Mr. Chairman, when progress was reported last night, I was busy replying to the hon. member for Pinelands to the question as to why and how we believe that a university can exercise its autonomy in terms of the criteria which it could use to discriminate between persons whom it would admit and persons whom it would not admit.

The hon. member made the cardinal mistake which all hon. members of the official Opposition of course make and that is to think in terms of racism only and in terms of the rights of the individual. That is a primary point of departure in policy as far as the PFP is concerned and that is also where there is a difference between that party and the NRP. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands or any hon. member of the PFP whether their policy recognizes group and community rights in law, and if the hon. member says yes, they do recognize these rights, then he will have to agree with us that in terms of local option a university would have the right to allow its own character to be maintained.

This refers to the quota system and the principle that a university will be able to determine how many people it is prepared to admit who do not subscribe to the characteristics of that particular university. The question of the hon. member for Pinelands arose because I maintained and still maintain that a community has the right to establish a university which reflects the character of that community predominantly. It therefore has a modicum of right of admission because, as I illustrated to the hon. member for Pinelands, if he was running a theological college at Rhodes University for Methodist ministers, he would obviously have to turn away any student who wished to apply for training in a theology other than Methodism.

What I put to the PFP—I hope one of the hon. members of that party will reply to it—is whether a group also has a legal right in their policy. My question therefore is whether they would allow a group which has a community-based university, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, the right to maintain the character of that university and therefore to have a right of admission according to its own criteria as to whom it will accept and whom it will not accept as students.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North obviously does not listen when we speak and when we answer questions in this House. The policy of the PFP is absolutely clear: We will not tolerate any form of discrimination whatsoever based on the grounds of race or colour.

But you are not answering the question.

I am answering the question. If you will keep your big mouth shut…

Order! Hon. members must address one another through the Chair.

The answer is simple. South African universities which are financed out of the taxes paid by the South African population as a whole cannot hope to discriminate against a particular group by saying to a person that just because he is a Coloured or just because he is White or just because he is English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, irrespective of that person’s academic levels, irrespective of the fact that the university in question is the nearest university or the best university which presents the courses in which that person wants to study that he is excluded simply because of the colour of his skin. I have given this answer before in the House, and so have other hon. members. I hope that the hon. member will now understand it. The PFP recognizes that South Africa is a plural society, made up of different ethnic and other groups. We will guarantee to any group the right to its existence and to practise its culture in a far more effective way than that party wants to do. However, we will not allow discrimination to be practised legally on the basis of colour or race.

I now want to deal, if I may, with the practical effect of clause 9. It is terribly important that the universities of South Africa know where they stand as a result of the introduction of the quota system for the admission of students to South African universities. It is a quota system based on race. Apartheid makes one schizophrenic, makes South Africa schizophrenic. When the hon. the Minister explains what is meant by his policies, when he explains what the implications of the policy of apartheid are going to be, one becomes schizophrenic. You do not know whether to laugh or to cry when one listens to the explanations of the hon. the Minister. I wonder what the effect on the universities is going to be when the hon. the Minister attempts to explain to them how they must go about applying the quota system in so far as the admission of students is concerned.

*The hon. the Minister has been doing an egg dance. In fact, in his reply to the Second Reading debate he did such a clumsy egg dance that he could have solved the problem of the egg surplus in South Africa all on his own.

†The hon. the Minister did not say to us clearly whether the method in which the quota is arrived at, will be on an ethnic or on an exclusively racial basis. I think that is important for us to know. The Government always says that it does not discriminate racially, but that it takes ethnicity into consideration. However, I think that one of the things universities would like to know is what the Government envisages as a basis for calculating the quota system. Will it be ethnic or racial or both? We have a Chinese community in South Africa and I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Chinese are to be considered as part of the White group, the Black group, the Coloured group or as part of the Indian or Asiatic group. For the purposes of the calculation of the quota, where will the Chinese community be accommodated? I take it that the quota will also have to be worked out for the admission of people of Chinese origin. I think this is something the hon. the Minister must explain to us.

When it came to the discussion of the criteria for calculating the quota, the hon. the Minister said that he did not want to be painted into a corner. He in fact indicated that the Government has not yet given much attention or consideration to the criteria on which a quota will be calculated. I find it utterly surprising that the Government can come forward with a system which is so totally unacceptable and so offensive and that the hon. the Minister admits that the Government has not yet decided on the criteria or the considerations that will apply in the calculation of a quota. He said that they would negotiate with the universities. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he is duty bound to inform the universities on precisely what grounds he is going to calculate the quotas and to inform them on what basis they will be entitled to negotiate with students of other race groups about attending their universities. We are not far away from the time when the universities have to start preparing for the next academic year and within the next few months they are therefore going to be faced with the very, very unpleasant and distasteful task of starting to implement an offensive aspect and provisions of the apartheid legislation of the Government. When one talks of the character of a university, the Government does not think in terms of the character of the university in terms of the courses that they offer, whether it be an engineering type of university, a medical type of university or a university lecturing mainly in the humanities. No, it is quite clear from this debate that as far as the Government is concerned, the character of the university is determined by the race group that predominantly attends that university. The Government gives no consideration to the other aspects of university life.

The Government also gave us a very clear indication that the quotas can be removed in respect of a particular university by a chamber of the new Parliament, because it will be considered an own matter, but no university will be allowed to open its doors to remove the quota in order to open its doors to other race groups because that then will be restricted by the fact that it is considered to be a general university. I want to make the point that the hon. the Minister is effectively saying to the other groups, to the Coloureds and the Indians, that they only have self-determination in respect of services provided for their own people and that no group in South Africa …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Bryanston make his Third Reading speech now?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am talking about something that the hon. the Minister specifically dealt with and which is important to get on record. I just want to make the point absolutely clearly that the Government is saying to the other groups that they have self-determination only in respect of providing services for their own people but that they do not have the right to extend services to other people in terms of their own initiative and as they see fit. When it comes to extending services to people of other colour, the White Nationalist Government of South Africa has the final word.

We also dealt with—and this is important in terms of the quota system—the accommodation of students at universities. With regard to accommodation in terms of living quarters, the hon. the Minister said … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to return to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday evening. He said that I had quoted the hon. member for Rustenburg incorrectly. I have the unrevised copy of the hon. member’s Hansard here and according to this the hon. member said the following—

I assume he wanted to say “It wishes everyone to have an education”. The only subsequent qualification which the hon. member made was that where the equalization process at universities differed from the policy of the PFP was that the PFP wanted to involve more people in their equalization process.

Order! May I ask the hon. member whether that portion of the speech by the hon. member for Rustenburg which he has just quoted, was made during the Second Reading?

No, it was from a speech made during the Committee Stage, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It was said during the Second Reading.

But the hon. Minister replied to me during the Committee Stage. The hon. member said that during the Second Reading, but the hon. the Minister discussed it with us again during the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister replied to it during the Committee Stage.

Order! I do not want the principle of the Bill to be discussed again. The hon. member may proceed.

I am reverting to the matter of the quota and I want to put a hypothetical example to the hon. the Minister. Let us assume that the medical faculty of a university may accept 10% of students from the other population groups. In other words, 90% of the students are from the community in which the university operates. Let us now assume that the qualification for admission to the faculty is a matric certificate with an aggregate of 75% and that there are still a few students from the community left after the 90% quota has been filled. Let us also assume that of the quota of 10% of students of other population groups only 5% comply with the prescribed qualification of 75%. My question now is: Will the remaining 5% be made up of students who have not attained the prescribed qualification?

A further aspect I want to raise is that students at a university sometimes become part-time lecturers at that university. What I now want to know from the Minister is whether students of other population groups studying at that university will be allowed to become part of the lecturing staff at that university on a part-time basis. In consequence of this, is the hon. the Minister also going to determine a quota for the lecturing staff?

In his motivation of the quota the hon. the Minister said that various criteria would be laid down and that these criteria would differ from university to university, depending on circumstances. I can understand that. But in a political debate it is nevertheless necessary for a political party do adopt a standpoint in connection with a matter, in this case in connection with the quota. What will the governing party’s standpoint be regarding the determination of quotas? Let us take the University of the Orange Free State as an example. Say the university authorities decide to allocate 5% of their number of students to the Indian group. In that case will the hon. the Minister agree to the other legislation regarding the presence of Indians in the Orange Free State falling away?

What is also of interest in this debate is the Minister’s description of the differences between the Coloured group and the Whites. Yesterday I put the following question to the hon. the Minister—

To which the hon. the Minister replied—

Sir, I did go and read what he had said, but I still do not understand the hon. the Minister very clearly. In particular I do not understand the terminology he used. During the past 18 months the political debate has been very clearly—you will understand this, Mr. Chairman—concerned with the interpretation of terms and concepts used. For the sake of the debate itself I want us to try to get absolute clarity on this matter.

Yesterday the hon. member for Kuruman also put a question to the hon. the Minister. He wanted to know whether the Minister who would be in control of macro-education could be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. To that the hon. the Minister replied by saying that this would depend on the President. Of course this goes without saying. However, he then went on to say that he could appoint the Minister from anyone of the three races. The question that I therefore want to put to the hon. the Minister now is whether there is an additional distinction. When reference is made in the clause itself to a population group, this therefore means that the hon. the Minister also wants to tell this House—on the strength of the terminology he used—that there is also a racial difference between the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites now.

The final remark I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that it seems to me as if, as far as the quota system is concerned, the governing party now wants to justify racism by means of a quota system. If one enrols a small percentage of students of other racial groups at a university, one is apparently not a racist. However, when one, as is in fact the standpoint of the CP …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the principle of the quota system again.

Mr. Chairman, if that is your ruling I accept it.

Mr. Chairman, obviously I realize the importance of the measure we are now discussing. When I therefore express a few thoughts on it, it is not because I am unaware of its importance. However, I do want to point out with all due respect—and this applies to certain hon. members in this House—that one fool can sometimes ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer. [Interjections.] I am saying this, Mr. Chairman, although I realize that we are dealing with an important measure here. [Interjections.]

With these few words I also want to turn immediately to the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for “Risk” … [Interjections.]

The hon. risk for Rissik. [Interjections.]

I meant the hon. member for Rissik. Of course I feel that he is in fact a risk, particularly in this House. [Interjections.]

He is definitely a political risk. [Interjections.]

Yes, definitely. The hon. member for Rissik tried to argue with regard to a specific faculty at a university and how the quota system would be applied to that specific faculty. However, it is quite clear to me that in the first place the quota will be calculated in general terms with a view to the enrolment of a student of colour at a specific university. I can well imagine that for practical reasons it may be essential, in terms of the provisions in the clause under discussion too, for a quota to apply in connection with a specific field of study. However, if the hon. member for Rissik would just understand that to try to work out in the minutest detail whether a specific quota should apply to the social sciences, medicine, etc., would of course land one in a labyrinth. The principle which has to be accepted …

It is not my legislation; it is the NP’s legislation.

Well, then the hon. member should feel reassured in any case. We shall not end up in the labyrinth. He can leave matters to us without any qualms. [Interjections.] However, Mr. Chairman, the relevant point is that a specific quota will apply with regard to the total enrolment of students of colour at a specific university.

Of course, this brings me to the argument of the hon. member for Bryanston. When he referred to the nature and the character of the university, the hon. member for Bryanston over-simplified the matter completely and he tried to limit it to the student of colour or to the number or the quota, which he wanted to use as a norm in assessing the nature or character of the university. Then we find ourselves speaking at cross purposes as far as the actual underlying significance of the nature and the character of universities is concerned. I am willing to concede at once that there will be a diversity of universities, at which divergent norms will apply by means of which the nature and the character of a specific university will be assessed. It will of course happen that a specific university will accept a certain number of students and will maintain that this constitutes no danger to the nature and the character of that university. Another university may of course disagree about these things. However, the point I want to make is that it is an over-simplification and that it is also a purely political argument, a superficial political argument, to try to link the number of students to the nature and character of the university. Indeed this is not what is at issue here at all. A number of hon. members have already said in this debate that when we refer to universities and, as a matter of fact, to the entire spectrum of education, it is not only numbers or a political philosophy which are at stake. They are in fact important components, but there is also a basic educational philosophy at issue. If we take all this into consideration, we can hold discussions and there is also some sense in our wanting to take cognizance of the practical problems in connection with the admission of students of colour, although we want to stay with the basic philosophy which also has education as a foundation.

The hon. member for Rissik also referred again to the question of Indians and the University of the Free State. The hon. the Minister has already made it clear that this legislation does not impinge on existing Acts. We shall continue to implement existing Acts and they will remain in force. This Bill does not affect those Acts. We therefore have to see this legislation as legislation running parallel to those Acts. As far as I am concerned that question of the hon. member for Rissik is irrelevant.

There is a final matter I wish to refer to. The hon. member for Rissik said racism was defined by means of the quota.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. There are three universities in South Africa offering agriculture as a field of study. Let us say the faculties of agriculture at the universities of Stellenbosch and Pretoria have already filled their quotas and an Indian applies to study agriculture at the University of the Free State, will the hon. member tell him: “I am sorry, but in terms of other legislation you are not welcome in the Free State”.

With all due respect, Sir, the hon. member for Kuruman is skating on very thin ice now because he really does not realize the implications of his question. [Interjections.] In this connection I want to associate myself with what a previous speaker said. The university itself will also of course be able to decide on the admission of students.

But what is your standpoint as a member of the NP?

A quota is introduced, but further than that the Government does not wish to prescribe to the universities who they may admit. The hon. member is reasoning as follows: Let us assume that the 10% quota of students of colour a specific university may admit is not filled, and a student with a 60% aggregate applies, will he be admitted? We shall find ourselves in troubled waters if we want to debate the norms which have to be laid down by a specific university for the admission of students within the quota allocated to that university. That we shall have to leave to the various universities. It is not for us to decide about that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that most of the questions put are essentially a repetition of questions which have already been put, but which hon. members evidently want to have elucidated further, probably because they did not, as it goes in a debate, register exactly every word which was spoken. If they were to consult Hansard, they would probably find answers to all their questions. Consequently I want to be brief, especially since the hon. member for Virginia in my opinion effectively dealt with the question put by the hon. member for Bryanston, viz. the question whether the quota would be an ethnic or a racial quota. The question of the Chinese I mentioned in my introductory speech to the Second Reading debate. Moreover, it is not correct to allege that I said that “the Government has not decided on criteria”. I did no more than to make it clear that there was no fixed list of criteria. I mentioned a number of criteria and said that all possible criteria, factors and standards which presented themselves, had to be considered, which is the way in which any sensible person, who has a wide discretion, would operate.

I want to come back to the altercation which occurred between the PFP and the NRP at the beginning of the debate, evidently in anticipation of the day when the NRP, according to the expectations of the PFP—it simply goes to provide what the imagination of the PFP is capable of—might some day become the Government of the country. The altercation concerned the right of some autonomous organization to lay down measures which distinguish, or discriminate, as the PFP put it, on a population group basis. The standpoint stated by the hon. member for Bryanston, as well as by the hon. member for Pinelands yesterday evening, was that the PFP would allow no establishment in the State, no matter how autonomous that establishment might be, to practise discrimination or differentiation on a population group basis if that organization was dependent on taxpayers’ money. They spoke of Government money, but in my opinion it is more correct to speak of taxpayers’ money. I should like to know from them what the position would be of a sports club wishing to participate in sports meetings on terrains provided with, inter alia, public funds. Would this affect a club’s normal right to decide for itself whom its members might be, viz. whether its membership would be restricted to Whites only, to Greeks only, to Afrikaans-speaking people only, or to whomsoever? According to the standpoint of those hon. members the PFP, the sovereign right of a club to decide this for itself—and this is a typical element of the British traditions—would in fact be affected.

Provided they get Government money.

Exactly. In other words, the moment they participate in sporting events on a public terrain that sovereign right of clubs, one which is so steeped in the British tradition, would be forfeited under the dictatorship of PFP policy.

Let us take the example of churches. If a church wanted to be exclusive and wanted to restrict members of its congregation to a specific population group, but wanted to do welfare work for which it, as a welfare organization, would receive limited State aid, would such aid be terminated unless the church became integrated? I want to make it very clear that if one were to take the policy of the PFP to its logical conclusions it would result in the termination of the right to be exclusive, the right of an exclusive organization such as a club to be exclusive, unless the club were to lock itself in and would never, for example, as a club, use a road because, as we heard earlier on today, the road and the street lights were financed from public funds. They gave us a few fine examples of reductio ad absurdum, but I think this one is much closer to reality. The same applies as far as the churches are concerned. Therefore, if this standpoint of the PFP means anything and the PFP is really consistent, it means that if the PFP were to come to power, the right of a club and the right of a church to be exclusive would be terminated. A dictatorship similar to that which emerged in particular African States in this regard would also emerge in this part of Africa with the PFP at the helm.

The hon. member for Rissik wanted to know from me what the NP’s standpoint was in respect of quotas. In respect of the specific instance mentioned by him, I want to make it clear that the NP would definitely not grant a quota for the University of the Orange Free State to admit Indian students since that would be in conflict with the law of the land. If the hon. member wants to have an indication of what the NP’s approach is in respect of quotas, I want to tell him that it is an approach which would not give rise to such a rapid and drastic increase in the numbers of other population groups at a particular university as that experienced in respect of the enrolment of Black students at White universities under the hon. member for Lichtenburg during the period of three years when he was in charge of these affairs. I can assure the hon. member that something of this nature is not the intention of this side of the House. In fact, it is precisely that kind of development which has resulted in this side of the House being of the opinion that a ceiling should be placed on the admission of students of a different colour. This is the answer to that question.

The hon. member for Rissik also raised the question of a person to whom a quota applied in so far as the medical faculty was concerned. The hon. member asked whether such a person would be admitted under, say, the 10% quota of people of colour if he did not satisfy the minimum requirements set for admission to that faculty. This would depend on the extent to which it was within the discretion of the university to set those requirements for admission. For example, the university would not be able to admit anyone, of whatever colour, who has not obtained a matriculation certificate to a course for which a matriculation certificate is a requirement. Moreover, if a professional body set the requirement of a certain minimum percentage, for example, for medical study, the university would not be able to depart from that requirement either, because its autonomy is restricted by the power of that professional body to set training requirements. However, a university can also set specific internal minimum requirements at its own free discretion relating to admission to a particular course. Arising from that very question put by the hon. member earlier on, I said yesterday evening that if it were to appear that students who did better and who met the normal minimum requirements set by a university more satisfactorily, were ousted so as to admit students of other population groups whose achievements were inferior to that student’s—in other words, if there were to be a kind of “affirmative action”, to use the American term—the Government would take a very serious look at that because it would not be in accordance with what the Government wanted.

In this regard one would, however, have to be very careful as well, because universities have various considerations for deviating from their normal minimum admission requirements at times. For example, I know—and I hope that my memory is serving me well—that the University of the Witwatersrand became concerned that the minimum academic requirement, i.e. with regard to percentage points, for admission to a medical faculty had become so high that potential doctors, the students capable of qualifying as doctors, formed a highly intellectualized top layer of, let us call it, the cream of all students, but that those people would not necessarily be the best doctors. Thus, I know that the University of the Witwatersrand, having a normal minimum selection requirement of, say, 76%—I am merely mentioning a figure—with which all the students the university can accommodate in any particular year have to comply, has decided on occasion also to select students who obtained a lower percentage than that but who, because of other considerations such as interest, aptitude, personality, etc., would probably make good general practitioners. Consequently there are considerations of this kind. In mentioning this I also want to remark that as far as the minimum admission requirements are concerned, which are legally set by professional bodies, a university has no right to depart from them. In respect of requirements set by itself for its own purposes, however, it would naturally be able to deviate from those requirements.

The hon. member for Rissik went on to ask whether people from a different population group could be appointed as lecturers. In virtually all universities in our country one would find persons from other population groups who are lecturers. No restrictions apply in this regard, and taking these decisions does not influence the existing situation in any way.

In conclusion I just want to refer once more to the question of the hon. member for Rissik as to why a distinction is drawn between the education of the Coloureds and the Whites if the cultural differences between them are not very large. In this connection I want to refer him to the end of the speech I made yesterday evening in which I mentioned two considerations underlying this distinction in reply to a question put by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Having said this, I think I have replied to the additional aspects raised by hon. members as well as to a whole number raised previously.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the point raised by the hon. the Minister in regard to the autonomy of universities to decide whom they should admit, as well as the question of sports clubs, churches, public facilities and the like, I want to deal with one or two other points very briefly in case I run out of time.

In terms of the hon. the Minister’s understanding of and comments in regard to Unisa yesterday and in respect of the difference of opinion that we had, would the hon. the Minister say then that what is acceptable for Unisa would also be acceptable, say, for Vista? Both are of exactly the same type; they are not residential.

Not at all.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will deal with that later.

The existing section 33 which falls away in terms of the amending legislation has up to now provided a place for the children of ambassadors and other envoys of other countries. Are they now going to be part of the quota system, or are they going to be allowed access over and above the quota? Is there any provision made for that? I think this is quite an important point because it has all sorts of international ramifications.

In his last speech the hon. member for Virginia—a speech which he said was approved by the hon. the Minister—said that while the political considerations are important, they are not primary because it is really the philosophical and educational approach which determines finally how one regards …

I said it was an important component.

Yes, it is important, but not the most important.

No, I merely said that it was an important component.

So, the political consideration is important consideration. Does the hon. member agree with such an interpretation?

Yes.

The educational philosophy, however, is also an important component. Does the hon. member agree with that?

Yes.

If one is to accept that, then if the hon. the Minister is going to talk about consistency of argument—we are not talking about numbers, we are not talking about race, but we are talking about educational philosophy, because that is what the hon. member for Virginia said …

No, after all I did not say that that was the only consideration. I said there was the practical side as well.

In other words, the hon. member is saying that numbers are important, that race does count—is that what the hon. member is saying? [Interjections.] It is very difficult to debate with that hon. member. He should not turn his back on me; he should explain. All that I want to know from that hon. member is whether numbers do count, but numbers are not the whole story. The same applies to race—it does count, but it is not the only component. Is that right?

Yes.

It is very nice to know at last that the hon. members on that side admit by the mouth of their chief spokesman on education that race is a factor in the quota system, because judging from the way they have been ducking and diving …

Order! Is the hon. member now arguing against the quota principle?

