Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading stage of the Universities Amendment Bill. We have conducted a very substantial debate so far, in which we have dealt with all the various aspects of this legislation, in which we have had the opportunity of putting questions to the hon. the Minister, and in which the hon. the Minister has had opportunities of answering those questions. It is most unfortunate, however, that he has not availed himself of those opportunities in an effective manner. [Interjections.]

Before moving on, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with two other very, very important questions which I should like the hon. the Minister to answer before the end of this debate. The first question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is the following. At the White universities there are at the moment various numbers of Black, Coloured and Indian students studying various courses. I should like the hon. the Minister categorically to tell this House whether it is the intention of the Government that the quotas that are going to be established in respect of Black, Coloured and Indian students studying at those universities will provide for smaller numbers of students than under the existing system. If it is the intention of the Government that those numbers should be smaller, why is that their intention? If it is, on the other hand, the Government’s intention that those numbers should be increased, I should also like the hon. the Minister to comment on that. Mr. Speaker, the Government has given no indication of whether it is its intention to reduce the percentage of Black, Coloured and Indian students studying at White universities or whether it is its intention to increase those percentages in due course. I believe it would be only fair to the universities and to the communities concerned if the hon. the Minister would give us an answer to that.

Then, Mr. Speaker, another matter which is absolutely vital is the following. It did not go unnoticed that the conditions pertaining to the establishment of quotas have been added by way of an additional stipulation to the clause in the Bill which provides for the payment of subsidies by the Government to universities. I want the Government to give South Africa a categoric answer in connection with whether if universities should refuse to co-operate with the new quota system owing to its being so offensive that universities cannot see their way clear to apply this provision—in other words, to become perpetrators of an offensive and unacceptable aspect of apartheid—the Government will then reduce subsidies payable to those universities, or even withdraw those subsidies altogether? To put it differently, Mr. Speaker, is the Government going to use those subsidies to blackmail South Africa’s universities into applying, as agents of the Government, totally abhorrent aspects of apartheid? I believe the hon. the Minister owes South Africa and the universities in this country a reply to that question. [Interjections.]

The Government, and the hon. the Minister in particular, consistently speak of “gemeenskapsgerigte universiteite”, or community orientated universities. The Government has also made it quite clear that its concept of a community is not the concept which is normally accepted everywhere. The community, for instance, of Greater Cape Town or of the Western Cape comprises a geographic area and all the people living and working within that particular geographic area. Obviously the community of the Western Cape does not consist only of the Whites of the Western Cape or of the Coloureds of the Western Cape or only of the new Black community that has been created by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. It is all the people of the Western Cape, all the people of all races. That is the community of the Western Cape. A community is an organic entity, which, in the case of the Western Cape, is responsible for the economic and all other activities performed in this particular geographic area. The people of this community are responsible for all human activities within this particular area. In this respect there is a major difference between our point of view and that of the Government, and between the point of view of the Government and indeed every civilized society anywhere else in the world. The Government, when it speaks about a community, speaks about a racially exclusive community, and it bases all its plans, all its actions and all its policies on the concept of racially exclusive communities. That will yet be the undoing of this Government because it is something which cannot be sustained in civilized, decent and progressive society, which South Africa certainly is and should be.

The PFP—and I want to make this abundantly clear—sees a community as the people …

Living in a specific geographical area.

… the people within a specific geographical area, certainly. If that hon. Minister can give me a different definition, I believe, he would have strayed very far from his erstwhile verligte pretences. [Interjections.]

I believe that the Government, by imposing a quota system on the universities of South Africa, is, in the most shocking and disgraceful way, abusing our universities, making them submissive tools of apartheid. I believe it is most unfortunate that the Government should try to do that. The Government cannot expect the universities, the proud and free universities of South Africa, to become submissive instruments of the apartheid structure. [Interjections.] The Government talks about acting in the interests of the community and deciding on behalf of the community. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has indeed consulted with the other components of the broader South African community. What about the 70% Black population of South Africa? The hon. the Minister says the people of Soweto want their own university. Certainly the people of Soweto deserve their own university. They should have their own university. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that the people of Soweto will never demand a closed university. They will want an open and free university for that very large community.

What about the Coloured community? What about the Indian community? Very soon we are to go into co-operation with the Coloured and the Indian communities within a new constitutional dispensation. Did the Government consult those communities before bringing this legislation before Parliament? Of course they did not. You know, Sir, I have an idea that there is a good reason why the Government has rushed these measures through Parliament at this stage. There is a very good reason for this and I should like to tell the House what that reason is. It is that if the Government had waited until the new three chamber Parliament had been established—if it ever is established—the Government would not have been able to come to that three chamber Parliament with legislation of this nature with any expectation of success. The Government knows that neither the Indian nor the Coloured chamber would have been prepared to tolerate such flagrantly racialists legislation and would have voted against such legislation. The representatives of almost half of the White community in South Africa would have voted against that legislation as well and right from the start the Government would have had via its packed President’s Council—packed with a majority of submissive Nationalist puppets—to force this legislation through the parliamentary process in South Africa.

What has happened since this legislation has been published? If the hon. the Minister would take the time to read the newspaper reports in regard to this legislation over the past few days he would see that large communities of professional people—medical men and teachers—in both the Indian and the Coloured communities have unanimously rejected the concept of racially exclusive education in South Africa and have called for one comprehensive educational system for all the people in this country. I want to tell the Government that they do not have the courage of their convictions to consult the other communities—which they can do by way of referendums—to establish whether they support this legislation or not. If the Government is not prepared to consult these other communities before it takes these steps then I say that all this talk about self-determination is just so much humbug. This Government is not interested in self-determination. This Government is only interested in the determination of the White NP in South Africa and that White Nationalist determination is the one that is imposed willy-nilly on the rest of South Africa whether South Africa likes it or not.

The Government gave an amazing answer to a question that I put across the floor of the House to the hon. the Minister. When one considers the inconsistency in the answers that we have had from the hon. the Minister and when one considers the implications of some of the answers that he has given, then one looks forward with foreboding to the debate on the new constitution. By way of a reply from the hon. the Minister the Government gave an indication that as far as matters are concerned that fall under the control of the various chambers of the proposed new Parliament, any matter that involves the withdrawal of facilities or services from members of other race groups will be considered to be an own matter and that a racially exclusive chamber of this Parliament can take such a decision. However, any matter that involves the extension of facilities or services by one race group to members of another race group is not an own matter but a general matter and that a racially exclusive chamber has no self-determination or autonomy or right to decide on its own. It is then a general matter and so the White Nationalist Government of South Africa will have the final decision. So much for self-determination! So much for the integrity of the new constitutional proposals! By that one answer alone, apart from everything else that has taken place in regard to what the Government has said, it has brought into total disrepute the integrity of its new proposed dispensation. We cannot believe in it. We cannot see any integrity in those proposals if the Government gives us answers of that nature. If this applies to universities and technikons, then it is also going to apply to every other facility and service. Take the case of cinemas. Do you know what it is going to mean, Sir? It will mean in effect that if the Coloured community anywhere in South Africa wishes to open its cinemas to Whites, the Government is going to say that that is not an own affair but a general affair and is going to say that it cannot be done. If the Coloureds persist, then the Government will go the President’s Council. If the Indian community anywhere in South Africa wants to open a park to White people to walk through it, possibly to set an example to Pretoria because Indians are not allowed to walk through parks in that city, then it is a general matter and the Chamber will not be able to succeed with it.

In one way this debate has done a service to South Africa because it has warned South Africa of the cynicism and the stupidity and the impracticability and the lack of integrity in the constitutional proposals which the Government is placing before South Africa.

Let me make the attitude of the PFP absolutely clear. The hon. the Minister said that the PFF would force its policy on South Africa if it came to power. The PFP has said on a number of occasions that if we were elected in South Africa we would set about creating the machinery representative of every community, every political organization and group within South Africa where its leaders will be put around a conference table and will be given the mandate and the opportunity to produce for South Africa a constitution which would provide for equal citizenship for all the people of this country, equality of opportunity, the total removal of racial discrimination and the protection of minorities. Furthermore it will include a bill of rights which in itself will ensure that both groups and individuals could not be discriminated against in the South Africa that we envisage. The PFP will not impose its policy on South Africa; it will create a situation where the South African society as a whole will have the opportunity of debating and deciding by consent what sort of society we want in this country, what sort of norms and principles we want to apply, and we shall allow that society the opportunity of creating a truly united and happy South African society in terms of those norms and principles decided there.

The Government indicated very clearly that it wants to use every facility, including universities and technikons, to structure South Africa in the unacceptable and deplorable image of apartheid. It wants to use these things to structure South Africa in the image of apartheid although apartheid is supported by only 10% of the total South African population.

What the Government also admitted openly, was that they fear open universities. They fear the creation of open universities in South Africa where young people of all race groups will have an opportunity of communicating with one another, of getting to know one another, of developing an understanding amongst one another. The Government fears that that should take place because if that would take place, then race prejudice would be lessened, racial tensions would be lessened and that South African society would become more tolerant, more broadminded, more responsible and more responsive to one another. The Government knows that apartheid which is a despicable ideological and racial teaching cannot live in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding; it has to have an atmosphere of hate and prejudice for it to survive. [Interjections.]

The Government denies the freedom of choice, it denies freedom of association by this legislation. No Black student will be able to decide freely on the university of his choice, he will not be able to decide freely on the course of his choice, he will not be able to attend the university which he finds will be convenient for him to attend. He will also not be able to attend the university which he can best afford to attend. The Government will say to him that he can certainly attend a university. In fact, the Government will assist students to attend a university, but the decision and the choice are not left to the individual; the decision and the choice rest in the hands of the Government. Previously they did it by means of a permit system; now they do it by means of a quota system. The Government ultimately decides for the individual. The Government ultimately removes the individual’s choice and replaces it with a NP Government choice.

Nation-building in South Africa is the responsibility of the Government and of all of us. The Government sees the South African nation as consisting of just the Whites, the Coloured and the Indians. Previously they saw it as consisting just of the Whites and in the distant past they saw it as consisting just of the Afrikaner group. The Government must accept once and for all that the South African nation, as diverse and plural as it is, with all the difficulties, the tensions and the problems that exist, consist of Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians now and for all time and that it is our responsibility to see to it that all the components of the South African nation are given an opportunity to get to know one another and to reach the stage where they understand and accept one another and work together as components of one nation. If the Government does not do that, it is laying the foundations for strife and difficulties ahead and then it is not laying the foundations for the achievement of the unity of purpose and of peace and prosperity of all our people.

The Government also said that we do not recognize its achievements. This side of the House recognizes every achievement of the Government. Everything this Government has done that has been in the interests of South Africa we recognize and are grateful for. What we are, however, incredibly unhappy about is that, whenever the Government does something good, it proceeds to do something else which is bad and which destroys the good it does. If the Government really wants to promote South Africa’s image both locally and internationally, it should do the good deeds and stop doing the foul deeds which destroy the good it does.

The hon. the Minister also asked about intolerance at White English-language universities. I want to give the Government the assurance that the PFP deplores any indication of intolerance anywhere in the South African society or at any institution in South Africa. We believe in freedom of choice, we believe that everybody should be allowed to speak his mind and we are opposed to any form of intolerance.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from what the hon. member for Bryanston said, that autonomy in a university context is absolute as far as they are concerned, whereas the standpoint of the Government quite clearly is that it cannot be absolute, that that is simply not possible. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Bryanston. If the PFP were in power and a policy was being practised at a university which simply did not fit into the framework of the plans of that Government, would they simply allow it because the university was ostensibly autonomous and was therefore entitled to take any decisions necessary under the circumstances? That is all I have to say to the hon. member.

I should like to have a few words with the hon. member for Rissik in connection with this amending Bill. In the Second Reading debate in particular frequent reference was made to what I said during that debate, and I am quoting—

Then there were interjections which according to Hansard were inaudible. However, I heard some of them. They came, inter alia, from the hon. member for Barberton, who said: “We shall quote you.” That is typical. I know what the hon. member for Barberton is going to quote. He is only going to quote the following—

But what were we discussing in the Second Reading debate? We were discussing education.

I want to ask a few questions and make a few statements and I should like the hon. member for Rissik’s attention. In the present constitution we undertake to promote the spiritual and material welfare of all the people living in this country. I assume the hon. member has no fault to find with this. It seems to me as if we are on the same wavelength in this connection. True to that undertaking in the constitution schools inter alia have for many years now been built for Black children to meet their need for a better quality of life. By what do we measure that quality of life? We measure it by civilized norms and standards. The hon. member for Rissik cannot find fault with that either. Or does he? The hon. member must tell us. In legislation at present before this Parliament and to be discussed again shortly, we reaffirm in the preamble to that Act our intention to endeavour to promote the happiness and the spiritual and material welfare of everyone and also to respect and to protect the human dignity and the rights and freedom of everyone. The hon. member for Rissik should not find any fault with that either. Through legislation of this Parliament—the hon. member for Lichtenburg was part of that process and he introduced the legislation—university institutions were created and technikons were established for people of colour. The hon. member for Rissik should not differ on that score either. Does the hon. member agree that there is in fact inequality in the education situation as far as quality, standards and education opportunities for the various population groups in this country are concerned? After all, the hon. member for Rissik knows that this is the case. Does the hon. member also agree that in the foreseeable future it will not be possible to provide university institutions for people of colour for all fields of study? It will simply not be possible. The hon. member has to agree on that point. When he was a member of the NP we were already saying that on occasion we shall have to make available facilities traditionally used by Whites to people of colour, even if this calls for a bit of pressure in the right places.

