When the debate was adjourned we had already heard the introductory second reading speech by the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. I was privileged to be able to speak for a few minutes and to contrast the manner in which the establishment of a university is conducted to-day, compared with the old system where we had to act under the rules for Private Bills. Now I should like to proceed further with the discussion of the Bill, but first of all I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having made available to us a copy of his speech. It has helped us considerably, because in his second-reading speech the Minister necessarily quoted statistics concerning the extension and development of education on the Witwatersrand. That was, of course, necessary to prove his case.

Now, the question we ask is this: Can we justify the establishment of a second university in Johannesburg? To those of us who have been associated with the development of education on the Rand, there is no doubt about what the answer to that question is. The answer is, of course, yes, and more especially in view of Clause 3, because under Clause 3 this university, although having its site in Johannesburg, will extend its activities over the whole of the Witwatersrand. We used to speak of the Witwatersrand as being the area from Randfontein to Springs. The sphere of activity of this university will go very much further than that. It will go to the north and to the south of the Witwatersrand. Therefore there does not seem to be any doubt in regard to the justification for the establishment of this university. I was very glad to hear the hon. the Minister refer to close co-operation between the new university to be established and the teachers’ training college in Johannesburg. I think that is a very wise development. The modern development in European countries is to bring the training of teachers into closer association with the universities. Teachers should really become professionally trained men at our universities. The matter of qualification, I think, is of minor importance. The important thing is that they should be trained with other professional men at our universities. We made a move in that direction over 20 years ago in regard to the Witwatersrand University and the Teachers’ Training College in Johannesburg, but unfortunately we were not successful. I will not say that wiser counsels prevailed, for political counsels prevailed and we were unable to bring about that close association. I think that will be understood by all of us who understand Johannesburg and who followed the Minister’s speech closely.

But what is the difficulty that has been discussed so much in public? It is, of course. Clause 20, which has been referred to as the conscience clause in most of our universities. The hon. the Minister referred to it as the “grootste haakplek” in his proposals. Well, some people go further and call it a “steen des aanstoots”. I should like to say a word about Clause 20, because that is the important thing; it is the only difficulty we have. Had it not been for the inclusion of Clause 20, we would have hailed the establishment of the new university and given it our approval. I want to say that I do not associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the place of this conscience clause we have in certain of our universities to-day. When the Minister says that this conscience clause was an expression of piety which does not have any significance, I do not agree with him. When he says that in the past there has been no appeal to this clause, I think that is all to the good. The conscience clause we have known all these years is a pronouncement, a declaration of good faith. The universities which have had that clause have progressed. Therefore when the hon. the Minister says it is negative, I say perhaps it is, but the essential thing about the conscience clause is that it should be negative; it should be a prohibition of testing. For that reason it has been included in the University Bills that have come before us here.

Now I come to the Minister’s proposals. The Minister intimated during his second reading speech that he intends to propose an amendment to Clause 20 in the Committee Stage. I regard the amendment the Minister intends to propose, as being of some significance, as being a very important amendment, because as the clause stands in the Bill now a student or a lecturer or a member of the administrative staff applying for admission to this university has to subscribe to the preamble of the constitution of the South African Republic. That means that the student or lecturer or administrative officer has to be a loyal, patriotic and devoted South African. But all students at the university will not fall into that category. There will be, for example, students from Rhodesia and from other countries. A few days ago we had our Foreign Affairs debate and I was very much impressed by what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say. He said, referring to the development of foreign affairs and friendly relations with other countries—

Argentinians will be coming to South Africa to study mining. And where do you study mining in South Africa? In one of the greatest mining centres in the world. There is no better training in mining in the world than in Johannesburg. I look forward to close liaison between the University of the Witwatersrand and this new university we are establishing. In his reply to the debate here on foreign affairs, the hon. the Minister went even further. In replying to a point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) he said—

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has the world outlook not only in foreign affairs but in university education, sees this great new university we are establishing, becoming one of the great universities in the world, and therefore he says that we must make our university a place where these men can study. Sir, I am now faced with the question as to what I should do in view of the Minister’s proposed amendment, which we have to consider even at this second reading because I appreciate his gesture. I think it is a very fine one. What should I do; should I say at this stage that I cannot vote for this Bill because it does not have my kind of conscience clause, or should I say that I am prepared to consider what the hon. the Minister has said? This is what he said to us, in addition to telling us that he intends to propose this amendment. I will quote two short extracts from his speech; he said—

Then he went further and he emphasized what his attitude was. He said—

Sir, I say that is very significant. Am I justified in saying that I do not accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance? Naturally not. I must accept his assurance and I accept it in the spirit I have mentioned here before, in the spirit of the words of perhaps the greatest university man we had in our literature in the early days in England, the great John Milton. He said this—

In that spirit we support the second reading of this Bill.

A week ago the hon. member for Kensington started his speech by criticizing the way this Bill was introduced. He wanted it to be introduced as a private Bill and to be refered to a Select Committee before second reading, in order that the pros and cons could be thrashed out properly. In fact, the attitude he adopted was exactly the same as the one he adopted two years ago when the Bill on the University of Port Elizabeth was before this House. I have no intention of picking a quarrel with the hon. member, but I wonder whether he can still remember the days when the hon. the Minister and he and I myself were schoolmasters, and that it was then one of the educational or uneducational precepts of the time that if a man would not hear, he should feel? I do not want to threaten the hon. member with a political cane, but I think he will agree that if he refuses to accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation of two years ago as to why we came here with a Government measure instead of a private Bill, then he may tempt the hon. the Minister to produce that cane.

I shall later come back to what the hon. member had to say about Clause 20. The establishment of a new university is a great event in any country of the world at any time, an event with infinite possibilities for good effects and good fruits. I think I shall not be exaggerating if I say that long after all of us who are fathered in this Chamber this afternoon have returned to dust, this new university which we are now establishing will still be performing its good work by moulding men and women for service to their fellowmen and to their country. I think we are all in agreement as far as this matter is concerned. I think I shall certainly also be expressing what is in the minds of all of us, i.e. the concerns and persons who are interested in this matter, if I express our sincere appreciation to the Government in power for having enough confidence in this country to make the fundamental decision that has made it possible to establish a new university. I also think I am speaking on behalf of all of them if I say that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his officials, who have been of wonderful assistance to us in this effort over a period of many years, without, of course, going out of their way and neglecting their duty where they acted as officials, and if I add to that that we want to thank them in advance for everything they are still going to do for us in the difficult foundation years of this university.

Not only does the Bill under discussion provide that a university shall be established: not only does it authorize the establishment of a new university, but it also contains a second very important principle, namely that a particular kind of university shall be established. Not only is a new university being established; an Afrikaans university is being established. Clause 2 of the Bill provides specifically that the name of the university shall be the Rand Afrikaans University, and the preamble, as it is to be amended, is even more outspoken, namely a university that is Afrikaans in spirit and character, and where the principles set out in the preamble to the Constitution are maintained. In other words, not only a university, but an Afrikaans university. We go further in this Bill. The possibility is also created for concerns to appoint men and women to the council whom we may call the watchers on the walls of Zion, and who will not only have to guard over the management and the control of the university, but who will also be called upon to guard over the spirit and the character of this university. This university seeks to manifest the spirit and character and nature of the Afrikaner people, as it has crystallized in its long history. Like the Afrikaans speaking community at whose service this university seeks to put itself, the Rand Afrikaans University seeks to be conservative in nature; like the Afrikaans community whom this university seeks to serve, this university seeks to bear a religious character, and like the Afrikaans-speaking community this university is anxious to cultivate and express a resolute patriotism. It goes without saying that people who lack feeling for these great principles will not feel at home at this university. They would not like to go there; it would perhaps be best for them not to go there, but, Sir, if one inferred from that that the Rand Afrikaans University is a “sectional venture”, as some newspapers called it. or that it is a “tribal college” that we are establishing here, or that it will be the home of narrowmindedness, or that this institution is established in a spirit of revolt against other so-called liberal universities, it will be a grave mistake.

Unfortunately it so happens that there are certain English-language newspapers that have displayed irresponsibility and extravagance with regard to this matter; there are some of them that even adopted a vindictive attitude. I want to deplore the fact that some of them were so petty that they have dragged into this matter disputes from different fields altogether, that have nothing to do with this university undertaking, for the simple reason that in those fields, remote from university affairs, they are conducting a dispute with certain members of the Rand University Committee. I really deplore that.

Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely grateful that the hon. member for Kensington gave us the assurance this afternoon that his side of the House supported this Bill wholeheartedly. I am not surprised that he has some reservations as regards Clause 20. In the context of the traditions in which he was born and bred up. I accept that. I say I am grateful that we are meeting with that attitude on the part of the hon. the Opposition, for if one wants to establish a university one is anxious to have the highest possible degree of unanimity and harmony. I also hope that this attitude on the part of the Opposition will show those newspapers that may have been deliberately vindictive that they were wrong, and that the influence emanating from members of the Opposition will induce them to renounce their wickedness as far as this university is concerned.

