any policy measures that lay down parameters within which the university has to operate. [Interjections.] I have pointed out that there are no sound grounds for objecting to limitations as such in respect of university autonomy imposed the State.

I therefore want to turn to the specific nature of the limitation involved in this case namely a limitation based on population groups, or a racial limitation as it was generally described by hon. members opposite. I want to argue that the way in which our South African society is ordered or is to be ordered in respect of nations, population groups or races living here, is one of the most basic, most prominent and most fundamental aspects of our South African reality and also one of the most prominent aspects of our political scene. Several hon. members on both sides have argued that there are strongly divergent political points of view in respect of the whole matter of the ordering of racial groups, population groups or nations in South Africa. Since this is so, it is a matter that falls within the rightful authority and jurisdiction of the Government which is the recognized instrument responsible for the overall socio-political ordering of our South African society. Within the constitutional reality of this State, as in any State, it is the Government that is responsible in this particular sphere. And this remains so, though we must accept the fact that this vital matter the various parties hold strongly divergent views. The hon. member for Virginia, Kimberley North and Koedoespoort argued this matter at length. Therefore it is the electorate that has to decide which party’s policy shall apply in this sphere. It is not the relevant university authorities that have to decide in this regard. The university, has to exercise its autonomy within the limits of the policy laid down by the duly elected Government.

Is that cultural self-determination?

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the PFP is well-known. It is to throw open the country everywhere and in all respects and to bring about an open society wherever possible. I do not think I am doing them an injustice when I say that. However, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch indicated very effectively—I want to congratulate him on scoring a few very good bull’s-eyes—the PFP is unable to persuade the voters to give them the mandate to implement this policy of theirs in the political reality of South Africa. Now the PFP is trying to evade political obstacles that prevent them from implementing their policy by what I would call the abuse of university autonomy. I want to repeat this in my opinion the PFP, that cannot succeed in persuading the voters to give them a mandate to implement their policy in the socio-economic reality of the country, are now trying to evade that political obstacle by abusing university autonomy to bring about what they cannot achieve politically by exerting influence at certain universities to cause them to open their doors and bring about integration—an influence which will then make itself felt in the broader community. I have been called Machiavellian, but if there is a Machiavelli anywhere, it is in this whole set-up.

I should like to quote what the hon. member for Durban North said.

†The hon. member for Durban North, though of course I do not range him with the official Opposition, made the statement that “the Bill does not only relate to the administrative aspect of admitting students to universities or academic freedom, but we are also dealing here with something which can fundamentally affect the very structure of the South African society of the future”. Yes Sir, it is in fact the conviction of this side of the House that this matter does not merely affect university autonomy but through the tremendous influence which our leading universities exert in the society it will also inevitably, if this policy of the PFP is fully implemented in a number of universities, affect the very structure of the South African society of the future. I think the hon. member for Durban North has been correct in saying that.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the hon. the Minister is at the present time blaming the PFP for the opposition to the Bill, will he explain why he is getting so much opposition from the academics of the English-speaking universities themselves who are not politicians, but academics?

I have not been arguing so much about the PFP as the party sitting on the other side of the House, but I have been dealing mainly with a certain political line which is also subscribed to by a large number of academics at the universities concerned.

I wonder why.

I shall come to that point.

I should also like to point out the effect which it is claimed that these measures will have on the social system. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made a sneering remark when he said that he wondered whether the reason for this measure is not that the Government feared that the success of open universities could destroy the myths on which apartheid was based. If one translates this into more reasonable language the point is really that the introduction of a completely open society and the concept of an integrated society in the university sphere will inevitably affect the outside world too. And this is also what the Government believes. Therefore it considers the dispute not merely as an academic matter, but as a matter concerning the political future of the country. [Interjections.]

*There are several examples of strong and outspoken political statements from academic circles, from certain institutes at certain universities, certain publications and certain student activities with an unmistakable political climate. Basically, I have no objection to that, because as long as the people do this within the bounds of the Act they are entitled to adopt a strong political standpoint, including this unmistakable endorsement of the standpoint of the PFP which advocates a liberal, integrationist open society.

This alliance between politicians and academics who will in future mercilessly attack separate and community oriented universities, has always been opposed to that. Restricting this abuse of power and curbing this alliance is the chief aim of the measure in terms of which we withhold the right to unlimited admission of students to universities. In fact, all the other arguments are by the way, because this is the main issue: The conviction of the Government that from a political point of view—and this is the responsibility of the Government—it is in the interests of the country to have community oriented universities, because they exert an unmistakable influence in the whole structure of society. As the Government sees it, that is the main reason why it cannot permit university authorities to allow unlimited admission of students to universities. It does want to make that admission more flexible and this I want to emphasize clearly.

I think that I have now replied to the speeches of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Pinelands, all of whom asked why the Government really regarded this measure to be necessary. In passing, I want to say that although I cannot agree with his arguments, I listened with great appreciation to the logical, closely-reasoned argument put forward by the hon. member for Umbilo. I think that whether or not one agrees with him, one can learn a great deal from the analysis of this matter that he presented.

I want to refer to some hon. members on this side who went into the point I have just made in greater depth. The hon. member for Pretoria East said that to achieve South Africa’s constitutional aim of “own” States for the various Black peoples, it was necessary to assist them with their own universities and in order to establish such universities in the face of the well-known opposition to universities of their own for the various population groups, requires a degree of compulsion and protection on the part of the authorities.

The hon. member for Helderkruin argued that the unequal state of development of coloured population groups results in the need for a degree of control to be exercised in order to ensure the establishment and further development of their universities. However, he added that within the margin provided by the flexibility of this new clause, alternative methods could be experimented with, and as long as this aim could be achieved, the means could be adapted.

I have already quoted the hon. member for Stellenbosch with regard to his statement that the PFP were not allowed by the voters to govern the country and that they were now trying to create this structure of society, with the help of university autonomy, at the influential level of the university world.

On the other hand, the motives and attitude of the PFP with regard to what they would do if they were to come to power— Heaven preserve us from that—are very clear. The PFP will not, certainly not, give the university freedom to decide for itself in accordance with its autonomy, but will impose its own PFP policy. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Durban North put the question: “Will the PFP agree that any university should have the right to remain exclusive to any particular race group should it wish to do so?”