No, Sir, not at all. I am dealing with its implications because I have a question following that answer.

The hon. member may proceed.

In terms of that, I want to ask the hon. the Minister as far as accommodation is concerned—this is a practical implication of this—first of all in the interim period until such time as there are meaningful numbers which will justify separate residences, what happens to these students? What happens to those students in practical terms when they are in small numbers and they cannot justify separate residences? I think there is never any justification, but I put this question in line with the hon. the Minister’s own tortured thinking.

What about those universities which are already accommodating Black students and who are actually living in the residences? Does it mean, when the hon. the Minister says that he is going to make sure that he can lay down conditions, that the hon. the Minister will say to those universities that from a certain date those Black, Coloured and Indian students who are living in their residences must get out? I want to warn the hon. the Minister that he really is playing with fire.

In the Rand Daily Mail of 19 April we are told that a major confrontation between the Government and English-language universities over the controversial Quota Bill came one step closer the day before when over 200 University of Cape Town academics called upon the University of Cape Town authorities to defy the Bill should it become law. Mr. Mike Rosholt who is hardly a radical—he is a very distinguished businessman in South Africa—says—

The same thing happened at Rhodes …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member not discussing the principle of the measure at the moment?

Mr. Chairman, I am asking the hon. the Minister a question. I am dealing with the implications of the principle which has been accepted. I do not know where that hon. member has been. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that he must tread very carefully, because feelings are running high.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: It is my contention that it is not in order for an hon. member to question the principle of the measure by means of a question. The hon. member is asking what the implications of the principle are. Whether he does so by means of a positive statement or by means of a question, it constitutes an infringement of the principle which has already been accepted by this House. I suggest that the hon. member is therefore circumventing your ruling by saying by means of a question to a matter what he may not state in a positive way.

The hon. the member for Pinelands may proceed, but I would like him to come back to the practical implications of this clause.

I think you are quite right, Mr. Chairman, and I will do that. I want to reply directly to the hon. the Minister on the comments he made when he spoke previously. The implication of our standpoint is that where the taxpayer’s money is being used, we will not allow discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, colour or language. That is my answer to the NRP as well. We stand by it. The hon. the Minister talks about sports clubs. If a private sports club wants to discriminate it must not expect to be funded by the taxpayers of South Africa. It is its privilege to discriminate if it wants to do that, but not if it is receiving taxpayers’ money which comes from all over the country. Secondly, in the case of if a church wants to defy the central teachings of its own scriptures and discriminate, it must do so on the basis of privilege and must not depend on public funds. That is our policy in respect of public facilities as well. We do not believe that it is right…

Order! Is the hon. member discussing the clause now?

Yes, Sir. The hon. the Minister has just asked me for an explanation, and I am trying to give it to him.

I can only allow the hon. member to discuss clause 9.

That is what I am talking about, Sir. We are saying that the quota system which has now been accepted by this House, over our opposition, implies that certain students are going to be limited to certain universities. The hon. the Minister asked me if, when we say that you dare not discriminate when you are using public funds, we mean that we extend this principle elsewhere. All I am saying is that it does extend elsewhere. That is the only point I want to make. I want to say again to the NRP that they actually support a quota system. The only difference is that they do not want the Government to have the quota system, but the universities. If that quota system says that only English-speaking students will be allowed, to the detriment of the Afrikaner, that is fine.

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

What principle, Sir?

The quota system.

I am talking about the implications of the quota system. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister accused me across the floor of having interjected on numerous occasions saying “racism”. I believe it is this very clause which actually spells out the racism which is implicit in this Bill. It is primarily this clause which is in my view a racist clause. It provides that the quotas are to be identified by population group. Population groups are obviously primarily identified by the colour of their skin, as is done by legislation in this country. So there can be no doubt in my mind that this clause actually embodies the principles of racism because it is totally dependent on race and not on academic qualifications. This Government has repeatedly said that it does not believe in hurtful discrimination on the grounds of race. However, in terms of this clause I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that the implications of this clause can be hurtful discrimination. In other words, let us, for instance, take a situation where in terms of this clause the quota for Coloureds for a study course is full and there is no other place within the Western Cape where a Coloured can study that particular course. As a result of this clause and the quota set by the hon. the Minister, that particular Coloured cannot…

I have already answered that question twice.

You have not actually because what I am asking …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have twice replied to the question as to what will happen. The hon. member Prof. Olivier asked this question and he repeated the question because he did not find my answer clear enough as to what will happen when a course is oversubscribed.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in the event of anybody being turned down from any course at a university because the quota is full, the study course is full, or whatever horrible thing it might be, he does not consider that that would be hurtful to the person concerned, the person who is denied the opportunity of going to the university. The quota set by the hon. the Minister in terms of this clause might be very large, but there is bound to come a time when somebody is turned down from entrance to a university in terms of this very clause because of the colour of his skin. The hon. the Minister must surely accept that if he is so turned down, that is hurtful discrimination. The hon. the Minister says that in terms of this clause he is going to introduce certain regulations. One of them, he has told us, is that if there is a certain number of undergraduates or graduates at a university he is going to insist on separate residences. He says that he will try to be as helpful as he can with regard to this, but separate residences are going to be a condition. That being the case and assuming that somebody cannot go to the university because there is not a residence available for him, would that not also be hurtful? Does the hon. the Minister not concede that that type of situation would be hurtful to the person concerned?

Finally, I again want to ask the hon. the Minister about the quotas as implied in this clause. The hon. the Minister has mentioned the regulation in respect of residence. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has decided on any other regulations that he intends introducing in terms of this clause and, if so, could he give this House some idea of what those regulations will be? Will they, for instance, relate to canteens, as the Hon. member for Pinelands has suggested? Could it perhaps be that these students will not be able to swim in the same swimming pools, as the Navy does at Simonstown?

That point has already been fully answered.

We are aware of the fact that in this country there are four basic different groups: The Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. However, there is a fifth group which, if one looks at any documentation of this Government, is “Coloured other”. If one then considers that there are those five groups and there are a number of undergraduate courses at a university and one multiplies these permutations and computations—and there are also undergraduate and postgraduate courses—I concede that there can be total and utter confusion unless the hon. the Minister sets an overall globular figure for a university and that within a system that we find objectionable he would at least give a degree of flexibility. I want to know whether they will be able to have this flexibility within the university.

Finally, Sir, something that has perhaps not yet been mentioned. Many universities today have summer schools. People can enrol as students for courses at those schools. Will these summer schools be affected by this clause? In other words, will quotas be laid down also for summer shools?

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. members will not mind if I do not reply in detail, because there has been considerable repetition of arguments. However, I do want to refer to some aspects that have come to the fore.

The old statutory provision relating to members or dependants of members of embassies or diplomatic missions has been deleted because according to a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government’s interpretation of the Diplomatic Immunities Act is that members of embassies or dependants of members of embassies are not affected by any measure that distinguishes among people. In other words, there is already general legislation that provides for these people. This even applies to admission at school level. Then, too, there is the aspect of the presence of non-Whites in the residences of universities for Whites. As far as this is concerned, the position will be exactly as it would have been if there had been no new legislation in regard to universities. In other words, it depends whether those non-Whites are there legally.

And if they are not there legally?

It would be the same situation as would have obtained in the absence of this legislation. The provisions of the relevant Acts that are infringed will then come into operation. This is not the responsibility of my department and accordingly I cannot give an authoritative answer in that regard.

As regards the question of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on “hurtful discrimination”, I have already referred to the practice adopted by inter alia the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, of trying to determine in co-operation with the universities whether applications—at the time under the permit system; under the present system, of course, it will be even simpler—should be rejected in circumstances which would be to the detriment of the applicants because it would deprive them of opportunities not available to them elsewhere. This will be proceeded with in that spirit and the new system will be administered so as to ensure that, so far from depriving people of opportunities, this legislation will be used in support of a considerable broadening of opportunities afforded to various population groups by universities, a system which that side has been opposed to from the outset and still is opposed to, so that this may be developed and expanded still further.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister in connection with the implementation of the quota system. Several reasons have been advanced to indicate why a quota system is necessary. The hon. the Minister also intimated that the quota for each university would be determined in consultation with that university, and to assist universities in this, I should like to put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister said that the establishment of a quota system was necessary so that a university’s individual character could be preserved. Could the hon. the Minister give us any indication of a sociological or other expert criterion to determine exactly how many people from other groups can be admitted to a university without changing that university’s individual character? The hon. member for Johannesburg West advanced the argument that the introduction of a quota would depoliticize intakes. Is there any political, sociological or other acceptable norm that universities can take into account if they want to determine, in advance, what standpoint they must adopt in their negotiations with the hon. the Minister?

I want to motivate further the hon. member for Bryanston’s suggestion that this clause be deleted in toto, because it is also related to the third reason the hon. the Minister advanced for the introduction of a quota system. The hon. the Minister said that this politically authoritative institution must implement the electorate’s mandate. The Government must carry out the will of the community. Here the hon. the Minister has slightly confused the concepts “community” and “electorate”. The Government elects the electorate. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not, for the sake of the weather, accept the hon. member for Bryanston’s suggestion that this clause be deleted in toto, because perhaps it is going to rain soon, and if it rains the Government is going to hold a referendum, and the wetter the world around us is, the better will be the chances of the Government’s referendum succeeding. Then we have a new Parliament, and that Parliament will represent a different community.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to clause 9.

Mr. Chairman, I am just motivating why this clause should be deleted in toto.

Order! Yes, but under this clause the hon. member cannot speak about the proposed new dispensation.

Mr. Chairman, my argument is merely that under that new dispensation we should introduce that clause to Parliament and see whether it would be accepted. I will guarantee you, Sir, that it will not be accepted. The hon. member for Pinelands has already suggested that there would be no possibility whatsoever of a provision such as this being accepted by the Coloured community.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister knows who the National Peoples’ Party of South Africa is. It is the majority party in the South African Indian Council. I have the party’s manifesto here, and under the heading “What the party stands for” they say the following about “educational opportunities”—

Then, more specifically in connection with the clause under discussion, they say—

I therefore ask the hon. the Minister once again please to accept the proposed amendment and to withdraw this clause so that we could then, in the new dispensation …

Order! The hon. member cannot advance that argument now. He is again discussing the principle of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the assurance he gave us here that a quota would not be introduced at the University of the Orange Free State …

Not with regard to Indians.

That is correct. There will be no quota introduced for Indians. If representations were to be made to the hon. the Minister to do so in future, we in the CP would very strongly support any move on his part to refuse such requests. The hon. the Minister, however, is going to have problems with this policy the Government has formulated in regard to the quota system for universities.

At the moment there are four universities in South Africa presenting courses of study in agriculture. Here I am referring to the University of the Orange Free State, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of Pretoria and the University of Natal.

What about the University of Fort Hare?

I am now speaking only of White universities. At present 22% of the students studying at the University of Natal are not White.

That also includes the students at the medical school.

At present 22% of the students at the University of Natal are students of colour. The University of the Orange Free State is the only university in South Africa which offers the three-year B. Agric. course in agricultural management. If there were to be an Indian Minister in this Parliament one day, and one of his sons wanted to take a course at one of these universities, the hon. the Minister will definitely find himself with a problem. He would not be able to refuse that student admission to the university merely because no quota for Indian students was established at the University of the Orange Free State.

Order! The hon. member is again arguing the principle in regard to the quota system. I cannot allow him to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I have presented my case. Suffice it to say that we shall be voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did not respond to my question about whether there were any other regulations that he has in mind in terms of this clause. I mentioned the aspect in connection with residences, to which he has already reacted. Will he specifically tell us, Mr. Chairman, whether there are any other regulations which he intends applying in terms of this clause and about which he can inform the House at this stage?

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

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

1. (2) Different dates may be fixed under subsection (1) in respect of different provisions of this Act.

I motivated this at the beginning of the Committee Stage.

We support the hon. the Minister’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate dealing with the Bill relating to technikons was interrupted on Monday, I was saying that the PFP would have been only too happy to support most of the provisions contained in the Bill had it not been for the very unfortunate situation of the Government once again introducing into this Bill a clause which provides for quotas for students of other colour groups to attend White technikons, and vice versa, which provision, as far as we are concerned, is totally unacceptable because it is discriminatory and offensive to the other race groups in South Africa. We pointed out and we tried to persuade the Government that it was absolutely vital and in the interest of our society, in the interest of better racial relations in South Africa and in the interest of the country’s economy, that in a work situation—as a result of the reforms introduced by the hon. the Minister of Manpower, we now have a work situation in South African which is largely free of race discrimination—workers of different colour and racial background should be allowed to work together, and to study together and to train together without any hindrance whatsoever.

We tried to illustrate that the interests of South Africa and the interests of our economy demand that people of different colours should be able to co-operate effectively at the work place. If they are going to co-operate effectively at the work place in achieving common goals, which is in the interest of the country and its economy, then the maximum understanding between those people is essential. It is essential that there should not be any prejudice between them. It is essential that there should be no sense of suspicion between them. It is essential that there should be a common purpose operating between them in the achievement of goals. That can only be achieved if every opportunity is made available for people to communicate with one another, to learn to know one another and to develop understanding between one another. This Bill once again frustrates that very important ideal because it provides that the workers who are to be trained at technikons and who are to enter industry and commerce, and those workers who will be trained there whilst they are in industry and commerce will, because of the quota system, be separated at the learning place but will not be separated at the work place. We therefore have this absolutely unacceptable situation that at the work place a Black and a White worker will work in close co-operation with one another but the moment they have to go to a technikon to study this Government determines that the Black must attend a technikon for Blacks and the White a technikon for Whites. There is no principle, no consistency and no logic in this. The Government has already conceded that because of the nature of our economy which is totally integrated and dependent on the efforts and participation of all ethnic groups for its success, it cannot maintain apartheid at that level—that it has to dispense with apartheid and has in fact to allow these people to work together in the interests of the country at the work place. However, as far as the training processes are concerned, the Government believes that it is still essential for apartheid to be maintained in order to give effect to so-called self-determination so as to protect the identity of the people and so as to extend the concept of group character also to the technikons in South Africa. I want once again to charge the Government of subverting, sabotaging and undermining South Africa’s economy, of subverting, sabotaging and undermining good race relationships in South Africa and of subverting the best interests of this country in order to carry out the dictates of apartheid.

We also pointed out that the Government had failed totally and, by the application of the principle in this Bill, will fail to provide the skilled manpower urgently needed for South Africa. I pointed out that there was considerable Black penetration in respect of the skilled manpower field in South Africa. I said, for instance, that in the PWV area in 1979, 7,5% of the economically active skilled and semi-skilled work force were Black but that by 1984 it was estimated that this figure would have to be increased to 41% or 300 000 workers. This indicates the inexorable penetration of the skilled and semiskilled labour field by Black people in this country. The most important and vital requirement is the education and the training of the Black people who are penetrating our economy in that way. If we place restraints upon technikons which are the main institutions for the training of workers then we shall be undermining the successful penetration by Black workers of the skilled manpower position in this country. I also pointed out that productivity in South Africa rose by only 0,6% from 1970 to 1978 whereas the average earnings per worker increased by 18,7%. If the hon. the Minister has listened to the representations made by commerce and industry and to the pleadings of his own Minister of Manpower in this House he will know that it is absolutely vital that productivity be improved in South Africa if we are going to be able to provide rising standards of living and a better way of life for all our workers.

The main inputs as far as improvements in standards of living are concerned are better education and better training for our workers. Once again the technikons will have to provide that education and that training. This Government is in fact shackling the technikons because of its ideological apartheid legislation and is making it difficult for them to achieve their purpose. I indicated, for instance, that in the field of artisans alone we had only 9 000 artisans employed in South Africa per annum and that the demand would peak at 30 000 per annum over the next five years. I just want to add one very interesting statistic and that is that according to a report which the Government brought out—Manpower Survey No. 14 of April 1981—the total shortage of manpower in South Africa for all categories adds up to 187 897 workers which I believe is an alarming figure and is an indictment of the Government indicating the Government’s total failure to meet the manpower requirements of our economy.

If the Government has failed, it must analyse why it has failed. My contention is that it has failed simply because of the dictates of its apartheid policy which require of it to desist from providing the education and training needed by members of the other race groups which would enable them to enter into the South African economy and to compete on an equal basis with White people.

Now that the Government understands that it has failed and now that the Government is aware of the problem and is aware of the challenge, I say that it is almost inexplicable and ununderstandable that the Government persists in undermining the efforts to provide training and education for workers of other race groups by applying to bodies such as technikons a provision such as the quota system which will in fact hamper them and handicap them in providing the training and education required.

The skilled-worker shortage in for instance a field like foremen and supervisors according to the National Productivity Institute will grow from 1 861 in 1969 to an estimated 12 606 in 1989. As a percentage of the total employed, the shortage was 1,3% and in 1989 it is estimated at 2,5%. That should be seen as red lights flashing to the Government because it indicates that the Government is failing in the provision of this most important level of trained manpower in South Africa. The Government is not succeeding in providing that manpower for our economy.

Where will that manpower mainly come from in the future? It will come from the technikons in South Africa amongst others. Technikons will make one of the major contributions to the provision of that level of manpower. What is the Government doing? Instead of unleashing the technikons and allowing them to do their level best to provide that manpower, the Government now tells them that they will be subject to quota restrictions which are apartheid, racialistic restrictions which have nothing to do with merit, which have nothing to do with the removal of discrimination and which have nothing to do with the best interests of South Africa.

The Human Resources Research Council also dealt with the shortages in the administrative occupations. I cannot give all the statistics which illustrate this shortage because there are hundreds of very interesting tables which set out the position very clearly. If one looks just at Black matriculants, one finds that it is predicted that in 1985 there will be a shortage of 175 000 Black matriculants who will be needed by our industry. There will be a shortage of 28 000 Black graduates in 1985. When it comes to white collar workers—in this case it will be mainly Black people, but goodness knows what is going to happen to the identity of Black workers employed as white collar workers—it is predicted that in 1990 there will be a shortage of well over 1 million and possibly 1,5 million in that field.

The challenge is immense. The challenge to provide the trained and skilled manpower that South Africa’s economy must have in order to maintain a 4,5% growth rate which is vital if we are not going to be flooded with unemployed unskilled people is tremendous and it can only be met by a dramatic across the board programme of action in which the technikons will play a very major role. This Government dare not undermine the efforts of those technikons by subjecting them to the constraints and restrictions of its apartheid policy. As far as the trained manager situation is concerned, one sees that in South Africa the proportion of workers per manager is 42:1, in the USA 6:1, in Japan 15:1 and in Australia 1:1. Whatever the level of the activities in your economy is, your managers are the people who have been trained at your universities, your technikons and your colleges. South Africa is desperately short of management material. The growth and the expansion of your economy depend, in the first instance, on the management material, viz. the scientists, the technicians, etc., involved in development, and on the managers. You dare not hamper the technikons in their task of providing the future managers South Africa needs. In 1979 in the PWV are a 0,2% of the economically active supervisory, managerial and professional personnel were Black. Only 0,2%. It is estimated that this figure will have to increase to 4,5% by 1984. I predict that that figure will not be achieved because of the failure of this government to make the facilities available in order to achieve it. Even where those facilities are available, this Government nevertheless continues to apply its apartheid ideology, which causes problems for those facilities to get on with the job.

I want to appeal once again that the hon. the Minister and the Government must decide whether the best interests of South Africa are their major consideration. Is the hon. the Minister going to continue to subject himself to the discipline of apartheid? If the hon. the Minister chooses the option of apartheid and rejects the option of the best interests of South Africa, he will be an accomplice in the process of the undermining of this country’s interests, of undermining this country’s economy and of undermining this country’s future. I want to urgently appeal to the hon. the Minister once again this afternoon to reconsider the decision before this Bill becomes law. In just one year it can have drastic effects, not only on the economy of South Africa, but what is probably more important, on good race relations, the extent to which it offends other race groups, the extent to which it causes resentment, the extent to which it polarizes our political situation in South Africa. I hope that the hon. the Minister and the Government will take cognizance of the tremendous resistance other race groups feel towards this measure as a result of its offensiveness as far as people of other races are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have mentioned, I move the following amendment:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston let his whole speech revolve around one particular clause of this amendment Bill. This amendment Bill has 23 clauses, but the hon. member built up his whole speech around clause 16. Clause 16 has four spects, but the hon. member actually highlighted one of the four aspects.

In essence his speech was about the principle of apartheid that is ostensibly being implemented, apartheid supposedly being the cause of all the problems surrounding technikon education. The hon. member for Bryanston used strong words, and in the first part of his speech he even referred to the Government’s “hypocrisy” in introducting this legislation in this way. Today he spoke of “subversion” and “sabotage”, saying that with this legislation the Government was sabotaging the economy, etc.

There is a question I should like to put to the hon. member for Bryanston. Let us suppose that the quota system is abolished completely and that students of all population groups are quite freely admitted to existing technikons and have access to existing facilities, could the existing demands of the economy and of commerce be met? The hon. member Prof. Olivier is shaking his head. He agrees with me. It is impossible. In other words, the primary problem is not the quota system which the hon. member for Bryanston has so repeatedly been emphasizing here. The problem is a lack of facilities, a lack of technikons for Blacks, a lack of technikons for Coloureds and also a lack of facilities for Whites. Over and above these problems, there were also other problems, i.e. that students revealed a reluctance to be trained at technikons. They shied away from this and went to university, even though they could possibly have studied more profitably at technikons. This is one of the big problems in our economic social structure, and the hon. member for Bryanston must listen to me carefully. That is really how things stand. I am not accusing any specific population group. It is an accusation against the whole social structure that we allowed students actually to choose whatever they liked, to qualify in that field of study and eventually find that they could not meaningfully fit into the economic set-up. The hon. member for Bryanston’s accusation that apartheid is ostensibly the fatal flaw in this system is surely untrue.

