presented a petition from the Administrator of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, praying for the introduction of legislation to alter the boundaries of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope so as to exclude the two areas known as Rooigrond and Hartswater 2, Division of Stellaland, from that Province and to incorporate them in the Province of the Transvaal.

presented a petition from the Administrator of the Province of the Transvaal, praying for the introduction of legislation to alter the boundaries of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope so as to exclude the two areas known as Rooigrond and Hartswater 2, Division of Stella-land, from that Province and to incorporate them in the Province of the Transvaal.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows:

C. H. W. SIMKIN,
Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly.

7 June 1983.

Proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Report to be considered.

Mr. Chairman, late yesterday evening the hon. the Minister of National Education subjected this House for one hour and 45 minutes to a very long and very complicated dissertation, which I had only a few minutes, during the course of the lunch hour today, to try to study. I believe that during the course of that very long speech of his the hon. the Minister proved one or two points.

The first point he proved was that “words, like leaves, do much abound; proof of strength beneath is seldom found”. Even a superficial examination of the hon. the Minister’s speech in reply to the Second Reading debate shows that there is very little in it which needs serious consideration or a serious attempt at answering. What the hon. the Minister also proved beyond a shadow of doubt was that he saw his job primarily as one which imposed on him the responsibility for carrying out the narrow, restrictive dictates of apartheid, and not as a job in which he had to attempt to serve the best interests of education of all the communities in South Africa. That is most unfortunate, and I do believe indeed that the hon. the Minister will look back one day on these particular debates with some degree of regret at the fact that he had lost his opportunity of ushering in a new era of education in the interests of South Africa and all its people.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it is terribly unfortunate that in clause 1 of this particular Bill the hon. the Minister succeeds once again in frustrating one of the main recommendations of the De Lange Committee report, namely the recommendation that a single Minister should be responsible for a single Department of Education, which should be created in order to plan, to co-ordinate and to direct education in South Africa as a whole. I should like to read out that particular recommendation once again for the benefit of hon. members and for the benefit of the hon. the Minister, and I hope they will consider it again. I quote from page 195, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the recommendation is absolutely clear. It is that there should be a single Ministry of Education in South Africa. It is also absolutely clear why it is essential, both in terms of optimizing the expenditure that can be appropriated in respect of the needs of education, and to bring about the proper co-ordination and also to provide the highest standards of education. That is why it is essential that there should be one Ministry and one Department of Education.

Despite that recommendation, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister introduces a Bill which deals, in this case, with tertiary education; education at university level. Not even at that level, however, does either the Government or the hon. the Minister see their way clear to meet the recommendation, the primary, fundamental recommendation of the De Lange Committee. Not even at that level can the Government accede to that reasonable recommendation that is made, and that is in the interests of education in South Africa as a whole. The hon. the Minister introduces a Bill which provides for the division of education at tertiary level into White education, Coloured education, Indian education—all under different Ministers’ jurisdiction—and as far as Black education is concerned control is dispersed in the same fashion in which we have known it before. I believe it is most unfortunate that the Government has not had the insight to realize the need for a single Ministry. At the same time the Government does not have the courage clearly to distance itself from the old apartheid structures and to enter upon a new era and a new system of education in South Africa. It is most unfortunate indeed, and for that reason I move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to say a few words in respect of this concept of the division of education. I believe it is best illustrated by what the hon. the Minister said yesterday evening, and which amounted to the main feature of his reply to the Second Reading debate. That also motivates what is set out in this Bill. That is that the Government sees its responsibility as one of creating community directed universities in South Africa, and also of maintaining those community directed universities in our country. The question I want to ask is what is the community in South Africa really. Does the Government still cling to the concept of separate racial communities? Does the Government not see that South Africa has in fact a larger South African community embracing all other diverse communities? Is the Government for ever going to cling to that concept of strictly separated racial communities?

Yes.

There we have the answer, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister, on the other hand, does not answer. Does the Government really believe that it represents the South African community? That is indeed not so. The Government is not representative of the overall South African community. It merely represents one of the South African communities; one of the smallest of the South African communities.

What is your point?

My point is that the Government does not represent the greater South African community. The Government’s policies …

Whom do you represent?

I represent a part of the South African community, and I also believe that all sections of the South African community should be represented when decisions are taken which determine their destinies and their way of life. [Interjections.] The South African Government imposes its wishes on the overall South African community while those wishes are representative of only a small component of that overall community. The Government also speaks about self-determination. I should like to issue a challenge to the hon. the Minister. Is he prepared to allow the Coloured community by way of a referendum to indicate whether they wish to be part and parcel of this apartheid structure in tertiary education in South Africa? I do not believe that the hon. the Minister will accept that challenge because the fact is that the Government imposes on the Coloured community its ideological requirements. Neither will the Government allow the Indian community to decide for themselves because it knows that the Indian community would in fact be prepared to have and even be desirous of having open education in South Africa.

What about the English community in South Africa? The Government cannot say that it represents the English community in South Africa. It cannot say that it represents the wishes of the English-language universities in South Africa. It possibly does represent the wishes of the Afrikaans-language universities in South Africa. However, in terms of self-determination, I challenge the hon. the Minister to allow the English-language universities to decide for themselves as to whether they are going to have open education in South Africa or not. I say to the hon. the Minister that he will not allow them to do so and that he cannot take the risk of testing the views of the English-language community because he knows that it will be contrary to his view. Once again in this case it is simply the South African Government imposing its will and its ideology on other communities. This is a total negation of the concept of self-determination. There is no self-determination in South Africa. It is NP determination for all the communities within our society and not self-determination.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston has reproached this side of the House with this legislation being subject in its entirety to the basic philosophy of this side of the House, the philosophy of separate development, or apartheid, as the hon. member put it. In the process the hon. member is, however, arguing solely from the point of view of the PFP’s political philosophy. The hon. member made accusations against the Government of the day because it was governing according to its own political philosophy. The hon. member said that this side of the House did not represent the entire community. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Bryanston: Suppose the day were to dawn when the PFP governed this country. Would they then represent the entire country?

Yes.

That affirmative reply means that the PFP will represent the Blacks, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites in this House in terms of their philosophy that they want an integrated society and an integrated system of government. We are aware of the fact that the hon. member for Groote Schuur and the hon. member for Houghton had the courage of their convictions to adopt that standpoint three or four years ago. However this is the first time I have heard that the hon. member for Bryanston is also prepared to adopt that very same standpoint which, in terms of the argument of the hon. member must lead to all groups being represented in this Parliament, which therefore must inevitably lead to Black majority rule. [Interjections.] Of course, Sir. From that standpoint the hon. member now wants to argue that education should be integrated. The hon. member is now using this legislation and this specific clause to attempt to sell their political philosophy. The hon. member also used the De Lange report. What the hon. member quoted from the De Lange report was of course correct. I want to point out to the hon. member, however, that the De Lange report dealt with the entire education system, starting with pre-primary education. In terms of the education philosophy of this side of the Committee there are two matters we are adamant about. The first is that we believe that one cannot divorce education, from pre-primary right through to the tertiary level, from the specific cultural context. On the other hand it is also true that we on this side of the Committee wish to make provision for all the specific groups so that, where at all possible, they can regulate their education within that context. We are not the only ones in the world who adhere to this standpoint. I can quote educationists from all over the world who have adopted the standpoint that it is in the interests of different population groups to regulate their own education.

As far as tertiary education is concerned, as I also said in the course of my speech during the Second Reading that owing to practical circumstances, owing to realities, it was true that we afforded specific groups under specific conditions an opportunity to study at a university other than that established for that group, in terms of the principle embodied in the legislation.

If the hon. member for Bryanston argued in accordance with the philosophy of the PFP, it is obvious that we shall not see eye to eye, but it is not fair to say that this side of the Committee does not take the needs of the other communities into consideration and does not try to meet them. The hon. member said that this side of the Committee wanted to force its will upon the entire community, but that is not correct. Surely it is not correct that we want to force our will upon them.

Let us assume that the PFP is into power and that they want to implement their policy. Would they not then force their will upon the Afrikaners or a large part of the White community? Of course they would. What an inane argument that is of the hon. member for Bryanston to accuse us of such a thing when they would do exactly the same if they were to proceed in accordance with their philosophy. The argument just does not hold water.

As far as self-determination is concerned, the hon. member for Bryanston said that we had not made any provision at all for self-determination within the education policy. But surely that is not correct, for it is precisely because we have made provision for ethnic universities, for separate schools, that we are creating the opportunity for self-determination within the education system as well.

We on this side are convinced that it is in the best interests of all the population groups in the country if we base our education system on the principles which are also contained in this legislation. We are therefore in no way able to support the motion of the hon. member for Bryanston.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I can well understand his advocating a specific situation in education from the point of view of his political philosophy, namely that there should only be one Department of National Education for all the population groups and that education should be totally integrated. I can fully understand this because this is the political philosophy of the hon. member, but seen from the point of view of my political philosophy, it is totally unacceptable. We on this side are not prepared to accept that education should be totally integrated.

I want to tell the hon. member that he and his party should not become too overhasty in this regard, because the governing party is, after all, systematically implementing what the hon. member for Bryanston is advocating. The hon. member for Bryanston and his party must just be patient for a while. I can also understand their becoming impatient in this situation, for when one sees something happening which spells success for one’s philosophy, one becomes overhasty. All the hon. member and his party need do is exercise a little patience, for it is on its way.

Today I want to thank the hon. member for Virginia for being a supporter of ethnic universities. Of course he was not here yesterday when that standpoint was shot down in flames by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg West. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Virginia’s own party rejected that standpoint on ethnic universities which he still adheres to while he was not here. For that reason I want to thank him for still adhering to this standpoint. Perhaps he will succeed in putting his own party back on the right road through the education study group, although I have very little hope of this happening.

The hon. member for Virginia said that the NP adhered to the standpoint that education from the pre-primary level to the tertiary level cannot be separated from the cultural context. He also said the NP was in favour of providing education for all the population groups within their own cultural context. However, then he introduced that “but” at tertiary level which totally negated his standpoint and mixed cultural contexts again at the tertiary level. The hon. the Minister is laughing about this. This time I want to ask the hon. the Minister not merely to skim over the following standpoint as he did yesterday evening by simply stating “Yes, that is correct”. [Interjections.] The NP’s education policy which it envisages for its new dispensation, if that dispensation becomes a reality, is that education is an own affair, that education at all levels, viz. from the preprimary level to the tertiary level, is an own affair. However, the hon. the Minister has introduced one piece of legislation after the other in terms of which education at tertiary level in particular is not an own affair but where in terms of that legislation the other population groups are also being drawn in and involved in the universities established for the Whites as an own affair. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how education is going to be dealt with as an own affair in the new dispensation because legislation is being placed on the Statute Book which, with the “but” of exception removes tertiary education from own affairs and places it under general law and general affairs. I want to put the following question to the hon. the Minister: Suppose the new dispensation is implemented and the White chamber decides that it wants to amend the specific pieces of legislation the hon. the Minister is now piloting through Parliament to remove the quota of people of colour at White universities from the legislation, will the White chamber have the authority to be able to do this or will it be subject to a general Act which gives the other chambers a joint say or joint responsibility in this connection? Yesterday evening the hon. the Minister saw fit merely to skim over this. I trust that he will now take the time to reply very clearly to this matter because in this Bill in clause 1 in the definitions of “Minister” and “university” this specific matter is already singled out as a general affair that will also apply in a general Act in the new dispensation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House are not prepared to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has once again stated the standpoint of his party. There is only one question I want to put to the hon. member. Was there a time prior to 24 February 1982 when people of colour were enrolled at universities for Whites and Whites were enrolled at universities for people of colour? Were there or were there not such enrolled students? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member that question.

I shall rise and reply to that question in detail.

If so, hon. members of the CP cannot claim that the hon. the Minister has broken away from the principle which they accepted when they were still members of the NP in the Bills now before this House. This affects the essence of this measure.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have now given the main speakers of three parties another opportunity to discuss the principle of the Bill briefly. However, I am not going to allow another general debate on the principle of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. member to return to clause 1.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. In this Bill, as well as in other legislation pertaining to the education of all population groups in the country, whether it be on the primary, secondary or tertiary levels, it is the enormous task of the hon. the Minister sitting there and his department to give direction and guidance.

The cultural colossus.

Quite right. Within a cultural context…

Order!

Mr. Chairman, just allow me to make my point. Then you will see that it is relevant. This Government, which has to take the lead in the field of education for the various peoples in this country, has to, as far as peoples of the Third World are concerned …

Order! The hon. member is digressing. He must return to clause 1.

I am very close to the Bill and to the clause. [Interjections.] We must get all peoples to understand and accept, from the levels at which they move within a cultural context and by means of our education institutions, the free market system or the capitalistic system. [Interjections.] Hon. members are laughing at their own foolishness. There has to be a civilizing process, but we have to ensure that the peoples maintain their own ethnic and cultural ties.

Order! The hon. member must now return to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to conclude. These hon. members can joke and say that this Bill makes provision for integration, but in reality this clause makes provision for opportunities for contact …

Order! The hon. member must discuss clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude.

What does clause 1 say?

