Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition we would wish to extend most heartily our congratulations to the hon member for Standerton on his appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees. We know him as a firm, sometimes rigid, disciplinarian but we trust that when he exercises the office to which he is now being promoted he will do so with flexibility and with the sometimes smiling face he occasionally even offers the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Before the adjournment last night I was addressing a few comments to the hon member for King William’s Town on the subject of local option. I pointed out to him what one of his erstwhile colleagues, Mr Frank Martin, had said about local option. Mr Martin indicated that he had come out in favour of racial integration all along the line. He indicated too that there was a conflict between the Bill of Rights decided on by the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba and the NRP’s local option policy. He said this of the local option policy, and I quote:

I should like to get away now, Sir, from the… [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member for Pine-town?

No, Mr Speaker, I am not going to answer any questions now. [Interjections.]

I should like to turn to the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Sasolburg…

Read the next paragraph, too! [Interjections.]

… who is unfortunately not here today… [Interjections.]… and the hon members of the CP made point after point to the effect that this measure before us was going to lead to integration. They felt it promoted integration. The hon member for Sasolburg also indicated that—I use his words—“die Afrikaner wil sy eie skool hê en hy wil sy eie stelsel hê”. He then quoted the example of Raka. The teaching of Raka, he said, could create problems because Black pupils would not be happy with the teaching of Raka.

I have particular problems with the example he quoted, however. We could of course quote the example of Cry, the Beloved Country. This novel is widely regarded as one of the English novels to be published in South Africa. So what has been the problem with having Cry, the Beloved Country prescribed as a set book? The problem has been insurmountable. So the hon member for Sasolburg is a fine one to talk about that!

In addition, he attempted to illustrate further the problems that can arise in regard to mixed schooling and quoted examples such as the failure of busing in America, the failure of multiracial education in Britain and the influx of Arabs into France. I wish the hon member for Sasolburg was present here. Still, at least his hon colleagues in the CP are here.

You can tell me.

It is important that we at least get these things into focus. Those hon members must go and read this book, Education in Multi-Cultural Societies. This book is an acknowledgement that different cultures have to be taken into consideration and that the melting-pot concept is not an acceptable concept. We in this party have said that previously—cultural differences must be acknowledged.

I should like to quote from the introductory section of this book:

I stress “at the same time”—

I am glad to see that the hon member for Sasolburg has arrived. I recommend this book to him. The point made in this book—the study of multiculturalism and the teaching of multiculturalism in various countries around the world—is that one has to acknowledge that there are cultural differences. I repeat the point that I made last night: We in this party acknowledge cultural differences.

That is lip service.

However, if the CP insists that there is a White culture then we differ with them. There is an Afrikaans culture—by all means—a Greek culture, a Jewish culture, a Portuguese culture and possibly even an English South African culture. Those are the cultural identities that must be acknowledged in an educational system, not whiteness, or blackness or brownness. [Interjections.] The debate has hinged on this aspect and it is important that we in these ranks also acknowledge possibly that we have not been as clear as we should have been in the past on this particular matter. I quote from a book, South Africa without Apartheid, and I recommend this to hon members as well. The State President who is with us today has indicated that we are past the outdated concept of apartheid. The authors of this book, Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, say:

That would pose no problem at all.

You are moving to the right now! [Interjections.]

The quote continues:

The point that we are making is that as long as the governing party of this country keeps insisting that race rather than culture is the basis of its educational policy then we will continue to say it is apartheid and own affairs is apartheid education.

What is the very character of the education system in our country at the moment? I would like to paraphrase a friend of mine who is an academic. He said the characteristics of the State school provision are that it is totally inadequate, it is provided inversely to need, it is segregated, fragmented, inflexible and unco-ordinated. It functions with little sense of the comprehensive service that is the requirement of every child.

We are today debating a Bill that is seizing on the unco-ordinated aspect but we recognise that the establishment of a general affairs department is at least co-ordinating the racial fragments of our education system. We still have to wrestle with the Government—and we have never really done so because they have not allowed us to—on the basis of establishing an education system which recognises cultural values and gives them a place in the education system without the insistence of what I call “cultural imperialism”. Because the NP wants things to be done their way, everybody must do them their way. I turn to my colleagues of the CP and the HNP and ask them the same question: If the Afrikaners could have their own department would they allow every other person in South Africa to form a single education department? I hear silence.

We must remain silent now. We shall answer you later.

There we have it. It is cultural imperialism to demand that everybody must follow what one wants.

Lord Milner in reverse.

Lord Louis!

I think it is necessary for the PFP to spell out clearly its policy in the particular area of school admissions and the recognition of the rights of individuals. I would like to quote from a document based on the PFP’s education policy which has been submitted to the indaba which is debating these things at this very moment, as follows:

And racial directions?

What do I mean by this? One could have a State-aided Afrikaans-speaking Calvinist school propagating those views. Provided it did not restrict admissions on the grounds of race, it could carry out that policy. [Interjections.]

Why not?

The hon member for Rissik is laughing.

But you are too… [Interjections.]

Aren’t there Brown Calvinists?

Are there not Brown Calvinists? [Interjections.]

There are no Brown Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

There we have it. Skin colour not culture is, therefore, the important thing. [Interjections.]

There is a third category of schools recognised by the PFP. I quote again from the document on the PFP’s proposed educational structure:

This refers to schools which do not receive any money from the State—

Here it is important to emphasise what I have said before. Parents should have the fundamental right to ensure that their children are educated in the language of their choice. Citizens should have the right to provide for education facilities in conformity with their own religious, cultural and philosophic convictions. So, schools can be unilingual. There can be Afrikaans or English or Zulu schools by all means, or parallel medium schools or trilingual schools. These matters can be decided by the school community. There are other areas which we can cover, for instance the input of the parent community, the cultural group, into the syllabus and curriculum, but I should like to turn in the few minutes I have left to the Bill itself.

The Bill is designed to establish a certification council for all children in South Africa. I want to say briefly whom we are talking about. The 1984 figures for those candidates attempting Std 10 in South Africa indicates that 142 000 pupils attempted Std 10, 37 000 of whom gained matriculation exemption—that is 26%—and 41 000 failed—that is 29%. These figures cover all candidates. I have the racial breakdown. Of those who gained exemption, 45% were Whites, 33% were Indians, 14% were Coloureds and 9% were Blacks. The figures for failures indicate a similar kind of graph. Here I want to speak specifically to the hon member for Sasolburg who used yesterday what I believe are discredited and totally rejected hypotheses regarding the genetic capability, the IQ, of different races, and I just want to present him with a fact. I ask him to go away and analyse this one. If we take the White population of South Africa, on average 60% of that population is Afrikaans-speaking, and I think he would acknowledge that. If we look at the number of exemptions gained by Whites in all the schools of South Africa only 48% are Afrikaans-speaking. Now, does this mean that the Afrikaners are genetically inferior? No, of course it does not. [Interjections.] We would reject that. That is absolute nonsense. This phenomenon is based on the historic and other circumstances that lead children in certain communities not to stay on at school. We all acknowledge that. For that reason I say that the hon member for Sasolburg must be very careful about the facts he uses and throws around in this House. [Interjections.]

I would like now to turn to the Bill. Initially the De Lange Commission recommended that this certification council should be merely an advisory committee to the South African Council of Education. The Government rejected this in its White Paper and said that a central statutory certification council should be set up. Before that White Paper was issued, the hon the Minister of National Education had already moved fast. He had set up an intersectoral committee to investigate the composition and functions of a certification council, and this document has now been released for general comment and discussion. The finding of that committee was that such a council should be established. That report forms the basis of the legislation and I will touch on it again in a moment.

The consideration of the certification council takes place against the background of the four different national racially based executive education departments. They are not culturally but racially based. In a very real sense it could be argued—and one has heard it argued by the hon member for Sasolburg—that the certification council is to ensure that separate is equal. It may be argued that the function is not to ensure that separate can be equal but is equal. However, the PFP has not accepted and will not accept that racially enforced separate education can ever be equal. By its very enforcement of racial separation it negates some of the very principles of education, equality and freedom itself, but—and it is a very major but—the council contains within it the very seeds of a greater application of general or non-racial education over own or racial education. That is what the PFP is looking at. At the moment there are nine examining bodies in South Africa, which means that for subjects such as geography or history there are as many as 36 different examination papers. There are as many as 90 at Std 10 level for English and Afrikaans. The work of the Joint Matriculation Board in supervising and co-ordinating examinations has become very difficult indeed. They have to assess the difference between those nine examining bodies and between different years in order to achieve some kind of norm.

However—and here I am speaking in a technical area—the JMB moderator only receives adjusted marks from each examining body, and they are already adjusted to the norms of that department’s previous exams. Therefore, the difficulty of attaining comparisons on norms and standards between departments borders on the impossible. The report says so. It should be noted that under the JMB no choosing of norms takes place in such a way “that they result in comparable standards.” There is no choosing so that they result in comparable standards, and so the JMB and its moderation aspect has become discredited. That is widely acknowledged. There is a perception that norms are not the same.

The recommendations contained in the report of the intersectoral committee are designed to ensure that the major problems encountered by the JMB are not repeated. What does it actually physically recommend? It calls for the certification council to determine at least 70% of minimum compulsory common subject matter in all subjects at all levels in all schools in South Africa. Rightly or wrongly, we in this party perceive this as going quite a long way towards ensuring the basis of the first principle of the De Lange Commission, namely that equal access and equal opportunities for education should be provided.

In addition the report recommends that individual departments could select additional matter made up from various modules submitted by the departments to the council.

The report also lists something else, and it makes very interesting reading. Once again I recommend it for hon members’ perusal as late-night reading. It proposes five possible models of how to attain these common norms and standards.

The Bill itself was received by the standing committee in October 1985, and another Bill bearing the same name was passed by the standing committee in June 1986. This is interesting, Sir, because I understand it is the first time that a Bill has actually been initiated by a standing committee. The Bill we see before us comes from a standing committee; it is a new Bill.

Major problem areas of the Bill have been highlighted by the many speakers before me; I will merely pick up two or three of them. The composition of the council was a problem. The council should originally have consisted of twelve persons, experts in education, appointed by the Minister. The PFP believed that this was totally unacceptable, and proposed a more specific composition naming various bodies, including the organised teaching profession, the Committee of University Principals, the Committee of Technikon Principals and colleges of education. One of the reports of the De Lange Commission also recommended this, so we in the PFP are strongly in line with that. However, unfortunately the standing committee could not agree to accept the PFP’s amendment, and the composition of the council remains as set out in the Bill.

Similarly, the standing committee voted down our suggestion that the council should elect its own chairman and that it should be able to elect its own executive officer without the approval of the Minister.

The second problem area to which I want to refer has to do with certificates. The original intent was that the certificates would be issued—

In other words, the document would bear the name of one of the nine examining bodies under which it was written. Broad agreement was reached that in future only one certificate would be issued, in no way bearing a department’s insignia. Employers will find this a major change. Universities, technikons and other tertiary bodies may have these certificates endorsed to show that the pupil has complied with the minimum requirements. Otherwise all students will bear the same certificate.

Let me turn to the very vexed area of common examinations. For five months this committee waited while the Cabinet wrestled with the problem of common examinations. They came with a compromise of providing the possible option of a common examination within a particular area. I should, however, like to read the PFP’s proposal, which was that the Ministers of departments of State responsible for education shall provide for the conducting of examinations on a common, regional and provincial basis—in other words, getting back to where we were in the fifties—provincial examinations written by all pupils.

The standing committee was, however, quite specific in its report on this matter, stating that this clause was inserted “with the intention that it be utilised when the various examining bodies agree to it.” The PFP does not believe that separate racial examinations are in anyone’s interest. Accordingly we recommend that a return be made—immediately, if possible—to the writing of a common examination. We urge that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House now takes advantage of getting together with his hon colleagues. In the area of Natal-kwaZulu the five departments could be writing a common examination in Std 10 by as early as November 1988 if steps were taken immediately.

The standing committee has provided a vehicle that can be used and it is now up to the Ministers to use it.

The PFP totally rejects racial education. It recognises that in terms of its own policy of allowing federal states to control education a body to nationally ensure common norms and standards will be necessary. We believe that this Bill accepts that a growth of the general affairs department rather than the own affairs component in education is desirable and we will do everything in our power to support that move.

I should like to quote a few words that I believe are appropriate on this occasion. The words come from what has come to be called the Bureau of Information Pop Song”. They are relevant and I quote from the song Together We Will Build a Brighter Future:

Why don’t you sing it?

[Interjections.]

I quote further:

I do not want to talk about the R500 000 that is going to be spent on it. I should just like to say that the words and the intentions contained in that song reflect the kind of spirit the PFP can subscribe to totally. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in my speech I should, at the very outset, like to extend my very heartiest congratulations, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to the hon member for Standerton on his designation as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the whole House. We hope he will give everyone in the House a fair and just hearing, and we also hope he will be very happy in his new post. Good luck to him, and we wish him everything of the best in the task he has to perform.

Hear, heat!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinetown quoted the freedom song here today, a song about which so much fuss is being made in South Africa at the moment.

The freedom song? [Interjections.] Perhaps it is not altogether wrong to call it that!

Very well, then, I mean the song of peace. [Interjections.] He quoted from the song of peace. I must say, however, that if the policy of the hon member’s party were to be implemented in South Africa, that song of peace would also disappear, possibly to be replaced by Nkosi sikelele iAfrika. [Interjections.]

Then at least there would be peace!

We hope God will bless us! [Interjections]

Today the hon member for Pinetown gave his party’s support to the Bill under discussion. He made it clear that his party supported this measure. They are therefore satisfied with the establishment of a multiracial certification council, but not quite satisfied yet. They would like the Government and education in South Africa to be opened up at all levels—with everything open and integrated from university level to school level. They would like the institutions to be opened up to all. The hon member also made the statement that the Conservative Party and the HNP had said that this policy would lead to integration. But it is true, is it not, that the council which is to be established in terms of the Bill under discussion will be an integrated council. It will be a council of which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks could be members. Surely that is integration in the sphere of education. That is, after all, what it is!

The same as it is on your farm!

I also know that the PFP is not yet satisfied with this form of integration now being introduced into the top levels of administration—they want it to be introduced throughout, right down to school level.

That is correct!

I regret the fact that the State President has now left the Chamber.

He is seldom in the House these days! [Interjections.]

