Mr. Chairman, in introducing the legislation on universities and technikons, the hon. the Minister of National Education succeeded in achieving two objectives. The first was to detract from the credibility of the De Lange Committee among the other race groups in South Africa, and the second was effectively to jeopardize the new constitutional dispensation envisaged by the Government even before the debate on it had been completed in this House.

When I stated, on a previous occasion, that the recommendations contained in the Bill and their effect impinge directly on the recommendations in, and the spirit of, the De Lange Report, the hon. the Minister said that this was not the case. He said that he had himself heard an interpretation given by the chairman of the committee, Prof. De Lange, and that interpretation indicated that the ministry referred to in the report would merely be an umbrella ministry and would not be involved in the provision of education in all its facets or subdivisions for South Africa as a whole. On this basis I again read through the first volume of the report carefully to determine why the interpretation of all the other people in South Africa—the Opposition, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks—of the recommendations of the report differs so widely and radically from the hon. the Minister’s interpretation. Nowhere in the report could I find that the committee was making recommendations on, or referring to the creation of, a segregated system of education based on either ethnicity or race. The report did not refer to Coloureds, Indians and Blacks whose systems of education have to be compartmentalized or segregated.

If one reads the report, one clearly gains the impression that it was, in fact, the intention to move as far away as possible from the concepts of race and ethnicity. The object was, in fact, to look after interests such as cultural interests, religious interests and language interests, but also to move away from the narrow, unacceptable, objectionable concepts of race and ethnicity in education.

I want to refer to a few aspects in connection with the report. On page 195 of the English version of the report reference is made to three levels at which education will take place in South Africa. It goes on to say that the first level has to make provision for a single Ministry, “a single ministry responsible for the broad educational policy of the RSA …”

I shall be referring to this again at a later stage. However, the most important point is that as far as the central level, or the so-called first tier of government, is concerned, the overall spirit of the report indicates that there should be a single ministry that will deal with all aspects of education relating to planning, co-ordination, financing, the setting of standards, etc. In other words, all aspects at all levels should fall under a single Minister and a single department. This does not mean that separate water-tight compartments have to be created for the education of the various population groups, as the hon. the Minister now wants to do. The report refers to the second level of education, “the second level …”—and now come the important words—“within a defined area”. The report does not refer to a second-tier of government to be created for the various race groups. It does not say that the division is going to be based on race; it refers to areas, “defined areas”. In other words, the basis is geographic. My interpretation, and the interpretation of the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians as well, is that the system will be planned in such a way that at the second level the educational interests of specific groups of the population, naturally with due regard to the cultural, religious and language interests of the various groups in that area, will be looked after. No one is advocating that a uniform, narrow system be forced on everyone without due regard to the cultural, religious or language interests of the population of the relevant areas.

As far as the third tier of Government, the local level, is concerned, the important words in the De Lange Committee Report are “by grouping schools into school districts”. Yet again, no reference is made to a third level encorporating Black schools, Indian schools, Coloured schools and so on. Reference is made to districts and to the fact that schools will be grouped according to districts. Further on in the report reference is also made to “a single Ministry (one Minister and department)”. Reference is also made to “the structure of the system with its sub-structures”, and all the other subdivisions I have already referred to.

There is also the recommendation that as far as tertiary education is concerned, the councils of the separate universities and technikons should have the right to decide for themselves who may be allowed to study at their institutions.

Local option?

I want to reiterate that in introducing this Bill in the first place, the Minister has detracted from the work of the De Lange Committee. To a very larger extent he has destroyed its credibility in the eyes of the other groups in South Africa. He has counteracted certain important recommendations. I feel that he did a very unfortunate disservice to the De Lange Committee and to all the people who collaborated, with so much enthusiasm and dedication, in compiling this wonderful report for South Africa, a report which generated such high hopes and expectations among the various groups in our society. I wonder if it was at any stage the Government’s intention to lead the other groups in South Africa up the garden path—I do not want to use the word “deceit”—by getting them to believe the Government was going to move in the direction of equal education opportunities and a system of equal education, and that the unacceptable and objectionable aspects of apartheid would be removed from our system of education once and for all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston directed his argument at the hon. the Minister and criticized the fact that, as he put it, the populations in certain areas are not free to choose the type of schools they want for their specific areas.

I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Greytown during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. The hon. member for Durban North put a question to him about the autonomy of technikons, and I should like to link this up to the argument of the hon. member for Bryanston. The hon. member for Durban North asked—

To this the hon. member for Greytown replied as follows—

This was the hon. member for Greytown’s reply. Now the hon. member for Bryanston is advocating that as far as schools are concerned, communities should have freedom of choice; in other words, the authorities must decide for themselves on the type of school, whom they will admit to that school, etc. That is correct.

Who said that?

The hon. member has just said so in his speech. He advocated that communities should be able to choose their own schools, etc., for themselves.

I was quoting from the report.

However, in his speech the hon. member for Greytown said there should be autonomy with regard to the types of schools, but that the autonomy should be restricted when it comes to whom they may decide to admit.

I was quoting from the report. Do not be such a fool.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston has already made his speech.

The hon. member went on to criticize the Minister and the Government for supposedly, by way of this Bill, having detracted from the credibility of the De Lange report by not having adopted one iota of the recommendations contained in it. However, in the interim memorandum on the report, the Government and the hon. the Minister clearly laid down certain guidelines on which education in this country is to be based. The hon. member for Bryanston did not want to read about this, so for his sake I shall quote from the interim memorandum. Paragraph 3.4 reads—

The next paragraph reads as follows—

This is what the hon. member referred to—

The report’s credibility is not being diminished. I see the hon. member is not paying attention. He is now asking the advice of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. As I said, the credibility of the report is not being diminished. From the report the Government has extracted what it has undertaken to apply in the field of education. As a matter of fact, this Bill makes provision for the adjustment enabling students to be accommodated. However, the hon. member did not get to clause 1 at all. Clause 1 contains those facets granting greater autonomy to technikons and incorporating their more enriching aspects. It gives us pleasure to support it.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this clause is concerned, I want to say that the CP has no problems with paragraphs (a), (c), (f) and (g), but it does with paragraphs (b), (d) and (e). In the first place, we are absolutely opposed to technikon education for Whites, Coloureds and Indians falling under one department and one Minister. We reject that idea totally. It is totally unacceptable to us to have one Minister and one department in this connection. What is equally unacceptable to us is the anticipatory incorporation in this clause of an aspect to be implemented by clauses 17 and 18, namely the introduction of the Committee of Technikon Principals which will consist of principals of the White, Coloured and Indian technikons and the determination of the functions entrusted to that committee as a racially mixed committee. As a result of this built-in possibility of a racially mixed committee, we on this side of the House cannot accept this provision. For these reasons we shall be voting against clause 1 as such, in spite of the few sub-clauses we have no problems with.

I do not want to repeat the standpoints we adopted during the Second Reading debate. I just want to say that no matter what argument is advanced in this connection, racially mixed councils are unacceptable to our party, and as a result so are racially mixed committees. Hon. members can argue about this and make as many accusations as they like, but nothing will change our standpoint. In any case, we are of the opinion that the fact that these clauses make provision for technikons for Whites falling under one State department and one Minister, and the technikons for Coloureds and Indians under another department and another Minister, already points to a separation which we feel should be maintained. As far as policy is concerned, the eventual creation of an umbrella body in the advisory council which is to be established adversely affects self-determination in the sphere of individually-based education. On this basis we cannot support this specific clause.

Mr. Chairman, we have also made our views clear as far as this Bill is concerned on apprevious occasion, but I think it would be worthwhile exploring the aspect being probed at the moment regarding the attitude particularly of the hon. member for Koedoespoort who said that they are totally against the concept of a single Department of Education.

I think only the PFP actually advocate a totally integrated and single Department of Education per se. I think that policy statement by the PFP requires quite considerable exploration. We would certainly not advocate that as the only solution to increasing the opportunities for education to members of other race groups. We see tertiary education as being separate from secondary, primary and pre-primary education, because by the time an individual reaches the age of 16 or 17 years he is sufficiently aculturalized to be able to survive the stormy seas of life outside of the home. In fact, a very necessary part of establishing one’s own self-confidence and in determining your viability in the outside world, is during your training stage at tertiary educational level where you start pitting your own skills against the demands of the environment. That is why our policy very realistically says that we believe that tertiary education should be equally available to members of all race groups, but of course subject to the proviso of the local option of that institution to maintain its character, without discriminating on a racialistic basis. We realize of course that in South Africa the cultural identity and racial classification have very deep historical roots. I do not think the PFP should spend so much of their time fighting about racism, but should look for the opportunities and the solutions to be able to provide members of all population groups with equal opportunities and facilities for furthering their tertiary education. We believe that the exchange and interaction between members of different race groups at tertiary level is in fact a necessary prerequisite for an adequate adaptation of the individual to the big wide world outside the classroom environment. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department are in fact not doing South African Whites or members of any other population group a favour by insisting, as this Bill provides for in clause 16, that there should be limited contact between members of different population groups. We recognize the right to dissociate voluntarily, but that does not mean that the Government can then legislate for dissociation on a statutory basis. If one looks at the technikons and universities in South Africa today one will see that they are being attended by an increasing percentage of the population because of the greater affluence of the ordinary man in the street and in particular Black families, Indian families and Coloured families who now find themselves in a position where due to economic circumstances a greater number of their children can now attend and benefit from tertiary education. And that is as it should be, not only for the economic advantage of South Africa, but also for interpersonal and group relations in South Africa. That is why this is most important indeed. We would see in any new dispensation in South Africa a necessity for a single co-ordinating department for tertiary education, while high school or secondary education and primary and pre-primary education should in fact be devolved down to the lowest possible level of government, and that, of course, at the moment is the provincial government, but possibly in the new dispensation that will be a group affair to be administered and policy decisions made by the particular group chamber.

Therefore as far as this Bill is concerned, we believe that certain improvements are going to be brought about when this legislation is passed, but because of our major objection to clause 16—the quota system—we would obviously not be able to support the Bill in its entirety, although we may vote for clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Durban North for his support for clause 1. He digressed a little and discussed other matters which are not relevant now, but I thank him for his support for the concept of co-operation in the education of the various population groups under one Minister, or a form of consultation in regard to this matter.

I now come to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. This hon. member shoots down the concept of one department under one Minister and sees the principle of mixed Government embodied in the Committee of Technikon Principals. I can understand the view of the hon. members because they have painted themselves into a corner by envisaging a dispensation of the water-tight compartmentalizing of peoples in South Africa, with separate departments within a compartmentalized system. I can understand why they no longer want to have any truck whatsoever with concepts they accepted a long time ago, when they were still on this side of the House. I would have preferred the hon. member to explain to us how South Africa could handle a system of education consisting of three or four, and perhaps eventually thirteen, different departments of education in the geographical area of southern Africa, the different departments having no point of contact, but each going its own way without there being standardization of education anywhere in southern Africa. When those hon. members rise to speak they should rather explain this concept of their party instead of accusing the governing party being party to the concept of mixed government and undermining the process of self-determination. As a matter of fact, this Bill endorses the concept…

Order! The hon. member must not debate the principle again.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be returning to clause 1 in a moment. All that clause 1 provides is that the Minister of National Education should have the opportunity of holding discussions in the Committee of Technikon Principals, at the macro-level, the overall policy level, of the various educational structures in South Africa in order to ensure uniformity of education in South Africa. However, it is a matter of standards in various spheres in South Africa. In any case it is a sound principle, Mr. Chairman. It does not impinge on anyone’s right to self-determination either. In any case, I do not want to discuss that again.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that it is a sound principle and then go on to say that he is not discussing the principle of the Bill!

Mr. Chairman, all I still want to say is that we take pleasure in supporting clause 1. It is going to be of great value to South Africa in the future.

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

1. 1. On page 2, in line 18, to omit all the words after “Education” up to and including “Affairs” in line 23.
2. 2. On page 2, in lines 24 to 28, and on page 4, in lines 1 to 3, to omit paragraph (e).

I just want to restate the PFP’s standpoint in this connection, Mr. Chairman. Clause 1 provides for separate Ministers who will have control over tertiary technikon education. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that in the first place this measure is going to result in overlapping. In the second place it is going to lead to confrontation, and in the third place it is going to lead to resistance which is going to undermine the entire process of tertiary technikon education. [Interjections.] It is also going to hamper the possibility of achieving much success in this regard, which will be a direct result of the application of this provision.

I predict that it will not be long before this hon. Minister will have to introduce legislation in the various chambers of Parliament—as will apparently then be the case—to amend this provision in order to make provision for a single Minister and a single department to exercise overall control over education at the tertiary level in South Africa.

By the way, the history of the NP during the past 20 years has proved that it has to do away with things that were once a matter of life and death to it. The NP is in the process of doing so in regard to things which, in the past, it undertook to adhere to, whatever happened. Here we again have a case of the Government having to do away with things …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the principle of the Bill again.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to issue this warning to the hon. the Minister: It will not be long before he will have to get rid of this measure as well.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Bryanston’s amendments amount to is that when the proposed Committee of Technikon Principals advises a Minister, it may only advise the Minister of National Education, and not the Minister of National Education with regard to the technikons he represents and the Minister of Internal Affairs with regard to the technikons that are his responsibility. It would have the same effect as far as the Directors-General are concerned. The hon. member’s amendments are therefore unacceptable to me; in the first place because they are in conflict with the declared point of departure of the department that there should be separate education departments and Ministers for the technikons of the various population groups. This is a matter of principle which has already been discussed and which we need not debate further. In the second place, the acceptance of these amendments of the hon. member would lead to legislative and administrative chaos. It would lead to the absurd situation of the Committee of Technikon Principals only being able to advise the Minister of National Education. The Committee of Technikon Principles would therefore have to give advice in respect of the M. L. Sultan Technikon and the Peninsula Technikon to a Minister who has absolutely no legal responsibility for technikons because in terms of the legislation administered by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the responsibility for those technikons rests with him.

The acceptance of the hon. member’s amendments would therefore amount to approval of totally inadmissible legislation, because it would lead to full-scale conflict, a situation that would be totally untenable.

I am not sure whether I understood the hon. member for Koedoespoort correctly when he said that his party rejected clause 1 because they were in favour of technikons falling under one department or Ministry. That is specifically not what clause 1 is doing, but it is, in fact, what the amendments proposes to do.

That is correct.

Thank you very much. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also rejected the entire concept of a Committee of Technikon Principals in which the technikons falling under the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs are also represented. As the hon. member for Brentwood and the hon. member for Standerton have indicated, I just want to emphasize that this Committee of Technikon Principals is an advisory body whose advice goes to the various autonomous boards—in so far as a technikon board can be said to be autonomous, because it is not autonomous to the same extent as a university council is autonomous—which will each decide on this advice as an autonomous institution. In regard to matters about which the Minister has to decide, this advice goes to the various Ministers. The Committee of Technikon Principals is therefore not a governing body or a Government body. It is an advisory body whose advice may be taken at the discretion of the autonomous technikon board on the one hand and the various Ministers on the other. The fact that the CP rejects the entire concept of a racially mixed committee or board amounts to exactly what I said in the debate on a previous piece of legislation, namely that that party cannot differentiate between racial mixing or integration as they like to call it, on the one hand, and co-ordination on the other. After all, it goes without saying that even if one totally rejects the concept of co-responsibility in regard to general matters, something the CP accepted in the past, it is nevertheless still necessary to have consultation and co-ordination. It seems as if the only form of consultation or co-ordination that can exist between responsible persons of various population groups, according to the CP, is that by letter or by telephone. This would make the entire idea of consultation absurd.

I should also like to refer briefly to the hon. member for Bryanston’s treatment of the De Lange report. I want to point out again that although there is no doubt that in a certain sense the De Lange report’s impression of this is an ambiguous one and that it is open to various interpretations, the report on what they refer to as the first or the central level refers to a single central Ministry in regard to which there can be no doubt about the question of restricted responsibility. On page 196 of the report it is stated—

Then those matters are listed. Essentially those are the matters the Government also accepts as its responsibility in connection with general affairs involving education. The De Lange report’s idea in connection with a central Ministry is one of a restricted responsibility as far as macro-policy is concerned, not on all possible macro-policy matters, but on prescribed specific matters, as is also indicated by the Government in the Constitution Bill.

As far as the De Lange report’s recommendations in connection with the second and third tiers of government are concerned, as the hon. member for Standerton mentioned, on the release of the report the Government very clearly adopted a standpoint in its White Paper in connection with the concept of “free association” at local levels stated in the De Lange report, and did not accept that standpoint in the De Lange report. We left no doubt about that right from the outset.

As far as the second level is concerned, we reasoned as to exactly what was left open and what was not left open.

The question that was asked was whether the operational departments, as evidenced in the De Lange report, at the second level are departments that will be divided purely geographically or also on a population group basis. In the discussions on the report—here I am referring to public discussions and also to the Press conference at the time the report was published—it was pointed out that two concepts appear in the relevant description, namely that it will be a second-level department whose area of responsibility will be determined on the basis of factors such as economic factors and demographic factors. The concept of demographic factors would, according to the interpretation of specific members in the head committee, also afford the opportunity for departments differentiated on a population group basis.