I know every word of this Bill and I just want to say that this entire Bill, including clause 1 of course, should be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the House is delighted that the hon. member for Standerton finally supported this clause. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a number of questions in respect of this clause because he is the Minister empowered in terms of the clause to do certain things. I should like to ask him whether he would be prepared to conduct an opinion poll amongst the representatives that he envisages will be on the new universities’ and technikons’ advisory councils, and whether the department will conduct an opinion poll amongst all the principals of the universities which will be affected by this Bill to ascertain whether those universities are prepared to accept the principle of local option when it comes to the admission of members of other race groups. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to conduct this poll to establish the opinion of the different universities on the question of local option, would he then amend the legislation to seek the will of the majority expressed in such an opinion poll? I think this is essential if we are to serve the needs of cultural differentiation, which we all agree exists in South Africa. I know the NP is pledged to the respect for cultural deviation and differences as expressed by the representatives of those cultures.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has had any consultation with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training to ascertain to what extent this Bill, and in particular clause 1, will affect the rights of Black students who may under the quota system attend White universities. The hon. the Minister may be aware of the fact that at the moment, in terms of Government Gazette No. 7282 of 31 October 1980, it is necessary for a Black South African or a Black coming from an independent self-governing State in Africa to obtain three permits in order to attend a university via exemption of the permit system. Those three permits which he requires are, in the first instance, the permit from the Minister of National Education to say that he agress that the Black person in question may attend a university for a specific course of study. Secondly, he must get permission from the Minister of Education and Training, and thirdly, he requires a permit from the Department of Co-operation and Development to say that he may be in a particular area which is not normally his area of domicilium. That particular student will also, in terms of the present Act, only be allowed to be resident in a specific area if he can find suitable accommodation and is given a permit to stay there.

In terms of the powers given to the Minister under this particular clause we are going to change the permit system to a quota system, which means that permits will no longer be issued per individual.

It will be a blanket quota system. What are the consequences for the individual going to be now as a result of the change from an individual permit system to a gross or group quota system? Has the hon. the Minister had consultations with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and local authorities to ensure that under the quota system these students will not be harassed, they will be allowed to be in an area which is not their area of domicilium and that they will be allowed to stay there for the duration of their studies? This is very important because a total change is envisaged in moving from an individual permit system to a quota system.

I will reserve further comments on our major objection to this Bill when we come to the appropriate clause. However, I would appreciate the hon. the Minister’s reply to the two questions which I have asked in relation to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am also waiting for the hon. the Minister’s replies to the questions put by the hon. member for Durban North. Mr. Chairman, you gave a ruling about the discussion of this clause, and we must respect that ruling. My actual problem, as I think you will appreciate, is that this clause is in line with, and the result of, the overall trend of thought set out by the hon. the Minister in this House yesterday evening. Apart from the principles involved in this matter, if one wants to judge this clause, one must do so within the con text of the background sketched by the hon. the Minister. In doing so, however, one runs the danger, Mr. Chairman, of being ruled out of order. I want to say, however, that one surely cannot deal with a clause of this nature in isolation. The clause, as is clearly evident from what has been said here, interprets and reflects a specific point of departure. The point of departure in this case was that it is essential to maintain separate identities. To achieve that end, not only are separate educational institutions necessary, but also separate ministries for the different population groups. I want to repeat a request I have made on more than one occasion in this and other debates: Can the hon. the Minister not please tell me what the particular identity of the Coloured population is, as against that of the Whites, the identity which must be maintained and which makes it essential for us to have two separate ministries to deal with tertiary education? I really want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity of telling us why it is necessary when what is involved—let me use the words of the hon. member for Virginia—is the maintenance of the identities of various peoples and also, as the hon. member for Standerton said, ethnic cultural ties. Then I ask once again: What are the ethnic cultural ties of the Coloureds which are relevant here and which make it essential for us to have separate ministries? If one thinks about this logically, the establishment of a single overall ministry has absolutely nothing to do with cultural ties or—even if there were ethnic differences—with the maintenance of those ethnic differences in the lower echelons of education. Merely from a logical point of view, I simply cannot see why a single ministry would threaten the existence of individual educational institutions. That is chiefly and fundamentally what the De Lange Committee recommended.

Here I am faced with the difficulty that even if I were to accept the hon. the Minister’s ideology I still could not, within the framework of that ideology, see any justification for the necessity of having separate ministries. But apart from that more philosophical point of departure, I have a further problem, and that is that the Government has said, time and time again, that it wants to move away from discrimination. For the Coloureds, more specifically, discrimination lies in the fact that one constantly has to make separate provision for them, as in the case of separate ministries for educational matters. If we are serious about moving away from discrimination, why do we keep doing things that we know to be unacceptable to the Coloureds? As I stand here, let me make two statements, and the hon. the Minister can refute them if he wants to. Firstly, the university principals of the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape were not consulted on this clause and, secondly, had they been consulted, they would have rejected it. Time and again we hear, in this House, about the Government’s willingness to consult people. It is true that the Government has done broad-level consultation, but as far as I know there has been no consultation with these institutions. Mr. Chairman, whether we want to discriminate in this country or not, whether we are motivated by an urge to discriminate or not, symbolic manifestations are of the utmost importance. Sometimes this carries more weight and causes deeper hurt than the practical implementation of a measure. The symbolic content of what we are dealing with here is that at that high level of education we must make a distinction between Whites, Coloureds and Asians. In the process we plunge the sword in deeper and compound the injury, because in spite of the fact that this is 1983, and in spite of all our resolutions, all our promises, we still go on doing things that are fundamentally unacceptable to those people.

Mr. Chairman, one aspect of this clause is that in regard to universities under his control, the Minister of Internal Affairs must consult with the Minister of National Education. What are involved here are, amongst other things, the recommendations of the Universities Advisory Council, and the Committee of University Principals, on, for example, the establishment of departments and faculties at the universities. It is also a question of the drawing up and approval of regulations; the granting of loans and the allocation of subsidies; the tabling of reports, etc. The clause provides for the Ministers to consult each other so that one Minister does not move in one direction and the other in another direction. There must be co-ordination. It is such an obvious requirement that I cannot but support it.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the governing party cannot see the problem that the CP and the PFP have in regard to this clause. In the light of what was said here about the necessity of making provisions for Coloured and Indian students, we do have the problem that the hon. the Minister and his supporters regard the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians as one nation. In the clause, however, provision is now being made for two Ministers, the Minister of National Education and also the Minister of Internal Affairs. This does not accord with the standpoint adopted yesterday by the hon. member for Rustenburg. He said that the principle underlying this Bill was the fact that the NP was engaged in bringing about equality in the country. If that is true, I cannot see why mention must be made of two Ministers here. It would be more correct for the hon. the Minister to have these specific aspects fall under the control of one single Minister, especially in the light of the fact that in an answer to a question by the hon. member for Kuruman about who represents a specific university, the CP having used the concept “people”, the hon. member for Johannesburg West said that the concept “people” ought to be replaced …

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

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, in conclusion, that in the light of the hon. the Minister’s own principles and standpoint about the Ministers who are to serve the respective population groups, I believe that he should ensure that the provisions of the clause under discussion are brought into line with the principles endorsed by the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the point that has perhaps not been emphasized as much as it needs to be is that in terms of the first clause of this Bill the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville will become universities for the purposes of the Universities Act. This is something which is new, and which we indeed welcome. The rectors of these universities become members of the Committee of University Principals. That also, I believe, is a real step in the right direction. The universities become subject to the joint statutes, and this of course underlines the importance of the role of the Universities Advisory Council, which is being extended to cover these universities as well.

Mention has already been made of the fact that the two universities to which we are referring now remain the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Thus the Universities Advisory Council will have to advise two Ministers rather than only one. If the developments announced by the hon. the Prime Minister in terms of a new constitution come into being, however, it seems to me we are going to have to have three Ministers. We are going to have to have a Minister of National Education, and because education, in terms of what the hon. the Minister has said himself during the discussion of this Bill, is an own affair, we are also going to have to have a Minister who will deal with Coloured education, and another Minister of Indian education of course. I am wondering why the hon. the Minister, in bringing this Bill before the House, has not thought about that. Perhaps he might be willing to comment and to tell us whether that is indeed the direction in which his thinking is going.

At a later stage during the course of the Committee Stage debate we will also discuss clause 9 of this Bill, in respect of which part of the argument in favour of what is stipulated there has been that administratively the permit system is indeed difficult to operate, and that the quota system will save a great deal of time. I put it to the hon. the Minister that if we are going to have one Universities Advisory Council, we will have one Minister for two universities and another Minister for several other universities, and if the development takes place causing education to become specifically an own affair, we will have to have three Ministers being advised by one Universities Advisory Council. I think we are going to have an enormous amount of duplication, a great deal more administrative detail, etc. instead of having only one education system, which would enable the hon. the Minister and his department to do the job much more effectively. I believe this is going to become even more difficult in future.

I think the Coloured community in general, and particularly the academic and educational section of that community, would welcome the developments as I have outlined them, with this one reservation of course. Membership of the Cape Teachers Professional Association, for example, has increased from 1 115 in 1975 to 19 453 in the current year. It is an incredible growth. They are looking more and more at the importance of education, and they are of course, I am quite sure, convinced that the fact that the University of the Western Cape now becomes part of the Universities Act and that the rector of the University of the Western Cape becomes a full member—and we all know that he has been attending these meetings—in his own right of the Committee of University Principals, all these things, I believe, become extremely important. Therefore this House, and, I believe, this hon. Minister in particular, should take note of what the President of Union of Teachers’ Associations of South Africa has to say. In his address last night he said—

This is a man who is heading a teachers’ union, and who is also head of the Cape Teachers Professional Association. He goes on to say—

I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Did he consult a man of this stature—I am talking here about Mr. Franklin Sonn who is a recognized leader in his own community—about this development and inform him that in terms of clause 1 of this Bill the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will still be responsible for Coloured and Indian education? Did he discuss this with Mr. Sonn and, if so, how does he square that with the public announcement made as recently as last night by Mr. Sonn to the effect—

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin with the question that was asked by the hon. member for Bryanston and taken up by the hon. member for Pinelands. I am referring to the question: “Why different Ministries?” The hon. member Prof. Olivier also raised this matter. Those hon. members are in favour of a single Ministry of Education which would also deal with universities.

In this respect I want to repeat the conviction of the Government—the hon. member for Virginia also mentioned it—that it views education as a continuous process from the pre-primary to the tertiary level, and that the tertiary level cannot be divorced from education as a whole. It is in fact the culmination of education. It is the educational leader who emerges from the universities and who must therefore maintain a very intimate and close interdependence with the rest of the educational system. That is why the Government believes that it should entrust the departmental and ministerial responsibility for tertiary or university education to the same ministerial or departmental authority as education generally. I think this is a sound approach. It would certainly harm the overall planning and development of any educational system of any community if the tertiary sector had to be removed from it and entrusted to a different department.

In the second place, they argue as follows: Yes, but in that case, why do you not combine all education, tertiary and primary/secondary, in one big melting-pot department? This is the question which was actually asked in so many words by the two hon. members to whom I have already referred. This standpoint which they advocate—and in this respect I take my stand on the De Lange Report—is one which I discussed very thoroughly, I believe, and in considerable detail, during the discussion of my Vote. I pointed out that with regard to the formulation of the De Lange Report in terms of which it recommended a single central Ministry and Department of Education, that recommendation and formulation had been interpreted in two different ways since the publication of the De Lange Report. The one interpretation is the interpretation given to it by hon. members of the Opposition and all, let me call them, liberal or leftist educationists in the country, namely that all education should be combined, managed and administered in one all-encompassing department—that one central department of education literally means that there should be only one central department of education.

However, there has also been another interpretation, and the Government has basically agreed with this other interpretation. The other interpretation is one which was advocated by the chairman of the main committee which submitted this report, Prof. De Lange, and by Dr. Garbers when the report was released and on subsequent occasions, to the effect that the central ministry which they advocate should be a ministry responsible for macro-policy, a ministry which in terms of the draft constitution would deal with the general aspects of education, which apart from this is predominantly an own affair. This is the way Prof. De Lange and Dr. Garbers themselves explained the matter at a Press conference in Cape Town as well. That standpoint, i.e. that there is in fact a need for a central ministry which would be responsible for macro-policy or for general educational matters, is the standpoint which the Government has accepted and to which it has already given effect in paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Constitution Bill, because it says that education is an own affair at all levels—in response to the question put to me by hon. members of the CP and specifically by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I want to say that “all levels” includes the university level—except for general legislation and general policy provisions with regard to the matters mentioned there, namely norms and standards in connection with financing, general policy in connection with conditions of employment and salaries, and general policy in connection with standards, examinations and certification. One could add that if the various educational authorities for own affairs agreed among themselves to co-operate in certain spheres, such a ministry for general affairs would then be able to deal with the matter in so far as it was authorized to do so by the authorities for own affairs.

This is indeed the approach which the NP has accepted from the start. The Government found that the interpretation of the De Lange Report, if I may call it that, which was given to it by Prof. De Lange himself, was acceptable, i.e. a central ministry for educational affairs. It does not exist at the moment, because there is no such central ministry for educational matters at the moment, but in terms of the new constitution, there will be, in addition to the ministries in charge of education as an own affair, a Minister charged with responsibility for central affairs, who will also accept responsibility for general matters with regard to education in the spheres which I have just mentioned. In that limited sense, the NP has recognized, with regard to education as well—just as it has done in respect of certain other own affairs—that there is also a component of general affairs which has to be dealt with in this way.

That is why the interpretation of the official Opposition is wrong and distorted, and I wish they would stop referring to it, for every time they mention the De Lange Report, they give this distorted interpretation to it. Without referring to the fact that there is another interpretation as well, which is advocated by the chairman of that project team himself, they adopt the standpoint that there must be one big melting pot in which not only the total general determination of policy, but also the administration and management of education, should be combined.

I want to remind hon. members of the fact that Prof. De Lange has frequently said that this central ministry should not own and administer schools or employ teachers. So it is not an operational department; it is not an executive department, but a department which is limited to dealing with policy, and only certain facets of policy at that, the policy as it is defined in limited terms in the Constitution Bill, in order to create a framework within which the ministeries of education of each group and the legislative authorities dealing with education as an own matter will have to operate. This is the very clear standpoint of the Government on this matter, a standpoint which is also perfectly understandable to anyone who wishes to understand.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Minister who is in control of macro-education may be White, Coloured or Indian?