I am sorry he is leaving, Sir, because this legislation is, after all, part of the achievement of an ideal that liberalists have long cherished. I should now like to quote what Prof Piet Cillié said about this. [Interjections.] He said:

Mr Speaker, in their decision about one country, one nation, one citizenship and one overall system for education in South Africa, the State President and his Government have focused their efforts on giving substance to the British liberal idea of 1910. [Interjections.] They are busy giving substance to that idea. The Bill under discussion, which makes provision for that multiracial certification council, is also giving substance to that great liberal ideal of one great united nation. This also accords fully with the words of the song of peace which the hon member for Pinetown read out to us here a short while ago.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East said on occasion, at Maselspoort:

Both the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act have been abolished. That hon member, however, made an important statement when he said:

He was wrong then.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says he was wrong then.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says he was wrong then. [Interjections.] Sir, I think these two hon members should settle the issue of who is right and who is wrong for themselves.

They were both wrong.

I want to say today that this legislation, which was supported by the hon member here, is but one of the pieces of legislation being piloted through this Parliament to introduce multiracialism into education in South Africa too. With this step, which this hon member supported, he is heading straight for the elimination of all boundaries between races and peoples in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I should like to state further that yesterday this hon member for Bloemfontein East came to the force with the astounding statement that the hon members of the CP did not have the right to oppose this multiracial certification council because they had accepted power-sharing in 1977. When we told him, across the floor of the House, that he had lost his mind, he boldly snatched up Die Afrikaner and quoted Mr Jaap Marais to prove that the 1977 proposals embodied power-sharing. I took out this document I have here before me, walked across the floor of the House and handed him this document drawn up at the time by the hon the Minister of National Education. He refused to quote it, however.

I now want to ask the hon member: Was Mr Jaap Marais right when he said it was power-sharing in 1977?

Ask the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

No, he is asking you.

He is asking you.

I could ask the hon member for Sasolburg. He would tell me: “Yes, Jaap was right.”

What do you say?

What does the hon member himself say?

And what do you say?

That is what the hon member is like; now he does not say a word. He quoted a passage to me as if to say Mr Jaap Marais was right, and I then walked across to him and handed the document of the hon the Minister of National Education to him. What the hon the Minister had written was the following:

That is what we now have—a joint Parliament! [Interjections.]

I still reject that definition.

The hon the Minister says he still rejects that definition. We are, however, dealing here with a Bill on education in South Africa, a Bill establishing a multiracial certification council for education in South Africa. This Bill was presented to a standing committee of which the hon member for Johannesburg West is the chairman and Mr J C van den Heever of the Labour Party is the deputy chairman—a standing committee which consists of 11 Whites, 7 Coloureds and 5 Indians and which reached consensus on this Bill. As far as this Bill is concerned, it is necessary for all three Houses of this Parliament…

It is not Van den Heever, it is Lewis.

Pardon me, Mr M R E Lewis. Mr Lewis of Natal Mid-East is the deputy chairman of this standing committee.

This Bill must be approved by all three Houses of Parliament, of this joint Parliament.

Is that now power-sharing?

In other words, the definition of this Bill by the hon the Minister is an exact reflection of what he accuses the PFP of. He says there is no question of power-sharing. Power-sharing is a Prog-Fed-term with decision-making by all groups, and of course all groups do share in the decisions made about this legislation. [Interjections.] It is, after all, a joint Parliament that decides about this. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister wrote—and I also handed this to the hon member for Bloemfontein East—in Bangmaakpraatjies. The statement in the pamphlet was:

Then the hon the Minister wrote: “Altwee die sienings is verkeerd.” He then went on to write the following, and I quote:

In March 1983 that hon Minister addressed the young people of the Transvaal, and Die Transvaler of 14 March 1983 reported his speech as follows:

[Interjections.] The hon member for Bloemfontein East quoted Mr Jaap Marais to indicate that we had accepted power-sharing and should now also accept the multiracial certification council for which provision is being made in this Bill.

For the sake of the hon member for Bloemfontein East I now want to quote the following passage from Die Afrikaner of 24 August 1986, because he is very fond of quoting from that newspaper. There Mr Jaap Marais wrote the following:

I now want to tell the hon member for Bloemfontein East that the CP agrees wholeheartedly with Mr Jaap Marais. The history of Africa has indicated that power-sharing means the transfer of power in instalments. The hon member for Bloemfontein East preferred Mr Jaap Marais pronouncement on power-sharing to that of his own Minister, and I now want to ask him whether he also agrees with Mr Jaap Marais about this. [Interjections.] Since yesterday the hon member has apparently developed a toothache, because he is not saying a word, but if I had made such contradictory statements as that hon member made, I would never have opened my mouth in this Parliament again either.

When we in this party were still members of the NP at the time, we regarded the 1977 proposals as a means to greater separation between the three different peoples, each with its own ethnic parliament; and this applied equally to the education of each, so that in their own parliaments each would have fully fledged self-determination in regard to all facets of its own education. The other group—those who are still in the ranks of the NP today—saw these 1977 proposals as a means to greater integration, to power-sharing, which has culminated in this Bill that is before the House today.

Some of the NP members—I am referring to those of us sitting here today—saw the 1977 proposals as a springboard for own fatherlands for the various peoples in which they could have fully fledged self-determination. [Interjections.] Sir, but I am now indicating what our standpoint was.

I know the hon member for Randburg has, throughout the years, been trying to drive the NP to a point where it could eventually merge with the PFP. Let me now say that he has won, because today the PFP does not have a candidate in Klip River. They made an appeal to their members to support the NP there, as they support the Government today with this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

Where is your candidate? [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member for Bloemfontein East that the acceptance of the 1977 proposals with three separate parliaments which would each govern right into the individual local, geographic areas of the various peoples, would have been a much easier course to adopt en route to fully fledged, separate freedoms. That would have been a much easier trail to blaze than the one which the CP and the HNP will have to blaze through this multiracial tricameral Parliament with its liberal coalition government of President Botha.

Let me tell the House today that the CP does see its way clear to disentangling this multiracial tricameral Parliament and separating it into three separate parliaments for the three separate peoples, each in its own fatherland. Here each of the peoples can have a certification council to lay down norms and standards that accord with the nature, traditions and the world-view or view of life of the various peoples there in their own fatherlands.

The hon member for Stellenbosch said that it was, in fact, a multiracial council that was now being established, but that it was going to draw up norms and standards and carry out certification for separate schools for the various groups. That is what the hon member said. The point, however, is that there is now a multiracial council on which people with various cultural backgrounds, traditions and world-views or views of life and with different religious convictions are going to be represented jointly with a view to determining standards, including those for the White children of South Africa.

What is wrong with that?

The hon the Deputy Minister asks what is wrong with that. Let me tell him that he should pay a visit to Stellenbosch. That is also the reason why I am now talking to the hon member for Stellenbosch. Approximately two weeks ago a mass meeting was held at Stellenbosch about the opening up of hostels. The NP branch chairman, Mr Anton Schoombie, said: “I am glad about the open-hostel victory we achieved.” He says he is glad about that. I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics whether he is also glad about that. [Interjections.] If the people in his party say that these Stellenbosch hostels should be opened up to everyone, let me also ask him what right he then has to refuse to have Malmesbury’s school hostel opened up to people of colour. If the NP is satisfied that the hostels on the campus of the University of Stellenbosch should be opened up to everyone, what moral right has the NP to refuse to allow everyone to use the same schools and school hostels? [Interjections.]

Declare a group area, Piet!

Order!

Let me tell the hon member for Stellenbosch and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he and Louis Stofberg and I were all three Wilgenhoffers; when the opening up of hostels was put to the vote at the mass meeting, and the Chairman asked that the meeting be closed with the singing of the National Anthem, there were Maties who interjected with Nkosi Sikelele i-Afrika. Today I want to tell my friend from Stellenbosch and the hon the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics—he is an ex-Matie—that he and his NP, with its policy of so-called justice and fairness and co-operation and love and consensus, have already softened up the youth of Stellenbosch to such an extent that they are no longer satisfied with their policy, because they say it is unjust and unfair to have an open university but not accept open hostels, and not accepting an open boarding school either. They have already softened up the National Youth of Stellenbosch to such an extent that they accept this sort of thing. I am thankful that there is a CP branch at Stellenbosch. At that mass meeting the CP was the only party which adopted an official standpoint opposing the opening up of the university hostels. [Interjections.]

As in the case of the beaches in Port Elizabeth, when those hon members did some fence-sitting, with the exception of the hon member for Newton Park, at Stellenbosch the NP also did some fence-sitting as far as these matters were concerned.

I am concerned about the council that is going to be appointed, because I know the hon the Minister is going to appoint a certification council. I am also afraid that when he makes the appointments and when decisions have to be taken involving the interests of the youth of South Africa, his appointees will have to choose between those advocating the complete opening up of facilities on the one hand and those advocating separation on the other, and will sit on the fence, eventually opting for the PFP when they topple off. [Interjections.] That is why we cannot accept all this.

There is something I have to refer to, even though it has nothing to do with the Bill. Let me quote from today’s issue of Die Burger:

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr Speaker. As norms laid down from above, I should like…

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill.

May I just quote this one brief sentence, Sir? [Interjections.] I shall then come back to the Bill. I quote further:

I am afraid that the certification council, for which provision is made in the Bill, and its members who are going to be appointed by this liberal Government, are also going to elicit from Dr Craven the satisfied comment that they have made quite a bit of progress. Sport is one of the mightiest weapons that can be employed to drive this slack NP to eventual integration at school level too. [Interjections.]

Tell them to repudiate that opening up of the hostels, Jan!

After the hon member for Rissik spelled out the CP’s policy on this issue yesterday, the hon member for Stellenbosch said he rejected the CP’s dreams of own homelands for the various peoples. In opposing this multiracial council, the CP does not want to do so merely for the sake of opposing it, but would also like to replace it with something better. After the hon member for Rissik had spelt this out, the hon member for Stellenbosch spoke about the CP’s dreams of a separate homeland. [Interjections.] I now want to quote what the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said in Klip River yesterday evening…

Listen to this.

He said:

[Interjections.] And is there not a great deal of truth in those words? Does the hon member Dr Vilonel agree with that? That is also what the CP says. We say that the Qwaqwas, the Zulus, the Vendas, the Tswanas, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites of South Africa would each rather be governed by its own people.

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Mr Speaker… [Interjections.]

Order! No, I think I have now given the hon member sufficient concessions.

Mr Speaker, may I spell out to the House the CP’s alternative to this Government’s policy on education? I should like to do so, and in doing so, let me tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs that the various peoples would prefer to be governed by their own leaders and their own people. The CP says that is right; they should go and do so in their own father-lands. [Interjections.] According to the CP, the old NP policy of people having their own government and governing their own people and managing their own affairs is the only policy that will lead to contentment throughout the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Nothing of power-sharing.

It is not power-sharing. That hon Minister said nothing at Klip River about this Bill establishing a multiracial certification council for South Africa—a multiracial certification council which is responsible for drawing up norms and standards for syllabuses, examinations and the certification of qualifications. [Interjections.] So this Bill is in direct conflict with what the hon the Minister said at Klip River. It is in direct conflict with that. [Interjections.]

That is why we say that the ideal that should be pursued in South Africa is that of having each people governing itself within its own fatherland by way of a fully fledged system of government, with its own parliament in which it can decide fully on its own future. And the White people of South Africa must also be able to decide in this Parliament about the schools, the White schools which are situated in the Republic of South Africa…

And the universities.

… and the universities, the colleges and the technikons. This Parliament must be able to make a law that can regulate the certification of qualifications, the determination of standards and norms and the introduction of syllabuses that meet the needs of the Whites’, the Afrikaners’, Christian national world-view or view of life and which can give substance to their culture and traditions and the things which are sacred and dear to them—including their own history.

Let me say that is one of the problems with syllabuses that this Government is now encountering with the history that is being presented to everyone, the whole South African nation. The history of the Afrikaner must now be watered down. The Coloureds and the Blacks must now be brought into the laager at Blood River, at Majuba and the Anglo-Boer War. The role of the Boers… [Interjections.] Let me tell hon members that the roles of traitor, defeatist and joiner are still well known to everyone.

I want to state that if a history syllabus is prescribed for the Whites of South Africa, we could also unashamedly point out the mistakes made by our people in its history and in the course of its development. We could also write about the defeatists and the joiners; in that history we could point out who the traitors were in the course of South Africa’s development. In that history syllabus we could also point out to the people who the Afrikaner’s heroes were, who the people were who were in the field at the end of the Anglo-Boer War, at a time when there were only 14 000 people in the field, and who the 70 000 defeatists and joiners were who were sitting at home. The diehards’ ideal of freedom in their own fatherland was ultimately realised when South Africa became a Republic in 1960. We could then say that to them, but if this were to be presented in the multiracial schools advocated by the PFP, and in the Government’s multiracial private schools, we would have to water it down. That is the reason why that is all watered down. [Interjections.]

The State President said that a people should take from its past all that is beautiful and noble and build its future on that. The only way in which White South Africans can take what is beautiful and noble from their own past in an effort to build the future on that, is for the Whites to have their own fatherland in which they can also have a full say over their own education, their standards, their syllabuses and the certificates they obtain.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member who will be living in the fatherland the hon member has just spoken of, the full-fledged fatherland? Only Whites? [Interjections.]

You are free to move! You are free to move!

I am glad the hon member has put that question, because recently in Parliament he said this fatherland of ours did not only belong to us; it also belonged to the Black people who live here. That is what that hon member said here in the House of Assembly, but I want to answer his question. He asked whether only Whites would live in the White fatherland. No, Sir. There will be Coloureds and Indians and representatives of the Black peoples present in South Africa, but in the White fatherland there will be a White Parliament governing fully in regard to every facet in the lives of the Whites. The other day the hon member for Pinetown mentioned the statistics. As there are, at present, 10% of the Indians and a certain percentage of Whites and Coloureds living in kwaZulu, where the Zulus solely govern themselves, in their own country the Whites will solely govern in their own right. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, before reacting to the debate, I should like to begin by associating myself with all the words of thanks, congratulation and appreciation conveyed to the chairman of the standing committee. If there was one thing about which there was unanimity in this debate, then it is that he presided ably, reasonably and in a dignified way over a committee that dealt with matters of a sensitive nature and concerning which there were profound differences. I wish to convey to him my sincere gratitude and congratulate him on what he achieved. It is a fact that he and all the hon members of the committee, whom I also wish to thank, succeeded in achieving a highly satisfactory consensus with the result that the participants, with a few exceptions, left the committee room after that consensus decision with a feeling that a giant step in the right direction had been taken for education in South Africa.

I encountered this in two debates in the two other Houses and basically I also encountered it in this debate, except that as far as this matter is concerned—I shall deal with it in detail—the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg were the only ones in the entire Parliament who denied the value of what has been decided. I am very grateful to all the members of the committee.

I also associate myself with the appreciation conveyed to my Department and in particular Dr Roe Venter, the Director General. It is indeed true that he took a great deal of trouble to give the committee good service, to make available to them all the means they requested to enable them to facilitate their decision-making and deliberations. I as the Minister am also grateful that he acquitted himself very well of his task in this way.