The hon. member did at least say—and this much I must concede—that this is a fine piece of legislation. At the beginning of his speech he said this about one portion of the Bill, but now we are messing up the legislation with this clause. This amendment Bill contains 23 clauses, provisions which the technikons have been looking forward to for such a long time now, legislation that gives them an opportunity to extend and reinforce their autonomy. The hon. member, however, does not notice that fact. He did not read the other portion of the amendment Bill. I want to ask the hon. member: Did he read the other portion of the amendment Bill? The hon. member comes to light with his embittered attack against apartheid for ostensibly being the cause of the trained manpower situation. The hon. member also said that the quota system was the big stumbling block. That is not, however, the case. There are many other factors.

I said it was the most important.

The hon. member for Bryanston does not notice what this piece of legislation has to offer our technikons, prospects the technikons are eagerly looking forward to. If the hon. member were to read the Bill, he would see that “director” is being changed to “rector” and that “board of studies” is being changed to “academic board”. The hon. member may create as much fuss as he likes about that, but the principles of those institutions are proud of this development. There are also other concepts that are being amended. “Pupils”, for example, is being changed to “students”, whilst the concepts “secondary school level” or “secondary education” are being replaced in toto. At technikons this will no longer exist. A technikon is now to become a purely tertiary institution at the post-school level. Technikons are also being given stronger corporate status. The hon. member for Bryanston must now listen carefully to me. The stronger corporate status with which technikons are to be vested will enable them, for example, to borrow money, lend money, etc. These are wonderful aspects in this new legislation. The hon. member for Bryanston, however, is totally blind to this.

Technikons were born out of a need that was identified a long time ago, in fact in the 1974 investigation into university matters in South Africa. I am referring to the investigation done by the Van Wyk De Vries Commission, and I should briefly like to quote from page 169 of the report—

Mr. Speaker, this is the result of an investigation by experts. The fact that a stigma has always been attached to technical education has given rise to the problems I referred to a moment ago. That is actually the root of that problem. Let me quote further—

The reasons why technikons came into being, Mr. Speaker, can therefore be traced far back into history. This whole process has a very long history, and in the present legislation the hon. the Minister is making provision for the fact that as fully-fledged institutions at the tertiary educational level, technikons can develop vertically, alongside universities, in order to meet the essential needs of our country; in order to meet the trained manpower needs.

Here we are dealing with White technikons, but we know that the other departments concerned are just as desirous of providing technikons in their field. The aim remains that of placing properly equipped and motivated people in the labour field. We can foresee the field of study of technikons meaningfully linking up with the functions of the S.A. Bureau of Standards. We can also foresee various fields of research evolving from the activities of technikons, which in turn could link up with the functions of the CSIR. These developments can only enrich the lives of our students.

We can also foresee technikons—in fact, this is already the case—forging significant links with the private sector. Clause 14 of this Bill provides technikons with the opportunity of conducting their own examinations and issuing certificates. It grants recognition to the status of the technikons, and from a professional point of view it is right for them to jealously guard their own standards.

Then we come to the contentious clause 16. The aim of this clause is to introduce flexibility and to grant others an opportunity of taking a specific course of study at a specific technikon and studying and qualifying there. This is not a restriction; it is, in fact, an extension of the service, making the capabilities of the lecturing staff at a specific technikon available to the students of other population groups. This will be the exception to the rule, however, because the Government’s objective continues to be that the facilities for each population group must and will be extended.

That is the exception to the rule.

But for that purpose we have to introduce this legal provision, we have to provide a general rule, we have to provide order. The general rule would be that in essence each population group would have its own facilities. That must be purposefully expanded.

On this occasion one can also ask certain questions. With the learned argument he wanted to present, the hon. member for Bryanston missed all these aspects. We who are involved in these matters—I trust that the hon. members of the CP and the NRP will join me in this—can ask, however, whether the course-packages at our academic and technical high schools are so constituted that a student can significantly link up with the tertiary technikon level.

I want to put a further question. Whilst a pupil is still in Std. 5 in primary school he must, even at that stage, already choose certain subjects to take at high-school level, and what I should like to know is whether the system of vocational guidance is adequate in this connection. One can even ask whether it is justified, or educationally correct, for those children to have to make such a decision, with such far-reaching consequences, as early as that. Would it not be possible to incorporate an interim period in the courses they take, a period in which they can be given the opportunity of experimenting before they make their choice? It is very definitely important for us to look at this matter and give the student a lead, or vocational guidance, so that he can choose the right field of study and subsequently make a meaningful contribution to the economy, making himself a much happier worker in the process.

I also want to put the following question: Can the Joint Matriculation Board not consider the incorporation of some new subjects into school curriculums? I have in mind, for example, the new subject, computer science, which is, as yet, only being presented very selectively at our schools. I am also thinking of the new subject, technics, which has a considerably more theoretical-experimental orientation than the existing technical subjects. It would create opportunities for students to be better equipped when they link up with the tertiary fields of study. This would make him better equipped and give him greater self-confidence.

We can also ask another question. Could the universities and technikons not jointly institute a course for the professional and technical training of technical teachers? Teachers must be equipped to present this science, these accomplishments, to our pupils and students more successfully. It has already happened, and we can criticize …

Willa, now you really are confused.

That hon. member must just listen for a moment. We shall try to get him back on course and give him a light to steer by. [Interjections.] Here someone says he has a very good foster MP to help him. The hon. member for Turffontein will help him. He must now just leave me alone so that I can finish my very good speech. There are some of his hon. colleagues who certainly are interested.

In the past we have sometimes erred in introducing courses or subjects without having had the necessary trained teachers or lecturing staff available. Perhaps, with this idea, we can equip people to present those subjects and successfully make them available to our pupils.

I should like to refer to the annual report of the Department of National Education. I should, in particular, like to refer to the number of students studying at technikons in the various categories. Let us look at the situation in regard to national diplomas in engineering. There are approximately 2 500 part-time students in electro-technical engineering, and about 1 000 full-time students. There is consequently a total of about 3 500 students in this field of study. There are also 2 000 and 1 000 full-time and part-time students respectively in mechanical engineering and 1 000 and 150 full-time and part-time students respectively in civil engineering. This gives us an indication of the small number of students taking courses in this particular field. In the parliamentary telephone exchange I have just seen a technician doing certain adjustments and correcting certain faults. If we think of the enormous development of our towns and industries—Black, Coloured and White towns—and of the needs that exist, we see what a tremendous manpower input we need. We cannot afford these scant numbers reflected in the annual report of the department. We need technikons for Blacks and Coloureds. We also need more technikons and facilities for Whites.

By way of this fine legislation, the hon. the Minister is offering technikons greater independence and more purposeful autonomy. It is with greater esteem and respect that those people can now expand their institutions in the service of our people. It is a fine piece of legislation and we should like to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening with great attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Standerton, and I also listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Bryanston. Not only did I listen with great attention to the hon. member for Standerton, but I agree with many of the ideas he expressed. I am referring in particular to some of the ideas towards the end of his speech, on technikons, the courses that are being offered and the packages for pupils before they are able to go to a technikon. I agree with all those arguments. I shall deal with some of the ideas expressed by the hon. member as I go along.

Naturally, as I also said in the debate on the previous Bill, this side of the House can under no circumstances endorse the standpoint of the hon. member for Bryanston in respect of opening the doors of all technikons in this country to students of all population groups. I pointed out that the hon. member sees this matter from the point of view of the particular ideology, standpoint and principles of his party. We on this side of the House see this matter from the point of view of our ideology, our principles and the standpoint we adopt. Because we differ on these points, we see these things differently, and therefore I cannot endorse the standpoint of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, like the speech made by the hon. member for Standerton, is in places fine and good and can be supported. However, he made certain statements with which I cannot agree and which I shall have to debate with him. This Bill contains many things which are sound, excellent and stimulating and which we will and can gladly support. It deals with a diversity of matters pertaining to advanced technical education which are very important to the technikons, to advanced technical education and which should be welcomed. I believe that technikons as training centres for highly skilled technicians and practical managers have already proved themselves in our country. They meet the growing need for vocationally orientated tertiary education. Our country has a growing need for this type of trained manpower. A rapidly developing country such as South Africa has a considerable need for such training and therefore for such trained manpower. As I have said, this need is a growing one, and for this reason it is essential that we should make greater provision for this growing need. In connection with the meeting of this need we can say many things which are of material importance. Therefore it is to be welcomed and the technikons are going to be accorded greater autonomy and greater administrative independence. This elevates these training centres to full-fledged tertiary status, similar to that of the universities. Amendments to the existing Act which confer greater powers upon the council of a technikon, which will in future consist of fewer members, coincide with the greater autonomy and greater administrative independence which are being conferred upon technikons. This is to be welcomed. It is essential that the council of a technikon should receive powers which enable it to decide certain things for itself and to implement certain things itself. It is also of real importance that that council, for the carrying out of its task, for that which it has to do in respect of the technikon and the entire spectrum of its activities, should have committees to support it in respect of this task and to advise it in respect of its functions, and so on. Consequently this development is also of great importance and is to be welcomed. Because it befits the status of a technikon the amendment by means of which the board of studies is replaced by an academic board, is of great importance. This is the way it ought to be; this is what ought to be done. The greater powers which are being conferred in connection with staff establishments and all related matters, the recognition of qualifications, examinations, the right to raise loans, loans to students, etc., are important matters for which provision is being made in this legislation and this is of real importance to us. I also wish to put forward the standpoint now that I believe that in view of what has already been said by the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Bryanston, there is a need for more technikons in our country in order to fully meet the need for such establishments, not only technikons in respect of a specific population group, but technikons in respect of each population group and in particular in respect of the Coloured, Indian and other population groups. I believe that such a need exists and that it should be met as rapidly as possible.

Having said all these things now, having outlined all the fine things in this legislation which we would gladly support, I have to agree with the hon. member for Bryanston, but for another reason that the hon. the Minister has inserted a few clauses in this legislation—clause 16 in particular—with which he has completely negated all these good things, and this is such a pity.

Now you are talking nonsense.

If I had the intellect of the hon. member, then I would agree. It would be nonsense. [Interjections.] Provisions of this nature negate all these other good provisions which I have mentioned to you. The admission of persons of colour to White technikons is no different to the admission of persons of colour to White universities, as we have debated in the previous legislation. The same arguments which were raised in connection with the universities now have to be called upon again.

In respect of the present situation of White technikons surely it is, in the first place, a fact that persons of colour only be admitted there as students provided the White technikon grants its approval to such a step. However, the second condition is also important. This is provided too that a technikon of that specific Coloured population group cannot offer a course for which such a student wishes to register and in which he wishes to qualify and which is in fact offered at a White technikon. This is our problem. We have also created facilities for the other population groups—technikons as well as universities—but instead of developing those separate technikons to the full and equipping them so that every field of study can be offered there and so that it can be a full-fledged technikon fully able to meet the needs of its own people, we have reached the point at which we have called a halt and at which we now say that it has, quite suddenly, become too expensive and that there is insufficient teaching manpower to meet this need. This is the reason why we are not expanding these technikons fully. Instead we are using as an excuse the fact that the Whites do have those facilities, that it is too expensive to provide those facilities at the other technikons and for that reason students of colour must make use of the White facilities. I wish to state today that our own White technikons are not even sufficient to accommodate the White students they should be accommodating. How much more does this not apply then to the other population groups? They should receive their own full-fledged technikons so that it will not be necessary for them to crowd into those of the Whites and to occupy them when the Whites do not even have sufficient educational facilities of their own.

As regards the provision in terms of which persons of colour could register at White technikons, the fact that was implicitly built into that provision was that it was merely a temporary concession. It was a temporary concession until there were other facilities at the technikons for their own people. It was therefore an ad hoc decision, for it was after all, the policy to establish separate technikons and not to share the White technikons with other population groups. It was a temporary measure as a result of specific circumstances. Now, instead of eliminating those specific circumstances and providing these facilities for the other people, we want to make this a permanent feature of the education structure of White technikons. By way of a quota system we wish to make the presence of persons of colour at our White technikons a permanent feature. We are making their presence permanent there by means of a quota system. [Interjections.]

For the technikons which have been established for persons of colour, it is of the utmost importance that we should in all earnest develop them into full-fledged technikons of which those population groups will be so proud that they will have no need, they will feel no desire, to attend those of the Whites, because the persons of colour should be able to say that their technikons are just as good and perhaps even better than those of the Whites. They will then have no need to apply for admission to the facilities of the Whites.

This is what we are called upon to do in terms of our policy of separate development. We are called upon to develop that policy and to establish facilities in accordance with that policy and not to disparage the policy by making exceptions such an inherent part that the exceptions ultimately become the rule and the policy becomes absurd. [Interjections.] If it was the ideal to have separate facilities for each population group, we should realize that ideal and do so as quickly as possible, or is the Government in that sphere simply going to stand by idly without ensuring that the technikons of persons of colour are fully developed, and simply continue to make the facilities of the Whites available to them by means of quota systems?

The policy of separate development requires us to provide the other population groups with the same full-fledged facilities which we demand for ourselves. It is imperative that those people be trained in such a way that they will provide their own community with a full-fledged service, but without full-fledged facilities this is not possible. [Interjections.]

When we come to the quota system as such we encounter the same vagueness we have already discerned in the Universities Amendment Bill. We are dealing with the same vagueness here. No specific percentage or specific numbers are spelt out in advance; it is merely stated that provision is being made and the Minister will determine the quota. The norms in terms of which this will be done are just as vague as the specific quota which will be allocated.

It has now become far worse, for in the previous debate the hon. the Minister said that the quota he was going to determine would be negotiable in future. That quota will not therefore be fixed so that the technikons will know that this is the maximum and no further students can be registered. If the need of the technikon for more of those students is greater, on the ground of their demand, the quota is going to be increased because it is after all, negotiable according to the need. The hon. the Minister will now have to tell us, in respect of technikons as well, whether those quotas are constantly going to be negotiable, depending upon the numbers.

The hon. member for Standerton said that this was not the rule, it was the exception. I maintain that what has up to now still been the exception, is now being built into this measure as a rule. The exception becomes the rule and the rule will apparently become the exception. In this connection I wish to associate myself once again with the hon. member for Standerton. He said that the object of the Government should be that the facilities of each population group should be developed as vigorously as possible. Up to now that has been my entire argument. I found it strange that because I did not say at the outset that I associated myself with what the hon. member for Standerton had said in this connection, hon. members of the NP made quite a number of remarks about this argument which I had advanced. I was merely echoing their own member, namely that it should be the object to develop as many separate facilities for each population group as possible. Those were the hon. member’s precise words and he can go and read it in his Hansard tomorrow.

Frans, you are such a good fellow. What a pity, though, that you are an HNP.

I would rather be accused of being further to the right of the spectrum than I really am than of being accused of being a leftist liberal.

In respect of this matter we are now confronted by precisely the same situation confronting us in regard to the admission of students to universities. We are dealing with the orderly social structuring of our society, based on the policy of separate development. We have a specific social pattern in this country. These people at the White universities and the White technikons are causing question-marks to appear. Problems are arising around the presence of these people within this orderly social structuring of ours. There is legislation on the Statute Book of this country which creates problems for the present of these people at White institutions. As long as this legislation, which the official Opposition likes to decry as apartheid legislation, remains on the Statute Book, it remains legislation which affects the presence of these students at White institutions, and does so very specifically and directly. It affects their whole life as students. It affects the community within which they find themselves while they are enrolled as students at that specific institution. From the very nature of studenthood, they ought to be able to participate fully in all student matters which are normally present.

This brings me to the same point which we dealt with on a previous occasion. After all, the NP says specifically that there are certain matters which are own matters and over which every population group shall have its own say. As I have already said, surely technikons must consequently be part of the own affairs of these groups, because they are surely going to manage their own affairs on all levels of education. There are no exceptions. By way of this quota system the permanent presence of persons of a different colour is becoming an inherent part of that own affair, i.e. a White technikon. This is inconsistent with the policy of own affairs, and is an invalidation of the policy. There is something which the hon. the Minister glossed over during the previous debate. Although it is being said that education is an own affair on all levels, there are a few “buts” which give rise to exceptions and which are an invalidation of self-determination. Those few “buts” are inter alia the “general policy” and “any general law”. Yesterday evening the hon. the Minister spoke about a macro-policy which was going to establish the co-ordinating department of national education. When I asked him whether the various own education departments which would arise, would have to adopt that macro-education policy or whether they could shoot it down, he said that they would have to adopt it. What we are dealing with here, in other words, is the macro-policy in its entirety and not in respect of one, two or three minor matters.

The macro-policy deals only with three matters.

Who is going to be the co-ordinating Minister?

This Bill is going to lead to technikons being lifted out of own affairs and placed on the level of general affairs over which the own education departments will ultimately have nothing to say, but over which the co-ordinating education department is going to have the final say.

I also have problems with the new Committee of Technikon Principals which is, by means of this amending Bill, going to be given the status of a statutory body. It is true that there is an existing Association for Technikons, and it is true that the technikon principals of the Coloureds and the Indians had a say in that association. But in terms of this Bill they are being accepted, as is already provided by clause 1, as permanent members of the White Committee of Technikon Principals. This body becomes an advisory body for the Minister and will therefore act in a collective advisory capacity in respect of technikon education for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, which destroys the whole idea of own education.

Good-bye to self-determination.

It does away with the self-determination of each group over its own education.

I went to some trouble and investigated the presence of persons of colour on boards and councils for Whites. I found that the tendency was that until approximately three years ago the Government…

No, even further back.

Allow me to say what I want to say now, and not what the hon. the Minister thinks I am going to say. The Government brought persons of colour onto White boards and councils very, very tardily.

No, that is not true.

It was done very tardily and the hon. the Deputy Minister who is now shaking his head—I can hear him shaking his head from where I am standing—can go and find out for himself. He can take the same trouble which I took and he will see that this is in fact true.

Please adhere to the truth.

I am not wasting my breath; I am basing what I say on the facts which I researched. [Interjections.] What was actually done on an ad hoc basis as the exception to the rule this hon. Minister by means of one piece of education legislation after another, is now building in as a permanent feature, as the rule and not an exception. Every piece of education legislation which the hon. the Minister is introducing now and is going to introduce in future, has a racially mixed board or council on which persons of colour are going to have representation and a joint say and with which the self-determination of the Whites is being invalidated and destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Bryanston say that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs is a “tweegatgrotminister” (two entrance cave Minister)? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, what I meant was that the hon. the Deputy Minister has caves that have two entrances; one for Whites and one for Indians, Coloureds and Blacks. This is not even in line with the Government’s proposed new constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That cave now has only one entrance for everyone. [Interjections.]

Horace is a cavedweller. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Standerton must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! I do not like the expression which the hon. member for Bryanston used either. I think it is derogatory to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He should rather withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of continuing my speech.

I want to conclude by addressing what I am now going to say to the hon. the Minister of National Education in particular. To jump up time and again in this House, whenever legislation of this nature is being discussed, and to say that when hon. members of the CP were still in the NP they said certain things, while they say something else today, is completely senseless. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

We are still Nationalists. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. the Minister has forgotten about his own circumstances in the past. Perhaps he should go and re-read what he himself wrote in Ideaal en Werklikheid. Every time he reminds an hon. member in this House of what that hon. member said when he was still elsewhere, and compares it with what that hon. member is now saying, he would do well to consider what he himself said at an earlier stage, and compare it with the standpoints he is now adopting. Of course this is always the difficulty one finds oneself in when one wants to hang someone else on a gallows; usually you end up hanging from your own gallows. You condemn yourself to death on the basis of your own judgments. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister would do well to ponder this, Mr. Speaker.

Furthermore, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it will avail him nothing to keep on telling hon. members sitting on this side of the House that when they were still in the NP, they said certain things, or that when they were Ministers in the NP Cabinet, they said certain things. [Interjections.] I should also like to remind the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for Lichtenburg, to whom he keeps on referring so derogatorily when he points out how many persons of colour he allowed to be admitted when he was still Minister, and while he dealt with these things, did in fact realize that if nothing was done to establish separate facilities, problems were going to arise in future. For that very reason he came forward with the brilliant idea of a separate facility such as that of the Vista University [Interjections.] For that reason, too, Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate for the hon. the Minister of National Education to discuss matters with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and tell him that he should do equally well and should also come forward with such brilliant ideas; that he should establish more technikons for those population groups for whom he has to accept responsibility at the present stage, so that we will in that way provide those people with full-fledged facilities, facilities which will meet all their needs, and of which they may be proud, so that they need no longer long for the facilities of the Whites, or even need the facilities of the Whites. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, arising out of the speech made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I wish to refer to the unsavoury attack which he made on the Department of Education and Training. He maintained that the Department of Education and Training, as far as technikons for Blacks were concerned, had reached a position of stalemate. That is a deplorable statement to make, particularly in view of the fact that it was made in connection with a department which is not involved in the present Bill at all. The hon. member did so, however, purely in an attempt to support his argument and I think that was deplorable. I want to know from the hon. member whether he has ever been to the technikon of Mabopane East. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, he does not even know where that technikon is situated. He has never been there. He has never gone to ascertain what is happening there. However, he comes here and is utterly disparaging of the technikons for Blacks.

He also made a second statement and with it, in my opinion, displayed the true colours of the CP. He said that there was no communality (“gemeenskaplikheid”) whatsoever in South Africa. He stated very clearly and unequivocally that here in South Africa there was only place for the Whites and that Coloureds the Indians and the Blacks should be to one side.

My friend, you are beginning to see the light.

I shall return later to that argument of the hon. member. Just as in the past he began by singling out the good points in this Bill. However, I sat here waiting for the moment when he would come forward with his “but”. He then produced the same “but” which the PFP produced: “But we are introducing a quota system”. I shall return later to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said.

Firstly, I just wish to refer to technikons in general. Technikons are moving into a new era. This Bill seeks to give technikons increased autonomy and independence, and independence which they are longing for at present. We must get away from the idea that a technikon has a second-grade tertiary function to perform. This idea is not only at variance with the facts, but it also does our country a disservice. I shall refer to this again later.

The idea is expressed and strongly propounded that the person who attends a technikon is a person who cannot make any progress at university. Those who fail at university should then ostensibly be channelled the technikons. This is a deplorable idea which, in general, is very readily advanced, and I should like to reject it. The technological demands made by the future on the manpower position in the country, demands which are going to escalate, will simply necessitate our having suitable people available in the technological sphere, people who have not only had a theoretical training and who can boast of degrees, but people who are practically orientated and who have a practical approach to their vocation. We must get away from the supposed stigma which attaches to technikons and accept them as full-fledged training-orientated institutions which will have to meet a specific need for specialized manpower.