There is something else I want to quote. An objective of education which we should endeavour to achieve is to provide the highest level of instruction and guidance and to seek inter-state co-operation in the sphere of education, particularly with a view to raising standards of education. The hon. member for Rissik should also agree with this and I assume that he does agree with this, because the quote is part of the CP’s policy which they want to implement in connection with education.

Let us go a little further. I want to quote something the hon. member for Rissik said yesterday in the debate when we were discussing technikons. He said—

I assume that the hon. member is not only referring to Whites here. He went on to say—

I assume he is referring to Whites and people of colour—

He then refers to the status of technikons—

This is what the hon. member for Rissik said yesterday after everything I had said. We did not get a negative reply from the hon. member. He agreed with everything. Let us also consider what was said in the interim report of the Human Sciences Research Council on the provision of education in the RSA, and I am quoting—

I assume that the hon. member for Rissik has no fault to find with this either. If he agrees, I want to ask him if we are not in fact engaged in a process of equalization. Surely we are engaged in a process of equalization. He also agreed that it was a good thing that we continued with this process of equalization to where we are today and that we should continue it even further. I want to state categorically, as I also did in my Second Reading speech, that this is, however, not the kind of process of equalization that the PFP expects of us in which the “own” is totally negated in the social set-up in which we have to govern. Why did the hon. member for Rissik quote me so incorrectly? Surely he is committing political fraud. [Interjections.] After all, this is not beneficial to debating. It is clear: There are none who are so deaf as those who will not hear and none who are so blind as those who will not see. That hon. member has listened to dozens of definitions of “people” and he still does not know what a people is. He still gapes at the hon. the Minister whenever reference is made to “people” or “nation”.

Hon. members of the CP have problems with terminology. They have problems with “people”, with “nation” with “community-orientated institutions”, with “power-sharing” and with “State”, etc. [Interjections.] They even have problems when they have to affix their signatures to anything, because they cannot do so unless they have ostensibly been pressurized into doing it. They left the NP because they got cold feet and did not want to face up to the challenges of the time. I think the hon. member for Rissik is afraid of himself. He is afraid of the challenges awaiting us, and for that reason he could not accept the challenges and he did not see his way clear to doing things the way we are now doing them. If hon. members of the CP reasoned previously as they are reasoning now, they had in their hearts not been supporting us for a long time. A responsible Government cannot run away from the problems of the day. A responsible Government has to face up to these problems squarely and that is why we have to introduce this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rustenburg devoted his entire speech to trying to extricate himself from the dilemma in which he landed himself by saying that the NP was engaged in a process of equalization. If the hon. member had standards in mind, I want to ask him whether he is implying that the Black universities are inferior to the White universities. That is what his words have to mean. In the course of my speech I shall return to what the hon. member said.

With the acceptance of the principle of this Bill, which makes provision for the permanent cross-pollination of the various population groups at the tertiary level of education the hon. the Minister has now brought his education policy into line with his new fundamental standpoint of flexibility and collectiveness, and all those terms used to conceal integration. It is nothing but undisguised integration. What else can it be if the hon. the Minister of National Education of the Republic of South Africa can be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. What is that but integration? The hon. the Minister said that he knew me. I also know him. We have known each other well since our Voortrekker days. He said he knew me as a person who would not allow himself to be pressurized into something. He is quite right. I still support separate development. I shall not allow myself to be pressurized into integration. However, what has pressurized the hon. the Minister into changing his standpoint so radically? After all, the hon. the Minister knows what he wrote in his booklet Ideaal en Werklikheid. I do not have the opportunity now to quote from it, but in it the hon. the Minister clearly advocated and upheld the policy of separate development. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he still adhere to standpoints he adopted as recently as 1975, including the policy of a homeland for Coloureds? What is the hon. the Minister’s standpoint now in connection with the mixing of various peoples, nations and races in all spheres of life, in this specific case on our university campuses?

Earlier in the session, in a debate on the Bill dealing with the promotion of culture, which is after all intimately linked to the contribution of the universities in this regard, the hon. the Minister said the following, inter alia, and I am quoting him (Hansard, 29 March 1983, col. 4177)—

Surely this is a change in standpoint of the worst degree. Speaking of people and nation, what utter confusion is not prevailing opposite regarding the terms “people” and “nation”? In this debate the hon. member for Johannesburg West said, and I am quoting him from his unrevised Hansard of 13 June 1983—

Later the hon. member for Kuruman asked the hon. member for Johannesburg West—

To this the hon. member for Johannesburg West replied—

Then the hon. member for Johannesburg West made this astounding statement—

How on earth can the poor voters of this country understand that there is no such thing?

In the debate the hon. the Minister made very significant statements which definitely brought clarity on the road ahead, particularly in the sphere of education. For example, he said that the White, Coloured or Indian Minister’s macro policy for general education matters would be enforceable upon the various population groups. He went on to say that the closing of a university would be an own affair and that the throwing open of a university would be a general affair. Now I am wondering: If the university is half open or half closed, what kind of affair would that be? The hon. the Minister also spelt out very clearly that the various university authorities would determine for themselves what student activities students of other population groups could participate in. Mr. Speaker, a university is after all not just a factory of knowledge. Campus life is after all a mirror image of the entire social structure in the country, even if the hon. the Minister says that a university has to be critically community-orientated. This is also true. But I maintain, now that this legislation has been accepted in principle, that no one, including the university authorities, can impose restrictions on any undergraduate student’s activities. After all, that would be ridiculous, particularly if they are members of the same nation or perhaps of the same people, according to the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Surely that is absolutely ridiculous. Sir, once you have set your foot on the road to integration at the level of the central government—in the Cabinet; in the President’s Council; in Parliament—then it is senseless to place any restrictions at all on any citizen or student who is a member of a single State community or part of what is relatively-speaking a single nation.

Sir, we should also consider the entire spectrum of student life.

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

No, Sir. As I said, we also have to consider the entire spectrum of student activities, from the lecture rooms, to the sports clubs, the associations, and even their religious life. Surely this is all an integral part of student life at a university, and for that reason it must at least be possible for Whites, Coloureds and Indians to become full participants in that situation. After all, one cannot go half-way along the road to integration. One has to go all the way, otherwise one is faced by the ridiculous situation the NP now finds itself in with regard to the parks and so on. Then one has to do as the hon. member for Rustenburg correctly said we should do, and let us take another look at his speech—

He is not referring to standards here. I am quoting further—

This is what is at issue. After all, this so-called equalizing occasional utilization by students on a campus which the hon. member referred to here, is going to create an untenable situation for the Government, for example, as regards the application of the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. This has to be the logical consequence of the implementation of this legislation. What we are concerned about is that in April 1975 the hon. the Minister of National Education in a speech on the elimination of unnecessary separating measures, and I assume that this legislation is part of this, said that he was opposed to the abolition of the Immorality Act. But what is he saying now? According to Die Transvaler of 18 February he said that the Whites of South Africa do not need the Immorality Act or the Mixed Marriages Act.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast to this the standpoint of the CP is quite clear. We maintain that the universities in this country have to function on the basis of separate development. Let there be exceptions, particularly at post-graduate level, when facilities are not available for everyone. After all, we are also reasonable people. But then this must be done by way of permit. As such it remains a temporary measure. The healthy interaction with the community from whom and for whose service the university came into existence has to be maintained, otherwise the university loses its character, its community-orientation, its culturally enriching effect, and that people—and here I am referring specifically to the Afrikaner people and a university such as the University of Pretoria—is losing an institution, a tertiary education institution which it has built up for itself with a great deal of trouble and a great deal of sacrifice.

For that reason the CP is going to vote against the Third Reading of this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, before saying anything further with regard to the implementation of the present legislation, I want to commence by reacting briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg. The problem with hon. members of the CP is—so it would seem to me—that they become entangled in all kinds of concepts in their way of thinking and in their way of arguing. I do, however, sympathize with them, Mr. Speaker. After all, we should bear in mind that those hon. gentlemen saw fit to leave the NP at a certain juncture; without having any policy, of course. [Interjections.] Indeed, they do lack a policy, Mr. Speaker. Initially, when they walked out, they advocated 99% of the NP’s policy. In due course things changed, however, and eventually they hijacked the policy of the HNP. Now that they are being pressurized because they do not have a policy and are performing an egg dance, they concentrate on concepts. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Brakpan is waxing so eloquent, I want to ask him whether there is any correlation whatsoever—that is, in terms of their own concept—between a White people (volk) and an Afrikaner people. Is there a correlation?

Go on,

answer now, Frank. [Interjections.]

Do you see what my problem is now, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Brakpan is so eloquent that one can even see his tonsils. However, when I ask that hon. member a question in order to determine how he thinks, he suddenly becomes dead quiet; he does not want to answer me at all. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member for Brakpan knows just as well as I do that that argument of theirs does not hold water; the argument that they want to elevate the Whites to the status of a people. Very well, the Afrikaners as such are a people. However, they have a problem when the White element is included. Then their whole argument collapses, Mr. Speaker.

Do you sing the anthem (volkslied), Piet?

I want to put it categorically to hon. members of the CP that they use this concept of a people purely for political purposes and for no other reason.

Tell us whether you sing the anthem.

No, wait a minute.

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

No, wait a minute. The hon. member can ask me a question later, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I first want to take this matter further with hon. members of the CP. I want to state categorically that what the policy of the NP amounts to is still ethnically-orientated institutions. This applies to our schools, from the pre-primary school … [Interjections.] No, wait, please give me a chance. Give me a chance to explain. It is the policy of the NP, from the pre-primary school right through to the university … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I would greatly appreciate it if the hon. member for Rissik would just keep quiet and listen to what I have to say. In addition to this, of course, there is also the component of community-orientated institutions. This is not something I am merely standing here advocating, Mr. Speaker. I could furnish proof of this, even from as far back as the beginning of the 20th century; proof with regard to the standpoint that there are ethnically-orientated universities on the one hand, and, on the other, that those same universities also serve a particular community. The community, for example the White community, consists of Afrikaans-speaking people, English-speaking people, and so on. Of course, hon. members of the PFP would say that there are also Blacks, Coloured and Indians in the community. Well and good. These universities, however, traditionally endeavour to make those particular universities reflect the society or community served by them.

Which community is that?

Really, Mr. Speaker, I taught for 23 years. I had to listen to many stupid questions during that time. [Interjections.] However, one cannot answer a stupid question like that in this House.

Mr. Speaker, after having listened to them for many hours, during the Second Reading debate, as well as during the Committee Stage, I find that one thing emerged very clearly from this whole method of argument of the CP on the one hand and that of the PFP on the other. That is that the PFP was accusing us of extolling apartheid by way of the present legislation. This afternoon the hon. member for Bryanston reiterated that we were making the universities instruments of apartheid. Soon afterwards, the hon. member for Pietersburg accused the Government of bringing about integration in the universities. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, surely it is very clear that those two standpoints cannot both be correct. Of course, that is the whole problem. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to that at a later stage, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out, however, that the NP has been endeavouring over the years to provide all the existing population groups in this country with training that is linked to particular educational premises. As a Nationalist I am not ashamed to say today that the NP has attained a great deal of success in its endeavours. Of course, I would agree immediately if hon. members of the PFP were to say to me: Yes, but education in the various Black schools, as far as facilities and so on are concerned, is not yet of the same quality. Of course this is the case, and there are specific reasons for that. What is important, however, is that since 8 February 1916 the Whites in the Republic of South Africa have endeavoured—and they have, in fact, succeeded in doing so—to provide for tertiary education for the Black people, since it was on that date that the South African Native College at Fort Hare saw the light for the first time. This has been the case with the other population groups as well. We therefore did not fail to make the entire spectrum of education available to the various population groups, thereby—and I say this specifically to the hon. member for Bryanston—ensuring that the right of self-determination could be given expression by the people concerned within those particular institutions. I am merely following up on the argument of the hon. member for Bryanston, in which he said that this legislation was contrary to the right of self-determination. In terms of the whole philosophy of the party and its policies we are continuing to create opportunities for the various peoples to express the right of self-determination within their own institutions.

It is also true that we have to accept the realities and that we have to be practical. Consequently, this side of the House does not apologize for the fact as matters developed, we eventually admitted people of colour to the universities. Hon. members are aware that the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Cape Town have for many years permitted people of colour to enrol there. More recently the University of Stellenbosch has done the same, but I am now speaking about the initial situation. Because we are realistic, and because we want to give those particular population groups the best, we found it necessary, due to practical circumstances, to admit those people to the so-called White universities. This did not, however, detract from their ethnic character. Nor did this detract from their being ethnically or community-orientated. I say this for the edification of the CP.

I want to ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier whether he can still recall the battle that raged in respect of the admission of people of colour to universities, when there were commissions and petitions and the De Wet Nel Commission was eventually appointed. The hon. member Prof. Olivier was himself a committee member of Sabra at that time and he, too, gave evidence before that commission. The hon. member would probably recall that. What did the hon. member Prof. Olivier say? At that stage it was thought that segregation was both functional and essential. It was not exclusively inspired by ideology. That was the argument I advanced during the Second Reading debate as well. In line with this, the hon. member Prof. Olivier gave the following evidence before the De Wet Nel Commission. He said—

If that was true then, surely the hon. member Prof. Olivier and the PFP should concede that for that reason it is in the interests of the various population groups that they should, in fact, have those universities and schools of their own. However, in view of the requirements and the needs that exist, which do have merit, let us permit people of colour to study at White universities under particular circumstances.