*Then the hon. member for Bryanston, the high priest in this sphere, said: “Not while it depends on the funds that it derives from the entire South African population for its existence.” In other words, university autonomy is all very well as long as the university carries out the policy of the PFP. However, university autonomy will be overthrown, will be destroyed, will not be allowed, if it carries out a different policy in accordance with a different political point of departure, in accordance with a different approach. I should like to know—and I think that the PFP owes it to the country to say this—whether this is indeed their policy. Will they recognize university autonomy in the extreme form that they have presented it here today in all piety, or are they going to impose a Prog political dictatorship on universities if they come to power. We should like to know that.

I shall answer you at a later stage.

I want to quote a further extract from the debate which concerns the influence the denial of community oriented universities would have on society in South Africa. The hon. member Prof. Olivier has been concerned with this matter for a long time, and went far back in history to tell us what led to his not becoming rector of the University of Fort Hare at the time. I agree with the hon. member that at the time we imposed unnecessary restrictions—although restrictions were also necessary—on the new universities and their form of management. The hon. member Prof. Olivier said the following about the fear that large numbers of non-Whites would enrol at White universities and in that way jeopardize the special character of White universities: “If that were to happen, it would mean that at that stage that university had already accepted the implications of that. Secondly, it would mean that such a development would already be acceptable to the society.” What is the hon. member saying? He says two things. He says that the controlling bodies of those universities accepted the implications and took a decision. By implication he contends, secondly, that the society finds that acceptable.

I wish to state clearly that this is the crux of the debate. The issue of the structure of our society is an issue to be decided on by the society, the community, not the university with its autonomy. The society and the community decide through their elected Government. The university belongs to society, and society is entitled to decide on factors determining the character of the university, including the community-orientation or otherwise of that university. We must make that very clear to one another and we must realize that very clearly. If we move away from this point, we lose sight entirely of the basis of principle that we are concerned with here.

I should like to touch on a third subject. With reference to what I have just said I want to put forward the general argument, and state the principle, that a university is not an isolated totally independent island or, as it was called earlier, an ivory tower that exists in the sea or the forest of reality. A university is embedded in reality and must take reality into account. The best juxtaposition of the various views on this matter was to be seen in the reaction of the hon. member for Helderkruin—he made a very effective contribution—to the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands. The panorama seen by the hon. member for Pinelands from the porch of the university was one in which he only saw people, as against the point of view of the hon. member for Helderkruin that it was also a matter of communities. The university is embedded in reality and must take it into account. The university arises out of the need and the initiative of the community. The university can only live in close interaction with the community into which it also, in due course, sends it alumni, who have to find their livelihood in that community. Accordingly the community also has a say with regard to fundamental matters relating to the university that affect the whole State structure and the whole social and political structure of the country; it has a say exercised by the Government which is established by the voters.

Only the White community.

No, it is not true that it is only the White community.

It is, yes.

The entire policy of the National Government entails a move away from the exclusive say of the White Government over other population groups, and the provision of an alternative. If the hon. member for Greytown is still unaware of the new developments in this country, then I cannot help that.

Mr. Speaker, before the Rand Afrikaans University existed, would the hon. the Minister have been happy for Wits University to impose a restriction on the intake of Afrikaans-speaking students?

In effect, Wits did that. [Interjections.] The effect, Wits did that when it refused, as every English-medium university has done, to introduce bilingual courses. [Interjections.] The English universities are far more subtle. Sometimes our National politicians are perhaps a little clumsy. The hon. member asks whether I would have objected if Wits had imposed a quota in respect of Afrikaans-speaking students. My reply to this is that Wits, Cape Town and other English-language universities have done so very effectively. If the hon. member peruses the history of universities, he will note that they have done so very effectively. I dealt with that matter in an article—the hon. member would do well to go and read it—in the book “The future of the University in South Africa”. In that article I dealt with the “exclusivism of universities” in South Africa. At the time the English-medium universities were asked to present bilingual courses. However, they did not wish to do so. In fact, I have mentioned in this House in the past that the English-speaking community in South Africa fought tooth and nail against the possibility of bilingualism at what are today the Afrikaans-medium universities. In other words, the question is a pseudo-question to which I have effectively replied.

Thus the issue here is the reality in which the university ought to be imbedded. The first reality is that there is a political authority, a political authority with the right to set certain parameters in which the university and other social institutions have to operate, that have to regulate a broad social structure, chart the political course and specify political objectives. In South Africa, as long as this party remains in power, the political course and objectives constitute the establishment of separate States for the Black peoples and as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Asians are concerned, a combination of self-determination on own affairs, including education, and co-responsibility. At this point, in reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I may say that education as an “own affair” includes university education. On the other hand, next to self-determination there is co-responsibility. That is the political course. The university that functions as if the context within which it exists involves a political course of integration, of one man, one vote, of majority government, is therefore in conflict with the reality in which it lives. It may not be pleasant for it, but it remains true nevertheless. When a university wants to change this reality it cannot do so by means of its academic autonomy; it must change it by means of politics. That is part of reality.

Within the framework of the realities we must go on to note that the universities in South Africa—and I believe that it is important that we emphasize this very strongly— also exist within a specific and unique population structure. I know that to some people we probably emphasize ad nauseam the uniqueness of our population structure. However, we must do so once again now. There is the diversity of population. There is the existence of minorities. There are the drastically divergent stages of development which are the result of the histories of these population groups. There is the reasonable concern on the part of distinct population groups concerning their identity, particularly in view of the massive numbers of the other population groups. There is the historical experience of being threatened by the cultural imperialism of more powerful cultural groups. Then, too, there is also the material and economic inequality. All these aspects of reality make the existence of a university in South Africa and therefore, too, the degree of control or restriction with which a community-orienated university is established and maintained in South Africa, something different to what it would be in a homogeneous society.

It is exactly the opposite of what you are saying now.

Therefore this is an entirely different situation to that relating to certain universities elsewhere in the world, universities in a homogeneous society, in a highly developed society, in a society in which all members of the population are well established with a feeling of self-confidence. In such a setup it is unnecessary to restrict university autonomy because there it is possible to exercise free choice and free selection. Allow me to put it as follows, Mr. Speaker. I believe that as the various population groups become established here, achieve their political self-determination, boost their level of cultural development, we in South Africa will manage to take this further in the future with fewer restrictions and by way of free choice, as is the case at the moment in respect of Afrikaans and English-speaking people within the White population group. However, until the day comes, it is the responsibility of that State, of the Government, to see to it that systems and approaches do not develop under the cloak of and in the name of university autonomy which in fact will be capable of exercising a drastic and substantial influence on the society as a whole.

The universities must take into account the realities of South Africa and not those of a different country, a different country which may have a far more ideal, a far more pleasant, a far easier community structure. However, it is not ours. We must perform our task within the restrictions imposed by the difficult demands and circumstances of this country.