That will depend on the President; he can appoint the Minister from any one of the three races, as in the case of all the Ministers for general affairs. In all likelihood he will not be a Minister of Education only, for in my opinion, the general educational responsibilities will not be sufficient to fill a ministerial portfolio. These responsibilities could, for example, be entrusted to the Minister responsible for Manpower or to the Minister responsible for internal affairs. However, this is a matter which will be in the discretion of the President.

The hon. member for Bryanston also asked what would become of self-determination. He alleged that in education, as in other matters, this Government imposed its wishes on the whole of South Africa. The hon. member for Virginia replied to this very effectively when he pointed out to the hon. member—I also spelt it out in chapter and verse yesterday, on the basis of his own words—that if the PFP came into power, there would be no question of university autonomy being exercised in a way that was repugnant to their views. They would enforce their policy. The political authority must decide about these matters within the parameters of politics, and the political authority which takes the decisions does not consist of the people who have been rejected by the electorate, but of the people that have been elected by the majority of voters. I am not aware of any system under which the Governing party governs according to the policy of the Opposition. It governs according to its own policy. It is quite clear, therefore, that this kind of statement is simply a snide remark and is only intended to create an atmosphere, a hostile tension.

The question, then—and it can be asked quite frankly—is to what extent the other population groups do have the right to self-determination with regard to their education. In reply to that we must say, in all honesty, that except for the self-governing Black States which enjoy full self-determination with regard to their education— although they have requested that tertiary education be handled by the central Government for the time being—the Government is moving towards a situation where, instead of this Parliament, the White Parliament, making decisions on its own affairs and also on those of the Coloureds and Asians, as well as making unilateral decisions on matters of common concern to all, Parliament will change its powers in such a way under a new dispensation that the House of Assembly will have exclusive control over its own affairs, but that the power which it has hitherto possessed of making decisions on the affairs of others as well, and of exercising other people’s self-determination for them, as it were, will be transferred to them. This will mean that under the new dispensation, education, including universities, will be an own affair which will be controlled by a Minister of that particular group who is a member of the Ministers Council concerned, and who is subject to the authority of the Chamber of the population group concerned. When this has been implemented, there will indeed be self-determination in the full sense of the word, not only for the Whites, but for the other groups as well, each controlling its own education. What is more, when it comes to general educational matters which are at the moment controlled unilaterally by the White Parliament, the situation will be the same as in respect of all other general affairs, i.e. the three Chambers will make their inputs jointly in order to have legislation passed, according to the procedures that have been laid down for the legislative process. This would then be full self-determination. People who reject this as self-determination are people who are blinkered and who believe that there can only be self-determination in the form of a totally integrated set-up, the way the hon. members of the official Opposition see it.

And the other two Parliaments that are going to be created?

What two Parliaments?

The two chambers. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, in the light of his explanation, whether it will be possible to compel the various population groups to bring their education policy into line with the macro-policy laid down by the co-ordinating national education department, or whether they will be able to reject it and to implement their own policy?

In that sphere it would make no sense for them to be able to reject it. Let us take the example of the setting of standards for examinations. If one of the Chambers had the right, in terms of its own education policy, to reject those standards and to issue a standard eight certificate, a Standard 10 certificate or a national technical certificate of inferior quality, what would the consequences be? Surely one would then have discrimination in reverse. If the policy which was accepted during the time when the hon. members of the CP were still sitting with us on the Government side—that there should be salary parity for people who do equal work and who have equal experience and qualifications—remains applicable, surely it is of the utmost importance that it should be possible to ascertain and monitor jointly whether equal qualifications are in fact being laid down and obtained. That is why general policy and general legislation in respect of standards, with regard to the appointment of teachers, for example, are of the utmost importance in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of the various groups. Naturally, any group is free to set a higher standard and to try to improve on the minimum standard laid down by way of general policy. Surely it is clear, however, that all the various population groups will at least have to comply with the minimum standards. Anyone who has confidence in the ability of his own community should not only have no fear of such an arrangement, but should regard it as essential in order to maintain standards at an inter-group level in the country.

So this is joint determination?

Yes, of course it is. Joint responsibility and joint determination are the same. The former Prime Minister did not even talk about joint determination; he talked about a joint say. Those hon. members raised no objections at the time. One moment a policy is being discussed, and then they take fright at a harmless apparition and they run away and pretend that they never agreed with anything of the kind. The policy on which the self-determination of this Government is built is a combination of self-determination with regard to own affairs and joint determination, joint responsibility, a joint say—whatever you want to call it—with regard to matters of common concern. This side of the House has never made any secret of this. We have made it clear and we shall continue to make it clear and in the referendum it will be ratified by an overwhelming majority of the people.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify something. With reference to what he said about the three different systems of education, those for the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, each of which will fall under its own chamber because it is an own affair, will the Coloured Chamber be able to decide, for example, that as far as they are concerned, the quota system should be abolished, and will the Indian Chamber be able to decide that as far as the Indian university is concerned the quota system should be abolished?

That is a very good question. Paragraph 15 of the first schedule to the proposed new constitution provides that a Government body of any population group may make its services available to any other population group as well, provided that it be done either with the approval of the President or in terms of arrangements made between Ministers, i.e. where the population groups concerned have come to an agreement.

With due regard and subject to general policy and any general law.

Yes, I believe it applies to any such matter. I think this is a very important point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has raised. There is the question, for example, of whether or not there should be group areas. This is not a matter which can be decided by one group unilaterally, because no single group will be able to open its group areas without another group being affected. Therefore it will have to be dealt with as a general affair. The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked whether the White chamber would be able to amend and abolish the quota. My reply to that is a very definite “yes”. There is nothing in the proposed new constitution to prevent any group from exercising exclusive control over its own affairs. The sharing of its own affairs with any other population group, partially or to whatever extent, can only take place in terms of the provision in paragraph 15 of the first schedule to which I have just referred. So the answer to that hon. member’s question is clear, namely that a chamber will be able to amend the quota system by abolishing it.

I now wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort which is not correct and which is not true. He alleged that the Minister had criticized the idea of an ethnic university yesterday. I do not have my exact words before me, but my argument was that this side of the House was in favour of the concept of what I called a community-orientated university.

Is “community” the same as “people”?

If the hon. member had been awake last night, he would have heard the answer. I cannot understand why the hon. member is such a poor participant in the parliamentary process and why he gives such a blatant demonstration of his incompetence every time. I made it clear last night that there could be different groups or communities. I said there could be a people, a nation and a population group. These are also the three distinctions which I drew during the debate on the promotion of culture, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Rissik. I said that a people was a close-knit cultural community, like the Afrikaner people and the Black peoples in South Africa. I think one would find it difficult to describe any of the other groups as a people. I do not believe that the English-speaking population in South Africa regards itself as a separate people. I doubt whether it regards itself as such. The Indians would hardly be able to regard themselves as a people in the sense of a close-knit cultural community. In that sense there can be a people. However, there can also be a nation. A nation is a constitutional concept, and as the hon. member for Johannesburg West has rightly said, the two concepts are used rather loosely. A nation is a constitutional concept which includes all the people who participate fully in a particular constitutional dispensation. That is why the previous hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, said that the Coloured people were a nation in the making. Therefore they form part of a movement towards full participation in a constitutional dispensation.

Mr. Chairman, what does the hon. the Minister mean by “community” when he uses the concept “community-orientated”? Does he mean nation or people, or what does he mean by it? What is “community”?

This is exactly what I said last night and what I have just repeated. I mentioned the concepts of “people”, “nation” and “population group”. The latter is a more comprehensive term, which could, for example, include the Coloureds and Indians. In the case of the Whites, I believe, one would be justified in speaking of a nation, because there is a greater cohesion and they form part of the same political structure. There is total power-sharing among all Whites.

A university which is community-orientated can be orientated towards a particular people. In this way, for example, there are the Rand Afrikaans University, the University of Stellenbosch and the University of Pretoria, which are primarily orientated towards the Afrikaner people, the Afrikaans language group and the culture and history of the Afrikaner. I think that the point which forced the hon. member for Stellenbosch to adopt a critical attitude towards this is the fact that hon. members of the CP use the concept of ethnic universities in the absolute sense, meaning that a university can only be an ethnic university if all its students belong to the specific people which it serves. It is the same as their use of the concept of “people” in the constitutional sense. They want an ethnic State which must consist only of members of one specific cultural group; the rest must get out or occupy a subservient position. In the same way, there are community-orientated universities whose students are members of a particular population group such as the Coloured or Indian groups. If the hon. member does not want to understand it, it is not because it is not clear, but because he is so blinkered by his own ideology that he simply does not want to understand. There is really not much I can do about that. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban North, i.e. whether the Government, and specifically the Minister, would be prepared to conduct an opinion poll. I can assure him that with regard to all these matters—this is also the reply to the questions asked by other hon. members—there has in fact been consultation and people’s opinions have been ascertained. It was done at the level of the university principals, at the level of the Universities Advisory Council and at the level of University Councils. I did not personally deal with the matter regarding the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape. It was dealt with by my hon. colleague and his predecessor and I know that they arranged meetings of the councils of those universities. Those two university councils accepted the legislation in terms of which autonomy is granted to the two universities, and that legislation makes no apology for placing the two universities under the control of the Minister of Internal Affairs and not under the control of the Minister of National Education. By implication, therefore, I must accept—I did not even ask a question about this; surely it goes without saying—that they also accepted clause 1(a) of this amending legislation.

Then the hon. member for Durban North asked a question about the effect of a quota on permits. It seems to me that strictly speaking, this falls under clause 9, but if I may deal with it at this stage, for the sake of completeness, I want to say that if the new dispensation proves to have a detrimental effect on the existing permit system—because a Black person—the hon. member refers to Blacks, while this Bill does not really deal with Blacks—has to obtain several permits in order to study at a particular university and to be present there—if it proves to have a detrimental effect, we shall definitely give attention to it as a matter of urgency. The intention is precisely to reduce the number of permits. The year before last, procedures were arranged between the responsible departments and the universities in order to simplify the issuing of permits, so that instead of a student having to perform three or four actions in order to obtain a permit, it can be reduced to obtaining only one permit.

Then the hon. member for Durban North also asked: “What about suitable accommodation?”

†I should like to state here very emphatically that one of the conditions that I intend stipulating for the admission of students from other population groups to universities other than their own, would be that the university authority must also be prepared, especially when their numbers become more than just a handful, to provide, as they provide for students of their own population group, suitable accommodation facilities.

In separate buildings?

Yes, in separate buildings. It is the policy of the Government that residential accommodation will be in the different areas designated for residence of those groups.

Separate schools too?

This is the policy and the Government has said that it would subsidize and finance such facilities in exactly the same way that it finances and subsidizes facilities for other students. I do not think that universities can continue to admit large numbers of students if they do not take some trouble to arrange and provide for suitable accommodation for those students who are not living within easy reach of their normal residences.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply to my question, but I would like to ask, especially referring to the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape, whether the hon. the Minister would have an opinion poll taken and whether he would adopt the majority decision of the opinion poll, because now …

Order! The hon. member must ask his question—he may not make a speech.

My question relates not to these two universities, but generally to the principle …

I would say, as I argued yesterday, that in the opinion of the Government the decision about these matters of social structure is not in the final instance a responsibility of the academic authorities; it is the responsibility of the political authorities who have been elected by the electorate. In the case of the communities towards which the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape are orientated, those population groups will soon have the right to designate their own political representatives. It will be for those political representatives, in considering the framework according to which universities falling under their authority will operate, to determine what those parameters will be. I think that would be fair. That would be giving effect to the concept of self-determination which, according to the hon. member for Bryanston, has been so rejected out of hand by this Government.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not premature to bring the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville into this Act if we have a new constitution on the threshold?

I do not think it is premature at all, because their ministerial and departmental umbrella does not change. It remains the same. It would be premature if we were to introduce some kind of an interim change now with the prospect that it would have to revert again to an own affair system the moment the new constitution is introduced. Therefore I think it is logical. It is a continuous line that we are drawing now in terms of administration. It would be very unwise in this interim period to introduce legislative measures which are likely to be upset again within the next year or so as a result of the introduction of the new constitution.

That is what we are doing with this Bill.

No, Sir. We are granting autonomy to these universities in the sense that each university will have its own Act while remaining under the umbrella of the same ministry, the same department as before. We are granting them access to the Committee of University Principals and we are prepared to submit ministerial decisions about the developments at those universities to the same advisory council which advises the Minister responsible for White universities. In that way there will be a co-ordinated overview on the part of the advisory council as far as university development and requirements of the country as a whole are concerned.

*Sir, there is yet another question which I must answer, a question asked by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. One of his questions concerned consultation, but I have already dealt with that. His other question was a question of vital importance, one which we have-frequently debated across the floor of this House, namely: What particular reason is there, on the basis of identity, for giving the Coloureds different system of education from the one applicable to the Whites? I do not think we should argue this aspect at great length. The culture of the Coloured population group and that of the Whites are very closely related, they are very similar, and in many ways they are the same. In other words, cultural differences as such are not really the primary consideration here, although we would of course recognize cultural differences betweeen the Whites and the Coloureds as well. But it is also a fact that these two communities have historically perceived each other as being distinct from each other, as being ethnically distinct from each other. In the political reality as we found it in 1948, we are all perfectly aware of the conflicts and unpleasantness caused by the political integration of these two groups, in spite of their cultural affinities. The lessons we were able to learn at the time made it clear to the Government that as far as these two population groups were concerned, it should bring about co-operation, co-responsibility with regard to matters of common concern, but also self-determination for each group with regard to its own affairs, and that a distinction and to be drawn with regard to residential areas and educational systems, including tertiary education. Arising from this, I want to remind hon. members—and this may be an argument which is in a sense only valid for a certain time limited by time, as are most of the arguments which we advance in this House— of the neglect of Coloured education when it was still being handled by the provinces, together with White education, and of the great and dramatic improvement which resulted when Coloured education was allocated to a department of its own. I tried to indicate at great length here yesterday that at the university level as well, the accommodation of people of colour under the tokenism of the so-called open institutions in the period up to 1959 had been insignificant. Thanks to this system of differentiation, spectacular progress has been made since that time.