Sir, if you will forgive me for being somewhat lacking in humility, I want to say that to me, who was most closely involved in this effort from its earliest beginnings, it is also of particular significance that my circumstances have changed to such an extent that I am also able to advocate this Bill as a member of this hon. House to-day. I am grateful to be able to do so in this atmosphere of general harmony. But I should like to reply to the complaints that have in fact been raised, even if they were attempts at suspicion-mongering. First of all I want to emphasize a point mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech, which I regard as most important, and that is that the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University is the natural climax to the process that began with the establishment of Afrikaans-medium primary schools and Afrikaans-medium high schools on the Rand, which in turn resulted in the establishment of the Goudstadse Onderwyskollege. It is the natural climax to that process, and Sir, if I emphasize, furthermore, that one-third of the Afrikaans-medium high schools in the Transvaal are situated in this area, and that this area contains no university that caters specifically for the needs of Afrikaans-speaking students, then you will appreciate that this university is established to meet an actual, a very real need, and that there are no ulterior motives in this matter. I want to state with the utmost emphasis that the establishment of this university is not directed against any existing university. If you are not prepared to take my word for that, I want to refer you to a copy of the original memorandum which we submitted to the hon. the Minister and which I have here on my desk, in which we emphasize the fact that this university is born of a positive endeavour to help the potential of our Whites to achieve more complete development.

Who are “we”?

“We” are the members of the Rand University Committee, of whom I shall say more just now. But the most conclusive answer to all this suspicion-mongering is that this university is established in the year 1966, and that it will develop in years to come, and the people involved in this undertaking are realists and practical people, and the Rand Afrikaans University will therefore be a university of our time and for out time. The people who are concerned in the matter will not, from fear of criticism or from fear of the formidable task that rests on them, neglect the opportunity and fail to meet the challenge of starting from the ground. I therefore say that this Afrikaans University on the Rand will in the first place link up with the very best developments and achievements of all the present Afrikaans universities as we know them, and it goes without saying that it must be a continuation of those universities on a development level that will keep pace with the requirements not only of modern times, but also of the future.

But not only that. This university will also have to link up with and incorporate the very best post-war developments and methods, not only of the British universities but also of the Continental universities, even the Russian and the American universities, from whom we can learn a great deal.

Mr. Speaker, you will now agree with me that as this establishment has emanated from such a positive urge, and as the spirit of this Afrikaans University has been positively laid down in its legislation—perhaps this is the first time in history that has happened; as far as I could ascertain it is the first time that the spirit of a university has been incorporated in its legislation—where this is the case, it is also obvious to me that the admission to that university must be positive.

That brings me to Clause 20, and I want to tell you, in the context of what I have now pictured to you, that the Rand University Committee, which took the initiative in regard to this matter, adopts the attitude that it is more concerned with positive election than negative discrimination. The premise is that we say exactly what we are and who we are: we also indicate where we want to go, and we ask all who can subscribe to the same principles and ideals to go with us. We welcome all who can do so. We know that there will be some who will not feel attracted to our institution, because they do not feel about these matters the way we do. Let that be so, there are other institutions where they may perhaps feel more at home, but we feel that we want a natural selection which we find in the old proberb: “Like begets like.” If I say “like begets like”, then I mean it in the widest sense of the word; then I mean people who can all subscribe to these principles that we adhere to in terms of the preamble to the Bill. If there are other people who have no conscientious objections to coming to that institution, they are welcome. In fact, it is written in our memorandum that although the language medium of this university will be mainly Afrikaans, we desire that instruction should be given, where necessary, not only in English, the other official language, but also in other languages, if there are people who might have difficulties initially as regards language ability. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that we shall later have a thorough discussion of Clause 20 in the Committee Stage. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Kensington, however, that he is prepared to accept the new development as it came, and that he is even prepared to associate himself with the wording as amended by the hon. the Minister. I think that if we view this matter in the correct perspective and accept that we are preferring positive selection to negative discrimination, then we all understand each other very well. But unfortunately this very clause has given rise to a considerable degree of opposition and discord in certain quarters, and I can well imagine that we have not seen the end of that. Because of the wording of this Bill, there are certain newspapers that have tried to cast suspicion upon the university. There were some of them who advocated openly that a grant of R500.000 by the Johannesburg City Council should be withheld for this reason. A spokesman for the Johannesburg City Council went as far as saying that the grant was conditional and that we would forfeit that grant of R500.000 unless we included the conventional wording in this Bill. As a result of all the discord that was created, the Johannesburg City Council is hiding behind the parliamentary caucus of the United Party in this House, and is awaiting their guidance. I have no fault to find with that, for as you know, the City Council of Johannesburg is elected on a party-political basis, and it is therefore the colleagues of the hon. members on the opposite side who are in power in the Johannesburg City Council.

I should like to relate this view to Clause 9 of the Bill before us. Clause 9 (1) (f) provides that the Johannesburg City Council shall have the right to appoint one representative to the Council of this university. Let me say at once that I believe, and I have never doubted that, that the City Council of Johannesburg with carry out its promise of granting R500.000 to this university. I have known Johannesburg for quite a long time, and I believe that the Johannesburg City Council, despite all the animosity caused by actions to which I have already referred, will be great enough to be worthy of the opportunity of becoming the first city in the Republic of South Africa with two residential universities in its area of jurisdiction. I believe that the Johannesburg City Council will do its duty by the Rand Afrikaans University in respect of this initial grant, in respect of annual contributions and also in respect of services, as it is doing in respect of the University of the Witwatersrand and also the University of South Africa, which is not even situated within its area of jurisdiction. In other words, I am fully confident, despite everything that has happened, that we shall not forfeit that R500,000.

But, Sir, having said that, I should also like to emphasize some other facts. The first is that if the University were to forfeit that R500,000, it would mean a severe blow to it, something it would feel very deeply. I will admit that candidly. But what is more important, is the fact that the Rand Afrikaans University will be established with or without this R500.000. Let there be no doubt about that. And I want to tell you that the Rand Afrikaans University will carry on and will grow with or without that R500,000. The Afrikaners of the Rand will not be blackmailed by any donor, no matter how large or how small. They may be poorer than many other sections of the population, but the Afrikaners of the Rand have not yet reached the stage where they would auction their principles, or vendor their principles. I want to tell the Oppsition that they should know that if this university forfeited the R500,000, the strife and bitterness that would arise as a result would have greater and more lasting detrimental results than the blow they mean to deal this university by withholding the R500.000. If this grant is withheld, we shall be compelled to assume that it was done on the advice of the Opposition in this House.

Are you not anticipating matters unnecessarily?

I am not anticipating matters. I am stating my point of view, because this is my only chance to speak. The hon. member for Kensington did not adopt a definite attitude on this matter. I said we were displaying our standard. We are not sailing under a false standard. We say where we stand and what we stand for, and then it is up to you to decide what you are going to do.

Then the Johannesburg City Council will also know.

The Afrikaners on the Rand are accustomed to fighting for their rights. I want to tell you that if this university is made into a political issue, the United Party in this House as well as in the City Council of Johannesburg will have to be prepared to endure the onslaught from all quarters which it instigated itself. I therefore want to plead for the retention of Clause 9 (1) (f). I hope the Minister will not delete it. For as I know the Afrikaners on the Rand. I foresee a day not too far in the future when the City Council of Johannesburg will also be in the hands of the Nationalists of Johannesburg. I would like that City Council of the future to have the same power in terms of this clause to appoint a representative to the council. I believe that when that day arrives, they will grant the R.500,000, which was withheld, to this university, and they will also take into account the interest it lost in the meanwhile.

I want to emphasize one other point with regard to this university. Because this university is born of a positive striving, it has been possible to have a combined effort, a combined effort firstly by the Afrikaners of the Rand and the surrounding areas, and secondly a combined effort by Afrikaners and non-Afrikaners. I want to tell you that since 1955 the Rand Afrikaners have worked purposefully and in organized fashion for the establishment of this university. In that year the matter was entrusted to the Liaison Committee of Johannesburg, and after studying it the committee set itself the task, firstly, of obtaining a teachers’ college, and secondly of obtaining a university. It is of interest that I have here a copy of a memorandum that was handed to the then Minister of Education, Arts and Science here in Cape Town on 13th March, 1959. It was handed to him by a deputation of which I had the honour to be a member. In it we asked for an Afrikaans university on the Rand. It was not possible at the time, although we obtained the right that students of the teachers’ college might receive their academic training from the University of South Africa. We persisted in our endeavours, and on 5th November, 1963, a public meeting was held in Johannesburg, attended by 468 interested persons, either as representatives of bodies or as individuals in their personal capacities. I have the attendance roll here on my desk. That meeting produced the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University Committee, and we gave the people who were present at that public meeting the opportunity of choosing their representatives separately. In other words, the West Rand chose its own representatives, as did the East Rand, the Central Rand, Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark. I may tell you that the 20 members of this Rand University Committee received wonderful support from all these areas concerned in the matter.