Against this background I wish to emphasize once again—and I also want to emphasize it for the edification of hon. members on this side of the House, so that none of us need have any doubt in this regard—that the Government recognizes, respects and has the utmost regard for university autonomy. However, it is qualified by the statements I have already made, viz. that a university does not exist in a vacuum or in an ivory tower. Let us consider just once more why university autonomy is important. Not only is it important because—as the hon. member for Pretoria East and other hon. members opposite have indicated—it is a precious gem which is part of the tradition of our English-speaking fellow-citizens in this country. To tell the truth, the university tradition behind the Afrikaans-speaking people did not need the protection against the interference of State and church during the nineteenth century, whereas the English universities did need it. In our tradition we have had that freedom since the seventeenth century in the Dutch and German universities. Therefore I want to say that we have respect and high esteem for university autonomy and for the fact that it is an extremely important and very valuable part of the cultural heritage of all of us and in particular our English-speaking fellow countrymen.

I want to mention a few reasons for this. The university must have the highest possible degree of autonomy, because it is a highly specialized world which is best managed and controlled by the people in that world, people with knowledge of that world. In the second place, sovereignty in one’s own walk of life, is also a sound principle which we can propound from the background of Calvinism. This was a matter which was also thoroughly argued at the time in the Van Wyk de Vries report on universities. University autonomy is also essential, because it is a vital support for the equally important principles of academic freedom. The greater the autonomy of the university, the greater the chance of there being academic freedom—I shall make a further point in this connection later on. Then, too, university autonomy is important because the university should not be a mere mirror image of the community. That metaphor which was used here is something I wish to question.

It was the hon. member for Virginia who used it.

The university should be a critical reflector of the community. The university needs university autonomy because it should have a more critical, objective, dissociated and reserved long-term view of the interests of the community. It should also sometimes be prepared to state such a personal view with the authority which it has at its disposal against the view of the political authority, but knowing full well that if there is a conflict between the view of the university on the long-term interests of the community and the view of the political body, it will ultimately have to be the political body that decides.

I should now like to say something very briefly about academic freedom. The distinction between academic freedom and university autonomy is substantial and was dealt with by various hon. speakers. The hon. member for Kimberley North made a thorough analysis of the distinction and the hon. members for Virginia and Pretoria East also dealt with the matter. In South Africa and elsewhere a material aspect of academic freedom is not merely a threat to and an impairment of academic freedom from outside the university, but unfortunately there is also a possible threat to and an impairment of academic freedom from within the university itself. It arises in particular as a result of intolerance, self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance and ideological shortsightedness of some academic liberals. This threat to academic freedom from within the university is not a matter affecting only the university, it also affects the country and the community whom that university serves. Within the general order function of the State, the State cannot remain indifferent to threats to academic freedom from within the universities.

I want to furnish a few examples. I feel myself at liberty to do so because I have on occasion discussed the matter with my former university colleagues on the Committee of University Principals. I am referring to what is alleged to be—this probably applies to many universities—the one-sided indoctrination of young students by one-sided, prejudiced and strongly politicized lecturer groups, particularly in certain departments, even to the point where the students feel that they are being intimidated or belittled. This is an infringement of academic freedom. I am referring to the refusal on some campuses to give speakers other than radicals and liberalist opinion-shapers a hearing on the campus. I am referring to intolerance of open debate. I am referring to the diversity of speakers and the diversity of standpoints which are, for example, allowed on the campus of the University of the Wit-watersrand in contrast with those who are tolerated on a campus such as that of the University of Stellenbosch, the RAU and many others. This is something we would do well to reflect on and which we could take cognizance of. I am referring, moreover, to the unsavoury experience which my hon. colleague, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, had in 1981, when he was invited to the campus of the University of the Witwatersrand as a guest speaker. You will recall, Sir, what happened then. You will also recall what happened to him recently when he was invited to give a lecture at the University of Cape Town. I had the painful experience, so much so that I left the place with a migraine, of experiencing how the former Minister of National Education was insulted, jeered at and provoked while he was the official guest of the university council and the university senate of the University of the Witwatersrand to officiate at the opening of the Senate building there.

Since I am discussing this matter now, I also wish to say that the community in South Africa has observed and brought to the attention of the Government that there sometimes seems to be an inability on the part of the authorities of universities to apply effective discipline to people who are violating academic freedom in this way from within. I am referring, for example, to a recent letter from a lecturer at the University of Natal, which was published in the Natal Witness, in which he openly sang the praises of Marxism, and to the feeble reaction, amounting to a non-reaction to that displayed by the university authorities. It is also a pity that at a specific university, during the Republic Festival in 1981 …

Is the Minister of Law and Order also going to reply to that?

Perhaps he will reply to it. I do not wish to deal once again with all the incidents which were also raised at the time, but I do wish to refer to them. At a certain university hostel the students displayed the Republican flag and the festival flag. The former head of the university, however, asked them to remove the flags because they would give offence. This is a kind of academic freedom in which one cannot even display the national symbols of one’s country in that community because the danger exists that people could take offence. [Interejections.] I should like to mention these facts because all of us share the responsibility of influencing, supporting and, when necessary, reprimanding our universities, particularly when we have more influence than others, to make certain that the precious values of university autonomy and academic freedom are not squandered through irresponsible action.

The hon. member for Bryanston quoted a very important passage from The Open Universities. I should like to emphasize, under the concept of academic freedom “the freedom of the student to receive the truth and to be educated”. Consequently we are dealing here with the freedom of the student to receive a fair, objective and balanced version of alternatives, without being brainwashed, so that he can make a fair choice. This is a very important point, and I am pleased that the hon. member for Bryanston raised it. We would all do well to apply a little self-examination in our universities.

In addition, as part of the same passage, mention is made of—

Although I have been making this point throughout, I wish to emphasize it again that the standpoint of the Government is that for various reasons we have a need in South Africa for community-orientated universities. I want to emphasize that these community-orientated universities have been established with great success in this country. Since the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Kuruman were concerned about whether or not these were ethnic universities (volksuniversiteite), I wish to go back to what I thought was a reasonably simple lesson which I gave during the discussion of the cultural legislation at the request of the hon. member for Rissik. I then tried to draw a distinction between “people” (volk), which is a cultural concept, and “nation”, which is a far more comprehensive constitutional concept and which therefore consists of fellow citizens who may also be members of various cultural groups or peoples, and “population groups”. I think that the Afrikaans-language universities were all established with a strong ethnically-directed orientation. In that sense of the word they may certainly still be called ethnic universities today. However, I think the reason why the hon. member for Stellenbosch shied away from this was because some people in the circles of the hon. members of the CP absolutize this concept of people as if a university could be absolutely exclusively for members of a specific people. In South Africa we have community-orientated universities of which the primary but not an exclusive focus is a specific people, of which the primary but not an exclusive focus is the White nation, and of which the primary focus is specific Black peoples and specific population groups. Consequently there is a whole diversity of these community-orientated universities.