Therefore the Government is also satisfied that because of the striking differences between the stages of development of these two population groups, the provision of separate education, at university level as well, is necessary. But I want to repeat, and members of the CP are correct when they criticize us for this, that when the NP provides for community-orientated universities, it says at the same time, as I spelt out in this House last night, that there are good, sound and sensible reasons for allowing some flexibility on either side. Clause 7 of this Bill is specifically intended to add to that flexibility, while at the same time ensuring that it does not prove, through an abuse of university autonomy, to have the opposite effect of what is intended, i.e. the preservation of the community-orientated character of universities. For this reason, this side of the House believes that it is correct that the two Ministers responsible for the two relevant departments should be charged with the responsibility for the universities. Eventually there will be three Ministers and they will be responsible, under the new dispensation, for education as an own affair of the three population groups.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, arising from his reply to a question by the hon. member Prof. Olivier about the differences between the Coloureds and the Whites, to which the hon. the Minister replied that there was a very close cultural affinity between them: If there is such a close cultural affinity between these two groups, what other grounds are there for the distinction which is drawn here between the two groups?

Mr. Chairman. I cannot be expected to insult the intelligence of other hon. members by another repetition of what I have already said. I mentioned two further grounds, and if the hon. member could not follow me, he should rather go and read it up in my Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer, once again, to the answer the hon. the Minister gave to a question I put to him about the ability, or lack of ability, of the separate chambers of the future Parliament to do away with the quota system in regard to the universities under their control if they chose to do so. Clause 16 of the Constitution Bill has to do with own affairs, and those own affairs are set out in schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 2 of that schedule refers to education at all levels, including what is mentioned in subparagraph (1) and (2), but with due regard and subject to general policy and any general law in relation to—

The legislation we are now dealing with here contains a provision to the effect that the conditions that could be imposed in regard to the subsidies payable to universities …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to range so widely. We are discussing a specific clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I then raise this under clause 9?

Order! Yes, or in the Third Reading debate. I can give a ruling about that at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have your ruling on whether or not I can react to what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the debate on clause 1 in reference to the conditions he is going to lay down under the new dispensation.

The hon. member may do so briefly.

Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued by one aspect of the Ministers reply, and this is one of the benefits of debates particularly in the Committee Stage because one can then react to the various points that have been made. In that way new developments and thoughts which we did not know about come out during the course of the debate. That is of course good and healthy. The hon. the Minister stated that one of the conditions he was going to lay down when the new dispensation comes into being and the permit system has gone, is to have completely separate facilities. I am not quite sure what the hon. the Minister meant by that. Does it mean that when somebody applies to enter, say, the University of Cape Town, the university authorities will have to supply separate residential quarters? Does this means that there will be separate eating places, separate toilets, separate lecture rooms, etc.? Where is the line going to be drawn? I am asking this quite sincerely. I want to see which way we are going because that is very important. The universities, I believe, also need to know that. Where does the hon. the Minister draw the line? Could he please tell us that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take that particular point just a little bit further because it also brings to mind that the hon. the Minister said very clearly there would be separate residences for separate groups. One assumes therefore that those words mean that there will have to be separate residences for Coloureds, separate residences for Indians, separate residences for Blacks, etc. Or does the hon. the Minister envisage that the people who are non-White—to use his own term—would be able to use the same residence?

My next question, Mr. Chairman, is whether that residence will be entitled to be put on the university campus or will it have to be in a group area separated, sometimes by a long distance, from the university campus? In other words, will the Black residence have to be sited at Langa or Guguletu or Khayelitsha? Will a Coloured residence have to be situated somewhere within a Coloured group area? This brings to mind that the Coloureds might have, for instance, to go out to Mitchell’s Plain. If we were to bring in this sort of regulation, what will the result of that ultimately be? It seems as though the hon. the Minister has now let the cat out of the bag. It seems as though he intends to bring in this type of regulation. I believe he owes it to this House and to this country to expand on this subject so that we can know what sort of a monster of apartheid we are going to be dealing with. Obviously hon. members opposite talk about “selfbeskik-king” all the time. They talk about separate development. This is obviously, I believe, only another name for apartheid, and we want to know how far this particular apartheid provision is going to be taken in these regulations.

If the toilets are to be in the group areas it is undoubtedly going to present problems.

Yes, and who is going to look after the toilets except you, Horace?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, of course, that what one speaks about first depends on what one’s thoughts are concerned with.

†Allow me to make this point quite clear, Mr. Chairman. I said that amongst the conditions to be laid down—and this would obviously not be a strictly enforceable condition—would be a request. Should the universities not take this request seriously, the matter will obviously have to be taken further. The universities will be requested to concern themselves with suitable residential accommodation for those students of colour who, in terms of the policy of the Government, cannot be accommodated in the residences situated on the campus. This is the policy of the Government; it has always been the declared policy of the Government.

It is also in accordance with the policy of the Government in respect of group areas. Everybody knows this, and if people do not like it—and it is obvious that hon. members opposite have not been liking it for a very long time—it is their tough luck.

Are the Coloureds lepers? [Interjections.]

Order!

The point I should like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is that when universities introduce relatively large numbers of students belonging to other population groups for whom accommodation on the campus is not available, some alternative accommodation—and I am talking now of residential accommodation, and not of lecture rooms, etc.—should be provided for those who need it. We have not argued the details of this yet. In this matter we should like to be as flexible as possible again. It will obviously be of little use to provide such accommodation at distances far removed from the campus. I have negotiated with some heads of universities in order to assist them in finding suitable accommodation for students concerned in this manner.

What about the costs?

The costs will be exactly the same as for any other accommodation. Three or four years ago the Government made it quite clear that its financial assistance for providing residential accommodation for students applied to all students who were permitted to attend a particular university.

That will mean duplication and additional costs.

It will not necessarily mean duplication at all.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: If, for example, the University of Potchefstroom should decide to allow two Coloured students, is the hon. the Minister then seriously suggesting that they will have to find separate residential accommodation somewhere? Where are they going to stay?

I said if they allow students of other population groups in meaningful or large and growing numbers. I did not mention for only two.

What do you mean by “meaningful”?

Two is meaningful for Potchefstroom University!

Order!

One should be reasonable about this. This would mean when their numbers are such that one can reasonably provide accommodation for them.

What happens before that?

Well, then they have to look for accommodation themselves or the university can assist them in trying to find accommodation. However, the universities have informed us that they are finding it difficult to obtain sufficient suitable accommodation for such students. My answer was that they would then have to do something along the same lines for their non-White students as they had been doing all along for their White students.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a further question? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to elaborate on that a little further. Let us assume that the number of Coloured students at the University of Cape Town is not such as to warrant a separate residence for them. Would the hon. the Minister allow that smaller number of Coloured students to share facilities with the White students on the university campus in the present residences?

Well, that is a matter which one can consider although it is basically not in accordance with the policy of the Government. It is, however, an area where a certain amount of flexibility could be considered as an interim measure.

Mr. Chairman, in a certain sense I feel sorry for the Chair, because each time the hon. the Minister’s answers ripple out in ever-widening circles.

Why ask me then? [Interjections.]

From the very nature of the case, more and more questions and more and more problems arise as the hon. the Minister proceeds.

I am very interested in the question of the ministry and the reply the hon. the Minister gave in connection with the future dispensation. In my discussion of this clause, I avoided referring to a dispensation which did not yet exist. The hon. the Minister, however, went further and referred to a dispensation that has yet to come. I therefore want to ask for your ruling, Sir. In view of the hon. the Minister’s reply, am I entitled to discuss the expected dispensation in the context within which the hon. the Minister put the matter?

Order! In terms of the rules applicable to this Committee, I can only allow the hon. member to speak about the content of the clause. In reply to the questions Opposition members put to him, the hon. the Minister discussed the matter in slightly broader terms. I am not, however, going to allow hon. members to engage in another general discussion of the matters to which the hon. the Minister replied.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to indicate that the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Bryanston on the Order Paper is a very good amendment. If he will therefore move the amendment, I shall accept it.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the Second Reading debate the official Opposition indicated its overall opposition to clause 9, setting out its reasons in detail. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister has already given us an answer to our representations in this connection. We have, however, taken heart, to some extent, from the hon. the Minister’s reply during the discussion of clause 1. I should just like to feel the hon. the Minister out a little further about the practical implications of clause 9 which makes provision for the establishment of quotas for the admission of groups of students of colour to the relevant universities. I want to obtain clarity about this. The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked whether the White chamber of Parliament would be able to abolish the quota system, to which the hon. the Minister replied “yes”. I also asked the hon. the Minister a question about the ability of the Coloured and Indian chambers to abolish the quota system in regard to their universities, and to that the hon. the Minister also answered “yes”. Now I should just like to put a few further questions to the hon. the Minister about that. Schedule 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill reads as follows—

When one reads clause 9, it is clear that reference is being made to conditions which are determined by the Minister in terms of subsection (1), in terms of which quotas can be instituted. This is all subject to the subsidy system for universities. The subsidy system has to do with the “norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education”. Those subsidies are subject to certain conditions, and those conditions relate to quotas that can be determined in regard to the admission of students of colour. In the light of this fact, I again want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is correct in saying that the White, Indian and Coloured chambers of Parliament can abolish the quotas instituted in regard to the universities which fall within their ambit as own affairs. The impression that is being created is that those quotas are part and parcel of the general policy determining the “norms and standards for the financing” of those universities and that that financing chiefly takes place by way of subsidies paid in terms of clause 9.

Order! I shall allow the hon. member to speak about the conditions, etc., as motivated by him, but the principle of having quotas has already been accepted. I therefore appeal to the hon. member to confine himself to the content of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to argue with you. I accept the fact that the principle of the introduction of quotas has been approved, but surely I do have the right to ask, in terms of the reply which the hon. the Minister himself furnished about its practical implementation and the future of the quota system, what is going to happen in certain cases. The hon. the Minister said very clearly that any chamber could abolish the quota system in regard to the universities falling under the control of the relevant chamber. That is all I want to know, and I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm this for us once again and explain how this accords with what is said in schedule 1 of the proposed new constitution and with the provisions of clause 9.

I should like to take the discussion of the relevant clause even further. We on this side of the House have said, time and time again, that the introduction of the quota system was discriminatory and unashamedly racist. The hon. the Minister then said that the provision would not deny universities the right to offer university training. We have alleged that in practice the provision would lead to Black, Coloured and Indian students or potential students in South Africa definitely being denied the right to university training in certain respects. We are not arguing that those students will not have an opportunity, at some or other university, to take some or other university course. What is a fact, however—and this the hon. the Minister cannot deny—is that in terms of the provisions of this Bill there would be thousands of students who would not have the right to attend the university of their choice on the basis of academic merit. Here I am not talking about a university which the Government decides they must attend, but the university they, as individuals, would like to attend.

Secondly, those students will not be able to take the courses of their choice, because they will take the courses which the Government decides they may take. If the quota, for example, provides that at the University of the Witwatersrand 8 Indians may take a specific course, and that quota has already been filled in terms of the provisions of this legislation, any other Indians who might want to take that course at that university would not be able to do so. Such persons will be forced to attend another university where the relevant course is perhaps not available, thus necessitating their taking another course. I know the hon. the Minister said that adjustments could be made, but adjustments cannot be made outside the provisions of the quota already laid down by the Government. Besides, a student surely wants to attend the university which is nearest to his place of residence. A student who is not a boarder at a university normally wants to attend a university which is closest to his place of residence, provided it is the university of his choice and offers the courses he wants to take. In this regard he cannot do so, because there is a limited quota, and that quota already have been filled.

Let us look, for example, at the case of the University of the Witwatersrand and Soweto. Soweto has a population of approximately 1 million people. Some say it is 700 000 and others again say it is 1, 5 million. Let us suppose that Soweto has a population of 1 million. As far as population is concerned, it is the biggest city in the southern hemisphere, or at least one of the biggest. Overseas the prevailing standard is that for a city of 1, 5 million inhabitants there should be a dozen or more universities to serve the young people of the relevant area. Because a limit is being placed on the number of Black students at White universities, however, hundreds of students from Soweto will be compelled to attend other universities and perhaps take courses that would not really have been the course of their choice, and all this merely because of the implementation of the quota system. It is an injustice that is being done to those students.