In this Bill we also acknowledge that excellent co-operation. In Clause 3, where the seat of the university is provided, you find that we have covered a much wider area than only the Rand. That was done in acknowledgment of all those bodies and concerns that were prepared to co-operate for the sake of this great cause. In Clause 9 you will also see the constitution of the council of this university. All those bodies, for example municipalities, churches, schools, women’s organizations, in that entire great area are acknowledged on this council. You will also see that on the council of trustees, which consists of 39 members, whose names have been announced, there are not only Johannesburg people but people from all over the greater Rand. Neither are they only Afrikaans-speaking people, but English-speaking people will also serve on this council, people who are providing most useful and cordial co-operation.

Finally, our list of financial contributions shows that we have received wonderful support from all sources and quarters. People and undertakings who are certainly not Afrikaans are contributing readily because they know that a very great and important cause is served in this respect. I should also like to pay tribute to those who found it possible to render that assistance and give those pledges, even at this early stage. I want to refer specifically to one firm, without mentioning its name, which made R10,000 available to us as well as free office accommodation for our foundation work until we are on a firm basis. On behalf of the Rand Afrikaans University I should like to express our sincere gratitude to that smaller firm in Johannesburg for whom it was possible to render this support.

I say that to-day is a great day for all of us concerned with this university, directly or indirectly. I want to thank the Minister and his officials for what they have done. I want to thank everybody concerned in this matter. I want to appeal to everybody on the opposite side of the House to help us, in their sphere of influence, to build something here that will be truly great, modern and useful.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) has to some extent reiterated the remarks made by the hon. the Minister when he introduced his second-reading speech. I must say at once that the comment made by hon. members, and the Minister, is certainly much more reasonable than the speeches we have had about the subject of the establishment of this university outside the House over the past few years. The remarks that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) made about certain elements of the English-language Press being irresponsibly antagonistic towards the establishment of this university, naturally are a result of the articles which have appeared and the speeches which have been made and appeared in the Government-supported Press on this subject over the last few years. They certainly have not been reasonable speeches supported by statistics asking for the establishment of this university. Rather have they been in the nature of a tirade against the existing establishment on the Rand and the need to counter the liberalistic influence of Witwatersrand University. That has been the tenor of most of the speeches and the articles that have appeared in the Government Press over the last few years. So, Sir, I was glad to hear the more reasonable speeches of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) and the hon. the Minister.

I was especially glad to hear them say that this new university was not aimed at any existing institution. I was glad to hear that. Because I want to remind hon. members of the attitude, for instance, taken by the Minister in past years when one has asked for more facilities at Witwatersrand University. In particular I would remind him that some years ago I told the Minister about the parlous state of the medical school at Witwatersrand University, and the fact that hundreds of students were having to be turned away each year because there was simply not accommodation for them in the laboratories and in the lecture theatres at the medical school. I also pointed out to the Minister that South Africa was likely to be short of several thousand doctors in a few years’ time, and indeed that is the situation to-day, Sir. But the Minister’s attitude then was: “Let them go to Pretoria University; there is plenty of room for them at the medical school there.”

Why should they go there?

Exactly. That is the feeling I had. Why should they go? But that was not the feeling the Minister had at the time. He was referring to both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking students who wished to become medical students. I must admit that since then the medical school of Johannesburg has been given additional grounds and extensions are under way. However, the main hospital, the teaching hospital, which serves the medical school, is still, I might say, a tragic monument to official bungling.

You know that is a matter for the province.

Yes, I know it is a matter for the province, but if the medical school itself had had the proper facilities, I think the province willy-nilly would have been pushed into doing something about providing proper facilities for teaching at this large University of the Witwatersrand. But let us leave that to one side. I want to say at once that I am glad to have had the assurances of both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) that the existing institution on the Witwatersrand is not going to suffer or will be in competition with the newly-established university, the Rand Afrikaans University.

Now, having said that I also want to say that, unlike the hon. member for Kensington, I am unable, however, to accept assurances as having the force of law. Very much as I should like to do so, and having also listened very attentively to what the Minister said at his second-reading speech, having read the speech, and having studied the amendment which the Minister intends to introduce at the Committee Stage as far as Clause 20 is concerned, I do not take the view that this is a great advance on the existing clause as it appears in the Bill. I am unable to accept Ministerial assurances instead of a conscience clause properly written into this particular Bill. And therefore, because unfortunately I have this big objection in principle to the Bill as it is being presented to us, and even after it has been amended by the Minister at the Committee Stage, I am unable to support the second reading of this Bill. [ Interjections.] Well, I have told the hon. members exactly what my attitude is and why. The Bill as it stands, and as it will be when amended, will not contain the conscience clause which for so many years in South Africa has been the symbol of resistance to religious discrimination, as far as the admission of students to the university is concerned, as far as appointment of staff is concerned, and also in so far as any preference regarding students or staff after they have been admitted to the university is concerned. The conscience clause has a fundamental object, and that was to proscribe, actually to forbid, any form of religious discrimination in these two respects. That is firstly as far as admission of students and staff are concerned, and secondly in relation to the giving of any preference or the withholding of any advantage on the ground of religious belief. I do not consider this to be a “sakie” which was the way in which the Minister described it at the second reading. I consider this to be a fundamental principle. As I say, in the absence of a conscience clause 1 have no alternative but to vote against the second reading.

Because we have discussed it over and over again in this House, it should not be necessary to trace the long history of the conscience clause in South Africa. But I think very briefly perhaps I will do so, since hon. members seem to have forgotten exactly what the conscience clause has meant to us historically and traditionally in so far as university education is concerned. It appeared first in the old Cape Act of 1873 In 1916 it was embodied in the statuses of the University of South Africa and the Acts which established both the universities of Stellenbosch and of Cape Town. In 1917 it was put into the Higher Education Additional Provision Act, the Act that established the University of the Witwatersrand in 1927, the Act that established the University of Pretoria in 1930, the University of Natal in 1948, and Rhodes University in 1949. In all of these cases the conscience clause was adopted without question. In 1949 there was an attempt, when the University College of the Free State became a full university, to omit the conscience clause, but it was afterwards included after considerable opposition. The first direct attack came in the specific case of the Potchefstroom University College in 1949 when that University College also attempted to acquire the status of a full university. There was a heated debate in this House and after a free vote the University of Potchefstroom was allowed to alter its statute in such a way that the conscience clause was modified. It applied only to students and as far as the staff was concerned no test of denominational nature could be applied. It was therefore only a modification that was allowed. There was no question of scrapping that clause, even though a particular history attaches to Potchefstroom University in so far as it evolved from a theological institution and is really considered as such, has its particular attachment with a par ticular church and indeed is considered the institution for Christian higher education in this country. But even so, only a modified change was allowed as far as the conscience clause was concerned. For the rest the old policy remained and I submit was re-entrenched when the 1955 Universities Act replaced the early 1917 Act. That Act specifically recognized the conscience clause as it applies in every single one of the major universities with the exception of Potchefstroom.

In 1959 the conscience clause was the subject of a heated debate in this House—I remember it very well—when the Separate Universities Act was passed. At that stage it was suggested that a new norm had been adopted by Potchefstroom. I would say that argument had no substance because of the specific nature of Potchefstroom University. After a heated debate and after the most extended opposition from the official Opposition the clause was in fact dropped in respect of the universities established under the Separate Universities Act. Despite that, in 1961 when the then hon. member for Welkom attempted to introduce a private members’ Bill into this House to amend the University of the Orange Free State Act, so as to omit the conscience clause, that was most strenuously opposed. The Bill was talked out and it was only passed the following year when it was re-introduced, I might say in a matter of two minutes flat because at that stage the conscience clause had been left untouched. The hon. member decided to leave it untouched to get the Bill through this House unopposed. The main reason why it was left unopposed was because of the strong opposition which had come from the Medical Association of South Africa, and its opposition resulted in the decision that the University of the Orange Free State Bill should be left untouched because the University of the Orange Free State was very keen to establish a medical school. The Medical Association was not prepared to allow that if the conscience clause was dropped from the Orange Free State Act. I might say, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) has pointed out this afternoon, that in 1964. only two years ago, when the University of Port Elizabeth Act was passed, there was no question of touching the conscience clause, none whatever. And he expressed some surprise that the hon. member for Kensington should have to-day accepted ministerial assurances whereas he was not prepared to accept those assurances in 1964.

I thank him for it. I did not express any surprise.

Yes, he thanked him for it. He sounded a bit surprised. Anyway, he thanked him for it. Well. Sir, I want to express my surprise that to-day the assurances of the hon. Minister in fact are accepted whereas there was no question of any change coming about in the case of the University of Port Elizabeth, only two years ago. A slightly extended conscience clause was in fact inserted into the University of Port Elizabeth Act and I might say that at Committee Stage that is exactly the conscience clause, as it appears in the University of Port Elizabeth Act, that I intend to move as an addendum to Clause 20.