I do not think it is necessary for me to deal in detail again with all the arguments as to why we need community-orientated universities. I just wish to remind hon. members briefly that in the first place they create the opportunity for political and academic self-determination by the people or population group concerned over its own university as part of its own education system. I also wish to remind this House, as various hon. members have already done, that the community-orientated university provides training for the amount, quality and diversity of manpower required to provide the leadership and development in that particular community. This was referred to here by hon. members; I do not want to repeat it. I want to remind the hon. member for Bryanston, particularly with reference to his remark at the end of his speech, in which he argued that apartheid was the reason why larger numbers of Black teachers had not been trained, of the figures which I mentioned pertaining to the expansion of training possibilities which occurred as a result of this “euphemism” law of “extension of university education”. I want to remind him of the speech made by Dr. Van der Ross—I think it was a year ago before the Afrikaanse Sakekamer of Cape Town—when he pointed out that although he was not in favour of any restrictions on the admission of students, the need for a community-orientated university had been established beyond any doubt and that the Coloured population would never have experienced the great expansion of trained manpower which it did if it had not had its own community-orientated university. The demands made by the unique and special needs of a separate community requires a separate university as a cultural and intellectual powerhouse or dynamo to enrich and strengthen that community, to give attention to particular problems and also to be able to unlock the special opportunities inherent in that community.

When community-orientated universities originated in South Africa on the initiative of the NP, they were a novelty in Africa. It was only afterwards that African leaders came forward and strongly advocated the “Africanization” or the “indigenization” of university education in Africa. A man like Sir Eric Ashbey, with his well-known book on “University Ecology”, described how a university had an ecology of its own, that it had to be based on a specific existential milieu or community and that it could not on a large scale simply take over the university heritage of other communities. Prof. Kgware once said at a graduation day at Wits, to the great annoyance of the English-language Press, that although he was not in favour of a restriction on the freedom of intake of students at universities, nothing could be allowed to undermine community-orientated universities. So I can enumerate more examples.

Finally in this connection I wish to say that the problem is that the liberalist rejects community-orientated universities precisely because he says they amount to racism. That word “racism” was repeated like a refrain by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He is in favour of a one-sided, culturally determined model which is the one he is accustomed to and which he regards as the only valid university model. In my opinion this represents the greatest and the most refined form of racism itself. To my dismay no less a person than the hon. member for Durban North—for whose opinions I normally have great respect—also argued along these lines, if I understood him correctly, and I should like to quote him because I think this is of very great importance. This is the kind of standpoint which I actually find difficult to reconcile with him. He said—

To my mind that concept of “holism” inevitably smacks of imperialism. Let us go further and see what he said. He said (Hansard, 13 June)—

He continues and he says—

By implication, it is the non-Whites who become undermined and who have their culture watered down. In conclusion he says—

†In other words, he presupposes the paramountcy, the superiority, almost as an unarguable fact, of White culture. This is one of the reasons why the Afrikaner from his experience of this kind of attitude in his own educational history, saw fit to introduce also for the benefit of members of other population groups an education system that is based on their culture and that leaves them the choice to decide themselves whether and to what extent they wish to adapt to or be undermined or watered down by the culture of the Whites.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that if the Indians and the Coloureds and particularly the Blacks do not move into the White value system, there is only one alternative to the militant among them and that is Marxism? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not think that the only alternative to White culture is Marxism. I think there are sufficient examples of modernized cultures in Africa to avoid displaying this kind of cultural arrogance.

As a final premise I should like to state that although this side of the House is in favour of community-orientated universities, it is also our conviction that on the university level the differentiation, separateness or community-orientation of education need be less rigid and less absolute than in the rest of education. There are various sound reasons for this. I am opposing this standpoint to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, the hon. member for Brakpan and to a certain extent the hon. member for Rissik as well—although I was not able to follow the thread of his argument at all—who upheld these rigid and absolute standpoints. The reason why the Government thinks that at university level a greater flexibility can be accepted …

This is that cross-pollination now.

Yes, Sir. The hon. member for Kuruman talks about cross-pollination, but he must know that a fossil cannot pollinate and cannot be pollinated either. [Interjections.] The first reason for this more flexible approach on university level is that when the students go to university the foundation for their own identity has to a large extent already been laid in their education system. This is the argument which the hon. member for Durban North also advanced, and I think it is largely valid, although I do not want to absolutize this argument either. In addition there are exceptional needs on a post-graduate level which make movement back and forth between universities desirable. In any event, on a post-graduate level the student’s identity has certainly been established beyond any doubt. In addition there is the aspect of special courses that cannot be duplicated, and although everyone would like to expand universities that have been established for a specific population group as much as possible, it is absolute naivety on the part of the hon. member for Koedoespoort to say that when one establishes a university one should also decide in advance that you will provide the money and the manpower to make all fields of study possible at that university. That is simply impracticable.

In addition there are sometimes personal circumstances which play a role here, for example a person who is himself a lecturer at a university of another population group or a person, who, as a result of his place of residence or family circumstances, has a very limited choice.

In conclusion there is also validity in the argument which hon. members advanced that at university level some measure of contact and communication between the various population groups is useful. Once again the conditions for furthering all these various aspects which justify a greater measure of flexibility on the university level are, however, that they should not prejudice or destroy the unique or community-orientated character of the other universities.

This is not integration. Hon. members of the CP are apparently unable to perceive the difference between integration and contact. Every time when one comes into contact with people of another population group then one is not integrating. In my opinion one is integrating when one’s contact is such that one eliminates in that way the entire basis of the formation of separate communities. Nor do they recognize the distinction between integration and co-ordination. Although they did not argue the point, it seems that they also reject the idea that in co-ordinating bodies such as the Committee of University Principals or the University Advisory Council, there will be co-ordinating advice in connection with the development of the universities of all the various population groups.

Their separate development is one of watertight, contactless separation. I think this is the way in which the hon. members for Rissik, for Brakpan and Koedoespoort argued the point. The policy of the NP is provision for separate, community-orientated universities, but with the recognition of areas of contact which are also negotiated.