What are those circumstances?

The hon. member for Rissik was a member of the NP for many years. I do not want to argue with him about the past now, since we are dealing with the Third Reading of a Bill at present. The hon. member knows very well what the reply to that question is. All those hon. members belonged to the NP for many years when precisely the same policy we are dealing with now obtained. The only difference is that we are introducing the quota, as opposed to the permit, but for the rest the principle remains the same. I am aware that the hon. member for Rissik has particular standpoints, but he has never said that we should change the laws and not admit any non-Whites whatsoever to White universities.

But surely you know better.

Very well, but why has the hon. member never said so? The problem is that when they were still on this side of the House, those hon. members agreed with certain things, but now they are saying something different.

I want to conclude. The difference between the present position and the Bill we are discussing at the moment, is simply that we are introducing the quota system in the place of the permit system, but the position in respect of the presence of a person of colour at a university that was not established specifically for his own population group, does not change. It remains as it was in the past. The question, therefore, is merely whether the quota system is better than the permit system. Why are we introducing the quota system?

If hon. members were to contend that the permit system has already interfered with academic freedom—I do not agree with that—or with the autonomy of the university—I agree with that only in part, as I argued in the Second Reading—then I say that precisely the same will happen now; not to a greater or lesser degree. The point is that with the quota system one is granting the university a greater right to decide for itself who it is going to admit in terms of the quota. In that respect the university has been granted a greater right and increased recognition as far as its autonomy is concerned, since now it is able to decide for itself who it will admit in terms of the quota. Moreover, it has also been said by various university principals that the quota system as provided for in the Bill, will also result in a tremendous improvement in respect of the general organization and administration of the universities concerned.

I am convinced that hon. members of the PFP would agree with me, although they would oppose the principle.

Of course, because you often agree, after all.

If hon. members of the CP do not agree, they are plain dumb, since it is clear as crystal that this system is facilitating the ordinary organization and administration of the university. We have already had the standpoint that the problem in respect of this whole situation could be solved more easily if the university, and not the Minister concerned, were to deal with it. It is therefore not a question of the Government wanting to evade its responsibility by simply shifting it onto the universities, as some universities are arguing. The real issue is that it is the opinion of this side of the House that in practice, this will lead to a better dispensation in the normal course of events, without this side of the House having to sacrifice any basic principle as regards its standpoint on education. I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Virginia had to say because it was clear that between the lines he was telling us about standpoints based on principle. One could detect that if one listened carefully. One would then also have seen what their real aim was in implementing this legislation after it had been amended by means of the Bill.

Tell us what the NRP thinks of it.

I shall tell you shortly what the NRP considers to be the decisions and aims of the hon. the Minister and his department. It was quite interesting to listen to the hon. member for Virginia.

†Let me say that we know for a fact that this Bill is going to become law and that that is going to result in considerable confrontation between certain universities in South Africa and the State. Therefore I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to use the utmost discretion, and to treat it as a matter of the greatest sensitivity, when it comes to the implementation, or the possible implementation, of the powers given to him in clause 9 of the Bill. There are universities which feel very strongly that this affects their dignity, that it affects their standing in the international academic community as well as in South Africa and that it seriously detracts from university autonomy which they hold so dear. There may be people who disagree with their stand, but nevertheless it is their inner and greatest conviction that this is an interference with university autonomy and that it will be interpreted and seen as the universities having to administer apartheid policy. There is no question about it. That was stated eloquently by the hon. member for Bryanston, who is of course always the “voorloper” of the great rhetoric and a man who certainly does a cause no good when he comes with his rhetoric and clichés. However, perhaps he will be satisfied with the articles the Press are going to write about him today, because surely he was not satisfied with the little squeak he got in the Press in the last two days. Perhaps that motivated him to come with the exaggerations and overstatements he made here today.

You are disgraceful.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to deal with the universities with the greatest circumspection and to treat this as a matter of the greatest sensitivity.

I detect a real possibility—and I think that this was largely confirmed if one reads between the lines of the hon. member for Virginia’s speech—that it will be unnecessary to give a quota to those universities which in the past did not allow members of other population groups admission and which as a result of course did not have to apply for a permit. Those universities which by preference and by applying local option choose not to let members of other population groups onto their campuses will of course not be affected by this Bill. For them there will simply be no quota and no necessity to apply for a permit. That of course means that there is a very considerable bias towards the universities which are not prepared to let members of other population groups onto the campus because they will not be affected by this Bill.

The unfairness of the Bill will therefore only be evident at those universities which traditionally allowed and will in the future allow members of other population groups to be admitted to their campuses. In this connection there is something I should like the hon. the Minister to think about. I will not ask him to react to it because it may be politically unwise for him to do so at this sensitive stage. I believe there is a very real possibility that the hon. the Minister will place the emphasis on the very first word to be found on the second line of the proposed new section 25(2) as contained in clause 9, namely “may”. The subsection provides that the Minister may include conditions, etc. That means that the hon. the Minister has a discretion when it comes to working out the quotas. If the quota is not agreed to or implemented by means of some regulation, very possibly the permit system will continue to apply to those universities. I believe there is a real hope that the hon. the Minister, because he is aware of and sensitive to the undercurrents and political nuances on the English-language campuses in particular, may well set the quotas in consultation with the authorities of those universities in order to reach an agreed accommodation. Nowhere in the debate has there been reference to any specific percentages or guidelines as to what is an acceptable quota and what is an unacceptable quota. As I see it, this provision actually allows the hon. the Minister the discretion to negotiate with the university and ask what sort of quota it would agree to considerably in excess of what it anticipated taking in the next 5, 10 or 15 years. Let me use the fictitious example of a university with a student intake of 4 000. The Minister may, in consultation with the university, agree that the intake by that university of members of other population groups may also be 4 000. That of course means that for the next ten or 15 years there will be no problem with the admission of students, in the sense that it will not be necessary for that university to turn away any students under the quota system. It just seems a great pity though that the hon. the Minister has gone to these considerable lengths to bring about an amendment to the Act in order to allow universities to do what they really should be doing without the necessity of having to work under a cloak of a clause such as clause 9.

In conclusion I just want to state again that the NRP believe that the long-term solution to this problem would have been found in local option, allowing universities to decide for themselves whom they should admit and how many, because that is the only lasting solution that can be found. However, we want to restate that we are totally opposed to the concept of permits and the concept of quotas and we will therefore not be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill. I also want to appeal to those universities who feel as aggrieved as we do about this Bill not to allow common sense to be overruled on their campuses and not to use the potential conflict on their campuses and the resistance to this Bill to actually bring those universities into such conflict with the State that it actually damages the universities and their cause in South Africa. There is a potentially explosive situation being created here. I would like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his discretion and to act responsibly by consulting with the universities, but at the same time I want to appeal to those universities who feel injured by this Bill also to exercise the greatest restraint and sense of responsibility, so that finally, in the near future, we can find an accommodation between the State and the universities which will be a lasting solution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North for the calm way in which he stated the points on which he disagreed with the Government. I think it is healthy and fitting that we should do it in that way. We understand and appreciate that.

To have said as regards the Government that it is aware of an imminent clash between the university and the State, is a standpoint which gives rise to concern. The government of a country orders and arranges affairs in the light of the wisdom it receives from Above, and in accordance with the realities of the country it governs. After all, the overall policy that applies to a country differs from the local option policy advocated by the NRP. The appeal which the hon. member or Durban North made to universities at the end of his speech to deal responsibly with the provisions of the Bill, is something I understand, and I thank him for adopting that attitude, even though he disagrees with the Government. It is a pity that it is argued that as a result of their international ties, South African academics are obliged to reject the State’s organization and arrangements simply because they are unacceptable internationally. I had no problem with the fact that the hon. the Minister has the discretion to regulate this matter from university to university. I know that the hon. the Minister has the necessary leadership qualities and sense of responsibility to arrange this matter at the places where it is already being implemented, and where it is to be implemented, in such a way that it will be in the interests of South Africa. I have no doubt about that.

I want to come back to a situation that arose with regard to the Second Reading debate on this measure. In The Cape Times of 14 June I read the following—

I had not thought that this matter would go that far. At the end of the article the reporter said—

In contrast with the variety of reactions from the Press, I should like to refer to a letter I received. I quote from that letter—

The person who wrote this letter went on to say—

The letter-writer concluded—

What is this letter-writer saying? What are we dealing with in this country? A party is pretending to be speaking on behalf of a large number of people in South Africa in respect of a basic philosophy it adheres to in this House. Bearing the contents of this letter in mind, one asks oneself whether—when an immigrant arrives here and confirms that on his arrival he was approached by such a group of people in view of his potential as someone who would attack the Government of his own country, knowing that these immigrants who arrive here do not have the franchise—we are not dealing here with a calculated movement in our country to incite people who have just arrived here, and who have not even considered becoming citizens of this country, to turn against the Government of the day? Immigrants, for example the person who wrote that letter, come to our country and leave their respective countries because they have confidence in the Government of the day and in the direction in which the Government is steering the country. What an example does such an immigrant set a native of this country in respect of this matter?

I think we could learn something from the attitude of this letter-writer, who has not even been in this country for six years. Could we in this House not agree that when speaking about matters of this nature, we as representatives of the voters will follow the course the voters of this country demand? If these people had gone from house to house, honestly and openly, and said that they stood for an open community and that they wanted every university, every school and every technikon to be open, and the majority had then come back and said that that was the considered standpoint of South Africa, then we should know that it was the South African voter that wanted to pursue that course. However, the Government has been given a mandate from the voters to do it this way, taking the problems of the century into account. Now, when the hon. the Minister comes forward with a settlement of this nature, whereby he wants to implement amended and improved legislation, we have the tremendous fuss we have experienced in this House during the past five days. After all, we are engaged in making positive contributions and seeking solutions to the problems of South Africa.

We thank the hon. the Minister for this arrangement. It is an improved arrangement and we wish him every success in implementing it in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member for Brentwood that it really surprises me that anyone can attach so much importance to a single letter in a newspaper and can build his entire case on that letter. Honestly, that is beyond me. As far as the hon. member’s last point is concerned, I just want to tell hon. members of NP that that argument has already been used here several times. They maintain that they are governing. The PFP did not succeed in getting the majority of the people to support it. I want to make two observations in this connection. It took the old NP from 1933 to 1948 to come into power. If it had not been for the Second World War and the rift between Hertzog and Smuts in 1939 I do not know whether the NP, as it was at that stage, would have come into power in 1948. I therefore ask those hon. members to be a little more modest about these things. There sits the hon. member Mr. Van Staden. He is a veteran in politics, and he knows what I am talking about. Hon. members must therefore please not carry on so, as if that point had merit. I would have liked to react further to what the hon. member for Brentwood said, but I only have eight minutes at my disposal.

I do not want to accuse the hon. member for Virginia of quoting me out of context, because I have far too much respect for him, but I cannot react to what he said because I do not know in what connection he made that quote. However, I just want to ask the hon. member whether he was present in this House the other day when I replied to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed and reacted in detail to the separate universities report of 1957.

No, I was not here.

Then I shall not pursue the matter any further.

May I set the hon. the Minister straight on one point? It is not the hon. the Minister’s fault, because he may have heard me incorrectly or I may perhaps have omitted to rectify it in the unrevised version of my speech. But I said that a university, if it enrols those people in those numbers, has already assimilated (“verwerk”) this for itself. The hon. the Minister understood this to be or read this as rejected (“verwerp”).

No, I understood you correctly, assimilated in the sense that it accepted it fully.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister referred to rejected.

No, that was a mistake in my speech.

I just wanted to rectify that. That is quite correct. I said that if a university were to allow that, it had already assimilated the implications of the process.

There is another matter I want to rectify. I think the hon. the Minister was a little unfair to the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Houghton when he referred to the 1979 amending Bill. The reason for the hon. member for Berea, who was then the hon. member for Musgrave, and the hon. member for Houghton supporting that amending Bill, was because of the abolition of the principle of ethnicity by that Bill and not the fact that provision was made in it for ministerial approval. This was stated clearly. The concluding remark by the hon. member for Berea, the then hon. member for Musgrave, was that he was supporting the Bill because it represented a radical deviation from the Government’s policy up to that stage. Up to that stage the Government had adopted the standpoint that as far as Black universities were concerned, only people belonging to the relevant Black ethinic groups could be enrolled at the respective universities. The 1979 amendment therefore represented a radical change in policy. This was the reason why the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Berea, the then member for Musgrave, supported the Bill.

The amendment was subject to ministerial permit…

Sir, the reason for those two hon. members supporting the amendment Bill was because of the deviation in Government policy which it contained. What is also interesting is that that Bill was introduced by the then Deputy Minister, today the hon. member for Waterberg, and was supported by all those hon. members of the CP participating in this debate.