Now, Sir, I want to deal very quickly with two assertions made by the hon. Minister when he introduced the Bill. Naturally, of course, I shall be differing from what the hon. member for Kensington said. The hon. Minister said that although the Rand Afrikaans University Bill contains no conscience clause as such, it contains a clause which he said is more effective, in so far as Clause 20 is a positive clause. I might say the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) put it rather differently. He said it gave them the right of positive selection rather than negative discrimination. In other words it was to be a selective clause; it was to enable selection. That is the way I read it too. But that was certainly not the way in which the hon. Minister presented it to this House at the second reading. He said it was a positive clause which was being introduced and he gave us to understand that it was positive as against the negative prohibition of discrimination of the normal conscience clause. This is not the way in which the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) interprets it. Not at all. He interprets it as a positive selection clause. He said we could be selective on a positive basis instead of being discriminatory on a negative basis.

You may choose to go there or stay away. That is what I meant.

I might say that this is exactly how I interpret this as well. The hon. Minister said further that the conscience clause on the other hand was a negative clause which could easily be evaded, or which could easily be sidestepped. Let me deal with the first assertion first. I have looked very long and hard at this Clause 20 and I have looked long and hard at it as the hon. the Minister proposes to amend it. I come to precisely the opposite conclusion. It is no positive safeguard against discrimination whatsoever. Merely providing that students and staff shall be admitted to the university on the grounds of academic and administrative qualifications and abilities provides no safeguard and cannot be regarded as mandatory in all cases.

On what grounds do you want them to be admitted?

I am just coming to that. The Universities Act of 1955 which is the umbrella Act covering all the universities and in fact takes precedence over the Act of each single university, has a section, namely section 11, which reads as follows—

In other words, despite Clause 20 as amended, unless the Rand Afrikaans University Act contains a specific prohibition of religious tests, the Council of the Rand Afrikaans University would be entitled to refuse admittance to any student should it consider it to be in the interest of the university to do so on any grounds. I am referring to the grounds of religious beliefs or any other grounds. In other words, positive selection, not negative discrimination.

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

I do not have much time. Furthermore, even a mandatory provision that students and staff shall be admitted on the grounds of academic and administrative qualifications and ability provides no safeguard that once they have been admitted preference may not be given or advantages may not be withheld from such persons on the grounds of their religious beliefs. The best that Clause 20 does, even as amended, is that it does not give a positive authorization for religious discrimination, but it certainly does not prohibit such discrimination. If one reads this together with the preamble, and even without the preamble, but particularly if one reads it with the preamble it could easily be decided by the Council of the University that despite his qualifications and abilities a student’s or an aspirant member of the staff’s religious belief or lack of it could be deemed to conflict with the spirit and character of the Rand Afrikaans University. And again the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) stated that like flock to like and that people who fall in with the spirit of the University are the sort of people who would be welcome there. I therefore take it that this selective clause will allow the council of the university, because of Section 11 of the 1955 Act and because there is the absence of a specific prohibition against religious discrimination in the Rand Afrikaans University Act, to decide when it will be in the interests of the university to exclude people on religious grounds or in fact on any other grounds. I would also point out that even if it is their intention to put these matters into university bylaws, the by-laws do not have the force of law anymore than a ministerial assurance has the force of law. If the hon. the Minister has no intention of empowering the Rand Afrikaans University to impose tests of religious belief as a condition of admission of students or of staff, if he has no intention of allowing preferences after admission, there is a very easy way for him to prove this. This is to adopt the ordinary conscience clause as we have known it in all the major universities with the modified exception of the Potchefstroom University in South Africa since university life or higher education began in this country. That is all that he has to do. Its absence is to my mind significant and leads one to believe that the contrary in fact might be the case. The hon. the Minister can set everybody’s fears at rest, including mine, and I will be delighted to vote for this Bill at third reading if he accepts the amendment to insert a conscience clause in the Committee Stage of this Bill. I say that the conscience clause, as we have always known it, is the only unequivocal declaration that there is no intention to allow discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

I want to deal very quickly with the hon. the Minister’s second assertion that the conscience clause could always be evaded; that it does not mean a thing anyway. In fact, of course, we do know that in the Orange Free State it has been the practice very often to evade the law. But that is unimportant. We are dealing with a principle, and the fact that the law can be evaded does not mean that the law should not be passed. Otherwise we might as well say that people are evading income tax law and therefore we should not bother to have income tax laws. But that is not the point. It is the principle that is at stake, and whether the law is evaded or not is another issue altogether. I think the Minister was wrong when he said that there was no appeal, that there was no place to which a person could appeal if he feels himself discriminated against, even though there is a conscience clause. Surely once this is passed as an Act it becomes part of our law and if a person feels aggrieved in this way and he can produce proof, he can then go to the courts of law, and presumably if he proves his case the courts will then award him damages. So I do not understand the Ministerial statement that there is no appeal. There is an appeal to the normal courts of law. Even the instance the Minister mentioned in the second reading, that of the Catholic with two doctor’s degrees who was unable to find employment at one of these universities and who came to the conclusion that he was being discriminated against because he was a Catholic, if he could have proved his case, and he could have proved that he was an able lecturer and that apart from his qualification he was a person of good character, and that somebody with lesser qualifications and equally good character had been appointed instead of him, presumably he could have had a case in law. So I do not for one moment accept that there is no appeal. But in any case the very fact that there is a conscience clause means that those institutions which evade the law are flouting the law and run all the risk attendant on flouting the law. I believe that the very inclusion of a conscience clause therefore acts as a deterrent to institutions against discrimination on the basis of religion.

I want to warn hon. members of this House, and particularly do I want to warn the hon. members on the Opposition benches, because up to now they have taken a strong line on this conscience clause. All the years I was in this House and the years I sat with them, every time there was any infringement of the conscience clause there was no question but that it was dealt with as a matter of principle. I want to warn those hon. members that this omission of a conscience clause and the substitution therefor of Clause 20, as amended, will open the door to one university after another in this country coming along to this House and asking to have the conscience clause removed. The hon. member for Rosettenville uttered some prophetic words way back when we were discussing this question of the change in regard to the University of the Orange Free State. I wonder whether he remembers what he said then. He said this—

Sir, we must not stand by and see this done without voicing our protest. I am voicing my protest to-day, and there is nothing to stop hon. members of the Opposition, or there should not be, from voicing their protest as well. This matter was left to a free vote way back when it was a question of changing the conscience clause in the case of the Potchefstroom University. It was left to a free vote and that is what should have been done today. What is at stake today is a very important provision connected with higher education in South Africa. There is always a great deal of talk in this House about our traditional way of life in South Africa. Much of this talk, I might say, is about traditions which do not in fact exist. But this tradition does exist. We have an historical record of previous University Acts which have been passed by this House, a record which I have already enunciated to prove that this tradition in fact does exist in South Africa. It is a traditional way of our life that has been accepted over and over again, and that is that in South Africa a man’s religious beliefs are his own concern and as such they should not be the subject of an inquiry by an educational institution established by the State and paid for by the money of all taxpayers of all religious beliefs, and even paid for by taxpayers who may have no religious beliefs whatsoever. Churches of all denominations are entitled to inquire into the religious beliefs of people. That is their function, but it is not the function of a university. It should be no part of the true function of a real university.

I wish to conclude by reiterating in this House words that were uttered in 1932, so long has this tradition been part of our higher education, by Dr. Malan, when the question of the removal of the conscience clause from the Potchefstroom University Act was under discussion. This is what he said—

And the same, I might add for emphasis, goes for students, because at that stage it was only the question of staff which was under discussion. And Dr. Malan went on to say—

For all those reasons I regret that because the Rand Afrikaans University Bill, as presented to us and as it will be amended in the Committee Stage, as the Minister tells us he intends to amend it, does not serve the purpose of the conscience clause as we have always known it in our traditional way of life pertaining to higher education, for that reason I cannot support the second reading of the Bill.

We expected this tone. We always expect this tone from the hon. member for Houghton because she sits in this House and does not represent a party, and does not represent any appreciable group or trend of thought, but only represents herself. That is why we reject this attack of hers with the contempt I think it deserves. The hon. the Minister already replied adequately in his introductory speech to all the matters which the hon. member raised here, but the hon. member has apparently not taken the trouble to read through that speech. We stated it very clearly and strongly and the hon. the Minister states it very clearly in the Bill that we are dealing with one single concept here, namely that in Clause 20, as it is to be amended, we want to introduce one concept, which is that a student, research worker, lecturer or member of the administrative staff shall be admitted on the grounds of academic and administrative qualifications. That is where that provision ends.

The hon. member says that it must not be selective. The hon. member takes it amiss of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) that he says that we are going to be positively selective. But should we not then proceed selectively in the selection of staff? Should we just take anybody who comes along, just anybody? Should we not take qualifications and academic background into consideration? Should we simply just scrape together everyone we can find? No, I think the hon. member is all at sea when she adopts this attitude. The Afrikaners on the Witwatersrand have been waiting for many years for this wonderful and happy day when we can get our own Afrikaans university in that area and we shall not allow her or any small group in South Africa to prescribe to us what the spirit of our university must be. We know precisely where we want to go and we adhere to those principles. Mr. Speaker, I want to state very positively that I am one of the people who would really have preferred a positive conscious clause in the Bill. I state that very strongly and very clearly, but we have incorporated into this Bill a spirit which is stated very clearly and very strongly, i.e. that this university will embody the spirit as set out in the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Does she agree with that or not?