The CP’s standpoints which they are now stating, are, as has been pointed out by various hon. members, in conflict with the recognition of areas of contact for universities in NP policy which have applied since as long ago as 1959. I wish to point out a few of these points, which indicate that the total rejection of university contact by the hon. members of the CP at present is in conflict with the historical development of the matter.

We did not put it in that way.

The hon. members said there should be movement in the direction of a total phasing out of any contact, while the NP’s standpoint is that a limited measure of contact is beneficial, for the reasons which I have already mentioned. [Interjections.]

I want to point out that a section of the 1959 Act provided that students of colour would only be admitted to the White universities by means of a ministerial permit, but also that as from a certain date no student would be admitted any more, with or without a permit. Consequently there was in the 1959 Act this provision about which nothing was however done over a period of 23 years, a provision which created the impression that there would eventually be a complete termination of any contact, any cross-pollination as it was called here, on university level. No one insisted that that section be implemented. One could say that the section remained unimplemented, without any objection.

As various hon. members have stated, the permit system has appeared in the Act since 1959. Initially the permit system was limited only to the admission of non-White students to White universities, but subsequently it was also extended to the admission of Whites to non-White universities, as I said at the beginning. There was no objection to that either. The Black universities were initially ethnically limited, and subsequently the Black universities were thrown open to all Blacks. Consequently there has been a movement away from the strict ethnic concept.

From the entire development of the permit system it is therefore very clear that what the NP is now introducing here is not an overturning of NP policy, but in fact a continuation of a flexibility which was an inherent part of the policy and which has expanded in the course of time.

I also want to point out that in the time of a former Prime Minister I myself and other rectors had talks with the Ministers concerned when the Afrikaans-language universities felt that they also wished to admit students of colour for post-graduate studies. I want to make it clear that in that time, it was under a former Prime Minister—one of the Ministers—he is no longer a Minister—took the Afrikaans-language universities to task because they were not prepared to accept non-White students on an undergraduate level such as engineering.

Another allegation was made here which I should like to spell out in a little more detail. We were told that we were venturing onto the slippery slope of integration. Let us again consider for a while what has happened in regard to the enrolment of Black students at White universities during the past three to four years. I am now referring to the years between 1979 and 1982 because the decisions were taken in those years, not under the responsibility of my hon. colleague, the present Minister of Education and Training, but by his predecessor, the hon. member for Lichtenburg. At the University of Cape Town, during those four years, the number of Black students admitted increased from 62 to 168—almost a threefold increase. I wonder whether the former hon. Minister, whose party is now so concerned about our venturing onto the slippery slope of integration, can tell us why he did this. Was it because the university authorities of the University of Cape Town were too clever for him and outmanoeuvred him? Let us consider the matter further. The University of the Witwatersrand showed an increase in the number of Black admissions from 144 to 449, almost a fourfold increase. What was the problem? Did the hon. the Minister feel crowded out? Who exerted pressure on him? Or was he perhaps in a subtle way causing conditions to arise so that the NP could subsequently be accused of integrating? As far as the University of Natal is concerned, the picture is a little different because the Natalians are more selective. The “tokenism” there is somewhat different. There the admissions rose from 356 to 467, a relatively small increase. I should like to refer next to Rhodes University where the increase was fivefold, namely from 31 to 135. I do not wish to find fault with this hon. former colleague of mine for what he did. I take it that he had very good reasons for doing what he did. Nor do I believe, as hon. members on the opposite side argued, that the magnitude of these admissions is a threat to identity either way. However, hon. members must not try to make out that this side of the House is selling out while we can never sell out to the extent to which they, according to their own use of the word, sold out at that time already.

I now wish to go further. The hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Kuruman said that the NP was facilitating integration at the universities.

Yes.

What did the leader of these hon. members do when he was in charge of making life at the universities easier or more difficult? The hon. member for Rustenburg has already referred to this issue. In the first place there was the case in which the then Deputy Minister of Education and Training, the hon. member for Waterberg, saw fit for good reasons to admit a Black student to the campus of the University of Cape Town. If I heard him correctly just now, he said that he did so under pressure from Foreign Affairs. Did I hear the hon. member correctly? [Interjections.] Let us take this question of the exerting of pressure further. At that time the hon. member also granted the University of South Africa permission to use general examination rooms without any physical separation of population groups. This is what caused that poor fellow in Citrusdal to find himself in such a predicament last year. Who exerted pressure on him at the time? Was it the Church or Unisa? Then, on this same slippery slope of integration, the hon. member at the time granted the City Council of Johannesburg permission to hold multiracial organ recitals in the city hall. [Interjections.] At the time I was still rector of the RAU. I know that the RAU also received permission to present music recitals and other performances to other population groups as well in the auditorium, which we had already been using before we had that permission. I just wonder whether the significance of those actions has changed since the then hon. Deputy Minister of Education and Training lost his portfolio and simply became the hon. member for Waterberg. Has the principle changed since the hon. members for Kuruman, Rissik and Koedoespoort began advocating another policy from the Opposition benches. I should like to know. I think it would be a good thing if hon. members on this side made a list of all the measures implemented by the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Waterberg and ascertained from the hon. members opposite which of these measures were in fact dangerous, which were not dangerous and which were only slightly dangerous. They could then advise us in this regard.

There was another interesting matter. I want to go back to where I began. Hon. members will recall that I referred at the outset to the debate on the Universities for Blacks Amendment Bill in 1979. I just wish to recall to mind that amending Bill which was moved under pressure in 1979—pressure is sometimes enjoyable, but pressure, it seems to me can also present difficulties at times—by the then hon. Deputy Minister. The Bill contained a provision opening the doors of Black universities to Black students of all ethnic groups without special permission, instead of the former ethnic restrictions.

Consequently they were no longer ethnic universities.

No, they were no longer ethnic universities. Secondly, the Bill sought to lift the prohibition on White students at Black universities, with the primary object, as it was stated, of accommodating White lecturers of the university so that advanced post-graduate studies could be done there. During the debate the then hon. Deputy Minister said that this was only the primary object, and that there were secondary objects as well. If one looks carefully, one will also perhaps see tertiary objects.