This brings me to the rationalization process which we have encountered during this debate. In this regard I want to tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia that I have never in my life come across so much rationalization in justification of a measure as was the case in this debate. Allow me to point out two things. In the first place, there was total confusion as regards concepts. I can still understand if someone says he is in favour of ethnically orientated universities. But according to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia, we do not only have ethnically orientated universities. There are peoples, nations and communities and reference is made to community-orientated institutions. What on earth this means I do not know. If one wants to refer to communities, one could, for example, refer to the Greek community, the Portuguese community, the English-speaking community and the Afrikaans-speaking community and the seven subcategories in terms of the Population Registration Act, Coloureds, other Coloureds, Cape Malayans, other Asians, etc. These are all so-called communities. One could also refer to the groups within the Indian community. Honestly, it is therefore meaningless to refer to community-orientation, because neither the hon. the Minister nor anyone else can define a community in rational, logical or scientific terms. I can understand if a person refers to ethnically orientated institutions. That I can still understand. It does not apply in South Africa, but I can nevertheless understand it.

I also find the same process of rationalization in connection with the Coloureds. When I asked the hon. the Minister why there were separate institutions for Coloureds as well, he maintained that culture was not actually a factor, because basically there were no cultural differences between the Whites and the Coloureds. However, he said that there were two other considerations. The one was the level of development and the other that in the past the Whites and the Coloureds as communities had always regarded each other as two separate communities. Mr. Speaker, what on earth does that mean? Do English-speakers and Afrikaans-speakers not also regard each other as two separate communities? Is that a reason for discriminating between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people? No, Mr. Speaker, if we want to do something, let us do it, but let us admit frankly that we are doing so on the basis of race, colour, or whatever the case may be. Then at least we know where we stand. But let us not rationalize and say that because the Coloureds and the Whites have come to regard each other as separate communities, this is the reason why we have to discriminate between the Whites and the Coloureds, whether it be in this field, or in the field of politics, political rights or whatever.

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech of the hon.

member Prof. Olivier interesting. I agree with most of the points he made in his argument with the hon. the Minister. Take the concept of “community-orientated”. I asked the hon. the Minister to say what was meant by this. In my opinion, anything on earth could be included under the concept of “community”, and one can be as evasive as one likes. This is indeed the problem which we have with the governing party. With regard to the Coloured people, too, the reason why the hon. the Minister considers them to be a separate group, the hon. member Prof. Olivier is right. The hon. the Minister said that one of the reasons was their level of development. This reminded me of the book by D. P. Botha entitled Die Opkoms van die Derde Stand, in which a particular view is given of Coloured people. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister agrees with that. As regards the other reason advanced by the hon. the Minister, i.e. that the Whites and the Coloureds have perceived each other as separate communities, that is a more valid argument. That was a more meaningful point which the hon. the Minister made.

In a previous debate, the hon. the Minister referred to three race groups: The Indians as a race, the Coloureds as a separate race and the Whites as a race. The hon. the Minister seems to be unable to tell the country that the differences between the Coloured people and the Indians is a racial one. It is because the NP wants to get away from separation and differentiation on the basis of race and colour that the hon. the Minister does not want to recognize that. In spite of this, the hon. the Minister did refer to these three race groups as such in a previous debate.

Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me in this Third Reading debate I want to quote at some length from a speech made by Dr. Verwoerd, a speech made by the late Hendrik Verwoerd, since we are discussing the essential nature of a university in this debate. I want to refer the hon. the Minister, and the hon. member for Stellenbosch in particular, to the speech made by Dr. Verwoerd on 25 February 1959 on the occasion of the opening of the academic year of the University of Stellenbosch. His theme was “Die universities en die toekoms”. I quote—

I want to point out that a man such as Dr. Verwoerd returned to the same academic institution 30 years later, still adhering to the same basic standpoints. Allow me to tell the hon. the Minister that one may change one’s principles in life, but then one must admit it.

How many times have you not changed in 30 years!

A man who has reflected on matters in his youth and who returns 30 years later, still adhering to the same standpoint, is a man whose first thinking on the subject was profound, true and final. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

And here he is referring to the Afrikaner in the previous century—

Dr. Verwoerd concluded his speech with the following words—

Then he went on to say—

He is referring, of course, to the 1870s—

Dr. Verwoerd went on to say, in conclusion …

You should rather table your speech.

Yes, that is what hon. members of the NP want to do with Dr. Verwoerd today. They want to table him and to bury him in the library. [Interjections.] There is one thing I can tell those hon. members, Mr. Speaker. That is that a vital people also learns through and from its history. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Verwoerd concluded his speech by saying—

I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that neither I nor any other hon. member of the CP has better formulated the nature of a university and the role of a university in society than the great and wise Hendrik Verwoerd. As far as the CP is concerned, we shall find, in the wisdom of the leaders of the past, the material with which to build for the future. In making this speech, Dr. Verwoerd was thinking of the year 2000. In his understanding of the world, he also understood and observed the problems of this world.

What dit Dr. Verwoerd say about a Coloured homeland?

Mr. Speaker, I never asked him about that. However, hon. members of the NP can try to discover from history what President Paul Kruger said. I should say that President Kruger would have agreed with the concept of separate Black homelands. If I had to interpret the principles and the political views of a Paul Kruger and a Hendrik Verwoerd, I would place them in the ranks of the CP. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr. Speaker. Until that hon. member concedes that he made a mistake and insulted Coloured people by forbidding them to sit or walk on his stoep, I shall not reply to any question which he may ask me. [Interjections.] He insulted the Coloured people, after all. [Interjections.]

In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said that he had kept his reply to me for last. The way he put it, he wanted to put the cherry on the top with regard to my standpoint in this House on 23 March 1969. Mr. Speaker, in the days when the hon. the Minister was doing responsible work in a proper manner, and was doing it well, those of us in this House, including us lesser lights, made certain contributions within the study group of the NP, and expressed certain standpoints there. The first time a Minister stated confidentially that the Government wanted to allow Black, Brown and Indian students, as well as White students, to study at one anothers’ universities by way of permits, I took a very strong stand on the matter. The hon. the Minister will know that I also advanced my reasons for my standpoint. Strong assurances were given to me in particular by the present hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development that the presence of those students would be only temporary and that the permits would be granted in such a way that it would not affect the nature and the character of the university concerned, nor the political, social and other rights of the students. Now that hon. Minister has left and of the conditions that were laid down and the assurances that were given by the NP leaders, nothing has remained in this country. The public outside must also know that the NP’s assurances with regard to the continued existence of institutions for Whites, Coloureds or Blacks are meaningless. Although I disagreed within the NP at the time, I spoke as a loyal member of the NP team. [Interjections.] However, I also weighed my words. What did I say? With regard to the admission of Whites to Black universities I said the following—

That remains my standpoint to this day.

And mine as well.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the hon. the Minister’s standpoint, why are we sitting in different parties? Why is the hon. the Minister not sitting over here with us? [Interjections.] If this is his standpoint, surely the hon. the Minister cannot proceed with this quota system, in terms of which he is simply giving permanence to the presence of non-White students at White universities by way of legislation.

I now want to put the other cherry on the top for the hon. the Minister. The hon. member who spoke after me is not in this House today. It was the hon. member Mr. Aronson, and he said the following—

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking after the hon. member for Rissik. I also want to convey my appreciation to the hon. member for the fact that he quoted at length from a speech by Dr. Verwoerd and specifically asked me to pay attention to it. However, I do not know why I was supposed to pay attention to it.

While the hon. member was quoting from the speech, I found that there was nothing in that speech which I could not agree with, just as I agree with the standpoint adopted by Dr. Verwoerd as far back as 1961 in saying that a homeland for the Coloureds is impracticable. The hon. member for Rissik said, among other things, that Dr. Verwoerd had said that when the university in the fife of a people is great, then the people itself will be great. He said that Dr. Verwoerd had said that a university should preserve its close ties with the people. That is correct. What did I say during the Second Reading debate on this Universities Amendment Bill? It was more or less the same. I said—

This is the University of Stellenbosch, at which Dr. Verwoerd also spoke—

That is what I said. I went on to say—

Africa, or perhaps he would not have played such a role at all, particularly in the early years.

I fully agree with the hon. member for Rissik, as well as with the quotation which he made from Dr. Verwoerd’s speech.

I want to give particular attention today to the hon. members of the CP. I think it is really necessary to say something about the way in which some—and I emphasize the word “some”—hon. members of the CP sometimes participate in debates in this House, and specifically about the way in which they have participated in the debates on this Bill. I submit that they lack either the time or the ability to prepare their speeches properly. There are two things which they do. They wait to hear whether a remark is made on the Government side which they can exploit, or whether the official Opposition has thought of something which they can embroider on. This has been their strategy so far in this debate. A casual remark which I made in connection with the reference by the hon. member for Brakpan to universities for people of colour as ethnic universities has been wrested completely out of context. The hon. the Minister rightly pointed out that I had reacted to the way in which this concept had been absolutized by hon. members of the CP, but now they are trying to create the impression that I do not care two hoots about the preservation of the nature and character of ethnic universities. In the process and in their eagerness to prove their point, they prefer to ignore completely the contents of the speech I made. Surely I made it clear that the University of Stellenbosch—the university is situated in my constituency—makes no apology to the world for the fact that it has an Afrikaans character and that it wants to breathe an Afrikaans spirit. That is what I said. In fact, I said it in my maiden speech at the beginning of this session. I emphasized that this would be the case in future as well. I emphasized that the Bill which is before the House at the moment would not change this in any way.

There is only one thing I want to add to this: It is not becoming any easier to maintain this ideal. One of the reasons why it is becoming more difficult is that the hon. members of the CP are painting a picture of the Afrikaner which is a totally distorted one and which has given rise to a resistance and an aversion to our people among the other inhabitants of our country which we do not deserve. The legislation will not bring about the slightest change in the Afrikaans nature and character of any university which truly endeavours to preserve that character.

In an attempt to find something to say, the hon. member for Kuruman resorted to reading my Hansard. This was the version which had been corrected by the staff of Hansard but which I had not yet seen myself. On the basis of that, he accuse me of double talk. He said that on the one hand, I had expressed reservations about the use of the term “ethnic universities”—the way they use it, I want to add—but on the other hand, he said, I used it myself. Then he asked in a sneering kind of way, referring to me: When should we take any notice of him?

I asked Hansard to use the words in the text exactly as they occurred on the tape, even though I had expressed myself rather clumsily. From this it is apparent that I did not use the word as my own. So the argument of the hon. member for Kuruman had no foundation, absolutely none. The hon. member can take notice of me even though I may be the humblest backbencher in this House. When I rise in this House, however, I make sure that I am well prepared. If he did the same, one could perhaps take notice of him again in future.

The hon. member for Rissik then seized upon what the hon. member for Kuruman had said and embroidered on it, as I have said. The hon. member reminded me of a symposium in which he and I both participated in Stellenbosch. It is true. He said, among other things, that I had taken hardly any notice of him there. That creates a totally false impression. I actually object to it. I wonder why he said it. Surely he knows that I had not formally met him before that occasion, and he also knows that my wife and I went up to him before the meeting, introduced ourselves and welcomed him to my constituency. After the meeting I went to say goodbye to him.

No, you are quite wrong.

Why does he create the impression in this House that I was rude towards him? I object to that.

I must give the hon. member for Rissik credit for one thing in connection with the meeting to which he referred. At that meeting he accepted and participated in the reality of our country, because—hon. members must listen very carefully now, and this may surprise them—he was a member of a racially mixed panel appearing in front of a racially mixed audience. [Interjections.] He emerged from it intact; he had not lost his identity and he had not even lost his verkrampte attitudes, just as the Bill will not result in any loss of identity on the part of his people and mine. Listen to what he said. I am quoting from his unrevised speech—

I do not believe that was the reason. I think he was shocked when he realized how far removed from reality the message was which he delivered there. This is what I think, because what happened? The people laughed at him. That was the reaction. [Interjections.] This is what he is trying to gloss over with regard to the meeting when he makes statements such as these.

He also asked me whether I had taken cognizance of the demands made by Coloured leaders at that meeting. Yes, Sir, I took cognizance of them. I listen to people who disagree with me and I talk to them as well, but I also heard what one of the most conservative Coloured leaders who attended that meeting said to the hon. member. That leader told him: “No, really, Mr. Van der Merwe might have sold his policy to us in 1910, but not today.” That is an important remark.

Do you realize what they said about you? [Interjections.]

Those hon. members must realize that this is 1983 so that we may conduct a meaningful discussion with them again. That is what they must do.

This Bill takes account of the times in which we live, and what it seeks to achieve does not violate academic freedom, but it does not extend the autonomy of universities either. Nor does it undermine the underlying principle of separate development. This legislation does not interfere with or threaten the identity, right to survival and right to self-determination of any individual or group of people living in this country. Therefore I regard it as a privilege to support its Third Reading as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is as well that at the very end of this debate the official Opposition should once again focus on the major arguments in this whole debate. It seems to me that what we are dealing with is university autonomy in relation to student admission. The hon. the Minister talked about four basic freedoms and he said that it was possible to have autonomy or academic freedom with only three of those. I want to suggest to him that the argument for university autonomy in determining student admission rests upon two principles which we have tried to enunciate throughout the debate.

The first is the academic argument. Access to education should be determined by scholastic ability and interest and not by other educationally irrelevant criteria. I believe that we can call as evidence to support our case a quote from the De Lange report, as follows—

I believe that that is fair and well stated and it certainly supports our own case.