*Dr. C. P. MULDER: T regard the

preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as the conscience clause of South Africa. Every immigrant who comes here and everyone in this country subjects himself, knowingly or unknowingly, to that conscience clause provision of our Constitution to which he submits when he stays here voluntarily …

And she as well.

The hon. member for Houghton also subjects herself to that, if she wants to remain here. I say that if it is good enough for the Republic of South Africa, then it is good enough for the Afrikaners on the Witwatersrand.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend my time in dealing with the hon. member for Houghton. I rose to celebrate a great occasion and so I am going to leave her there and make my speech as I prepared it, because this is too great an occasion for me to divide my time and give my attention to her petty barking which she keeps up in the background.

The late Dr. D. F. Malan said on an occasion in 1948 (translation)—

It is against this background and in the spirit of the Bill itself that I want to welcome the Rand Afrikaans University this afternoon, and I am doing so particularly on behalf of the West Rand, which I am representing here this afternoon. Sir, here a new university is being established, and I want to devote the rest of my speech to three specific concepts: Firstly, a new university at a particular juncture; secondly, at a particular place; and thirdly, with a particular task and calling. I shall begin with the particular juncture. In the history of the world we experience times of ebb end flow; we experience periods of upsurgence and energy; we experience periods of recession and decline; we experience periods of renaissance followed by dark ages; we first had the Middle Ages; there was the French Revolution and after that we had another decline. I think I am interpreting the times correctly when I say that we are at the moment standing on the eve of a great new period of flow, a period in which every individual and in which the universities, this one as well, will have to adapt themselves specifically and will have to fit themselves in but will at the same time have to be true to the highest ideals we want to set to a university: It should adapt itself to circumstances as they change; adapt itself to what the world will demand of it in the field of technology, in the field of science, in the field of the natural sciences and of the social sciences, but it should at the same time be true to what is its own and to what is dear to us. I say that this university has come into being during a special period and that it will be a tremendous task, in this period, to keep pace with everything that is happening and at the same time not neglect to remain true to that to which it must remain true.

I want to say a few words about the particular place where this university is being established. It is being established on the Witwatersrand. The Witwatersrand occupies a particular place in the history of South Africa. In 1886, when gold was discovered on the Witwatersrand, the Afrikaner left that area; the Afrikaner was ousted there by outsiders who came there to make money and to exploit the gold. The Afrikaner left the Witwatersrand and established himself where he could live alone in peace. But a a result of circumstances which were beyond everybody’s control, the Afrikaner gradually returned to the city, this time not as an owner and a land-owner, but as a worker seeking a livelihood. Naturally the Afrikaner did not in the initial stages find exactly flattering work in Johannesburg. The Afrikaner returned—I am saying this in a very good spirit—as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water of the city of Johannesburg. They returned to come and reconquer their own. They returned and entrenched themselves in various spheres, and gradually the Afrikaners there found themselves, got a firmer grip and dug themselves in to such an extent that they can to-day establish with pride their own university in that area. The Afrikaner is establishing a university there so that his children may be educated and afforded the best opportunities so that they will not have to be drawers of water and hewers of wood for ever. It is in that spirit that we see the specific place where the university is being established. It is not against anybody; it is not to reproach anybody; we are not trying to prejudice anybody in a negative way; we are not anti-anybody. We are just pro-Afrikaans and pro-South African in our approach to this matter—positive and strong.

In the third place I want to discuss the particular task and calling of this university, and when I discuss that matter I also want to discuss universities in general. This university is being established in the spirit of the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. In that spirit therefore the university wants to be true to its people and their traditions; it wants to reflect everything which is fine and good in the spirit of South Africa; it wants to be South Africa, true to the mother country in all respects. The fact that this university is going to be Afrikaans, the fact that the spirit of this university is going to be such, means that we have a purely positive approach here. If we say that we are pro-Afrikaans, then that does not mean that we are anti-anything else, and I want to state that very clearly. In 1929 the late Dr. Verwoerd delivered the opening address at the University of Stellenbosch and in that year as a young professor who was making his first appearance at this important function he used these words (translation)—

Dr. Verwoerd repeated the same thought in 1959, when he once again delivered the opening address at the University of Stellenbosch. On that occasion he defined the matter further and stated it as follows, this time as Prime Minister of South Africa, which is proof of the kind of great men which that university has in fact produced, because it is cast in that mould (translation)—

That is very important—

Mr. Speaker, this university must train students who will remain anchored to certain eternal truths which must never be substituted or replaced by science or by knowledge or by learning. It must reaffirm the faith in those eternal truths. Doubt must not be sown in the receptive minds of the youth, but what is dear to us must be reaffirmed. The new wisdom, the new knowledge, the new vistas must not dissociate students from their national identities. It should rather bind them stronger to what is their own. Mr. Speaker, I want to use an image, one which may be appropriate in this context. To me the university must be like an aeroplane, an aeroplane which takes off from a base, which cleaves the air, which visits and reconnoitres far-away foreign countries, which travels everywhere, but which must always know where its only home base is and must always return there. The university is like an aeroplane. The colours of the country which it represents are painted on its wings, and wherever it goes in the world it may never be unfaithful to those colours which have been painted on its wings, and it must return with pride to the only base to which it is really anchored and which is its home base. A university can spread its wings and in its search for knowledge enter upon any domain, it can move in all directions, it can climb the heights and plumb the depths, but it must remain anchored in spirit and in truth to that which is its own, it must never become alienated from its nation and its national pride, it must never exchange its national citizenship for international citizenship. It is also that spirit which we should like to see in our students.

Allow me to express a few other general thoughts in regard to this matter. We so often find the spirit now, at least as far as some universities are concerned, that the concept of liberalism is being introduced, that in the so-called spirit of academic freedom they must be “broad-minded”, and I am using the English term on purpose. We believe that a university must train its students in such a way that while they allow the students to glean all the knowledge they can, while they are allowed to undertake all the research which they are able to undertake, the students may never be trained in such a way that they feel more at home in the international world than they do in their own fatherland. They must never be pried loose from what is their own. The university may never use the funds and donations from the Government and from the nation in order to pry the youth of the nation loose from that nation. It is then committing treason against its highest calling. Towards the end of the previous century we found that people who had been afforded the privilege of going overseas to study returned and were then ashamed of what was their own, ashamed to devote their energies to the education upliftment of what was their own, ashamed to admit that they wanted to serve their own people. Instead of serving and uplifting the people of the nation they were lost to the community. We may not for one moment allow this to happen in the universities of to-day. South Africa needs too many leaders in all fields, in order to develop the country, for it to be able to afford to alienate its most previous possession, that priceless diamond which we have, the youth, and place it on the alter of the international world.

In conclusion I want to express a few thoughts in regard to the autonomy of the university. Mr. Speaker, of course we all believe that a university must be free, but simultaneously we believe that there is no freedom without the law, because the highest freedom is the freedom within the law. As soon as one goes beyond the scope of the law, it is no longer freedom but licence. There are no rights without duties. If a university claims for itself the right to be autonomous, it has at the same time the duty of being responsible. The greatest freedom still lies within the law. Outside the bounds of that law lies slavery, alien ideology, and intrinsic uncontrolled tendencies and appetites. I have said that the university must be true to the motherland. That is why a university in its highest autonomy must still be dutiful to its nation. As soon as its freedom becomes greater than its duty, as soon as it renounces its ties to its nation for so-called academic freedom, its foundations collapse and it is characterized not by service and freedom, by by slavish thraldom to alien concepts.

I say that we believe in the freedom of universities, but simultaneously we believe that the highest freedom lies in the observing of the law. Otherwise it is licence.

I want to conclude. The late Dr. Verwoerd said on another occasion (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, if that was the motto of he who held that position and who filled the position of Prime Minister with such dignity and strength, if he said, and he states it very clearly here, that a person can never be fully equipped for one’s task, that one has never finished learning, that one must always study further in order to equip oneself for the task lying ahead, how much more does it not apply to each one of us? It is in this spirit that I wish to welcome the Rand Afrikaans University on behalf of the West Rand in particular. I want to express the thought and the hope that the university will grow from strength to strength and reach the highest peaks of achievement. I also want to express the hope that this university will fulfil the highest ideals which we cherish for it, that in its flight it will reach great heights, but that it will never be unfaithful to its own nation and its own fatherland. There is no limit to our expectations for the future from this university.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Houghton, I wish at this stage to elaborate in greater detail the reasons why we on this side of the House, that is to say, the official Opposition, are prepared to support the second reading of the Bill and why we do not share the views expressed by the hon. member for Houghton or the fears expressed by that hon. member.