Actually, this is a matter of principle. I trust that I have now replied to this and that I have made it clear why the Government cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I just briefly want to refer to what the hon. the Minister said in his reference to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. In the discussion of the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council Bill we shall be dealing with that in greater detail, but on this occasion I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we as a party have no objection whatsoever to taking part in discussions, negotiations, conversations or consultations about all these things involving people of colour, because a built-in element of our party’s standpoint is that this can and should happen. Our way of doing it, however, is without relinquishing self-determination and in opposition to the Governing party’s view of one White, Brown and Indian nation in South Africa. We shall be elaborating on this further at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Bryanston for some clarification because we have to decide whether we shall support his amendment. I should like the hon. member to make it very clear to us whether this is a correct interpretation of their policy: They see this amendment to bring about a single Department of Education implying that secondary and primary education for all groups should come under a single Ministry of Education. This is very important. If the PFP is here talking about tertiary education having a single co-ordinating body, then it will obviously make a considerable difference to us. I should therefore like an explanation—it will obviously have to be very brief—from the hon. member of exactly what their educational policy is.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Durban North. The PFP’s policy on education, as has been stated on a number of occasions, is absolutely straightforward and clear. We believe that education in South Africa should be totally free of discrimination based on race, colour, creed or sex. There should be no discrimination whatsoever in the provision of education. We believe that there should be equality in terms of the standards of education provided to all our people. I do not want to expand on that, but just to reply to the hon. member’s question, I may say that we believe there should be a single Department of Education for the whole of South Africa for all its people at all levels, except of course that in so far as we believe in a geographic federation for South Africa, we believe in a devolution of power. Therefore, obviously as far as the provision and administration of schools is concerned, it is something which can be delegated, but without detracting from the principle of no discrimination in and equality of education. I should like to make one more point if you, Sir, would allow me. It does not mean that in the provision of education one should not take into consideration people’s culture, language, religion and attitudes …

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the clause. I cannot allow him to expand further on his party’s policy.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to one or two of the hon. the Minister’s remarks. The hon. the Minister is indeed correct in saying that the Government set out its standpoint very clearly in its reaction to the De Lange report. In reply to the question from the hon. member for Durban North, the hon. member for Bryanston put the PFP’s standpoint. Let me just say that whilst listening to the hon. member for Durban North, I gained the impression—I shall be coming back to that at a later stage—that he was advocating a “separate but equal” system. That is, if I have understood him correctly, but more about that later. What I did not quite understand about the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this amendment was, firstly, that it was very clear—and that much I do concede—that in this Committee Stage we cannot extend our discussions beyond the ambit of clause 1 of the Bill allows. The amendment that the hon. member for Bryanston moved on clause 1 could indeed lead to certain practical problems in the light of the fact that there is another Minister who has control over Indian and Coloured technikons. Within the framework of this Bill, however, there is no other means at his disposal, and that is why he must use this amendment to indicate our rejection of the principle underlying the Bill. Secondly, let me tell the hon. the Minister that I could not understand what the practical problems were that he foresaw. In a Bill which we shall be dealing with later—let me just point out—there is to be a body advising certain institutions that do not have any representation on that body. So the hon. the Minister’s problem—if the amendment were accepted—about his having to be given advice about technikons that do not fall under his control, also applies to the Bill we shall be discussing later, if I have understood him correctly. At this stage we do not have an amendment in regard to clause 1(d), because the composition of the Committee of Technikon Principals only comes up for discussion later. Even at this stage, however, in the discussion of clause 1, I want to point out that we have come up against the problem that principals of Black technikons are being excluded. Need I say—the hon. the Minister knows it—that our standpoint is that there is no justification for Black technikons not being represented on this committee as well. In the light of the fact that there is going to be a division on this issue, let me say in advance—even at this stage, whilst clause 1 is being discussed—that we do not accept the exclusion of the principals of Black technikons from that committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Rissik in regard to the acknowledgment that there are areas of contact within the framework in which tech-nikon education is discussed. The hon. member said that they acknowledged the principle that there should be areas of contact. Let me now set out my problem. When we look at the Committee of Technikon Principals, composed of the various technikon principals, the question that arises is how they will get together to advise the hon. the Minister. If they reject any joint participation in regard to the umbrella advisory body, how is that Committee of Technikon Principals going to be constituted and how is it going to function? The standpoint of this side of the House is surely very clear on this issue. There is the concept of separate education and we are implementing it. The acknowledgment that there are areas of contact—as the hon. member for Rissik remarked upon—must surely not go unnoticed. We do not only notice, it however; we acknowledge and accept it so that there can be a comprehensive way in which that contact, idea or advice can be conveyed from the respective technikons to the Ministers.

Amendments put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the clause be negatived.

During the Second Reading debate we very clearly and emphatically put our standpoint in regard to the so-called quota system for the admission of students of colour to White technikons and vice versa. One of the arguments the hon. the Minister raised was that a problem arose in regard to the setbacks encountered when Black, Coloured and the Indian students studied at technikons, that being one of the reasons why it was necessary to have separate technikons for the various groups. That accords with the argument the hon. the Prime Minister used recently in regard to the other race groups “falling behind”. I wonder if “falling behind” is the correct description, or whether it would not be more accurate to speak of the other race groups having been “left behind”. Did they fall behind or were they left behind by us? I feel it is an “excuse” the hon. the Minister is employing in an effort to justify this provision, but in my view it is a provision that is not justified in any way. I want to tell the hon. the Minister once again that in every respect the consequences for South Africa are going to be unfortunate. I again want to ask the hon. the Minister what the Government’s future plans are when it comes to determining the quotas. If, in regard to technikons, the hon. the Minister could give us some indication of the basis on which he is going to determine the future quotas, we should very much like to know what that basis is. We should also like to know whether the hon. the Minister intends to conduct negotiations with the technikons when those quotas are determined. We should like to know whether the quotas are going to be greater or smaller than the present numbers of Black, Coloured and Indian students studying at White technikons, and does he foresee the quota percentages increasing or decreasing in the future. Is it the Government’s policy that those percentages should increase, or is it the Government’s policy that they should decrease? Supposing the Coloured and Indian technikons inform the Government that they are not prepared to accept the quota provision and intend to admit students regardless of race or colour—that is a possibility when the new dispensation is introduced, because in terms of clear policy statements made by Coloured and Indian leaders, this can happen—what would the Government’s approach then be? Would the Government then carry out the threat implicit in the provisions of the legislation, i.e. that the subsidies can be reduced or withdrawn completely? Would that happen if those technikons were not prepared to abide by the provisions of this legislation and force apartheid on their communities and on other population groups on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Virginia on the Order Paper, as follows—

Let me tell the hon. member for Bryanston that the danger to which he referred, that of the technikons not accepting this provision, is a figment of his imagination. Perhaps the hon. member is not quite au fait with these things, and indeed that is why the PFP adopts this standpoint in regard to the principle, without in any way taking into account how the technikons in South Africa really feel about this provision. From 9 to 11 March of this year there was a meeting of the Association of Technikons, and I want to point out to the hon. member for Bryanston that at this meeting the following technikons were represented: The Cape Technikon, the Natal Technikon, the Peninsula Technikon, the Pretoria Technikon, the Port Elizabeth Technikon, the RSA Technikon, the M. L. Sultan Technikon for Indians in Durban, the Vaal Triangle Technikon and the Witwatersrand Technikon. As associate members, with the right to sit in on the meeting, there was also the Mangosuthu Technikon, the Mabopane East Technikon and the Orange Free State Technikon. On this occasion this clause in the legislation was referred to in the following terms—

This brings one to ask: Specifically on whose behalf do the hon. member for Bryanston and his party speak? The only reaction from technikons in this country, thus far, has been one of collaboration, co-operation and unanimous agreement. For the hon. member for Bryanston now to want to conjure up spectres and present this matter as a danger to the Government and the hon. the Minister is an attempt to stir up the feelings of the technikons in South Africa against legislation with which they have been involved from the very beginning and with which they agree.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to this clause the principle of the allocation of quotas has already been accepted, but around this principle of the allocation of quotas there are a few questions I should like to ask under this clause. The first question arises from the fact that there is a slight difference between technikons and universities. In the earlier permit system there were two factors of decisive importance in regard to technikons. The first had to do with whether the technikons wanted to admit a student and the other had to do with whether the course the student wanted to take was not available at his own technikon. I therefore want to ask: Are these two conditions still going to be regarded as normative in the allocation of quotas? Is it going to form part of the basis on which the allocation of quotas is to be made. Another aspect I want to bring to the fore relates to the question of the vagueness of the quota. In clause 16 provision is made for a quota, but there is no indication whether it would be a fixed percentage or a certain figure, or whether that percentage or figure would be determined on the basis of the number of applications each technikon receives, or is any specific technikon simply going to be given a certain percentage or figure as a quota whether it wants people of colour there or not?

The third question that is important, as far as I am concerned, relates to the whole matter of the negotiability of the quota. What I therefore want to know from the hon. the Minister is the following: If the specific quota to be allocated, whatever it may be, is too small and a technikon wants a larger quota—let me just say that during the discussion of the previous Bill the hon. the Minister indicated that there would be negotiations with universities—would there also be that negotiability as far as technikons are concerned? If the answer is in the affirmative, what norm is going to be laid down in regard to the extent to which the quota can be exceeded or the extent of the larger quota to be allocated? What norms will therefore apply in regard to the initial quota being exceeded?

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to indicate my support for the hon. member for Bryanston’s amendment. He has indicated that this clause is totally unacceptable to the PFP owing to the effect it is going to have. Of course, the principle of the legislation has already been accepted at Second Reading, and therefore I cannot again argue that point now. I am just sorry that the hon. the Minister did not reply to my question about why, apart from his ideological considerations, he sees it as essential to have this measure come into force at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I must, however, request your permission to react to one small matter that is not directly related to this clause or to the Bill itself. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he made a mistake when he said yesterday that ministerial approval had to be obtained for the admission of Blacks to Black universities. That is not the case. Let me refer the hon. the Minister to the 1979 legislation that was passed in this connection. Black universities are free to allow any Black student to enrol. No ministerial approval is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member. Yesterday I was under the impression that he was referring to White students at Black universities.

No, I was not talking about White students, but in fact about Blacks.

I also want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to allow me to react to just one further aspect. We have set out our objections to the clause under discussion, and I am not going to elaborate on that any further. The hon. member for Umlazi, however, asked on whose behalf we were speaking. This is a question that is often asked. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to react to this.

Order! I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to react briefly to that. The hon. member has asked me so nicely that I could not, in any event, refuse him.

Mr. Chairman, many thanks. I shall be very brief. Here it is a matter of principle. Like the Government, we have no need to ask whether we have the authority to do what we are doing. Quite often the Government passes legislation regarding Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. The Government passes such legislation on the basis of its standpoints and principles, and without consulting the Coloureds, Asians or Black people about the desirability or otherwise of the relevant legislation.

But the Government did consult them.

I am not talking about the specific piece of legislation. I am actually talking about the principle involved here. The Government acts in accordance with the principles basic to its premises. The PFP, too, has specific principles underlying its premises. One of those premises is that we oppose any form of discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. I therefore want to put it very clearly to the hon. member for Umlazi that I believe that we do indeed—as we have seen time and time again—interpret the feelings of those other people. We do it, however, on the grounds of specific principles underlying our premises.

Mr. Chairman, it is so gratifying to see how hon. members of the PFP fall into the same trap over and over again. The fine example that the hon. member for Umlazi used again illustrates how this happens. The PFP insists that the Government’s policy should not be forced down other people’s throats; that the Government should consult those other people. When the Government does consult those other people, however, and those other people at times give the Government advice which the PFP does not like, hon. members of the PFP persist in saying that it was wrong advice and that the Government should not have accepted it. [Interjections.] It is the same kind of mentality which I tried to draw attention to yesterday evening and which became apparent from the standpoint of the PFP in connection with a national convention for the drawing up of a constitution. The national convention must be free to represent all political parties and all political leaders in an effort to draw up the constitution, but the truth is that if they do not keep to the principles of the PFP, Parliament, which is controlled by the PFP, would not approve that constitution. Here we have the same sort of position.

Mr. Chairman, may I please put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I first want to complete my argument. Here we now have a beautiful illustration, by the hon. member, of consultation which, according to the information he has presented here, has led to a positive recommendation which is not, however, accepted by the PFP. They blame the Government, however, for the fact that when it conducts consultations and receives advice that is in conflict with its policy, it does not accept that advice, yet the PFP takes upon itself the right to judge the advice it receives against the background of its own policy. I shall now give the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South the opportunity to put his question.

Mr. Chairman, following upon what the hon. the Minister said last night, and what he has just said, can the hon. the Minister mention any of our principles which do, in fact, discriminate against any particular individual or group in favour of any other individual or group?

My argument does not concern the merits of the principles laid down by the PFP. My argument involves the fundamental premise that they do lay down inexorable principles. The hon. member for Bryanston clearly and unequivocally laid down the principles in accordance with which such a constitution should be drawn up. That is my argument to expose the fact that this holier-than-thou sham, this pious impression, that the PFP freely allows everyone to decide for himself and then abides by that decision, is something that only the Government is expected to adhere to, but which does not form the basis of their own actions.

Several hon. members asked what the norms would be according to which, in terms of the powers granted by this clause, the Minister will determine certain conditions, including the eventual quotas. I do not want to repeat the argument about the willingness to hold consultations and the fact that all possibly relevant factors would be taken into account, etc., which I mentioned in connection with the previous Bill, if I may refer to that. Suffice it to say that the answer is essentially the same as in those instances. The hon. member for Koedoespoort, however, raised an additional point, and in that connection I want to make it clear that the premise is that the institution concerned must itself be prepared to accept such a student. It is therefore not the “affirmative action” in terms of which the American authorities force American educational institutions to accept people of all population groups in accordance with a specific quota system. It is an enabling provision that will be drawn up after consultation with the technikon concerned, a provision which the technikon will be able to use as it sees fit.

The hon. member for Bryanston also asked what would happen if the technikons for Coloureds and Indians were not prepared to accept this system. That just goes to show that the hon. member has not studied this Bill. This Bill concerns the Advanced Technical Education Act, and that Act is not applicable to the M. L. Sultan Technikon or the Peninsula Technikon. The admission procedures to those institutions, for persons of other population groups, are regulated by other legislation. I therefore firstly cannot give a reply to that and, secondly, I can only say that it is a further illustration of the fact that that hon. member has not done his homework properly.

In conclusion I just want to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The wording of this amendment is identical to that in connection with a similar provision in the previous Bill.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, this clause gives effect to the principle accepted at Second Reading, i.e. that involving a committee of technikon principals which will consist of the principal of each technikon. For the following reasons we on this side of the House do not support the clause. Firstly we are dealing with various population groups, each of which has its own education system. Secondly we are dealing with various education departments handling these education systems for the various population groups. Thirdly we are dealing with various Ministers at the helm of the departments dealing with the education of the various population groups. It is therefore our conviction that to have justice done in regard to each population group’s education, it is essential for each population group’s technikons to have its own committee of heads of education that must be able to decide about its own education and must even be able to decide about the advice that must be given to the Minister or the department which would be giving attention to the individual recommendations. That does not mean, however, that mutual discussions cannot be held or that there cannot be consultation, but then consultations with one another within individual council chambers and not within one council chamber. This brings us to the vital necessity for an individual institution for each population group’s individual educational matters. We on this of the House believe that this is the policy that we ought to maintain and implement, and for that reason we are opposed to this specific clause.

Mr. Chairman, we now come back to the same argument that the hon. member for Rissik raised earlier in regard to another clause, i.e. on the one hand the acknowledgement that there are various population groups, but on the other hand the immediate acknowledgement that there must be consultation. I think the time has now come for hon. members of the CP to tell the Committee what, according to them, the possibilities of consultation are. They must tell us how consultation can take place if there is no umbrella body. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Koedoespoort has made it very clear that the various population groups’ heads of education should get together, but that the various population groups’ technikon principals should meet separately.

I never said that.

He then incorporates the concept of consultation. It is, after all, absurd to want to argue that there must be consultation when nobody exists for such consultation. Hon. members of the CP must now tell us very clearly how that consultation will take place.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one remark I want to make in connection with the question of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who has actually already been shown up by the hon. member for Gezina. We must remember that here we are dealing with autonomous—although the word is used here with certain slight nuances—tertiary institutions. Their individual character is not primarily determined by controlling departments, but to a much greater degree than in the case of schools, and so on, by the relevant institutions themselves. The unique individuality of these institutions is dealt with by the institutions themselves. According to all these institutions it has been their practical experience that by way of the Committee of Technikon Principles they can hold mutual consultations and can handle the interests of subgroups as well as everyone’s joint interests. Those interests lie on the more technical management level and on the general financing level. There is consequently nothing in the functioning of this committee that is in conflict with the various institutions maintaining their individual characters.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to raise any further arguments about this clause, except to say that as a result of the fact that we as a party could not accept clause 17, it goes without saying that the functioning or powers of the committee are not acceptable to us either. We therefore cannot accept this clause either.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a universities and technikons advisory council as a statutory body as such appears to be useful. In the sphere of tertiary education and highly skilled technical training we are dealing with a number of autonomous universities and technikons which, on the one hand, are an interest group with the same educational objectives, although with variations, all dealing with the same problems of development and expansion, the introduction of new courses or faculties, finances and policy, but which on the other hand also function in competition with one another. However, I wish to draw a distinction between the White universities and technikons with their interests, Coloured universities and technikons with their interests and those of the Indians with theirs.

An advisory council which is able to advise the Minister in the interests of these matters and in particular in connection with general policy pertaining to universities and technikons consequently appears to be able to play a very important role. The existing Universities Advisory Council merely has an advisory power in respect of the existing autonomous White universities. This is not what I say. This is what the Minister himself said. The envisaged advisory council, however, now involves all autonomous universities and technikons, including those of the Coloureds and the Indians, and will also furnish advice on behalf of the universities and technikons for the Black population group. Advice in the latter respect is naturally limited because it deals with methods of administration and financing which differ from those of the institutions of the other population groups.

The advisory council, particularly as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, is indeed a council which is being created to function in a co-ordinating and advisory capacity in connection with tertiary and highly skilled technical training it is therefore an advisory body in respect of coordinating policy matters. That is where this advisory council creates a further problem for me. This advisory council will advise in respect of the policy for the education of various population groups. It affords the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites a say in one another’s education. If each group had had its own advisory council, then it would have dealt with the education of each group, but here there will be a reciprocal say in respect of policy, which I do not think is healthy. Consequently it does not operate only on the level of each group’s own education but also on the level of general education.

If the Minister, in terms of his policy of one nation, of an eventual co-ordinating general department of national education and of a macro-education policy, wishes to be fair and equitable, he must of course appoint Coloureds and Indians to this advisory council together with Whites. In this way he then gives them a direct say in the education policy for Whites, which is an own affair, and on the other hand he also gives the Whites a direct say in the education policy of the other population groups, which ought to be their own affair. Consequently it is inevitable that this advisory council has to be a racially mixed council. The advisory council must inevitably include all these population groups. To my mind, however, this is an invalidation of the policy of separate development. Since the advisory council also gives advice over a wide spectrum of development, expansion, finances etc., but particularly on policy, this is also, to our way of thinking, an invalidation of the self-determination of the various population groups over their own education on a university and technikon level.

This Bill with its advisory council completes the hon. the Minister’s scheme for the creation of integrated education on a tertiary and technical level on the basis of his policy of one nation.

That is untrue.

The hon. the Minister built up his policy systematically and purposefully. In this way autonomy was granted to the universities of the Western Cape and Durban-Westville to which we had no objection. The granting of autonomy went further, however, than merely the question of the granting of autonomy to those two universities. It gave rise to the argument that because they were now autonomous they should be included in the Committee of Heads of Education as statutory institutions, in addition autonomy was granted in respect of technikons, to which we had no objection whatsoever, the technikons for Coloureds and for Indians also deserve autonomy and independence. This is now giving rise, however, to the principles of technikons for Coloureds and Indians being included in the new Committee of Technikon Principals as a statutory body. In this way education on the tertiary and highly technical level has been integrated, while the hon. the Minister is still arguing that he does not want to do this on secondary or primary levels.

This legislation which we now have before us therefore places the seal on education integration on the tertiary and on a highly technical level. Integration is not merely attending the same school, but integration is when one intertwines policy to such an extent, when one intertwines standards to such an extent that the one becomes absolutely dependent on the other and that no one population group can decide on its own about what is best for that specific population group. This co-ordinating Universities and Technikons Advisory Council is consequently not acceptable to us on this side of the house, and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the matter to which the hon. member for Koedoespoort referred, on the one hand he agrees, and on the other he has an idea that the Bill which at present before the house is eventually going to bring about integration. I think one should read the Bill in its entire context. If one does so one will find that it cannot be an invalidation of the policy and it cannot bring about integration. When all is said and done we are dealing here, as I shall indicate later, with an umbrella body which is necessary to bring about co-ordination.