The Bill contains important provisions which are aimed at establishing and stabilizing the technikons. I just wish to point out a few of these—some of them have already been indicated. Firstly, the designation of “director” is being changed to “rector”. Naturally this places the technikon on a par with the university. I think that in this way a very important breakthrough is being made. Secondly, greater powers are being conferred upon the councils of the technikons, inter alia in regard to the appointment of staff, borrowing powers, etc. This also includes the arranging and conducting of examinations. In this connection I should like to request the hon. the Minister to ensure that technikons, which are no longer in their infancy by any means, receive greater autonomy in controlling examinations. Clause 14 makes provision for this and I truly hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to granting the senior technikons, if I may call them that, the right to control their own examinations. This could only contribute to the aim of according an enhanced status upon technikons, which this Bill seeks to do, being attained more rapidly.

I also want to request the hon. the Minister to reconsider at a later stage the possibility of transferring to the technikons concerned the powers of issuing certificates or diplomas, which is at present done by the Minister. This will also, I think, contribute to establishing the status of technikons. My plea is that the position of the more established technikons in this connection should be reconsidered.

There is another clause in this Bill which has been transferred from the existing Act. I am referring here to the proposed new subsection 3(b) in clause 8 in which it is provided that the conditions of service, leave privileges, scales of salary and allowances may differ in respect of different technikons. To my mind, this does not add up, as far as this provision is concerned. I know it is an old provision which is being transferred from the old Act, but it seems to me that the need for this clause no longer exists. We shall quite probably have to see whether it is still necessary to insert it in this legislation.

The formula in respect of the determination of subsidies is linked by means of subsection (2) of clause 13 to the admission of persons of colour to the technikons in question. The condition of admission is therefore linked to the formula of the subsidy in terms of which it may then be determined whether persons of colour may be admitted, to what fields of study admission will take place, and the number of persons of colour who will be admitted to a particular field of study. Naturally these conditions will vary from one technikon to another.

The same arguments in respect of the so-called quota system were dragged in by the Opposition parties as their reasons for rejecting it. Firstly, I want to know from the CP whether they reject the quota system as such and prefer the permit system. The permit system was implemented quite some time ago and not one hon. speaker of the CP ever objected to this system before. We can therefore accept that, because they did not react to it, they approved of the permit system. In fact it is true that they approved of it. In 1980 the hon. member for Lichtenburg allowed 159 Blacks to study at White universities.

That was a temporary measure, and you know it.

In 1981 he allowed 250 Blacks to attend White universities. Then this is surely an idea which, since that time already, had been an integral part of the thought processes of hon. members of the CP when they were still on this side of the House. Now that they no longer accept it, however, it seems to me they wish to reject everything. They reject every possibility of contact. If they accept the permit system, I want to ask them whether they are being honest when they say that they are advocates of greater autonomy for technikons. We must get away from the idea and the syndrome that we as Whites have been spun into a cocoon here in South Africa. We must get away from the idea that we can entrench ourselves in all respects and totally ignore the rights and privileges of other groups in South Africa.

The CP has come forward with the ideology of rejecting all other groups in South Africa and considers the Whites to be a super group which alone may enjoy all privileges. [Interjections.] The other groups may not have any aspirations. [Interjections.] They may not share in the prosperity, happiness and joy of being in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the CP are shouting like that now because they know this is the truth. When they are attacked on this score in the House, they protest. Outside, however, they proclaim all kinds of nonsense about super Whites who must then be protected against a threatening Black peril. They are proclaiming the same stories and the same concept as the HNP. [Interjections.] They are selling this to the general public without any qualms of conscience, and in fact with relish, and then protest loudly here if anyone treads on their toes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik spoke about the cock which will supposedly crow. They are telling that story again. I repeat that I would not descend to such a level as to betray the NP. I did not throw my hands in the air, admit defeat and run away. [Interjections.] I did not side with the small group of verkrampte good-for-nothings sitting over there. The CP and the HNP must stop presenting persons of colour in South Africa, particularly the Blacks, as a flood which is pouring down and threatening to engulf the Whites. By doing so they create potential conflict in two ways. Firstly, they are driving the Blacks away from the Whites in South Africa. They are trying to drive a wedge between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. [Interjections.] And they are succeeding. In the second place, however, they are also succeeding in instilling in some Whites a fear in respect of a so-called Black peril. That element, which they are making an integral part of our political set-up, is a dangerous one which they will have to reckon with. They must ask themselves whether they want to consolidate South Africa into a power block, or whether they want to create poles in South Africa, poles of confrontation. [Interjections.] Their clichés of “Black peril” and “everything is being done for the Blacks only” are succeeding in making certain Whites panic-stricken. They should rather point out to the voting public the true danger to South Africa. However, they do not acknowledge those dangers. To them those dangers do not exist. To them the dangers are located within South Africa. They do not perceive any external dangers.

This Bill allows a small number of persons of colour to be admitted to the various technikons. There is a built-in limiting factor in this clause. That is what the PFP is objecting to. What I want to ask now, however, is whether the CP has so far put forward any real, material objection to the statements of the PFP. They say that the PFP advocate a general throwing open of educational institutions. However, they leave it at that. They ignore the substantial problems which could be created in that way, a situation, for example, where we will have to deal with a mass influx of Blacks to White technikons. They ignore that, but attack the NP because in its policy of contact it is also seeking to accommodate persons of colour on a quota basis. They argue that the system as we have it here before this House is a system of complete capitulation. I repeat that there is a restrictive measure which is being built into the Bill in respect of the admission of persons of colour.

I concluded by availing myself of this opportunity to refer to the Pretoria technikon. Pretoria technikon is—let us call it this—one of the senior technikons in South Africa. At one stage it was my privilege to serve on the council of this technikon. That was still under the old dispensation when it was a college for advanced technical education. We are aware of the new campus which is going up. The hostels will accommodate its first students next year.

For Blacks as well?

We shall keep the Van der Merwes out.

This will entail that students will have to be conveyed from the hostels to the present lecture rooms and back. A regular transportation system to and from the sports facilities at the new campus will also have to be introduced and arranged. Naturally this will entail an additional financial burden that will in all probability have to be borne by the students or, more accurately, their parents. That is why I want to advocate that we should not at this stage introduce any cutbacks to the present building programme. The building programme should continue according to schedule. The tendency at present is to cut down on capital expenditure, but we should guard against this and not allow it to happen in this case. I want to argue that any cut-backs or delay in this building programme would give rise to an important situation. I really want to advocate that work on this programme should be allowed to continue unabated, because a delay will merely entail that it will not be possible to do justice to the intention of this Bill. Let us try to enable the Pretoria technikon to be completed within the scheduled time so that it will be ready, upon the commencement of this Bill, to comply with the demands of the legislation. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react briefly to what the hon. member for Gezina said. We must agree with his statement that a technikon is not a second-class university. I think we all agree with that. A technikon has its own aims, its own character and its own student body. A technikon has very specific goals to pursue. In this regard we agree with the hon. member wholeheartedly. I think the Bill will further develop that specific character of the technikons in a very special and specific field.

We also agree with the hon. member when he makes representations for the expansion of technikon facilities in South Africa. Of course, we regard the matter in a slightly different light because we do not see it in the light of the needs of the Whites only but in the light of the needs of all the citizens of South Africa. Technikon facilities and infrastructure do have to be expanded in South Africa.

I also listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Gezina to see whether he could in fact motivate why they are now supporting a quota system. Thus far all the speakers on that side—and the same thing happened with the previous legislation—indicated to us that they supported the quota system. However, they did not motivate the matter sufficiently, neither did they tell us what the positive aspects of a quota system were vis-à-vis a permit system, merely saying that in general it was an improvement. They did not tell us what improvements it was going to bring about or what the further course of events would be. [Interjections.] That is the reality of the arguments advanced here.

The hon. member for Gezina did say here this afternoon that a quota system had a built-in limiting factor. Obviously that is what it is all about. The question now arises why a built-in limiting factor or a restrictive or inhibiting factor should be served by a quota system? I suppose what it amounts to is that hon. members opposite fear that White civilization would be undermined if people of colour attended the same educational institutions, particularly at the tertiary level.

What party are you referring to now?

I am speaking of the NP. They are afraid of that.

The new NP?

I do not know whether it is a new NP. I think it is still the old NP. I do not think they have progressed very far because although they tried to introduce certain aspects of our policy, they have not yet succeeded. I think their attitude is wrong. The spirit of government is absent.

I think the concern felt by hon. members opposite about the extension of these facilities to other population groups under a quota system is unfounded, and I shall come back to this in the course of my speech.

†When we examine the concept of a quota for tertiary education, we cannot help but notice the fundamental differences between the points of view of the various parties. For instance, we find ourselves in the most unusual position of once again voting with the CP and with the PFP against this Bill. This is only because it is procedural and not because we agree with their motives for so doing. I think hon. members will recognize that fact. What is very clear—and I think it is important that we understand this—is why these differences exist and why our perspectives in regard to the quota system are different. I think that there is something which the CP and the PFP essentially have in common and that is that they can be defined politically as fundamentalists. [Interjections.] We in the NRP are pragmatists and realists although, to some extent, the NP are also pragmatists rather than fundamentalists.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member what quota has been decided upon in regard to the number of members of the NRP who are going to join the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, except that, once again, the hon. member has his direction wrong. What he should have asked is how many NP members are going to join the NRP. [Interjections.] However, that is of course consistent with the point of view of the hon. member for Pinelands because he is always going in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated in his opening remarks on the legislation dealing with university quotas that university autonomy as far as the NRP was concerned was absolute. Can the hon. member explain to us how a quota can be both absolute and relative?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Greytown is reasonably close to the Order Paper today. He is only one day out. That was, infact, the subject we debated yesterday. However, for the edification of the hon. member I should like to say that I shall be dealing with this concept as far as technikons are concerned as well because the provisions of clause 16 of this Bill are the same as those of clause 9 in the previous Bill. However, I should like here to come back to the differentiation between fundamentalists and pragmatists in terms of politics and therefore in relation to our perspective on Bills in this House. Fundamentalists will stick to a policy for the sake of the policy irrespective of whether or not it has any modicum of reality in it in terms of the situation in any particular country. To illustrate this I want to point out that the PFP want a multiracial society at all costs. In that respect they are fundamentalists and they will judge every Bill that comes before this House by that criterion. They believe that the right of the individual is greater than the right of the group. That came out very clearly when the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Pinelands replied to the question I put to them, namely whether they were prepared to legally recognize community or group rights. They said no. They said that you cannot discriminate against an individual irrespective of whether he has a right or is accepted by a community or a group.

Confrontation party.

Yes, that is what it will come down to, because South Africa is a plural society, a heterogeneous society composed of many different groups, all with different stages of development, different perspectives, different cultures, etc., and not one of those would want to be swamped by any other. That inherent right of a group is missing in PFP policy. That is why they have a bill of rights. What I found extremely interesting today in the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands was when he said that they would not allow discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex or creed. They are, however, prepared to allow the Communist Party to operate legitimately in South Africa, provided it forswears violence.

We are not prepared to ban people or parties. We are prepared to leave it to the courts.

Yet the Communist Party is totally opposed to all religious philosophies and is atheistic. The PFP is prepared to institutionalize a party which will be contrary to the theological interests of every member of the population. What kind of hypocrisy is that in terms of their philosophy?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. member allow atheists into the NRP or to exist as a party in South Africa?

My answer to that is definitely no. We will not encourage parties based on atheism to operate in South Africa. We support the preamble to the proposed new constitution, which says that we want South Africa to have its standards based on Christian and civilized values. [Interjections.] We will not allow atheists to propagate their philosophy in South Africa.

What about Islam?

They are not atheistic. The hon. member is getting very confused. I think he should go and talk to the hon. member for Pinelands.

Let us come back to the difference between the fundamentalists and the realists or the pragmatists in South Africa. I believe that to a certain extent the NP have moved away from being apartheid fundamentalists to being pragmatists trying to cope with the realities of a plural society in South Africa.

They want to have a foot in both camps.

The hon. member for Brakpan has now almost put his finger on the button by saying that they are trying to be semi-apartheidists.

No, I said they want to have a foot in both camps.

It is the same thing. A foot in every camp. We in the NRP who are the inheritors of the United Party philosophy, know how extremely difficult it is to be a semi-apartheidist, in other words, to preach pluralism but to practise apartheid. This Bill presents us with a particular dilemma in South Africa, namely how to bring our legislation on tertiary education into gear with the realities of the needs of South Africa. That party does not know how to do it without saying that they are moving away from apartheid.

Before dealing specifically with clause 16, let me say that as pragmatists we realize that South Africa is a plural society, that at the very basis of a plural society, justice in that society must be based on the recognition of group rights, but that there are also aspects of common concern and common interest which cannot be avoided if you are a pragmatist. Whilst we welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, which I will not spend too much time on because we agree with the Government that certain of the provisions of this Bill are absolutely necessary, the real problem area is clause 16, which provides for the quota system.

Let us turn to technical training itself and see what we can make of it. South Africa has a very limited White population. It should be able to maintain a 5% economic growth rate per annum. A 5% growth rate in a Western industrialized nation is entirely dependent upon the number of skilled technologists which one has in that society. One cannot maintain an industrialized society without adequately trained journeymen and technologists. In all the reports that one reads from all the institutions which have a good knowledge of these things, one finds that they tell us that increasingly the Blacks, Indians and the Coloureds will have to be those technologists. I notice in the S.A. Digest of 8 April 1983 a table that tells us how much progress is being made by other groups than the White group in South Africa in penetrating the different occupations. There are some very interesting statistics here. They give a comparison between 1960, 1970 and 1980. If one looks at the category “professional, technical and related worker”—and I presume that the majority of these are technical workers—one finds that between 1960 and 1980 the number of Blacks alone in these occupations increased from 48 000 to 177 000. In that period of 20 years there was almost a fourfold increase in the number of people in those categories. The Asians increased from 5 000 to 22 000 and the Coloureds, from 13 000 to 51 000. The Whites increased from 137 000 to 371 000, which is about a threefold increase. The question that we must ask ourselves here is: Where are these people going to be trained? We know that the infrastructure of technikons for Blacks is totally inadequate and totally hopeless and it is going to cost billions of rand to try to build separate technikons for them. There is a need for separate technikons for geographic reasons but not for ethnic reasons. These people will have to be trained because unless we can produce the 1 000 skilled workers we need per day in the next 20 years, we are going to find that the growth rate of South Africa is not going to be met and the quality of life of all people is going to suffer.

Why does the NRP say that we should have autonomy of decision-making in respect of student entrance to technikons as well as universities and yet we are not prepared to support a quota system? We do recognize the right of a particular institution to maintain the character of the group for whom it was formed originally, but we believe—and I now come back to the hon. member for Greytown, who is so busy reading NP-propaganda—that the right of admission for students to tertiary educational institutions is an absolute right, viewing it from outside the institution; in other words, from the view of the politician, the view of Parliament, the view of the provinces and the view of the public. In that respect they have an absolute right. One cannot grant autonomy to a tertiary educational institution and decide whom it should admit and then put qualifications onto it from an external source. However, within institutions it is their relative right to determine the criteria that they are going to apply. Within an institution such as a technikon it may be that the senate will say that they want to maintain the White character of the technikons and therefore that they are going to apply voluntarily a ratio relationship between students. They may decide to give preference to accounting subject faculties rather than, for instance, to computerization. They are free to apply the criteria of discrimination on the number of students they take into each faculty. That is a relative concept. The absolute concept is in terms of granting them the right to determine their own criteria. The hon. member for Greytown obviously agrees with that because he has not got too excited in his bench.

When it comes to technikons themselves, we view technikons as being a microcosm of the working environment outside of the technikons. Hon. members will agree that over the last four or five years we have gone to a considerable amount of trouble in South Africa with the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions and the amount of work that we have done in Parliament itself to liberalize the working environment outside in the real world. There is no real problem with trade unions being multiracial today, provided that they want to be multiracial by their own decision. There is no difficulty in having ethnically based trade unions, provided it is in accordance with their own decision. If one reads surveys such as have been compiled, for instance, by Prof. John Simpson of the University of Cape Town, it is very interesting to note the perception by the Blacks of those things which we consider to be holy cows in terms of apartheid. I refer hon. members to the preliminary report on research of the attitude of literate urbanized Blacks towards socio-economic political systems, a survey done by Prof. Simpson. It will interest hon. members to note that those Blacks also fear multiracial trade unions because they fear that the Whites with their historical advantages will become the leaders of those trade unions. They fear mixed sport clubs because they believe that the Whites will take the best Black players, and they will be left only with the mediocre players. Therefore there is a very strong sentiment revealed by these surveys, indicating that Blacks for instance do not necessarily want multiracialism. It will please hon. members to note that these literate Blacks whose opinions were sounded out in Soweto say they do not want mixed marriages. They do not want it. It is here in this survey, and the same …

Give that report to hon. members of the CP so that they can read it. I think they should take cognizance of its contents. [Interjections.]

You yourself would benefit from reading it, Albert. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we have false perceptions of what the attitude of the Blacks is to all these things, and my guess would be that the majority of Blacks would in fact want to attend their own technikons and their own universities. There will, however, be some Blacks, who, for other reasons, would benefit from association with White technikons and White universities, and we believe that the working environment and the technical colleges are very strongly related.

The labour legislation which we approved in this House earlier, and which removes all impediments and race discrimination involved in the working environment, most parties in this House supported. The CP was not in existence yet in 1979, when this happened. I am sure, however, that they revealed their real attitude towards it in the NP’s caucus. Most parties in this House agreed then that in the working environment there should be no discrimination at all in terms of legislation or statutory provisions, that it should be left entirely to the entrepreneur to decide for himself the character and composition of his work-force. We believe that technikons are a microcosm of that real working world out there. How is it possible to justify these people working together, in a workshop, in a hospital, in a computer operation group, in a clerical office, or in any other working environment, while they are forbidden to train together for those very jobs? How can we justify that? We cannot justify it at all in terms of a statutory measure.

If there is a voluntary decision by a particular institution to try to maintain the character for which it was originally brought into being, that is something entirely different. Hon. members of the PFP should really agree with us when it comes to the question of local option because they say there should be no statutory discrimination, while we say that local option is not statutory discrimination; it is a voluntary decision to associate or dissociate. Therefore, if we look at the technikons, we cannot for the life of us see how it is necessary and how one can morally justify bringing in a quota system which discriminates against certain groups, while one does not impose the same sanctions on the industrial or the commercial sector outside; the very sectors for which those students are being trained.

A quota system is local option.

A quota system is not a local option. It is a statutory measure. It is statutory discrimination, and we are also against statutory discrimination. We are against it, Mr. Speaker.

If we then add to this the question of duplication of facilities for the training of people, the question of creating a massive infrastructure which only serves a certain section of the population, and if we also consider the costs of training people on a statutory discriminatory basis, it is clear that there is not justification at all for maintaining those high costs. South Africa is desperately in need of skilled workers. The mining industry alone, by the year 1985, is going to be short of 55 000 skilled engineering workers. They will not be forthcoming from the White population group. If we create a mining technical school, a technical school specifically designed for the training of miners, and 10% of those skilled artisans are to be White while 90% are to be non-White, it is pretty obvious that we will have to create one institution for all those people. I am sure that the hon. member for Innesdal and other hon. members on the Government side will agree that it is absolute nonsense to apply a quota in respect of the number of Whites or Blacks who should go to that technikon. We believe that it is totally unjustified and that tertiary education should be one of those fields of education in which the controlling bodies are given the maximum autonomy and are allowed to decide matters for themselves.

It is interesting that in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he alludes repeatedly to the fact that it is the Government’s attitude that the autonomy of technikons and universities must be increased and that they must be given a greater degree of authority. I quote from his speech—

That is a very noble statement, but three pages further one finds him reneging on that concept and saying he is not going to allow them the autonomy to decide whom they should take in as students. I see the hon. the Minister shaking his head. The statement I quoted is a very noble statement, but there is no follow-through; it is a hollow statement. The hon. the minister knows as well as I do that, when one talks of devolution of power, it means a genuine devolution of power, accountability and responsibility.

Let me repeat the standpoint of the NRP as far as tertiary education is concerned. We believe that the State only has two primary functions. Firstly, the State has a responsibility to create the infrastructure and to provide financial assistance to institutions of tertiary education. Secondly, it has a responsibility to ensure the maintenance of academic proficiency and standards by the universities and technikons. Those are the only responsibilities of the State. Other than that, the responsibilities and functions should he with the institutions themselves. That would of course include the whole process of the admission of students to these institutions.

On a previous occasion we have stated in this House what we feel about the quota system. Therefore it will come as no surprise to the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side that we are going to vote against the Bill because of the quota system. We can only foresee many wasted years ahead of us, wasted years of confrontation between particularly the universities—perhaps this does not affect the technikons as much—and the State. What the Government is doing today with this quota system is to pass on the administrative responsibility for apartheid, if I may use the word, from the Government to the technikons. That is what the hon. the Minister is trying to do. He is trying to shelve the unpleasant task of having to administer a permit system and he is trying to pass on the responsibility for applying ethnic differentiation to the technikons. I think that those institutions are going to find that very unpleasant. I do not think that they would want to be seen as the instruments required to impose a political and ideological factor on the administration of education.

In conclusion let me say once again that we believe that the solution is to be found in that noble concept of local option. That is something that is going to come to the fore more and more. The minute one starts talking about the devolution of power in a plural society which must cater for community needs and allow differentiation to exist, there is only one option if one wants to avoid conflict, and that is local option. We believe every technikon should have the right to decide for itself whom it will admit and what the character of that institution should be. If a technikon wishes to maintain a specific character that is its right. However, why should that be binding on all technikons throughout South Africa? In Natal we have a population of 637 000 Indians, 522 000 Whites and 90 000 Coloureds. I need not mention the 3,5 million Blacks we have there. Natal is the second largest industrial sector in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. One of these days, if it rains there, we are going to overtake many of the other sectors on the Witwatersrand in terms of our growth rate per annum. Where are we going to get the skilled, the clerical and high technology staff from? It will have to come from Indians predominantly because of their educational advantage over Blacks at this stage. It is going to be coming from the Indian population. We are building a brand new technikon in Durban at a cost of more than R100 million and we are going to have a declining White population. Now is the time to allow us, on a local option basis, to bring in those students who are academically qualified from the Indian and Coloured population, and even from the Black population, to benefit from this massive investment. What is wrong with allowing us to do it, if the authorities and the community in Natal, particularly Durban, are prepared to accept that responsibility? That is the beauty of local option, that it will not be binding on the hon. member for Gezina for example. The Pretoria Technikon has the full right under local option to determine its own character and whom it should allow. Under local option we would even go so far as to say that it is the local option of the people in the Free State to maintain their local option of not allowing Indians to settle in the Free State.