There is also an economic aspect involved in this. The costs involved in university studies are tremendously high. If a Black student from Soweto could attend the University of the Witwatersrand, the cost would be lower, because he could then live with his parents. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister about the implications of retaining clause 9 in this Bill. I consider it a great pity that the hon. the Minister has not seen his way clear to allowing the majority opinion of the principals of the universities whom he consulted to prevail and to leave this matter of entrance on a local option basis, without a permit or quota system. I believe it is tragic. I believe we have missed an opportunity here to start off the whole process of consensus agreement and government in South Africa. The retention of clause 9 is going to reverberate along the corridors of South Africa power halls as well as educational institutions because we are now going to lead universities into a situation of confrontation with the State. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister again at this stage seriously to consider the removal of clause 9 and to substitute for it an enabling clause which will leave it to universities’ own discretion as to the number and kind of student they wish to enroll. Nor for the least reason—and I am not talking here about university autonomy any more because we did that during the Second Reading—are there very considerable practical difficulties which will flow from this, in particular for the Black students, because in terms of this clause we are abolishing the individual permit system which I spoke about earlier on as far as the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape are concerned. Blacks will be required to be part of a quota system there as well. I want to ask the hon. the Minister directly once again: If clause 9 is retained will a Black student who, for instance, wanted in terms of the quota system to attend the University of Cape Town, still require the permission of the Minister of Education and Training, the Minister of National Education, the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the local Administration Board? Unless the hon. the Minister has given thought to these problems, this clause 9 is going to create absolute chaos in its implementation because of the uncertainty that will result. It will result in such trauma for Black students that there is going to be a reduction in the number of Blacks who attend White universities and not an improvement in their numbers as the hon. the Minister claims will be brought about.

Let me conclude my comments on this Bill by saying to the hon. the Minister that I believe that he should be guided by the majority opinion of the principals of all the universities affected by this Bill. Should a clear majority prefer local option to a quota system, I believe he is morally, educationally and politically bound to accept that majority decision. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to change his mind and to say that he will opt for local option in place of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston chiefly criticized the quota provision. Quotas, however, are well-known at our universities. The hon. member spoke as if this measure were discriminatory. Let us look at two study courses. As far as studies in medical science are concerned, there is a selection process for medical students. There is actually a quota. There are also some students who even have to change their courses at a given university or have to go to another university. There is also a selection process in the case of veterinary students. It is therefore already a well-known phenomenon at universities and is applied in consultation with the students who want to take a certain course, and bearing in mind the facilities available at the university for a specific number of applicants. We should like to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Langlaagte make an interjection from my bench?

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte may make an interjection from wherever he wants to, the only exception being a Minister’s bench.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton said the principle of a quota already existed, and in this connection he mentioned medical and veterinary students as examples. It would appear to me as if the hon. member has not read this clause, because this quota has nothing to do with that. That quota involves an academic standard that is laid down and has nothing whatsoever to do with this quota. This quota is merely replacing the permit system and empowers the Minister to determine the quota of students of colour who may study at any specific university. It is therefore replacing the permit system, the Minister having to give his approval in individual cases. In terms of this clause the hon. the Minister can also lay down conditions about the study courses to which students of other population groups can be admitted. The hon. the Minister alleges, however, that in 1979 we on this side of the House accepted the principle embodied in clause 9 with the erstwhile acceptance of the Black Universities Amendment Bill.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to speak about the principle of clause 9 again.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react to what is stated in clause 9. It is a matter of the proposed …

Order! The hon. member may speak about the content of clause 9, but not about the principle, i.e. the quota system.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the Bill to which he referred it was also a question of the admission of students of the various Black population groups to Black universities. The hon. the Minister advanced the argument that we in the CP had supported that Bill. He did, for example, quote one short sentence at the end of my speech in support of that statement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react to what the hon. the Minister said in connection with the quota system which, he alleges, we supposedly supported.

Order! I am sorry to have to argue with the hon. member. I must once again point out to him, however, that the principle of the quota system was accepted at Second Reading. Therefore, he cannot advance further arguments about that now.

Mr. Chairman, I then want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he violated the essence of that speech of mine yesterday evening when he said that in principle I approved a principle similar to the one contained in clause 9 of the Bill under discussion. That was a provision in the 1979 legislation. What the hon. the Minister said is incorrect. The hon. the Minister also added that I did not allow myself to be shoved around and …

Order! In the Third Reading debate the hon. member will have ample opportunity to put that matter to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I respect your ruling and shall therefore wait for the Third Reading Stage before raising this matter with the hon. the Minister again.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity you are giving me to complete my argument in connection with clause 9. I feel that I have demonstrated to this House and to the hon. the Minister that it is a fact that as far as Black, Coloured and Indian students are concerned, they are being denied the right to study at the university of their own choice, that in terms of the provisions of this legislation they are being denied the right to pursue the course of study they want to pursue, and that they are being denied the right to attend the nearest university, and that, as far as economic considerations are concerned, this results in far greater expenses because in terms of this provision in the legislation they are compelled to attend a university which may be a long way from where they live. Of course this is a factor which could cause them major problems.

I want to conclude my argument by pointing out that the most important right denied them is the right to consort with other population groups on the same university campus, and to avail themselves of the opportunity to communicate with other ethnic groups, to have contact with them, and to form a better mutual racial understanding, which will also enable them to participate in a broader education process. I feel that this—and I shall let this suffice—is the worst effect of the provisions contained in clause 9 of this Bill, namely that young South Africans of different population groups are being denied the right to attend a university together.

Order! The hon. member is again discussing the quota system as a principle. I cannot allow that.

For the reasons I have mentioned now and previously, I want to move that the clause be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to react briefly to the statement made by the hon. member for Bryanston. I feel that hon. member has now let the cat out of the bag. What does his argument actually entail? The hon. member argued that it amounted to discrimination when a student was not given the oppotunity to attend the same university as a student of another colour. But surely that is not what a university is established for.

Order! I stopped the hon. member for Bryanston when he tried to advance the same argument. The hon. the Minister may react to this, but I cannot allow the hon. member for Virginia to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your decision.

I want to get back to the hon. member for Bryanston. In his first speech in this connection the hon. member elevated the financial aspect to the same level as this important principle. He maintained that this would now be discriminatory. He went on to say that a person of colour would not have the right to attend the nearest university. If this is true, it is also discriminatory against the Whites. What are the facts however? I studied at the University of Bloemfontein which was the nearest university but which did not have have a medical faculty. In spite of the fact that it was the nearest university I would have had to attend another university if I had wanted to study medicine. That argument simply does not hold water.

Where the facilities do not exist, you fool (“domkop”)!

Mr. Chairman, you only get a foolish reply from a fool.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw the word “fool”.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, there are only two short questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister.

The first concerns the quota. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister according to what norms the quota will be decided.

My second question is in connection with the students who will be admitted to a specific university in terms of a quota. Will those students enjoy full academic and full student rights at that university?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the implications of the quota system with which we are now dealing, I should like to repeat the question which the hon. member for Rissik put. I want to know what the criteria are which will be applied by the hon. the Minister in determining the quota. Thus far the hon. the Minister has indicated that there is one criterion in particular that he has in mind. This was in consequence of the previous permit system and concerned those cases where courses for students of a specific group are not available at their “own” universities or institutions. If, for example, in the case of a Coloured, a course is not available at the University of the Western Cape, will this be one of the norms which will be used to determine the quota? I also want to know from the hon. the Minister whether there are other criteria he will also use in this connection.

The hon. member for Bryanston mentioned problems here experienced by people who do not live near the university campus. Let us take the example of Black students studying at the University of Cape Town. These are cases which, as the hon. the Minister knows, were frequently at issue owing to the fact that the nearest Black university is either Fort Hare or the university at Um-tata. This entails tremendous financial expenses and there are the other consequential disruptions. I just want to know from the hon. Minister if these are the kind of criteria he will bear in mind in this regard.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister if he foresees any consultation taking place between him and the relevant university on the size of the quota as well as the fields of study, etc. I also want to emphasize what the hon. member for Bryanston said here that major problems may arise because of the quota. Let us take the example where a quota has been filled and there are deserving cases in a specific field of study which may exceed the quota. What will a deserving case be in those circumstances? What happens if a student is studying at the university—he has been admitted in terms of the quota— and he finds he has no aptitude for that specific field of study. He wants to change his field of study, but what course is open to him? There is either no quota for the other field of study he wants to embark on, or if there is a quota it has already been filled. Are we not placing him in a situation where he is compelled to leave the university and try to enrol at another university?

The same sort of problem arises if we consider the year of study. Perhaps I should explain this. A student is admitted in terms of the specific quota to enrol for the first year. He wants to continue at that university for the second and also the third year of study, but if the university allows him to do so, the quota will be exceeded. Does this not mean that we are also doing these students an injustice in this way?

My fourth question concerns a problem which has already been touched on. What conditions will the hon. the Minister lay down? He referred to possible conditions in addition to enrolment although the clause only refers to enrolment. As far as I am concerned it is an open question whether the hon. the Minister may impose conditions other than those in connection with enrolment. The hon. the Minister said that he could impose conditions in connection with residences, board and lodging and so on. I should like him to make it clear what sort of conditions he thinks he can impose. Will he, for example, tell a university that unless a specific student lives on the campus he may not enrol as a student? There are other questions of similar kind.

The quota system is linked to section 25 of the principal Act which makes provision for subsidies. If a university can cover the costs of students of another population group at that university, from its own funds, will that be permissible? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, in relation to these quotas I should like to make a couple of preliminary comments before I turn to the main aspect which I should like to discuss this afternoon. In his reply to the debate on clause 1, in the course of which the question of the quota was discussed in certain respects, the hon. the Minister referred to the fact of education being a continuum in his eyes and that it was an “own” affair at all levels and hence something like a quota was needed for the maintenance of the group character. In that context I should like to ask him whether in fact he has in mind quotas for primary and secondary schools as well, at some stage.

I did not argue that as a justification for quotas, but for three different Ministers.

I presume that part of the justification for three different Ministers is to treat it as “ ’n eie saak” and to maintain the group character of education. As I understood it, the quota system is part of that whole structure. I should like to know in terms of that structure whether this would not apply to schools.

I should like to take the point made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier one step further. I am referring to a student who is not living close to a university of his own race. One can think of an Indian living in Cape Town or a Coloured person living in Johannesburg who does not qualify in terms of a quota and is then obliged to go elsewhere to study. My hon. colleague asked whether this would be taken into account when quotas were set, but I should like to ask whether, if in fact these people are precluded, they will be financially assisted in any way in view of the fact that they are denied this education in their local area.

The third point I should like to make in this regard relates to the question of whether the quota is going to be transferable. Presumbably, while the quotas are set for each faculty in each university in respect of each race, there may be occasions when the quota is not filled in one particular faculty. Will there be any flexibility built in to enable the university possibly to transfer a shortfall from one faculty to another?

When it comes to the actual levels of the quota, one needs to look at the actual numbers of people one is talking about in the various universities. In his reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday, the hon. the Minister declined to comment at all on the numbers my hon. colleague and I produced for his benefit. Nevertheless, he provided some figures of his own in trying to put the quotas in perspective. I should like to mention two particular examples where, concerning the figures he chose to use himself, he did not get his facts straight. First of all, he mentioned that in 1960 the total number of Blacks, Coloured and Asian students at residential universities in South Africa was 642. I could not find a research document for 1960, but I can tell the hon. the Minister that in 1959, one year earlier, there were in fact 1 603 students who were not White at residential universities in South Africa. My source for that is Table 3 of the report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science for 1959. So that figure is more than 100% out—not that the overall aspect of the growth of the number of non-White students at universities is enormously affected by this. I just think the hon. the Minister should be careful when using statistics.

You are correct. I think I missed out the “1” in front.

I thank the hon. the Minister for that.

The other figures the hon. the Minister chose to mention, was the number of Blacks with matriculation exemption in 1981 and 1982. Those figures ranged between 6 000 and 6 350. He then looked at enrolment in the years shortly thereafter and, including Unisa, arrived at a figure of 7 307. He himself then conceded that therefore one could not really relate the two directly. If anything, that figure would indicate that there is no likelihood of Blacks going to White universities in large numbers and that they are already more than being catered for in the existing system.

With reference to quotas I should like to look at the numbers we are talking about, the potential intake, and at what levels quotas are set. I should like to consider what the possibility of swamping in reality is. I want to use the figures for 1981 as provided in the report of the hon. the Minister’s department this year. The numbers of students who entered university for the first time in 1981, viz. as first-year students, are as follows: 21 400 Whites; 770 Coloureds; 940 Indians; and 3 430 Blacks. That is for all the universities in the Republic of South Africa. Although the table does not say so, it must include all of them because a very high total enrolment is indicated. In other words, the Blacks account for 13% of the total. So, if all the Blacks went to White universities, i.e. if all the Whites and all the Blacks who entered university for the first time that year went to White universities, or so-called White universities, the Blacks would amount to only 14% of the first-year students at those universities. So even if all of them went, your maximum there would have been 14%. If all the 1984 first-year students went to White universities, in other words all the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, the first-year classes of those universities would still on average be 81% White, and I believe that in that context it is highly unlikely that they would lose their group character. Those universities as a whole would still be 90% White. This can be compared with our universities at the moment which are a 94% White. Therefore even if all the students who were not White went to the White universities next year, the difference in the character of universities would be minimal. That is the worst short-term scenario that could eventuate if the NP’s fears were realized.

I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he support the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston and, as that amendment suggests, do away with the quota system and with the permit system and allow the universities to decide.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the principle.

I was just saying why I supported the amendment.

The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston I have outlined above would be statistically negligible but it would have other dramatic effects. It would depoliticize the issue, it would earn interracial goodwill and it would be welcomed as a genuine move away from racial discrimination. The down-side potential for the Government is minimal. They will have nothing to lose in relation to the group character of the universities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made quite a number of calculations on the student numbers among the various population groups. I am not questioning the hon. member’s statements and accept that he made his calculations correctly. However, the point is that the hon. member based his calculations on the situation in 1981. The hon. member will agree with me that the trend is for there to be a tremendous increase in the number of Black, Coloured and Indian matriculants. With all due respect to the hon. member, his calculations are of absolutely no value. The figures will fluctuate from year to year and the hon. member cannot use those figures as a means to advance an argument in this debate. However, I have nothing further to say about the hon. member.