In brief, Mr. Speaker, we accept first of all the need for an Afrikaans university on the Rand. At the same time we trust that those in control will not regard this as a narrow university in the sense that it will take in as students only Afrikaans-speaking persons. We trust that English-speaking persons who may wish to take a degree and to study in Afrikaans will also be allowed, in the same way that they are admitted at the Stellenbosch University. We believe that only good can come of this. We believe furthermore that this can be done, of course, without in any way jeopardizing the Afrikaans spirit which is intended for this university. We point out that Stellenbosch University has not in any way jeopardized its Afrikaans spirit by allowing English-speaking persons to study at that University.

The same applies in the case of Pretoria University.

I am indebted to the hon. member who has pointed out that Pretoria does the same. I have merely expressed the hope that this will be the case with this University as well, and I say only good can come of it.

Grahamstown?

Yes, all the English language universities do the same. They admit Afrikaans-speaking students as well, and this does not in any way jeopardize the English atmosphere or English spirit, or whatever you would like to call it.

What about the Zulu university?

We support the second reading of this Bill also because we are satisfied that Clause 20 does in fact provide complete protection against religious discrimination, for reasons which I will elaborate in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, we consider that the fallacy in the hon. member for Houghton’s arguments lies in the fact that her whole argument was based on a false premise, on a premise which is wrong. The whole of her argument was based on the proposition that this Bill before the House does not contain the precise conscience clause which there is in the other university Acts, and that therefore this Bill provides no protection for religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is an entirely fallacious argument. One can protect religious freedom by other means. The so-called conscience clause is by no means the only way to do it. There is no magic in that clause as such, If, Mr. Speaker, Clause 20 did not in our view—and I make this quite clear—provide protection for religious freedom, we might not have been able to support the second reading. I wish to make this point clear also: The hon. member for Houghton suggested that we are merely accepting the Minister’s assurance that this is the effect of Clause 20. This is not the case. We certainly accept the Minister’s assurance, but our attitude is based on our personal conviction, as the result of a study of the Bill, that in fact the hon. the Minister is correct when he says that Clause 20 does provide the protection which we seek. I wish to make it perfectly clear for the record that we do not, as suggested by the hon. member for Houghton, merely accept ministerial assurances whereas in the past we have not always been prepared to accept ministerial assurances and have wanted them actually written into the law. We believe that this protection is in fact written into this Bill in Clause 20, as I shall explain in a moment.

I believe it is important to understand clearly what is meant by the so-called conscience clause and what its effect is, because without a clear understanding a great deal of confused thinking arises, such as we have had to-day from the hon. member for Houghton.

Why do you not deal with the merits instead of continually referring to my views?

I am merely saying that the hon. member for Houghton’s argument was based on confused thinking, and I want to explain why I say that. Mr. Speaker, what is the effect of the clause which has up to now been referred to as the conscience clause? The first thing to note is that the term “conscience clause” is really a misnomer, because the clause does not deal with the individual’s conscience as such. What it does is to safeguard the individual, be the individual a student or a lecturer or professor, from being discriminated against on the grounds of his religious beliefs. It protects religious freedom. That is what it does and that is the effect of this so-called conscience clause. Now surely, the hon. member for Houghton is not going to suggest to this House that the only way in which to protect religious freedom is by the precise words contained in the so-called conscience clause. There are various ways of doing this. The question which must be considered by this House, therefore, is not whether this Bill contains precisely the so-called conscience clause, but whether it provides proper safeguard for students and lecturers against discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. That is the question.

Now the hon. member for Houghton said that a man’s religious belief is his own concern, and it is our view that under Clause 20 this will remain so. I will tell the House and the hon. member why I say that. In the first place. I want to refer to Clause 20 and I want to point out in passing something to which the hon. member for Houghton made no reference and that is the marginal note to the clause. That marginal note states clearly “Admission to university”. In other words, it is clearly intended as a clause dealing with grounds for admission to the university, and in fact if one looks at the ordinary meaning of this clause, this is precisely what it does. It sets out certain grounds for admission to the university. It says—

Mr. Speaker, I also draw attention to the positive nature of this clause because in terms of the ordinary rules of interpretation of Statutes this fact is important. It is important because it is a clear principle of law that if your have a clause which deals with certain matters, it is taken to deal fully with that subject. In other words, relating that principle to Clause 20:

if you have a clause which sets out certain grounds for admission to the university, the ordinary interpretation which a court of law is bound to place on this—I emphasize the word “bound”—is that no other grounds are relevant to admission than those which are stated in the clause.

What about Section 11?

I will come to Section 11 and its effect if the hon. member will merely be a little patient. The point that I wish to make in conclusion on this argument is this: Having regard to the fact that Clause 20 is a clause dealing with admission to the university, that it is stated in the positive and not the negative, and that it sets out certain grounds for admission, a court of law could properly come to the conclusion that the Bill permits of religious discrimination in the admission of students only by reading into Clause 20 an additional ground for admission, that is to say a religious ground. In other words, my point is this, that the court would have to read Clause 20 as follows: A student … shall be admitted to the university on the grounds of his academic and administrative qualifications and abilities, and on the ground that he is a member of a specific church or that he subscribes to the theology and beliefs of certain churches, or some such positive wording. Now, quite clearly, no court of law could go so far as to read the clause in this way.

The hon. member for Houghton has referred to Section 11 of the Universities Act of 1955. As the hon. member rightly pointed out, that section provides that—

The hon. member then went on to say that this means that unless the University Act concerned contains a specific prohibition of religious tests, a council would be entitled to refuse admittance to any student should it consider it to be in the interests of the university concerned to do so, on the grounds of the student’s religious belief. But, once again, the hon. member is incorrect. First of all, I should like to point out that the marginal note bears the words “Refusal of admission as student” and, secondly that the contention of the hon. member for Houghton is only partly correct.

I thought you said it was all wrong.

If the hon. member prefers it that way, I can say that it is quite wrong in the sense in which it was stated by her. I say it is partly correct because if the University Act concerned contains no specific prohibition of religious tests, either expressly or impliedly, and no clause setting out grounds for admission, then counsel’s interpretation … I beg your pardon, Sir, I mean the interpretation of the hon. member for Houghton would be correct.

You are correct in referring to it as counsel’s interpretation because I did consult counsel and certainly a better one than the hon. member is.

The hon. member says she has consulted counsel and a better counsel than I am. Well, I am quite prepared to accept that there are many better counsel than I am but even the best counsel makes mistakes. As a matter of fact, even Judges make mistakes—that is why we need courts of appeal. If the argument submitted by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon emanates from counsel, even from an eminent counsel, I suggest with great respect that in this instance he is wrong.

He was badly instructed.

But I want to return to Section 11 and say that the argument presented by the hon. member for Houghton is clearly wrong because the Act concerned, though containing no specific prohibition on religious tests, does contain an admission clause which by implication excludes religious discrimination. That being so, a court will be bound to give effect to the admission clause, it being a clause subsequent to the Universities Act of 1955. This then is the case with this Bill.

I have already given my reasons for saying that the relevant clause in the Bill, i.e. Clause 20, does not permit of religious discrimination. But in interpreting this Bill, a court would have regard, of course, to Section 11 because that section is not specifically excluded by this Bill. The net result is that the two would have to be read together, whilst first and foremost giving full effect to Clause 20 which, as I have already stated, cannot be interpreted by a court to enable discrimination on grounds of religion. The net result of reading the two sections together is quite simply that Section 11 will bear its usual meaning, which is that a university council will be able to exclude from the university, in terms of that section, persons who are undesirable on grounds such as moral depravity, conviction of certain offences, etc., but not on the grounds of religious belief.

I now want to come to certain other arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton. She said that even if it was accepted that Clause 20 was mandatory in regard to admission—in other words, that in regard to admission of students, etc., you could not discriminate on the grounds of their religion— Clause 20 does not provide any protection once they are in the university. According to her there can be discrimination then. Here again, if this is the opinion of the learned counsel consulted by the hon. member, he is, with great respect, wrong. This argument is fallacious. No court of law can accept this interpretation because the effect of such an interpretation would be that the council would be able to say: “Clause 20 makes it mandatory on us to let you in without discrimination on the grounds of religion but having admitted you we now say that we are going to discriminate against you and we are going to withhold advantages from you, advantages being enjoyed by others, unless you accept a certain religious belief.”

Clause 20 does not mention religious belief.

The hon. member for Houghton obviously does not understand my argument. Perhaps she may prefer to study it more carefully when she has my speech in writing.

I can’t stand to look at it again.

The point I am trying to make on this aspect of the matter is that the court in interpreting Clause 20 will be bound to say that the word “admission” is intended to bear its broad meaning, namely admission to the university with all the privileges and advantages going with it. Any other interpretation makes nonsense of the clause. It is a trite principle of interpretation of a statute that a provision must be interpreted in such a way that it is given effect to and not made nonsense of. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has had an opportunity to make her speech. An hon. member is not entitled to make two speeches during a second-reading debate.