The third provision in that Bill was that non-Blacks could, with ministerial consent, be admitted as students. All these steps are steps which the hon. member for Berea, who then acted as chief spokesman of the Opposition, described at the time as being a major change in the thinking of the Government, a big step away from the principle of inflexible compulsory ethnicity in South Africa. I told hon. members a few minutes ago about the enjoyable sparring match between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands on the one hand and the then hon. member for Mooi River of the NRP on the other. However, I do not wish to dwell on hon. members on the left-hand side. I should like to deal with the people on the right-hand side by way of further illustrations. There were two of them who made very interesting remarks in that debate. The hon. member for Pietersburg, according to Hansard, col. 2108, said—

He said “the Black community”, singular—

I do not know who exerted pressure on that hon. member. However, he is not the kind of person to submit to pressure. I know him. I helped to further his education in the Voortrekkers of those days. But now comes the cherry on the top. In that same debate the hon. member for Rissik said in col. 3152—

I wonder what that “etc.” is—

Let me repeat the key words, which are “that one could begin to admit people of a different population group to a university” under all these circumstances. That does not sound like the hon. member for Rissik. That sounds like his opponent whom he attacks so vehemently, Gerrit Viljoen, speaking here. I want to quote the hon. member further. He says here, Mr. Speaker, and I quote …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister refer to an hon. member of this House by name? He spoke about Gerrit Viljoen. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I meant the hon. Gerrit Viljoen. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote what the hon. member for Rissik said here in this House during that debate on Friday, 23 March 1979. In the last part of his speech he said (col. 3152)—

That is precisely the way I also argued, Mr. Speaker. I quote further, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, there we have it, from the mouth of the hon. member for Rissik himself. [Interjections.]

And look at him now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members must please excuse me if I am taking up too much time now. However, I am not an old hand at this. Consequently I shall have to let what I have already said suffice, and I shall therefore not be able to react to each hon. member of the Opposition individually. I think I have referred relatively comprehensively to the problems which were raised by hon. members of the Opposition. However, there are still quite a few matters which I have not touched upon. There is one thing though that I should like to rub in as far as the hon. member for Bryanston is concerned.

At one stage the hon. member for Bryanston said something which I do not think we should forget. He said, and I am quoting him (Hansard, 9 June 1983)—

Just listen to this, Mr. Speaker—

This is the prophet Horace speaking. [Interjections.]

The hon. prophet Horace. [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon. Mr. Speaker. I mean the hon. prophet Horace.

“Siener van Rensburg”. [Interjections.]

I shall quote what he went on to say, Mr. Speaker, as follows—

Consequently, the hon. member for Bryanston prophetically holds out the prospect that the culminating point of the policy of his party will be a Black majority regime, which will result in this Government being reduced to a minority group. [Interjections.] There remain only two other things for me to say, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, it is in fact to achieve this object that there is such an urge to establish, by way of university autonomy in the influential milieu of universities, a sphere of life that can gradually make its influence felt in the rest of society in order to move in this political direction which the hon. member described. Of course the hon. member for Bryanston has every right to pursue this direction. In the political confrontation in the country, however, we have, believe me, just as much right to pursue our own standpoint.

Furthermore I just want to say that whenever “in the fullness of time” may be—and may be we preserved from the “time” ever becoming so “full”—and if these things were to happen “in the fullness of time”, I believe that quite a few of the hon. members who are now sitting on the opposite side, as well as quite a number of the supporters of their policy who find themselves at the universities at present, will be the first to go and seek a livelihood elsewhere in the international community, and leave us sitting here to face the music; those of us for whom there are no alternative livelihoods. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to contend myself with this. If hon. members have any further questions to put, they are welcome to do so during the Committee Stage or during the Third Reading Stage. I shall reply to them then. During the Third Reading I shall also try to bear in mind those aspects which I have not dealt with in detail now. However. I do wish to point out that frequently hon. members of the PFP in particular ask a whole series of questions which, I believe, I have replied to by stating my basic premise in regard to where the dividing line is situated between political decision-making and academic autonomy. [Interjections.]

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of the Bill is to grant greater autonomy to the technikons falling under the Department of National Education, by reason of their development over the past 10 to 15 years, and also with a view to effective administration.

The report of the Commission of Inquiry into Universities of 1974—the Van Wyk de Vries Report—stated that universities were not suitable for the training of highly skilled technicians, or what they called practical managers, and recommended that this kind of training be entrusted to the technikons.

There has recently been a total shift in emphasis to tertiary courses at the technikons so much so that in February 1977, the Minister of National Education at the time decided that technikons would in future develop vertically as distinctive tertiary institutions, parallel to the universities, to meet the increasing need for tertiary occupational education.

The technikons have grown in stature as tertiary educational institutions, to such an extent that they have acquired the necessary maturity for greater administrative autonomy, with the result that the relevant legislation can be amended to provide for the anticipated future trends and requirements.

By the granting of greater autonomy to the techinikons, effect is also given to the administrative principle of devolution of administrative power, with the result that the local evaluation of requirements can be more fully recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I shall refer now to several provisions in the Bill which are aimed at granting greater autonomy to technikons and achieving effective administration. Generally speaking, it is being provided—in clause 19—that the powers which the Minister can delegate to the Director-General can now also be delegated to a technikon council.

It is being provided that the jurisdiction of technikons be extended so that the borrowing and lending of money will no longer be subject to the approval of the Minister. This is already the position in the case of the universities, and the amendment will enable the technikons to borrow money from banks at short notice, for example, in order to overcome temporary cash shortages during the last quarter of the State’s financial year. In addition, the need sometimes arises to grant loans to approved students for their study obligations.

The designation of the present “board of studies” is being changed into “academic board” and its membership is being increased. The academic board is also being given a more responsible status in that provision is being made for its functions to be increased by the council of the technikon, to enable it to grant bursaries from technikon funds, for example.

The technikons rightly believe that greater powers should be conferred upon the council of a technikon with regard to the appointment of the principal of the technikon, but since not all the technikons have reached the same stage of development, provision is being made for the Minister to determine that in the case of a specific technikon his approval is no longer required for the appointment of the principal by the council. The designation of the office of principal is being changed from “director” to “rector”, or alternatively “hoof” in Afrikaans, and a director—this term is being retained—will henceforth be the principal of a so-called school of the technikon, comprising a group of related courses and departments.

With a view to the effective administrative of the technikon, provision is being made for the present unnecessarily large and cumbersome councils of technikons to be reduced in size.

Furthermore, it is essential that the council of a technikon should be able, as in the case of universities, to appoint committees to assist it in the effective performance of its functions, and provision is therefore being made for this.

A further example of the extension of powers is the proposal that the council of the technikon should itself determine the staff establishment in accordance with guidelines approved by the Minister and without exceeding the amount of the State subsidy and the tuition fees received from students. It is also desirable that, as in the case of the universities, the council of the technikon should appoint the staff itself without the approval of the Minister, but in the case of a younger technikon the Minister can in fact provide that the appointment of certain members of the staff is still subject to his approval.