Oh no!

That is a local option factor. We will obviously try to argue with them to try to get them to change their minds, but we will not use statutory interference or intervention to force them to do that. I do not think the hon. member for Bryanston anticipates bringing in legislation to force the Free Staters to accept Indians on a permanent basis there.

In conclusion, may I again appeal to the hon. the Minister, for the reasons I have given—we are both pragmatists and realists, not fundamentalists—to drop clause 16. Let us go ahead with the rest of the legislation. If we want to change from the permit system, which I believe we should, let us rather bring in a new concept, namely local option. That will provide a lasting solution and we will avoid all the inherent conflict contained in the quota system. For those reasons we will definitely not be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the arguments of the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. member for Durban North, I want to make it quite clear that it has been, is and will remain the policy of the NP that education from the pre-primary to the tertiary level should be provided within the group and cultural context of each particular population group.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member agree that a quota system could also be introduced at a secondary and primary level?

It is already being done. Certain colour groups are already being admitted to White schools with the consent of the provincial councils. It is being done in terms of a permit system. This could be replaced by a quota system. There is nothing strange about it. [Interjections.] I want to repeat: This is the basis of NP policy. This policy has not been formulated for the sake of political expediency either. It is based on purely educational principles, principles which have not been formulated by this Government and this party, but which are accepted—I have already referred to this in a previous debate—by prominent educationists throughout the world. This is basically the policy of the National Party—education within the group and cultural context of each particular population group. However, we are realistic enough to know that in South Africa, with its multinational population and its limited funds, it will be impossible to provide every population group with all the necessary facilities, from the pre-primary up to the tertiary level. Therefore certain exceptions can be made and have to be made. This principle of the making of exceptions, and I want to repeat this, was laid down in an Act as far back as 1959. There are exceptions with regard to children of persons in the diplomatic service; exceptions with regard to students who are unable to take the study courses which they would like to take, and which the indications are that they should take, at their own institution. That is why the permit system was introduced, in terms of which the university did not have any control over the number of people of colour that could be admitted to its ranks. The Minister would issue a permit upon request to such a student who had to attend a different university from his own for the reasons mentioned above. It has been asked what the motivation for the quota system is: The quota system does not contain any new principle which is not embodied in the permit system. However, by introducing the quota system, in terms of which an overall quota is determined for a university, it is now being left to the university, and not to a political Minister, to decide whether a student should be admitted. In other words, it amounts to recognition of the idea of autonomy, and if we understand that, we can understand where the idea of the quota system comes from.

The hon. member for Durban North stated that we were afraid that the White civilization would disappear if we allowed mixed universities. What nonsense! I want to repeat that this policy of the National Party is educationally correct.

Is the quota system educationally correct?

But I have just told the hon. member why the quota system has been introduced. It is in order to preserve the group and cultural character of the institution concerned. Under the South African circumstances, however, we make exceptions, and this is the way it should be. In the same way we are able to introduce the quota system, which is not a new principle. I repeat that it is a principle which was laid down in 1959. I want to repeat that the hon. member for Durban North alleged that we were afraid that the White civilization would disappear. I want to repeat that this is nonsense. Our approach is based on purely educational considerations. The hon. member for Durban North referred again to the famous local option of the NRP. Suppose there is a community in the Cape which needs a technikon. The Coloured man says that he wants to exercise his option and to have his own technikon. The White man says that he is exercising his option and that he also wants a technikon. The Black man says that he is exercising his own option and he also wants his own technikon. What is the hon. member now going to do in terms of their policy of local option?

They have the right to do so.

In other words, it will then be necessary to build three technikons in this community, for Blacks, Coloureds and Whites. This is precisely the policy of the National Party, only we do not call it local option. We recognize diversity. We proceed from the educational point of view that it is correct that these people should have their own institutions. This is also reflected in the data which the hon. member read to us as far as Soweto was concerned. They prefer their own institutions. So the NP is right in its belief that people should receive their education within their own group and cultural context.

I come now to the hon. member for Bryanston. In the first place, I want to quote again what I have quoted in a previous debate. It comes from Open Universities in South Africa, in which the following is said—

I find this very interesting. When the PFP brings about separation according to circumstances and according to the convention of the community in which they are operating, they speak of segregation and non-segregation. However, when the NP does the same thing, it suddenly becomes apartheid. Surely this is an obvious political game, because those hon. members know that the word “apartheid” has an unpleasant connotation.

But you coined the word yourselves. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said. The hon. member for Koedoespoort proceeds from the standpoint that it is the policy of the CP to develop separate technikons for every population group. No hon. Minister or member of the NP has ever said that this is not the policy of the NP. I challenge hon. members of the CP to quote any hon. member on this side of the House as having said that we shall not continue to develop separate universities in order to meet every need. The same applies to the development of separate technikons to meet every need. I repeat that challenge. I challenge any hon. member of the CP to quote any hon. Minister or any hon. member on this side of the House as having said this.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has suddenly started objecting vehemently to the word “negotiable”. The quota will allegedly be negotiable. This is not acceptable to the CP, because it means an increase in numbers. However, I submit that one needs a CP mentality to believe that negotiable means only that an increase in numbers will be allowed. [Interjections.] Furthermore, one also needs a CP mentality to believe and to accept and, what is more, to go around telling people in the constituencies, who do not understand these things, that if one allows people to study at these educational institutions on a temporary basis, in terms of a principle which was accepted as far back as 1959, one is now giving permanence to a principle which has been in existence for a long time. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Koedoespoort objects vehemently to the fact that the principals of Black technikons and the principals of the Coloured technikons as well as the principals of the Indian technikons will serve with the Whites on the Committee of Technikon Principals. In voicing this objection, the hon. member for Rissik said that this was the end of self-determination.

That is quite correct.

Some people’s memories are very short. It is the end of self-determination when Coloured, Indian, Black and White people serve together on a committee of principals, but in that case the hon. members for Rissik and Kuruman signed away the self-determination of the Whites long ago. After all, the hon. member for Rissik signed for a President’s Council which was to draft our constitution and which was to consist of Whites, Indians and Coloureds, but now he is worried about signing away the self-determination which he signed away long ago. The hon. member for Kuruman assented with his signature to the principle that Whites, Coloureds and Indians would serve on the Council for the Environment, but now he is complaining about self-determination which has been signed away or given away because there will be a joint committee of principles. [Interjections.]

What kind of argument are we dealing with? How do we view matters? I do not object to people changing their minds in this way, but what I do object to is the fact that the same people who have signed away the self-determination of the Whites omit to mention this when they talk to people in the constituencies. Then they tell people that they still adhere to the principles of the NP, and that the present NP, consisting of members on this side of the House, is betraying the old principles. This is all I want to say about that party.

In a Second Reading debate on legislation dealing with advanced technical education, it may be useful to refer very briefly to the development of technical and vocational training in the Republic of South Africa. Before 1910, technical education in the four colonies was sporadic and unorganized. It is very interesting to know that the Railways took the lead in providing technical training for apprentices. In this way, technical training was introduced in the Durban workshop of the Railways in 1884 and in Salt River in the Cape in 1890. In 1891, a commission appointed in the Cape Province recommended—this is very interesting—that practical subjects such as drawing, needlework, woodwork and domestic science be taught in the schools. This had not been the case before. A further recommendation of the commission was that separate technical and industrial schools should be established.

Arising from these recommendations, the Cape Government established industrial schools in 1893, as well as schools for neglected children and children in need of care, at which—this is very important—practical subjects were taught. This event, the establishment of these schools and the introduction of practical subjects and technical training in these schools, was of the utmost importance in the history of technical education in our country. This, in my opinion, was the origin of the stigma which has attached to technical training until fairly recently. It is necessary that we should examine the prejudice and stigma which has attached to technical education to the institutions at which technical education was provided.

For years, the prejudice against technical education was both deep and pervasive in this beautiful country of ours, as a result of the fact that these schools and institutions were associated with the old trade schools where the less well-to-do, the neglected child or the child in need of care had to be educated. In other words, it was regarded as a way of providing inferior people with a livelihood. This prejudice against the technical institutions in our country was also aggravated by the general notion that only the unintelligent children had to receive technical training. This was universally believed. However, there was another element as well. In the rural areas in particular, one had the phenomenon that when the depopulation of those areas was taking place, the local high schools were in danger of losing their pupils. Suppose a technical institution was established in a nearby large town or city to which children could go to receive technical training. The principal of the local high school then told that child’s parents: Do not send your child to that institution, because it is actually meant only for the unintelligent children. Your child is not so unintelligent that he cannot pass Matric. In this way, the prejudice against technical training and institutions providing such training was aggravated.

However, several institutions which offered technical courses were established before Union. This happened in response to a need which gradually arose. In this way, for example, the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce began to offer evening classes in commercial subjects in 1905. In 1906, a commercial college for businessmen was established in Pietermaritzburg. In 1907, a technical institute was established in Durban. The South African College, which subsequently developed into the University of Cape Town, introduced evening classes for students in electrical engineering and electrical mechanics in Cape Town in 1908. In 1909, a technical school was established in Pretoria. After Union, the Minister of Education at the time, Mr. F. S. Malan, organized a conference in Pretoria in 1911 in order to discuss, firstly, what was being done at the time in the field of technical, industrial and commercial training in South Africa, and, secondly, ways and means of promoting effective vocational training. This conference recommended, among other things, that a National Advisory Council for Technical Education be established. This council was established and existed until 1922. On 1 April 1925, there was a further development when all vocational and technical education was placed under the control of the Union Department of Education of that time. What is important, however, is that all control over technical education and vocational training was placed under the Union Department of Education. However, the ordinary provincial schools and academic schools were allowed to offer their courses in woodwork, needlework and domestic science. The pupils of the various institutions providing technical training all sat for national examinations. The successful candidates received national certificates, for example, the National Senior Certificate, Std. 10, or the National Junior Certificate, Std. 8. In the development of technical education in South Africa, an extremely important breakthrough was made in 1932 which was of great significance to those institutions that provided technical education. In that year, the Joint Matriculation Board decided that holders of the National Senior Certificate would receive matriculation exemption with admission to a university on certain conditions; in other words, students and pupils at these institutions—i.e. technical schools, commercial schools, technical colleges—which provided these courses could, after attending these institutions, go to university. This contributed greatly the the removal of the stigma and prejudice which had attached to the institutions.

Since 1932, there has been a phenomenal growth in the number of institutions providing technical and vocational training, as well as in the number of students that have taken these courses on a full-time and part-time basis. The National Education Act of 1967 further regulated technical and vocational training. Technical high schools and technical commercial schools were placed under the control of the provincial administrations. The institutions that had to provide for the needs of students who already possessed a senior certificate and who wanted to continue their studies in the technical field were placed under the control of the Department of National Education. From this position, the technical colleges were able to develop into colleges upon which a high degree of autonomy has been conferred by recent legislation, i.e. colleges for advanced technical education which are today called technikons and which are being recognized, in terms of the Bill which we are discussing at the moment, as educational institutions with the same status as universities. In this way, technical education in South Africa has grown from a despised and stigmatized field of study into an extremely essential one, in the light of industrialization and technological development, and it has become a widely recognized and respected field of study which has to meet the requirements of our country in the times in which we live.

We are grateful for the fact that recognition is finally being granted by this legislation to technical and vocational fields of study and to the institutions at which these courses are provided, and that these study courses and institutions are being elevated from a Cinderella position to the status of a queen that can take her rightful place among other tertiary institutions such as universities.

I have only one problem in connection with this Bill, and this concerns the designation of the “principal” or “rector” of the technikon. I think we should get rid of the dual designation. There is no problem with the designation of the Committee of Technikon Principals, because we already have the Committee of University Principals, where the principals are also rectors. I want to advocate, therefore, that we should get rid of this dual designation and should merely refer to the “rector” of a technikon.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a special occasion in the history of technical education in our country. Therefore I can only give my wholehearted support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member for Kimberley North, and indeed, I found his exposition of the historical course of events leading up to this legislation, very interesting. It is of course true that as the hon. member said, initially a stigma was attached to training in the skilled occupations at trade schools and so on. Naturally it is cause for gratitude that things have in fact changed and that that stigma has disappeared.

There were some other things said by the hon. member for Kimberley North which in the nature of the matter are difficult to accept without further ado. Actually I want to try and understand what it is that hon. member for Kimberley North, the hon. member for Standerton, the hon. the Minister—in fact the Government itself—regard as the basic motivation for provisions such as these in this Bill. I shall speak about this again later. However, to begin with I just want to …

You do not want to understand.

It is not that I do not want to understand. Surely it is very clear. However, it is always necessary to comply with specific requirements of logic if one is to be able to understand a standpoint fully.

You simply do not want to understand nationalism.

When the hon. member for Kimberley North says that the people prefer to attend their own institutions, to go to their own institutions, I do not dispute that, of course. It is true. Why, then, do restrictions have to be imposed on them from above? This means either that the hon. member does not believe his own statement—which would mean that the people do not in fact want to support their own institutions—or else the necessity ought not to be stressed, in that obligations should not be imposed on these institutions from above.

It is true that there are people who do not know what obligations rest on them.

That is the second aspect of the hon. member’s method of arguing that I am unable to understand. He spoke about what was educationally correct. I think that the hon. member will concede to me that there are probably several standards that could be applied to determine whether something is educationally correct or not. One would be able to apply the single criterion that only that which is taught in a milieu which consists exclusively of members of one particular group, is educationally correct. One would be able to say that. One would be equally justified in saying that in our society it is educationally correct that people must learn to know and understand one another, that people must learn to live with one another, that indeed, this may be the highest task of education in South Africa. Neither the hon. member for Kimberley North nor I can change the basic structure of our society.

After people have first learnt to respect and value what belongs to them.

Mr. Speaker, to respect and learn to value what belongs to one has nothing to do with the fact that people sit together, speak together and study together with people of a different culture, race or language group. The hon. member for Kimberley North causes problems for himself every time he reacts to what I say. He cannot say, on the one hand, that the quota system is only an expansion of the autonomy of the universities, while at the same time, defending the quota system as a quota system which does in fact mean control from above over university autonomy in respect of the right of the university to decide for itself whether it wants to allow students from a different group or not. That is all I have to say to the hon. member for Kimberley North.

I want to associate myself with what my colleague, the hon. member for Bryanston, had to say. I think that the hon. member for Standerton did my colleague an injustice when he said that he only spoke about the contentious clauses in the Bill. Yesterday, in the first part of his speech, he very clearly recorded his appreciation of all the positive aspects in the Bill.

No; read his speech.

Today he went on to other matters, but in the first part of his speech he put that very clearly. I want to say to the hon. member for Standerton that this side of the House has certainly taken note with the greatest appreciation of all the positive aspects in this Bill. I want to go further and say that in my opinion, apart from the two clauses concerning which I reserve judgment, in many respects the other clauses of the Bill can certainly be regarded as a new charter for technikons in South Africa. In that sense we certainly welcome all those provisions in the Bill, including the greater autonomy and powers of the councils of the technikons, e.g. to negotiate loans, make appointments, determine salaries, etc. I do not wish to go into detail. The hon. the Minister dealt with those matters in his Second Reading speech. In the nature of the matter, we also want to place on record our appreciation for the fact that the heads of the Coloured and Indian technikons will also have a seat in the Committee of Technikon Principals. It is something of a pity that the hon. the Minister did not go further and also mention in his speech that the heads of Black technikons would also automatically be members of the Committee of Technikon Principals. In the light of the tremendously important role to be played by the technikons in regard to manpower training, I just want to say that these new arrangements are greatly welcomed.

The hon. member for Bryanston, and the hon. member for Durban North as well, emphasized very strongly the need for manpower training. I want to add that in my opinion that need is far greater than was stated by the hon. members for Bryanston and Durban North. The situation is cause for anxiety when one considers the future and the need in our country. The need is far greater, and the crisis for the future far graver, than most of us even realize. In this regard I wish to quote from an article written by Prof. Schutte, Director of the Instituut vir Mannekrag- en Bestuursnavorsing and lecturer at the Nagraadse Skool van Bestuurswese at the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education. This article indicates why the position is indeed disturbing. Prof. Schutte writes—

Prof. Schutte speaks about 1 500 a day whereas the hon. member for Durban North spoke about 1 000. As I said, this indicates that the problem is so much graver. I read further—

That is the growth rate mentioned by my colleague—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended for supper I was quoting from an article by Prof. Schutte. I should like to continue doing so. Prof. Schutte goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

These are disturbing figures. I wonder whether we are fully aware of the implications of this projection, if it should prove to be true. Prof. Schutte goes on to say—

He summarizes this when he says—

I quote up to that point. What does this mean? It means that we are here faced with a problem the extent of which we do not begin to realize. By saying this, it is not my intention to suggest that manpower is the only prerequisite for the proper economic development of the country. I think that it is in fact clear that in the past we have not shown ourselves to be aware of the problems we have been faced with when there has been insufficient manpower training.

To come back to the Bill, I am sorry that instead of bringing us together to face this overriding problem, the hon. the Minister has here confronted us with a Bill containing ideological elements which in fact have nothing to do with this problem. I regret that we have been placed in this situation and that we cannot say to the hon. the Minister that this is a good measure and that we can proceed with our manpower planning and training. We find this measure unacceptable, due to the ideological aspects which the Government has once again chosen to drag into this matter. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I want to say that we have already plucked the bitter fruits of an ideology which has prevailed in this country for a long time now. We have already plucked the bitter fruits of the actions of a person who was pre-eminently an ideologue and was prepared, for the sake of ideology, to throw sound principles and practices overboard. I should not like to see the hon. the Minister in that role.

Having listened to him today and over the past few days, I want to say that I see the danger of his becoming an ideologue of the same stamp. I want to tell him, in all honesty, that for the sake of our country and our future I hope that we shall be spared that. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that even if one could say that in theory—and I am not prepared to concede it—there may still be a need at university level for a measure such as the one we have discussed today and over the past few days, I am convinced that at this specific level of the technikons there is no need whatsoever for a measure of this nature. The hon. the Minister did not explain to us why this measure was essential at this specific level of the technikons. In the first instance, the numbers are not even comparable. According to what I have been able to ascertain, approximately 40 000 Whites are enrolled as students at technikons, as against the meagre figure of approximately 5 000 Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. Now, what possible threat could there be at this stage? This is where we come back to the ideology, because it is in the nature of an ideology that it allows itself to be guided by fear of the future. I want to emphasize that in terms of the realities of today’s situation there is no justification whatsoever for implementing this provision, the quota system, in respect of technikons.

But to proceed: In the case of universities I can still understand it, because we speak in particular about the residential universities, since the hon. the Minister even excluded Unisa from the other Bill. In other words, his fear clearly concerned the problem of the possibility of swamping and the loss of character. To a considerable extent this also has to do with the fact that they are residential universities. The hon. the Minister made a point of saying that restrictions could be imposed with regard to the residence of these other students in the residences of the universities to which they were admitted, but in the case of the technikons that is surely not a factor. The number of students studying at the technikons who live in or will live in is, after all, a minority if we take the other full-time, part-time and casual students into account. In other words, that unnecessary fear which the hon. the Minister may have had does not exist in the case of the technikons. Even if one were to accept all those meaningless phrases that are used such as the character of the university, the cultural bond, their group-orientated nature—even then a technikon does not have the same kind of character as a university in that sense. One cannot accept that in the same sense, because the technikon is concerned with the training of people in technical fields. That kind of character is not predominant in the case of technikons.

Both my hon. colleague and the hon. member for Durban North asked what we were creating here. We are creating a situation in which the people will have to work together shoulder to shoulder in the same place after they have passed through the technikons, and we shall have to deal effectively with this problem that I have just sketched and which was mentioned by Prof. Schutte. We cannot do otherwise. What kind of situation are we creating when we artificially separate people at the place of training, and then hope that subsequently they will be able to co-operate with one another in peace and harmony in their place of work? It is that kind of arrangement, that kind of attitude, which in fact promotes conflict and not co-operation. I find it inexplicable that that fact is not fully realized. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister not being able to realize that. What is at issue here? It is purely and simply a matter of the implementation of the ideological race policy. It is pointless the hon. the Minister trying to deny it. It is pointless the hon. members of the NP speaking about culture and group links and the identities that have to be maintained. No one’s identity is being threatened if people of colour, of whatever grade, are enrolled in a technikon as students.

But they agree with you.

They do not agree with me. Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, I cannot understand why the hon. members of the CP are attacking the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] In terms of his ideology, the hon. the Minister belongs in the CP. [Interjections.] I simply cannot understand the CP’s attack on the hon. the Minister. However, I shall leave it at that. I am speaking now about the hon. the Minister’s ideology that he has expressed over the past few days. I repeat that he belongs in the CP and not in the benches opposite if that party indeed states that it wishes to abolish discrimination. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may deny it, but this provision attests to nothing but an overriding racial ideology. In spite of the facts and in spite of the need in our country, this principle is being applied everywhere. I cannot understand it. If circumstances had made it essential, if there had suddenly been a tremendous flow of people to the technikons, if there had suddenly been a tremendous flow of Blacks, Browns and Indians applying to be enrolled at White technikons, if that kind of situation had arisen, then I could still have understood the hon. the Minister saying that the Government had to step in. I say that I reject the principle, but if that situation had arisen I should have understood the hon. the Minister coming to this House and asking us to impose a quota. However, this situation has not arisen, and the facts do not justify it. Why, then, introduce this provision? I repeat it is due solely to an overriding racial ideology. [Interjections.] I am amazed at the total ignorance on the part of that hon. Minister and the Government of the bitterness in the ranks of other groups that is caused by measures of this nature. I cannot understand … [Interjections.] … that the hon. members on that side, including the hon. member for Mossel Bay, can show such a total lack of understanding of the offensiveness of this kind of measure to the people of colour of our country. I cannot understand it. Those hon. members can justify it to themselves, but the fact that those people regard this kind of provision as offensive in the extreme is not to be doubted, and the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. the Minister should have no illusions about that. Why should we deliberately go out of our way to give people offence? Why?