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

The amendment is quite clear. It is merely aimed at bringing the English text into line with the Afrikaans text.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I should like to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Virginia. I think it is a good amendment.

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

The purpose of the first amendment is to make it clear that no conditions will be imposed in respect of the composition of the population groups at the University of South Africa.

My reason for moving the second amendment is that the idea is to make provision in clause 11 for a subsection in terms of which the various provisions of the Bill will come into operation on different dates and it is therefore being made very clear here that the date relevant here is not the date on which the entire measure is to come into operation, but that relating to this particular clause.

At the outset I want to make a few remarks regarding the first amendment I moved, the one pertaining to the University of South Africa, since the hon. member for Pinelands, referring to this university, said yesterday: “It spoils your whole argument”. Why is an exception being made in the case of Unisa? I want to argue this briefly. Firstly, the scope and specialized nature of the provision of education by correspondence is such that the Government and I are convinced that in a new dispensation in which each population group will have a say in education, including education by correspondence, as an “own affair”, we shall have to obtain the co-operation and consent of the various groups to present this jointly, so that one group would then be presenting it in the interests of all the other groups, as it were. I hope that we shall be able to come to such an arrangement in the future. The hon. member for Pinelands will probably ask me now whether this is not wrong in principle, in terms of the premise of this side of the House.

The activities and manifestations of a university are apparent from inter alia two aspects. One of them is its method of teaching, its method of conveying knowledge and training in the field of knowledge as a researcher. Unisa has to contend, not only with a diversity of population groups, but also with a student body whose circumstances are completely different from those at another university. They are students who study by means of teletuition, and since the needs of these students are already provided for in Unisa’s whole method of tuition, the uniqueness of that university has already been adequately provided for.

The second manifestation of a university is that it has a specific community life, as various hon. members have put it in the course of this debate. The old, traditional expression is that a university is a “community of scholars and students”. In the case of Unisa, however, this expression of a unique community life occurs to a very limited extent, since the Unisa student is not taken out of his normal community context and involved, as it were, in a new academic societal context at the university. Therefore the whole issue of the community orientation of a university which constitutes a specific community and which should therefore also be orientated towards a similar community in the society at large, is therefore not relevant in the case of Unisa. Indeed, the case of Unisa effectively illustrates that it is not a question here of absolutising race. This is evident from the composition of Unisa’s staff and in the pursuit its activities, inter alia, in terms of those famous permits granted by the hon. member for Waterberg when he was Deputy Minister. For this reason we believe it is unnecessary to envisage that a restriction on the registration of students on the basis of population groups will apply to Unisa, as was in fact the case in the original Act of 1959.

Sir, I note that there is a further amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, which I now move as follows—

In fact, this merely rectifies a printing error. These, then, are the amendments I am moving. As I have already indicated, I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Virginia as well.

Sir, I do not think it is fitting—in fact, you gave this ruling as well—for me to speak again about the Principle again. It was debated in depth and at length yesterday. I just want to make one point which was possibly not emphasized sufficiently during the course of the debate last night. I am refer ring to the fact that as regards the admission of students to universities, quotas on grounds other than academic grounds, inter alia on the basis or origin—by implication of population groups—have been imposed by various countries in the world recently, as a result of the influx of students from abroad to these universities.

Are they all citizens of the same country?

No, they are not always citizens of the same country. In the case of America, there are universities that impose quotas in respect of citizens from outside the state in question. In the case of certain universities in Canada, as well as some in Europe, quotas are maintained either by restricting numbers or by restricting visas or by financial restrictions, to prevent the universities of those countries being inundated by students from foreign countries. This simply goes to show once again that one has to see a university in its context. If we had one dominant cultural or population group and a number of very small cultural or population groups in this country, this question would not have been as relevant. Just as students from other countries and peoples are permitted to study in countries such as England or Germany, with their homogeneous and established cultural communities on a much larger scale, one would also have liked this to be the case in this country, but last night I took care to point out the difference in the social composition of the various countries. Against that background, it is important to point out that certain universities in Western countries apparently find it necessary to impose restrictions that have absolutely nothing to do with academic considerations, but with the origin of that student, viz. the fact that he is a foreigner. This is done in order to entrench the indigenous community at a university, or at least to prevent inundation by students from abroad. Perhaps it is not always a preventive attitude arising out of cultural differences, but then it at least concerns financial reasons.

Then, at the outset, the hon. member for Bryanston put a question—and this really falls outside the ambit of this debate—asking me to kindly explain what, in my opinion, the decision-making powers of the bodies having authority in respect of “own affairs” would be as regards a quota for a university under their control. In fact I have replied to two kinds of questions already. The question of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, if I understood him correctly, was: “Would the “own” chamber have the right to close its university completely?” In other words, would such a chamber be free even to revoke the possibility of admitting other students under a limited quota. Because education, and consequently university education as well, is an “own affair”, if a chamber should therefore want to take such a decision, I am of the opinion that this is entirely within its power. If, on the other hand—and this was a question another hon. member asked—a chamber wanted to extend the admission to its university, would it also have that power? As far as I can see, that power is limited, because the opening of a university affects other communities, too, just as a decision to open group areas affects other communities and their group areas. That is why something of this nature would have to be dealt with as a matter of common interest. In my opinion, this is quite clear. If it is not dealt with in this way, it would have to be dealt with in terms of paragraph 15 of schedule 1, which makes provision for this.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister argues in this way in respect of removing the quota, since a chamber is now going to reserve its university for its own people only and abolish the quota, surely he is discriminating against other people. Surely that is a general affair.

No, the premise is that it is an “own affair”. An “own affair” is defined in the constitution as being an affair one conducts in respect of one’s own population group. Paragraph 15 of schedule 1 therefore specifically provides in which circumstances one may extend to other population groups a matter that, basically, one provides for one’s own population group. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would be proper for me to argue a matter of this nature any further, simply because it is not my field. I merely raised the matter in passing, and I should just like to emphasize clearly those two alternatives with reference to the question put to me by the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

The whole issue is like the maze at Hampton Court.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to what the hon. member for Bryanston had to say, I want to make a general remark. A number of questions were put with regard to the transferability of a quota from one field of study to another. Although clause 9 makes provision for quotas, not only in the global sense, but also with regard to specific population groups and specific fields of study, I said in my Second Reading speech that such more specific quotas, calculated in terms of population groups or fields of study, would only be used in highly exceptional cases. In any case, that is how I envisage it. It would, for example, be implemented in the positive sense—and let me declare my intention of doing it that way—so that it is specified with regard to all post-graduate studies—and since there are no provisions for universities for the Chinese, with regard to all Chinese students as well—that the conditions will not be applicable to them. In this way, therefore, it would be implemented in a positive sense.

For the rest, during the process of consultation, the councils of the University of Durban Westville and the University of the Western Cape—and this is a question that has been asked repeatedly; I am therefore replying to it by implication as well—expressed a great deal of concern about the possibility of an unqualified global quota, since they have specific fields of study concerning which they feel that although their university establishment as a whole had attained sufficient stability, they would nevertheless require a measure of protection, and that consequently they would want to be at liberty to request that for the sake of protecting such fields of study, people of their particular population group should therefore not be too readily permitted to study at another university in such a field of study. I therefore want to state clearly that a differentiated quota, a split quota, would be so complicated in practice, in my opinion, that one eventually might just as well have retained the ministerial permit system. That is why I believe that it should only be used in highly exceptional cases.

The hon. member for Bryanston put forward a number of reasons for the quota system being unacceptable, and why, in his opinion, it contained certain disadvantages. Well, opinions differ. In any event I am not going to repeat all the arguments put forward yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to refer to a few of those arguments. The hon. member asked whether, if it should become apparent that potential students were forfeiting their right to study at a university in certain respects as a result of the quota system, the system should be implemented in a more flexible manner. I want to put it to the hon. member that we would want to monitor cases of that very nature, and that we should try to accommodate such a student. We shall try to find a solution, either by way of the quota system or by another means, so as to accommodate and facilitate matters for students who are qualified and competent, but who, due to the population group to which they belong, do not have the course of study available at their own university and who are, in addition, prevented by the quota system from finding alternatives.

I now want to refer to what the hon. the Minister of Education and Training said to me. As he explained it to me—and I conveyed this to the House last night—he spent an entire morning with the Vice-Chancellor of one of the large English-language universities and he spent an entire day with the head of the public relations section of another large English-language university to discuss the individual applications those universities had received from students, and to try and establish in which cases permits should be granted, for which cases alternative accommodation existed and which cases they disagreed on. Therefore, as in the past, a solution may be sought through proper negotiation and discussion between the department concerned and the university. I think that this also answers the question a number of hon. members have asked, viz. whether consultations would take place. Clearly this will be the case.

Then it has also been said that the quota system would exclude the student from the course of his choice if that course was fully occupied. The over-enrolment of a particular course already excludes a student regardless of whether his population group is relevant. When a student wishes to register for a particular course at a university, a course with a numerus clausus, for example, a course in architecture, the fine arts, pharmacy, or whatever course, and that particular course is already over-enrolled, he cannot enrol because there is no place for him. Then he has to try another university or else abandon, for the time being, the studies he intended undertaking.

Another question was whether the quota would be rigidly applied. Say, for example, the course is full and another student of considerable merit wishes to enrol. Of course it would not be applied rigidly in this case. We already have quotas. For example, at present we have a quota in respect of pharmacy, which was introduced as a result of a new arrangement to promote co-operation between the universities and the technikons, in terms of which quotas were laid down in view of the historical situation and since the universities and technikons had sound reasons for saying: “We have a situation as a result of which we will have to exceed the quota by so much this year;” or they ask: “We are going to have fewer students this year. Give us the right to admit a few more next year.” After all, such flexibility is always possible between a Minister, a head of department and a university. This is part of our whole style of negotiation and this will be continued with.

It was also argued that the students who live in the large city of Soweto would be deprived of the opportunity of studying at university if they did not have free access to, I assume, Wits. The aim of establishment of the Vista University under guidance of the Minister at that time, the hon. member for Lichtenburg—this was an enormous task and a fine achievement on his part—was to establish the basis of what were originally satellite campuses that could develop into fully-fledged universities in the various Black urban areas. I myself was a member of the Retief Committee at that time, before I went to South West, and it is of interes that whereas Wits made a strong plea before that committee that it should be the responsible body in providing university facilities to the students of Soweto—Wits was prepared to establish a satellite campus of its own in Soweto—it was a fact that even the most militant Black leaders—I do not want to identify them here now, since it may cause problems—the Black leaders who were possibly even more left-wing than the leading members of the official Opposition, came to us and said: We want our own university in Soweto under our own auspices. I concede immediately that they asked that Wits be open without any permits or control as regards the admission of students, except for the academic judgment of the university. They said: Give us a dispensation in which we will not simply be an appendage or appendix of the White university system, but in which we can also build up our own university in our community which will be alive and feel the heartbeat of and be in harmony with life in Soweto. [Interjection.] This was the desire of the people themselves and we are moving in that direction.

If there are problem cases in the interim, I am sure that through negotiation with the relevant universities that bring up these cases we shall again be able to find a solution. I want to repeat that the intention is not to deprive people of opportunities. The intention is to develop opportunities within the framework of Government policy and to effect adjustments to that policy where necessary, in order to make it flexible. However, the Government is not prepared under any circumstances to permit actions to take place under the cloak of the autonomy of universities and to allow social patterns to arise that will bring about a revolution in the whole socio-political development of society through the university with its tremendous influence.

†The hon. member for Durban North also asked me a question. However, I am not quite sure whether I understood the hon. member’s question correctly. He said first of all that this new clause abolished the permit system.

In individual cases.

That is not quite correct. As I read clause 9—and this is its intention—it is to apply to students of all population groups including Blacks. This means that the possible substitution of a quota system for a permit system will affect all population groups including the Whites in respect of attendance at universities of other population groups.

He then asked how the new system would affect a Black student in respect of the number of permits he would require. Now, it will affect him in the sense that he will need at least one permit less because he will no longer need a permit to be admitted to the university. Therefore, the moment he applies for admission to the university and the university finds him acceptable as a student and the university can accommodate him within the conditions which are laid down by the Minister, then the university can immediately help him to acquire the other permits which may be required in terms of other laws for which I am not responsible. The process will therefore be accelerated and facilitated.

*If I am not mistaken, I do not think the hon. member for Pietersburg was present here last night.

I was present.

Then the hon. member must have been even more inattentive than I thought. He said that I had claimed that his support of the legislation in 1979 was supposed to have something to do with support I now expect for clause 9 in respect of the quota. I did not mean it in that way at all and if that appeared to be my intention, I must have expressed myself wrongly.

Last night I referred to the fact that both the hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Rissik claimed that the NP was on the slippery path of integration. With reference to that I said that this alleged slippery path to integration was a path—I spelt this out—along which various steps had already been taken at that time, by way of the legislation of 1979, in terms of which there was a movement away from total separation at university level to a system in which new openings were created, openings that went much further than those of 1959. That is what I meant. I did not really mean what the hon. member claims I meant. If I created that impression, however, I want to set the matter straight by saying that I did not mean that the hon. member for Pietersburg had to support clause 9 on the basis of his support in 1979. I merely argued that if the general allegation that we are now on a slippery path to integration, is true, it began shortly after 1959 and the hon. member for Waterberg played a worthy and leading role in developing this slippery path.

The hon. member for Rissik asked whether students admitted to a university in whatever manner would have full academic and student rights. The reply to this is yes.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister whether such a student could fully participate in all student political activities and so on?

There is no restriction on his participating, but it is another matter if what he does infringes the provisions of any law. If, for example, he is resident at the university hostel, he would be violating the Group Areas Act and would be breaking the law. The one right he definitely will not have is to reside at a hostel without a permit.