If consensus is to be arrived at with the various population groups, it is essential that we should consider various factors in this connection. The fact of the matter is that this advisory council has to advise the Minister and it is then for the Minister to implement further steps. If one looks at the Bill again, one will see that it applies to all legislation in terms of which universities or technikons are being administered. There are, after all, various technikons which have to be taken into consideration, and so, too, various laws that have to be made applicable. What we are dealing with here is the establishment, development and expansion of universities and technikons. Later in my speech I shall indicate the tremendous costs involved in the establishment of only one, two or three technikons which are ultimately able to function better and at which people will ultimately have certain facilities at their joint disposal. That is why this also affects the academic professional area in which universities and technikons ought to be active.

It is an advisory body which, as is clearly provided here, will ultimately give the Minister that right to react himself, as is also the case with the Universities Advisory Council, which is at present the only expert ministerial advisory body in regard to 11 autonomous universities falling under the Department of National Education.

The task of this advisory body is to co-ordinate university development together with the Department of National Education as regards the development and growth of technikons. It is in fact a confluence of our entire education system. In the first place it entails the establishment of an organizational structure to which the institutions can be affiliated. Secondly, there is the demarcation of the areas of activities of the various types of institutions. Furthermore, there is the determination of their respective functions as well as the making available of resources to the institutions and the introduction of control measures to ensure accountability for the application of public funds.

It is very clear that this matter is very important. What should eventually happen to the constitution of this advisory council? We cannot entirely separate the various races, the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, from one another. In a previous speech I pointed out how the number of school-going children, particularly as far as the Coloureds are concerned, are going to increase. Those of the Blacks are also going to increase, while White numbers are diminishing. The students at the technikons and universities—and that is why the advisory council is so necessary—will ultimately have to enter commerce and industry. We cannot get away from that. This advisory council will also have to stipulate clearly that courses will have to be introduced which are specifically aimed at industrial needs. For that reason the universities and technikons, under the guidance of this advisory council, will have to approach an increasing number of representatives of commerce and industry in order to achieve co-ordination. In terms of the provisions of this Bill, members of the advisory committees will also have to come from this sector.

Lecturers, section heads, businessmen and industrialists are in fact going to give valuable advice, to the hon. the Minister concerned as well. By consultation and an exchange of ideas rectors can be kept informed of developments which are constantly taking place in the industrial world. The drawing up of new curricula for the training of technical staff can now take place in co-operation with these advisory committees. Moreover, the Department of National Education, which falls under the control of this hon. Minister, will now be able to take the full initiative in this specific sphere.

Furthermore, it will also be possible to obtain the valuable co-operation of the various sectors by the conducting of oral examinations. Today we cannot entirely separate the members of the various race groups from one another, as the hon. members of the CP still want to do. As I have already said, it is necessary for co-ordination to take place in this sphere, and this must also happen in regard to part-time lecturers, people who will have to be used on the strength of their practical experience. There is sometimes a major shortage of people in this sphere, too. In this respect I have in mind financial or law advisers, for example, who can give interesting lectures and make practical suggestions, particularly in regard to the latest developments in their specific fields.

It will also be possible to call in the assistance of the Public Service in this respect in that public servants could be used to provide certain practical guidance.

In particular I am thinking here today of engineering students who can in this way be afforded an opportunity in this way to acquire practical experience in the industrial world. However, work of a suitable nature has to be offered to students in order to give them adequate and suitable experience before they embark upon complicated courses. That is why it is necessary for the advisory committee to give clear guidance to all the coloured groups as far as practical experience and training is concerned. The advisory committee must consequently undertake this specific task, with the full co-operation of the hon. the Minister.

I also want to point out that industries can further the training of technical staff, and that this is one of the most important reasons why there should be a co-ordinating body. Industries can perform this promotional task by for example, donating the necessary material, equipment, instruments and machinery to training institutions. Today of course, all this equipment costs an enormous amount of money, and the State does not always have sufficient funds to afford all these things. These days all this equipment costs a tremendous amount of money.

We are also thinking here of the equipping of laboratories and workshops. By means of financial assistance from certain undertakings it of course becomes possible to equip these centres today with the most modern equipment and machinery. Students can also pay joint visits to these centres in order to acquire the necessary experience there. Of course we are not only concerned with theoretical training, but also with practical experience in the training milieu, and that is why it is important that students should also undertake practical research projects as part of their courses, and that the undertaking in whose employ they are should help them to acquire experience in their particular field.

In South Africa today the need for technical training is of course tremendous. It is therefore necessary that the public should acquire a better understanding of technical training as being supplementary to university training. As previous speakers have already said, technikons offer a diversity of courses today for technicians, pharmacists, businessmen, language students, secretarial personnel and professional people. For that reason it is very necessary that the autonomy of technikons, to which reference has already been made here, should be recognized. It is being made very clear though that the autonomy of technikons must be stabilized so that municipalities, local authority bodies and private undertakings can pledge their full support to these technikons.

As far as post-graduate training in the natural sciences is concerned, the system of technical education must similarly make provision for vertical and horizontal growth and development in this sphere. Refresher courses must also be offered, and of course, it is necessary for people from all the various colour groups to be included here. Preparatory classes and liaison courses must also be offered.

By means of the establishment of this advisory council it will be possible to make more full-time technical instruction available. In this way vocational training will eventually be made highly efficient. Also in terms of the present measure, further investigations into matters pertaining to technical instruction will be instituted from time to time. From the legislation itself it is clearly apparent that this advisory council is going to be of truly great assistance to us. The establishment of the advisory council required an amendment to the Universities Act, 1955. That is consequently what we are doing today by means of this Bill.

It is clear that the hon. member for Koedoespoort had certain objections to this measure. However, the powers of the advisory council are being very clearly defined in the Bill itself. I therefore request the hon. member and his party to consider, in the interests of the country itself, whether they will not pledge their support to this measure instead of approaching it in such a narrow sense, and merely alleging that it will lead only to integration. I simply do not believe that this measure seeks to bring about integration. Hon. members of the CP must please point out to us clearly where they see integration in this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out to us this morning that there was a need for closer liaison between the hon. the Minister and the technikons and the universities. He also identified certain aspects and showed us that there was a need for joint decision-making between these institutions and the hon. the Minister in the light of the arguments he put forward this morning.

†Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be addressing itself to the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage in regard to aspects of the Bill which we feel can be improved, particularly in regard to representation on the advisory body. However, I want to say that as far as the principle is concerned the NRP supports the concept of the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council. For some time now we have been advocating a more integral system of tertiary education. Of course, if one wishes to have a more integral system of tertiary education, it is necessary to establish formal structures for co-ordination and the exchange of ideas and for joint planning and the co-ordination of policy in order to facilitate this integral system of tertiary education. We see this Universities and Technikons Advisory Council as being in line with that need.

I also want to say that we prefer a well-informed Minister to an uninformed Minister. Of course, what the PFP are advocating here by going against this Bill is that the hon. the Minister should remain uninformed. However, I want to tackle the official Opposition specifically on this point and say that I think that their stand in opposing this Bill is very foolish indeed. One can understand the attitude of the CP because they are fundamentalists and are totally opposed to the concept of the integration at any and every level. Therefore, their stand is quite consistent with their policy. It is, of course, a very foolish policy but at least their attitude is consistent.

As far as the PFP are concerned, I am absolutely perplexed by the attitude they have adopted because that is actually the party that pleads in its manifesto for greater consensus. They say that they will strive for greater consensus and that they want to bring people together in order to facilitate consensus. However, what do they reveal in practice?

Its all a bluff.

The hon. member for Standerton says that it is all a bluff. However, I think that is putting it very mildly. I want to put it a little more strongly and say that it is total hypocrisy. What are they actually doing? What have they been telling us in previous discussions and today in respect of this particular Bill as well? They have said that unless the formula is totally in accord with their point of view they will reject it.

No.

Yes.

Provided it is representative of all the bodies and all the groups.

Well, Sir, I should like to know from the hon. member what groups he feels are to be left out of representation in terms of this Bill.

The Black universities and the Black technikons are being left out.

But they have associate membership. There is no problem there at all.

But why should they have an inferior representation?

The problem with the PFP is that if anything is not completely in agreement with their formula, they reject it. [Interjections.] That is not facilitating consensus. If consensus is to be achieved, one has to move away from one’s own standpoint by means of negotiation and thus find common agreement between the various participating parties.

Precisely, but this is not consensus. It is a Government decision.

I want to give the hon. member a further example. The hon. member for Durban Central went to great lengths to tell the Press that during discussion on a previous Bill I had said that we support the Free state local option to keep Indians out of the Free State. Of course, the hon. member quoted me very selectively and did not complete what I had said. What those hon. members do not realize is that the right which the Free State has to local option in this respect stems from an agreement reached at a national convention in 1910. The PFP is not even prepared to honour agreements made at national conventions but they make as the pillar of their policy for the solution of South Africa’s problems the fact that there should be a national convention. This once again goes to show that they are not prepared to accept opinions that are not in accordance with their policy.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the measure before the House is aimed at creating an advisory council which will advise the hon. the Minister on matters relating to tertiary education. The persons who will be included in the council are the four representatives of the universities and technikons as well as eight members who will be appointed by the Minister.

This measure creates a body which can only be seen as an improvement in two respects. In the first instance it will certainly improve relations as far as planning and coordination are concerned between the Minister and the department on the one hand and universities and technikons on the other hand and in particular the integral educational system for tertiary education at university and technikons level.

We believe this is extremely important and I fail to see why the PFP cannot support such a body. This body is most important indeed. If one reads clause 3—I shall not read it out in detail—one sees on what aspects this body is going to advise the Minister, not the least of those aspects is the extension of university and technikon facilities in South Africa. The hon. member for Bryanston spent a lot of time earlier this week in the House telling us how important it is that we should expand this facility, but now they are going to vote against it.

The legislation also deals with the granting of subsidies, and of course no educational institution can work without finance. Once again I believe it will be in the interest of both technikons and universities for this body to be able to have in-depth discussions with each other and the Minister regarding financial planning and the creation of enlarged infrastructure. Again I find it very difficult to believe that the PFP will actively work against the extension of such a facility.

The third aspect which I believe is absolutely important is the co-ordination between these bodies and the department of the hon. the Minister regarding degree courses, diplomas and certificates which will be offered by the different institutions, and hopefully these will be interlinked in order to provide a graded and integrated system of tertiary education because without that, as I have pointed out on many occasions, we shall find that the number of people who fail at the different institutions and are lost to society is very large indeed and also very expensive if one considers that it costs the State roughly R4 000 per year just to keep a university student there on a subsidy.

I think it is important that the PFP should not vote against a body which facilitates consensus in a very important field, and this is my major argument with them because they are in fact reneging in respect of what is supposed to be a pillar of their policy that they stand for the promotion of consensus. Here we have a classical example of almost a nonpolitical body which they shoot down at birth. It is in fact the shooting down of a body based on the principle of consensus.

When we look at consensus itself, I find it extraordinary, as I said earlier today, that the hon. member for Durban Central should see fit, aided and abetted by highly irresponsible reporting by The Natal Mercury, an English-language newspaper in Natal, to indicate that they reject the agreements formed at the 1910 Convention when the Union of South Africa was formed, because very specifically the laws which were allowed to proceed from that point on were with the agreement of the full National Convention. I want to ask any hon. member of the PFP, particularly the hon. member for Durban Central, whether he will tell us whether the PFP is prepared to honour the agreements formed at the 1910 Convention which was the foundation of the Union of South Africa. We should like to know whether they are prepared to honour those agreements.

[Inaudible.]

That is the typical kind of response one gets from a frontbench PFP member when a very serious question is asked.

He is a very disgusting little man.

This is one of the most important and burning questions in politics today, and this is the response we get from them.

We shall of course take appropriate steps to ensure that The Natal Mercury is brought to book because of what I can only describe as highly irresponsible reporting. We shall fight our fight with that newspaper outside the House. I should like the hon. member for Durban Central to take note of that because he was partisan to that report.

As far as the composition of the advisory council is concerned I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication what his intentions are regarding the eight representatives—I am now excluding the four representatives of the universities and the technikons—which he intends appointing to the advisory council. Does he envisage that they will for instance be representatives of bodies in for example the iron and steel industry, the textile industry, the building industry, the motor industry? What exactly has the hon. the Minister in mind for this kind of representation? We believe that a technikon and a university should be seen to be an integral part of any community that it serves. A technikon, especially, is very closely associated with the industrial and commercial sectors in South Africa and their views, we believe, should very definitely be heard when it comes to the matter of extending technikons. I believe that these people who have a very large vested interest in the development of manpower should have their voice and opinions heard by the hon. the Minister.

As I indicated to the hon. the Minister earlier on, we will during the Committee Stage be making representations to him to improve the representation on this committee. We can deal with that a little later. However, I would appreciate the reply from the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has in mind a geographic distribution or whether there is a possibility—I do not see any enabling clause in this Bill—for him to have regional advisory committees as well, and whether they could be subcommittees of the main advisory council. How is the hon. the Minister going to deal with regional problems and therefore the acquisition of regional solutions? We appreciate that this is a national body, which is going to deal with broad principles, but obviously there must be modicum of co-ordination between the national and regional interests as well.

I hope sincerely that what will flow from these meetings is a better integrated system of tertiary education which will fulfil the needs of the community that it serves. In particular, I should like to re-emphasize and request the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of increasing the representation for our non-White sector. The non-White sector is also, for instance, involved in organizations such as Nafcoc, which is the Black Chamber of Commerce. I wonder whether they are going to have the opportunity for representation on this advisory council as well. That is the growing market. Not only is it the growing market for the utilization of facilities of universities and technikons, but it is also a growing commercial and industrial sector. I believe it is imperative that organizations such as Nafcoc, and perhaps other organizations of similar ilk, should have some degree of representation on this advisory council.

As far as the future is concerned, I believe that when it comes to the Indian and Coloured communities their interests should be taken into full account as well. Hopefully this Bill will lead us into a new era of co-ordinated tertiary education which will be of benefit to all South Africans and in particular to those institutions. We will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with very great interest to what the hon. member for Durban North had to say this afternoon in connection with this Bill. Before I come to the various clauses of the Bill, may I say that I cannot understand the hon. member’s problem in supporting certain clauses of the Bill but voting against the Bill because of certain more fundamental aspects which he believes to be wrong.

[Inaudible.]

Those aspects which the hon. member for Durban North mentioned in connection with the good points of the Bill, I think we share with him. However, there are certain other overriding principles which we regard as so objectionable that we cannot support the Bill. May I say that I think the NRP had the same problem in connection with the Advanced Technical Education Amendment Bill. As far as I can remember they voted with us against the Bill despite the fact that they, like us, supported many provisions in the Bill itself.

That was on one aspect.

I am merely making the point, because that is the principle on which we have decided to vote against the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

I will come back to that in a second. Neither can I understand the hon. member’s problems about the national convention and about agreements that have been reached on the question of consensus. The hon. member knows that this Parliament has amended time and time again laws which were in force in 1910 and which did not form the the subject matter of the National Convention or were not protected in one way or another in the South Africa Act of 1909. I think that the hon. member for Durban North will go along with me that the NRP has for example given its tacit support to the constitutional proposals of the Government. Those proposals provide in one way or another—I am not suggesting that that is what we would like to see—for the participation of Coloureds and Indians also of the northern provinces in the legislative and executive arms of government. The hon. member for Durban North knows perfectly well that when the Union was formed in 1910 the non-Whites in the northern provinces were completely excluded from participation. There is no sense in referring to 1909 and 1910 as occasions when agreements were reached or consensus was reached in respect of things that were not mentioned in the South Africa Act itself. I can go on quoting other examples to him.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether we can then assume that the PFP considers those agreements ultra vires because of the non-participation of the Coloureds and Indians?

The hon. member knows perfectly well that when the National Convention met in 1908-’09 people lived in a totally different world. I refer for instance to the whole question of political rights for Blacks. Things were totally different. If we were to hold a national convention today, at least this party, if not the NRP, would insist that people of colour should be involved in the legislative and executive arms of government. It is as simple as that.

In terms of the law of 1894 the Indians were excluded from the Free State. That was not in terms of any other agreement reached. I should very much like to know from the hon. member for Durban North whether the NRP are in favour of the continuation of the bar imposed in 1894 on the presence of Indians in the Free State. I should also like to know from him whether they are in favour of the continuation of the restrictions that have been imposed on Indians in the northern districts of Natal, which also date from a very long time ago.

The hon. member has dealt with the whole question of local option. I have to deal with this because it is a fundamental issue which comes up time and time again. The hon. member has attacked the Government party and the hon. the Minister for not giving effect to local option. He has also attacked the PFP on this. Throughout this session I have listened very attentively and with great interest to the NRP’s views on many of the issues that have come up for discussion in this House. Throughout the session and particularly in the last week the central theme which emerged from the NRP’s discussion of the relevant matters was the advisability of applying local option as a means of solving these problems.

Hear, hear!

In other words, local option has been presented by the hon. member for Durban North as the panacea for all our problems.

I hope to deal exhaustively with the whole question of local option, because I think that the Government is as interested in it as we are. However, I shall do so at some other time because I cannot do it under this Bill. Please allow me, however, to make a few observations in this connection at this stage. May I say I would gladly stand corrected if I misinterpret what the NRP has said and what the hon. member for Durban North meant in this connection. I am not one to trade insults across the floor or to make generalized statements without applying some modicum of logic as far as I can. I may add that I have a great personal liking for the hon. member for Durban North.

Oh, no!

I have. I also have great respect for him. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Helen is subjecting you to censorships.

Local option is nothing else than a mechanism which could be employed to establish a workable arrangement in a complex situation where accommodation has to be established between conflicting interests and demands. It is easy to say that there could be half a dozen other mechanisms to achieve the same purpose, but the point I want to stress is that it is a mechanism, good or bad as it may be. As a mechanism it says nothing about the principle or principles which should be employed when that accommodation is sought on the local option level. Let me explain.

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily, but he will concede that the issue of local option raised by the hon. member for Durban North must not be discussed too fully in the discussion of this measure. I shall permit the hon. member to state his point, but he must not digress too far.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you would permit me just a few more minutes, that is all I need to dispose of the subject.

†I can say to certain people in a specific area that they must have the right to decide, but that does not exonerate me from the responsibility of saying to those people that I believe that they should exercise their option in a certain way. It does not remove the responsibility or duty placed on me to give guidance to those people and to say to them that on certain issues, either moral or political, I believe that they should exercise their option in a certain way.

Time and time again the NRP has used local option, which is a mechanism, as a way to avoid stating clearly what their own principles are. That is my problem with local option.