Before reacting to the three parties, more or less in sequence, I just wish to react to the hon member for Kuruman. As regards the relevant part of his speech in relation to the Bill, I shall react when I reply to the other hon members of the CP. As regards the irrelevant part of his speech I want to say a few things: Firstly, I do not wish to fight with the hon member today. In all sincerity I should like to say that I hope that before he dies, he will get rid of the bitterness that sours his every action.

I am not bitter. I merely hold you in contempt because you take the path of integration. [Interjections.]

I hope that before he dies he will stop holding his fellow man in contempt.

I hold in contempt the path you are travelling.

The hon member should not be so quick to correct himself; Hansard has written down what he said. I have my notebook here. I wanted to make notes of what the hon member said if he said anything I did not expect. When I heard he was going to speak, I told hon members here what he was going to say, and they are my witnesses. He said nothing more than I said he was going to say. [Interjections.] That is how predictable the attack was. In the first instance, he performed verbal handstands to get around the fact that for four years he and his colleagues were prepared to co-exist with a policy in terms of which there would be a multiracial Council of Cabinets in South Africa, and that since April 1978 they have lived with the knowledge that the then Prime Minister said that multiracial Council of Cabinets would function like a Cabinet. They were satisfied with that. [Interjections]

Was that power-sharing?

Of course it was power-sharing. That brings me to the second point.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, I do not wish to answer Church Council questions now. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I am still coming to that. Surely the hon members know that the concept of joint responsibility was specifically used to distinguish this from the PFP’s power-sharing slogan, which basically amounted to one man, one vote in one system. This side of the House still rejects and will always reject one man, one vote, in a single system. They say that they rejected it too. We say no, their system will result in that. [Interjections.]

After the split, however, we reached the stage at which we could escape subtle formulations in order to distinguish nuances, and the time came for us to tell everyone, in clear practical ambiguous terms, where everyone stood. This party stands for the recognition of the existence of peoples and population groups in South Africa; the effective protection of the right of those peoples and population groups to maintain their own character; and the non-domination of one group by another.

That is why it is untrue to say that our point of departure is one of multiracialism. Purely on the basis of what the hon member for Kuruman himself admitted in his reply to the question by the hon member for Hercules, we say, however, that people of all population groups will always live in the same country. However many countries there are, there will always be people of all population groups living together with the Whites, and that will happen under a CP regime as well, as they themselves have now expressly recognised. [Interjections.]

We say that those people who live with us must also have political freedom. The CP states that they will continue to keep those people under their thumb. One can draw no other conclusion. That is where we differ with them. We say that those people must also have liberty.

[Inaudible.]

That is why we are developing systems whereby we shall grant them the same as we demand for ourselves. This will necessarily mean that people of differing peoples and groups will have to be free simultaneously in the same country. This means that there must be co-operation and joint decision-making among them, and also that there should be power-sharing in such a way that one group does not dominate another.

In accordance with numbers.

There the hon members opposite have the NP’s policy in a nutshell. They must please just quote it correctly in future.

Surely the hon member knows that this certification council has no power whatsoever to interfere in school sport in any way. It has no point of contact with school sport. Now I ask him how one is to assess the quality of his arguments if he argues in this House that a certification council will lead to mixed school sport. We must really start linking our debate to the realities. [Interjections.] I shall come back to the question of this council and deal in full with all the allegations made by the CP in this connection.

I now wish to convey my thanks to the hon members for Johannesburg West, Vryheid, Gezina, Brentwood, Bloemfontein East and Stellenbosch for their contributions. Each of them made a constructive contribution to this debate. Time does not permit me to repeat the arguments, nor will it be necessary to do so. They facilitated my task a great deal. It is true that the hon member for Bloemfontein East set a cat among the pigeons by reminding the CP that their current partner had attacked them in such strong terms. [Interjections.] After all, it is strange that two parties that are as close together as they are, but still lack the ability to unite, nevertheless believe in their respective capacities to go their own ways in South Africa in its totality in a spirit of harmony. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Waterberg is unable to convince Mr Jaap Marais, then I really do not know how he will be able to convince any other leader of any other population group to co-operate with him!

It is only Chris who could convince you to accept these things.

I shall begin with the hon member for Bryanston.

†I want to thank the hon member for Bryanston for the credit he gave the Government. I think he made an honest speech, and set an example in giving credit where credit is due. It is not often that we get from opposition benches the sort of objective evaluation which he made yesterday.

Nevertheless, while tapping us on the shoulder with one hand, he hit us on the cheek with the other. He came with a number of qualifications which obviously stemmed from the basic philosophical differences in our approach towards the solutions to the challenges and problems of South Africa. The essence of his plea was that we must create a totally free and open education system in South Africa. He argued that only by such a step would we convince people that equality existed, and that only such a step would break down the psychological barriers to which he referred. Open schools, integration, is not the golden key to equality. I will try to show why I say that. It did not do the trick in the USA, and it will not do so here.

*The hon member says schools must be open. I now want to ask him how open they must be. Let me take a practical example. Let us assume that there is a school in Bryanston capable of accommodating 600 children, and that at present there are only 540 children in the school, and 60 empty desks. Let us say for argument’s sake that a policy is accepted in terms of which that school in Bryanston is permitted to be open, and those 540 children turn up there on the first schoolday, but the National Education Crisis Committee also turns up in buses with 540 Black children, accompanied by the 540 mothers or fathers. [Interjections.] The hon members are arguing in the clouds, Sir. My answer is what policy that school committee should adopt if that were to happen. Are they to open up the schools on an equal basis? The reality is that people who advocate that are, deep in their hearts, advocating a form of tokenism. [Interjections.] They think they can get away with it if a school is opened here and there which admits 5, 10 or 20 members of another population group. That will not work. There will be pressure. After all, in America every school could decide on this initially, but only when the policy of integrated schools was accepted was there pressure for the compulsory integration of schools. Why should this not happen in South Africa if it happened in America? [Interjections.] The reality of an imperfect world is that there will be pressure. If the course of events was different and no one was really disrupted in practice and the few existing empty school desks in White schools were to be filled by Black people, Coloureds and Indians, then surely the problem would still not be solved, because the 99% of those who are present attending school in the Sowetos and the Guguletus would remain precisely where they are now. After all, the teachers would still be the same teachers as they are now.

†Therefore, in the final analysis open schools on a basis of local option or whatever basis, which the hon member suggests, will not have any marked impact on the real problems experienced in Black education.

An enormous mental impact.

Yes, it will result in some tokenism, but the overwhelming majority of Black pupils will remain where they are, facing the same problems which they face today.

*That is why I say that the essential problem in those departments which have a backlog to make up is not the inaccessibility of schools. It is the consequence of too few well-qualified teachers, too few classrooms, too many children for too few teachers and the difficult socioeconomic circumstances in which large numbers are trapped, such as parents who are unable to read and other historical handicaps to which the hon member for Pinetown also referred.

The inaccessibility of schools is also presented in far too absolute a fashion. In White education, as hon members are aware, subsidies are now being granted on an ample basis to private schools, whereas those schools are accorded considerable freedom of movement as regards their admission policies. In the other own affairs departments special arrangements have been made by the relevant hon Ministers within the framework of the spirit of the Constitution. All this is possible in terms of paragraph 14 of schedule 1 to the Constitution.

In reaction to the hon member for Pine-town I want to say that the NP does not believe in own schools, community-oriented and culture-based education because we are a lot of racists. We believe in it because we are convinced that it affords all the children of this country the best education. We believe in it because we are convinced that this standpoint that we adopt and implement is based on sound educational principles.

Mr Chairman, before the hon the Minister reacts to another hon member I want to ask him the following question: If the Government is sincere as regards this right of self-determination of every community in South Africa, how, then, can it refuse those communities the fundamental right to throw open their schools if it is their wish to do so, for example the English-language or any other ethnic White community? How can the Government refuse them the right to open their schools if it is their wish to do so?

As regards White education, too, there is surely such a thing as a very clear indication of how the vast majority of the voters feel. Surely that is why there are so few of those hon members. [Interjections.] Of course, that is why the PFP only wins elections in constituencies in which they think that they will be able to build exclusive White private schools in terms of the system proposed by the hon member for Pinetown. [Interjections.] The PFP’s policy of compulsory integration of State schools surely rests on the fact that they are the mouthpiece of the affluent society in South Africa who think that they can buy their apartheid in their own private schools. [Interjections.] The vast majority of voters represented by the PFP want that.

What about the surveys that show that the Whites are prepared to accept mixed schools?

Those few surveys that have been carried out have not indicated how open the schools will be. The question I put to the hon member, to which he was unable to reply, was not put to those people. They were not asked whether schools could be opened if only 5% of people of colour entered or even if 50% of people of colour entered the school.

They are only satisfied with 5%!

Surely that kind of survey has not been carried out at all scientifically. I regret to have to say that we must not bluff ourselves.

You have made no survey whatsoever! After all, these surveys were in fact made.

No, with every general election we have a survey that is made. On the occasion of the next general election—which may be held sooner than hon members expect—another survey will be held. [Interjections.] It is an opinion survey without nuances that one cannot rely on because it merely represents a reflection of opinion in respect of a vague question. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Pinetown draws a sharp distinction between culture and race. I believe he is justified in doing that. He actually says—and I am not quoting him, but I think my interpretation of his words is correct—that he favours differentiation on the basis of culture. He thinks it is a good thing. He has nothing against it.

Quite correct!

He is, however, totally opposed to racial discrimination.

That is correct, too!

The hon member also sounds like a Nat when he says that.

He is too sensible to be a Nat!

Because he realises he sounds very much like a Nat he then hastens to add that we in the National Party base our policy on race alone. That is his accusation. He accuses us of practising racial discrimination per se in education.

I talked about racial separation.

Now, I should like to ask him a simple question. It is a very simple question, and I hope he does not take offence at my putting it to him. Am I correct when I say that there is a cultural difference between the Zulu and the Afrikaner?

Yes.

All right. There is, however, also a racial difference. Not so?

There is a cultural difference between the Englishman and the Afrikaner.

Now, am I correct when I say there is also a racial difference?

Yes.

Now, Sir, if we have a situation in which we simultaneously have to cope with both a cultural and a racial difference, must we then avoid or ignore the cultural difference in order to avoid facing the perception of racial discrimination? You see, Sir, that is exactly where the hon member’s argument takes us. Surely there is also a difference between the Afrikaners and the English. That is why, within the White education system, there is differentiation. The hon member knows that there is differentiation.

Why not have two systems then?

We basically have mother-tongue education in South Africa. Among Black and Black…

Sir, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, please! I have quite a lot to say. I am replying to a five-hour debate and I do not want to be interrupted at all, please.

The hon member tries to escape from the dilemma which I have just pointed out—a dilemma which arises from his own argument. He tries to do that by stating that we in the National Party make use of a concept of White culture. [Interjections.] The hon member did say that! That is, of course, not true. In White education there is differentiation; there is a recognition of differences. That recognition of differences is not only to be found in White education. It is also present in Black education.

Because you force them!

In various fields there is a recognition of differences.

Forced, yes!

Moreover, the hon member knows it. He certainly knows it. Therefore, Sir, to accuse us of cultural imperialism…

That is true!

… and I also say this in reaction to the hon member’s interjection—is simply not true.

Of course it is true!

That is true of the HNP, yes. They say that there should only be one official language in South Africa. [Interjections.] We say that apart from the two official languages we must grant recognition to every other language. Surely that is true. [Interjections.]

I shall go further, Sir. After all, we do not thrust Afrikaans-language schools upon the Black communities. [Interjections.] No, I am sorry, Sir, but we do not prescribe how the Indians, in their education, seek to give expression to their culture. [Interjections.] We do not prescribe how the Coloureds, in their education, have to give expression to their culture.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir! You see, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central is…

Order! The hon member for Durban Central can stop making interjections now.

The hon member is wrong when he argues that the National Party differentiates on a racial basis, pure and simple. We are separate races, that is true. Differentiation among Black cultural groups is permitted even within the one Black department, where there is a need. [Interjections.] It has always been the standpoint of the NP that everyone should decide on his own education. In this sentence I am also replying to a point raised by the CP.

We apply this in respect of language, and we also apply it in the schools in respect of a matter such as faith. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Training, said that the sooner he stopped being a Minister of Education and Training, the better. There must be own Ministers because those people must decide on their own affairs to the maximum extent.

A Black Minister?

Yes, of course it is preferable that a Black Minister should administer Black education. We surely agree on that score. [Interjections.] A Minister who controls the education of his own people or group, is that not the policy of the CP?

When it is of common concern as well?

We can speak about the common good later.

You will never get to that.

I shall reply to the hon member in a moment.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Minister a question?

No, Sir.

Surely there are not only four racially based departments, as the hon member said. [Interjections.] Why does the hon member ignore the fact that we do not differentiate on the basis of culture? Surely there are innumerable other departments that are specifically culture-bound, namely, every education department of every homeland. Therefore the hon member’s statement that we in South Africa have a racially based education system is not true.

It is quite true!

It is not true. There are facets such as race that come to the fore, and that also plays a part.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, please do not.

The hon member referred to something else, too. I am very pleased he is present. I also like to listen to him, and I am very pleased that he also came to listen. [Interjections.]

†The hon member referred to the report that was tabled yesterday. I agree that it is a good report. It will obviously be studied carefully. I just want to say, however, that no policy decision has as yet been taken on the detail contained in the report. That will be done in due course.

I now turn to the hon member for King William’s Town. He asked whether the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly will allow all pupils in a region to write a common examination. I have not consulted my colleague—he must ask him that question himself. However, what I do want to point out, is that right at this moment the Department of Education and Culture which he referred to, is offering common examinations for all pupils in the country taking technical college courses. So, Sir…

Tertiary courses?

No, technical college courses. [Interjections.] No, technical colleges are not fully tertiary. I want to point out to him that it is a question of negotiation. However, I want to take him up on that, because the hon member seriously contradicted himself. He delivered a deeply philosophical speech. Before he became involved in the philosophy, he first said he could not understand why we say the Bill “may”, with regard to one examination or the possibility thereof.

The Minister may.

Why don’t we say “should”? Later in his speech—and we know that to be his party’s philosophy—he pleaded for local option.

That is not local option.

But why does he not want to extend this option to examining bodies?

That is a Minister’s option, not a community option.

No, but it is a Minister of a particular department representing a particular community. Now suddenly he wants to force… [Interjections.]… something down the throat instead of allowing that to come about, if it is to happen, as a result of negotiation and an understanding reached. He knows that nobody can force that unless there is a much greater similarity between the syllabuses than even the certification council will prescribe.

They have been advised by the department.