Could he become a member of the student council?

He has been for many years. They have qualified to do so since 1959. The concessions the hon. member assisted in establishing at that time, have never imposed any restriction on participating in student life or on the student’s right to vote. [Interjections.] We are therefore doing nothing new. No alterations whatsoever are being effected to what the hon. member for Rissik assisted in establishing at that time, and if this is an undesirable state of affairs, he helped create it. We are then dealing with a “wan-Daan”.

The questions of the hon. member Prof. Olivier dealt mainly with the question of exceeding the quota and with consultation when it is a matter of a change of enrolment from one course to another. I said that in my opinion, the quota will be determined as globally as possible, so that it is to be hoped that the kind of problem he mentioned would not arise. Nor do I think there will be any restrictions on changing from one field to study to another or from one year of study to another since this would make it very difficult for the university to deal with. I want to make it clear that we also want to move away from the aspect of the ministerial permit system which stipulates that it is a permit for an individual student for a specific university for a specific course, something that imposes considerable restrictions as regards the movement of students within the university. The intention is to keep a university’s right of choice within the numerical restriction that is imposed, as open as possible.

I must say that as far as any other conditions that could possibly be relevant in this clause are concerned, I have no particular conditions in mind, except that in my opinion we should appeal to the universities to co-operate by making reasonable residential opportunities available to the students.

The hon. member also asked whether the Government would be prepared to admit to student belonging to another population group to a university, if that university would cover the full tuition fees of that student. The reply to that question is definitely “no”, since it is part of a system. In any case, it would involve some kind of wishful thinking to decide precisely what the cost of a student admitted outside the quota would be.

†The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also asked certain questions. He raised one very important point which has perhaps not received the necessary attention because I am not directly responsible for it, namely the question of the student who, because he belongs to a certain population group, finds it necessary to go to a university elsewhere and therefore incurs travelling expenses. I think it is only fair that some provision should be made to assist him financially in that respect.

What about his residence fees?

If that is not the case at present, I shall do my best to have assistance made available in this connection.

*The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens as well as the hon. member Prof. Olivier quoted certain figures on the basis of which they argued the position logically and asked: “What is the danger of swamping?” Yesterday I tried to indicate in my argument that the basic issue was not only numbers, but rather the attitude with which the whole matter is approached. Let me put it this way: If in 1959, when there was the movement to establish separate universities for the various population groups, there had been general enthusiasm in favour of the idea that, just as the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in this country obtained their own universities, it was no less than right and fair that the other population groups should be afforded the opportunity of getting their own universities with assistance from the State, since they themselves did not have the finance; if that movement had not been regarded, with fanatical obsession, as seeking to establish “bush colleges”, that were not precisely the same as the existing open English-language universities and were therefore inferior, much greater risks could certainly have been taken as regards the restrictive measures relating to the establishment of those universities. However, that measure was necessary in view of the climate created at that time, and experience has proved this. Experienced has proved that if protective and restrictive measures had not been imposed in respect of the admission of students as well, the success attained by the establishment of these universities and the tremendous expansion of training opportunities arising out of this, would never have materialized. I argued this matter last night and I do not want to repeat it all now—I am sorry but in fact I am dealing with the principle again—but we are aware that, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch also put it, hon. members opposite are still not primarily interested in the autonomy of universities, but rather in using it to achieve a more general political result that they are unable to achieve through normal political channels. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that I appreciate some of the clear replies given by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister confirmed very clearly that he would have to lay down conditions in connection with residential students. I am glad that this matter has been cleared up.

In the second place the hon. the Minister made it clear that in terms of the quota system universities would not be allowed to admit students even if provision is made by means of their own funds or outside donations for the expenses of such students. The State will now allow this. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has furnished us with a reply to this question. We can go further only if we have clear replies. However, the hon. the Minister evaded my question on the problem of the possible injustice which may occur when the quotas have been filled. He pointed out that we already have over-enrolment in certain cases. That is an evasion of my question. There may be over-enrolment, but this does not alter the essence of my question. The hon. the Minister cannot use the possibility of over-enrolment as a reply to my question.

In the third place I am perturbed by the fact that the hon. the Minister indicated that if a specific course or field of study were introduced at a university for people of colour, this would be a consideration in determining whether the admission of students of colour to White universities would in that way be curtailed. I want to mention the example of the engineering faculty at the University of Durban-Westville. I personally am of the opinion that it was a mistake to establish an engineering faculty at this stage. Let us assume that in exercising his discretion the hon. the Minister were to say that he was not going to allow Indian students to enrol in the engineering faculty of the University of Natal or elsewhere. He would then be doing that Indian student an injustice. Frequently it is the quality of a course or of a specific department which is important. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that the quality of courses and of departments differ from university to university. This is not a reflection on universities. Some universities simply have better medical, engineering or law faculties than other universities. To deny a student the right to enrol in a faculty at a university where he feels he will receive the best training in his field of study, is certainly doing that student an injustice.

In conclusion I want to say that I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has given us a clear reply to the question of the new dispensation when he said that a House would be at liberty to close its university, but that it would not be at liberty to make its university an open one. This simply means that we have to attach a completely different meaning to the interpretation of self-determination than has so far been held up to us by that side of the House. Apparently self-determination only applies if a university wants to close but not if it wants to be open. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has given us clarity on this, because this is in line with the reply which the previous hon. Prime Minister gave when he was specifically asked at that stage what would happen if the Coloured Parliament were to decide to open Coloured schools to White pupils as well. The then Prime Minister said that the White Parliament could then pass a law prohibiting White children from attending those schools.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having cleared up certain aspects and replied to certain questions for us. I just want to add that I understood the hon. the Minister correctly regarding the academic rights, political rights and social rights of students attending universities in terms of the quota system. The reply I received from the hon. the Minister was that absolutely no restrictive measures would be applicable to any of these students.

I said within the confines of the laws of the country. I also mentioned examples.

I want this matter to be absolutely clear.

It already is.

The hon. the Minister made any number of assumptions as to what happened when this side of the House were still members of the NP and the previous legislation was debated. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that the assumptions he made were not correct. I shall come back to this during the Third Reading.

I should like a clear reply from the hon. the Minister on the question of admission to the Afrikaans universities, community-orientated universities, as the hon. the Minister put it, in particular. Are the students who in terms of the quota system are going to be admitted to these universities, which have so far only catered for the community they served—I am thinking here in particular of the university I myself was affiliated to—going to have full academic and student rights there? I am referring in particular to the political and social rights of students. That is my first question. I want the hon. the Minister to discuss this again.

As far as the quota is concerned it is still not clear to me what norms the hon. the Minister is going to use to determine the quotas. The hon. the Minister must give us an indication of what the norms will be in the determination of the quotas.

There is another point I want to make. In a specific field of study, for example medicine, certain admission requirements are set. A matriculant must have obtained a certain aggregate in matric before he can be admitted to a medical faculty. Is the hon. the Minister going to determine that 75% or 80% of the persons enrolling at the community-orientated university are admitted first, that the remaining percentage of students applying are going to be turned away and that a further 5% or 10%, depending on the quota, comprising students of colour will be admitted, or will be percentage of students to be admitted have to comply with the same entrance requirements as those other students have to comply with?

It is not going to work like that.

In America it has already happened that students have been refused admission, although their academic achievements were better than those of other students, because the quota for the community-orientated university had already been filled.

As far as the matter of non-White students at Afrikaans universities is concerned, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of the views of the governing party, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Rustenburg has said that there has to be a process of equalization.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for offering his support in the matter of obtaining assistance for extra accommodation and travel costs that may be incurred by students who have to travel because there is not a university of their race in the vicinity.

I think one of the most revealing aspects of the hon. the Minister’s initial reply was the fact that, despite the quota system which he proposes to introduce, students are still going to require permits. Surely the hon. the Minister can see that one cannot make a rotten system look good; one cannot even make it work. I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister does not see how ridiculous the whole situation becomes. I am sure the hon. the Minister is a highly intelligent man and I hope for his sake that when he goes home after debating clauses such as this one he just quietly weeps at what he has to defend in this House.

The second point in relation to the hon. the Minister’s reply is that he has again quoted things relating to the Retief Report. I made reference to this last night and I want to make reference to it now and, in fact, more strongly. I take strong exception if a Minister or anybody else makes use of a confidential report to quote what he chooses while it is unavailable to other hon. members. I do not want to doubt his word but how do I know that what he is quoting is not out of context? How do I know that there are not completely contradictory views in that report, the majority of people possibly having contradictory views? I do not know that. I really think it is very poor practice. I respect the hon. the Minister’s desire to keep debates on a decent level and I hope that he will not resort to that sort of thing in the future. Better still, I hope that he will release the Retief Committee report for all hon. members to read so that we too can make quotations from it if we so choose.

What disappointed me was the fact that the hon. the Minister made some reference to figures that my hon. colleague and I had quoted. He merely said that the figures were interesting.

That is right, and that we argued them well.

Well, he may also have said that we argued them well. He then also said that it was not just a question of numbers. To an extent I can accept that but when one talks about quotas surely nothing can deal more with numbers than quotas. That is beyond me. We have been told that quotas are going to include birth certificates and permits, but surely the essence of quotas is numbers. To answer that point, there is no particular relevance as to what people said in 1959 because we are talking about now. If the hon. the Minister is wanting to tell us, not about 1959, but if is wanting to tell us in 1983 that he has no confidence in the Black universities to attract students …

Order! The hon. member is again discussing the principle of quotas.

Mr. Chairman, I am just responding …

Order! The hon. the Minister was replying to all the questions that had been put to him. The hon. member must come back to the clause now.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that we are not debating the principle but in terms of what we are discussing I find it very difficult to talk about quotas and not have them considered as numbers. I believe that the hon. the Minister is still avoiding the question of the figures that we have been talking about and the quotas.

The hon. member for Virginia gave me cause to hope a little when he spoke because, he said, he felt that the argument I had advanced was reasonable although it only had a short-term validity because, as he said, I had not taken into account the fast growth in the numbers of Black students. I think I am correct in saying that that hon. member was not here yesterday when I spent a great deal of my speech taking a long-term view and using the De Lange Report figures for the year 2000. Just to quote two of the figures, in the year 2000 De Lange talks about 108 000 White students and the high estimate for Black students was 26 000. I showed that the percentage of students who were not White at so-called White universities was very likely to remain very constant at about 5%, 6% or 7%. It could possibly even drop but I do not think one has to make an exact deduction.

I want to come back now to the specific point where I left off, and I do hope the hon. the Minister will actually respond. I want to know from him what the effect would be of giving a free rein on the quotas. I submit that the downside potential for the Government is minimal, that there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the so-called White universities could lose their group characters if one should extend the quota system, making it very liberal. That is why I am in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, in which he asks for both the quota system and the permit system to be abolished altogether. I do not believe, however, that it is going to happen, but, should the hon. the Minister feel that it could get out of hand, so to speak, he could at some future stage introduce a quota or a permit or some other control system. Of course we would not support that, and we have already explained in great detail why not.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing the principle of the Bill.

Order! I have been listening attentively to the hon. member. He is indeed arguing the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the principle of the Bill has already been approved at Second Reading. I will therefore not act contrary to your ruling. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, allow me to point out that the Government has a low risk opportunity of moving away from racial discrimination by accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. Hon. members on the Government side do not like being called racists. This clause, however, is a racist clause, and no euphemism or elaborate rationalization will fool anybody. I ask the hon. the Minister again and finally to accept this amendment. I also ask him to comment on the figures we have quoted to him. If he considers them to be wrong we ask him to give us his figures. He may consider some of our figures to be wrong. We may be wrong in some of the assumptions we have made. The hon. the Minister had a figure wrong yesterday; so we may have a figure wrong today. That is always possible. If he does not agree with our figures we ask him to give us his figures in respect of the short-term and long-term projections in connection with what is likely to happen should he accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston and not introduce a quota system. Then we can at least discuss where the differences lie because there is no point in having a big “gogga”, which does not exist.

If the hon. the Minister is not of the opinion that our figures are wrong—if he indeed agrees that our figures are correct—we ask him to have the courage to abandon the quotas and permits because he knows that the fears of his Government are unjustified.

Mr. Chairman, just in case the hon. the Minister thinks we have no view on the amendment in respect of Unisa I want to assure him that we agree with his amendment. We agree with that despite the fact that we believe—and I said that yesterday too—that by this intervention the hon. the Minister has himself destroyed many of the arguments advanced by him.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in his view, Unisa has a character of its own, like any other university. I see the hon. the Minister nods his head. I am sure he agrees with me that that is indeed the case.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question. What kind of character is that? I should think the university has a mixed character, or a multiracial character. Be it as it may, it certainly has a character which goes far beyond the method of teaching. If one talks to people who have attended Unisa, or who still do, it is clear—and the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do—that there are regular meetings both inside and outside of South Africa, where Unisa students are drawn together and meet together to hold discussions with their advisers, or to discuss matters with the professor or the senior lecturer in charge, or whatever the case may be.

We also know that Unisa has a very great campus; an enormous campus. A great deal of activity takes place on that campus so it is not merely in terms of the method of teaching that one must judge that university. It has a special character of its own. I want to put this point to the hon. the Minister. If I am correct in saying that this university has a unique character in South Africa then surely we must ask ourselves whether this is a good or a bad thing. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is a fact that no one would deny that Unisa has served South Africa very well indeed and that if there was no such institution as Unisa, one would have to invent one in order to meet the needs of South Africa in this connection. If that is the case, then why should this not happen elsewhere?