You are giving offence to the White people. [Interjections.]

What offence? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay knows he is talking nonsense. I repeat my question: If we South Africans are placed in a situation in which a Minister speaking a different language has prescribed to the English universities that they must only admit a certain percentage of Afrikaners, or if the universities were, say, to decide today of their own accord that they would only admit a certain percentage of people speaking the other language, what would our reaction be? What would our reaction be if the University of Cape Town were to decide that they were not going to allow a greater percentage than 5% of Afrikaans-speaking people to attend the university? Would we accept that? We would not, because we would assume that they regarded us as inferior and that we were being insulted. Why should those other people react in a different way?

Over the past few days we have had the events at Hammanskraal. We have read and heard about the spirit that prevailed there and the resolutions adopted there. Are we, then, so blind that we cannot see what we are doing to our society? Are we so blind that we cannot see what we are doing to the future, not only of those people, but of ourselves and our children by deliberately persisting in giving offence to people?

Do the hon. the Minister and the Government want to tell me that they are unaware of the repercussions that this kind of thing has and will have in the outside world? The hon. the Minister knows full well that I have never said that we should do things for the sake of the outside world, but I again ask why we should unnecessarily go out of our way to alienate the outside world further and further intensify that hostility that exists nowadays. I think that what we are engaged in can only be described as attempts at national suicide.

In conclusion, I just wish to say this: I cannot understand it. We regard the Coloureds and Indians as good enough to be involved in our sovereign legislative body, to involve them in the Executive, in the Cabinet. We do those things, but then—would you believe it!—we regard them as not good enough or whatever and we do not want to admit them to our technikons and our universities. [Interjections.]

I have tried to the best of my ability to understand why the Government comes forward with this kind of legislation at this time. I want to say bluntly, as I said this afternoon to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, that, using all my faculties of reason, I am unable to understand that the Government should do things that are so deliberately aimed at causing further friction among the population groups in South Africa and blackening our name abroad even more than it is already.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier must just give me the briefest of chances; I shall be getting back to him in a moment. I first just want to tell the hon. the Minister a few things so that he gan get rid of that bitter taste that the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s speech left him with.

In the world of education there is a greater deal of understanding for the very fine things the hon. the Minister is doing, in this portfolio at the moment, in the interests of education in South Africa. There is a great deal of understanding for the firm-principled course of action he is adopting, for his palpable professionalism as a political educationist and for this fighting spirit when it comes to negotiating for what is needed in educational institutions in South Africa. I am not the only one to be saying this here this evening; it is also being said in general education circles on the strength of the drive the hon. the Minister displays.

There is a world of difference between talking here of what one wants and doing what has to be done in South Africa.

One must just have guts.

That hon. member dit not even have the guts to stay where he was; he took to his heels.

And then you went spinning back like a whirligig.

No, not like that.

The hon. member for Kimberley North made a very clever contribution about the stigma that has clung to the trade schools and the domestic science schools in South Africa. That is perhaps a snippet from a less fortunate era in the history of education in South Africa. We are however, rapidly eliminating those handicaps. In the ’sixties and ’seventies, thanks to the growth of a financially well-to.do South Africa, there was higher technical development, scientific progress and new opportunities which were all created by the actions and sound policy of the NP, so that the youth of South Africa could strive for better opportunities and more complex fields of study. Our youth gained various advantages from these new opportunities that developed in South Africa. The available job opportunities exceeded the trained manpower available. Work was more easily obtainable, without the necessary qualifications. Unrealistic salaries were paid for unproductive labour. The people were there to do the work, however, and training was not an issue because jobs were easy to get. At a certain stage, during the ’seventies, there was nothing strange in a secondary school preparing 60% to 70% of its matriculants for university study. What was indeed strange, however, was that the failure rate at university did not correlate with the scholastic achievements at secondary school level. Children who made average progress at secondary school level encountered no setbacks at university and passed. Pupils with distinctions at secondary school level failed at university. The problem we had was that during the ’seventies secondary school pupils could not be persuaded to show any interest in technikons because of their “schoolish” character, and they therefore did not go from the secondary schools to the technikons. There was nothing strange in having enough engineers in an office—very scarce items in the professional field—but not enough draughtsmen. There were insufficient foremen to do the work. Nor were there operators to man the machines. The result was that there were virtually enough engineers in specific fields, but a shortage of staff that could have been trained at the technikons. These people nevertheless obtained jobs and were paid well for their work.

In the circumstances a totally different cry was heard to the one that we now hear in the ’eighties. That is why I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation. Perhaps this legislation will one day be known as the technikons’ status law. This legislation is making a new start, giving technikons a new orientation which is going to make a difference to South Africa’s needs. The mere fact that the hon. the Minister is granting these institutions some authority, means that they have concomitant responsibilities. The fact that he is giving them responsibility will let them develop their own initiative. When one begins to initiate action for oneself, this generates drive, and what South Africa needs today is drive. This new legislative trend is going to unite the policy-maker and the entrepreneur. We cannot govern the whole of the RSA from this chamber. We cannot govern its every aspect. We must delegate responsibility to people so that they can share the burden with us. This brings the hon. the Minister and the technikon principal together so that they can consult each other. Together they will agree about specific needs in connection with certain avenues of study. The hon. the Minister and the technikon principal will take cognizance of the demand for students and the supply of people who want to take certain courses. The technikon principal and the Minister will jointly become aware of the lack of certain fields of study in specific technikons of colour, fields of study and that do not exist at the moment. Together these two will decide about the need to train a group of people of colour to satisfy the needs of their own communities and the rest of South Africa. A technikon principal and the Minister will jointly agree about courses and the form such courses should take, and about the number or quota of people that can be enrolled for this purpose. I now want to put a question to the two Opposition parties who made such a fuss about the quota: Are they afraid that the technikon principals and the Minister will be able to agree about something he himself can handle? Is he afraid that that technikon principal will see some chance of training those people even though they themselves do not want it? Are they afraid that within the milieu of his institution the technikon principal will see his way clear to giving these people an opportunity for development which they cannot, in any case, get anywhere else? Are they afraid that this is all going to succeed? Here they will reach agreement within the framework of the policy of the Government of this country, within the framework of order and on the basis upon which this country has to be governed. This will be implemented by way of the establishment of these institutions to which this matter will be entrusted. This side of the House is not afraid of handling the matter in this way. We are not afraid of those people jointly tackling these matters with the hon. the Minister. If, in an interim period, we must train people of colour until those groups have reached the level of independence, would we, in consequence, be losing our identity as a people?

This brings me to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. At a certain stage I stopped counting, but all I could understand very clearly from his speech was his saying, ten or twelve times, that he did not understand. I can understand that. Does the hon. member understand nationalism? I fear he does not. Do he and his party know what group interests in South Africa are? [Interjections.] Not? Does he understand the concept of culture to which we want to give recognition on this side of the House? No! Does he understand the concept of the diversity of ethnic communities, as evidenced in South Africa? No. [Interjections.] I have no objection to their saying something like this. There is a world of difference between the philosophy underlying their arguments and the philosophy of this side of the House. We do not differ on the statistics that the hon. member Prof. Olivier furnished us with here this evening. We gave them to him. We do not disagree about the task that has to be carried out, but what we do seriously disagree about is the concept “the Republic of South Africa”. What we disagree fundamentally with each other about is how these things should be done in future. The NP is governing the country. The people gave the NP the mandate in accordance with which it must govern, and that is what it will certainly be doing. [Interjections.] I find it a pity that in regard to the discrepancy between our basic philosophies the hon. member for Bryanston should have used such venomous expressions as “racist arrangements” and “the sabotaging of the South African economy” without understanding the consequences of that sort of thing. I want to take this up further with the hon. member for Bryanston.

He wants technikon training in South Africa to take place under one roof. Does he mean by that that throughout the whole Republic of South Africa there is only to be one institution, with all students receiving their technikon training under one roof? I do not think he can be seriously saying something like that. Surely that cannot be what he intended to convey, Mr. Speaker. I therefore want to know from him now whether he agrees that there should be a large number of these institutions in South Africa where training of this nature can be furnished. The hon. member will say, of course, that that is exactly what he means when he speaks of “under one roof”, not so? If this training were indeed to be given under more than one roof …

One man, one roof!

… we can surely accept that under those separate roofs there will, relatively speaking, be training of equal quality.

Just make sure that you do not go right through the roof.

If, then, under those separate roofs …

Healthy roof-sharing!

If we have a White group under one roof, a Black group under another roof, a Brown group under still another roof and an Asian group under another roof, can the training furnished under the respective roofs not, relatively speaking, be of equal quality? What other interpretation does the hon. member for Bryanston want to attach to that? This is precisely where we disagree with each other, Mr. Speaker. We do not, however, apologize for disagreeing with the hon. member about this. If the hon. member wants to tackle these aspects and carry them out in a different way, he and his party must first ensure that they obtain a mandate from the electorate so that they can take over the reins of Government. [Interjections.] They must first obtain a mandate from the people. They cannot, however, try doing it in this way.

What people? [Interjections.]

What people are you now talking about?

At this stage, however, the NP still governs the country, and it has a mandate from the people to govern.

Do tell us what people you are now referring to?

Oh, really, you do not know what I am talking about in any case. It would therefore be no use trying to explain it to you. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have reached a very serious stage in the history of this country of ours. I can understand our disagreeing with one another in this House about the basic philosophic approaches to the way in which this country must be governed by the party in power. It is my opinion that in this country we can no longer afford the consequences of propaganda for the sake of cheap political gain. I think that we should, for a moment, adopt a more serious approach to one another. I think we must seriously reflect on the consequences of what we have to say here; and also the consequences of our propaganda outside this House. Likewise, we must seriously reflect on the difficult task of governing a country with so complex a society as that in South Africa.

Now you are really beginning to frighten me. [Interjections.]

Was the NP not the party that created the whole concept of fully-fledged identities? It was also the NP’s approach that all groups in this country should be led to self-dignity.

There is a new word for you!

The NP has exposed itself to a great deal of criticism in its determination to lead each separate group to a proper level of self-dignity.

What does “self-dignity” mean?

We have not, however, yet reached the ideal, Mr. Speaker, and there are still numerous groups in our country who are still very far from this level of the recognition of self-dignity.

Do tell us what that new word of yours means.

In this process in which we are engaged, we are actually in an interim phase in which we must do the spade work for the ultimate dispensation we are working on in South Africa.

What dispensation is that?

Mr. Speaker, all these irresponsible interjections we have constantly been having to listen to … [Interjections.] Well, let those hon. members feel free to continue with their interjections. In the process they are, in any case, simply making greater fools of themselves than they already are. They do not, in any case, know anything about what is going on in the political arena; about the tremendous task that we have to carry out jointly and on an individual basis. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am asking hon. members to give this matter serious consideration.

I am also asking Opposition parties, in their attacks on the Government, not to do this sort of thing we had to witness here this afternoon. I am not, of course, remonstrating with the hon. member for Koedoespoort. The hon. member has told us why he can no longer support the policy of the NP, and used the words “mental anguish”. That is his problem, however. We are busy with bigger things than splitting hairs about his problem What we are now talking about does, in any case, have tremendous financial implications. I do not think it is a healthy approach to say that the exception proves the rule. Surely one cannot simply turn the exception into the rule. That would, after all, wrench everything out of context. Nor do I think it is fair, in our political arguments, to allege blindly that the Government simply goes on making concessions.

I want to point out that the things being planned now, in 1983, have a long history, I traced this back to 1969. That is why I have greater respect for the HNP members who left in 1969, when they decided they could not longer go along with what the Government was doing, than I have for those who continued sitting here after 1969, probably for personal reasons; people who first wanted to get their personal affairs in order and just sat waiting until, in their opinion, there was the prospect of a safer haven in the years ahead. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they themselves know who they are. In their own good time, once they were sure they had a chance of survival, they packed their bags and left. [Interjections.] Then they took their jackets and left. I do not think that is a very moral thing to do. I do not think it is very moral of them to take over and adapt a vocabulary they acquired whilst on this side of the House. The other evening I attended a very interesting meeting at which quite a few of their people were present. A young man stood up there and, referring to the CP, said: “We are a new party”. He said that in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and none of the members of that party sitting there denied it. I respect that young man. He stood up and said he was a member of a new party.

Are you now going to join?

What is being done here, however? Concepts of the NP, which they are still hankering for, are being hawked about, because is this not a grand party indeed? [Interjections.] There is a great hankering for the NP, and I can understand it, but surely they themselves were the ones who left.

Were you not also one of those who left last year on 23 February?

Why they left, is something they must decide for themselves.

But I am talking to you specifically.

If they are hankering to be back in the NP, that is their problem. Why did they leave? [Interjections.] We have no objection to their having left. [Interjections.]

I have no intention of standing here arguing with them about my conservatism, but I have had one shocking experience. When I tried to evaluate my conservatism, I found that the hon. the Prime Minister is more conservative than I am.

Well I never!

On 23 February 1982 conservation took on a completely different meaning. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member …

Sir, that hon. member has talked enough nonsense. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member for Brentwood insult the hon. the Prime Minister in that way? [Interjections.]

Order!

I think it is unreasonable to come to light with concepts such as “permanence is being built into own affairs”, when we are discussing things such as a quota system. It is wrong to say that our interim arrangements, with a view to South Africa’s future, are an encroachment upon the right of self-determination. I think it would be a more responsible approach for us to make the necessary arrangements and introduce the necessary legislation to solve South Africa’s problems, to try to find answers to the problems of the multinational composition of this country of ours, to seek answers to the problem of training people who are untrained so that they can lead their own communities towards the goal of satisfying their own needs in South Africa. This arrangement, this whole quota system, which is being so widely talked about and which does not differ one iota from what we had under the permit system, gives us that much more of a guarantee that in the future we shall be able to maintain our group identity whilst, at the same time, managing to do all those other things. I think it is a sound arrangement, and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by referring briefly to remarks made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier and by the hon. member for Bryanston. The hon. member Prof. Olivier was not very happy when the hon. member for Kuruman said there was not much difference between the standpoints of the hon. the Minister and those of the PFP. My knowledge of that hon. member dates back to the middel and late ’fifties, years in which he was very active in Sabra, and in which the Progressive Party was being established. To us at the time it was very interesting to see which sector of the Afrikaner population did in fact side with the Progressive Party. My own Greek professor, Prof. P. V. Pistorius, was at the time one of the first Afrikaans-speaking executive committee members of the Progressive Party. If one considers the idiom in which the so-called verligte Afrikaners of the ’fifties spoke, at the terminology which they used, as well as the attacks which they launched on the late Dr. Verwoerd, there is little difference in the idiom, method and way in which Dr. Verwoerd was attacked at the time, and the way in which the hon. the Minister and the NP are now making their attack on the basic principles of the policy of separate development. [Interjections.] Where the hon. member Prof. Olivier stood at the end of the ’fifties, some of the left-wing hon. members of the NP are standing today. The same dichotomy which characterized the verligtes at the end of the ’fifties, by on the one hand clinging to the principles of separate development and on the other advocating the policy of integration, we have found in the NP during the past few years. It does not take a political prophet to realize that the left-wing of the NP will eventually end up where the hon. member Prof. Olivier is sitting with his standpoints today. This means that in South Afrika there will be a completely open society in which the Whites, consisting of the Afrikaners and others, will form the minority group. Eventually we shall have a Government in South Africa composed of one of the Black peoples. In which way this will happen is still not clear, but that is the end of the road which the hon. member Prof. Olivier is following, and towards which the NP is now leading the way. [Interjections.] The hon. member Prof. Olivier protests too much when we say these things. In his heart he is angry at the NP, not because of the direction in which the party is moving, but because it is moving too slowly along the road.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban North that the PFP and the CP are two parties which adhere to certain fixed basic principles. I do not think the hon. member Prof. Olivier differs with me on that score. The hon. member for Durban North confessed that the NRP was a pragmatic party. I also agree with the hon. member that on the one hand the NP today is based on the old principle of separateness—after all I know the hon. members on the opposite side who hold these views; they have not all disappeared—but on the other hand there are also those in the NP who wish to approach the population problem in South Africa according to pragmatic principles. That is why I say today that the NP will follow the course followed by the old UP. The NP will therefore integrate and its people will either join the PFP or our party.

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

No, not now. I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that he need not be concerned about the NP no longer advocating apartheid. I want to quote to the hon. member from this well-known blue booklet. Unfortunately we do not know whether it is the Government’s policy contained in the blue booklet or whether it is the NP’s policy. I quote—

I now wish to say that we are not referring here to the interpretation which America attaches to apartheid. It is expressly stated here that as far as apartheid is concerned, there is no definitive “yes” or “no”. The hon. the Minister, in the second Bill of his which we are discussing, gave precisely the same answers …

Is that our blue booklet or is it the Government’s blue booklet?

Well, it is the Government’s blue booklet but it is in the PFP colours. The hon. the Minister will not be able to reply to this question of ours either: Is the present policy of the NP based on apartheid, separate development, or not, or is the reply of the hon. the Minister in respect of this education policy perhaps “the Government will not be able to act unjustly towards anyone on the ground of his or her colour because everyone will have a share in decision-making”.

I want to reply to the speeches of a few members of the NP who have spoken so far. I want to begin with the hon. member for Gezina. There are two well-known expressions which two of my colleagues addressed to this hon. member. I shall leave it to the hon. member to reply to them. The one expression was used a while ago. It was “Et tu, Brute?” and the other one was: “And the cock crowed”. I want to tell the hon. member for Gezina today that I can understand perfectly well that in one’s political career one sometimes takes a decision under very difficult circumstances. I have appreciation for hon. members who took a decision in respect of such matters, but who subsequently in their argumentation against and attacks on the principles and policies of the CP nevertheless adopted a basic standpoint which subsequently caused one to appreciate such a person. The hon. member for Gezina inter alia said the following: “The hon. member for Koedoespoort made an unsavoury attack on the Department of Education and Training.” I want to tell the hon. member that this is an absolute untruth. I want to challenge the hon. member for Gezina to get hold of the speech made by my colleague and to see if there was a single attack. It was not even unsavoury in any way in respect of the Department of Education and Training. I want to tell the hon. member for Gezina, that my hon. colleague the hon. member for Lichtenburg, was the Minister of Education and Training for a few years. The hon. the Prime Minister himself expressed the view that this hon. colleague of mine had been a very good Minister who had contributed a great deal through his work, his labours and his talents, not only to the education of Black people in this country, but also in respect of sound relations in this country.

The second term which the hon. member used was “deplorable attack”, and this, too, I wish to reject.

The hon. member went on to say that the CP was disparaging the technikons as institutions. I want to tell the hon. member that that statement is just as untrue as the others. Nowhere in the debates we had participated in so far, or have ever participated in, for that matter, have we disparaged the technikon as an institution.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon. member did say that. It seems to me the hon. member is in a political coma. [Interjections.] This is the umpteenth time that the hon. member has said that the standpoint of the CP is an ideology which rejects Blacks and Coloureds and which does not grant them anything in this country. [Interjections.] I want to state here today that the CP is the only party in South Africa which accepts multinationalism as a premise. The CP accepts multinationalism not only in respect of the White and Black peoples, but also in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. The CP is the only party which applies this fundamental standpoint all the way. I want to tell that hon. member and the other hon. members of the NP that they should not treat their fellow-Afrikaners—because we are their fellow-Afrikaners—in the way in which the Hofmeyrs treated our predecessors in the ’forties. [Interjections.] They should not accuse us as the old Jan Hofmeyrs of the ’forties accused the founders of the NP of being the people who wanted bad relations in South Africa. [Interjections.] It was the policy of separate development which brought peace and prosperity to all people in South Africa. It was the only policy which ensured that the Whites still live in South Africa today while the Whites in the rest of Africa, under the policy of power-sharing and mixed government, have had to leave. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that we considered ourselves to be a super group. That kind of terminology is interesting because it is the terminology used by the old liberals in South Africa. We do not consider ourselves to be a super group in South Africa, but we do not wish to cheat Coloureds or Blacks or Indians in a new constitutional dispensation in terms of which there will be so-called power-sharing with them while the Government wishes to keep the power in its own hands. [Interjections.]

Order! I have warned hon. members repeatedly not to converse so loudly. They are also making too many interjections now.

The hon. member for Gezina said that the NP wished to consolidate people in South Africa, while the CP was seeking confrontation. If the hon. member tells us that they wish to consolidate, then he must substantiate that statement. I maintain that separate development is in fact a method whereby one does not confront but creates synchronization between the diversity of population groups by causing them to meet one another and eliminates conflict in that way in that each group remains separate. [Interjections.]

On 14 July 1981 an article was published in Hoofstad which had been written by the hon. member for Gezina. What did the hon. member write at the time, when he was active in the conservative stream in the NP? [Interjections.] Will the hon. member deny it? What did the hon. member write? Recently he has had so much to say about “people” and “nation” and “race”, etc. The hon. member had this to say—

Recently we have been reproached for using the term “people” (“volk”) in this House. This was said, inter alia, by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, the hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

Are the Whites a people (“volk”)? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Gezina said the Whites were a minority people in this country. What else did the hon. member say? He said—

Then the hon. member went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Has the hon. member not been debating for the past five to ten minutes a principle of the legislation we are considering? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that I have a list here of seven or eight points, and each point is a standpoint which the hon. member for Gezina adopted against the hon. member for Koedoespoort. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also went further. He said that there was only going to be a small number of people from other population groups within those specific technikons. While I am standing here, looking at the hon. the Minister, I want to tell him that he should tell us again, in his reply to this debate, whether what was said here is correct, namely that he considers the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians to be separate races. [Interjections.]