We recognize the responsibility.

The NRP has to be careful that they do not become known as the New Escapist Party, the Nuwe Ontvlugtingsparty, because of their willingness to escape facing the issue on points of moral and other principles.

*Mr. Speaker, I now come back to the Bill.

The Bill certainly has outstanding and sound characteristics. There are certainly considerable advantages in having a single council. Several times we have asked in this House that there should be closer co-operation, consultation and co-ordination between the universities and the technikons. In terms of the manpower needs in that sphere, the separation that in the past was sometimes very noticeable, is actually unnecessary. We have entered a different era that makes that kind of co-operation essential. In that sense I welcome the fact that mechanisms are being created here to bring about a greater degree of co-operation between universities and technikons. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must watch that situation carefully. In spite of the degree of uniformity of interests serving the two institutions, there are nevertheless major differences. The hon. the Minister is a person who is acquainted with the situation since he himself has been rector of a university. He will agree with me that the university very often moves in spheres which are nowhere near related to the levels on which a technikon moves. Here I have in mind, for example, basic research work which in fact goes far beyond the scope of the activities or the field of interest of the technikons. I am not sure that this method of creating uniformity will necessarily also do justice to the degree of difference between the two institutions. The hon. the Minister can tell me that the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals are there to meet these needs, but I want to emphasize that I am of the opinion that this matter—I have already said that one body will entail certain advantages—must be watched very carefully in the light of these differences between the interests of the two kinds of institutions.

As regards the composition of the advisory council, the hon. member for Bryanston said that there were objections to the fact that the Minister had to make all the appointments. This is a justified objection. The answer which the hon. the Minister gave by implication is that it has to serve as an advisory body and he therefore has the right to make the appointments. I do not think that it is of the nature of an advisory body that the Minister should necessarily make the appointments himself. Logically speaking I can see no reason why the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals cannot make their own appointments to this advisory council. However, the hon. the Minister is still making the appointments. What aggravates the problem here—and I should very much like the hon. the Minister to tell me the reason for the change—is that as the Bill reads at present, those two bodies, viz. the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals, submit a recommendation to the Minister with regard to the two persons they want the Minister to appoint formally to the council. In the Bill these two bodies are requested to submit four names from which the Minister is to choose. This seems to me to be an unnecessary restriction of the rights those committees have enjoyed thus far and I can see no justification for it. In fact, it renders valueless the reaction of the hon. the Minister when he intimated to me that in fact those people made the appointments and that he was doing it in name only. If four names are submitted from which the hon. the Minister has to choose, then that in fact means that the Minister has the right of choice. I can see no reason why this amendment is contained in the Bill, in contrast to the provision in the Act itself. My point of departure, like that of the hon. member for Bryanston, is that those two responsible bodies are man enough to make recommendations concerning people who ought to be accepted by the Minister as members of his advisory council.

I also wish to say that I have something of a problem with the number of people. I can fully understand that it is not desirable to have a large and unwieldy body in this regard. At present the advisory council consists of 9 people, viz. 8 plus the chairman. Now we are getting an advisory council of 13 members, but the new advisory council has to deal with the affairs of both technikons and universities. Looking at the type of person appointed to the Advisory Council on Universities thus far, I doubt whether a council of only 13 people will be sufficient, in the light of the doubling of the activities of the council, to bring about due co-ordination in the sense of proper representation of the two different interest groups in that council. To that I want to add that it seems to me—we do not have amendments in this regard, but I do wish to put this to the hon. the Minister—that it is imperative that the Department of Manpower should have representation in this committee. To me it seems obvious that in terms of the advice to be provided by this body, either the Manpower Commission or the Department of Manpower ought to have representation on this body.

The hon. member for Bryanston spoke about the absence of representation of the Black universities and technikons in this body. It is inter alia due to that that he said that we were going to oppose this Bill. The hon. member rightly indicated that it was an anomaly—and I am still coming to what the hon. the Minister said this morning—that this was a body which could in fact provide the Minister concerned with advice on Black universities and technikons, although those universities and technikons are not represented on that council. I now wish to say to the hon. the Minister that there is no reason, no logical reason why Black universities and technikons cannot be represented on this body, in the sense that they would then have the right to participate and have a say concerning those matters that are of importance to them. Sir, do you see the problem we are faced with? We have had several Bills before us this session and I very earnestly want to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In terms of the constitutional proposals of the Government it is clear that joint provision is being made for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, whereas separate provision will be made for the Blacks. The Government has stated this very clearly. What troubles me now, Sir, is that that principle, or so it seems to us, is being taken to its logical conclusion in all other possible spheres. Not only in politics, but in all kinds of other spheres we now have the situation that the Government is grouping Whites, Coloureds and Indians together and consistently excluding Blacks. Let me put it clearly that where a Bill gives effect to this standpoint of the Government, we shall have no choice but to oppose it, time and again, however good or bad the Bill may be. We cannot under any circumstances accept that line of division, and I cannot understand why the Government, which draws that distinction in the political field, seeks to implement it consistently in all other spheres. Even if it does not mean it in that way, how this works out in practice is that the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are being grouped together in structures whereas the Blacks are consistently being kept out. I have said before that if we do not resolve the relations problem between White and Black, in effect we shall solve nothing, and if we continue with this kind of arrangement, we shall be aggravating the problem and increasing the potential for conflict in South Africa, because every time we do this we say to the Black man: “See how we reject you because you are Black”, and where that happens in the sphere for which the hon. the Minister is responsible, we must call him to account.

Mr. Speaker, after the lofty academic arguments of the past few days, I almost feel like addressing you as “Mr. Chancellor”!

Be that as it may, let me commence with the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He raised a number of matters, although many of them have nothing to do with the legislation as such. The hon. member spelt out very clearly the standpoint of the PFP with regard to certain laws, as opposed to the standpoint of the NP. All I can say is that if that is the case, there will just have to be more clashes between us in future. We shall not be able to reach a consensus.

The objections from the other side to the composition of this advisory council and the number of members, do not always hold water. I am convinced that if the proposed advisory council is going to be composed in the same way as the existing advisory council, it will do very good work. The Universities Advisory Council, which is now to be replaced by the proposed new council, was appointed on the same basis as the proposed new council will be appointed. The Minister made all the appointments to that council as well. I therefore cannot understand why people are opposing this Bill simply because the Minister is performing the same function he had in terms of the previous legislation.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier also asked why there should be only 13 members, as opposed to the present nine. In his opinion, there should be more members. I think his suggestion has certain merit, viz. that the council should perhaps have more members. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to permit the council to consist of 13 members initially, as is being proposed at present, and then to increase the number of members should it be found in due course that this advisory council should consist of more experts. However, the bigger the council, the more difficult it is for it to function, and the more red tape will be involved.

I should now like to dwell for a moment on the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He very sharply criticized the say and the mutual consultation that will follow the inclusion of technikons and universities for people of colour. I think the hon. member took matters too far when he said that this discussion ought not to take place. I should like him to tell me how we are supposed to determine standards in this respect. One of the most important problems in the academic world, from the primary school right up to university level, is to make absolutely sure that the academic level of every standard at school, every university degree or diploma awarded in South Africa, irrespective of the institution awarding it recognized, should be as being equal. I believe that the hon. the Minister is laying down a sound principle here by proceeding to bring these people together so that the various technikons and universities of all the race groups can hold discussions and so that the standards can at least be equal throughout.

We should not be arguing as we did with regard to earlier legislation. We should guard against the situation of having first, second or third-rate universities or technikons. One of the reasons why I believe this will be a good thing, is that we shall then be able to determine precisely what the standard is, regardless of who awards the degree or diploma concerned.

Technikons have now reached the stage where they are being placed on an equal footing with universities. The legislation which preceded the present measures, now makes it possible for the full autonomy of the technikons to be recognized, at the same level as that of universities. This revolutionary development was the result of a need. After the promulgation of the present measures, technikons will be able to take their rightful place in the field of tertiary level education; in other words, the post-school level, with matric as a basis. Since we are to have only one advisory council in future, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that it be requested at the first meeting of that council that a specific investigation be held into the various fields. Provision is made in clause 3 of the present Bill that a complete description be given of how the various courses will be presented at the technikons and universities. In the same clause, provision is made for the way in which subsidies will be granted. Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that a clear distinction is drawn between the field of the technikon and that of the university. We must have clarity on that. There has been friction in the past, due to the fact that grey areas have arisen, which have been annexed by both technikons and universities. I believe that the establishment of a “cushion” body, as the hon. the Minister called it, is a step in the right direction in solving this problem.

In the past there have also been cases of certain universities offering courses that should have been the sole province of the technikons. One thinks in this respect in particular of a course such as pharmacy, which was initially offered only by technikons, but which was later annexed by the universities. This is a course which will apparently be offered only by the universities in future, since it is becoming a degree course. The facilities for this course still exist at certain technikons, however, and that is why I believe that it is essential that there be absolute clarity as to whose field this is. I therefore think that the advisory council that is to be established could make a vast contribution, once we know precisely where we are going.

As the hon. the Minister said, this new body will serve as a “cushion”. I think it is a good thing that we should have such a “cushion”. Too often in the past it has been said that a certain field of study, even a certain geographical area, was benefiting because a technikon and a university were being established for that purpose. It is therefore a good thing that this council, which can decide independently—and I want to make this very clear—which faculties will be made available and where training will take place, is being established. This body will consist of a large number of experts and, as the hon. the Minister stated very clearly, we can certainly expect these experts to display objectivity. That objectivity will be particularly useful when subsidies have to be decided on. At present the budget makes provision for approximately R427 million for the universities and approximately R84 million for the technikons. These figures relate to the present financial year. Consequently it is clear why it is essential—an amount far in excess of R500 million is involved here—that this aspect be considered very carefully by the advisory committee. That is why we are also hoping that when he appoints members to this council to advise him, the hon. the Minister will ensure he will include people who are able to deal with the financial aspects of tertiary education. I also want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that when appointing the committee and the advisory council, it be determined precisely which parts of the RSA need technikons. Due to the policy of decentralization, there has been a relatively large shift in population. If a large number of people move, as has been the case in the Eastern Transvaal region, for example, that consideration be given to establishing a technikon there in the future. We must ensure that future technikons are established in regions that need them. I think the existing demand in the urban areas is being met reasonably well at present, but I do think that we should look after the rural areas for a change.

The newest technikon to be established, the Technikon RSA, is in my opinion proof of the sound progress that has been made in the sphere of disseminating and imparting knowledge. In my opinion, it is also a good thing that Unisa and the Technikon RSA are able to exchange ideas on making teletuition available. I think teletuition has a great deal of potential in this country, with its special needs, and that is why I think that it would be as well if the hon. the Minister’s advisory committee would investigate how this university and this technikon could co-operate so as to extend teletuition. Unisa has already had a great deal of experience in this regard, and I think the Technikon RSA could learn a great deal from that institution as far as teletuition is concerned, since it could contribute a great deal towards meeting the demand that arises in particular in the smaller centres that are affected by decentralization as far as training is concerned.

I want to dwell for a moment on clause 3(1)(e) which, inter alia, reads as follows—

If this subsidy formula, if one could call it that, should be made known by the committee, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to distribute it among the respective heads of the technikons and universities so that they will know precisely what that formula is. I say this since in the past there have been recriminations to the effect that either the technikons or the universities receive too much money. If that formula were distributed, we would be able to see precisely what the position is as regards subsidies granted to these institutions when the budget is drawn up.

With those few words I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to react briefly to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, who has just spoken. The hon. member admitted that he and the hon. member Prof. Olivier could not reach consensus. I just want to tell the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed that the whole basis of the Government’s new constitutional dispensation, is consensus. I therefore want to say that if that hon. member cannot even reach consensus with the hon. member Prof. Olivier, I do not know how he is going to reach consensus with the members of the other two chambers in the new dispensation. [Interjections.] The hon. member said he would find it much easier to reach consensus with Mr. Rajbansi than with me. We shall remember that. [Interjections.] The hon. member will still have to work out his method of attaining consensus in politics, but he is still young, and one could say, as Paul did, that one has to consider his youth. [Interjections.]

Order!

The diversity of peoples we have in South Africa have been brought together historically in such a way that we are very close to one another in many respects as far as Africa is concerned. Due, too, to the whole historical course of events in Southern Africa, tens of thousands of individual members of particular population groups have become involved in certain facets of the lives of other peoples. Having said that, it is therefore obvious that when one creates peace, prosperity and security for Southern Africa, one wants to do this not only for one’s own group as an isolated unit, but also for other groups, and this also applies to the way in which groups come into contact with one another.

In view of this, the CP has no problem as regards the establishment of an advisory council, as this Bill envisages. It is an advisory council that has to advise the Minister concerned and perform certain functions. We have no problem in that regard.

Nor do we have any problem as regards the fact that due to the situation in Southern Africa one does, after all, want the various population groups to hold discussions with one another on a variety of matters, including of course, universities and technikons. We have no problem with that either. The fact is that the CP supports all these matters, all these discussions, these meetings—because we must assist one another, since we are interdependent of one another in many respects. We want them organized and arranged in such a way that one affects neither the ethnic community—if I may use that expression once again—nor the facets it consists of. What I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that as regards advice to a particular Minister, we shall also have an advisory body for universities and technikons when we come to power within the next year or two.

It is nice to dream, is it not?

Well, one must never stop dreaming and having one’s ideals, even in politics. That is what we are working towards and that is why we are sitting here. [Interjections.]

The attitude of the hon. member for Gezina is that we do not want to speak to people of other population groups at all, but I believe that when we have the dispensation we want in South Africa, the basis for discussion will be a healthy one, since it would not be done in such a way that one would be afraid of sacrificing one’s sovereignty or self-determination.

I want to discuss the Black people with the hon. the Minister. I understand the arguments of the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The individual members of the Black peoples are involved to a much greater extent in the broad South African economy purely on the basis of their numbers, than the Coloureds and the Indians are. The Black people are far, far more involved. If one wants to act in terms of the principles laid down by the hon. the Minister, viz. that one wishes to train people of quality and therefore wants discussion between the universities and the technikons and so on, and one also wants advice, I think hon. members of the PFP are correct. I agree with them that the hon. the Minister and hon. speakers on that side of the House are creating the impression that there is going to be no discussion whatsoever with Black technikons and Black universities. I think this is a very big mistake. I think the hon. the Minister’s reason for doing this, is that this legislation is also based on his particular constitutional views. As far as that is concerned, the hon. the Minister does not convince us in respect of the ideals he wants to realize with this legislation.

The hon. the Minister also said that we were opposed to an advisory body. The CP has enough experience of what advisory bodies established by the Government eventually become. We are very sceptical of any advisory body established by the Government, since we have noticed that the Government gradually introduces an advisory body, the function of which is supposedly to advise it, but then that body is eventually incorporated into the political dispensation. We find that unacceptable.

Another point I wish to make clear to the hon. the Minister with regard to the question of having no confidence in the Government, is that one is now beginning to find …

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member give us an indication of which advisory bodies have been established that, in his opinion, are supposed to have had negative results? Give three or four examples.

The President’s Council is one of them. It is one of the most important advisory bodies to have been established. What has become of it, and how has this particular advisory body been utilized?

Your signature is there, too.

Precisely. It is a case of “once bitten, twice shy”. I have had the bitter experience of signing something in good faith and then having it used against me.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us why Mr. Fanie Herman has not resigned from the President’s Council?

That is something the hon. member must ask Mr. Herman himself. I just want to remind the hon. member for Turffontein that he told me on 9 May that the NP majority in Soutpansberg would be 1 000.

Yes, I was almost right.

He also said that there would be a phenomenal shift towards the NP. I am just mentioning that by the way, Mr. Speaker.

The CP has no confidence in any proposal the Government makes with regard to education in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

The level at which the gradual integration of education is to be commenced with is the tertiary level. We have no assurance whatsoever that advisory bodies in respect of technikons and universities are not the thin end of the wedge, so that the hon. the Minister could come and say tomorrow or the next day that an advisory body should be established for secondary education in South Africa and, at a later stage, for primary education as well. I want to state very clearly that if one gives the Government a mere inkling that one agrees with the formulation and composition of their premises, one finds at a later stage that one is committed, and the fact that one acceded at other levels of education, is used against one. The CP cannot go along with the hon. the Minister’s explanation in earlier debates relating to micro and macro-Ministers, with no clear distinction between the various concepts. In conclusion, I want to say that these proposals of the hon. the Minister, in terms of which he is excluding the Black people and grouping the Coloureds, Indians and whites together, are linked to the Minister’s standpoint on a new nation in South Africa, as he sees it. This is something the CP disagrees with in principle. Consequently, we are not in favour of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot agree with the standpoints of the hon. member for Rissik. Yesterday, when he quoted from the fine speech of Dr. Verwoerd at the opening ceremony of the Academic Year at Stellenbsoch in 1959, a function at which I, too, was present, I asked him to quote what Dr. Verwoerd had said about Coloured homelands, too. The hon. member replied that he had not asked him. What Dr. Verwoerd had to say about that is on record, however. The hon. member went on to say that he was going as far back as President Paul Kruger and that President Paul Kruger and Dr. Verwoerd would have supported the Black homeland policy. I was speaking about Coloured homelands, however. The hon. member for Rissik is an experienced politician, and he likes to try and wriggle out of a tight corner.

Yes, he is slippery.

The hon. member for Rissik also said that we on this side of the House concentrated a great deal on consensus. There is another side to this matter, however. It would appear that there is a great deal of consensus between the CP and the AWB, since the hon. leader of the CP never says anything at all about the AWB. It is also very interesting that time and again during the past week, the CP has voted with the PFP against us on legislation on education. In view of that, could I say that they have an alliance with the PFP?

I should like to single out a few aspects of this Bill. I do so in support of the Second Reading, as moved by the hon. the Minister. Clause 3 sets the advisory council certain tasks. This is all contained in the Bill, and I do not want to repeat it. I want to refer specifically to clause 3(1)(c), in terms of which the advisory council has to advise the Minister with regard to—

This is an important matter, and I want to say a few words in that regard.

An important principle in this Bill is that one independent and expert advisory body is being introduced for the two subsystems of our tertiary education in South Africa. This unitary approach holds out the possibility of rationalization and the resultant optimum utilization of manpower and financial resources, as well as the possibility of conserving the limited resources at our disposal. All possible conflict between the two kinds of institution will be dealt with by one body. One philosophy will be implemented, and a clear, comprehensive and authoritative policy with regard to various matters, and specifically the defining of the various fields, will be established.

The whole problem of defining the terrain of the technikons and that of the universities in our country demands special attention. I believe that there is a great deal of potential for conflict in this area. Conflict can be very healthy. Well-directed conflict can produce good results. It could bring important points to the fore and therefore is not wrong per se. There is, however, a heated debate in progress on this matter, and I, too, want to single out certain facets of it.