Because Clause 20 is framed in the positive and says “shall be admitted on certain grounds” and does not include any other grounds, our belief is that it provides a very strong protection for any aggrieved party because he can then go to court and compel compliance with the clause; the clause states quite simply that a student or lecturer shall be admitted on certain grounds, implying no other grounds. Far from the historical tradition based on the conscience clause being thrown overboard or disregarded by this Bill, we are satisfied that this Bill does in fact provide complete protection. We are also satisfied that if it is passed in the form in which it is proposed to be amended by the Minister a man’s religious belief will continue to be his own concern. The hon. member for Houghton has placed great emphasis on what she called the “normal” conscience clause. As has been pointed out by the hon. the Minister in his second-reading speech, we know perfectly well that despite such a clause it is possible to discriminate on grounds of religious belief provided it is not stated openly. Therefore, this conscience clause on which the hon. member for Houghton placed so much emphasis and regarded as a traditional symbol, is not the effective clause which she claimed it to be.

In conclusion I want to make it clear that were it not for the fact that we are satisfied that Clause 20 does provide protection for religious freedom, not only on the Minister’s own assurance but on a proper interpretation of the clause, we would find it very difficult to support the second reading of this Bill. In view of the fact, however, that we have no doubt whatsoever …

None of you?

… that this provides proper protection we do in fact support this Bill at its second reading. We should also like to go further and wish this new university on the Witwatersrand god-speed and good luck.

I want to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) for the crushing way in which he dealt with the hon. member for Houghton. In particular we also appreciate it that the hon. member, as an English-speaking person, is wishing this new Afrikaans university on the Rand all success. We on this side of the House have only too often crossed swords with the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave), and we shall most certainly do so again in future. In fact, we hope so and we look forward to it. We are nevertheless grateful that in respect of this specific measure we as Afrikaans-and English-speaking people can join hands.

As regards the establishment of this particular university, I want to convey to the Minister the sincere gratitude and appreciation of the area that other members and I represent here for taking the initiative along with us to establish this university. We also want to express our gratitude and appreciation to the Government for the great and important decision it has taken. When we started planning the establishment of such an institution, and until it was eventually accepted in principle, there were naturally great differences of opinion among the Afrikaners on the Witwatersrand as to where the institution should be situated. Should it be situated north, east, south, west or in some central spot? I am grateful that the Government has relieved the inhabitants of Johannesburg of this difficult decision, and has decided that it should be erected in the heart of Johannesburg, i.e. in that complex where there is the greatest concentration of Afrikaners at the moment. While we tender our wholehearted support to the establishment of this university. I want to point out that we are aware of the fact that it meets a long-felt need on the part of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population of the Witwatersrand. I may testify to the great hiatus that existed there as regards training facilities for higher education on the Witwatersrand. In my day I had the privilege of doing part-time study at the University of the Witwatersrand. The hon. member for Yeoville and I became acquainted there. But permit me to say that for the Afrikaans-speaking student who arrived at the Witwatersrand University the atmosphere there was always alien.

In saying that I do not wish to cast any reflection on what the University of the Witwatersrand has achieved. We are aware of the fact that that university has produced significant results and great men in scientific as well as other fields. I am speaking here as an Afrikaans-speaking South African, however, and in that capacity I say with the utmost conviction that the Afrikaans-speaking student has never felt at home at the University of the Witwatersrand. As a result of that, there arose in us an intense desire to establish for ourselves, as Afraikaans-speaking South Africans on the Witwatersrand a parallel institution, an institution of which we could be just as proud as the English-speaking people are and have always been of the University of the Witwatersrand. For that reason we felt that we wanted to fight for it, and to-day we are pleased and grateful to be able to see that ideal realized here. We did not begrudge the English-speaking people their university, and I am glad to hear through the hon. English-speaking members on the other side that they do not begrudge us our university either. I foresee that the co-operation between this university and the University of the Witwatersrand in various fields will quite probably be most cordial. I also hope and trust that now that we shall have an Afrikaans university there, a university that will be basically conservative, and that it will make it possible to live up to our beliefs as we as Afrikaners see them, it will have a good effect on the extremely liberal trend at the University of the Witwatersrand. It will also afford a choice to the conservative-minded people of the Witwatersrand as regards the university to which they should send their children. In the past they did have the choice of sending their children either to Pretoria or to Potchefstroom or to some other universities in the country where in their view there was a conservative trend. Now there will be a university on the Witwatersrand, the R.A.U. which is on their very doorstep and which is much more accessible to them in that respect. Mr. Speaker, in these times in which we live, in these times of tremendous progress in technology, in this era in which approximately 3,500,000 Whites at the southern tip of Africa are called upon to play a great role in order to develop and uphold the Western outlook on life, I feel that we as Afrikaans-speaking people, who constitute the majority of this White population at the southern tip of Africa, also want to contribute our share in the field of technology, of science. As I have said, we felt the need for such a higher institution at the Witwatersrand. Now we can use those facilities, and I hope and trust that we shall now be able to provide the manpower and the brainpower which will also contribute their share to the realization and the development of this great ideal of ours. In the struggle for the survival of a nation, it is an irrefutable fact that numbers are not always the decisive factor.

The decisive factor in the survival of a nation is the inherent power, the intellect and the mental ability of that nation. And that is what we as Afrikaners on the Witwatersrand have always felt, namely that we lacked that source of intellectual sustenance on which we could draw in order to make that great contribution. If we consider the wars that are fought nowadays, we find that those wars are fought by employing radar and computers, and by pressing buttons. If we furthermore consider the modern warfare, we find that it is a psychological warfare which is based to a large extent on psychological techniques created by men of brainpower and intellect. And then we ask ourselves: Do we really have the manpower to do that? And if I look at the large number of young Afrikaners who do not have the opportunity of attaining that intellectual knowledge, of making that contribution, then I say that it is indeed scandalous that our people cannot do that. We are therefore grateful for receiving this aid in that great concentrated Afrikaner community, to enable us to contribute our share towards providing that manpower.

I also want to say the following as regards the question of co-operation between races. I believe that mutual co-operation between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people will also be promoted by the creation of this university. Until now the Afrikaner’s backlog on the Witwatersrand has always placed him in a position where he involuntarily had some sense of inferiority towards the English-speaking people. This was the result of his continual awareness of the fact that he did not have everything those people had. And I say that we do not begrudge it to them, but neither can you blame us if through the years we have really, in the good sense of the word, felt jealous because we did not have those institutions. And now that jealous desire is satisfied, and we can square our shoulders and say: Here we are, we are also going to take our place now in that field. As one who was involved in the spadework with regard to the establishment of this university, I want to say to-day that it is a source of great interest throughout the Witwatersrand. In the past few months I have taken a most active interest in the task of collecting funds. The enthusiasm was simply overwhelming. If one considers that in the period during which we have been engaged in that, namely from the beginning of this year, we have received more than R2,250,000 in pledges to this university from local government concerns alone, then you will appreciate how firmly this cause has already become ensconced with the inhabitants of the Witwatersrand.

I want to convey my gratitude and appreciation to those city councils that have already given us fine contributions. I think inter alia of the City Council of Springs, which gave us an amount of R160,000, of Roodepoort with R150,000, Krugersdorp with R150,000, Randfontein with R100,000, Kempton Park with R50,000, Heidelberg with R25,00, Randburg with R25,000, Edenvale with R25,000, Meyerton with R21,500, Elsburg with R10,000, Nigel with R10,000, Alberton with R50,000, and my own town, Benoni, with an amount of R5.000 this year. There are also quite a few other city councils that have been approached and that have not yet taken a final decision. We hope that we shall receive something from them as well, and there are already indications that they will also contribute. This is the spirit in which this university is approached and developed. I have even more cause for gratitude. for if we look at the spirit of members of the Opposition here, then we can surely start writing out the cheque from Johannesburg. It seems to me as though their good guidance will have the result that we shall be granted that R500,000 as well. We say thank you in advance. I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for the lucid way in which he dealt with this matter in his second-reading speech. It made matters much easier for us, because in his speech the Minister put paid to all arguments that could possibly have been raised here to wreck this undertaking. We want to thank the hon. the Minister in person for the mammoth task he has performed. When we interviewed him for the first time, he took to the idea like a fish to water and said that he was with us in this matter and that he would do his best to persuade the Government to have this university established. To him we say thank you very, very much, and we hope and trust that in future we shall receive very great support from the hon. the Minister.