The other factor, argument or principle in favour of university autonomy as far as student admission is concerned is the right of a university to reflect what is common as well as diverse in the society in which it finds itself. There has been a great deal of discussion and debate on this point. I want to repeat that: The right of a university to reflect what is common as well as what is diverse in the society. I want to quote the example of a medical student. Medical students have interests, commitment and courses of study in common. No one would argue with that. The courses throughout South Africa are of the same high standard. But medical students who have that same commitment and who follow the same courses of study, although they may come from diverse cultural backgrounds, will in time be practising common skills in the same society. One cannot distinguish between one doctor and another who have graduated from universities in South Africa with the same qualifications and the same high standards. They may come from very diverse cultural backgrounds, but they will be serving a single common society in South Africa—the society of the sick, people who are in need, irrespective of culture, irrespective of language and irrespective of race.

We submit—and the hon. the Minister has not answered this effectively in the many times that he has spoken—that a university has the right to reflect, to put it another way, what is diverse in society as well as what is common. The point that many universities throughout the world make, is that diversity is not something which one must shy away from, but that it is rather something which should be welcomed; that in the diversity there can be a richness and that there can be academic and cultural gains by way of the interplay between one culture and another. That has certainly been the experience of many of us who have studied at various universities throughout the world.

The present situation of Black, Coloured and Indian students who wish to attend the so-called White universities, is that they must obtain a permit. When we told the hon. the Minister that many students have been denied opportunities to study at a university because they have been denied a permit, his response across the floor was: “Not in meaningful numbers”. Our point is that if one student, because of the permit system, has been refused a university education on grounds other than academic, we believe it is wrong. I have a whole file on young Black students who have written to me only in the past couple of months. The hon. the Minister of Education and Training will concur that I have made representations on their behalf. But let me quote only one from this year. I want to try to give a human face to the statistics because one can talk in terms of numbers but when one talks in terms of a person with a name, with ambitions and aspirations, I think it makes the point. He writes—

When I finally got the reply after another six to eight weeks, it was—

That is just one case and I believe it is a disgrace that this has happened in the past. The hon. member for Virginia has again made it quite clear in his speech that nothing is really changing. The only difference is that we are doing away with the permit system and that we are introducing a quota system. Yesterday I got him to admit across the floor of the House that it was being done on racial grounds. He said again today that the principle remains the same. There was a permit system and there is now going to be a quota system. Nothing has really changed. I shall tell you what has changed. The only real change is that the universities have now got to do the dirty work that the Government have been doing up to now.

I want to say as seriously as I can—and in this reply to the Second Reading the hon. the Minister took me to task for it—that the only comparable operation of a quota system that I could find in researching the 19th and 20th centuries was the Hitler decree that I read out to this House, and I stand by that, because that decree was based on race and nothing else. It was Hitler with his Aryan concept. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he can talk until he is blue in the face but that is the only example that I can find where there is a quota system. All the other arguments he used about university students in Europe and the United States who are foreigners hold no water whatsoever. There is no other place where there is a quota system based on race except in South Africa and we should be ashamed of it. The mask has finally dropped. This nice “verligte” NP that talks about a new constitution, new reform and doing away with hurtful discrimination has displayed this week as never before that the mask has dropped and we are once again confronted with the ugly face of apartheid. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that apart from anything else I cannot understand his argument. Again and again we are told by the hon. the Minister that in fact he is being more accommodating to Blacks, whom the Government will exclude from the new deal, than he is to Indians whose support he wants. I cannot understand that, even leaving aside the whole quota system that we abhor. If Black students are included in the UCT quota, this will help them to get the other permits needed to live in the Western Cape while they are studying. An Indian student, however, will not even have the chance of being included in the OFS university quota where he is also excluded by law and can live only by permit. What is the hon. the Minister trying to do? He is trying to attract Indian and Coloured people into this new deal and yet he does nothing to assist them. He does nothing to demonstrate his bona fides. I cannot understand him. Whose support does he really want?

In conclusion, I can only think of the story of a little boy who was very late in getting to school. His teacher asked him: Why on earth are you so late? He said: Well, it was raining very hard and as a result there was a lot of mud on the path that I normally use and for every step that I took forward I slipped back two. The teacher then asked him: But how on earth did you ever get to school? He said: Oh, I walked backwards. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that with every step that this Government takes forward it slips back two. It is now trying to walk backwards so that people do not really know what it is doing. It is terrified that the CP are going to find it out or it is terrified that the PFP are going to find it out.

I have deep sympathy with the hon. member for Virginia. The poor man, whenever he stands up to debate, makes one point and he is attacked by the CP. He makes another point and he is attacked by the PFP. The result is that the NP is facing the same dilemma and the same fate as the old United Party. They are being attacked from the left, they are being attacked from the right and they sit on the fence. I want to say that that fence is breaking and it is sagging and they are about to fall off. This particular Bill is going to be another nail in the coffin of the NP. That is what is going to happen. I want to tell hon. members why. It is because the NP is neither one thing nor the other. There was a time, when I came into this House, when the NP knew where they were going. There was a consistency and a logicality in their actions. They were tough and they were hard, but one knew where they were going. Now, on the one hand it wants to move forward a little and on the other hand it wants to hold back a little. They walk backwards so that no one knows in which direction they are going. As a result of that, their own members lack enthusiasm. We see it again and again. They lack drive and they lack confidence. Look at them sitting there. They are a miserable bunch because they cannot any longer believe in what the NP stands for. Consequently, I again want to say to the hon. the Minister that this quota system changes nothing except that it makes the universities do the Government’s work. Within five years the hon. the Minister is going to have to come to this house again and say: Look, I want to put my cards on the table. For once in my life I want to say this is how it is. For God’s sake let us open the universities and let the universities make the decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the fundamental frustrations, one of the fundamental problems with the official Opposition is the fact that they cannot get away from the great success that I described in my reply to the Second Reading debate as having been achieved with regard to the system of “own” universities for the various population groups of this country. They cannot get away from the fact that at the time they and their predecessors devoted their energies to a shameless and persistent campaign—which was—almost effective, from their point of view—of doing everything possible to frustrate and block the development of “own” universities. They tried to compel the country to be satisfied with one model of a university, viz. their model. In the same way they objected at an earlier stage to the founding of Afrikaans universities and the development of bilingual universities into Afrikans-language universities, because this, too, deviated from the model of the only kind of university they know.

That is not true.

We all know full well that at the time objections were heaped on the idea of these new universities. First the idea was rejected that universities should be founded that were oriented to the various population groups that as yet had no universities. They were regarded as “bush colleges” and as inferior because those people would have no culture of any significance. Later, however—in fact, very soon after that—Africa itself discovered that it wanted its own kind of university and that it was not afraid to found a university that deviated from the standard Western model. In South African society, given the attitude and mentality of the official Opposition, we know that it would simply have been impossible to make it possible to have a free establishment and development of such universities as happened in other countries in Africa.

Let me quote the following from the Unesco conference on “The Development of Higher Education in Africa” that was held in Tananarive in 1962—

They went on to say—

These are the ideas of educational leaders in Africa at the Tananarive conference of 1962, standpoints virtually identical with those held by the predecessors of this side of the House when they established universities for the various population groups towards the end of the ’fifties. At the time the conference also found—

When the attitude began to fall flat with regard to opposition to the founding of universities oriented towards the culture and background of the peoples and population groups that still did not have universities, they came up with the objection that they were State universities and therefore inferior. No less a person than Sir Eric Ashby, one of the world’s greatest experts in the field of university development, argued in a speech he delivered at Wits that because he had to admit that this African orientation of a university was valid, the other argument came to the fore, viz. that the new university colleges could not really be valid because their members of staff were largely in the service of the State and were accordingly not free to serve the community of the university. The then rector of the University of Pretoria, Prof. Rautenbach, thereupon indicated in a lecture entitled “Ope gesprek oor beslote universiteite” how many prominent countries of the world were acquainted with the State university system in terms of which all members of staff were employed by the State because ultimately the university was controlled and managed by the State, as I put it in my Second Reading speech. Thus that specious argument against these universities which were originally State universities was also refuted. That is what frustrates those people; the fact that we on this side of the House object to the culturally superior mentality of hon. members opposite who begrudge the possibility of the development of universities of this nature. Nevertheless those universities carried on and achieved this great success in the face of all opposition. That is what frustrates those hon. members, Mr. Speaker.

Please also permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote by way of a further illustration to refute the standpoints of those who opposed this kind of approach to a university at the time, what Sir Eric Ashby himself said at Wits when he was eventually confronted by this unique character of a university for the people of Africa. He said—

He went on to say—

He is referring to questions he put earlier which were specifically concerned with the problems of Africa—

One need not of course agree with all these aspects that have been mentioned. However, I state this to underline the fact that it is not for racist reasons or due to a fear of being swamped by large numbers of students of other population groups that this system is coming into operation, but because it is in fact based on a positive approach, because the other population groups are not being begrudged what we on this side of the House have wanted for ourselves in the course of history.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on this side of the House who supported the Third Reading of this Bill. They are the hon. members for Rustenburg, Virginia, Brentwood and Stellenbosch. I must say that the hon. member for Rissik made one of his most acceptable speeches for a long time here today, because, of course, about 75% of it consisted of a quotation from a lecture delivered by the late Dr. Verwoerd and which every Afrikaner, every South African, can subscribe to proudly. However, I want to say that on the one hand it is quite a pity that a great man like Dr. Verwoerd …

Actually Daan delivered Dr. Verwoerd’s speech; not his own.

It was indeed Dr. Verwoerd’s speech that he delivered. That is why I say that it was at least a speech one could listen to. It did not consist of the usual superficiality that we are accustomed to hearing from the hon. member for Rissik. [Interjections.] As I said, it is a pity that a man of the stature of Dr. Verwoerd should now be brought down to the level of the petty debatting of the hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, I do want to point out that whereas the hon. member for Rissik quoted a speech by the late Dr. Verwoerd with which I could fully agree, so far as I was able to follow it, I believe that I, too, can lay claim to having contributed several years of my life, positively, substantially and concretely, to achieving in the sphere of universities exactly what was advocated in that speech by Dr. Verwoerd.

And now you are simply giving it all away.

Now I should just like to point out to the hon. member for Rissik that the words he used when he began quoting from Dr. Verwoerd’s lecture sounded a little odd to me. He said that when one thought, one’s thinking had to be profound, true and final. He added that Dr. Verwoerd thought in that way and apparently the hon. member for Rissik believes he, too, thinks that way. However, in all honesty I must say that that is an ability I do not possess. Indeed, I believe that there is not a single hon. member of this House who could say that in a lifetime his thinking could be profound, true and final, about everything and for all time. I know that we all of course, reject the opportunism of people who think one thing one moment and another the next. But the pretentiousness, the incredible arrogance of saying that one’s thinking should be final is something that I find totally amazing. It amazes me, Mr. Speaker.

At this point I wish to dwell on the words of the hon. member for Bryanston. He said that because the Government “has not got the courage to consult the other communities”, and, by implication, to apply policy-wise what the other communities ask for, “it shows that their concept of self-determination is humbug.” The hon. member went on to say what the PFP would do. They would call a convention of all political leaders of all groups in the country to draw up a constitution—he did not stop there and say “draw up,” or say: to draw up a constitution at the discretion of those concerned—“which will comply with the following conditions”. He then laid down six or seven different conditions. That party, that charges us with forcing our will down other people’s throats as far as our policy is concerned, always has its slip showing when its shows to what extent it is preparing itself in advance not only to implement its policy, should it come to power, but to ram it down the throats of others.

What is going to happen to this national convention of political leaders? They are not going to be convened to decide at their discretion on a constitution, whatever may come out of that convention; instead, as the hon. member for Bryanston himself spelt it out here—unfortunately I do not have the text of his speech available—they are going to set a large number of conditions which such a convention will have to coply with. Therefore the convention will be convened to draw up a constitution that will be in accordance with the principles of the PFP.

If there is any question about this I want to remind this House of a speech made in June last year by the hon. the Prime Minister. I can no longer recall the subject of the debate, but I should like to quote from column 8752 of Hansard of 9 June last year. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to a speech he had made previously and said the following (Vol. 101, col. 8752)—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then gave his famous reply—

Therefore, by implication, if the PFP were to obtain control in this Parliament, which will have to make the decisions to put a new constitution into operation, it would call a national convention and give that convention this sham opportunity to reach consensus. It will not ram its will down their throats. It will merely do as the hon. member for Bryanston did, viz. to lay down a series of conditions that are basic conditions with which that convention will have to comply and ultimately, whether or not the PFP accepts the resolutions of the convention will depend on what those resolutions are.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself again referred to this matter this year and tried to get out of this comer into which he had painted himself last year. On 4 February this year he said (Hansard, col. 424)—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then went on to say: Yes, but there are principles and there is policy and it depends whether this convention is going to differ on principles. However, the fact remains that if that national convention does not do what is in accordance with the conditions set by the hon. member for Bryanston and the principles of the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, then nothing is going to come of that national convention either. Therefore a party that is put in power by the voters as a Government implements its policy, and these specious arguments advanced by hon. members opposite to the effect that those sitting on this side of the House are a lot of dictators, despots or oppressors that seek unfairly to force their will down the throats of other people, simply does not hold water, because that is exactly what those hon. members of the PFP would do if they were ever to come to power in this country—and, as I said before, may we be spared that! We must put a stop to this kind of thing now, we must refrain from advancing this kind of ridiculous argument that is being employed by that side of the House and confine ourselves to an honest and realistic analysis of the whole situation.

Rather ridiculousness than madness.

I should prefer to make a few remarks about the fact that under the Universities Act, the Committee of University Principals is now becoming a body composed of the rectors of the White, Coloured and Asian universities. I want to point out that this is an important development, because there are common interests among the universities in regard to which they ought to exchange notes, in regard to which they ought to co-ordinate their actions and consult with one another. They must be able to learn from one another. That is why the meeting of members of such a body is of the utmost importance.