If one adopts a purely philosophical view of the activities of universities, their task is the advancement of learning. Their task is to glean the knowledge of the centuries, to systematize and order it and to reveal new knowledge through research and further investigation. Colleges, on the other hand, concentrate basically on the practical orientation of the student to enable him to use his knowledge to the full, thereby making a direct contribution to the economic life of his community.

The essential difference between the technikon and the university lies in their different functions. These functions determine their positions in the field of tertiary education in South Africa. We are aware that they both operate across the full spectrum of tertiary education.

The first university in this country was established approximately a century ago, and since then the university system has developed into an autonomous way of life. We are living in a technological era, in which technological developments are succeeding one another at an accelerating pace. Particularly since the Second World War, this situation has caused special demands to be made on our occupationally-orientated educational structure in South Africa as far as quality, quantity and complexity are concerned. A hierarchical occupationally-orientated educational structure has developed which extends from the technical institute, to the technical college, and to the college for advanced technical education or the technikon. We know that there have been important beacons on this path of development. I should like to make mention of two of the most important beacons. Firstly, there was Act No. 40 of 1967, in terms of which the colleges for advanced technical education were introduced. Secondly, the former Minister of National Education made a very important pronouncement in 1977 with regard to the position of the technikons, vis-à-vis the universities. The technikons were seen as parallel tertiary educational institutions which would develop alongside the universities, with no ceiling or restriction being imposed on the level of advanced qualifications. Parallel development did not mean that this kind of institution should compete with the university.

The idea of sharply defined boundaries—I myself was attached to a university at that time—had been debated all over the country from 1967 until this pronouncement in 1977. As far back as 1974, the Van Wyk de Vries Commission adopted a very strong standpoint on this, and it rejected this idea completely. This commission saw only one horizontal boundary, viz. matriculation exemption between the school and the university, and the Std. X certificate between the school and the technikon, or the colleges for advanced technical education.

The technikon is substantially different from the university because its main function is not to practice science or to be a centre of learning. I want to quote from a pronouncement made by the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. According to them, the task of the technikon is to train people in a reasonably sound knowledge of science and technology, but with both feet planted in industry, so that they will be capable of visualizing swiftly the possible applications of science. These people must be capable of developing the means of production in respect of these applications.

Training at a technikon does not take place in the same academic atmosphere as at a university. The words “practically orientated” are often justifiably used with regard to technikons. This level of practical training can be taken to a very high level since, as I have already said, no ceiling is being imposed on it. Practical training means that the emphasis is on the application of knowledge rather than on the knowledge itself. The approach is therefore less academic and less formal, although a very sound knowledge of science and technology is required. All this knowledge is acquired with a view to its practical application.

D. H. Meiring, previously head of the technikon in Pretoria, said that practically-orientated occupational courses were being developed at the technikon, in close co-operation with employers, with organized trade and industry, and so on. On the other hand, the university cannot close its eyes to practical considerations, but the emphasis there has to be on the fundamental scientific analysis of its study objectives. Prof. Viljoen, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Stellenbosch, emphasizes that there are differences in the quality and the quantity of science and mathematics in the courses offered at technikons and universities. For example, more science and mathematics are taught at a higher level in a course in engineering at a university than is the case with engineering courses at a technikon.

The problem faced by a student when he is in Std. X and wants to study further, is to choose between the technikon and the university. This problem is increasing, since apparently the technikons and universities have moved closer to one another in recent years, particularly in respect of courses common to both. One feels that the ability or aptitude of the student should be the decisive factor in choosing the field of study and the institution he wants to study at. I want to mention certain areas where possible conflict could arise. One could mention many such areas. Due to new developments in our country, a new definition will have to be developed for the functions of the university. I want to refer, for example, to certain fields of study which at present are still traditionally offered in the commerce faculties at our universities, where the approach is purely occupationally orientated, for example accounting. One could not say that this subject has any research content. One could argue about whether it ought to be taught at a university. Furthermore, quantity surveying, for example, is a field of study or a science which is occupationally-orientated, prescriptive and based on a formula which entails very little research, and according to the definition given, one may well ask whether it should be taught at a university. There are also aspects of the fine arts that will have to be debated by this newly-established advisory council.

This border line between the university’s task and that of the technikon is being debated in our country, but there are similar debates in progress in other countries. We have vertical separation here, whereas in certain other countries they have horizontal separation. I have been told that in the USA, in the State of California, they have State universities and ordinary universities. There it is a struggle between the university and the State university. The State university has to deal with science at a lower level than the fully-fledged university. A struggle of this nature is also in progress in the United Kingdom.

I fully support the Bill before this House, in respect of the composition of the council as well, a matter which has been disputed in this House today. The advisory council will be impartial and independent, as well as consisting of experts.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Universities Advisory Council, which is to be dissolved in terms of this legislation when it comes into operation, for the contribution they have made to higher education in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what we have discussed here this afternoon is an extremely important Bill on an extremely important innovation in the educational advisory structure of the country. I should like to say that when I was working on the preparation of this bill, I asked myself time and again how it was possible for the Government to have done its work effectively in the past without such a body, for in the first place, as various hon. members pointed out, there is a great diversity of keenly, almost vehemently, competitive bodies vying in the tertiary area for Government support; not only mutually competitive in the sense that one university competes against the other, and one technikon against the other, but also because the entire system of technikons competes with the entire system of universities. Although, within the university system for the White population, there was an advisory body to temper this keen competition by means of an objective and neutral “cushioning” council, which could assess and interpret those competing claims—on the grounds of which could furnish the Minister concerned with scientific advice—there was no such similar “cushion” for the technikons. The technikons were dealt with by means of the normal departmental structure of the Department of National Education, and this was an extremely difficult and extremely sensitive matter for the officials concerned. I wish to express great appreciation for the way in which they did it, and the way in which they furnished guidance to enable the technikon sphere to develop without any real conflicts arising. Moreover, there is the need, as I argued in my introductory speech, for the provision of educational facilities, on the level of technikons as well as universities, for all population groups in the Republic to be seen as a totality, because the available sources from which the State can finance those institutions are limited and because the source of manpower from which these institutions have to draw lecturers and other expert staff are also limited. Moreover there is a very strong interdependence between the labour sphere, the professional sphere and the places of employment for which the people of the various population groups are being trained owing to the economic interdependence in South Africa. We may indeed ask ourselves how it was possible that the Government was ever able to take justified decisions on new developments, expansion and similar matters without a body which took stock of the tertiary education system in its entirety, i.e. in respect of all population groups. That is why I believe that since each material decision taken by the authorities in connection with a specific technikon or a specific university, entails such tremendous implications in regard to finances, manpower and the technological development of the country, it is of the utmost importance that we find a forum, together with the proposed advisory council, in which all competing claims can be brought together so that experts with the necessary insight, independence and qualities of leadership are able to submit authoritative advice to the responsible authorities.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that the proposed body was not acceptable to his party because all population groups were going to be combined on it. But the simple fact is that a central body, whether it be the Cabinet or the Treasury, must in the final instance decide about expansions and the financial implications in respect of the technikons and the universities for all population groups. The reality is that there is only one Government, and only one Government must take the decisions. Apparently there is no objection on the part of the CP to this single Government taking decisions affecting the technikons and universities of all the population groups, but they are afraid when that Government has to be advised by a coordinating body of advisers. How is one to account for this logically? How is it possible that a person can have any objection, particularly when the advice from that body, as is clearly stated in the Bill, will go to the three different Ministers who will be responsible for the policy and development of the universities and technikons for each of these three population groups? Each of those Ministers will therefore, on the basis of co-ordinated advice, and after reciprocal discussion, be able to decide in co-operation with the Treasury, on a basis which will be far more justified and with a better input of information, which will produce a better assimilated interpretation of the claims it has before it. Within the set-up as we have it here, it is surely logical that there can be no objection in principle to the proposed advisory council. After all it is not at variance with the existing fact that there is only one central Government that has to make the decisions on all these matters.

To those hon. members on this side of the House who supported the Bill, I wish to convey my sincere thanks. The hon. member for Johannesburg West referred with appreciation to the members of the existing Universities Advisory Council for the work they have done. I am now going to mention their names and professions briefly. This ought to give those hon. members who asked how the proposed council would be constituted an indication of the kind of expertise and the kind of leadership which will also be brought together on such a new council.

In the first place there is the chairman of the present council, Prof. H. S. Steyn, a former Vice-Rector of Unisa, and the person who was at the time the chief vocational adviser to the Van Wyk De Vries Commission, and who was also the first chief executive officer of the Universities Advisory Council, which was appointed at the time on the recommendation of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission. After his retirement he was so kind as to declare himself prepared to succeed Prof. H. B. Thom, the previous chairman of the Universities Advisory Council as new chairman.

All of them Broederbonders. [Interjections.]

He is supported by people like Mr. Billy Sceales, former principal of the Cape Technikon, who owing to his experience in the sphere of technikons can provide the council with a proper perspective in this respect. He is also supported by Prof. Franszen, former Deputy President of the Reserve Bank, who also, because he has a profound knowledge of the Treasury, makes a contribution in the financial sphere.

Are you certain you are not dealing with the Executive Council of the Broederbond now? [Interjections.]

He is also supported by another eminent member, to whom the hon. member for Bryanston would probably refer, in a different way, Sir Richard Luyt. [Interjections.] He is of course the former rector of the University of Cape Town, a man who has also had exceptional experience. He is also supported by Dr. Ampie Roux, formerly in charge of our nuclear research, as well as by Dr. Johan Gerbers, president of the HSRC, as well as by two officials, i.e. the Deputy Director-General of the Department of National Education, Mr. Louw Visagie, who also has exceptional knowledge and a background relating to technikons, and Dr. Roux Venter, who is also chief executive officer of the council, a person who himself had had exceptional experience of universities, and who is also known as the chief of macro educational planning in the Department of National Education.

It is expertise of this nature which is important to us. These are not people who represent specific bodies or organizations. However, they are people who have been appointed on the grounds of their personal statute, achievements, expertise, authoritativeness and accepted leadership and who collectively are able to provide advice of such an authoritative calibre that we shall in fact involve such people in the new council as well.

Next, as far as hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, I wish to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Rosettenville for his support for this Bill. In an exceptionally fine way he highlighted the importance of co-operation between the universities and the technikons on the one hand as well as the private sector, the industries and the business world on the other. I definitely go along with him in endorsing the importance of this matter.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed and the hon. member for Pretoria East, with exceptional knowledge drawn from their own professional backgrounds, dealt with various problems to which this new advisory council would have to devote attention. Both of them referred to the unmistakable fact—the hon. member Prof. Olivier also referred to this—that there are major differences between the functions of the universities and those of the technikons These are institutions of which the function descriptions differ, and for that very reason there is also a certain latent potential for conflict in the competing claims of these two kinds of tertiary institutions. For that very reason I am convinced—in fact the Government is also convinced—that an authoritative council such as this is the proper body to make a critical assessment and recommendations on the competing claims of the two different families, i.e. the technikons and the universities. I wish to agree with the aforesaid two hon. members when they point out that the definition of the spheres of operation of the technikons and universities respectively will be an extremely important assignment to the new advisory council. I also wish to point out however that in my opinion an absolutely watertight definition of spheres of operation of the aforesaid two kinds of institutions will simply not be feasible or practicable. On the other hand the considerations which the aforesaid two hon. members raised were of very great value, and I shall definitely convey them to the advisory council as soon as it has been constituted.

I want to point out in passing that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed’s request that any new subsidy formula should also be distributed for general cognizance, is a request which I realize is important and which will be complied with. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, it was always the case in the past that when a new subsidy formula for either the universities or the technikons was finalized, it was subsequently distributed for general cognizance among the public. It is essential that this be done, and this will definitely be done in future.

When the hon. member for Bryanston expressed his opposition to this Bill at the outset, it truly astonished me, not because he had expressed his opposition to it, because it was very clear that he was under the strict control of the Junta—or is it now the Politburo—of the extreme militant section of this party from the moment when he assumed a strongly hostile position in regard to this series of educational laws. Of course he is not a member of that band of brothers, and they bullied him rather severely. One could hear it in that initial speech which he read out so carefully, that speech in which he had to work himself up until the words were flowing to an extent which was actually beyond the scope of what one normally expects from this “Siener” Van Rensburg. [Interjections.] It was a flood of words which apparently had neither his enthusiasm nor, as far as one could infer at that stage, his full understanding, because they were prescribed to him by that Junta that told him: “Sir, you are our spokesman, you are going to oppose this thing and you are going to oppose it in exactly the same way as the hon. member for Pinelands would have done if he had still been our spokesman”. What did the hon. member for Bryanston do then?

The hon. the Minister is lying when he says that.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lying”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Bryanston said it was wrong for members of this advisory council to be appointed by the Minister and that they should be appointed by the bodies whose competing claims were involved here, viz. the universities and the technikons, “so that they could advise the Minister on behalf of those institutions”. I am sorry that I did not succeed, but I tried very hard in my introductory speech to the Second Reading debate—and for that reason I shall have to repeat it again—to point out the difference between the “cushioning” body on the one hand and the other co-ordinating bodies of the interested parties on the other. There is a world of difference between the two. The Committee of University Principals consists of all the university principals and as far as they are able, they arrive at a collective agreement—and I want to say that it is frequently difficult; I can attest to this from my own experience—to address requests to the Government on behalf of the various universities. They are interested parties. Naturally they want everything they can possibly get. The same applies to the new Council of Technikon Principals. These are bodies which plead on behalf of the universities and the technikons and no one can do this better than the principals of those institutions themselves. However, what is required now is that the Minister as the political head of the department should not decide alone between these competing claims. If he has to decide alone, it will be said that he is giving first this and then that university or technikon preferential treatment. That is why we in South Africa—and this is an example of what we have applied to our benefit from the experience of British universities—have established a “cushioning” body, consisting of independent experts who are able to receive and process these competing claims and then advise the Minister as the “cushioning” body. For that reason it would be quite wrong if the competing claimants, viz. the universities and the technikons, were to nominate the majority of the members on the advisory council. In fact, we have received criticism from various bodies, as well as from colleges, that asked whether it was in any way right that the Committee of Technikon Principals and the Committee of University Principals should each have two of their nominees appointed to this body. There would then, in fact, be four advocates of the competitors, the claimants who would have representations on the decision-making body. There are four advocates sitting together on the bench. Nevertheless we felt that it was in fact beneficial and that the majority of the members of the advisory council would work towards this end, as would the calibre of the persons nominated by the universities and the technikons, so that balanced advice would be furnished. Up to now this has always been the case. This has always been the case since the time when the existing Universities Advisory Council was brought into existence in terms of the recommendations contained in the Van Wyk De Vries report. It worked very well. I think the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed pointed this out very clearly.

I also wish to give the assurance that for this new regulatory process the existing Universities Advisory Council, the existing Committee of University Principals, as well as the existing Association of Technikons, which will now be replaced by the Committee of Technikon Principals were consulted. There was no difference of opinion on this aspect that it should be a “cushioning” body and not a body of interested parties. Nor was there any objection to the fact that a nomination of two persons from a panel of four candidates would take place. Consequently I really cannot see a single ground, a single valid reason, why the hon. member for Bryanston could have any objection and allege that the body would be incorrectly constituted if it were appointed by the Minister and why it should preferably be appointed by the competitors, by the advocates on whose case a decision has in fact to be reached. I think this is really an indication that the hon. member, who normally does not allow himself to be caught out easily, did not do his homework all that well this time. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon. member for Durban North is concerned, I thank him for his support. I have in fact replied to his questions in connection with the composition of the council. I wish to add that if we had to give all the interested persons and bodies that have an interest in technikon education and university education representatives on the council, it would be an immensely large council. We are concentrating on a relatively small council on which individuals with specialized knowledge and with recognized authority are included. The plea of the hon. member that the private sector in a sense of commerce and industry should be authoritatively represented here, is a very valid argument and it will be very carefully considered in the constitution of the new council.

His further request that there should be representation on a geographic basis as well, is a matter which I do not think can be implemented within the context of the thinking which I mentioned. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the problem of geographic interests is intercepted by two aspects. Firstly, provision is being made in the Bill for the council to be able to appoint committees. It is therefore able to appoint committees, provided a member of the council is in charge of such committees, to make a proper study of the interests of a specific geographic area and make an authoritative recommendation on the matter. However, I also wish to inform the member that the practice so far with the existing Universities Advisory Council is that the chief executive officer and one or two of the council members visit the various universities every year to have local talks with the university, together with the chairman of the university council, the principal of the university and other interested persons and to hold in situ inspections of developments or development plans for which money is being requested. By bringing the council, as it were, to the geographic points on which decisions have to be made, I think we succeeded in the past in obtaining a very fair and balanced assessment.

I say again, as I said in my initial speech, that although criticism could in the past have been levelled at the size of the cake which was made available for the universities, there was never to my knowledge any objections to the way in which that cake was cut up and distributed among the various universities, thanks to the sound subsidy formula which we had and thanks to the stature, authoritativeness and responsibility of the individuals appointed to this council.

I think that I have with this replied for the most part to the most relevant observations made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I want to tell him that when he referred specifically to a representative of the Department of Manpower, which I think has a great interest in this council, my reply is that we are in fact amending the law in such a way that, apart from the executive officer, we are no longer appointing representatives of Government departments to the council. The direct representative of the Department of National Education, who was specifically appointed, has also been moved precisely in order to assure the departments concerned, consequently the State, of the greatest possible benefit of objective advice from outside the State, in the strict sense of the word.

I think that I have with this replied to the most important points that were raised. In my experience of the tertiary education sector, this is certainly, from the point of view of the general responsibility of the State to make provision for this sector, one of the most important steps that has been taken to ensure that in future—since the tertiary sector, in particular our universities and technikons, are going to play a tremendously important part in the development and the growth of the country and in the solution of the country’s problems—a body is now for the first time being established which is able to give authoritative and co-ordinated advice from an overall perspective to the decision-maker or decision-makers on Government level in respect of all the competing components in the tertiary sector, and also in regard to their claims for financial support. This cannot but lead to considerably improved decision-making by the authorities in connection with the development of this sector.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that I announced in this House on 16 March 1983 that the Government had decided to rationalize governmental involvement in tourism and to establish a new statutory body for this purpose and to transfer all the functions of the Tourism Branch of the Department as well as the functions of the South African Tourist Corporation and of the Hotel Board to the new body.

This means that with the establishment of the new board, these three organizations will cease to exist in their present form. This decision was taken on the basis of a function-orientated investigation of tourism undertaken by the Office of the Commission for Administration at the instigation of the Cabinet. There has also been consultation with industrial organizations in the private sector which are involved in tourism in order to obtain their views as well.

The private sector welcomes and fully supports this step.

The establishment of the board and the transfer of the functions of the three existing organizations represent a continuation of the process of rationalization of the public sector with a view to promoting good administration. It also gives effect to the Government’s intention of enabling the private sector to play a bigger role in the economic activities of the country. In this case it is the intention to involve the private sector more directly in the planning and co-ordination of tourism.