†Mr. Speaker, it is also proposed that councils of technikons be empowered to determine the “salary notch” on the applicable salary scale when persons are appointed in order to enable technikons to recruit staff more quickly and effectively. The Bill also makes it possible for councils of technikons to determine the remuneration of the part-time staff without the Minister’s approval, thus enabling the technikons to act more quickly when substitutes have to be found or when short courses have to be arranged at short notice. The intention is that overall control over the expenditure will be exercised by means of a new basis of subsidization.

In order to facilitate and accelerate the introduction at short notice of special courses to meet the ever-changing needs of the local public, industry and commerce, it is proposed that councils be empowered to establish, without the Minister’s approval, courses not subsidized by the State.

There has also been an important development in regard to the conducting of examinations by technikons. Up to a decade ago all students at technikons wrote National Examinations conducted by the Minister of National Education. Since then permission has gradually been granted to technikons to conduct internal examinations up to the second level. In some cases the stage of development has now been reached which makes it possible to propose in clause 14 that the Minister of National Education may by notice in the Government Gazette transfer to a technikon the power to conduct examinations at all levels in respect of specific courses. Provision is made for the requirement of external examiners of moderators in the case of final year courses. The Minister will still have to recognize the relevant certificates and diplomas issued to successful candidates.

The Department of National Education has for the past number of years, subject to the final approval of the technikon concerned, granted permission that persons of other population groups be admitted to technikons for Whites, e.g. for courses which are not available at technikons established for the population group concerned. These admissions were approved in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Cabinet and the Minister of National Education. In order to simplify and expedite this procedure it is proposed to authorize the Minister to determine conditions subject to which the technikons will be empowered to decide themselves about the admission of persons of other population groups. It will therefore no longer be necessary that such applications for admission be referred to my Department, so that the whole process will be expedited. The provisions of clause 16 are identical to those of clause 9 of the Universities Amendment Bill which I have motivated and argued at some length before this House.

A further important requirement for the effective provision of advanced technical education, as in the case of university education, is co-ordination and co-operation among the various technikons on matters of common interest such as the evaluation and recognition of qualifications, advice on the establishment of courses and recommendations on State subsidization. It is recommended that provision be made for a statutory Committee of Technikon Principals, which is to function on the same basis as the Committee of University Principals and will take the place of the existing Association of Technikons. That association will continue in existence as a non-statutory body but will no longer receive financial assistance from the State.

Technikons for Coloureds and Indians are presently members of the Association of Technikons whilst technikons for Blacks have been granted associate membership of this association. It is proposed, therefore, that the principals of the technikons for Coloureds and Indians be members of the Committee of Technikon Principals, while a suitable method is under consideration for also granting the technikons for Blacks associate membership of that committee.

It has also become necessary, as has been done in the case of universities, to protect the status and reputation of technikons by prohibiting the unauthorized use of the name “technikon” or unauthorized claims of offering courses of a technikon standard. Transgressors will be guilty of an offence.

*Another matter which has a bearing on the autonomy of technikons is the power of their councils to make regulations. In response to representations received from the Association of Technikons, it is being proposed that the Minister may make regulations with regard to the regulation by technikon councils of matters with respect to their affairs and activities.

The concept of “inspection” at technikons on the instructions of the Minister is no longer appropriate under the new dispensation and is therefore being replaced.

Because of the total shift in emphasis at technikons to the provision of tertiary courses only (that is to say, post-matric courses), they no longer make any provision for courses at the secondary level; these are left to technical colleges, and therefore the concept of “secondary education” in the definition of a technikon’s function in section 2(2) of the Act is being replaced by “postschool education”, and references to “pupils” in addition to “students” are being deleted throughout.

Mr. Speaker, these are the most important objectives and principles of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to spoil this Bill, which in every other respect is a very fine piece of legislation indeed, by introducing into it the same quota clause to which we were so strongly opposed in the legislation dealing with universities which we had just discussed. It is very unfortunate because the PFP would have been only too happy to give its full support to most of the provisions of this legislation because we believe that it is in the interests of the education of all of our young people in South Africa, the very necessary type of education that is provided by technikons, and that this legislation would in fact have met many of the requirements in that connection.

Technikons provide education at a tertiary level to schoolleavers which is of a different nature to the education provided by a university. Whilst universities are largely academic institutions, technikons provide education in relation to the particular needs of commerce and industry. Therefore when technikons are established and make their curricula available, they do so in close collaboration with commerce and industry, and it is their intention to meet the particular needs of commerce and industry for the education of those who will either be employed there or the people who are already employed there. Therefore, both the courses that are provided by technikons and the systems that are applied in order to put those courses across to the technikon students are in many respect different from those applied at universities and are specifically designed for the people working in commerce and industry or those who will eventually be employed there.

I said that we would have been only too happy to support the legislation but for the introduction of the quota clause which makes of this legislation a piece of legislation which is just as unacceptable as the university legislation which the hon. the Minister introduced last week. Once again it is quite clear to us that the hon. the Minister has missed the whole point of the opposition which not only the PFP, but also many educationists and many communities in South Africa have against a quota clause for any form of education, but particularly for education on the tertiary level.

The position is very simple. In this connection we have two categories of young people. In the first category are those young people who after having left school attend technikons to study in the large number of different courses which are provided there and on completion of their studies enter into commerce and industry where they work cheek by jowl with people of other race groups. In the second category we have young people who are already working in close proximity to and in close co-operation with people of colour and at the same time attend a technikon in order to further their studies and to qualify themselves more suitably.

It is inconceivable that it is not possible for us to persuade the Government that it is in the interest of South Africa that those young people should be able to study together irrespective of race or colour and that there should be no system whatsoever which prevents them from studying together or prevents them from attending the technikon of their choice, the technikon which is the most convenient for them, the technikon which provides the courses which they want to study, the technikon which they as individuals would like to attend irrespective of race or colour.

In his whole speech of an hour and forty minutes in reply to the Second Reading debate on the Universities Amendment Bill, the hon. the Minister totally missed the point and there is still an anomaly because in South Africa there are no such things as White offices and factories and Black offices and factories. As far as the places where people work are concerned, they are today integrated work places. The work place in South Africa, whether it is in commerce or industry, is an integrated work place and the effectiveness of the efforts of the people who work there depends on their ability to co-operate and their ability to co-operate in the achievement of common goals depends on the extent to which they can communicate with one another, the extent to which they understand one another, the extent to which they accept one another and the extent to which they develop an ability and a desire to co-operate in terms of the achievement of a common goal. This is what determines the success of our commercial and industrial effort in South Africa; in other words, it determines the success of our economy in South Africa.