The fact is that at this stage the Black universities have not yet been accommodated in that body. However, as I said, the Government is giving consideration to ways in which the rectors of Black universities may in fact be brought into the picture. The position of the Black universities is different in the case of two important matters concerning which the Committee of University Principals deliberates and furnishes advice. To be specific, the Black universities are in a different position to those that are already autonomous as regards their form of management and financing, and that has to be taken into account when those universities are linked up with this committee.

In two respects, all the autonomous universities fall under the same umbrella. In the first place they fall under the same basic regulative provisions relating to universities as embodied in the Universities Act. In the second place, they also fall under the same subsidy formula and will probably do so in the future, too, after the other two universities have become autonomous. With regard to both these matters it is important, therefore, that those universities consult with one another in order to give co-ordinated advice, as far as possible, to the two Ministers to whom the control of university education for the various peoples have been entrusted.

I want to stress that the distinctive character and community orientation of each of the individual universities will in no way be affected thereby. The implicit criticism of this development on the part of the CP shows that they are unable to distinguish between co-ordination of various systems on the one hand and, on the other, what they regard as integration. In fact, if there is any doubt about the desirability of this development, I should like to refer to the Joint Matriculation Board, which has existed since 1916.

The Joint Matriculation Board is in fact the only body of authority concerned with the interethnic co-ordination of education that has always existed in our country. Although the Joint Matriculation Board is responsible for taking binding decisions with the co-operation of all education departments for all population groups and with representatives of all universities of all population groups with regard to the policy on university admission, and, moreover, it is the joint action of that board that leads to what one could call general or macro-policy decisions that are binding on all educational systems and all universities, to my knowledge this has never detracted in the slightest from the autonomy or the distinctive character of the various participating departments at school level or at university level.

Because the debate has for the most part centred around the clause that provides that the Minister may set conditions for the admission of students from other population groups to a specific university—in general it has been labelled the “quota clause”—I should like to make a few remarks in this Third Reading—which, in a certain sense, is a preview of how these matters will develop in the future—concerning my intention and the intention of the Government as regards the implementation of this provision in regard to the set of conditions. Basically, I want to summarize what I said in various phases of the Committee Stage in reply to questions and otherwise.

In the first place, the Minister responsible will take into account and consider all reasonable relevant factors in each instance. In addition, there will be consultation with the universities involved in order to achieve the greatest possible degree of correspondence, or at any rate a reasonable degree of harmony in regard to this matter. However, it will have to be well understood that, as I also said in my introductory speech in the Second Reading debate, this will have to be done in accordance with the point of view of the Government that this must contribute to the promotion of the community-orientation of the various universities—not their total exclusivity, but the basic community-orientation of those universities. As I have already said, the intention is also specifically to exclude some of the conditions that may be specified by the universities for registration; firstly, people of Chinese origin, because there is no university that makes specific provision for them, and, secondly, all postgraduate students, because the Government is convinced that whether or not there are facilities in a specific field of study at the “own university”, nevertheless at postgraduate level there is a justified need for people to move from one university to another, from one country to another and from one cultural group to another. Moreover, diplomats or dependants of diplomats will also be specifically excluded from the conditions.

Then, too, we prefer to specify a global quota or a global ceiling for every university with as little subdivision and sub-specification as possible in respect of specific fields of study and specific population groups. I just wanted to repeat that. Moreover, I want to repeat that the conditions can and will differ from university to university. The intention is not to force all universities to fit the same Procrustean bed, but as far as possible, to act in accordance with the wish of the university, and as long as it is in terms of the policy of the Government, in order to provide for the consideration of the specific circumstances of a particular university. For example, a particular university may offer more fields of study or faculties of a specific specialized or unique character than another university.

I also want to repeat the offer that I, my colleagues and our departments will certainly continue the practice adopted by my colleagues in the past of sympathetically discussing and trying to resolve problems or problem cases with the university in question and perhaps, too, with the student in question, if the university regards it as appropriate to do so. I want to give hon. members the assurance—I do so with reference to the responsible attitude adopted by the hon. member for Durban North in discussing this matter—that the universities know that they will not become polluted if they consult with the Minister or his department on this matter. They can certainly make use of this offer, as they have in fact done in the past.

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

Sir, I have very little time. I should like to finish first. If there is still time, the hon. member can ask his question then.

I should also like to mention that in the implementation of this system, I shall address specific requests—I repeat: “requests”—to the universities which in my opinion will be reasonable requests and which I hope we shall be able to deal with mutually in a sensible way. I shall request that preference be given to students who apply for admission to fields of study for which provision is not made at the universities of their specific population groups. I think it is fair that preference be given to such students. As regards the whole admissions policy in general, I think that universities could certainly also favourably consider giving preference, not only in the case of students of colour, but in general, to fields of study that deserve to be given a high priority with a view to the manpower needs of our country. If any influence can be exerted on students in this direction we should be obliged if the universities and their counselling divisions could comply with this. I also wish to repeat that I shall request that the universities do not continue admitting significant numbers of students of other groups without also taking significant steps to meet the reasonable residential needs of those students, but doing so in accordance with the policy of the Government, as has already been clearly stated to them, and also taking into account the Government’s offer to make the same financial aid available for such cases as is available in respect of all other student residences at such a university. Moreover I regard it as obvious—I have received assurances in this regard from the objecting university principals concerned—that universities, and it is essential that this should be so, will maintain their standards consistently in regard to all students applying for admission. With reference to the question put to me in regard to the significance of the linking of the clause containing the proviso to the clause relating to the subsidy of a university, I want to point out that that is the same clause as the existing penal provision in the Universities Act relating to non-compliance with conditions which the Government may set in respect of the management of the university. Because the Government would prefer not to insert here a provision such as that contained in the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, it deemed it desirable to link up with the existing penal provision contained in the legislation.

The question whether a university wishes to enrol students of other population groups is a question for the university itself. If a university decides to enrol them, it is very clear that they may not be enrolled in conflict with the conditions set by the Minister in terms of the Act. If they were to do so, they would be infringing the relevant statutory provisions. That is very clear and that is something we must all understand. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the matter on this basis so that there will be no problems in respect of this issue.

I should also like to refer very briefly to a matter brought to my attention by certain hon. members on this side as a matter that could give rise to misunderstanding. It is a question asked by the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, viz. what the policy is in respect of the recognition of qualifications among universities, since there has been a great deal of gossip and stories have been passed around to the effect that one university will not recognize the degrees of courses of another and that this points to the existence of first-class, second-class and third-class universities. The mutual recognition of degrees or courses among universities has a great deal to do with inter-university co-operation. Therefore this is also something that the Committee of University Principals could deal with. As I said, it is closely connected with the mutual recognition of the universities as equals—as members, as it were, of a family of equal institutions.

I want to point out that in the first place each university is basically autonomous in its recognition of the degrees or courses of other universities. They derive this power from the joint statute of the universities and also from their own university acts. They have the power to recognize the degree or course of another university and grant status to a student from that university. Therefore, anyone who has a B.A. degree from, say, the University of Stellenbosch can enjoy B.A. status at, say, the University of the Witwatersrand.

A second question that is also of importance and that links up with this is whether, if a university grants a student of another university status and recognizes his degree or courses, it then necessarily permits him to continue with further studies based on that recognized degree or course. In this respect it is very clearly the practice among all universities that the recognition of status and the recognition of degrees do not necessarily entail admission to further postgraduate study in the particular field. It depends on many factors whether the senate, the faculty or the department in question accepts such a student. It depends on the precise content of the student’s previous degree or course and the precise syllabus involved. Sometimes a person is provisionally accepted for further study on condition that he first does certain supplementary work, not because his degree is inferior but because the content of his previous course was different and it would therefore be difficult for him to proceed further at the new university.

Then, too, the general statute permits a university to recognize only half of the courses of a three-year Bachelor degree or one-year Bachelor degree of another university and transfer them, so that the student has then to write the remaining courses at the new university that is to award a degree. At postgraduate level in particular, universities are highly selective, depending on their facilities, depending on their field of interest and depending on the level of achievement of the student in question. In other words, degrees and courses are recognized on an inter-university basis, but at that level there is also considerable discretion and a considerable difference in practice when it comes to the question of whether a student is to be permitted, on the basis of his previous degree or diploma, to further his studies at the new university in the field of study in question.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an extremely important development, i.e. the granting of greater administrative autonomy to our technikons. The importance of the technikons in the entire educational strategy and increased provision of education in our country is very great. It is being accorded a very high priority by the Government. I am certain that in this debate everyone will have observed that hon. members on this side of the House perceived this priority of the technikons in the future of our educational development very clearly. It was almost exclusively in speeches by hon. members on this side of the House that various aspects in connection with the administrative innovations, in connection with the challenges facing the technikons and in connection with their development were emphasized, illustrated and expanded on. For that reason I want to thank the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Gezina, the hon. member for Kimberley North, the hon. member for Brentwood, the hon. member for Turffontein—who really climbed into the hon. members of the Opposition with gusto—and, in his unique way, the hon. member for Rosettenville, for their exceptional contributions. They did not allow themselves to be tempted by the negative debating approach of the Opposition parties into concentrating only on a single problematical point, but they maintained the correct perspective by giving this matter the rightful emphasis which it deserves in our national economy and in the development of our education.

The hon. member for Kimberley North said he had problems in clause 1 with the reference to the “principal” of a technikon. I wish to tell the hon. member that I agree with him and that I shall accept an amendment of his if he would move it during the Committee Stage. I am prepared to discuss it with him.

Among the Opposition the importance of education, particularly of technikon education was accorded almost no priority at all. Their attention was focused completely on the matter of the quota and—this applies to the official Opposition now—the insistence on the throwing open of technikons. It is very clear that what really matters to them is not the interests of education; that their interest and their enthusiasm is not primarily focused on identifying and rectifying problems in education or of recognizing opportunities for the development of education and expressing their appreciation for positive developments in education, but that for them this debate, as happens so frequently, was concerned only with how far they could utilize education for political purposes. [Interjections.] When I say that I am of course not trying to allege, in false piety, that hon. members on this side of the House see no connection between education and political principles. According to the convictions of hon. members on this side of the House, education and politics are closely related. The political implications of education are important. In addition, certain guidelines for education are laid down in politics. However, I can say with pride that the NP, through the various spokesmen who participated, did not neglect education in the interests of politics. It did not concentrate to such an extent on politics that they prejudiced education, thrust it into the background and, as it were, obscured it in order to further mere political interests.

I want to dwell again on a matter which I have raised before. It is the obsession of the PFP with integration as an all-determining factor in education. When one listens to hon. members of the PFP it becomes apparent that they believe that all it requires is one wave from a magic wand to cause all problems, all deficiencies, all backlogs in education to disappear like mist in the morning sunlight, and that is integration—the complete throwing open of education. Time and again hon. members of the official Opposition say that there should be only one education department, that all educational administration should be combined in one department and in one administration; something which will result in such a monstrously huge department that one simply cannot imagine how, administratively, it will be able to function effectively; to say nothing of cultural and educational considerations, or considerations in connection with political self-determination. This is the PFP receipe for success in the development of education—one department, one administration, in which everyone and everything are all lumped together. Of course even this is not enough, because within the institutions which fall under the single educational department, everything should also be thrown open. There should be no differentiation among the institutions, on whatever level, as far as the various population groups and the separate cultural groups in the country are concerned.

One sometimes notices significant things. For example I noticed with great amusement earlier this year how one of the spokesmen of the official Opposition, when the President’s Council reported in connection with the demographic problems in our country, the population explosion in our country, immediately used the one magic word by alleging that everything would be fine as soon as there was no longer any more apartheid; that everything would be fine as soon as there was integration. This is a superficial, irresponsible and unproductive form of participation in a debate on the national interests of this country. What is more, Mr. Speaker, even if it does happen that this magic wand with which the hon. members of the official Opposition are so obsessed, viz. a complete throwing open and integration of all institutions, is successfully wielded, even that would still make no appreciable difference to the essential problems of backlogs and deficiencies in the provision of education to those population groups that have recently emerged into prominence in the development process of their education. Even if all existing institutions were thrown open, it would nevertheless only be possible to make provision for a small fraction, a small percentage of the large number of people from other population groups who, in the years which lie ahead, are going to approach the authorities for the provision of education on irrespective levels. Consequently it is completely unrealistic. Apart from considerations of principle it is not going to make any material contribution. It is once again merely an abuse, a misapplication of education in order to try to bring about specific political results and gains in that way, as well as a specific political change in the country.

What we are concerned with in this country is meeting the sometimes alarmingly great needs—due in particular to exploding numerical growth in the population groups of this country which have up to now been less developed—in the educational services of these groups. The only real contribution that can be made in this connection is more and expanded facilities for the various population groups. When hon. members opposite complain that this is duplication of facilities and therefore a squandering of money, then it is a fallacious argument because more facilities have to be created in any case, owing to the increasing numbers. So that money is going to be required in any case. Hon. members on this side of the House are, however, convinced that that spending should take place according to the principle of the various population groups and peoples of this country making provision for their own educational services.