I come to the hon. member for Kimberley North who, inter alia, spoke about the CP’s mentality, and attacked the hon. member for Koedoespoort on the concept of “negotiable” and related expressions. We pointed out that the hon. the Minister had said that the quota which would be introduced for technikons, was going to be negotiable. That is what we understood him to say. All that we said to the hon. the Minister was that he should explain to us what “negotiable” meant in the present case.

The hon. member said that the quota contained in the Bill, like the one in the Universities Amendment Bill, was going to be a temporary quota only. The hon. member for Brentwood, in his turn, said that it was an interim arrangement, an interim measure. What I want to ask—the hon. the Minister must reply to this—is whether the quota we are writing into the legislation is a temporary or a permanent quota. Is it an interim or is it a permanent arrangement? Those are replies to which we would very much like to hear the answers.

The hon. member for Kimberley North attacked the hon. member for Kuruman and me and said that by signing the report which established the President’s Council, as well as the report of the commission which investigated environmental affairs, and of which the hon. member for Kuruman was the chairman, we were already relinquishing the self-determination of the Whites. Anyone who is acquainted with recent history and understands it is aware of the fact that the recommendation in the report which established the President’s Council was to the effect that the President’s Council would be an advisory body. That advisory body would then, after it had heard evidence and weighed it, come to Parliament with a report. We would then adopt a standpoint in regard to it. Today my colleagues and I are collectively being accused of having endorsed legislation and other points of policy containing the underlying principles also contained in this specific Bill. To that I just wish to say that the fact that the CP came into existence is in fact a demonstration that we were prepared to differ with the hon. the Prime Minister because we did not want power-sharing and a mixed Government.

Did you not agree with it at first?

Daan, you people must not only sign; you must put your fingerprints on the documents as well.

I shall come back to the question of the quota. Our standpoint is that education is an integrated facet of the cultural pattern of mankind. Education is not an isolated facet of the pattern of life. Education is in fact interwoven into the pattern of life, and if one tampers with it, this also has an effect on all the other facets of the pattern of life. Since the Government now wishes to introduce a fixed quota in respect of technikons as well, I accept that the hon. members are not correct when they say that this is a temporary or interim measure. My standpoint is that the Government is now, by way of legislation, laying down the quota. Nowhere is there any indication that it will be a temporary or an interim measure.

I want to refer the hon. the Minister to a quotation which will probably not sound strange to him as a good and competent author and scientist. This was written by a certain person—

I want to say two things to the hon. the Minister. In this legislation the hon. the Minister is invalidating the self-determination and the sovereignty of a tertiary institution in the White community. It is the same problem as the one we have in regard to the new constitutional dispensation. This tertiary institution is being deprived of its sovereignty.

The second point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that if one integrates these students, as the hon. the Minister has said, fully as part and parcel of that technikon without any hindrances being imposed on them, apart from the hindrances which the technikon itself may perhaps impose upon the, one is creating a source of unrest of this specific tertiary level. I also want to make the point that one is depriving the Coloured and Indian technikons of their best people.

Oh please, that is nonsense.

The hon. member can say it is nonsense if he likes. We differ on the principle in any case. I am seeking the survival of my people, while the hon. member is seeking his destruction. [Interjections.]

Is the hon. member not skimming off the cream of the students here, who could be far better trained in institutions established for their specific peoples? The technikons of the Coloureds and the Indians are not being accorded the recognition which one ought to accord them. Nor are the institutions of the Whites all that perfect either. So we have the beginnings of a conflict.

Selective integration.

Yes, selective integration, “integration by busing”, or whatever way the hon. the Minister wants to look at it.

I want to say that from the outset the CP was strongly in favour of the establishment of technikons. We were also champions of the position which technikons should occupy in modern society. In 1957 a member of the CP, the former member for Randfontein, made a speech when we were in the process of establishing technikons. It was one of the best speeches made on this subject at the time.

Like a university, a technikon has three particular tasks: The task of instructing, the task of educating and the task of investigating. All three of these elements also apply to a technikon. Instruction, education and investigation together form the educational task which students and lecturers at these institutions will have. On these grounds we say that technikons occupy a very valuable position in our society. The products of our technikons will be absorbed into the economic life of our country. I want to say the same of the economy as I have said in respect of education. The economy is one of the essential elements on the level of the pattern of life of people, without which they cannot survive. The economic facet of a person’s pattern of life must be dealt with in such a way that one does not, by means of the economy, cause the destruction of the other facets of one’s pattern of life. The students who are completing their studies at a technikon will be emerging into a complex Western civilized world. Modern society will, as time goes by, become extremely complex. To maintain such a complex technical society and to keep it functioning, it is absolutely essential that the people who are being trained at the technikons will be of the highest possible standard. They will not only serve their own society, but the world in general, in the sense that South Africa will, in future, have to compete to an increasing extent with other highly technically developed peoples and countries in the world. For that reason the people who have to do this work will have to be very capable and energetic. The CP is, of course, very strongly in favour of technikons being accorded a high status in our society, a status which will confirm the importance of technikons. One can only acquire status in the academic and educational world when the quality is high. That is why the CP is going out of its way to ensure that the quality of technikons established in our country will be among the best there is, and we shall not hesitate to make a contribution in this regard. Status can be acquired only when the quality is high. I think that students at the technikons will have to realize that if they want status in our society, the quality, the standard of what they have to offer, will have to be very high.

I therefore wish to say that the CP is opposed to this Bill. We are not opposed to this Bill because we are in any way opposed to the technikons as such. We are not opposed to this Bill because we do not want other people to have technikons as well. We are not opposed to this Bill because we want the technikons for ourselves only. However, we are opposed to this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has introduced it, because it forms part of the constitutional plan which the Government has of creating one nation in South Africa which, in our opinion, implies the disappearance of minority groups. For that reason we are not prepared to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, listening to his philosophy and his viewpoint, one could sum the hon. member for Rissik up as a person who is retreating into the future. That is really all one is able to make of that hon. member’s performance. He remarked that the NP was supposedly pursuing the course of the old United Party and that it had now become a pragmatic party. In my opinion, the NP is not a pragmatic party but one whose idealism is tempered by the realities we have to contend with in this country. The hon. member remarked that one had to adopt a standpoint in one’s political career. I want to ask the hon. member where he was in 1969 when he had to adopt a standpoint. The hon. member told us that the CP was the only party that accepted multi-nationalism.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that it is customary to allow hon. members considerable latitude during the Second Reading. However, we now find the Chair being confronted with successive hon. members rising and saying they are reacting to what a previous hon. member said. Consequently, we are heading towards a political debate, whereas the debate is concerned with a particular Bill. I request the hon. member to bear this in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. It is just a pity that I had to be the one to be reprimanded.

This evening the hon. member for Standerton referred to young people in South Africa who, over the years, have longed for a university education.

One of the most important facets of the present legislation is that at last training at technikons has really come into its own in this country. The role and importance of technikons is once again being clearly emphasized by this legislation, and at last technical training is coming into its own, and practical training in management, which is so essential for the training of the labour force in South Africa, has also come into its own. Over the years, a mere bachelor’s degree has been held out as the ideal to many young people. Today, however, there are just as many people being trained at our technikons in South Africa. Universities are not suitable for training highly skilled technicians and practical management personnel. Alternative training mechanisms must therefore be created, and I believe that our technikons are pre-eminently suited to meeting these requirements.

With the shift in emphasis to tertiary education as such, these technikons in South Africa have developed into unique tertiary educational institutions, on a par with the universities, but with the purpose of concentrating on occupational training. Technikons meet the needs of thousands of people who have not had university training. One also finds in the practical business world that there are thousands of young people who have never had the privilege of going to university. They eventually find in their career, in practice, that they are lacking somewhat in theoretical knowledge. They therefore have the opportunity now of attending a technikon in South Africa to undergo management training. Therefore, what we need in South Africa—someone has already used that fine, appropriate term here—is flexibility. We need a flexible, adaptable training system. This is just what our technikons are providing to South Africa.

I greatly appreciate the provision being made in terms of this measure for technikons to be able to introduce courses at short notice in order to adapt to the rapidly changing demands of local communities—trade and industry in particular—that courses not subsidized by the State may be introduced without ministerial permission. Another important aspect of this measure is that it requires an equivalent approach to the evaluation of courses, as well as the recognition of qualifications. I think that as a prerequisite, uniformity in respect of the people of the various race groups in South Africa deserves special attention, particularly as far as training is concerned.

Of course, the status of technikons is also being enhanced in that they will now be known exclusively as tertiary educational institutions. It is, of course, very easy for hon. members of the Opposition to criticize this measure, mainly because they have a simplistic attitude to training, particularly the training of people belonging to other groups in South Africa. As the governing party, the ideals of the NP are tempered by certain realities, and consequently provision has to be made for the realities the Government has not brought about itself, but which are nevertheless part of the South African set-up.

We now find that hon. members of the Opposition, particularly hon. members of the PFP, do not recognize ethnicity, particularly in their approach to education. Nor do they recognize the accommodation of the diversity of communities in South Africa. Their attitude is simply that they want everything to be thrown open. It does not matter how things are arranged or whether these institutions are stable; everything must simply be thrown open and matters must just be allowed to take their own course.

Is your policy based on ethnicity or on race?

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what the hon. member for Bryanston says; we do not apologize for our approach. The premise of the NP is based on an ethnic approach; the recognition of ethnic differences in South Africa, of racial differences, if that would satisfy the hon. member for Bryanston. [Interjections.] The approach of the hon. member for Bryanston to the importance of the training of manpower was very sound. We could find no fault with that. However, why is he trying to create the impression that the Government’s apartheid policy is impeding all attempts at training in South Africa?

Because it is the truth.

After all, South Africa certainly need not take a back seat to anyone as regards the training of people of colour in South Africa. Compare us with Africa and see if there is a country in Africa that does more for the training of its people, regardless of whether they are White, Black or Brown, than is done in this country. Opportunities for training in this country are legion, but the mere throwing open of technikons per se is certainly not going to improve training as such.

The hon. member for Bryanston said that in its approach to training, the NP was choosing the option of apartheid instead of the option of development. Surely that is a foolish argument. That argument does not hold water. Development in this country, particularly in the educational sphere, is unprecedented in the context of Africa. Furthermore, he said that the Government discriminated against the Black man simply because its point of departure was that of giving them their own distinctive training centres. That is rubbish. Surely that argument is one we need not take any notice of. There are absolutely equal opportunities in South Africa, and this measure provides that if there are technikons for people of colour in South Africa where a specific course is not available to them, those people can attend a White technikon or a White university to complete the course they would like to take.

Now the hon. member for Rissik has made the disgraceful remark that we are engaged in “integration by busing” in respect of our educational matters. Where does that kind of argument get us in South Africa?

Integration by quota.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that this was a repugnant measure. I want to say that the NP does not apologize, particularly not to the hon. member Prof. Olivier or the PFP, for wanting to create order and stability in the training of our people in South Africa. This is a very good measure and those hon. members are making a political football out of it. The speeches of those hon. members do more harm than this measure could ever do in South Africa.

The CP really displays a barbed-wire apartheid mentality. The ethnic approach, which is a fine approach and which is the right point of departure, is interpreted so narrowly by these people that they simply do not make any provision for dealing with practical problems and considerations. The hon. member for Koedoespoort went so far as to say that clause 16 spoils a sound measure. He spoilt his speech with his blatant race prejudice. Just as, in respect of the new constitutional dispensation, they hide behind the religious convictions of people with whom they do not wish to join in worship in order to disguise their racism, they are trying to do the same with this measure. The hon. member called for technikons to be developed to the fullest extent. I find nothing wrong with that. This Government has been doing this for years. What those hon. members do not tell us, however, is what they are going to do during the interim period when full-fledged institutions for each race group in South Africa do not yet exist. I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik: If the CP were to come to power in South Africa tomorrow, would they stop Black people from undergoing training at technikons? All they do is ask questions and try to sow suspicion by referring to measures of this nature and this gets us nowhere. The ideal of the Government is still to provide full-fledged training centres for each population group. Practical considerations are, however, making this difficult.

The hon. member for Brakpan used the term “where possible” in his Second Reading speech on the Universities Amendment Bill, when the same principle was discussed. He said that “where possible” separate facilities should be created for people. Why are they adopting this irresponsible standpoint regarding a measure of this nature when they know that it is impossible to have total separation? What are we in South Africa to do in the interim while the ideal is being realized? During the past week we have held lengthy debates on both the quota system and the permit system, but the principle remains precisely the same. All that is happening, is that the mechanisms for ordered accommodation are being introduced by way of this measure.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that it was now possible for all students to be fully involved in all student activities because a quota system was being introduced. Surely the same argument applies in the case of a permit system. One could also argue that it should be possible for a person studying at a technikon to be involved in the student life and student activities of the technikon concerned. Why then, are they drawing a distinction? The people are there, whether they are studying there by way of a permit system or a quota system. The argument simply remains exactly the same.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also said education was an “own affair”. Of course it is an “own affair”. The Government makes no apology for the fact that it regards education at the primary and secondary levels as separate and distinct for each community or people in South Africa.

The hon. member for Rissik wants us to say whether this is an interim measure in South Africa.

But you did say so.

To me it does not matter whether or not it is an interim measure. The ideal remains the same. While that ideal has not yet been realized, however, provision must be made for these people.

I now come to clause 16. What I find important, is the acceptance of students from other communities for courses not offered by their own technikons. That, surely, is what the argument is all about. A person who does not wish to accept that, should really go and do a little soul-searching. This principle has applied in South Africa for years. All that happened in the past, was that this had to be done with ministerial approval. All that the proposed section 16 is doing now, is that the Minister is being granted the right to negotiate with the technikons on the procedure to be followed, and the technikons can decide for themselves on the admission and non-admission of students. The principle therefore remains precisely the same.

The hon. member for Durban North asked what improvement this new system contained. He said that no one on this side of the House had explained to him how the quota system improved on the permit system. For the sake of the record, and for the information of the hon. member, I should like to quote from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister when he introduced this measure. I do not know whether the hon. member was perhaps not present then.

Yes, I was present.

The hon. the Minister spoke in English and said the following (Unrevised Hansard, 13 June 1983)—

He went on to say—

This, then, is the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question the hon. member asked after the hon. the Minister had spoken. I quote further—

That is the reply.

I said it was not an improvement.

That is the hon. member’s argument. He did not say that, however. Of course it is an improvement. Someone remarked that the Government was now forcing its own responsibility in respect of its own apartheid policy onto the technikons. Sir, surely that is not true. All the Government is doing, is providing for the accommodation of students who are unable to complete the courses they would like at their own technikons, so as to enable them to do so at a White university or a White technikon, since our point of departure is that of an ethnic approach and of institutions of their own for each community in South Africa. That is our reason for disagreeing with those hon. members. They have a local option approach, but when that local option is implemented, as in the case of the constituency of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, he does not accept their ruling. Local option is the most hopeless argument one could ever listen to. I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein has really let the cat out of the bag, because all he really said was that there will be no change, but in fact only a new administrative procedure.

You do not know anything about cats.

I do know something about cats. However, what he said is correct. There is no improvement; it is purely a change in administrative procedure. We have one less permit. In fact, he is absolutely right as far as that is concerned.

The other aspect to which I should just like to react—it is very close to the bones of the Bill—is that the hon. member, indicated that there was absolutely equal opportunity. Now that really is a way-out Turffontein statement. I suppose they get it off the racetrack. That really is a way-out statement, because how he can explain to people of colour who live far away from a university that it is equally easy for them to have access to university education when the nearest university to which they can go is miles away from them and way beyond their income potential…

How far away is the university for a white man in the rural areas?

A whole lot closer than it is for a Black man.

People go from Messina to Stellenbosch.

I wonder whether that hon. member knows how the other half of the country lives.

He does not know they exist.

Does he know how they live? Does he really think that their income potential is such that they can travel from Messina to Stellenbosch? They might have to walk there. No, Mr. Speaker. Those arguments cannot hold any water at all.

However, I should like to come back to some points made here by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban North when, for a short period in this House, sweet reason prevailed and everybody was quiet and listened very intently because the NP was not trying to justify itself in the eyes of its voters against the CP, and vice versa. We were talking about the reality of the question of whether a quota is any improvement at all and whether we were getting down to the function of technikons and the role they have to play in the current climate in South Africa. We were also talking about what the most important aspects were that we had to look at when introducing legislation of this nature.

My hon. colleague indicated that technikons should in fact reflect a microcosm of the spectrum of South Africa’s workforce situation and mirror the absolute urgency with which this country has to tackle the problem of uplifting people into the technical spheres. There have been debates before in this House on other occasions where all parties have agreed that there is this immense challenge of meeting the vast population explosion and the unemployment situation and of providing employment, technical upliftment and secondary education, upon which one can place technical education. This really has all the dimensions of a crisis. Yet we do not react as though we were facing a crisis and we do not look at the matter through the eyes of a country that seeks to resolve that crisis by means of crisis management and a crisis outlook on things. This is the area with which I should like to deal because we on these benches feel that the separation of people at tertiary level, those who are virtually our future leaders in commerce and industry, goes completely against the grain in respect of our struggle to try to combat these enormous problems that we are going to face as a country. We feel that it is vitally essential for these young leaders to meet in the same climate and atmosphere and to understand fully our economic system and to go forth as disciples of free enterprise. The twin challenges of providing employment opportunities and raising productivity must be seen as requiring crisis solutions and management methods and not slow, cumbersome, centralized ideological plans.

In the first place there is an insufficient number of technical training institutions to meet this challenge. We cannot build more overnight. However, we can utilize the existing capacity to a far fuller and greater extent to train the maximum number of our labour force in order to improve productivity and make economic opportunity available to all. What we really should be considering is maximizing the use of existing facilities especially in respect of extramural and after-hours courses in order to accommodate the working man from all groups who should be strongly encouraged by his employers and motivated by whatever means we have at our disposal to better his employability in an ever-increasingly sophisticated labour market. How else will the working man be able to contribute towards and participate in the upliftment of his own social circumstances in the townships and cities in South Africa in the urbanization era that is upon us? Indeed, in that respect, it is not just upon us. We already have a backlog. How else will he find common cause with members of all groups in our diverse cultural population in propagating the free enterprise democratic system?

There is no doubt in the minds of the vast majority of South Africans of all backgrounds that South Africa is firmly placed on a road of narrowing options. The threat from the right wing—the CP—has the terrible effect of cutting off the critical faculties of the NP. They see everything in terms of the effect that it will have on their support and they shy away from meeting the realities of providing the right mechanisms to meet the challenges that I have described. Their only choice in respect of this legislation lies between the CP option of continued rigid control which in fact the hon. member for Turffontein has spelt out—the same thing with a slightly different administrative procedure—on the one hand and on the other hand the option of allowing technikons to establish their own voluntary control mechanisms in order to establish the desired state of rendering service to the communities in their areas without losing their character or lowering their standards.

The weakness of the argument of the hon. the Minister of National Education lies in his party’s inability to see South Africa as one nation with many communities. The whole nation as such has to be harnessed together to meet these challenges otherwise we shall have to stand or fall, sink or swim by the mistake we make in not acknowledging this fact. Does the Government not have sufficient confidence in universities and technikons to recognize their responsibilities towards communities themselves? Do they not have that responsibility? As we know, more than half of our universities are in fact Afrikaans oriented universities. Surely the Government has confidence in them at least to ensure that the traditional culture and the standards of those universities will be maintained.

While we also realize the greater responsibility to South Africa, we believe that we can very easily place it on the shoulders of the universities to make their own decisions.

I believe, opposite to a point made earlier in respect of universities, that some university principals shelter behind legislation when they are confronted by radicalization on the campus because the legislation gives them an excuse for not dealing with it. Had they had the autonomy, the ball would be put squarely in their court and they would have to face up to it. They would then have to decide exactly what they want to achieve at their universities and where they draw the line. Statutory control relieves them of that opportunity. This is the opposite side of the coin when it comes to the passing of apartheid legislation which has to be implemented by the universities. These things are true. Had principals operated within an autonomous situation, they would really have had to measure up the facts of preserving the cultural and traditional aspects of life and put into operation the best attitudes and brains they have to deal with things which are at present taken out of their hands because of legislation.

The whole concept of universities as far as this party is concerned …

Order! The Universities Amendment Bill was dealt with earlier today and we are now dealing with the Advanced Technical Education Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon; I made a terminological mistake.

The whole concept of the autonomy of technikons is so wrapped up in the macro-problem of South Africa meeting its challenges, it is so wrapped up in the reality of a very limited amount of time with limited financial resources because technikons are the instrument which, more than anything else will uplift people to a state where they themselves can contribute meaningfully, financially and in every possible way to uplifting themselves. If we do not link our approach to technical education to the urgency of allowing people access to the economy on a far greater scale, then we are doing ourselves and the country in the future a great disservice.

The NP continually espouses its great cause which it maintains is that of upholding Christian and civilized values, the very value system to which the hon. member for Durban North referred. The correct manner in which to achieve this is what is in dispute here. Surely, no success will flow from a system where access to the economy is denied to those whom one would like to embrace that value system. Surely, that is absolutely logical. If we want to succeed in our efforts to have all members of the South African nation, all the different communities participate meaningfully in and uphold our value systems, then we must offer to them the opportunity, the full opportunity of participating in and contributing to that system.

Our educational system and particularly our tertiary educational systems which prepare a man to go out into the labour market are an essential cog, and the approach of this party is that there is no substitute at all for allowing these institutions the maximum possible opportunity of serving the community in a manner which is negotiable with the community. It must be flexible and it must allow far greater initiative, far greater improvisation to meet the local circumstances. In fact, we must get people to enthuse about technical education instead of our having somewhat strait-jacketed and statutory controlled institutions. Such institutions are suspect because it is felt that they are inaccessible. Surely the vital starting point at which to inculcate those values is on the campuses of our technikons and universities. The NP deems it necessary to keep our different communities at arm’s length by statutory means, whereas we in this party believe that the cultures and traditions of those communities will protect them and at the same time propagate the value system to which we are committed and which we have to negotiate, to consult over and, if necessary, to fight for.