Unless that has been achieved one examination is basically impractical and in some instances almost impossible. Let me first say why this is so, because I also want to reply to that; I do not only want to debate and try to be clever. Firstly, the freedom of choice with regard to learning matter will and must remain. That stands in the way of enforcing one examination. Secondly—this is a different reason—the administration of the final examination is part and parcel of the line function of any education department. If one takes that away per se then one would really make of an education department, as the hon member for Koedoespoort said last night, a kind of organisational structure active only on the school grounds. Examinations are part and parcel of the inherent function of a particular department.

So you rule them out?

The hon member then turned to local option and he contrasted two approaches. The one was what he called a “purist liberal” approach and the other a “principled" approach. He was apparently saying that he stood on the “purist liberal” basis and that we stood on the “principled" basis. I think there is a strong element of truth in describing the differences between his approach and our approach like that. I do not think he is wrong when he says that is an inherent difference between his thinking and ours. However, when he accuses the National Party of sectionalism he is going too far. In his whole speech he distanced himself from the majority in this House. He distanced himself on the basis of being different from us. He analysed us, divided us into categories and he went to great lengths to put us into some pigeonhole to fit his theory. He is making a major mistake, like his leader Mr Sutton did in many speeches in this House when he was still here. He has a hang-up about the Afrikaner, about the Afrikaner’s motives and about the goals of the Afrikaner.

You know that is not true.

Time does not allow me to give a dissertation on the subject but I want to make one basic statement in reply. Nationalists—supporters of this party—whether Afrikaans or English speakers, do not have an identity crisis. He need not worry and prescribe to us how to solve our identity crisis because we do not have one. We know where we want to go, and we know what we are. We are not as complicated as he wants us to be. [Interjections.]

Yes, we believe in certain principles. Yes, we also accept the realities of South Africa and we are working towards a solution, a solution which will ensure on the one hand group security and on the other hand sound co-operation among groups with regard to matters of common interest. And this Bill as read in conjunction with the Constitution proves exactly that.

*Sir, I now come to the CP. Stripped of their personal attacks nowadays they do not even leave my father in peace in his grave—what are they, in essence, saying through the hon member for Rissik, the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Germiston District? They say, firstly, and now the hon member for Kuruman has also added his contribution, that this Bill enslaves White education. They are saying that it subordinates Whites to the whole. White education, so they say, is being subordinated to multiracialism. Sir, if we had counted how many times the word multiracialism was used, then among the speeches by those four it will probably have occurred about 80 times. But it is simply untrue.

South Africa, whether the National Party or anyone else wins the next election, is a country, as the hon member for Kuruman admitted today, in which there will always be people of different population groups living within the same country. The logical consequence of that is that there will always be people of different population groups entering the same labour market. Surely that is a fact. Will the CP be able to change that? They cannot change it; they say, what is more, that they will not change it. They say that they will admit those members of other population groups and they will work in the same labour market.

Surely then it is plain common sense to say that there should be the highest degree of uniformity in academic standards, or else there will be chaos. It is so logical. It is such a practical requirement. It is almost as simple as saying that everyone who travels on the same roads and has a driving licence should have passed the same test to be able to prove that he or she can drive well enough. It is almost as simple as saying that it is only common sense to say that we should have one monetary unit in South Africa and that everyone should have confidence in a R10 note with a watermark and regard it as money that is worth the amount specified on it. [Interjections.]

In the same way we need one certificate that must achieve two things. In the first place, everyone who sets academic qualifications as a requirement for employment must have certainty. They must have certainty that a certificate is evidence of a standard that has been reliably determined, irrespective of the person who presents it or the department under which he attended school. Secondly, every holder of a certificate must know that he has been assessed by way of a specific and reliable test; he must know that his qualification has a reliable value.

A situation in which a stigma attaches to the standards and certificates of a specific department or departments is surely untenable. Surely it sows the seed of revolution if there are tens of thousands of people who say: “The school you offer me gives me only a second-class matric. You are withholding from me the right to achieve the same standard as you are able to achieve.” That is the seed of revolution. It destroys pride in what is one’s own. It compels people to reject what they have and to seize what others have, and that is why the Bill is necessary.

It is in the interests of the country that there should be an educated population that shares the same basic values. It is in the interests of the country that the members of all population groups should make a growing contribution to the country’s economic development. Surely that is the only way we can build a happy future in South Africa.

We on this side of the House believe it is important that all children be subjected to the same norms and standards as far as syllabuses, examination and the certification of qualifications are concerned. We do not wish to say thereby that provision should not be made for the various groups, that provision should not be made for culture.

In this way we are not depriving any department of the opportunity or ability to maintain or develop the special character and nature of the specific people or group. Still less are we, therefore, preventing any department from imprinting in its children the traditions and philosophy it believes in. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent or withhold any education department from specifically cultivating love for one’s own, allowing their own tradition to carry on and specifically promoting pride in one’s own.

It is ridiculous to maintain that the autonomy of own education departments is being ploughed under by way of this Bill. What will indeed be achieved is a balance; a balance between the essential autonomy of educational bodies and the essential co-ordination of education in the interests of the country.

The CP states, secondly, that there will now be a decline in the White standards; I say that it is malicious politicking to make that statement. If we do not remain competitive in the international sphere then surely we in South Africa cannot progress. This certification council will have to maintain a standard that is scientifically based. It also includes testing in terms of acceptable international standards and the maintenance of what has already been achieved in South Africa. Any department that falls short of the present standard will have to make up the leeway, and no one will be forced to reduce standards. To help them make up their backlog, we shall provide them with all the assistance and means at our disposal.

I shall conclude by turning to the hon member for Sasolburg. He was amazingly friendly to the CP. He displayed the typical friendliness that a winner can show when the loser comes creeping under his wing. Although the CP has the numbers, the HNP has basically won the policy struggle. [Interjections.] All that is left are the issues of the one language and the Indians. If the CP yields in that regard then the hon member for Sasolburg and Mr Jaap Marais have won the policy struggle hands down. [Interjections.]

I have already to a large extent replied to the hon member in replying to the CP, but he did make a few statements to which I want to refer. He said that the education received by Blacks—he is therefore speaking in the present tense—differs fundamentally from that received by Whites. At the moment the subject matter in Black and White education has a great deal in common. It is not I who say so; it is my technical advisers who make this statement for me.

After all, we are not preparing these people for different worlds. We are preparing them for the same labour market and to work in the same town, factory or mine. It is true that in exceptional cases, such as history, for example, there are substantial differences, but the gulf is certainly not as wide as the hon member intimates. After all, there is no other way of counting than from 1 to 100. There is only one Boyle’s law. I could continue in the same vein as regards science. [Interjections.] I am not going to reply to questions now.

The next statement made by the hon member was that the standing committee had heard no evidence as to what was happening in other countries. That is not true. [Interjections.] No, Sir, the hon member makes statements. The committee had this report at its disposal; and the hon member also had this report at his disposal. Indeed, in my speech I took the trouble to say that it had been tabled on the 18th. He must go and read from page 46 to page 69 what is stated about the other countries.

The hon member’s real argument is that it is impossible to specify one standard in a differentiated system of education. He is really displaying his ignorance! Although there were deficiencies, surely we have now all obtained an admission qualification to a university under a Joint Matriculation Board. Those stars next to our names represented a relatively successful effort—although there were deficiencies—to establish one standard for various education departments. That hon member and the hon member for Kuruman should not fall off their chairs now, but there has been a mixed Matriculation Board for several years now. [Interjections.] I did not hear him complain, Sir.

There is nothing you have not mixed yet.

We even accepted the hon member’s recommendation to mix other boards as well, when the hon member served on a select committee. [Interjections] I want to urge the hon member for Sasolburg to reread the speech of the hon member for Brentwood. If he is then still not convinced and he does not understand that it is indeed possible to determine one standard, then he should read this same report. I want to help him, he need not read the entire report, he can begin on page 70. He will then see that scientists do deem this possible and he will admit to himself that he was wrong once again and that he stormed in and made wild statements without first acquainting himself with the facts. [Interjections.]

Finally, I wish to say that this certification council will of course have a difficult task. They have wide-ranging terms of reference and this is a phenomenal task. It is not going to be easy to establish this one standard.

Why not?

Because we have a differentiated system. However, it is possible, and I have full confidence that the educationists of South Africa will succeed in this. Indeed, it has already been pointed out by scientific educationists that it is possible and because this is so I have full confidence that this certification council will usher in a new era of qualifications that are estimated at their true value by their holder; qualifications of which everyone will be proud and on which every employer may rely when a certificate is shown to him. Anyone who says that this is not a step in the right direction does not have the interests of South Africa at heart.

Question put,

Mr Chairman, I move:

This measure deals with very important amendments to the Universities Act, No 61 of 1955.

As hon members are aware, the provisions of the Act, with a few exceptions, did not apply to universities for Blacks.

In clause 1 the definitions of “minister” and “university” are amended. The amendments to these definitions have the effect that the provisions of the Act will be applicable to all the universities in the Republic.

In terms of section 6(1)(aA) of the Universities Act, the principals of the universities for Blacks may at present nominate a member from among their number to serve on the Committee of University Principals. The amendment to the definition of “university” further has the effect that all the principals of the universities for Blacks become members of the Committee of University Principals. Section 6(l)(aA) is therefore also being deleted. All these principals will in future be able to participate, in accordance with the procedures and stipulations contained in clause 2(b) of the Bill, in the functions of the Committee of University Principals, which are dealt with in clause 3.

In clause 3 the functions of the Committee of University Principals are expanded. The committee will in future advise the Minister of National Education on any matter contemplated in section 2(1) of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, No 67 of 1984. Its advice on matters such as norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs for universities and salaries of university staff will, no doubt, be of great importance. The committee will also advise the Minister of National Education and the minister of every department of State responsible for education on co-operation between education departments to the extent in which the universities are involved.

It is common knowledge that the Joint Matriculation Board is at present controlling and conducting the matriculation examination of the universities. It also prescribes the conditions of exemption from that examination and the standards to be attained in subjects at the matriculation examination.

†The Government pointed out in the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the Republic of South Africa that the Joint Matriculation Board was exercising a strong direct influence on the entire school system and was also indirectly setting the standards for admission to other tertiary education institutions.

The Government further noted in its White Paper that it is desirable that the standards governing withdrawal from the school system and entry to the labour market, as well as those governing admission to institutions for tertiary education should be set by the certification council and that it should introduce more nuances into these standards.

A Bill providing for the establishment of the South African Certification Council has just been read a second time.

After careful consideration it has been decided that it would in future be the function of the Committee of University Principals to prescribe the requirements for admission to study at a university. The committee will also prescribe the conditions for exemption from these requirements.

The Joint Matriculation Board becomes an advisory body of the Committee of University Principals, who will appoint its members and be responsible for its financing.

The Matriculation Board may continue to conduct examinations but may not issue certificates. This will be done by the South African certification council to be established.

The certificates of those pupils who in examinations conducted by any accredited examining body have complied with the requirements for admission to study at a university, will be endorsed accordingly, by the said council with the approval of the Committee of University Principals.

Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that one does not have the opportunity in succeeding legislation to reply to a Minister’s speech on the previous legislation, because there are many issues which the hon the Minister raised in his reply which I should like to take up with him. However, I shall probably have to postpone that until a future occasion.

The PFP will also be supporting this legislation, and, once again, in supporting the legislation there are a number of reservations which we shall underline.

After a very long history of negative and harmful legislation relating to universities, legislation which interfered with the right of universities to autonomy, which restricted the concept of academic freedom and which prevented the universities from offering their educational services to the population of South Africa as a whole; after a long, unfortunate and sad history of Government bungling and harmful intervention, we are now reaching the point where we are correcting the situation.

By amending the legislation in the way the Government is amending it now, it is in fact correcting unfortunate harmful and negative steps which it took in the past. I can remember well the Government’s Extension of University Education Act. It was in fact a contradiction in terms to use the word “extension”. Today the Government often talks about the broadening of democracy. It raises expectations, and then dashes them. It raises expectations by claiming to extend rights, to extend powers, to expand opportunities and to broaden democracy. However, when one studies carefully the provisions of the legislation concerned, one finds that it is not quite what one was led to believe. It is very much like Salusa 45 in the raising of expectations and the dashing of those expectations. Despite that, we will in fact support this piece of legislation.

I remember very well when we debated previous amendments to this legislation not so many years ago. We then pleaded with the Government to include the Black universities in the provisions of this legislation. We explained to the Government why it was essential to accord Black universities the same status, the same rights and the same academic opportunities. The Government replied that it was impossible to do that, and they gave a number of reasons why it was impossible. I predicted at the time that within a few years the Government would have to come to the House, admit that it was wrong and then bring about those changes which we had pleaded for at that stage. That is exactly what the Government has done with this legislation. In this legislation the Government is now doing what it should have done some time ago. It is now doing what the PFP has always asked for and what we have always promoted. It illustrates the one thing about Government reform which is so incredibly unfortunate, namely the reluctance with which reform is brought about. Reform measures have to be drawn from them like teeth. In the process of bringing about reform in that way the Government achieves nothing in terms of improved race relationships or positive responses from the other communities, despite the fact that eventually they do the right thing and arrive where we wanted to be at the outset.

We are dealing with tertiary education. I should like now to commend the Government officially and welcome the amendments in this legislation which will accord to Black universities the same status and opportunities as those the White universities enjoy. Black university principals will now also be able to sit on the Committee of University Principals. They will have an opportunity of making representations on behalf of their institutions and of benefiting from the cross-fertilisation and pooling of ideas which is a characteristic of that body.

Whilst saying that, I want to take the Government to task for not having used the opportunity, when introducing this legislation, of also removing from the legislation the one remaining aspect which is racially offensive and damaging to university education. I am referring to the provision in the legislation which determines a quota for the admission of students of other race groups to any particular university.

I wonder whether the Government, in this day and age, in this era of a new reformist spirit, when they are trying to shake off the shackles of racialism and apartheid of the past, has actually read that provision and understood just how ugly and offensive it is. Not only is it racially offensive in that it determines that the Government prescribes to a university that it cannot admit people from another race group beyond certain numbers; it also clearly implies that the Government will use its financial support to blackmail university institutions to comply with that particular provision.

When we talk to the Government about these things, they say that it is not being applied. They say that all universities are open; they can all admit students from other race groups. That is substantially correct—I agree that it is substantially correct—but if that is the case, why do we retain on the Statute Book something which is racially offensive? Because of its racially offensive nature this provision undoes the positive and constructive aspects of the legislation and of university education in South Africa.

I should like to make a very urgent appeal to the hon the Minister and to the Government. Over the years the Government has improved the legislation and the system with regard to university education. I should now like to appeal to the Government to take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing before Parliament a further amendment which will rid this legislation of the offensive provision to which I have referred. Let us de-pollute it; let us cleanse it of that particular unfortunate aspect which still remains in the legislation.