We cannot understand why the Government and the hon. the Minister cannot understand that it is in the interest of the country as well as in the interest of all those workers that there should be nothing which prevents them from communicating with one another and studying together at the places where they study as they have to communicate with one another, work together and communicate with one another in the places where they work. It is inconceivable that the Government cannot understand that if one separates people artificially by means of legislative provisions, one is in fact creating a situation in which those people will not have the opportunity of learning to know one another, will not have the opportunity of developing a better understanding of one another and will not develop the opportunity of being able to co-operate with one another.

The work place in South Africa today is of a tremendous diversity. The commercial work place or the factory work place throughout South Africa is an integrated work place thanks to the legislation which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Manpower some years ago. We have removed apartheid from the work place in South Africa. Today South Africa’s workers in commerce and industry are collaborating, co-operating and working together side by side in order to achieve the goals of their particular activity and in order to develop South Africa’s economy. However, it is ludicrous to think that where one has two young people, a Black and a White, working side by side in a commercial enterprise or in an industrial enterprise, doing the same job where the success of the job depends on those two people understanding one another and being able to co-operate effectively, when they attend classes at a technikon in the afternoon, one in fact determines that the Black has to go to a Black technikon and the White has to go to a White technikon. Tomorrow morning when they come back to work they come back to exactly the same workplace and are colleagues where colour does not matter.

When the Government tries to indicate that their attitude is based on principle, I say “nonsense”; I say “humbug". It is not based on principle at all; it is based on racial prejudice and is exclusively racist. If the Government holds that principle so dear and if that principle is so vital for self-determination, if it is so vital for identity, if it is so vital for the group character, why then did they integrate people in the work place and bring about the integration of labour in South Africa? Why do they allow Black and White people to work together in our commerce and industry? There is no consistency in the arguments of the Government. In fact, there is a glaring hypocrisy in the arguments of the Government that are raised in this particular connection. When it comes to the work place, integration is acceptable, but when it comes to the place at which those people who communicate with each other in the work place have to study, rigid apartheid has to be applied. This is just one example of the total inconsistency of the Government and a negation of the so-called principles of identity, self-determination and group character.

Apart from that, in the practical sense, the Government is sabotaging South Africa’s economic effort. They are actually undermining and sabotaging South Africa’s economic effort because anything that is done to obstruct better understanding between the Black and White workers of South Africa, anything that is done to prohibit these people artificially from communicating effectively with one another, to prevent them from co-operating effectively with one another, to prevent the development of better relationships between them, does eventually detract from South Africa’s economic effort. In that sense the Government is subverting and undermining South Africa’s economic effort by the application of apartheid as is being done in respect of this particular provision in the legislation before us.

Let us look at another very practical need, namely the need to meet the manpower shortage in South Africa. When one thinks of technikons, the purpose of technikons in South Africa and how they operate, one realizes that technikons can make a far greater contribution to the solution of South Africa’s skilled manpower shortages than can any other form of educational training of South Africa’s work force. In fact, technikons are specifically designed to meet the manpower shortages of a modern technological industrial society. I want to mention just one set of figures which illustrates the Black penetration of the skilled and semi-skilled work force of South Africa. I mention this in order to indicate that we have to give far more effect to the training of Black people in order to meet our manpower shortages in South Africa. In 1979 in the PWV area 7,5% of the economically active skilled and semiskilled work force consisted of Blacks. It is estimated that by 1984 this figure will have to be increased to 41% or 300 000 workers. I make this point so as to illustrate the following: I do not know whether the efforts of the Government or the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Manpower have in fact achieved this desirable breakthrough, but what is clear is that if South Africa is going to achieve the economic growth rate that it requires in order to solve our unemployment problems with regard to unskilled workers, then we have to see to it that sufficient Black workers are trained in order to meet those particular requirements. It is the technikons that are particularly well placed in order to achieve that breakthrough. We must also not be squeamish about whether Black students or White students study at a particular technikon. A technikon must provide the education that is needed by the economy of that area for all the people operating within the economy of that area, and it should not apply restrictions on admissions to that technikon. If a young Black or a young White knocks on the door of a technikon in order to study there, he must not be told that he cannot be admitted because the quota for Blacks has been filled or the quota for Whites has been filled or the quota for whatever colour group has been filled. The technikon must provide the education that is needed by the economy of the area and anybody must be able to study there if he so wishes.

We have a tremendous problem in South Africa in respect of improving productivity. We will not achieve a solution to that problem until such time as training is improved on a very wide scale. Here again, technikons can in fact help tremendously. In South Africa the output per worker in the manufacturing sector increased by only 0,6% per annum during the 1970-1978 period whereas the average earnings per worker increased by 18,7% per annum for that period. Once again, the technikons can make a major contribution to the improvement of the productivity of South Africa’s workers by providing the type of training that is needed to provide the skilled workers which our economy requires. If those technikons are going to be able to do that job, one must not hamper their efforts. One must not undermine their efforts by applying restrictions to them in terms of the people whom they can admit to study on a racial or colour basis. In the economic areas of South Africa today, as a result of the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, there is no longer any apartheid in the work place in South Africa.

The National Manpower Commission’s report of 1979 indicated, for instance, that we have something like 9 000 artisans employed in South Africa and it also indicated that the demand will peak at 30 000 per annum over the next five years. This is an indication of the tremendous challenge with which we are faced in order to provide the numbers of trained people that we require. If one looks at a level a little higher than that, i.e. the level of foreman and supervisor, one sees that the shortages as set out by the National Productivity Institute are the following: In 1969 we had 138 221 employed in that category and there was a shortage of 1 861, which was 1,3% of the total. In 1979 there were 264 000 people employed, with a shortage of 5 239 and the percentage of the total was 1,9%. It is predicted that for the year 1989 we shall require 504 240, there will be a shortage of 12 606 and the percentage of the total will have increased to 2,5%. Surely that is a danger signal for the Government because we are not reducing the percentage shortage of foremen and supervisors. According to the figures that have been calculated by the NPI the percentage shortage is increasing. This means that the Government is failing the South African economy in that it is failing to provide it with sufficiently trained manpower to fill those positions. Once again, the technikon will be the main instrument that the Government will have to use in order to fill the gap that exists in terms of trained manpower in that particular category. It is terribly unfortunate for South Africa that, whilst we believe the Government understands what the problem is, it is in fact going to undermine the efforts of the technikons by applying to them a racial quota with regard to the people whom they can admit as students to those technikons.