There has been an interesting debate on the question of autonomy and exactly what autonomy means. Whether we all have the same idea of exactly what autonomy means, is still not quite clear. When one really gets down to the grass roots of this question, what one is saying is that that institution has the right to decide for itself. What criteria will it apply and how will it approach the vital question of maintaining standards, cultures and traditions within that institution? It is interesting to note that in an earlier debate in this hon. House when we in these benches suggested that the question of merit selection at a school was a meaningful criterion, a member of the Official Opposition pooh-poohed the suggestion and in fact suggested that it was inadequate. He was on the same side as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs who said that that was the demerit of local option because we did not accommodate all of the people.

I think we must be clear about merits and criteria. With regard to criteria, they are not only going to be academic qualifications, but the whole tone of that university and whether it is capable of maintaining standards. It will have to have regard to the composition of its student body and the whole approach to the South African way of life. It will have to consider whether it will be able to maintain those standards. Of course the balance of the different groups will have to be considered. The Official Opposition find great difficulty in really coming to grips with this reality because to admit that this is so would make serious inroads into their official policy. One cannot in South Africa, as they have done, indicate that one recognizes the plural nature of our society on the one hand and then not make accommodation for those population groups on the other hand.

Lip service.

Pure lip service. One has to have a mechanism by means of which to ensure that that plurality and those groups are accommodated.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the hon. member for Durban North has indicated, we will not be supporting this legislation. This party believes that there is no substitute for autonomy at tertiary level. Despite the arguments that have been put forward we remain convinced that local option is in the best interests of South Africa at this stage of its reform and accordingly we will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town said many things here this evening. He again tried to bring the discussion round to the question of local option, to which the hon. member for Durban North also referred. After having heard their representations now and after having heard them say that they do not support the Bill, I am not surprised that the NRP remains confined to Natal only, that it is unable to expand to other provinces and that it can make no further progress. If every area or every province has to make its own decisions, I think one is going to have tremendous confusion in South Africa. It is with that end in view that the NP, the hon. the Minister, is planning ahead. Hon. members of the Opposition have claimed that this hon. Minister is not very responsible.

However, if one considers the legislation as a whole and also the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, one will see that he is planning ahead for the years to come. With reference to the De Lange report and with reference to all the things which are happening today in these various spheres, the hon. the Minister, together with his department and his officials, who are well equipped, are seeing how they can cope with the future.

Perhaps the permit system did not work as well as we hoped it would. Mistakes were made in the past and we are now seeing whether we cannot, with this new course, effect an improvement to the entire system. However, it is still subject to the conditions which the hon. the Minister is going to impose in this specific respect. With reference to what the hon. member and the previous hon. member had to say about apartheid, it still remains a caricature, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, of the true policy of the NP.

It has never been our policy to have no contact with people. It has been the policy of the NP throughout to have contact and to establish how those people can best develop in their own specific sphere. This was the case with the Coloureds, with the Indians and with the Blacks as well. The fact of the matter is that if one considers the Vista University, if one considers the technikons, and all the universities and all the privileges and opportunities which exist today, I must say that whatever else may be said about the NP and however bad it may appear to be in some people’s eyes, it has at least tried to do something. Mistakes were made; we admit it. Certain matters did not work out as we wanted them to, but we made progress in this respect that we nevertheless tried to do something to see whether we could not improve the position.

For that reason this amending Bill which we have before us at present is making tremendous progress in the sphere with which it deals. Powers are now being conferred upon the technikons and their councils in order to obtain capital which previously came out of the State coffers. There is an academic council which is now becoming more akin to that of a university, a council which is very necessary. Then, too, there is the introduction of courses of study; there is the conducting of examinations; there is effective control, and in this way we hope that under this legislation the technikons are going to produce something very worthwhile for us.

I know there are matters in this connection in regard to which the CP and the PFP differ with us, yet this legislation represents progress as part of our implementation of the Van Wyk de Vries report, a report which made it clear that technikons should offer practical training, particularly in technology and that they and universities should clearly develop alongside one another.

They liaise very closely with one another, but in certain spheres their functions are still intertwined, and if it is not possible to effect co-ordination, there will definitely be duplication. An excellent aspect of the present legislation, regardless of whether it deals with Whites or non-Whites, is the expanded system of selection which is now being introduced so that students can be correctly channelled.

Bridges of mutual recognition should be built at these institutions to enable them to co-operate with regard to specific training in certain fields. South Africa can no longer afford the luxury of competition between universities and technikons, and the optimum utilization of the available manpower has become imperative.

That is why I find this to be a wonderful development in the sphere of tertiary, vocational-orientated education. I also believe that no one can deal with it better than the present hon. Minister of National Education. After all he gained the experience when he went through the first few years of the Rand Afrikaans University under very difficult circumstances.

We now find that a new field is being opened up for effective training in another sphere, and that a new generation of skilled technicians will emerge. During the past six years technikons have not only achieved greater independence, but more ample provision was also made for them to have a greater measure of autonomy. It is a fact that the burden of financial obligations is now to a large extent being removed from the shoulders of the Government which also opened up the possibilities for the granting of loans for study purposes to selected students.

Technikons are now able to organize and determine these matters themselves. Technikons are also now able to appoint their own staff members, and act more rapidly and effectively, also in regard to courses offered in the short term. Examinations which were previously controlled by the Department of National Education are now being placed under the control of the technikons themselves, to such an extent that internal examinations up to a certain level may be conducted by the technikons themselves.

As far as certain specific courses are concerned, the hon. the Minister may by way of special notice allow the technikons themselves to conduct all examinations. However, the hon. the Minister still has the right to issue diplomas and certificates. It is in this respect in particular that people of other population groups will be allowed to study at certain technikons, particularly in cases where specific courses of study are not offered by the technikon at which they were originally registered.

The guidance required to make all these matters a reality came from the Cabinet and from the hon. the Minister. In order to simplify procedures, the Minister may now himself, subject to certain conditions, grant technikons the right to determine themselves the number of students from other population groups. The councils of the technikons, which will take these decisions, do after all consist of responsible people. This entire step is necessary in order to establish better co-ordination and co-operation with other technikons. In addition, uniformity is now being created by means of the evaluation of the needs pertaining to courses, qualifications and subsidies.

Provision is also being made now for a statutory Committee of Technikon Principals, similar to the Committee of University Principals, in order to control matters more effectively. The principals of technikons for Coloureds and Indians may now accept joint responsibility together with the principals of White technikons. Of course I know that hon. members of the CP feel very hurt about this matter. Nevertheless it does after all entail a measure of liaison which is essential for us today.

When we take cognizance of what is stated in the report of the De Lange Committee, for example, we note that the emphasis is placed on the provision of education of a comparable standard to members of all the population groups. Furthermore, emphasis is also being placed on meeting the needs for the required manpower in the country. The hon. the Minister of Manpower, who is also present in this House at the moment, can explain to all of us how essential it is to give attention to this aspect.

In order to realize all these ideals, the emphasis today must be placed on the refined technological fields of study. Everyone must co-operate in order to make our country prosperous. It is of course important that we should see the report of the De Lange Committee in its correct context, and also to the extent to which the enquiry of that committee is related to the entire complex of technikons and universities.

One does become perturbed when one thinks of the future, but we are nevertheless trying to ensure this difficult situation is overcome in the end. We observe that the number of White pupils will by the year 2000 have dropped from 960 000 to 760 000. This means a reduction of 200 000. We shall have fewer White people to do certain work to be able to create a future for South Africa. The number of Coloured pupils will on the other hand increase from 750 000 to 960 000. This is in fact an increase of 200 000. The number of Black primary school pupils will increase from 4,8 million to 12,3 million and high school pupils from 1,1 million to 4,6 million.

It is a formidable challenge to consider these figures. We ask all parties to accept joint responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves in South Africa. The solution to our educational problem does not lie in the mere throwing open of all facilities to everyone, but in the expansion of existing facilities for all groups so that no one need be deprived of facilities and so that the entire population will ultimately be able to help itself. That is precisely what this Bill on technikons is concerned with. We want to provide vocational training, and we want to know how to select our staff in future, in what way we must build our labour relations and how we can initiate organizational development, staff development and community development effectively.

That is why the NP, of which I am a member, has committed itself to certain things. It has committed itself to moving in this direction. That is why I support the NP today. I cannot be anything but a member of the NP. The NP has spelt out clearly the direction in which it is moving. If the NP disappoints me on this score, it will be a tremendous disappointment to me. However, it has stated as a prerequisite that the established rights of the Whites will be guaranteed. We are not going to sacrifice the rights of the Whites at the cost of anyone.

That is a warning, Gerrit. So far and not an inch further. [Interjections.]

However, the same rights are also granted to the other peoples and population groups. The preservation of White rights is a condition for the preservation of the rights of other peoples and population groups. We have stated it as a condition and we shall therefore take it into consideration in this legislation. That is why we are endeavouring, by means of this legislation, to improve the standard of education and to obtain equal opportunities in education for all population communities. That is why the NP has worked on this matter in this way, even if hon. members of the NRP says that we are not really giving attention to these matters and accepting this responsibility.

When it was necessary to bring about a sharp and sustained rise in the standards of living of other population groups, was it not then the NP who took the lead in this connection? Did it not, particularly in respect of the Coloureds, uplift them out of their impoverished circumstances? Did it not clear up the slum areas and provide them with better houses? Did it not also introduce higher standards of education? Did the NP not ensure economic progress for all population groups? It created better working conditions, raised the health standards and made more money available for development. It raised standards so that those people are also able to aspire to higher things today.

Hon. members need only look at the budget. We are still not allocating as much as we would like to all the groups, but in the current year our expenditure on Duban-Westville University was R23 200 000, and the capital amounted to R1 800 000. This gives a total of R25 million. In respect of the M.L. Sultan Technikon, the amount concerned is almost R7 million. The grand total allocated by the Government in the case of that university amounts to approximately R32 million. These are in fact the amounts allocated to the Indians for the technikon and the university. In the case of the Western Cape, the current expenditure was R22 317 000 and a total amount of R24 117 000 was allocated to the university. The current expenditure in connection with the technikon for Coloureds there was R7 626 000. This also means an expenditure of a grand total of R31 million. One could say that approximately R64 million was spent in this connection on the education of Coloureds and Indians.

Let us now see whether this new system will not be successful. The permit system did not work as it should have done. Let us give the new system a chance. It will be possible to establish the number of students attending technikons, the vocational fields of study will be better served, tuition will be of a higher standard and methods of evaluation for testing ability and merit will now be emphasized.

I want to conclude by quoting the words of William Blake—

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Rosettenville. He is someone whom I worked with for many years in the Johannesburg City Council, and we have been teammates in many other teams too. Faith underlies everything he says, although—and I say this with respect—perhaps what he has to say today no longer has all that much relevance. I do not believe that today the NP alone has the right to claim the loyalty of honest and sincere people. I think the time has come, in this discussion, for the NP to tell people exactly where it stands.

The hon. member’s concluding words were a revelation to me. These technikons, as instruments of development and institutions for learning, institutions for the training of people, are exceptional institutions. For years now there have been pleas for technikons. Since the hon. the Minister said he has only answering questions from experts let me say that at one stage I, too, was in education for many years. I also think experts should answer our questions. Even though we are stupid and do not always understand how these things work, the hon. the Minister must please answer our questions because it is important to have answers to certain questions.

I now want to refer to the position of people of colour in this country. I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville that it was vitally necessary, in the years when it was still the old NP that we both knew, for the NP to have done the necessary job of educating people about the introduction of separate development and the ideas surrounding it, and the possibility of every person obtaining separate but full-fledged education in his own individual institution. It would not be inferior education.

The hon. the Minister explained the operation of the permit system very well. He explained that permits were granted to certain people because there was nowhere else for them to study. A permit, however, is a temporary measure. One only has to think of the measure involving the section 16bis areas. There are also other measures relating to this. We have always said that a quota should not be granted because of the fact that a quota gave permanence to the situation. In a growing population a quota, as the hon. member for Rosettenville rightly said, cannot decrease. I am now putting words in his mouth, but he pointed out that when the number of Black school-going children increases from four million to twelve million, the quota in a White institution would have to be increased from 10 to 90. The character of such an institution would then change quite beyond recognition. The hon. member for Turffontein also speaks about racism in the religious context. I think that is something we should rather pass over in silence. I think the hon. member knows, as well as anyone else, that conservative nationalists like myself, and each of us sitting here, are actually Calvinists. They are actually believers. [Interjections.] Has the hon. member never heard of a Calvinist? [Interjections.] Has he ever heard of Calvin?

What is your point?

The greatest problem lies in the fact that someone like the hon. member for Turffontein can speak of racism in a religious context. Anyone in this House knows that I advocate religious freedom. Only a fool does not advocate religious freedom, and I do not think fools are elected to this House.

What is your point?

I think the hon. member made a statement that is not worthy of him. I do not think we should ever say such things about one another. The little discussion he had with the hon. member for Yeoville and others a while ago was fairly unsavoury. Anything that has a racist connotation is wrong. We can have standpoints, but we may not have racist … [Interjections.]

But yours is a racist standpoint!

Hon. members must listen carefully. I think it is essential for one to listen. One is not a racist because one advocates separate development. In advocating separate development, as do all those on that side of the House except the old SAP members and those who lost their way 35 years ago and have since been wandering blindly …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled, at this stage, to make a political speech that has nothing to do with the legislation?

I have allowed the hon. member some elbow-room, but I must now ask him to confine himself to the legislation.

Looking at the statements made over the past 35 years—I shall be coming to the quota system in a moment—of preaching separate development in this Parliament, it beats me how people can now say that separate development is a racist policy.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to make this last statement of his, even though it has nothing to do with the quota system. The hon. member must now confine himself to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. Clause 16 relates to a person being trained in an institution which is part and parcel of his cultural setup. I now want to come to the problem that this quota system is going to create. If we look back over the years, we see that in the cultural history of the Afrikaner there was never any mention of any equalization process, as the hon. member for Rustenburg put it, never any mention of a similarity of culture as far as the Coloureds and the Afrikaners were concerned. A dual system in technikons and other educational institutions was advocated for English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. That is how strongly we felt about our individual cultures, our position as separate entities. In terms of this legislation a quota system is being introduced, and to make it more acceptable to people, it is being said that because the Coloureds speak Afrikaans they are also part of Afrikaner culture. [Interjections.] I find it strange that hon. members over there should ask who said that.

D. P. de Villiers of Nasionale Pers.

How many Ministers and how many of the political earthworms of our day and age did not make this statement? They speak of a nation. They say that in that nation one cannot make any distinction except for cultural divisions. If one cannot distinguish on those grounds, how does one make any distinction at all? [Interjections.] That is the problem of our times. People do not stick to their past statements. The hon. the Minister who is dealing with this legislation has written a few very clever essays, if I may describe them in those terms. In this book I have here, for example, he revealed how he handled matters, how he also adopted new standpoints from time to time in regard to education. There are also the various statements he made at universities. I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister had a sort of earthworm-method of doing things. If one puts him down right in the middle of a patch of ground, he gravitates towards the dampest spot that holds out some promise.

Order! The Committee is not discussing the hon. the Minister’s style now but a particular Bill. The hon. member must confine himself to that.

I shall abide by your ruling, Sir. I am only trying to reply to certain statements that hon. members made in connection with our party’s standpoint concerning this legislation. [Interjections.]

Order! I am grateful to the hon. member for accepting my ruling. Now he must just see to it that he abides by it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the technikons which that hon. Minister is defending are nothing more than the starting point for an overall mixed education system. [Interjections.] I want to prove it too. We have a technikon here in Cape Town, and there is also one in Bellville South. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will grant the Bellville South technikon a White quota and, if so, what that quota would be. What will the White quota for the Bellville South technikon be? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. the Minister. Does he not know, or is he not making any provision for Whites there? What will the Coloured quota for the Caoe Town technikon be? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg West had quite a bit to say about universities. Apparently, if there are a few individuals from other language groups at such institutions, we no longer speak of ethnic universities, ethnic technikons, or ethnic institutions. [Interjections.] They try to draw the following parallel: If a Coloured is admitted to a technikon, well and good, but if an English-speaking student is admitted to a technikon it encroaches upon the identity of the Afrikaans-speaking student at that technikon. That is precisely the statement the hon. member for Johannesburg West made. [Interjections.] Let me quote from the hon. member from Johannesburg West’s speech—

What I am now asking is: If the Coloured quota is 30%, is it then an ethnic technikon?

Are you referring to Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking Coloureds?

That is the kind of mentality we find in the NP today.

The hon. members are busy throwing open the doors, and this is the case with each and every piece of legislation that is being introduced into this House. One only has to look at clause 28A to see that this is a new method of throwing open the doors. In contrast with the PFP, which actively advocates it, the Government is trying to hide the exact nature of its final goal. The final goal, in the words of the hon. member for Rustenburg, is equalization. [Interjections.] Yes, equalization is the final goal.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte dealing with the Bill under discussion, because he mentioned clause 28A, whilst the Bill does not have 28 clauses?

Clause 28A … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is referring to clause 18, of course, in which provision is being made for the insertion of a new section 28A. Let me therefore put it this way: A few words to the wise suffice. The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Hon. members have now learned a second method of defence: First they grew angry; now they laugh. For a hyaena this is probably a good characteristic: First it rushes in and then it yelps.

The principle embodied in the legislation is the slow but sure opening up of technikons to all groups: White and Coloured. The Government cannot deny it. That is the Government’s aim, in the course of time, as the population ratio varies.

We cannot argue that away, and no one on that side of the House can tell me that a quota system is a better or more manageable system than the permit system when it comes to the maintenance of a population group’s identity, and here it is a question of the identity of the Whites. What I am saying is that it could be handled more easily if use were made of a permit system, because if someone is studying at an institution on the basis of a permit that has been granted to him, that permit can be withdrawn. Such a person can therefore be subjected to censure. When one makes use of a quota system, however, even if the quota is not increased, the problem is that an impossible situation can arise at such a technikon if, let us say, 10% of those people boycott their classes. I do not believe that it would only be the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians who would boycott their classes. I do not want to cast aspersions. For many years I have advocated that these people should be properly trained, and I still do. I am of the opinion, however, that the pattern of throwing open the doors, which the Government is adopting, is wrong. The Government must take a stand in favour of opening up or not opening up educational institutions. It must make provision for facilities for them or it must say it does not have adequate funds available and no longer has the inclination to carry the policy of separate development through to its full consequences. It must then say that it is opening up those technikons to everyone and that everyone can attend those technikons without any impediment. This quota system, which will make provision for the fact that, for example, only 10% or 20% of the students can be students of colour, or that their numbers depend on how many people of colour are living in a certain area, is the beginning of the end of separate development and the NP’s education policy as we have known it.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the hon. member for King William’s Town said that the only ray of light in this debate was the speech of the hon. member for Durban North. I took the trouble of obtaining a copy of that speech and all I can say is that that speech must finally convince members of the NP that that hon. member is now ready to join that party. I say this because the hon. member for Durban North is now completely versed in double talk, and in my view double talk is a prerequisite for membership of the NP.

What clause of the Bill are you talking on?

I am replying to what the hon. member for Durban North said. [Interjections.]

Order!

When I quote from this speech, please do not tell me that I am quoting out of context, because there is no context in this speech. The hon. member said that “the infrastructure of technikons for Blacks is totally inadequate and totally hopeless and it is going to cost billions of Rands to try to build separate technikons for them. There is a need for separate technikons for geographic reasons but not for ethnic reasons.” He also asked: “Why does the NRP say that we should have autonomy of decision-making … and yet we are not prepared to support a quota system?” He went on to say that the right of admission for students to tertiary educational institutions is an absolute right”. He also said: “One cannot grant autonomy … and then put qualifications on to it from an external source”. He meant of course that one cannot say that they should not discriminate on the basis of race. The hon. member went on to say: “Within an institution such as a technikon it may be that the senate will say that they want to maintain the White character of the technikons and therefore that they are going to voluntarily apply a ration …”

Mr. Speaker on a point of order: Is there not a rule in our Standing Orders against repetition? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Greytown may proceed.

It was such a wonderful speech that I am sure the hon. member wants it repeated. The hon. member for Durban North went on to say: “We believe that technikons are a microcosm of that real working world out there”. Then he asked: “How is it possible to justify these people working together in a workshop, in a hospital, in a computer operation group, in a clerical office … while they are forbidden to train together for these very jobs?” He asks—

However, he says that if it is a voluntary decision then it is all right as far as the NRP are concerned. What I want to say is that the hon. member for Durban North is suggesting that the Government should make provision by statute that people are autonomous and thereby grant them a licence to discriminate. In other words, what he is suggesting is that there are actually three ways to discriminate. One is by way of a permit system, the second one is by way of a quota system and the third one is the NRP way to discriminate, i.e. by granting them autonomy to discriminate.

You would give them autonomy and then tell them what they have got to do. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban North says further—

Is the hon. member saying that he justifies the cost on a voluntary discriminatory basis? Billions of rands are being spent but he does not want to do it on a statutory basis. However, as long as it is voluntary discrimination he does not mind those billions being spent.

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

No, I do not have the time. [Interjections.] I am trying to stay within the context of the hon. member’s speech.

You will have to read it again to understand it.

I now wish to deal with my final point.

Are you reading now?

I shall tell you when I am reading. The hon. member for Durban North now comes to his final point and this is where I say that he is quite ready to join the ranks of the NP. He says—

How can you say that, Ron?

That is a disgraceful statement.

He says that it is the local option of the people in the Free State.

Read a little further.

Read on.

Why do you stop?

Order!

Hang your head in shame.

Read the whole thing.

Keep reading.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

I want to ask the hon. Leader of the NRP whether local option allows the people of the Free State to keep Indians out of the Free State.

Read the next sentence.

I want to ask the hon. member …

I am asking you to read the next sentence.

The hon. member says that that is the local option factor and that the NRP will obviously try to get them to change their minds. [Interjections.] But he will allow them to do so. He will allow them to exercise local option. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has for too long been disgressing too far from the legislation that we are dealing with at present. He must now restrict himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to finish dealing with this particular matter by asking hon. members of the NRP whether they would also allow the Natal authorities to prohibit Afrikaners from entering Natal.

Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the hon. member whether he agrees that technikons should have the right to decide for themselves whom they will admit as students?

Mr. Speaker, we have already answered that question many times. We have said that we will allow people autonomy, but autonomy does not mean the autonomy to discriminate. [Interjections.]