One of the things which the Government must understand is that, in terms of their concept of one nation and one united country which they have now included in their basic principles, in terms of their attempts to bring about racial peace, stability and prosperity and in terms of their commitment to the sharing of power and to one citizenship and one system, all the future leaders of South Africa—or the vast majority of them—will pass through the tertiary educational institutions of this country. The Government should also realise that it is counter-productive, dangerous and unwise to allow those future leaders of the country to receive their education and training in racially segregated institutions, because, whereas they may get a fine education and whereas we may technically speaking achieve in the future an equal education in these racially segregated institutions, the most important component on which the future prosperity and stability of this country is going to depend will be racial understanding and the ability to co-operate in the pursuit of common goals.

That can only be achieved if people communicate extensively with one another; if they can live together, attend classes together, deal with problems together, communicate, argue, discuss, have dialogue, consult and negotiate. All those things are absolutely essential between the future leaders of this country if they are to pursue successfully the goals of bringing about a sound economy and a sound constitutional system in South Africa. They need to learn to understand one another and to co-operate with one another.

I wish to make the appeal to the Government to make this possible and in fact to encourage tertiary institutions to bring about ways and means of including all race groups amongst the student bodies; encourage them to bring about the maximum degree of communication between the various racial groups on their campuses; encourage them to train the various racial communities in interracial communication and co-operation; encourage them to produce future leaders for South Africa who will be free of race prejudice and who will have acquired the skills of communication and co-operation. If the Government do that, they will make a very marked contribution to a future of peace and prosperity for South Africa.

Order! Perhaps the hon member should concentrate more on the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, that is directly involving this legislation.

Order! Could the hon member refer me to the particular clause he is discussing?

Sir, I am dealing with university education as a whole.

That is not so; the hon member should be dealing with the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, as it is, I have completed my speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston again made a reasonably refreshing, positive and constructive speech this afternoon—as we have recently experienced. The hon member’s criticism of the Government in this specific respect was of what he called its tardiness or reluctance in the reform process. I wish to remind the hon member that a reformer has a great responsibility in any country and especially in a heterogeneous land like ours. Reform should not have a disruptive effect on the order and stability of the community; it should take place prudently.

Reform is a wide-ranging process comprising constitutional, economic and social facets and, if this process were distorted, chaos could easily arise. Consequently reform cannot be carried out precipitately and rashly and that is why the only way it can occur is by means of a process of hastening slowly. If one takes that into account, I think the Government is doing excellent, balanced work in this sphere.

On the subject of reform, the amending Bill before the House this afternoon is a sign of evolutionary development too. It also forms part of the wide-ranging process which is developing in an orderly fashion across the entire spectrum of South African society. It is taking place under Government leadership but also in close co-operation with interested bodies from all the communities of our population.

One of the consequences of the Bill under discussion will be that membership of the Committee of University Principals will be accorded to all rectors of universities falling under the Department of Education and Training. I wish to say this is a highly timeous measure. I wish we had introduced it long ago. This includes the universities for Black people within the family of institutions for higher education, where they belong. The current position—the one we are now changing—is totally intolerable and absolutely indefensible because, as the Act runs at present, universities for Black people are in fact excluded by definition from the concept of a “university”. In strict accordance with the definition of words in the Act, Black universities are not universities.

It may well be argued that this is a practical arrangement, that the requirements for drafting legislation demand it or whatever. Nevertheless it is humiliating to those on the receiving end of this provision. Which of us in this House would be satisfied if our alma mater did not fall within the definition of the concept of a “university”? Which of us would accept and believe that we were receiving equal treatment under such circumstances?

At present, rectors of universities for Blacks may nominate one member from their ranks to serve on the Committee of University Principals. But what does this mean? From their point of view, it means next to nothing. The concern of the predominantly White CUP is for their own White mutual interests; when one approaches it strictly according to the interpretation of legal prescriptions as well. This legislative amendment therefore regularises a situation which has been preceived as an injustice by many South Africans for a very long time. In reality it has become a charge against which no proper defence any longer exists. As in this case, the Government is pledged to remove all causes of indefensible charges. I welcome this. The sooner it occurs, the better. We have more than enough difficult problems to occupy us for which solutions are less obvious.

This legally sanctioned operation on the level of the CUP which is now being made possible by this measure will also lead to uniformity in admission requirements fixed by all universities. Obviously this links up perfectly with provisions of the legislation regarding the South African Certification Council which we passed here earlier this afternoon. In this way the development of a well-considered new system becomes increasingly clear and significant. The country will derive great benefit from this system in the years ahead, especially when one considers that senior management positions in the business sector have not been a prerogative of Whites alone for a long time.

This is not something caused or brought about by the Government; the demands of the economy and the composition of the population require it. As early as 1928 Langenhoven said in an article in Die Burger that the laws of economy tended to be stronger than the laws of a country and that is our very experience in today’s situation.

The Bill under discussion also places the application of the provisions of section 25 of the principal Act—the hon member for Bryanston also referred to this—under the jurisdiction of the respective Ministers responsible for education as own affairs. This is a further development of the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and it is fitting that this provision is included in the measure before us.

As hon members are already aware, section 25 of the principal Act deals with the so-called determining of quotas for the admission of those of colour to universities—non-Whites to White universities and vice versa. I wish to contend in this case that, as regards the term “quota”, I believe it is incorrect, a misnomer, something used mainly when one deliberately chooses to use it for political ends, like the hon member for Bryanston who knows he is using it in this way when speaking of “quotas”. In truth there is no question whatsoever of a quota in this case.

As the handling of this provision is now being transferred from this hon Minister to another Minister, I thank him and his predecessor for the way in which they applied it. It was done in a sensitive and flexible way so that various universities felt that their ability to take responsible action received proper recognition. I believe the hon the Minister will be able to testify in this regard that universities did not disappoint him in general. In consequence, a case which remains sensitive in some areas and for a number of reasons was dealt with in a highly satisfactory manner without tension.

While I am dealing with the point of the admission of other races to universities which now forms part of the discussion here, I wish to refer in anticipation to a debate being conducted at the University of Stellenbosch at the moment on opening the hostels of that institution. Arguments on this were put forward in the recently concluded debate and I am sure hon CP members will also broach the matter here. As I shall not have the opportunity of responding to this afterwards, I should like to comment briefly on it, with your permission, Sir.

Hon members all know from Press reports that such a debate is in progress. Hon members are also aware that sharp differences of opinion exist regarding this on the campus. In the first place I wish to say I consider it good that students should reflect in depth on such matters. They should weigh the various arguments against one another. One cannot prevent such debating, nor should one do so.

One should remember that a debate on the campus takes a different course from that in broad public life. Students are not exposed to all the currents and tensions of life outside the campus. [Interjections.] Their community is not diverse in the sense that they have a wide variety of interest groups. They do not have rich and poor, old and young, employers and employees, people with regional interests and the rest on the campus. They are students and in that sense a student community is an unrealistic community. Whoever disregards this, will never understand a student debate. I must mention one point which is that their debating is perfectly honest and without reservations so that outsiders are sometimes shocked by it. I now wish to suggest that people should preferably listen to and judge such discussions without prejudice and attempt to learn something from them instead of staggering back in shock.

If there is one step, however, which one should not take regarding a student debate, it is to interfere in it or attempt influencing it in a crude manner. This would be fatal and, whatever one’s standpoint, one’s action or one’s attempt at intervention would be counterproductive.

Sir, I know nothing about maize politics, for instance. I would be totally unable to handle a meeting of maize farmers; it would be foolish of me to attempt to do so. I know student politics, however, and that is why I know it would be very unwise of me to allow myself to be tempted at this stage into wishing to conduct the campus debate of the University of Stellenbosch in this House of Assembly. That is why I shall not do so either.

Nevertheless I wish to emphasise three matters here. Firstly, the students are not unreasonable. They know that none of their decisions in this regard will have any legal force and that at best they can serve as an indication to the authorities of how they feel.

Secondly, the Stellenbosch University authority is a responsible body. It does not wish to permit the nature and character of Stellenbosch to be lost; it would prefer to stabilise and promote it and should be trusted to do so.

Thirdly, I may say that there is very close co-operation between the university authority and that of the country. The Government’s fundamental standpoint on this matter is clear. We also know that the report of the President’s Council is awaited. It will be considered and reaction to it will take all relevant factors into account. The debate at Stellenbosch should be viewed and judged within this framework. I can assure hon members that the lecturers, students and general public of Stellenbosch are overwhelmingly positive, balanced, patriotic and reliable. With these words I should like to leave the question on the debate being conducted on the Stellenbosch campus at that.

In conclusion, I should like to revert in greater detail to the Bill and in this regard I wish to say that a matter which gratifies me exceedingly is that the CUP is now to advise the Minister inter alia on norms and standards for the financing of the salaries of university personnel. The hon the Minister is aware that unhappiness and disquiet still prevail on our campuses over lecturers salaries. In their opinion unacceptable anomalies exist in personnel and salary structures which provide a perennial subject for debate on the campuses.

Order! I permitted the hon member to discuss his own constituency at length but I am not very sure whether this matter of salaries is applicable to the legislation.

Mr Chairman, perhaps I may explain that in terms of this Bill the CUP is now being empowered to advise the Minister in this specific regard. It is a function which it did not fulfil previously.

Some lecturers devote a great deal of time—perhaps too much—to this and they could perhaps otherwise use such time to better effect. I hope the CUP will nominate a special subcommittee, and that it will do so speedily, to investigate this matter immediately and that its members will subsequently furnish the hon the Minister with realistic advice which will enable him to assist them to settle the dissatisfaction themselves. I wish to assure the hon the Minister that this will definitely also provide me as a representative of a university town with far more peace of mind.

I take pleasure in supporting this positive and very useful measure with these remarks.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Stellenbosch and I must say in passing that I always find it interesting to listen to him. I hope a time will come when one will be able to discuss certain of these fundamental aspects of our society more comprehensively.

The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to the hon member for Bryanston and said—if I heard him correctly; he speaks rather softly—that the hon member for Bryanston’s speech was refreshing, positive and constructive.

Hear, hear!

But then the hon the Minister and many of the hon members on the other side of the House sometimes do not clearly understand what the Conservative Party and the hon member for Sasolburg say. I wish to ask the hon the Minister and the hon member for Stellenbosch—as they have just surveyed South African politics over the past 40 years in depth—whether they have asked themselves why it is that the PFP in principle plays a vital part in fundamental legislation and also in a measure such as this amending Bill and agrees with the Government. Surely hon members will agree with me that the hon member for Houghton is one of the doyennes of the PFP. She has certainly occupied a seat in this House for many years; we undoubtedly have to credit her with that. She adopted a specific standpoint in 1953 and again on the formation of the old Progressive Party in 1959. In fact, she has not deviated from her principles. I believe hon members will agree with me; the hon member for Houghton has stood by her principles throughout the years. I differ with her fundamentally but nevertheless grant her this. [Interjections.] No, hon members should listen carefully now. They know what basic differences have existed as regards universities over the course of decades.

Today the hon member is supporting the Government concerning the principle contained in the Bill before us; she is supporting the Government in the words of the speakers of her party. Have hon members asked themselves where they stand as regards the particular principle we have established for the universities in South Africa? I want to put this to hon members.

Furthermore it is abundantly clear—it is splashed across the heavens—that the NP is a totally different party in essence, character and principle from what it was when we were expelled from it. The hon member for Stellenbosch said the hon member for Bryanston’s speech was refreshing, positive and constructive but, if that is what he thinks, we are living in two worlds. I want to tell the hon member I have many problems concerning the PFP; not regarding their principles and policy but the way in which they are handling this legislation. I am unhappy about the PFP which should at least honestly spell out the leftist liberal standpoint in this House and debate its consequences. There is also a type of spinelessness among the PFP, however, as if they do not know whether they should support the New Progs now or just sit still. The two hon PFP members who spoke made no impact.

I wish to refer briefly to racial discrimination in education.

There is too much apartheid there!

No, listen to me carefully now. That hon member talks too much and thinks too little! If I were a Prog—and I understand their mode of thought completely as I have been sitting next to them for a long time…

When are you coming?

I shall never come but preferably move away a little!

They are moving nearer and nearer to you!

Quite so! But hon members must listen to me carefully now.

There is only a single point, for instance, which I want to raise on PFP debating so far in this education debate, namely the question of racial discrimination. Hon members are not debating this. The Government says the Brown people in South Africa are culturally the same as the Whites. My question is the same as the one the hon member for Bryanston should also have put and it is the same question hon members should put to themselves. On what grounds are the Brown people being fitted into a different system by the NP? It is an utterly simple question but hon members are not asking it nor debating it.

The dilemma of the House is not only that we have an ambivalent Government but we have a liberal party that no longer has the thews and sinews it had in earlier years. This is quite probably one of the reasons why Dr Van Zyl Slabbert left. I do not wish to say that the hon member for Houghton is growing old; they say age and matrimony tame all men. I do not know how they affect women but I think that sort of punch should return. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not sure whether the hon member’s statement about the hon member for Houghton is factually correct.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I could perhaps say that your judgment, as you sit calmly listening to the debate, would be better than mine. This legislation is not entirely innocent, even if it is still an amending Bill.

I have omitted just one point I wanted to address to the hon the Minister of National Education and which I have to clear up. In the hon the Minister’s reply to the previous debate he said he did not like the way we had referred to the later Senator Jan de Klerk. There was no evil intent from the side of the hon member for Koedoespoort or mine. Mr Chairman, in political life…

I find it insulting to say that my father would have been a CP today. [Interjections.]

They do not think it insulting.

I do not want this type of thing to come between us. It has often been pointed out to me in this House that my father supported the UP and the hon member for Turffontein has had the same experience; the hon the Minister must know that one has to have sensitivity but a thick skin in politics. In politics one’s opponent dredges up matters whether they go as far back as one’s grandfather or great-grandfather. I have the greatest regard for the hon the Minister’s father. Consequently, when we express judgment on his standpoints and principles and now put this to his son who has followed in his footsteps as regards the Ministry, it is in the nature of political debate to argue it and reach those conclusions. I therefore want to assure the hon the Minister that we did not intend it maliciously. I merely wished to clear the air concerning this.

This Bill includes far more important changes than it appears to do superficially. Alterations are effected to the definitions of "Minister” and “university”. I quote from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading Speech:

It is important to realise at this stage that the constitutional position in South Africa has changed absolutely in consequence of the NP’s changing standpoint of principle. However much the hon member for Bloemfontein East comes with references and however much the hon the Minister wishes to circumvent the question of power-sharing in his reply to the CP and the fact that power-sharing in the political sphere will also affect education and all educational structures, such as universities as well, the hon the Minister cannot escape it.