The hon. the Minister says that the major difference is that this university is not residential. What he is actually saying is that his concern and that of his Government—and that is why there has to be a quota system—is in regard to what may happen when a university is residential. However, by introducing a quota system the hon. the Minister is going to run that same risk. Let me give him one example in this regard. He has stated—and I am glad that he has done so—that a student who has been accepted by a so-called White university and is allowed to study there, hasfull student rights. In this regard the hon. the Minister and the hon. members of the CP are at variance with one another in regard to just how far those rights extend. We agree with the hon. the Minister that such a student should have all those rights and privileges. Part of those privileges would be to represent that university in a sporting team. In recent years the Government itself has made major changes to and concessions in its sporting policy so it would not want to interfere in that regard. I take it I am right.

That is for the university to decide.

That is correct. Therefore, if the university decides that it can be represented by all its students, the hon. the Minister will have no quarrel with that.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that South Africa is a very large country and therefore sporting teams, when they compete against other universities, have sometimes to travel long distances. I also want to remind the hon. the Minister—and this is a dreadful admission I have to make in case he does not know it—that very often these sporting teams travel in buses and sometimes even in large trucks, and they travel together. Sometimes they even travel through the night. [Interjections.] Yes. Does that mean that one has to set up roadblocks in order to ensure that they all have the right permits? [Interjections.] How ridiculous do we want to be in this country? That is the first point. However, I want to say here that we accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment in regard to Unisa because we agree with it and we support it.

The other point that the hon. the Minister made in justification for his attitude was that the quota system is also used in other parts of the world. He mentioned the United States as an example. He said that distinctions were drawn between State universities. I agree with him. I have studied there and so I know something about the system. I know that it is absolutely true that there is a certain quota which is allocated in respect of students from outside a State university as distinct from a private university. However, the only quota system I know of in the United States is not based on the colour of a man’s skin. It is based on the question of where that man resides.

It is a non-academic quota.

I agree with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] No. I believe that if a university decides that it is going to give preference to people living in the Cape Province, it is within its rights to do so. It is not hurting anybody. However, when the hon. the Minister says that the quota system is going to be determined in relation to the colour of a man’s skin—and that was why I referred to the question of birth certificates and the Population Registration Act—then that is a total different matter. One has to take this into consideration otherwise how is one to decide who is who? Once one has discovered that one has decided that—this certainly has very definite 1933-overtones—then what one is doing is saying to a person that he cannot do this or that and there is nothing that can be done about it because that person was born like that and he cannot change himself—he can do nothing at all. The hon. the Minister is saying: I do not like the way you were born; you must be restricted to a certain area and you cannot come here. I believe that is unjust and unfair, and I think the hon. the Minister’s arguments are demonstrably weak.

Another argument which the hon. the Minister used was that certain countries had a quota system based on foreign students. I think it was the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism who interjected last night that they do that on the basis of foreigners. I want to ask those two hon. Ministers whether a Coloured is a foreigner.

I never said that.

You could have said that.

The hon. the Minister of National Education said that Government interference in universities did not occur only in South Africa.

That is correct and the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism agreed with that. I like the phrase which the hon. the Minister used very much—Government interference in universities. I agreed with him that there is Government interference in universities in South Africa.

The autonomy of the universities is not absolute.

The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism should …

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands must not allow the hon. the Minister to side-track him and should rather confine himself to the clause.

Sir, I am grateful to you for that ruling. I owe the NRP an answer to a point they made in regard to local option as an alternative. Sir, I may point out that this does not concern a principle of the Bill; it is just another way of trying to determine who should be allowed. The hon. member for Durban North wanted to know what the argument of the PFP was. I do not think that we have given him an answer and I think we owe it to him. I agree very largely with the comments made by the hon. the Minister regarding the speech of the hon. member for Durban North and that is that if one suggests for a moment, as that hon. member has, that a university should have the right to decide that it wants to be English only, and it therefore wants to prevent Afrikaans-speaking students from coming to the university, I cannot agree with that. The same applies when the suggestion is the other way around. We simply cannot accept that suggestion because the logic of his argument is that we must agree with a university which exercises its local option and does not allow Jews to attend that university. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, for the most part the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens and Pinelands advanced arguments relating to the principle of the matter. I do not intend going into that in detail again because I believe that in substance I furnished answers in that regard last night.

There are only two points I want to touch on. The first is the objection raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to my reference to the so-called Retief Report. I am sorry if I offended him by doing so, but the example I quoted of the standpoint put forward by the Blacks of Soweto does not appear in the report; it was part of the investigation process as experienced by the members of the committee while meeting with various groups and holding discussions with them. Therefore it was something I experienced personally—one is inclined to relate personal experiences, although it is not possible for other people to check them carefully—and is not something that appears in the report. It is part of the background evidence in that regard. I think that the point he made, viz. that in the normal course one must not quote from an unpublished report in the debate, is quite valid.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the character of Unisa. In my argument I tried to state that the special character of Unisa is specifically related to the fact that the normal social life of its students is, in effect, separate from the university, except on some occasions, and that as a result the normal community of students and lecturers in the close, active and intimate sense, that one finds at the traditional university, does not develop and for that reason it is in substance a different kind of university. I also pointed out that the openness of Unisa, as regards its lecturing staff and the meetings it arranges for its students from time to time for examinations or other purposes, indicates specifically that racism as such is not an issue here. Even the hon. leader of the CP promoted this matter in his time as deputy Minister.

Then, too, I should just like to raise two points with reference to the questions asked by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. After such a debate hon. members stand up and say that the Minister carried on endlessly and took up time. However, it is otherwise a problem to try to answer even a fraction of the endless questions that some hon. members opposite can ask. I want to deal with two of the many questions asked by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He is a man who is capable of acute analysis and for that reason, too, he put a number of questions. As far as over-enrolments are concerned, it was my intention to intimate that if there were reasonable grounds for more students to be admitted in a specialized field than would normally be permitted within the quota, I as the Minister, in consultation with the university authorities concerned, would like to be accommodating. Let me put it differently. It will always be possible to keep a ministerial permit in reserve in the event of ad hoc problems being experienced with a quota, although this will not be a ministerial permit in the formal sense.

Moreover, the hon. member objected to the possibility, as I envisaged it at the request of the university council of the University of Durban-Westville, that a quota for a specific field of study could be introduced in regard to the admission at a different university of students of the population group for which the university in question was intended. However, this was done at the specific instance of that council. Now, the hon. members opposite have repeatedly asked why we do not consult with bodies and act in accordance with that. This is a case where we have in fact acted on the basis of consultation. Perhaps it is not a satisfactory arrangement in all respects, but we hit on this after the two university councils in question requested that it should also be possible for this kind of quota in respect of a specific field of study for a specific population group to be introduced.

The hon. member for Rissik, too, asked several questions concerning, in particular, the rights a student would enjoy if admitted to a university. I have already replied to that. He asked whether this would also apply at the Afrikaans-language universities. Let me state the matter very clearly and precisely. For its part the State will not set additional conditions with regard to the admission of that student to a specific university, apart from those already provided in legislation and elsewhere. It is of course the right of every university to regulate the life of that university in accordance with rules and prescriptions it sees fit to impose. In that regard, as the hon. member knows full well, universities differ considerably from one another. I therefore wish to state clearly that what I have said does not affect the universities’ full right to regulate its internal affairs.

The hon. member went on to ask what norms would apply when the imposition of conditions, including quotas, were considered. No norms are prescribed. I think a great many considerations could apply. However, I do not wish to give an exhaustive list. I think that all circumstances that present themselves should be considered when such a decision is made. Those circumstances will be determined inter alia in consultation with the universities. The requirements of some universities are different to those of other universities. It is certainly not the intention to compel all universities to fit a procrustean bed. Secondly, there are manpower considerations that can vary from time to time. Thirdly, there is the availability or otherwise of specific education facilities. Fourthly, the personal circumstances of students play a role. There are more similar circumstances. There is the specific pattern that develops at a certain university not only of admissions but also of justified, considered applications, and that pattern will also be taken into consideration in that regard. Therefore many factors are involved, and I do not want to paint myself into a corner at this point by saying that it will be done in precisely this or that way.

The hon. member for Rissik also asked a question about matriculation requirements. I really think he must have realized that that was a somewhat mischievous question. As a leading figure in the education group of the NP in the past and in the education group of the CP at present, he surely knows full well that the powers of the university council are specified in the general Universities Act and that the first restriction on those powers is that it may not admit any student who is not in possession of a university exemption certificate. In other words, the requirements set cannot be set aside by any manipulation of quotas or setting of conditions by a Minister. If it were to appear that indirect discrimination was taking place due to the way in which students were enrolled, in that students were being admitted purely because they came from a specific group, whereas better qualified students from a different group were being turned down, then that, too, would have to be given due attention.

I want to conclude by saying that I find it a pity that the hon. member for Rissik, who creates the impression that he studies these matters, can quote so smoothly and recklessly. He tried to embarrass the hon. member for Rustenburg by saying that he spoke about the equalization of universities. However, the whole context in which the hon. member for Rustenburg put forward his argument related to the equalization of the quality of the educational standard, not only at universities, but also of educational systems. The pursuit of that goal can be described by the popular word “parity”.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to let this suffice.

Mr. Chairman, when my time was up when I spoke earlier, I was referring to the position of the NRP and that of the Government. I think one must have clarity here.

The hon. the Minister has said on a number of occasions that if the PFP became the Government, it would also have an attitude towards universities and would seek to impose that on universities just as this hon. Minister is doing now. I think that is a very understandable charge, but let me try to explain exactly what our situation would be, because I think that in order to complete this debate we owe it to the hon. the Minister.

Whenever public funds are used—this would of course apply to universities as well…

You want to force them to open.

No, nobody is talking about forcing them to open. What we are saying, is that we will not allow anybody to be discriminated against on the basis of race or colour or creed or language where public funds are being used. We feel that that is absolutely right.

Does language imply that Wits would then have to introduce Afrikaans courses?

No. What we are saying is that if, for example, an Afrikaans-speaking South African wishes to attend the University of the Witwatersrand and if he is denied that opportunity on the basis of the fact that he is an Afrikaner, we say that that is unfair and unlawful discrimination.

That would be discrimination on the basis of language because he would not have the same language opportunities.

That is his choice. We are not saying that all Coloureds should attend White universities. We are saying that where there are Blacks, Coloureds and Indians who choose a particular university, they should have the right to do that on the grounds of academic merit. That is why we say that we cannot go along with the argument of the NRP. Immediately you have this local option and you say to a university council that they can decide who they are going to admit, and that council then says that it cannot stand Afrikaners and that they are not going to have them in their university, according to the NRP’s policy, that is what will happen. We say that is wrong. It would be exactly the same if Stellenbosch were to decide not to allow any English-speaking students. However, already 20% of the students at the University of Stellenbosch are English-speaking and we are probably going to take it over soon!

The next point I want to make is much more serious. I am not being flippant about this at all. We know what happens when anything in any country is administered on the grounds of race. If the University of Natal, to use the argument of the hon. member for Durban North, decided in its council that it wanted to maintain its university for English-speaking South Africans and allow no jews, then according to NRP policy, they would be allowed to do just that, because that is local option. [Interjections.] If it is not that—I hope it is not—then the hon. member must explain what he meant when he said that if an English-language university decides that it does not want to admit Afrikaans-speaking students it should be allowed to do so.

If a university wants to be an English-language university or an Afrikaans-language university it should have the right to decide so.

What does that mean?

It is in terms of the character of the university.

Very well. What then is local option? If a university council decides by a majority vote to refuse to admit anyone who does not belong to a particular cultural or language group, does local option then go by the board?

[Inaudible.]

Does local option go by the board then? [Interjections.] What will be the position in terms of the Group Areas Act? What will be the position if a group decides that it wants to keep out all Black students? [Interjections.] That is racism. There is no logic. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that whatever else is true about our policy, we are attempting to be consistent, logical and just. Clause 9 fails in all those three respects.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Pinelands. He in fact answered his own question partially just now. We are talking about institutions in which Government funds are invested. Group areas and residential areas involve private capital. They belong to private people. My hon. colleague for King William’s Town is quite right. One has to look at that in a different category according to one’s own definition.

What local option means is that the majority of the members on the council of the university have the right to determine the character of the university. It is their local option to maintain a balance between those students who will maintain the character of the university and other students who will change the character of the university entirely. That is their right, provided the university is economically viable. Let me say to the hon. member immediately that local option carries a very considerable responsibility, and that responsibility does not include the right to discriminate against people and to injure their dignity. However, at the same time the institution has the right to maintain its particular character which will be representative of a particular community.

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

No, my time is very limited. The hon. member can ask his question tomorrow. We cannot deny the right to a community to create community institutions with the aid of Government funds in order to foster the culture of that community. I do not think the hon. member will disagree with that because it would be unchristian to say that all community institutions must be faceless, multiracial, non-cultural institutions. [Interjections.] That will be to deny the very cultural heritage which those hon. members are so proud of.

Let me give a further example. It is within the rights of an institution such as Rhodes University to provide training for Methodist ministers. Therefore, if somebody of the Jewish faith applies to attend that theological college, which is supported by Government funds, obviously he cannot be taught Judaism.

Why not?

He is going to be turned away, because he goes there to be taught as a Methodist minister.

Of course he can be taught, just as I was.

Then we are not talking about a theological college for Methodist minister. Then we are talking about a theological college for Jewish people. [Interjections.] By the same token one is not discriminating against an individual if he wishes to attend an institution which cannot cater for his particular needs. That is not discrimination. Therefore we say it is the legitimate right of an English or Afrikaans orientated community to create a university or teachers’ training college which will reflect the character of that particular culture. It is their right to do so. However, if an individual wants to study education under a Calvinist system and is turned down because he is White, Black, Brown, Jewish or Catholic, then that is discrimination. However, one should not deny an institution the right to be a culturally oriented institution.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.