The importance of tourism to the Republic of South Africa cannot be sufficiently emphasized. Apart from the exchange which is earned in this way it is an important economic activity which provides many jobs. Tourism contributes in a natural way to a better distribution of economic activities and fits in well with the policy of regional development. In addition, tourism has the advantage that foreign visitors return home with a better understanding of our country and its people.

In order to give greater momentum to the tourist industry it is essential that the public and private sectors co-operate in a more coordinated manner. Unnecessary fragmentation and even duplication do not contribute to the effective promotion of tourism. The establishment of a tourism board should contribute greatly to the more effective co-ordination and planning of activities in this field. The Government advocates an economic system based on free enterprise. The tourist industry holds great opportunities for the private entrepreneur. The private sector should display even more initiative. The opportunity of playing a more meaningful role in the planning of a tourism strategy is now being created for the private sector within the Tourism Board. The board provides for representatives of the private sector to play a prominent role in the activities and administration of the board.

The new board will be able to function in a more effective and co-ordinated way than is possible under the present fragmented system which has developed over the years. It is the intention to instruct the board, when it has been established, to undertake a thorough investigation of the activities which are being entrusted to it and to follow this up with a process of internal rationalization. The board itself will have to identify further and to regulate the spheres within which it functions. An example which could be mentioned in this connection is the question of quality control. Control over the quality of facilities used by tourists is at present limited to hotels and is implemented by the Hotel Board. The board will have to ascertain whether it is not desirable and necessary that this function should be extended to include other accommodation used by tourists, apart from hotels, as well as restaurants. This function can be extended to other spheres as well in due course.

The Government will continue to make a financial contribution to the activities which are now being transferred to the board. Because of the heavy demands on the Treasury, this contribution is subject to limitations. However, the board will be charged with the task of investigating the possibility of other sources of revenue in order to achieve a greater degree of financial independence. It is necessary to broaden the base of the financing of tourism.

The great advantages to be derived by the business sector from a growing tourist industry should make it possible to identify other sources of financing as well. The board will be able to make use of these sources with the approval of the Government or even in terms of further legislation. This is in line with the Government’s policy of increasing the involvement of the private sector in all fields of economic activity and of reducing Government interference. This principle already applies in the case of the Hotel Board, which derives the greater part of its revenue from levies paid by registered hotels.

The board will consist of persons who have a knowledge of the tourist industry or of important branches thereof. Clause 3(3) of the Bill provides that the majority of the members will be appointed from a list of names submitted by organizations regarded as representative of the tourist industry. This does not mean that the members of the board will be appointed as representatives of specific interest groups. The task of the board is greater than that of any particular interest group and members will be appointed to promote the general interests of the tourist industry. Appointments to the board will be made on the basis of the contribution which members are personally able to make to the total effort, by virtue of their knowledge and/or experience, and not in order to promote the interests of any particular interest group.

Provision is being made for the appointment to the board of a representative of the tourist industry from the National Regional Development Advisory Committee. This will ensure that the board is constantly reminded of the regional development aspect of tourism. In addition, it is envisaged that members of the Coloured and Asian population groups may be appointed to the board by the Minister.

Generally speaking, the constitution of the board is aimed at ensuring the greatest possible involvement on the part of the private sector.

The decision to establish the S.A. Tourism Board must not be regarded as a motion of no confidence in any of the three existing organizations which are to be incorporated into the new body. The S.A. Tourist Corporation has been in existence since 1947, and the Tourism Branch of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism was formerly the Department of Tourism, which was established in 1963, while the Hotel Board was established in 1965. All three these organizations have done excellent work in the interests of the tourist industry over a number of decades, often under difficult circumstances. The pioneering work which has been done and which we are very proud of has paved the way for a new dispensation in the tourist industry. In terms of this, any duplication as well as the artificial segmentation which exist at the moment will be eliminated. The new dispensation will bring about greater co-ordination and will make more effective organization possible.

†I wish to take this opportunity to convey to all the members of the board of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and of the Hotel Board, as well as to all the personnel of the respective organizations, my personal thanks and the sincere appreciation of the Government for the valuable services they have rendered. In many cases the times of service extend over many years, coupled with personal sacrifices. There is much appreciation for the dedicated services which board members and employees have rendered to the relevant organizations and through them to South Africa. I trust that under the new dispensation the personnel will continue to serve the S.A. Tourism Board and the country with the same enthusiasm and loyalty. It is a matter of utmost importance to the Government that no serving employee of any of the three existing bodies will be detrimentally affected by the change-over.

Specific provision is made in clause 11 of the Bill that every serving employee of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and of the Hotel Board will retain his rights, privileges and conditions of service on being transferred to the service of the S.A. Tourism Board. Services rendered to their present employers shall be deemed to be services rendered to the S.A. Tourism Board. Consequently, all employees will in respect of their conditions of service be in the same position as at present and in some respects they will even be in a more favourable and not a weaker position after their transfer to the S.A. Tourism Board.

The conditions of service of the personnel of the Tourism Branch of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, are protected and regulated by the Public Service Act, 1957. Although provision has been made in the Bill to second officials of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism to the S.A. Tourism Board, nothing prevents the appointment of such officials, upon their request, to the S.A. Tourism Board. I trust that all the personnel involved will be satisfied with such an arrangement which is designed to do justice to everybody, in order that the change-over to the new dispensation can take place smoothly and without the disruption of activities.

I have indicated that the Bill before the House seeks to establish a S.A. Tourism Board and to transfer the functions, duties and responsibilities of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board, as well as those of the Tourism Branch of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism to the new board. The Bill further provides for a few matters incidental to this transfer.

This form of legislation has obvious shortcomings. However, since the announcement of the proposed establishment of the S.A. Tourism Board it has become evident that the new dispensation should be implemented as soon as possible. Further delays would not only contribute towards creating greater uncertainty, but could also have a detrimental effect on the development of tourism. The announcement of the new dispensation has already created an understandable degree of uncertainty among the personnel concerned and this uncertainty must be allayed or removed as soon as possible.

In the second place, the existing organizations are now hesitant to launch or introduce any new initiatives or schemes with medium or long term implications. Such projects would have to be continued by the new board although it might not necessarily agree with them. If the situation were to be left unchanged until legislation could be passed during the next parliamentary session and before the new board became operative, there would be a real danger of stagnation, which we cannot afford, while staff losses might also occur. It was not possible to draft a consolidated Bill for consideration during the current session.

In any event, since the new board will be taking over the functions of three existing organizations and in view of the necessity for internal rationalization to which I have referred earlier, it is considered essential that the new board should be consulted when drafting a new consolidated Bill. That will make it possible to produce a final and complete product during the 1984 session or as soon as possible thereafter. This is the reason for drafting the Bill in the form in which it is before the House and I thank members for their understanding of the situation.

One of the consequences of the establishment of the S.A. Tourism Board as a joint venture in tourism between the Government and the private sector is that the name of the department will have to be changed to the Department of Industries and Commerce. The responsibilities of the Cabinet portfolio will, however, remain the same. That means that the relevant Minister will continue to carry responsibility for the Government’s endeavours in tourism.

I am firmly convinced that the new S.A. Tourism Board will be a worthy instrument in further developing and building up the South African tourism industry. I trust that the board will have the fullest co-operation and support of the private sector. In view of the highly fragmented nature of the private sector’s activities in the field or tourism, it would be welcomed if the industry could create a forum to discuss matters of common concern amongst themselves and to liaise with the S.A. Tourism Board. I believe that this can be beneficial to all.

Finally, this is a measure which is in the best interests of our tourism industry and of South Africa and I trust that all hon. members will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Bill as it stands. After listening to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, however, I have certain misgivings about a number of aspects. I will refer to those, however, later in my speech.

We welcome this Bill because it will lead to rationalization in the tourism industry, and more important still, is that for the first time it is recognized in terms of this Bill that South Africans can be tourists inside of their own country. This is particularly clear if one looks at the new Schedule 1, where it is now stated that the object of the Corporation will be, by encouraging residents of the Republic of South Africa to travel about their own country, to recognize for the first time South Africans travelling in their own country as tourists and to treat them exactly the same as foreign tourists are treated. I believe this is quite understandable. Why it has never been done before, I fail to understand.

In forming this particular board certain objectives must be enunciated, objectives which it will be necessary for the board to follow. I think that the foremost objective to be followed will be the identification of all the opportunities available to tourists in South Africa. It has already been done to some extent. I do not believe, however, it has been done fully by the previous fragmented boards. The opportunities for tourism in South Africa have been stated by me on previous occasions, and I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with them in detail again.

The second objective that has to be followed is the investigation in depth of the barriers to the achievements made possible by way of such opportunities. We do, for instance, want to encourage tourists to come to South Africa from abroad in far greater numbers than has been the case until now. One of our biggest barriers, however, is the forbidding costs of air fares. This is a problem which the hon. the Minister and the Tourism Board will have to solve with the co-operation of the Minister of Transport Affairs. I have often raised the question of discount fares available to tourists all over Europe and all over America, but which are not available to tourists coming to South Africa to visit our country. Fares to South Africa are far too high to encourage tourism to our country.

The third objective I should like to point out is that of assessing the costs involved and determining by whom such costs will have to be borne. The hon. the Minister has raised this question, and I think it is a very important matter.

The final objective is of course to state a policy in respect of the methods to be adopted for the achievement of all the other objectives I have mentioned. Up to now we have had no defined policy whatsoever in respect of tourism. We have had statements made by a vast number of different boards and organizations, as well as by the hon. the Minister. One of the first things this new board must do, is to formulate a definitive policy in respect of tourism.

How should the board arrive at the formulation of such a definitive tourism policy? I shall tell the hon. the Minister what, I believe, is necessary. The board will have to investigate the whole question of the marketing potential of tourism. The board will have to investigate the problems in connection with transportation; whether it be air, train or bus transportation. There is, for instance, a report on tour bus operators dealing with this whole matter. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister here in the House in connection with tour bus operators in South Africa, he stated that the report was ready. Until this day, however, nobody knows what the contents of that report are. This is one of the matters which the new board will have to handle. It will have to investigate and publish that report as soon as possible.

The third thing is, of course, accommodation. By incorporating the Hotel Board into this new Tourism Board it means now that the whole question of accommodation will also be considered by the new board. It is here that I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a mistake that he made in his introductory speech. This is what he said—

Section 3 of the Hotels Act which we have had on our Statute Book for many years, provides that the objects of the Hotel Board shall be, firstly—

and secondly—

The Hotel Board has had this power but it has never been exercised. Now the hon. the Minister tells us that it is the intention of the board to do just that. If the Hotel Board has not done this before then it has been at fault and it is up to the hon. the Minister to ensure that whatever powers or functions this house grants will be carried out. I am very surprised that the hon. the Minister has raised this matter here in respect of which the necessary power has existed since 1965.

The question now arises as to who should help in arriving at the correct policy to be followed in regard to tourism in South Africa. There are a large number of organizations involved in tourism. First of all, there are the hotels themselves that provide accommodation. The Hotel Board can look after this aspect. Then we have the travel agents. During this session this House considered legislation establishing a Travel Agents Board. I hope that the Tourism Board will ensure that there is proper professionalization among travel agents and that they will become travel and leisure-time consultants in the true sense and not just sellers of IATA tickets to tourists. Then we have the tour and safari agents who are also very important because a safari is the one thing that we in South Africa can offer in that one of our greatest attractions is our wildlife. There are also the vehicle-renting organizations. The whole question of the renting of vehicles should also fall under the control of the Tourism Board. Then we have the tour guides. In this regard very little has been done in regard to the training of these people. We have spent a whole week in this House discussing the question of universities and technikons and yet not one of them offers any course at all to tour guides. One of the things that we need in this country is that our tour guides must be efficient and know what they are talking about. Far too often one goes on a tour and hears the bus driver saying things that are not absolutely correct. We must not blame the bus driver for that because he has never been trained to be a tour guide. It is absolutely essential that something should be done about this. I think that in this regard we can take an example from Israel. If one really wants a good tour one should go to Israel because every tour guide has to be approved by the Government and has to undergo, as far as I know, a course of training lasting at least two years.

In addition to the foregoing we also have the various motoring associations such as the Automobile Association and Rondalia. They must also be brought in to assist in this particular regard. There is also the S.A. Congress Bureau. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Division of Tourism for the tremendous amount of work that has been done to introduce this congress bureau into South Africa. Last year there were nine international congresses in South Africa all of which were of a very high standard, and there is no doubt at all that the congress bureau has been of enormous help in this regard. There are also the publicity associations in each and every town.

Another hon. member will discuss this during the Committee Stage, but I think that something should be done to raise the standard of publicity associations all over the country to ensure that the towns, particularly the smaller towns, are made more attractive and that there will be information about them so that they will attract more tourists.

I now want to deal again with the South African Congress Bureau and I should like to mention something which has been neglected. Our universities hold a large number of international seminars. They are not congresses in the normal sense of the word, but visiting professors and visiting speakers come from all over the world to participate in those international seminars. The engineers in particular hold a large number of those seminars every year. Something should be done by the Congress Bureau to ensure a proper co-ordination with this group as well.

I suggest that the board should contact the universities and the various professional societies to see if they can assist them in this particular matter. If there was ever a way of producing friendships between South Africa and other countries, it can be done in this particular way.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister that he has seen fit to give one member on the new board to the Southern African Regional Tourism Council. Unfortunately this is limited to Swaziland, Malawi and South Africa only. I think that the hon. the Minister should really endeavour to get the Tourism Board to try to widen its scope in all Southern African countries south of the equator so that we can have some general forum for tourism amongst them. It is foremost and essential that something should be done.

Concerning the question of the policy decision which has to be made by the Tourism Board I want to ask the hon. the Minister what they intend doing. I have asked this question before. Does he want them to cater exclusively for the upper income group or does he want tourism in South Africa to be mass tourism such as one sees in Europe today? Does he want to encourage only the rich so that they will come to our four and five star hotels, or does he want to encourage tourism so that tourists can also make use of our one, two and three star hotels? I think particular attention should be paid to this because it appears that in the past nothing has been done in this regard.

There seems to be an attitude prevalent that because the people who come with mass tourism are of the lower income group, they should be ignored altogether. Since they do not have much money to spend, why worry about them? We want people to come to South Africa whether they are rich or whether they are poor.

Now that the South African Tourist Corporation is to be disbanded, I should like to pay tribute to them for the work they have done. I believe that in the new Tourism Board they will come to greater strength and have more power to the elbow than they had in the past.

If one looks at the legislation on the South African Tourist Corporation and the object that is still left, one notices that the object shall be to develop the tourist industry of the Republic by encouraging persons to visit the Republic and South Africans to travel. Here I want to raise the point that “develop” means to lay down a policy, to abide by that policy and to carry out that policy.

Here again I want to raise the question of the amount of money made available. During the budget debates I said that some R600 million is spent in South Africa annually by tourists and it could be increased to a matter of R2 billion. The GST on an amount of R600 million comes to R36 million, but all that the Tourist Corporation gets this year is a paltry R15 million. In this competitive market R15 million does not take one very far in trying to carry out effective marketing operations. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to speak to the hon. the Minister of Finance to see to it that more money is made available to the Tourism Board to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. Without money nothing can be done.

The next point I want to raise is the question of visas for foreigners working to come to South Africa. One of the complaints which I have received from many people in all parts of the world is that when they go along to a South African Embassy or Consulate-General they are told that they have to wait six weeks before they can get a visa. I was in New York last week and went to the French Embassy with an American who got his visa within two hours. If we want to encourage tourism to South Africa visas must be easily available. By continuing in this manner, by thinking South Africa is such a particular country that someone has to wait three, four or five weeks before he can get a visa, we are not going to encourage tourism.

They have to do a security check first.

Somebody says they have to do a security check first. I take it other countries also have security problems. We are not the only country with security problems. Do not forget, this has an effect on South Africans. By our imposing visa restrictions on foreigners, those countries in turn impose visa restrictions on South Africans. There is a quid pro quo in this particular game of visa applications.

I now want to deal with the Hotel Board. I showed just now that it had two functions and that the hon. the Minister had erred in what he had said. The one thing that nobody can understand is the symbols displayed outside South African hotels, such as TRYYY. Everyone who sees that also asks why, why, why? [Interjections.] These symbols are absolutely unintelligible. I think the time has come when these symbols should be changed so that they are meaningful. Nobody understands that “YYY” stands for beer, wine and all other alcoholic drinks. I think it is an absolutely stupid system of designation and it should be changed to something which the ordinary man in the street understands immediately.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister proposes to introduce legislation giving the Tourism Board control over tour guides. It would have been a pity had he not done so. As I have said before, I welcome the fact that this provision dealing with tour guides will fall under the Tourism Board. However, one of the first things that the Tourism Board must do is to ensure that proper courses are arranged either at technikons or universities for tour guides so that we will have tour guides of a reasonable standard in South Africa.

I should like to deal now with a number of points made by the hon. the Minister in his speech. I should like to refer him to the preamble to the draft constitution Bill, which contains a contradiction. I want to refer him specifically to these words—

The hon. the Minister during his speech has stated in a number of places that he welcomes this Bill because it is going to allow for the participation of private enterprise. He also said in his speech—

That is the point. That is why there is something wrong in this preamble. There are a large number of people who serve on these boards with the whole purpose of stifling competition and of gaining control. The hon. the Minister knows this as well as I do. This is the problem. Something must be done to ensure that that does not happen.

Finally, I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister when he said—

Why cannot Blacks also be appointed on this particular board? Why should it be limited to Whites, Coloureds and Indians only? 70% of the people of South Africa are Black. 70% of the tourists in the year 2000 are going to be Black. The future of South African tourism is bright because of this fact. Large numbers of tourists in the future are going to be Black. Surely, if one wants to provide proper facilities for Blacks, they should be on the board as well. I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to ensure that Blacks come on to the board as well as Indians and Coloureds. By trying to do what the hon. the Minister wants to do here he is in effect trying to cut off the Black population. Let me assure the hon. the Minister that if he wants to create anger among the Black people he should continue keeping them out of his organizations. That is the way to make them more and more angry to the detriment of everything else.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout started off making a very good speech, but he spoilt it at the end by trying to bring in some politics about Blacks not being admitted on the board.

You spoil your speech by starting.

I think that that hon. member must shut up and stick to hearts. He might do better in that.

He is not doing so well with hearts these days either.

Sir, the hon. member said there should be Black people on the board. He said we are cutting off the Black people. I do not think that that is true. I think there will be absolute co-ordination between the S.A. Tourism Board which is now being established and the national States in South Africa.

Oh rubbish!

I think that on that basis we shall involve the Black people.

I should like to thank the hon. member for supporting the Bill. He made a number of positive remarks which I am sure will be taken into account. I should like to support him in connection with the few remarks he made about the improvement of the quality of service over and above the mere provision of accommodation. However, he made a few bureaucratic remarks in relation to tour guides, remarks which I do not think are very much in line with the attitude of his party.