I do not wish to remind the hon the Minister of a person’s past; sometimes it is good and at others not so good. He should remember, however, that we are political opponents. The aspirations of both our political parties deal with the struggle for the control of this White Chamber. Consequently one should argue these matters according to the rules of the House and one’s conviction and knowledge of politics. I have an article in front of me written by the hon the Minister some years ago. Of course, the NP always asks: “When was that written?" He is addressing the English-speaking people of South Africa here:

Those are my hon colleagues sitting next to me here.

That is a good article. Please send me a copy as I have lost mine.

I shall do so with pleasure, with my compliments. It is a good article because the hon the Minister has very good qualities—he is just in the wrong party. [Interjections.] I am struggling to convince my hon colleagues that there is a chance for him. I shall continue reading:

I could not have phrased it better myself. The hon the Minister continues under the caption: “Division of Power”:

Where is the truth about the NP now?

The hon the Minister cannot escape that fundamental philosophy. That is why we say that, regarding universities, we are dealing here with a Minister who has to bear great responsibilities concerning legislation as well. He will agree with me that, under the present dispensation, a Brown man, Rev Hendrickse for instance, may become the Minister of National Education; Mr Rajbansi could as well. According to his colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the NP will also permit Black people, a certain group of Black people or all of them, to become an integral part of this parliamentary dispensation and then the Minister of National Education could be a Black man too.

It is also interesting that we established the University of the Western Cape long ago in the face of Government opposition. This was accomplished in spite of great opposition. I now see the following in Die Burger of 18 August 1986…

Did you say in the face of Government opposition?

No, I meant of the Progs. Well, the NP is more or less the same but it was the Progressive Party of the time. The hon the Minister knows why the old NP established these universities and attempted to transfer control to the various peoples. Now Rev Hendrickse is reported in Die Burger, 18 August 1986, as follows:

The hon the Minister’s colleague in the Cabinet—

Although I do not agree with him on what he says about the university, in the next paragraph he produces a qualification on which I do agree with him. I am grateful that Rev Hendrickse has discerned it. It runs:

The hon member for Stellenbosch made an amazing comment here a short while ago. The hon the Minister and you and I, Mr Chairman, were very actively concerned in student politics in our young days. To tell the truth, that is where we learnt to know and understand one another and started appreciating one another. The hon member for Stellenbosch said today, however, that the student community was a different, unrealistic type of society.

But surely that is true…

No, it is not altogether true. I want to say to the hon member: “As the old cock crows, so the young one learns.” The university community echoes what is taking place outside. [Interjections.] It is an echo. I wish to return to the hon member later and talk to him briefly on the functioning and activities of these rectors.

The hon member cannot merely start dissociating himself from what is taking place at the University of Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] I am just as concerned and I am not distancing myself from it. That is why I make speeches at the University of Stellenbosch and the students treat me well too. I must say they listen to me.

I am also concerned about Tukkies and Potchefstroom. I am concerned about the Afrikaans universities because I recall the fifties when such elements emerged at Ikeys, Wits and the University of Natal and not even to the same degree as we find at Afrikaans universities today and we were upset by what was taking place there. Those universities in many respects became the breeding ground of many people who were opposed to the existing dispensation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member he should read his Matie more regularly. He should read what young Afrikaner boys and girls are saying not only on the question of open hostels but also about Mandela. Does this not give the hon member cause for concern?

If someone not even as close to the old NP as this hon Minister were to become the Minister of Education under this system and had to care for our universities and this was the type of politics conducted there, I want to know in what hands the Minister of National Education would ultimately find himself if even Rev Hendrickse says this university should actually be closed.

I say it is late in the day for us to be dealing with these matters. In principle I am opposed to what the Minister wants to do here. Nevertheless we are in favour of ethnic universities in principle and that they should produce the best products for society, not only for their own people, their own country, but for South Africa as a whole, for Africa and the world.

We are not opposed to this but the hon the Minister created the impression a few moments ago that CP members kept Black people under their thumbs; we wanted to suppress them. He mentioned how many times we spoke about polyethnicity. I wish to remind the hon the Minister how frequently he accuses us of suppression of Black people, Brown people and Indians. This is untrue. For years the PFP accused the old NP of wishing to suppress people by the policy of separate development. The hon the Minister knows this is not true either and that is why I say that, if he feels unhappy and irritated about our comments, he should also be careful of what he says about us.

In consequence, I want to state I am disturbed about what is to become of the universities which are ultimately to be discussed in the committee of rectors. Because a man has become a rector, he is not necessarily above suspicion and criticism. I have not been very happy about rectors’ standpoints on Afrikaans universities over the past number of years. Too many rectors have followed the lead of an establishment and a government. Just as one finds sycophants in Parliament, as far as the Afrikaner community is concerned one finds them in many of our institutions, like rectors who for many reasons take their cue from a government. The CP is most perturbed that one may ultimately have a university which merely follows a government’s lead. I do not want… [Interjections] I am also talking about rectors…

About all rectors?

I do not wish to single out an individual. I am very concerned about it. By the way, I want to tell the hon member how, about three years ago, I met one of the vice rectors who had voted “yes”. I said to him: “Professor, did you vote ‘yes’?” And he replied in the affirmative. I then asked him: “Did you read that Bill at all?" And he replied in the negative. I then added: “You are a vice rector, the dean of a faculty, you do not even read an Act but you vote for it!” I am concerned about that type of matter. [Interjections.] No, I want to tell the hon member for Stellenbosch I wrote Prof Thom a letter about 25 years ago…

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but I want to repeat it to that hon member.

Daan, were you at university too?

Unlike that hon member’s State President, I was there a little longer. [Interjections.]

Disgraceful!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he thinks that all who voted “no” in 1983 had read the Constitution? [Interjections.]

The professors who voted “no” had not only read it very thoroughly but also studied it.

A government which wishes to remain uninvolved in the student community and not adopt a standpoint simply permits that university community to disappear from its old system of values. In reply to a question in one of the other two Houses, the hon the Minister said he stood for the distinctiveness, for the essence and nature of a specific university. The essence and nature of Afrikaner universities has been changing since the Government has permitted non-Whites there to an increasing degree. Now Black people are being involved in a committee of rectors as well.

Hon members should not refer to our academic training and think we are unable to hit back at them in that respect. Paul Kruger did not attend a university but he was a good president. It is not one’s academic qualifications which turn one into a good leader. [Interjections.]

That is 100% correct…

I want to tell hon members that the State President has achieved a great deal with his background and training. [Interjections.] I have to point out that Black people are also being involved. We realise what is taking place in the leftist academic world and one now arrives at a situation in which the presence of non-White students at White universities will not only change the essence of those universities absolutely but, what is more, create enormous conflict there. The hon the Minister—not to mention the hon the Deputy Minister—is not aware of everything said by students at the most recent ASB congress—the leaders of the university. Has the hon member for Stellenbosch read what the chairman of the students’ council of that university said as regards ASB matters? The hon member says he wishes to remain uninvolved; he does not wish to play a leading role so the students can just carry on.

No, Mr Chairman, NP members’ dilemma is that they no longer want to take the lead.

They cannot.

They no longer wish to take the lead because of their political ambivalence. The NP’s fall will be swifter than that of the NRP; it will be much swifter.

Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister and I were involved in the Afrikaanse Studentebond together for a long time. From 1948 the ASB grew and expanded with the NP and now it has been shattered. It has been shattered, not only because the hon the Minister has introduced power-sharing in the political sphere but in every facet of our lifestyle so that even the leftist wing—which is almost exclusively composed of NP members—has abandoned the ASB and established Jeugkrag, a multiracial organisation. That is the cause of my concern about what is happening at our universities.

Many of our lecturing staff and rectors will have to examine the quality, the failures and matters of that nature at our universities. I am anxious and I want to tell the hon member for Stellenbosch that I am very anxious about some of the utterances on these matters in classes.

Where do these young people hear that Mandela should be set free? Where are these matters being propagated? I do not deny the existence of such aspects as the independence, autonomy and so on of a university, which comes down to academic freedom, but in the final analysis we are the people elected to govern the country, to make laws, to provide the money and to maintain control. I wish to add that the CP and the rightists in this country will not permit university campuses to be used for the ultimate destruction not only of the existing order in South Africa but also of the White people and what the Whites brought to South Africa.

In sum, I therefore wish to say to the hon the Minister that, while he will pilot this Bill through with PFP assistance, we, the CP, will have to pay very serious attention together with the staff and rectors of the universities to universities as institutions in all their facets.

The hon the Minister and the hon member for Standerton are present. They will remember our going through the report of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission at the time and what an outstanding piece of work it was. In those days the three of us were on the same side and we were very much ad idem on it. All three of us warned Dr Koornhof about the direction in which he was heading. Today hon members see the product of a modification of principles started by Dr Koornhof which has led to the present situation at universities.

Mr Chairman. I have listened to the hon member for Rissik and I want to say right at the outset that our party differs radically from the PFP and the CP and that there is no agreement between these parties.

The PFP absolutises Black rights, and the CP, White rights. The NP adheres to the principle of the typical task of government to govern in everyone’s interests. That is the typical task of government, and that is why we not only govern in the interests of the Whites, but also in the interests of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people.

However, we are not standing still, like the hon member for Rissik, at 1977, or 1968, or 1948, or even in the time of Jan van Riebeeck. We find ourselves in a new South Africa today. It is no use telling us now that we said this or that in the past. That hon member participated in a national festival which we celebrated in 1968. In 1968—18 years ago—we published a festival collection entitled Agt en veertig, agt en sestig… en nou, die toekoms. In that collection it says:

Has the hon member not heard that we are at present pursuing a policy of co-operative coexistence?

In conclusion, as far as the hon member is concerned, I am of the opinion that the hon member for Rissik has insulted South Africa’s universities today, in particular the universities with which I am familiar. I am thinking here of the University of the Orange Free State, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of Pretoria, the University of Potchefstroom and RAU. He insulted their staff, he insulted their students, he insulted their character. I do not think he has it in him to point a finger at these universities.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill which, together with other related Bills, was once again examined thoroughly in the standing committee. This Bill, and the Bill we have just approved, cannot be viewed or judged separately. Having been studied carefully in the standing committee, this Bill is not only logical, but also a necessary and timely piece of legislation. This Bill will undoubtedly make a contribution to the further expansion of the university system in South Africa.

South Africa’s universities, which were insulted so gravely by the hon member for Rissik, have from the outset played an indispensable role in the development of, and progress in, all fields of life in South Africa. One could not picture our country without universities. We can be truly proud of what our universities have achieved, and of the dynamic way in which they are rendering community service in South Africa. We therefore take pleasure in supporting this legislation, which envisages the Committee of University Principals in future advising the Minister of National Education, inter alia, on extremely important matters such as norms and standards for the financing of current and capital expenditure of the universities, and salaries of university staff. We are well aware that this is of fundamental importance to the development of the universities.

Another very important function of the Committee of University Principals will be to prescribe requirements for admission to study at a university. Of course this is how it should be, since the universities are best able to determine what is required for a successful university career; in other words, to determine what the minimum admission requirements should be.

The universities act jointly in this regard. This could also only lead to good order. In terms of the measures in this legislation all the universities will be included. There will be cross—pollination of scientific thought and subject disciplines. The Committee of University Principals was established in terms of section 6 of the Universities Act of 1955. This committee has succeeded in ensuring order in academic matters in the university system, and in organising other matters of common interest over the years. In the years ahead this Bill will ensure that the best interests of the university, the student and our country are served.

Mr Chairman, this is an opportunity for hon members on these benches to add our congratulations to the hon member for Standerton on his appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees. We wish him well; we are certain that we will experience some affable wisdom combined with discipline. We on these benches assure him of our co-operation at all times.

This is a relatively short Bill and, proportionately, it took a relatively short amount of time to go through on the standing committee. It is, of course, a terribly important Bill. The functions of the Committee of University Principals are extremely important and it will play a very large role in the future. As in fact they have a presence on the South African Certification Council, there is a mechanism for interlocking norms and standards and university requirements across the whole spectrum of universities, which of course now covers all universities throughout the country and, by agreement, universities in the independent and national states, should they want to make use of that facility. One therefore has an umbrella body covering all universities in the area previously known as the Union of South Africa or the Republic of South Africa before independence of the four independent states. That is how it should be and the Government can only be congratulated for taking this step.

The hon the Minister is an interesting person to listen to when he debates. To me he always seems to win the argument but loose the debate, because at the end of the debate one is not actually a great deal clearer about where one was when one started. When he is addressing the CP there is a line on certain things which is quite easy to forecast, and then on other issues there is a little distortion here or there when he is addressing hon members of this party. I do not think I will be allowed to get away with it by the Chair, but I will at a later opportunity take him up on one or two points that he has made, as there will be occasions for an education debate.

However, the hon the Minister did make a point on which I can answer. The NP, in taking this step as far as Black university principals are concerned, is in fact correcting an error made earlier. This was an error which was pointed out in previous debates and in the little time I had at my disposal to read those debates it became clear to me that the arguments against the inclusion of those principals were all of an ideological nature. They were not of a practical nature. They were of an ideological nature and the change in attitude is to be welcomed.

The point I want to make, however, is that in the whole process of reform, enacting legislation which corrects errors is merely the beginning of rectifying the process. It is no good our just saying, for instance, that everybody may now have freehold title. That only puts the mechanism into operation. What one has to do is to look at the effect of their not having had freehold title for so long and then look at what can be done to repair the damage.

Order! I think the hon member has now made his point as far as that matter is concerned. The hon member may proceed.

When it comes to this Bill, Sir, the same thing applies. Rectors of Black universities have not been serving on the Committee of University Principals, and so I think the hon the Minister and his department should look very carefully at what has happened during the period of this void and then see what action can be taken. In my opinion, one step in particular—the hon member for Bryanston also made this point—that would go handsomely in tandem with this careful look at what has happened, is for the Government simply to take its courage in both hands and give back the autonomy of universities as regards entrance to universities. The power of the Committee of University Principals in respect of the whole functioning of universities is so great, and its effect on our whole national future of such importance, that for them not to have the power of university autonomy—which is quite inconsequential in comparison to the powers that they have in terms of this Bill—seems to me to be quite illogical. We would like to see, as a measure hand in glove with the new broadened vision of their function, university autonomy returned to the universities and the quota system done away with. I am quite certain that the present system is simply going to slide into disuse. It will become quite redundant, and one day in the future the debate in this House will be on whether or not the system has any further function and it will then be amended without any further fuss and bother. As far as a gesture in the spirit of repairing some of the harm that has been done by incorrect legislation in the educational sphere is concerned, however, it would appear to me that we have missed an opportunity here which we can ill afford to miss.