What we are concerned with, however, is not only an expansion of the facilities, but also an adaptation of the educational services to the particular needs of these developing communities. These are communities which, in respect of historical and social background as well as their milieu, differ in numerous facets from the pattern of life and experience of the White population group. It would be unrealistic and unproductive simply to apply that education system which was developed for the educationally more advanced White population group to the other population groups unchanged. Consequently, adjustments have to be made in an effort to solve the various problems which arise in connection with the circumstances of life and the background of those groups. These adjustment problems must be taken into account.

The De Lange report inter alia, spelt out very clearly indeed that the domestic circumstances of a community that still has a strong traditional way of life that has been modernized only to a small extent, exerts a major influence on the educational pattern. Differentiated provision of education must therefore be aimed at preparing the children of such communities for school to a greater extent, so that when they do arrive at the school they can derive the proper benefit from it.

These are a few facets which I wanted to put forward—to emphasize once again that this entire approach of the PFP which became apparent from the debate, i.e. that it is only by way of the throwing open and the integration of facilities that it will be possible to solve all problems in education—which I hope will once again bring home the fact that the problems are far more fundamental and go much deeper and that the approach of the Government is the correct one.

In particular there are important aspects concerning the development of technikon education which have recently emerged and which weigh heavily with the Government and which I should just like to emphasize here again, with reference to the contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House.

The technikons are relatively new members of what I should like to call the education family. In many respects the technikons only recently came of age. One could say that in some respects they are still developing and unfolding. That is why the technikons must be approached with exceptional understanding, sympathy and support on the part of the authorities, but also on the part of the community. For that reason I am pleased that various hon. members pointed out that the community should rid itself of its snobbishness in believing that technikon education is inferior compared with education in other tertiary institutions. Those who believe this are prejudicing themselves by adopting these views because the technikon today, by means of excellent training courses, are producing leaders, particularly in the professional world, who are in future going to play a very important part in the professions as well as in the growth of our country.

Furthermore, the technikons find themselves in a unique position because there are very close ties between them and the business world. They are far more directly interwoven into the business world than are universities for example. There is a very close interaction in the training of the student between the technikon work which he does and the general practice. He devotes parts of the year to practical work and other parts to training. There is a very strong concentration on the immediate needs of the employer. The technikon, quite unlike the university, trains a person to be immediately useful in the work situation. In addition the technikon is in the process of placing a new emphasis in its training approach by devoting greater attention to managerial aspects so that the entire question of interpersonal and intergroup relations in the work situation also receives adequate attention, alongside the technology which in the past perhaps received too exclusive an emphasis.

We are entering an era in which technology is becoming increasingly important, and we must, as a government, as parties and also as technikons, help to ensure that the machine does not exclude human beings from our attention and that it continues to be the human being who controls the machine. Human beings must therefore remain central in the training and sciences offered by the technikons.

Another feature of the technikons is that they find themselves in a situation of fluctuations in the rapid growth rates in the areas they deal with. These are rapid growth rates which make very high demands on them. There is the rapid growth rate which hon. members on both sides of the House emphasized, that of economic development, the tremendously rapid growth in our country’s manpower needs, particularly on the higher training level, the tremendously rapid rate of growth and change in respect of technical and technological development, and also the rapid increase in the growing complexity of the position of human beings in their personal relations and in their social relations in the work situation, which the technikon has to take into consideration.

For that reason the Government has recently devoted special attention to expanding the facilities at technikons, to the expansion and maintenance of the established technikons for Whites, but also to the expansion of the facilities for the other population groups in regard to which there was a great backlog, particularly in the sphere of technikons—we must admit this to one another candidly.

Consequently it is untrue when the hon. member for Koedoespoort says that a halt has now been called in the expansion of technikons for the other population groups. Nor is it true that the introduction of a possible quota means abandoning the development of technikons for everyone in this country. Nor is it true, as the hon. member for Rissik implied, that the approach of the Government entailed as it were that the cream of the student population of the technikons of other population groups was being skimmed off and that justice was no longer being done to the quality which one ought to endeavour to achieve for all technikons.

I want to refer to a few figures. I want to remind hon. members of the expenditure on technikons during the present financial year; these are large amounts. They are certainly not enough and the responsible Ministers would like to spend more in this important area, and I think we can also accept that the growth rate in the expenditure on more extensive provision for technikons will be considerable in future. The Peninsula Technikon for the Coloured population in the Cape has a budget of R7,6 million in round figures; the M. L. Sultan Technikon in Natal, R6,9 million; the new Mabopane-East Technikon for members of the various Black peoples, R11,4 million, and the eight technikons for Whites a total budget of R83,4 million, an average of approximately R10 million per technikon—some of course are larger and therefore receive larger amounts, while others are smaller and consequently receive smaller amounts. What is also important is that this year the hon. the Minister of Finance agreed to an additional amount of R29 million being raised on the private market by way of capital by the technikons. This amount compares very favourably with the R19 million of last year, and that is consequently a reply to the question put by the hon. member for Gezina in his important contribution on this matter, when he requested that the expansion of the campus of the Pretoria technikon should not be neglected.

It is not only a question of money; it is also a question of important numbers. The total number of Whites at present attending our technikons is 24 000. These are full-time students only. There are a large number of students who are taking lesser, part-time courses. Then there are 2 195 Coloured students attending their technikon, which represents a growth over the past five years of 111%. In the case of the Indian technikon it was striking that the numbers dropped from 8 000 to 4 300 during the past few years. However, this is as a result of the fact that until a few years ago the M. L. Sultan Technikon was a technikon as well as a technical college. Consequently it did tertiary work as well as work on the secondary school level. The decrease in numbers is as a result of the phasing out of the work on the secondary school level at this technikon. In reality there was a considerable increase in the number of tertiary students at that technikon as well. The new Mabopane-East Technikon has approximately 1 100 students and there the growth during the past few years was 109%, which is also considerable. In total there are already 8 400 non-Whites studying full-time at South African technikons while there are 1 700 non-Whites studying at the RSA Technikon which provides remote tuition or correspondence tuition. The total number of students at the RSA Technikon is 13 700.

This may sound like the mere enumeration of a series of figures, but I am furnishing them to give an indication that it is quite plainly false and untrue that the Government is neglecting the development of technikon education or is not according it the priority it deserves. I wish to agree with the hon. members who think that there should be even greater expansion. These are definitely on the programme. We should like to express great appreciation for the leaders on the level of academic instruction as well as well as in the private sector who, as members of the councils or advisory bodies of the technikons, have contributed to this extremely important growth, a growth which is an exceptional illustration of co-operation between the State and the private sector.

On the Opposition side the entire debate on this Bill actually centred around clause 16. This is the clause which seeks to expand the powers of the technikon council to admit non-White students itself, but within the parameters of the conditions imposed by the Minister. I want to emphasize this. This clause falls into the pattern of the Bill as a whole, which seeks to expand the power of the council, but subject here to specific restrictions in order to give expression to the framework of the policy laid down in this respect for technikons acting by the Government through the Minister.

This entire matter has already been thoroughly discussed, and I do not think that a full repetition at this stage of the reasons why the Government is adopting this approach is necessary. I want to re-emphasize briefly that the basic premise of the Government is that education is an own affair. This includes tertiary education, and therefore technical education, which therefore is also an own affair. The reason why the Government takes this view of the matter is not in the first place or in any way that it fears being swamped by overwhelming numbers as hon. members on the opposite side have argued, but it arose from the conviction that what are in the interests of the educational and the professional progress and advancement of the various population groups are their own technikons, which is also the case on the university level, as I have already illustrated. The Government is convinced that more and better opportunities for all, including members of the other population groups, will be established not by throwing open the existing institutions but by providing those population groups with their own institutions which have to be situated in their own communities so that there will also be a close interaction with those communities. This is the Government’s approach because the Government is also convinced that own tertiary institutions fit in with the socio-political system of differentiation, on the basis of the diversity of populations and peoples in this country. The structuring of this matter must be determined by the Government and not by the peoples because the Government is the responsible political body designated by the voters. This matter is fundamentally a political matter which has to be settled by the Government. The Government makes no apology for applying the policy of the NP in carrying out this responsibility. It is foolish of the official Opposition to imply that the Government should now move in a direction which the voters have not approved, i.e. by applying their policy, the policy of the PFP.

Having explained this premise of technikon education as an own affair for each community, I also wish to emphasize that the Government accepts that there are good grounds for greater flexibility and for limited openness and interaction on the level of tertiary education, as well as on the level of technikons, among the various population groups. I spelt out the reasons for this during the debate on the previous Bill. I pointed out that the cultural identity of the individual had to a large extent already been established when he left school and that this limited measure of interaction was therefore a risk which could be accepted under specific circumstances. Moreover, it is a fact that not all courses can immediately be provided everywhere for everyone at all technikons, and consequently provision has to be made for students to be admitted to such courses at technikons other than those of their own population group. It is also a fact that, particularly as far as technikon education is concerned, there are far closer ties between the student’s place of residence, his place of work and his place of education. There is a close inter-relationship between the theoretical training and the practical vocational or work situation. This can in specific cases cause problems which have to be taken into account in the admission of students of another population group to a technikon. Furthermore, there are certain very expensive courses with limited numbers of students which cannot now and probably not in the foreseeable future either be duplicated everywhere or offered at a large number of technikons. Training in those subjects must therefore be centralized. As we on this side of the House have stated repeatedly the admission of persons of other population groups is an interim need by means of which the reasonable expectations for training opportunities for members of other population groups have to be complied with until such time as technikons of their own for those groups can be provided on a more ample scale. Such increased provision is in fact the object of the Government, as I have also indicated by means of the figures.

The possible quota system in terms of clause 16 is not aimed at being more restrictive, but at being more expansive and at allowing greater flexibility. I make no apology for this. It will lead to more rapid consideration and disposal of applications from students for admission than in the case of the permit system. While one can perhaps in the case of universities plan a long way ahead in regard to one’s application for training, the interaction between work situation and the training situation in regard to many of the technikon courses is such that it must be possible to make a decision more rapidly. When a person receives a specific appointment in a vocational situation, it must be possible to incorporate him rapidly into the accompanying training situation. As I said during my Second Reading speech, technikons must, in the nature of the rapid changes occurring in industry and commerce, frequently introduce new courses at relatively short and sudden notice. For that reason, too, regard must be paid to the admission of students of other population groups where it is not yet possible to make provision for this at their own technikons.

I therefore wish to emphasize that the autonomy over decision-making of the administrative body of the technikon is being expanded here within the limits of Government policy. As to the statement by hon. members of the CP that the quota system will bring about greater permanence in regard to this back-and-forth movement of students of various population groups than the old permit system brought about, I want to say that this simply is not true. The question in regard to permanence is a question which deals with the authorizing statutory provisions which grant the power to either set a quota or allocate a permit. The question is whether that statutory provision is permanent or not. In both these cases, viz. the statutory provision which allocates a permit, and the statutory provision which lays down a quota, they are inherently equally permanent or equally temporary. It is therefore plainly nonsensical to allege that as far as the quota system or the permit system is concerned, the one will be more or less permanent than the other. Both should be seen within the statement of principle which I made of provision of one’s own education, including education at technikons, linked on the other hand to a flexibility enabling admission of persons of other population groups to a specific technikon on the basis of the reasons I have indicated and within the limits of Government policy.

It is a fact that a greater deal is already being done to expand the technikons of other population groups, but the needs are increasing more rapidly than the provision of training at all other technikons in the country. Therefore, until such time as their own technikons have made provision for a specific new course, there is the need, as a bridging measure, to admit students from the population group in question to a technikon at which the necessary provision has already been made.

I wish to conclude by saying that this Bill, in the same way as the Universities Amendment Bill, which was attacked by the official Opposition as being a negative, restrictive and opportunity-depriving Bill, should be seen as a positive Bill. It should be seen as a Bill which expands opportunities, which is a demonstration of the Government’s determination to meet the challenges confronting us in respect of economic growth and the training of manpower. This is a Bill which creates opportunities. However, it is also a Bill which continues to take into account the reality of the ethnic and population diversity of this country. At the same time this Bill also takes into account the reality and need for sensible and controlled contact among the various population groups, in respect of the development of technikon education as well.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Universities Advisory Council, which was established in terms of the Universities Act, is at the moment the only expert ministerial advisory body which is able to give advice on tertiary educational matters, and only with regard to the 11 autonomous universities falling under the Department of National Education. The Advisory Council has been serving for several years to regulate and co-ordinate university development. There is no similar body by means of which the development and growth of technikons, which fall under the Department of National Education, can be regulated.

As far as the universities and technikons are concerned, there are three important matters in particular which require Government involvement. In the first place, there is the creation of an organizational structure into which the institutions can be integrated; secondly, there is the demarcation of the spheres of activity of the various kinds of institutions, as well as of individual institutions, and the determination of their respective functions; and thirdly, there is the making available of resources to the institutions, and to the introduction of control measures to ensure that the spending of public funds can be accounted for.

†Since the Government does not normally have the necessary expertise at its disposal to decide on matters relating to the special fields of the institutions concerned, it is essential that there should be an expert body of persons of high standing to advise it on these matters. The Committee of University Principals and the Association of Technikons have been consulted, and the conclusion has been arrived at that there is a need for a single ministerial advisory body to give advice on matters affecting universities as well as technikons. All possible conflict between the different types of institutions will then be dealt with by one body, and it will be possible to formulate one overall policy according to a central philosophy for both the universities and the technikons. Such a coordinated approach will have the advantage of leading to the rationalization of the Government’s planning and administrative duties in respect of those institutions, which, in turn, will lead to the optimal utilization of the available physical, financial and manpower resources.