*On behalf of this side of the House I should like to support the Bill. A co-ordinating role is to be played between the Tourism Division, the Hotel Board and Satour, the S.A. Tourist Corporation. The private sector will of course be involved as well. Therefore on this occasion it is necessary to make a few remarks about the S.A. Tourist Corporation. One must pay tribute to people who have rendered a tremendous service over the years in regard to tourism in South Africa. This is a statutory body which has existed since 1947. Over the years the quality of the work of these people has been striking. They have produced thousands of brochures, placards and films in about 11 international languages. Over the years they have developed about 150 different themes to attract tourists to South Africa. They have developed media programmes and brought overseas journalists to South Africa as guests of the country. They have had a travel agent programme. In 1982, for example, they had more than a thousand travel agents from throughout the entire world here to inform them about tourism and the potential in this regard. In last year’s budget R2,4 million was voted for their advertising campaign in regard to international advertisements. They created workshops in South Africa for discussions concerning tourism. These people have played a major role and I think one can say that this will form a very sound basis for the new S.A. Tourism Board.

Then, too, I wish to make one remark about the Hotel Board in South Africa. This board was appointed in 1963 and although that board has perhaps made itself very unpopular here and there, I think that we can say today that the quality of service provided by hotels in this country has improved phenomenally since the Hotel Board came into its own. Previously hotels were largely oriented towards the sale of liquor, but nowadays there is also a more service-oriented approach on the part of the hotels. I think that the S.A. Tourism Board will also have to give a little more attention in future to the training of staff for hotels in order to provide a more professional service.

Then, too, the hon. the Minister made a few remarks about the improvement of quality control in other areas besides the hotel industry. I do not think this can be over-emphasized. When one looks at some of our restaurants in South Africa, at a different kind of accommodation in South Africa and particularly at the quality of taxis in South Africa—which I find really shocking—and at public transport, in other words tourist aids, it is clear that very urgent attention will have to be given to this.

Without detracting from the good work done over the years by the S.A. Tourist Corporation, the Hotel Board and the Department of Tourism, I want to associate myself with the remarks of a certain Lord Desmond Hirschfield. He is the president of Horwarth and Horwarth International, an international accounting and management consultancy organization which specialises in the field of tourism, the hotel industry and other forms of leisure-time expenditure commodities. This man recently visited the organization’s partnership firm in South Africa, Kessel Feinstein in Johannesburg, and made the following remark as quoted in Die Vaderland on 7 June this year—

This is the opinion of a person who is involved in the tourist industry on a worldwide basis. I do not want to associate myself with his statement that we have neglected the tourist industry as such, but I am of the opinion that we can agree with him that the potential for tourism in this country has thus far not been realized. One of the reasons for this man’s visit to South Africa is to investigate the possibility of large-scale foreign investment in the South African tourism industry, particularly with regard to the hotel industry. Lord Hirschfield referred inter alia to Spain and said that Spain’s largest earner of foreign exchange had only reached that limit when the Spanish Government became actively involved in the development of the tourism industry in that country. Whereas our Government does do a great deal, its involvement by way of the founding of a tourist corporation will mean a tremendous amount for us in future. South Africa could be one of the world’s most popular holiday places imaginable. Its unspoilt scenic beauty, its game parks and nature reserves, its golden beaches, its wonderful climate and its historic tourist attractions contribute largely towards this. To me the most important factor at this stage when one looks at the tourist industry in the African context is, however, the fact that one can come to South Africa because there is a relatively secure political situation here. Africa which, over the years, has attracted many tourists, is no longer a safe place for tourists today. One need only look at the several incidents that have taken place over the past few months in Zimbabwe. Who can say that he can go on holiday in safety in Zimbabwe, Mozambique or Angola? I think that South Africa must exploit this opportunity of attracting tourists to South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that Black people were not being appointed to the board. I want to say that South Africa, with its Black national States and the potential that can be observed here and in those countries, and which is there for everyone to see, has potential which has certainly not been fully exploited and developed as yet. As I see it, a heavy responsibility rests on the new South African Tourism Board to liaise very closely with the Governments of the national States so that a co-ordinated effort can be made in the whole of Southern Africa.

Alongside the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, tourism is an important link between South Africa and potential friends of and visitors to this country. Our tourist offices abroad ought to be regarded in the same light as all our foreign embassies.

I should like to make a few remarks about the growth of overseas tourism to South Africa. In the 20 years from 1961 to 1981 the average annual growth in tourist arrivals in South Africa was 15%. In 1961 we attracted only 30 542 tourists to South Africa. In 1981 this figure stood at a little less than 500 000. This represents an improvement of 1 360% over the last ten years. As I see it, this merely goes to show the tremendous potential for tourism in this country. It is higher than the average annual growth rate of international arrivals world-wide, and only goes to show what potential South Africa has. The average growth in international tourist arrivals over the same period is only approximately 5% per annum as against the 15% in South Africa.

Then, too, another important aspect is that before 1961 there were seven international airlines offering scheduled services from overseas to South Africa. Today the number of airlines bringing people to South Africa from overseas already stands at 14. 35 international flights per week land at the three international airports in South Africa, plus another 31 of the S.A. Airways—a total of 66. This excludes flights from our neighbouring States.

What is the value of tourism? Why are people so concerned about expanding tourism in South Africa? From August 1981 to July 1982, a period of twelve months, tourism earned South Africa R630 million in foreign exchange. This is only money spent in South Africa and does not include the travelling expenses of people to and from South Africa. A tourist who has once visited South Africa is a potential friend of South Africa and becomes an ambassador on his own. They themselves can come here and become acquainted with our people and our problems and also become independent of the hostile reports and influences they encounter at home.

The internal tourist, too, is of the utmost importance for South Africa. In 1982 tourists in the interior placed more than R1 000 million in circulation in the economy by way of visits in South Africa. There are far fewer people who travel overseas than those who come to South Africa, and, without urging South Africans not to travel overseas, they can be encouraged to holiday in South Africa if they want to have a holiday. Our argument here can be that every rand spent in South Africa is a rand saved in foreign exchange.

Tourism is, of course, a service industry, and therefore very labour-intensive. The hotel industry alone employs between 65 000 and 70 000 people, plus several thousands of people who are employed by other sectors related to the hotel industry. Tourism creates cheap employment opportunities if one compares it with the costs involved in beginning any type of industry. Therefore, as far as deconcentration and decentralization are concerned, tourist attractions can be established at a lower cost than, say, industrial development. Our problem is, of course, that we have strong competition and that South Africa is at the disadvantage that we are thousands of miles away from, for example, the great tourist reservoir of Europe. South Africa is more or less equally distant from the East and from the USA, and therefore one could perhaps feel that such a tourism board could perhaps give a little more attention to those countries.

It is alleged that by the end of the century international tourism will be the world’s biggest single industry. In 1982 approximately 280 million tourist arrivals were recorded world-wide. It is expected that by the end of the century the figure will be closer to 600 million tourist arrivals world-wide. We ought at least to double the number of tourists between this country and overseas over the next few years. This includes the White and Black tourists in South Africa. By the end of the century our population will be approximately 50 million, and due to the urbanization process the potential of tourism for recreation will steadily increase. Moreover, people of colour in South Africa are getting more and more involved in the utilization of tourist attractions in this country. We must plan now to use the potential correctly in the years that lie ahead. I cannot imagine any better opportunity for South Africa in this field than to have a tourism board to develop this potential of our country to its maximum extent. We therefore support the establishment of this co-ordinating South African Tourism Council with great enthusiasm, and we wish the board every success.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill here today which we in the CP would have supported under different circumstances. Initially we thought that it was quite a good piece of legislation. Now the hon. the Minister has let the cat out of the bag in his Second Reading speech, however. He has said that it is envisaged that members of the Coloured and Asian population groups may be appointed to the board by the Minister. As a result of this remark by the hon. the Minister, we in the CP will not support this Bill. [Interjections.] We regard it as another step on the part of the Government, in terms of its new policy of nationhood, in moving away from separate development, and repudiating the past of the NP itself. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If he wants to appoint people of colour to the board, why has it not been written into the principal Act?

What about the Wage Board?

Exactly.

We are going to oppose all your mixed boards.

We are being deceived, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The NP’s credibility has been destroyed. They do not want to put it in black and white. Everything is phrased in innocuous terms. On the face of it, this Bill appears to be just as innocuous. There is nothing to arouse one’s suspicions at first. However, all sorts of things are being smuggled in through the back door.

Inclusive nationhood.

We are simply fortunate in that the hon. the Minister is such an honourable person. It is because he is an honourable man that he has disclosed this fact. I thank him very much for doing so. [Interjections.]

He is an honest liberal.

I would have asked the hon. the Minister in any event whether this was going to be done. Now the hon. the Minister has already made it clear that this is exactly what is going to happen. I thank him for doing so. [Interjections.] In spite of the fact that we are not going to support this Bill under the circumstances, I do want to make a few remarks about it.

On 16 March this year, the hon. the Minister made a statement in this House. I want to refer to the fact that the Tourism Branch of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, together with some other bodies, submitted certain memoranda after the hon. the Minister had requested them to do so. On 11 March, the S.A. Handelsinstituut also had an interview with the hon. the Minister. I want to convey my thanks to those organizations which did play a role in bringing to light certain things in this House. Those people were undoubtedly experiencing certain problems. As the S.A. Handelsinstituut put it, one of their biggest problems was a lack of statistical information. We are sometimes completely inundated with certain figures and statistics, and in spite of that, there are certain fields in which there is a great shortage of information of this nature. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence to ensure that a greater quantity of more effective and more complete statistical information is made available more expeditiously; not only with regard to the bodies to which I have just referred, perhaps, but with regard to other bodies and organizations as well.

By the way, the S.A. Handelsinstituut also recommended that some kind of board be established in the sphere of tourism. However, I now want to know from the hon. the Minister which of these bodies which he interviewed requested him to appoint Coloureds and Indians to such a board. Surely this is an aspect which originated with the Government itself, with the hon. the Minister himself.

Now I want to refer once again to the hon. the Minister’s statement in this House on 16 March. I have a few problems with that statement of his. In column 3135 of Hansard of Wednesday, 16 March 1983, we read that the hon. the Minister said—

The hon. the Minister’s reference to good administration in the public sector worries me. We know that some expert or other recently said that there was corruption from top to bottom in the Public Service and in the private sector. Now the hon. the Minister has used these words in this statement of his. Their meaning is not clear to me. Either the political head is incompetent and the necessary control is not being exercised, or the reference is to the officials. I want to accept neither of these two possibilities.

It refers to the existence of three bodies instead of one.

It is true that there are three bodies, but reference is made here to good administration. The way it is put here, it is interpreted to mean that there is an absence of good administration in the Tourism Branch at the moment. I do not believe that this is so, but on behalf of my party I want to have it rectified and I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would refer to it again.

That is hair-splitting.

The hon. member says it is hair-splitting. If complaints are lodged with regard to the administration of the department and they are unfounded, does the hon. member believe that we should not discuss them?

We are stepping into the breach for them.

We are stepping into the breach for them, and if the hon. member wants it to be suppressed, he must say so, but I want to discuss it.

I want to make a further quotation. The hon. the Minister said—

Fortunately, the hon. the Minister gave us one or two examples, but I want the hon. the Minister to elaborate on this point, because it would be of assistance, not only to hon. members of this House, but also to the members of that body, if the hon. the Minister could spell out to us what other fields could be developed in this connection.

I also want to refer to the staff of the department. In terms of this legislation, the staff of the other two bodies will be transferred to the new board, but what is going to become of the departmental staff? Are they going to be seconded or transferred? If so, for how long will it be? I know that they will not be adversely affected, but I also want to know whether anything else is involved here. I think it would also be of benefit to the officials of the department to have more clarity in this connection.

As far as the budget is concerned, I notice that the budget for the present financial year is R15,1 million. I should like to know when this legislation will come into operation. Does the hon. the Minister intend that this will happen in the near future, and will the full amount of the budget then be transferred to the new board, or what will happen to it? I think it would be a good thing if the hon. the Minister could give us some more particulars in this connection.

I now want to proceed to the clauses of the Bill itself. I want to refer again to the non-White representation on the board. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded that Blacks should be appointed to this board. Can the hon. the Minister give us any reason why Coloureds and Indians should be appointed to the board, but not Blacks? Can the hon. the Minister tell us what the moral justification for this is? [Interjections.] No, we are opposed to it. However, I should like to know on what grounds the hon. the Minister considers giving representation to those two groups and not to the third.

As far as most of the other clauses are concerned, we can discuss these more fully in the Committee Stage, but there are a few more matters which I want to mention to the hon. the Minister. In the first place, the long title of the Bill provides the following, inter alia—

and clause 15 of the Bill repeals quite a number of sections in the South African Tourist Corporation Act and the Hotels Act. The remaining articles will continue to be in force. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister why these two pieces of legislation have not been consolidated into one Act.

I have already explained why.

It is true that the hon. the Minister has explained it, but I nevertheless wish to ask this question.

[Inaudible.]

In spite of everything, I feel that it should have been done, no matter what may happen in future. We know that the Government announced last year that there were dozens of unnecessary laws. I understand and accept what the hon. the Minister said. In spite of that, I want to request that this kind of thing be rectified immediately in future.

Clause 3(2)(a) refers to persons “whom he considers suitable to serve as members of the board”. I had intended to ask a question about this, but the hon. the Minister has indicated that as far as this is concerned, he is going to appoint people of colour. The members of the board will be appointed from various departments, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of which departments he has in mind, apart from those to which he has already referred, such as the Department of Transport and the Department of Commerce and Industries.

I should like to say something about the provincial administrations. They will probably be abolished soon if the new dispensation comes into effect—of course, I believe that it will not come into effect—but the fact remains that the provincial administrations can, must or will contribute a great deal as far as tourism is concerned. This applies in particular when one takes cognizance of the important spheres in which the provincial administrations can or should be or are already involved. Provision must be made for them.

Clause 4(3) reads—

What reasons could there be, apart from those referred to in previous subsections? Is the intention with subsection (3) that a member can be removed simply in order to make room for a non-White? What reasons does the hon. the Minister consider to be sufficient reasons for the removal of a member of the board? I think the reasons already enumerated in the clause, on the basis of which a member can be removed from his office, are sufficient. This further provision in subsection (3) is not clear to me, and therefore I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would elaborate on it.

If the members join the CP, they will be dismissed.

I really hope that what the hon. member for Rissik says will not prove to be true. After all, we do have this kind of victimization in South Africa that where members of hospital boards, for example, have to be reappointed, they are not reappointed if they have joined the CP.

Clause 6(1) provides that the Minister shall designate one of the members of the board as chairman. Is the chairman going to be one of the officials, or is he going to be one of the other members who are not in the service of the State? If a person who is not in the service of the State is designated as chairman, will he occupy that office in a full-time capacity? I should be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us some further information on this.

Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the objectives, functions and powers of the board. In this connection there are one or two aspects which I could discuss, but if it becomes necessary, I could say something about the matter in the Committee Stage, because I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily this afternoon.

Clause 15 provides for the amendment of the South African Tourist Corporation Act, 1947, and the Hotels Act, 1965, to the extent indicated in schedule 1 and schedule 2 to the Bill. Of the former Act, 16 sections will remain; six are being repealed and one is being amended. Of the latter Act, 29 sections remain; eight are being repealed, and one is being amended. I wonder, since so many existing statutory provisions are being amended and repealed, whether it has not been possible to consolidate the legislation.

A South African Tourism Board is now to be established, but I should like to know what the contribution of the State is going to be towards the promotion of tourism. I wish to endorse the remarks made by the previous two speakers. In the life of every country, tourism is a very important aspect. As hon. members have pointed out, tourism not only brings friends to South Africa who leave this country with first-hand information, but it also earns a great deal of money for this country. There are countries in which tourism makes a greater contribution to the revenue of the State than any other sector of the national economy.

When we think of tourism, we also think of the foreign offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. The hon. the Minister has been an ambassador himself, and I think he should use his influence in that department to ensure that much more is done abroad to acquaint people with the potential for tourism in South Africa. Satour and other organizations are already doing a great deal in this connection, of course, but one can never make enough information available to people abroad, whether it be done at a personal level, verbally or by way of circulars, pamphlets, literature and so on. We should also use our trade offices abroad for this purpose, and private companies which have offices abroad can also play a role in this connection. The Ministry of Transport Affairs can also make an important contribution through the S.A. Airways. I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure, in spite of the fact that this branch is being removed from his department, that a much purposeful attempt is made by all Government departments to promote tourism from abroad to South Africa. I am not so much concerned about internal tourism in South Africa. People who want to travel in this country do so of their own accord. However, it is the foreign tourist that we want to attract to this country. These people can be attracted by large conferences, by information seminars and so on. More should be done by the Government, without incurring a great deal of additional expense, to attract those people to this country.

As a result of the fact that the hon. the Minister has introduced multiracialism into this measure, we cannot support its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, while he was speaking the hon. member for Sunnyside evoked one thought in my mind and that was that he should never have stood in a constituency with the name of “Sunnyside”. All he ever sees is the dark side. The hon. member told us that he could see no moral justification for the standpoints of the hon. the Minister. I should like to test his morality a little and see whether we two are on the same level. Does the hon. member for Sunnyside agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who argued that a body should be established to ensure that tour guides should be qualified and should write an examination? [Interjections.] I am getting no reply. I take it he is too afraid to provide that answer. If the hon. member were to board a touring bus somewhere in the Cape in order to view the Cape Peninsula and found out that the tour guide was a Coloured, he would probably get off. He would travel no further on that touring bus.

He would probably get off an aircraft, too.

Yes, one of these days the hon. member will get off an aircraft when the steward brings him coffee. He reminds me of the man who said he would take his cup of coffee from the servant in the morning but that in the afternoon, when he had a suit on, he would not sit next to that same person in the aircraft.

He probably has a White domestic servant.

One is amazed at the insight and morality of hon. members of the CP. I am sure that if the hon. member for Rissik were to go to Oudtshoorn and get on an ostrich, he would get off if he found out that a Coloured had ridden on the same ostrich. That is the kind of person that wants to promote tourism in this country. They hide behind their own ideas. I wonder what the hon. member would do if he were to go to Durban and his grandchildren asked him to travel with them on the rickshaw. Would he himself pull that rickshaw? One is amazed at them.

He would harness old Frans.

I do not want to dwell on these hon. members. I wish to address the hon. member for Bezuidenhout briefly. I note that the hon. member is wearing such a splendid tie today. He probably belongs to the same ethnic university as the hon. member for Rissik.

Are you referring mockingly to that university? [Interjections.]

It is clear that apparently there is not much to see in Brakpan, other than the hon. member for Brakpan himself. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just been making a plea in respect of visas. To me it is typical of that party that they will give everything away at the expense of this country. There may be security risks involved in the issue of visas. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he does not agree with me that the tragedy that occurred at the airport of Tel Aviv, when a group of tourists alighted there, took machine guns out of their bags and began to mow down the other tourists, might never have taken place if the visas of the people in question had been more carefully examined. Would the hon. member concede that point to me?