The question of autonomy is really an optional one. In the previous debate we heard various accents on the question of option. The hon the Minister contended that we were arguing against ourselves. The fact of the matter, however, is that people are not being granted an option when the Minister has the right to decide after having been advised by his department. In such a case it is the Minister who is being given the option. That is the situation that prevails in regard to the previous Bill, and I believe that is also the situation that prevails in regard to the question of university autonomy. So autonomy is not complete and the option is not complete unless the option is taken away from the department. Moreover, the hon the Minister should have the good grace to realise that, just as enormous responsibility has been given to the Committee of University Principals in this case, so he should at least grant the universities autonomy, thereby indicating that the Government have full confidence in the universities’ ability to govern their own affairs in respect of entrance to university as such.

We support this Bill wholeheartedly, Sir, and we hope that it will usher in a new period of co-operation among all the universities in this country. We hope that the knowledge and the facilities that exist will be used to a far greater extent and that the brotherhood of academics will benefit from this, not only in the liberal or ultra-liberal sense—in many cases this tends to overlook the realities of the situation in South Africa—but also in the sense that they will come face to face with the problems that are experienced in Black universities. I can assure hon members that standards and methods applied at, say, the University of Cape Town, would have a very rough ride indeed if they were to be applied at the University of Fort Hare. Different universities have to cope with different problems.

On that note, Sir, because I think the debate here is equally about attitudes towards liberalism—this was raised during the debate on the previous legislation—I would like to close by quoting from the Natal Witness—although, it could have been the Natal Mercury—of 1 May 1986. The article is entitled “Red Threat to Mankind". It reads as follows:

That, Sir, is another, more conservative view on liberalism which, I believe, does not quite describe the PFP.

Where was that from?

It was from the Natal Witness and was written by a Mr D J M Riley.

Was it a letter?

It was from the Natal Mercury.

This is the more conservative view of liberalism, to which I think the National Party may in time subscribe. However, it does not adequately describe the Progressive Federal Party because their intolerance towards people is similar to that of the NP who would rather put people into compartments and force people into compartments of their choice. Equally, the PFP would not allow people a choice on a community basis in a heterogeneous cultural society like ours in which there obviously are going to be differences of opinion.

Is this about the Universities Amendment Bill, or Pinelands?

The hon member for Hillbrow must listen. Then he will know what it is all about.

We have a very clear view on these matters. Our attitude is to conserve the best aspects of liberalism on our university campuses. The only way for it to be done is for people to face the reality of the real threat of these things on campuses. The English universities, which for years have held a certain attitude towards liberal traditions, are certainly not going to allow themselves to be hijacked by the Marxist-Leninist threat that has been mentioned here. For people to be aware of it and for people to be fully informed about it, it has to be debated openly. The hon member for Stellenbosch mentioned that a moment ago. That is healthy debate. The fact that it exists on campus is not the threat that everybody thinks it is. It has to be debated and people’s minds have to be opened in order for them to be able to combat it properly.

I hope the hon the Minister, in very short order, will see fit to restore full autonomy to universities and make this Bill a means of carrying that out across all campuses with a view to the real situation at all our universities, so that they can feel the full responsibility of their actions in all respects. We support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town, who has just resumed his seat, resolved a problem for me this afternoon with which I have struggled for some time, viz the distinction between the hon members of the PFP and the hon members of the NRP. I think he summarised it very neatly by actually implying that the hon members of the NRP were conservative liberals, whereas the hon members of the PFP were progressive liberals. [Interjections.]

With reference to remarks made by the hon member for King William’s Town, I want to say only one thing about liberalism. Whether one is a progressive liberal or a conservative liberal, there is one matter which is peculiar to both, viz their inability to think in terms of peoples. They keep on thinking in terms of individuals, and I am afraid that in this way they are being completely derailed in South Africa between the powers of nationalism and communism. At best, in the long term, they are a kind of cushion between the two, but they themselves can never determine the eventual direction in South Africa.

In addition I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon member for Pinetown this afternoon. He said the PFP had no objection at all to the regulation of education, for example, on a cultural basis; it must merely not have racial overtones. Race in itself has an enormous effect on culture, however. One cannot conceive of race being separated from culture, or culture being separated from race.

Let me give the House an indication of what I mean. In Europe the Germans, the French and the English are closer to one another culturally than any of them are to the Japanese, for example. The reason for that is their similar underlying racial origin. The hon member for Pinetown will have to go and think again, therefore. He told me I should keep on thinking, which I shall do, but I want to appeal to him to do so as well.

If the Zulu people was not a Black people, its culture would not be the way it is. If the Afrikaner was not a White people, it would not have the culture it has now. To dissociate culture from a people’s racial origin is really to mislead oneself abominably. I think the hon member for Pinetown should also undergo “agonising reappraisal” of his thoughts to reach greater clarity.

This Bill, which is being dealt with by the hon the Minister of National Education, is associated with the previous Bill as well as other future Bills to a great extent. To an exceptional degree, therefore, this debate is a continuation of the debate that is in progress already.

Order! Hon members are talking too loudly.

This afternoon I want to take the hon the Minister a little further concerning the arguments he raised here, which are just as applicable to this Bill as to the previous one.

Order! The hon member for Hercules must contain himself! I have just said hon members were talking too loudly. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Does the hon the Minister deny that in this Bill, just as in the previous one, the principle of miscegenation is being taken further as far as universities are concerned? As a result of this measure of his, there is more miscegenation at universities than there was previously. This applies to the Government’s whole education policy.

I want to concede a point to the hon the Minister by saying he is not yet as far as the Progs want him, but at the same time he is very far from where the NP of old was and, with all due respect, from where his father was. I contend that the hon the Minister must tell me whether he admits that, because I want to use it against him in Klip River, and I do not want him to come and say afterwards I said things there which I did not put to him here.

I want to ask the hon the Minister something else. Does he admit that in politics it is the direction one is moving in that counts? The direction in which a party moves is crucial.

As long as it is forward!

Whether it is we or the NP’s former leader, Mr Vorster, or whoever, is irrelevant. What counts most in today’s situation, is the direction in which the NP is moving at this moment.

Forward!

He is not where the Progs are yet. [Interjections.] Forward, yes, but in which direction? Forward can be to the left or the right, but he is moving forward in the direction of greater miscegenation.

Forward in reverse. [Interjections.]

What bothers me, for example—the hon the Minister must tell me this too—is that there are members of the hon the Minister’s party who are constantly saying, and are truly convinced of this, that the NP will not sell South Africa down the river. They are firmly convinced of that. I am not going to refer to individuals, but they are convinced that the NP will not sell South Africa down the river. [Interjections.] One must look, however, at the direction in which the NP is moving and at the NP’s inability to tell one how far it is going to move in that direction, or rather its unwillingness to say how far it will go. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the other evening he sought a solution of which there is no example in the whole world and by which a constitutional dispensation would be established in South Africa in which not one of the various peoples or groups dominates another. That is what he is seeking; he has not found it yet, but in the meantime the NP is moving. The only direction it is moving in, however, is further to the left. It is merely moving closer to more miscegenation. In the previous Bill, in this one and in the two that come after this one, South Africa is getting a heavier burden of miscegenation. I do not think the hon the Minister can deny that.

What I also find striking—and I am concerned to have to tell the House that while the Bill is under discussion, there are hon members of the House here who apparently do not realise that yet—is that the Blacks are now getting participation with Whites, Coloureds and Indians, in principle and in practice, in the whole education system of the Whites. I am not talking about what is happening to the Black universities in that they are now getting White control—they had it earlier. My point is that what is new here, is that the whole university system in South Africa is now being placed completely under a racially mixed control, administration or say for the first time. The power in the whole education system resides in a miscegenated body. I hope the hon the Minister will not deny that.

This means that the Whites may still have a few White schools, but they have no own White universities. As a result of the direction in which the Government is moving, there is no single university left in South Africa which is still completely White. That is what we are going to use against the Government in the by-election at Klip River. That was not the case in my university days. In comparison with one’s lifetime, that was not the case until recently. It is becoming the case under the rule of this Government at an increasing rate, however.

Let us look at the English-medium universities. The University of Natal has a total of 3 000 Black students, which represents a quarter of the total number of students on the three campuses of that university. The percentage of Blacks at the University of Cape Town may be even bigger, because the rector of the University of Cape Town, Prof Saunders, solemnly declared recently that “the University of Cape Town is going to become a Black university”.

That is “Saunders met die bure”! [Interjections]

No one in the Government said a word against that. [Interjections.] There was no opposition. Instead of the Government’s submitting measures to this House to ensure that the University of Cape Town does not become a “Black university”, they are introducing measures which are making it easier for the University of Cape Town to become 40%, then 50% and even 60% or 70% Black. In the meantime the hon members of the NP are sitting here blissfully under the illusion that South Africa is not being sold down the river. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the situation in the Afrikaans-medium universities. At first the University of Stellenbosch had approximately 23 non-White students, and a year later approximately 100. There are approximately 500 of them now.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a minute. My old alma mater, the University of Stellenbosch, has approximately 500 non-White students now. It is also the alma mater of the hon member for Kuruman and various other hon members who are sitting here.

Hey Wits, we have none yet! [Interjections]

Is it not significant and does it not strike the hon the Minister—who comes from the north and whom I asked to consider the situation here in the south with me this afternoon—that whereas the number of non-White students at Stellenbosch has rocketed within a very short period to approximately 500, at the same time there was an announcement by the political leader of the Coloured community in this Parliament that he thought the time had come to close the university of the Western Cape. Why should they not close it if the Coloureds are allowed to go to Stellenbosch? [Interjections] Just listen to the noises, Mr Chairman; the groans and grunts from behind. They cannot deny that. If the strongest political leader among the Coloureds says today his university can be closed, the deathknell is ringing for universities in South Africa.

I think there is an argument for that. Why are so many Coloureds apparently going to other universities now? They almost had to close the university because the numbers of the University of the Western Cape had dropped to approximately 2 000. The argument was that they could not study because the left-wingers and the radicals were making life impossible for them, and a very strong argument among the Coloureds—those who are truly in earnest as far as tertiary training is concerned—is that the road to Stellenbosch is open to them. Is it not also prettier and bigger and more spacious, and do they not have better facilities, and does the South Easter not blow less strongly in Stellenbosch than here in Bellville? [Interjections.]

I do not want to sound flippant, but I want to tell the hon the Minister I accuse him of his policy and his direction leading to the dismantling of the only hope the Coloureds had at university to develop an own Coloured University. He is contributing to the undermining of that university from the left and from the side of the Government, because the Coloured students are beginning to see greater advantage for themselves in being admitted to Stellenbosch than to their own university, and that is fatal for the Coloureds themselves. If the leaders of the Coloureds turn their backs on the ordinary Coloureds and rather want to be absorbed into the White community, it is fatal for the broad mass of Coloureds. We care more for them than for the skimming of the top layer which Anton Rupert has waxed so lyrical about. There I have raised a point to which the hon the Minister will have to reply! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister does not want to permit mixed residential areas, but he does permit mixed residences at the universities. [Interjections.] That is going to become the case to an increasing extent.

That is not true.

I am sorry, that was a slip of the tongue. [Interjections.] I say the Government is throwing open the control over the universities and admittance to classes. The hon the Minister cannot deny that. The only thing still lacking, is the residences. That is because there is a more intimate relationship in the residences than even in the classes. [Interjections.] In the residences the students live and sleep together, their parents come and visit them, and in general there is a far more intimate relationship than in the classrooms—ask me; I was in a residence in Stellenbosch for five years. [Interjections.] For that reason—and only for that reason—the hon the Minister still does not see his way clear to throwing the residences open. I tell him this afternoon—he can tell me it is a lie—ultimately he will not be able to withstand the pressure to throw open the residences at the University of Cape Town and at Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] I am not saying he is a weak man; I think he is strong in that he keeps on moving in the direction in which his party wants him to move. In that respect he is doing his work, but he is not going to prevent the residences from being thrown open to all races.

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that surely he is doing the things contained in this Bill, the previous one and in the next two, because he wants to, not so? [Interjections.] That hon Minister who is sitting there, who is also charged with education, and the hon members of the NP are going to vote for this legislation because they want it, not so? [Interjections.] We can go and tell the voters in Klip River hon members nodded affirmatively; they want this university integration. [Interjections.] There is an hon member on the right-hand side who is complaining a bit. He is not quite happy, but if he differs from me, he must cross the floor this afternoon. [Interjections.] In Klip River we are going to reveal the names of hon members who said the NP wanted this, in its totality. [Interjections.] They are not preventing it and it is no lie for me to say the hon the Minister is going to permit further integration in the sphere of universities in future years. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member who, for example, took the decision in Stellenbosch as to whether or not students of colour were to be permitted?

He would not know.

Well, it did not happen under Malan, Strijdom or Verwoerd.

It is not the Government who decided that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister says it was not the Government, but does the Government not govern South Africa? Can university rectors simply throw open universities? If the hon the Minister can prevent the residences of the University of Cape Town from being thrown open, why did he not prevent Stellenbosch from being thrown open? [Interjections.] That is the point. The hon the Minister concedes one point and then stands firm on another, but tomorrow he will concede that point too. That is my problem with the hon the Minister. It is also my problem with that party and that is what we are going to say against that party in Klip River. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister must not hide behind other people who are throwing the university open, because the Government has the right to prevent any university from being thrown open and it is not doing so. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister’s party is moving to the left; it is moving towards more and more multiracialism in the sphere of education and of the universities in particular. That is how they want it and in addition I want to say that party welcomes it. They are pleased about it. In their hearts those hon members are rejoicing about it. [Interjections.] The hon member for Smithfield says no. Is that correct? Does the hon member for Smithfield not exult about it?

You are being silly. [Interjections.]

He is not very pleased about it. Is he grieving about? What does the hon member for Smithfield say? [Interjections.] Those hon members are all pleased about; they want it and they are delighting in it and we are going to tell that to the voters in Klip River. [Interjections.] I say it again, and I say it because when, in a previous debate, I said the Government wanted to give Natal to the Zulus, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning reacted by saying I was propounding a lie. He said—and this emerged clearly from his words—that if I were to say that outside this House, he would call me a liar. Unfortunately he is not present here now. What I wanted to tell him, I am therefore telling the hon the Minister of National Education now. That is precisely what I am going to tell the voters of Klip River. I am going to say it in public there. I am going to state in public that this Government—and listen carefully to my words—wants to be and is on the course of permitting more and more integration in all spheres in South Africa—just about every sphere; they welcome it, and the process that is being effected in the community is the same as that in the political sphere. The process is one and the same. The National Party is consistent in the one regard, viz that it follows one and the same policy in all spheres. It is that policy which is leading it on a course to more and more multiracialism. I am going to tell the voters of Klip River the Government wants to do that and is going to do it. When I say, therefore, the Government is going to give Natal to the Zulus, I do not mean the Government has already decided to do so. That is not true. I contend, however, that it fits in completely with the Government’s whole course and direction, and in addition there is no resistance to throwing universities open. There is no opposition at all; on the contrary, they are pleased about it. Why then should they grieve when further progress is made on this course? That is precisely why I am going to make these statements. [Interjections.]