I consider that this ministerial advisory body performs a “cushioning” function between the competing claims of the different institutions for Government support on the one hand, and the Minister and the Government on the other hand. The expertise and status of this body must be such as to ensure the maximum depolitization of ministerial decisions regarding universities and technikons. Thanks to a very fair and objective university subsidy formula, coupled with the authoritative and non-partisan expert advice of the UAC, on which ministerial decisions are based, the fairness and objectivity in which the Government shares out its support to the individual universities has seldom been questioned—and this in spite of often highly emotional ideological and political differences among the decision makers on both sides of this “cushion”. The size of the cake may sometimes be in question but the fairness of the slicing and apportioning very seldom is. It is important to distinguish between the functions, on the one hand, of the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals, which represent the interested institutions claiming Government support, and, on the other hand, the ministerial advisory body, which acts as a cushion and an intermediary between the academic institutions and the political decision makers.

In the overall national interest, and in order to promote co-ordinated planning and development of the tertiary education sectors of all population groups, it is necessary that this ministerial advisory body must in future not only be able to give advice in respect of the universities and technikons for Whites, but in respect of all the universities and technikons in the country. The government’s policy of universities and technikons differentiated according to population groups does not affect the reality of the interrelation and interdependence among tertiary institutions in the Republic of South Africa, in respect of such matters as financial resources, highly qualified manpower resources for staffing the institutions, the needs of the manpower market place, etc. Legislation has already been introduced to provide for the universities and technikons for Coloureds and Indians to become full members of the Committee of University Principals and the newly instituted Committee of Technikon Principals respectively. In this manner the institutions concerned will join the existing committees that have been established to promote the joint interests of universities and technikons respectively. The proposed single ministerial advisory body will act in close co-operation with the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals, as has up to now been the case in the functioning of the UAC in close consultation with the CUP. An expert advisory body as envisaged in this Bill, will be able to approach its policy planning function in a scientific and objective manner which will help to ensure balanced policy recommendations. This will not only be in the interests of the institutions concerned but also in the national interest.

*Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides in clause 2 for the establishment of a Universities and Technikons Advisory Council. This body will perform advisory functions in respect of universities and technikons for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. As far as universities and technikons for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are concerned, the advice will be given to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Education and Training respectively.

As is evident from clause 3 of the Bill, the advisory council will be competent to advise the Ministers concerned on a wide range of matters relating to universities and technikons under their control. Since the universities and technikons for Blacks differ from those for the other population groups with regard to the way in which they are administered as well as the way in which they are financed, certain powers of the advisory council as provided for in clause 3(1) are omitted from the reference to the Minister of Education and Training in clause 1.

In addition, the constitution of the council in terms of clause 2 is such that the majority of the members will not represent the interest groups concerned, but will consist of impartial experts in various fields who will not only have an intimate knowledge of the needs of institutions of this kind, but will also have a wide grasp of matters affecting the national interest in general. Because these persons will be appointed to the council by the Minister in their personal capacity and by virtue of their expertise, it will be possible to ensure that the council will be able to perform its functions in the necessary scientific, impartial and objective manner.

Since the advisory council will replace the present Universities Advisory Council, provision is being made in the Bill for the repeal of the statutory provision in terms of which the UAC was established.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that there is a very important need for a body such as is envisaged in this Bill before us. Both in regard to the importance of the institutions themselves as well as the number of these institutions and their relative size South Africa is experiencing rapid development, and it is very, very important indeed that all the activities and functions of these bodies should be co-ordinated by a single body and that it should be a body that can liaise between these organizations and the Government. There can be no doubt about that. The technological advance and the diversity of directions of study and research as well as the need for advanced development in our society indicate that there should be a body that can co-ordinate efforts in order to avoid the possibility of duplication of effort, to ensure that funds are made available to the best possible effect and also to ensure that the Government is always aware of what is required by these organizations so as to enable them to carry out their functions in the best possible way and in the national interest as has been indicated by the hon. the Minister.

Once again we come across an unbelievably blatant anomaly that, in a society which is served unfortunately by racially segregated universities and technikons but which is nevertheless served by universities and technikons for Whites, Coloureds and Indians and also for Blacks—Blacks happen to form by far the largest percentage of the South African population and over the next 20 years will have to supply the largest percentage of skilled workers—where a body is created in order to advise the hon. the Minister, Black universities and Black technikons are pointedly excluded from participation.

If one looks at the composition of the proposed advisory council, one finds that it will consist of 12 members appointed by the Minister of whom two shall be nominated by the Committee of University Principals from its members and two shall be nominated by the Committee of Technikon Principals from amongst its members. In both those committees Black universities and technikons are excluded.

There is an indication that the Government may take steps which in the future would include Black universities and technikons, but I want to put it to the Government that if they do not want this to be seen as yet another unacceptable and offensive apartheid body, it is essential that Black universities and technikons be included on a fair basis, not only because they serve part of the South African population and form part of the educational structure of South Africa, but also because the national interest, to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech, demands that they be represented in their interests, the interests of tertiary education and in the interests of South Africa, its economy, its race relations, its security and so forth.

With all the emphasis at my command I want to say that to exclude Black universities and technikons from a body which is specifically intended to advise the universities and the technikons and the Ministers concerned as well as the Government about all matters relating to the advancement of university and technikon education and as far as co-ordination, financing, curricula and all related matters are concerned is not only short-sighted, but also stupid and it can only give rise to offence, resentment and polarization.

I now turn to clause 3 of the Bill which provides for the powers and functions of the advisory council. It is very interesting that the clause reads—

while in terms of clause l(ii)(b) it is provided that the advisory council can also advise the Minister of Education and Training with regard to matters which apply to Black universities and technikons. Surely that is cynical, unacceptable and will give offence to Black universities and technikons because they are not included in the advisory council. The advisory council does not consult them and there is no provision for a mechanism by means of which they can play a part, but nevertheless the body which is created in terms of the legislation is given the right to advise the Minister under which they fall with regard to their activities. I think it is impertinent and unbelievable that the Government can be so insensitive to propose that such an arrangement be made.

I should also like to refer to the type of body that is being created. A body at that level should not be stigmatized by having the appearance of being something created by the Minister for the Minister of people on whom the Minister can depend to advise him in the way in which he wishes to be advised, because that is what is happening here. Here we have a body concerning which the Minister has overriding powers in all respects. The Minister appoints the chairman, the Minister appoints the two people representing the university principals, the Minister appoints the two people representing the technikon principals and the Minister appoints the eight other experts to serve on this advisory council. In fact, the Minister appoints the whole lot.

Who do you think should appoint them?

He appoints the chairman and 12 members. The hon. member must listen carefully. I am coming to that. The entire council is therefore appointed by the Minister, and the executive of that council is directly responsible to the Minister. If we go further we see that it is provided that “the advisory council shall advise the Minister” and that the Minister has certain other powers. Clause 5(4) provides—

What I would like to suggest is that in the case of an advisory body at that level, which must carry out the functions as set out by the Minister in his introductory speech—the Minister calls it a cushion between the institutions on the one hand and the Government on the other—it is essential for the credibility of that body and its effectiveness that it should have an image of independence of the Government and should not be seen as an appendage of the bureaucracy. I believe that the way in which one achieves that is to allow the institutions concerned to elect the body themselves, a body of their own choice. One should create a body the members of which are elected by the institutions for which this body is intended.

It is not intended for them. It is intended for the Minister.

If is intended to be an advisory council to advise the Government on behalf of those institutions. On whose behalf does it advise the Government? Does it advise the Government on the Government’s behalf?

It will serve as a cushion.

Then we understand what sort of Government we have in South Africa. They are only interested in being advised on their own behalf. I believe that what one wants is a body which advises the Government on behalf of those institutions in the interests of tertiary education and in the interests of those bodies. Therefore I believe it should be an elected body which should elect its own chairman and appoint its own staff. If that is done, one will have a body which will have credibility, which will be seen to be truly representative of those organizations and whose advice will have credibility and will have value for the Government. As it stands at the moment, the impression is unfortunately created that it is a bureaucratic body largely created by the Minister for his own purposes. You see, Sir, the Minister said—

One cannot depoliticize a body if that body is created at the behest of the Minister. So I should like to suggest to the Minister that he should consider the desirability of having a body which is not seen to be a bureaucratic body or a body which will be beholden to the Minister for its existence and which is therefore subject to the Government’s wishes in relation to the advice it gives to the Minister.

We will oppose this legislation because of the fact that we find that is inadequate in terms of the sort of body that should be created and unfortunately once again is an apartheid-structured organization, a body which is structured in terms of the apartheid ideology of the Government which the Government also applies to tertiary education as the very basis for the system it is creating.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston indicated that his party was opposing the measure, but I must say, in all honesty, that I could not quite discover why they were opposing the measure. I regret to say this, but if I had been able to understand what he was actually trying to say, I could have tried to reply to it.

I any event, I am sorry to hear that the hon. member for Bryanston and his party are going to oppose the measure. The hon. member could simply have examined the functions of the existing council in order to ascertain what the functions of this council would be. That would have defused a great deal of the criticism which he has expressed. However, it is obvious that the hon. member did not even examine the report of the Universities Advisory Council which was tabled earlier this year.

For my part, I should like to express my support for the measure and to say that in my opinion, it is a very sensible development which is taking place, because it provides for co-ordinated planning in respect of tertiary education on a much broader basis than has been the case up to now. It provides for planning in respect of technikons in particular, but also with regard to universities in general, including the Black universities and the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville. There is nothing new about the principle which is involved here. The provisions in the measure could virtually be taken one by one from the existing provisions in the Universities Act in which provision is made for the establishment of the Universities Advisory Council. So there is nothing new about the principle which is applicable here. For this reason, it is in fact not necessary to advance lengthy arguments with regard to the Bill which is before the House. The only novelty is, firstly, the fact that for the first time, provision is now being made in a separate measure for the existence of an advisory council and, secondly, the fact that the powers and functions of the council are being extended to include technikons and the co-ordination and planning in respect of all universities and not only the eleven White universities. I believe that this extension is important and essential. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out that the Committee of University Principals, the Association of Technikons and the Universities Advisory Council themselves very strongly support this development and that indeed there is general agreement about the fact that the extension of powers to include the other institutions is important and necessary.

Before going any further, I want to convey the thanks and appreciation of this side of the House to the existing Universities Advisory Council for the functions it has performed under the chairmanship of Dr. Steyn. When one examines the functions as set out in the latest report of 1982, one is impressed by the good work which the existing council has been doing up to now. I believe that they deserve appreciation for the way in which they have done their work. Anyone who is in any way involved with a university has been made very much aware of the fact that this body has already acquired a certain status and that both universities and interested policy-making bodies and persons are thoroughly aware of its existence and take congnizance of the recommendations and activities of the Advisory Council.

When one examines the functions and powers of the proposed Universities and Technikons Advisory Council as set out in this measure and as embodied in the existing Act as well, we find that it is essential that there should be such a council, because it is a body which has to advise the Minister with regard to the administration of institutions, the establishment, the development and extension of institutions, the academic fields in which the various institutions are active, the degrees, diplomas and certificates which are conferred, the granting of subsidies and the policy questions which arise from the Act applicable to these institutions. A wide field is therefore covered by this advisory body. However, this is an essential function for which a clear need exists. It will ensure the necessary co-ordination so that there may be the necessary consultation in each of these spheres, as specified under the powers of the advisory council. As far as the constitution of the council is concerned, the hon. member for Bryanston made a few remarks. He said that the constitution of the council was such as to exclude representatives of Black universities. Surely it is clear that provision is being made in clause 2(2)(a)(iii) for the appointment of eight additional members to this council. I should think that it would be possible to include one or more persons among these eight members who could specifically represent the interests of the Black universities. After all, these eight persons are not being associated with a particular institution or body.

Then why does the Minister not say so?

The hon. member has asked the question and the hon. Minister will probably react to it. All I am saying is that it is clear from subparagraph (iii) that some of these eight persons could also represent the interests of the Black universities. The relevant subparagraph reads as follows—

It is obvious that the problem mentioned by the hon. member could be solved in terms of this provision if it did prove to be a material problem.

However, I think it is important to take cognizance of what the actual function of this council is. It is an advisory function. The function of the council is to advise the Minister. Therefore it is clear that it has to be a body which is appointed by the Minister. The hon. member for Bryanston is critical of the fact that all the members are to be appointed by the Minister. The obvious question is: Does he want to appoint them? Or should they be elected? If they should be elected, by whom should they be elected? After all, there is no electorate which can be called upon to designate these persons.

This is a body which is being appointed primarily in order to advise the Minister on the specified matters. Therefore it is a body which has to assist the Minister in his decision-making functions, so that he may have a wider range of ideas and proposals with regard to university and technikon affairs in general available to him. Therefore I believe that the hon. member for Bryanston has absolutely no justification for saying that this body is being appointed purely with a view to the Minister’s needs and that this should not be so. At the same time, however, he gives absolutely no indication of any other basis on which the body should be constituted, if he has any alternative in mind.

I believe that this is a measure which is clearly aimed at establishing a non-political, objective advisory body, composed of experts—the hon. the Minister made this very clear—who are able to assist and advise the Minister with regard to tertiary education in general. I think the existing University Advisory Council has furnished very clear proof of the need which exists for such a body, of the functions it has performed and of its status. This proves that a need exists, and that we should in fact extend this principle, as envisaged in this measure, to include the technikons and Black universities as well.