When they began shooting they had not yet passed through immigration.

That is correct, but they were given visas. The hon. member must not tamper with South Africa’s security. [Interjections.] There is a great deal to be done. I agree with him that six weeks may be too long, but when we award a visa we must at least make sure in this regard.

I am not going to concern myself any further with the hon. members opposite. I want to come back to the Bill. I want to refer to the congress held in Oudtshoorn last year. At the time of the tourism congress held there, the town clerk of Oudtshoorn, who is apparently a member of Satour, said that domestic expenditure by overseas visitors had increased annually by 10% since 1960, in spite of inflation, the energy crisis and unemployment.

In spite of the NP Government.

Those of us who have read the reports know, however, that that industry is no longer doing so well at present. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to that. It is evident from the 1981 annual report of Satour that the recession, inflation and fluctuating exchange rates are playing a part here and that that growth has now declined to approximately 5%. Volkshandel had inter alia the following to say about that congress—

The expectation is then that there will be a growth of approximately 70% on the present figure. This will mean that whereas, as the hon. member for Turffontein indicated, approximately half a million people were here this year, in coming years we can expect an additional 300 000 tourists in the country. This raises the question: Do we have the infrastructure to provide for that increase in the number of tourists, people who are going to spend something in the region of another R500 million here? In this way South Africa obtains money without really having done anything for it.

Due to South Africa’s economic growth and its constitutional development that is now getting into top gear—I think that is what the CP is so afraid of—and because the level of prosperity of the other peoples of this country is now beginning to increase tremendously, an explosion is going to take place in domestic tourism such as we have never experienced before. Therefore it is essential that we pass legislation of this nature to ensure that our domestic tourism will be boosted considerably. The increase in the amount of traffic on our roads during the recent holidy periods has been an eloquent example of this.

Moreover, tourism is an instrument whereby we can promote South Africa’s image abroad and by so doing increase immigration to our country. That is in fact what I wish to discuss this afternoon in this debate. I think this has an important byproduct for South Africa that we must not overlook. The creation of more employment opportunities often depends on a country’s middle-class management corps. What industry attracts more of that class of person to one’s country than the tourism industry?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to this but I want to ask whether the distance between South Africa and the international tourist market is not perhaps one of the problems that makes us uncompetitive. For this reason a body such as the one envisaged by the hon. the Minister is an urgent necessity. We must cut costs to be able to offer people a proper holiday in the cheapest way. Why must we do this? Figures from the annual reports show that 25% to 27% of the tourists visiting South Africa eventually immigrate to South Africa; they eventually come to reside, work and live here. In the rest of the Western world where we compete for tourists there is no longer a significant population growth. This means that if we can attract some of those people to our country it can only be to our benefit because we have neither the time nor the manpower to train other people. Therefore, if we can succeed in attracting more people to South Africa and skimming off more of the cream from abroad so that eventually we shall have more immigrants, that will contribute towards our being able to expand and develop this country further. I think that we should consider this in that light.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in my opinion there are a few things that the Tourism Board will have to look into. This links up with the argument advanced by the CP. There is going to be tremendous growth in tourism within South Africa on the part of people of colour. Here I refer specifically to the Indian and Coloured groups. They still have a significant population increase and in addition, the wage gap has been narrowed in their case. Therefore these two factors relating to these communities will contribute towards their being a far greater factor in tourism in the future than they have been thus far. For that reason we must consider whether the infrastructures of our existing tourist industry will be sufficient to handle the increase in tourism that we expect. I do not believe that this is the case and that is why I welcome and whole-heartedly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who regrets that he is unable to be here this afternoon, I would like to say that the NRP welcomes the measures in this Bill. I am sorry that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti could not be here, but hon. members and the hon. the Minister will understand that the popular demand for NRP people around the country is considerable and that we have those outside responsibilities as well. [Interjections.]

I want to start with the official Opposition, to work my way around and then get to the Bill. I am quite intrigued by the strategy revealed here today by the official Opposition and its stand on this Bill. Of course we welcome their support, but it is intriguing to see that in respect of a previous Bill today the very basis of their objection to a Bill was the fact that the Minister could appoint members to a board …

It is not in the Bill. The Minister has the right to appoint …

That was in the previous Bill as well and on that very basis they voted against the Bill. I am sure that one of these days the PFP will find out where its left and its right hand are.

We welcome this measure of the amalgamation of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and the previous Hotel Board, because we believe that tourism is part of the international window for us and it maintains very important links for us. As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I can just say that we welcome in particular the provision which has been made for existing members of staff of these two organizations so that they will not suffer deprivation of benefits because of this amalgamation. In particular I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we appreciate that.

South Africa is really one of the world’s finest tourist havens. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg, the hon. member for Turffontein and others that South Africa has an unprecedented tourist potential. We have been endowed with a natural heritage that is seldom to be found in any other part of the world. One need only look at the majestic peaks of the Drakensberg that are magnificent in summer and in winter, at the Cango Caves, at the Ruacana Falls, at the glassy waters of False Bay on which one can see on any evening that epigram that the poet made so famous of a painted ship upon a painted sea. We have a fuller spread of tourist attractions and delights than is to be found anywhere in the world. I believe that it is absolutely essential that this new body should strive to maximize our tourist potential because of its value to us, not only in terms of providing satisfaction to the tourist who then becomes an ambassador for South Africa, but because it provides us with important contacts with people overseas in the tourist industry itself and also gives other people an opportunity to enjoy God’s gift to the people of South Africa. I think this is absolutely outstanding.

However, we should like to make some recommendations to the hon. the Minister which I think will no doubt also become our recommendations to the new South African Tourism Board. We must attend to our infrastructure in South Africa. One of the advantages that we have over most other Western countries is that the services that we can provide in South Africa are often not obtainable at reasonable prices overseas. One only has to think of the price of service in a hotel or restaurant in South Africa compared with, for instance, service in a restaurant in Rio de Janeiro, London or New York, where one will have to pay four and five times the amount that one has to pay for that commodity in South Africa. One of the primary ingredients is the fact that we are still able to provide service with these attractions that we offer. When it comes to service, I should like to say that one of the things that we are going to have to look at in South Africa, particularly in the case of Durban which is one of the premier holiday resorts of South Africa, is our infrastructure in terms of facilities such as, for instance, the Louis Botha Airport at Durban. When one considers that this is the high prestige area of South Africa into which most international tourists fly, I believe that we are going to have to apply our minds very seriously to the facilities available there. I see that in terms of the provisions of this Bill, as was previously the case, a representative of S.A. Airways will, of course, be involved in this. I can only say that it is a crying shame that we have not developed Louis Botha Airport to a greater extent than we have at present when Durban is becoming so important for tourists from Zimbabwe. People who previously went to Mozambique are now unable to go there and they now come to South Africa as well. We have a number of international air links and I believe we shall have to do something about developing that infrastructure.

As far as we are concerned tourism is a very important earner of foreign exchange. One need only look at the value of foreign exchange to any country to appreciate the fact that if we could quadruple the number of tourists from overseas who come to South Africa, this would be of direct benefit to South Africa in a fiscal manner. In this respect in particular I think we should prevail upon S.A. Airways via this hon. Minister and the S.A. Tourism Board, to take another look at charter flights from Europe and America to South Africa. I have been told by an expert in the field—obviously not a member of the PFP—that if we introduced the same kind of charter rates that we can get between North America and Europe on the South African run, we would quadruple the number of tourists the very first year that we did so. This is vital because the income that we may lose by reducing air fares on S.A. Airways will be more than made up by the expenditure of those tourists while they are here in South Africa. Obviously our independent neighbouring States, who are children of South African birth in a political sense, would also benefit from an overflow of overseas visitors. I need not tell the hon. the Minister and hon. members in this House how important it is that overseas visitors should see for themselves the development and the potential in countries such as Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda, all of whom have large tourist attractions as well. There will be an overflow of goodwill towards them as well. In our provincial council estimates recently we noticed for instance that we were going to have to spend some R14 million in the current financial year on maintaining the road down the Natal South Coast to the Wild Coast Holiday Inn in Transkei because that place had become so popular that there were some days when up to 10 000 motor vehicles were using that road, causing traffic queues, in some instances 10 km long. [Interjections.] And, I thought that traffic queues between Akasia Park and Cape Town were bad, particularly in the early morning! The figures I have just given in connection with that particular road, however, I believe, are indicative of the tourist potential of the Natal South Coast and Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches welcome this measure. We trust that the S.A. Tourist Board will do as well as, if not better than, the organizations that have gone before it. We can only wish this new board well while also stating that the NRP is always to be found in favour of a positive thrust in the interests of South Africa, and I believe that this is one of those occasions on which we have a measure before us which we can support wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to follow upon the hon. member for Durban North. I am in full agreement with most of what he has said, and therefore the hon. member should forgive me for not commenting on his speech any further.

*A little earlier today we listened to the hon. member for Sunnyside, and although I believe one would agree with the hon. member for Boksburg, of course, when he says that one should not devote too much time to the standpoints of the hon. member for Sunnyside, there is nevertheless a story which I want to tell here, which also has a bearing on the hon. member for Sunnyside. At school we had an English teacher. When one of his pupils did a very silly and stupid thing, he always used a certain expression. I have looked it up in Webster’s but I could not find that expression there. In fact, to this day I do not know exactly what it means. However, that teacher always used the expression: “You unutterable clot.” Listening to the standpoints of the hon. member for Sunnyside, Mr. Speaker, I often feel tempted to say to him: “Oh, you unutterable clot.” [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are you going to rule that that expression used by the hon. member for Caledon is permissible parliamentary language? [Interjections.]

Order! What does the hon. member for Caledon mean by referring to an “unutterable clot”?

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the expression means. [Interjections.] It is quite true. As I have already said, I have tried to look it up in Webster’s. However, the Americans do not seem to use the expression either. Therefore I have no idea what it means. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Caledon may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has come in for quite a lot of criticism in recent years for not doing enough to promote tourism. While there is still room for criticism in this connection, I believe one can say that with this legislation, the hon. the Minister has brought the involvement of both the State and the private sector in the tourist industry to the watershed. At least, this is the impression I have. When one compares the amount of R15 million appropriated for tourism with the $7,5 million spent by the American Government on the promotion of tourism, it does appear to me that the contribution and the involvement of the State in this connection, as far as South Africa is concerned, are fairly substantial. In saying this, of course, I am by no means suggesting that this is sufficient. Compared with a big country such as the USA, however, it would appear that we are spending a fairly large proportion of our available money on tourism.

However, the State is not the only party which is involved in the tourist industry, and I believe that the establishment of this new board is now creating a wonderful opportunity for the private sector to get involved as well.

However, when one looks at the various other industries involved in the tourist industry, such as the hotel industry, the bus transport industry, and so on, it does appear that there is another group which is not making an adequate contribution. It seems to me that this group is the local authorities. In this respect I want to refer, for example, to Cape Town’s contribution to the development of the tourist industry. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note that this is the only local authority in South Africa which is contributing a fairly substantial amount to the promotion of tourism.

During 1981, the Cape metropolitan area was visited by 500 000 tourists who spent R160 million. In 1982, there were 630 000 tourists who spent R20 million more, i.e. R180 million. The question arises—if Cape Town was able, through its tourist organization Captoir, to attract approximately 130 000 additional tourists in one year, who spent an additional R20 million here—whether the amount of R275 000 appropriated by the Cape Town city council, which represents only 0,03% of their total budget, is entirely reasonable.

I have referred to the large Cape metropolitan area, but let us now look at a smaller local authority, such as that of the Strand. Everyone would probably agree with me that 70% or more—I do not have the correct figures available—of the money spent in the municipal area of the Strand may come from tourists or people living outside that area. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Strand municipality is appropriating as much as R600 a year for its publicity association. Therefore it seems that local authoritites are by no means carrying out their full responsibilities yet with regard to the promotion of tourism.

†I should like to make just one comment on what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said in this regard in referring to the publicity associations which should be given more status. Unfortunately the hon. member is not present at this moment.

*When one examines the Strand figures, it seems that the answer does not lie in enhancing the status of publicity associations, but rather in a much greater involvement of local authorities.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to what the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech about the appointment of persons to serve on the new Tourism Board. Irrespective of whether they be White, Black or Brown—I have no recommendations or comment to make in this connection, except for saying that I certainly do not believe we should allow ourselves to be led astray by the standpoint of the hon. member for Sunnyside in this connection—I want to urge that in considering candidates for appointment, the hon. the Minister should also appoint people, in terms of the provisions of the legislation, who are at present and have in the past been seen as people who have contributed actively to the promotion of tourism. As in any industry, I suppose, there are many talkers in the tourist industry and many people who are members of bodies that do a great deal of talking, but what we need in tourism in South Africa today are doers!

Having said this, I should like to refer to the example of the Cape Town’s tourist organization, Captour, which I think has become a model organization for South Africa. I recommend that in considering people for appointment to the board, the hon. the Minister should bear in mind this aspect of people who are seen to promote tourism, and he should give such people an important position in their representation on the board.

One welcomes the rationalization which will be achieved with the establishment of the board, and I take great pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasant task to bring this week’s proceedings to an end and I want to start by commenting upon the remarks made by the hon. member for Boksburg which in turn were remarked upon by the hon. member for Caledon. However, I am not sure whether he is utterable or unutterable!

The hon. member for Boksburg took my colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, to task for suggesting that the issuing of visas should be made easier or speeded up because, he said, we were wanting to give things away, particularly our security. Of course, that is absolute nonsense, Sir. Our motivation in suggesting that the issuing of visas should be speeded up is merely an attempt to ease the procedures and to assist and facilitate tourism to South Africa. I was somewhat surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Boksburg because I have always regarded him as an enlightened sort of person. Obviously, he is not. I must remember in future when I travel to the East Rand that I may need a visa to go to Boksburg!

I believe that there is a great need for a tourism board in South Africa and, while one welcomes the efforts on the part of the Government to streamline the control board, there is great validity in the suggestion that the Government has shown ignorance regarding the enormous benefits of an efficient tourist industry. I was pleased, therefore, to hear the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech today adopt a positive attitude towards the tourism board.

I wish to make a few observations regarding the tidying up process in respect of the various boards connected with tourism because I am convinced in my own mind that the hon. the Minister was only busying himself with the fringes of the problem, and I hope that the new board will recognize the necessity for and take steps to create opportunities that will improve our position in the tourism world dramatically.

It is important to stress the fact that tourism generates a great deal of foreign exchange for any developing country. A further reason for the expansion of the tourist industry is to provide the opportunity for foreigners to see for themselves the beauties of this country and the problems that we are experiencing in reaching an accommodation among the various groups. In most countries of the world tourism is recognized as a major economic factor and South Africa should be no different. I am advised that the benefit of tourism is not really contained in the cost of transportation, that is, to get people to and from the country, but rather in the amount of money spent while they are actually in the country. It is therefore extremely difficult to understand the present Government’s refusal to allow major charter companies from Europe and America landing rights in South Africa. This matter was touched on by the, hon. member for Durban North and I am sure he will be pleased to know that we in the PFP are also concerned about this matter. [Interjections.] Well, it is not really a local option matter because we want it for the entire country. This is a major way in which we will be able to have a rapid increase in the numbers of people being brought to the country.

We should not become confused or misled by the tourism figures that are published from time to time because the vast majority of people who visit South Africa are people who come from adjacent countries and are not really a true reflection of the number of visitors entering this country as they do not represent a sizable economic benefit. We are all aware that visitors from Zimbabwe make up a large proportion of our foreign tourists and yet they do not spend too much money in this country because they are restricted by their own Government from doing so. An increase in the number of visitors to this country would be reflected in improved foreign exchange earnings, the development of hotels and increased employment providing us with an expanding market for our domestic air services, our railways, our coach companies, the car hire companies and so forth. A constraint on the development of tourism in South Africa is the Government’s old-fashioned and economically disastrous policy of maintaining a national transport system that is supposed to represent free enterprise but which is in fact a total monopoly, although that is not a factor with which we will exercise our minds during this debate.

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the abolition of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board and to replace these with the S.A. Tourism Board which is to continue the functions of the two bodies that are to be abolished. The S.A. Tourist Corporation is a statutory body as we are all aware which is charged with the promotion of tourism from abroad. Satour publicizes the attractions of the tourist facilities of South Africa. It produces and distributes guides, maps, books and publications as well as travel films and photographs and other pictorial material. It prepares news items, press releases and special interest stories for publication abroad. It participates in international exhibitions and organizes educational tours and seminars for travel agents and travel writers as well as film shows for the public and the travel trade. It also distributes films free of charge to television and to groups interested in tourism.

The Hotel Board is also a statutory body, with the object of fostering the development and improvement of the accommodation establishments. The main functions of the board are to improve and maintain standards and to give advice, guidance and assistance to any persons interested in the establishment or the expansion of the management of a hotel or accommodation establishment. There are many other ancillary functions undertaken by the board. It has introduced a system for the gradings of hotels, and this has led to a large degree to the improvement of the hotel industry in our country.

These two boards are now to be replaced by the S.A. Tourism Board which will undertake the functions of the two previous boards. One can only hope that it will draw on the successes of those boards and that it will also learn from their failures and omissions.

I have said that tourism is a major industry. It is to be hoped that the new board will adopt an aggressive marketing policy to attract a great number of people from abroad to this country. South Africa, as has been mentioned today, is richly endowed with tourist attractions of a wide variety, such as beautiful beaches, game parks, nature reserves and mountain ranges. In addition we also have a great deal of sunshine. All these major attractions need to be communicated to the potential tourist in the outside world as every cent spent by a tourist in this country is a cent which remains here. It is not a loan which has to be repaid and it is not investment capital which may be repatriated at any other time. For this and many other reasons it is to be hoped that the Tourism Board will co-ordinate the activities of the many official, semi-official and private organizations engaged in tourism in order to present as comprehensive a picture as possible to the potential tourist.

An aggressive marketing strategy with the specific aim of increasing the number of tourists to South Africa to a substantial extent should be a priority on the list of objectives of the board. In this connection I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to arrange for the board to call an annual tourism conference. At this conference targets could be set for increasing the number of visitors to South Africa. They should include normal tourists such as holidaymakers, but should also include businessmen and, of course, congresses. Congresses are becoming big business these days and this should be one of the main objectives of the conference. At this conference all those interested in tourism should be represented. I would include those organizations which have already been mentioned here today, namely the hotel industry, travel agents, tourist safari agents, vehicle renting companies, tour guide organizations, motoring associations, the S.A. Congress Bureau and representatives of the major publicity associations. I believe that this must be a major event where all those interested in the tourist industry can meet and exchange ideas and assist each other to increase the number of tourists to South Africa and to promote the country. I trust the hon. the Minister will seriously consider this suggestion.