… is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!

Mr Chairman, I conclude by making only one more point.

Hear, hear!

There is only one statement I want to make to the hon the Minister in conclusion. In the earlier debate this afternoon the hon the Minister said—and he made it very clear—his party was striving for a dispensation in South Africa in which all the groups would be free at the same time.

In which no one group is dominated by another!

Yes, just wait a minute! No single group dominates another. I know that little story. I am very familiar with it by this time. The hon the Minister said he—and naturally the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as well, in his own, larger sphere—was striving for a situation in South Africa in which all the groups in the country would be free at the same time. I want to put the following question, now, however. Is the Afrikaner people, in particular, free? How can they be free in South Africa when they are not even free in their determination over their own universities? When the Afrikaner does not even have sole control over his own universities, his own educational system, how can he be free in the political sphere in terms of the present dispensation of this Government?

The Afrikaner can be free! He does not even need a government!

No, Sir, the hon the Minister must really not think he is going to mislead me that easily here this afternoon. He is not going to put me off that easily.

Oh, FW, your Government is worth nothing!

You, Mr Chairman, as well as the hon the Minister and everyone in this House knows logically, that the Government is moving in a direction of multiracialism more and more; that is the case in more and more spheres in the society in this country. The cinema which my wife and I manage to visit on a Saturday night sometimes—of course that does not happen often—is open to everyone now. It is multiracial. I tell you now, Mr Chairman, she hesitates to go there. She does not want to go any more. Especially because of political reasons—in particular for that very reason, I do not want to go there any more either. My wife is really afraid of going there. She says she is not going. The same applies to the other people in my community. I live in the eastern suburbs of Pretoria. I tell you, Mr Chairman, the people there are upset and worried about this. Well, this is only a very small sphere. It really only happens on Saturday nights, but at the moment that is the pattern throughout South Africa. [Interjections.] From the narrow to the broad sense the movement… [Interjections.]

Order! No, there is far too much talking here in the House.

In the narrow sense as well as in the broad sense this Government is moving more and more in the direction of complete multiracialism. If in the first place this Government restricts the freedom of the Whites and in the second place of the Afrikaners in the sphere of education, reduces our say there, and does the same in so many other spheres—I need not enumerate all those spheres here now; it is not necessary in any case—this Government in the political order in South Africa is denying us our freedom to such an extent that when it does go so far as to push South Africa completely into a multiracial dispensation, the Whites will no longer have the power to prevent it from happening. That is what the Government is doing. The Government is not merely making vague speeches and statements on the surface; it is also undermining and eroding the power position of the Afrikaners and the Whites in their own father-land from the inside. I do not want to pretend to be an expert on Calvinism, but I have read a few works about it. I am referring to Calvinism because the hon the Minister comes from Potchefstroom, and there the people have the reputation of knowing more about Calvinism than lesser mortals such as we, who come from elsewhere. In all earnest I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the so-called “freedom among their own number” is not a great Calvinistic principle. Is it not a great principle of Calvinism for the church to be free as an institution within a greater framework? The hon the Minister knows what I am referring to although I am not that competent that I…

Actually it is “sovereignty among their own number”.

“Sovereignty among their own number” is a better expression. Hon members see I was correct, since Potchefstroom is superior to us when it comes to these things. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister seriously whether he as an Afrikaner-Calvinist, who was brought up and schooled in that particular cultural background of the Afrikaner, has never thought about that. If the hon member for Rissik says this afternoon he is deeply worried, I am sure the hon the Minister can understand that. Even if he does not agree and even if he does not share the anxiety, he can understand what has led to the anxiety of the hon member for Rissik—he is also an Afrikaner although he is also one of us lesser mortals, since we do not come from Potchefstroom. Almost all the hon members on the other side are Afrikaners too. I do not know about the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and perhaps a few other members, though. Most of the hon members on the opposite side are Afrikaners just like me and the hon member for Kuruman, however. We all come from the same background and yet I want to tell them this afternoon that we reject them as a party, but not as individuals. We reject them as a party and reject the whole direction in which they are moving, no matter how well they mean it. They are giving in to the pressure that is being exerted on them. There leaders, from the State President to the hon the Ministers, cannot and do not want to resist the pressure of the left-wing powers—I shall keep to that for the moment.

First you say we do so because we want to, but now you are saying we give in to pressure!

No, that is quite right, the hon the Minister is correct: He wants to do so, and he is under pressure. When he is under pressure, he rationalises things by saying he wanted to do so in any case, and if he digs in his heels a little and resists the pressure, he does so because he did not want to. After a while the pressure influences him again, however, and then he continues on the course to racial integration and miscegenation. I want to agree with him. Both factors play a part. At times it is the one, and at others the other. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon members on the opposite side of the House that is why we reject the NP and are voting against this Bill. In a nutshell that is what we are going to tell the voters in Klip River. In addition I want to tell the House I am prepared to accept the result at Klip River. [Interjections.] No, I mean I shall accept the result at Klip River as a criterion of what is happening in South African politics.

We got 1 400 votes last year, and that was a large swing. In addition there was a swing of 17% in Sasolburg. It will suffice for me to say that at this stage our information is sufficient for us to be able to say an enormous swing away from the Government is taking place at the moment. That is because we on this side—hon members will blame me for saying this—represent the principles of Afrikaner-nationalism in a pure and undiluted form, and that is what we are going to use to defeat the Government. We will defeat them with nothing but the principles of Afrikaner-nationalism. This will happen in Klip River and beyond Klip River.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg spoke for a long time here about a matter regarding which he himself was in the dark, because he never got around to the Bill. His entire speech dealt with integration and we let him get away with it. What he was doing here was practising the speech he wanted to make in Klip River tomorrow evening. I should like to ask him to do one thing when he goes to Klip River. He must stick to the truth more closely there than he did in Sasolburg. [Interjections.] He must not make sweeping statements like those he made to the hon the Minister when he said the Minister was allowing hostels to become integrated. When we pressurised him on this he made an about-face!

The only point in his entire speech with which I can agree is that we are both Afrikaners. As far as the rest of his speech is concerned we cannot agree.

Many years ago the hon member for Sasolburg studied at Stellenbosch. In those days the University of Stellenbosch was already autonomous and it is still autonomous today. At that stage they could decide whether they wanted to admit people of colour and they can still do so today. This has always been the case. At that stage, when the hon member was at university, the University of Cape Town, for example, already had students of colour. The university itself decided on that.

We must not ignore or explain away the autonomy of the universities. Every university has its own Act. At some stage or other the hon member for Albany is going to move an amendment to the Rhodes University (Private) Act here.

The hon member for Sasolburg must remember, and must also tell the people this when he is speaking to them from a political platform, that universities are autonomous and take their own decisions. This is what they demanded for many years, and I think it is the correct approach. In the same way that the hon member for Sasolburg and I cannot prescribe to Sanlam, Old Mutual or any other company regarding their internal arrangements, that is how I view a university.

That is politically naive.

The unfortunate hon member Mr Theunissen says that is politically naive. If I were he I would resign and seek nomination elsewhere.

I say you are politically naive because you are talking nonsense! [Interjections.]

For the sake of the hon member for Sasolburg, because he apparently did not read the Bill, I am saying that it is not concerned with colour requirements for admission, but rather the fact that admission requirements are based on academic standards. At this stage it has nothing to do with whether a person is coloured or not. Other legislation deals with this. This Bill deals with academic standards. [Interjections.]

I just wanted to tell the hon member what the Bill he discussed was about. The figures which the hon member quoted—for example the number of people of colour at the University of Stellenbosch—were exaggerated by approximately 40%. I hope he will reduce that figure when he stands on a platform tomorrow evening and addresses people. He was practising here, but when he speaks tomorrow evening he must stick more closely to the truth and reduce the figure by 40%. It will then be closer to the truth.

Most of the statements made by the hon member for Sasolburg here were intended entirely for his Hansard which he intended using tomorrow for his speech in Klip River. We do not begrudge him that right and wish him everything of the best. Like him, I also accept the result we are going to get there.

I now want to concentrate on the hon member for Rissik. Yesterday I read something interesting in Die Kalender in Beeld. I was reminded of this when he stood up here this morning and said for the hundredth time: “This worries me; I am deeply concerned.” Those words have passed the member for Rissik’s lips not once but many times, and I can believe that a person is worried when he says so repeatedly. I can believe this, but I just want to read out to him what I read yesterday. It is something Voltaire wrote two centuries ago, and it reminded me of the hon member for Rissik. Voltaire said:

The hon member must not allow his to be the same. [Interjections.] I really feel sorry for the hon member for Rissik. He must not allow it to be such a nightmare for him.

Daan’s thatch has blown off.

There is not only black in the world. There is also white. There are even White people.

The nightmares were about people like you. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Langlaagte does not want me to ask him something about his property transactions again. We must rather leave him out of this discussion. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon member whether he is one of the people who is protesting at Wits, because he defended Wits so vehemently a while ago. [Interjections.]

I stand by Wits!

I want to ask the hon member for Rissik whether he is so deeply concerned about my old Alma Mater, the University of Stellenbosch. I want to know because recently the hon member held a meeting at a certain hostel, which I lived next door to over the years. That is the hostel his chairman is living in. Apparently the hon member could only recruit seven members at Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] Is that the kind of concern he has about Stellenbosch? [Interjections.]

That is more than the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had at the Feathermarket Hall! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik must be grateful. The number seven has great significance. Let us offer this to him as a consolation at this stage. [Interjections.]

The constitutional dispensation has changed. The hon member always starts his speech with the remark that the constitutional dispensation has changed. He must accept it. We held a referendum, the dispensation changed, and in spite of all the hon member’s wailing about the good old days, the constitutional dispensation will not change back to what it was. He must accept this because it is of no avail to make a 25-minute speech and devote 20 minutes of it to complaining about the new constitutional dispensation. The new constitutional dispensation is established and successful.

In my opinion the hon member revealed a strange school of thought. He resents the rectors, and therefore basically also the independent councils of the universities. He also resents the students representative councils that disagree with him. I gain the impression that the hon member for Rissik does not want these people to think for themselves. He wants to think for them. [Interjections.] He wants to act prescriptively. He wants to tell them what they must do. But those days are passed. We can no longer be so prescriptive. If this legislation establishes the trend of our being less prescriptive I am in favour of it.

The hon member rightly remarked that this is the place where the future leaders of all races and colours are cultivated in South Africa. Let us give those persons who train them a greater degree of autonomy, without interfering and prescribing to them. But when they disagree with us, the attitude, as revealed by the hon member for Rissik here, that they are entirely wrong is in my opinion not correct. Then everything is wicked and entirely bad. [Interjections.] No, I do not think that is the way it works.

There is another point I want to refer to here in conclusion, one that was raised by various sectors of the opposition, namely that the present hon Minister of National Education is constantly being compared with his father. I think both of them did and are doing wonderful work for South Africa. But each lived and is living in a different era in which he must do what is right in that era. I think it is unfair and outrageous to keep comparing a father and his son here, and playing them off against each other.

Two more Bills are going to be discussed here, and I want to make a request to hon members now: Let us stop this. Why must the father be referred to every time? Congratulate the hon the Minister on his succeeding in following in his father’s footsteps. [Interjections.]

I repeat—and I am talking specifically to the hon member for Rissik who is now burying his head in his papers—stop this. He is not winning points in this way. Cease playing the hon the Minister off against his father. [Interjections.]

The Bill has effected several amendments and in the few minutes remaining I want to get back to the most important of these. The hon member for Stellenbosch also referred to them. We are now entering a budgetary period and the budget is being prepared for the following financial year. Advice in this connection can now be given to the hon the Minister by the Committee of University Principals.

Because this Committee of University Principals now consists of all the principals of all the universities in South Africa, I should like to support the hon member for Stellenbosch in addressing a request to the hon the Minister. I want to ask the hon the Minister, while the Budget is being prepared to see to it and to fight to ensure—I ask him and appeal to him to do this—that us move closer to the full allocation according to the subsidisation formula accepted by the Government.

I know many demands are being made on the Treasury, and many holes must be plugged. But at the moment the ratio is approximately 20% to 25% of financing from the private sector, from donations or estates and approximately 75% to 80% from the State. This is a very high percentage, and we thank the hon the Minister of National Education and his hon colleague in the Ministers’ Council most sincerely for this. But I want to ask that if at all possible we must move closer to the approved formula.

I want to address a word of warning to the Committee of University Principals. In future they are going to advise the hon the Minister of National Education on capital, salaries, current expenditure and so on. They become an advisory body. I want to ask them please to moderate their demands and requests. I come from that sphere, and remember that we were frequently inclined to ask for a lot of money because we thought it was essential. That is why I am asking the Committee of University Principals in all modesty to bear in mind when they put their demands to the hon the Minister that they must not be unreasonable demands; we no longer have the money.

Because this Committee of University Principals and its function are now being expanded, and they are being given more powers—I think the Committee is going to play a far greater role in future—I want to make a further request to the Committee at this stage. I want to ask for greater rationalisation and specialisation at our universities—if not so much in the field of education above all in the field of research. I think too many people are doing research on the same problem simultaneously when a problem crops up. We have too little manpower and money for this. [Interjections.]

I want to ask that this Committee, in cooperation with the HSRC and the CSIR, will also seek to bring about a greater degree of specialisation and rationalisation in the field of research at our universities and that they will endeavour to do this and will purposefully try as far as possible not only to strive for this but also to apply it in practice. In that way we will simultaneously serve the best interests of tertiary education, academic science and the country with all its problems and opportunities.

Because the Joint Matriculation Board is becoming a kind of subcommittee of the Committee of University Principals at this stage, I want sincerely to congratulate the people who served on the Joint Matriculation Board for many years. I do not think any hon member will disagree with me when I express my thanks today on behalf of us all to people who for many years sacrificed many hours of their time to raise the Joint Matriculation Board to its exceptional level in South Africa. When we were still at school and were in Std 10, we always said that all we needed to do was pass matric. I want to convey our thanks to each and every person, from the staff to the members of the Joint Matriculation Board for the service they rendered. They set a standard which, in the first place, we can be proud of and on which, in the second place, the Committee of University Principals can easily build. I am convinced that the Committee of University Principals, which under the new system is going to decide for itself what standards it requires, will do so on an academic basis—and I am addressing this remark to the hon member for Sasolburg. This will take place according to academic standards and will have nothing to do with colour standards.