Dr. E. L. FISHER: Mr. Speaker, I believe and certainly thousands of others do, that it is necessary to establish an Afrikaans university on the Witwatersrand and I am very pleased that it has come to Johannesburg. I think that the establishment of this university is going to be welcomed by thousands and thousands of people. Now, if I believe that it is necessary and that it is right to establish the university in Johannesburg for the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community, then I think it is my duty also not to stand in the way of the erection of this university but rather to see how it can be established. At the same time, Sir, I must see that the necessary safeguards are present in its articles of establishment. And, if they are not present, I must seek to rectify any omissions or restrictions. Now, like so many others, I was very perturbed at Clause 20 as it stands in the original Bill. I was very perturbed when I first saw it. I felt at that time that it was a great restriction on many religious denominations, and I was relieved when I heard that the Minister had decided to amend Clause 20. After a great deal of study and thought I, like many others, have come to the positive conclusion that Clause 20 does give protection to those religious groups who feared exclusion from this university. The hon. member for Houghton quoted from a speech that I made some years ago. I was very proud of that speech, and that speech stands good today. That speech I made was made because the Free State University wanted to exclude entirely the conscience clause. My leader especially, would not allow any of us to vote for this Bill if there was doubt in our minds that any religious community was going to be discriminated against. If there was any doubt in our minds that any religious group was going to be excluded from this university, I would have no part in this Bill. What guarantee do we have that such discrimination is not going to be the case? The guarantees I have are simple. Firstly, there is the interpretation of the various clauses in conjunction with one another, so that they give a complete picture of the Bill. I may say that I also look for advice outside. The advice I got, I think, is good advice. They told me: Have no fear. In addition to that, the Minister has given us assurances. In this case his assurances will be placed in Hansard, and to make sure that what the Minister said in his second-reading speech is what he intends, I would ask him for my sake and for the sake of all others who have doubts about the intentions of this Bill, to repeat what he said in his second-reading speech when he replies.

How about putting it in the Bill?

May I say that Clause 20 is a guarantee as far as I am concerned. If it is not a guarantee I have misinterpreted not only the clause but the spirit in which this Bill was introduced and accepted, and I have misinterpreted the attitude of the Minister which he has adopted in regard to this matter, and also the attitude the proposed Council and the workers of this university have taken. If I am at fault in interpreting it I must be corrected now, but I sincerely hope that my interpretation is the correct one. I want to see this university get over its teething troubles, and I want to see close liaison between this university and the University of the Witwatersrand. I do not want to see the universities hive off into little sections and become afraid of one another’s influences. I say there must be communication and dialogue and friendship between them to achieve all the good things that come from a university. If that is going to be the outcome of this university, I say I am pleased to vote for the second reading of this Bill.

The hon. member for Rosettenville did not say anything with which I agree, but I should like to return to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member remained behind when progress was made on the road of South Africa. She gave us a detailed history of the conscience clause and how it had been incorporated into the Acts of the various universities, but I must remind the hon. member that that happened in the past, when South Africa was a member of the British Commonwealth and before we became a Republic.

What has that got to do with it?

Order! The hon. member must stop interrupting.

I am sorry, but the hon. member is talking nonsense.

I will not allow a running commentary. If the hon. member interrupts again I will ask her to withdraw.

I want to remind the hon. member that we have already made five years’ progress on the road of the Republic of South Africa, and that is why a different spirit will be introduced into the Act of this university which is being established now. If it had not been for the fact that with the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth in 1964, the hon. member’s adherents, a group of progressives in Port Elizabeth, tried to exploit every grain of such British sentiment as existed in the whole of the Eastern Cape for inciting a feeling of hostility and malice towards the to be established university, as if it had been anti-Rhodes, a different spirit would probably had emanated from the Act of that university. But owing to that agitation which was very unsavoury—and in a period during which it was necessary for English-and Afrikaans-speaking people to cooperate, just as the entire spirit of that university as a dual-medium university was one of co-operation—the people who were in power, the hon. the Minister included, felt that that was not the time for further agitation, and that is why we were satisfied with having the so-called conscience clause inserted into that Act, because basically it did not clip our wings in any respect. But it is very clear to me that the hon. member’s quarrel is not with the small measure of religious freedom guaranteed by the conscience clause. I have discovered what is actually troubling the hon. member for Houghton. In the preamble to the Constitution which is being inserted here, I read about the conviction in regard to the necessity to stand united, to safeguard the integrity and freedom of our country, to secure the maintenance of law and order and to further the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst. I see that these are the things which trouble the hon. member, that these things may not happen at a university. The hon. member probably wants to see other things happening there, to which I shall return later. I think Garfield was the author who said: “Things do not turn up in this world until somebody turns them up.” As far as the establishment of a new university is concerned, I can only say from my own experience that it is doubly true. The establishment of the university is attended by tremendous sacrifices and hard work of a small group of people. I want to pay tribute to-day to this group of people to whom the establishment of this university has become their ideal in life, to these people who thought hard and who worked hard and sacrificed a great deal for many years. They undoubtedly merit the high esteem, the appreciation and the gratitude of this House and of everybody who is interested in university training.

The hon. member for Kensington said that he would very much like to meet these people who were responsible for the establishment of this university I think if the hon. member looks around him, he will see many of them here. I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to the Afrikaans-speaking population of the Witwatersrand on the establishment of their own university. A university is the greatest gift any community can receive from a State. We are familiar with the classic example of how, with the establishment of the University of Leyden, after that city had defended itself against the invader for a very long time, die stadtholder said, “I am granting you the greatest gift any human being can grant another, a university for your city.” That is what the Afrikaans-speaking people as well as the English-speaking people who want to avail themselves of it, the people of the Witwatersrand, are being granted by means of this legislation.

The effect this university will have even on the metropolitan area of the Witwatersrand. will be so enriching and so far-reaching that we can merely guess at it to-day. Because we in Port Elizabeth have in the past years had the wonderful experience of being able to behold the birth of a university of our own and to enter into the spirit of it. we are feeling grateful along with the people of Johannesburg that they can behold and experience the establishment of a university of their own That is why we are feeling grateful and excited along with the people of Johannesburg that they can also share in this wonderful experience. It is obvious that the University of the Rand will be benefited by the way which has already been opened by the new University of Port Elizabeth. In this regard I am merely thinking of one little matter only, the amended formula of subsidies in respect of new universities without which we had to manage at first and in which this university will now share. We grant them that with all our heart. I trust that the most cordial cooperation will exist between these two institutions for higher education. It is important to keep in mind that no single university can at present cover the entire field in respect of science and technology. Every university should make its own choice and then concentrate on that specific branch of study and try to render the best also as far as research is concerned. At present scientific research requires expensive and highly specialized equipment with the result that intimate co-operation and consultation with other universities are virtually essential. The following was said recently in a lecture given by the Secretary of Education, Dr. Op ’t Hof—

He mentioned the example of 16 universities in the Southern States of America, all of which co-operate in regard to one nuclear reactor. Since the older existing universities have to a large extent become rooted to certain traditional patterns from which they cannot free themselves very easily, it is essential that these two newly-established universities should cooperate. not only in the interests of their communities, but also in the interests of the country’s development. As I see it, this University of the Witwatersrand will satisfy a tremendous want, as the Minister also indicated, and a tremendous duty will also rest on him, as the hon. member for Randfontein also indicated. The task of educating intellectually the young people with whom it is entrusted and so to meet the shortage of trained manpower, is not the only responsibility of a university.

To my mind the task of the university goes further than that. At many of the universities in the world it has become fashionable to-day to carry the concept of academic freedom to such an extreme that all fundamental values are broken down, that all moral and religious concepts are rejected, until the young student remains in a condition of total stupefaction and uncertainty because he has lost all his anchors. Professor Douglas Cornel writes that the head of a large American institution for higher education told him the following—

That is also the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Houghton. If this new university wants to train leaders who will be able to serve their people and fatherland—and how we shall need them in the years ahead! — emphasis will have to be laid on the fundamental and traditional values of the nation to which they belong. Then the religious and cultural ties should not be slackened, but indeed be tightened to an increasing extent.

This university can also render a mighty contribution in regard to solving the problems with which major cities are struggling at present by undertaking, in conjunction with town councils and bodies such as the C.S.I.R., research projects in regard to housing, transport, town planning, improving the general appearance of cities, urban renewal and atmospheric pollution. By doing that the university can extend its sphere of influence beyond its campus. Since consideration should be given to industrial mechanization and automation on the Rand, this area can provide that university with a very fertile field in which to make a contribution.

In conclusion it is my conviction that this university will become a very large university. In saying that it will become large, I mean that it is likely that there will be 20,000 to 30,000 students soon, within the foreseeable future. I know that it is the current policy that a university should not become so large, but the tremendous increase in the number of students over the past years convinces me that it will in fact happen. Over the past five years the number of students at the University of Pretoria alone, increased from 7,961 to 10,3000, an increase of approximately 2,500. In all the number of White students at the White universities increased by 23,000 over the past six years. That shows that we shall not be able to keep ahead by establishing new universities every now and then, because land, buildings and equipment are expensive, and the services of trained university graduates are difficult to obtain. If one must have a large university with many students, one must necessarily make provision for a large campus. Many of the older universities are saddled with the problem that they do not have sufficient room for expansion. I should like to make an appeal to the Minister and to the council of this university, which will be constituted soon, that in this regard, too, they should do things on a large scale and therefore acquire sufficient land for this university. It is said that a university may perhaps manage with a smaller campus by having higher buildings constructed, but all modern universities in the world are finding to-day that it is not practical to construct a university building, apart from the hostel building, higher than three stories, because it leads to organizational problems and because the equipment is too heavy to be carried up so high. It is also said that different faculties can be housed on different pieces of land and that the large campus can be eliminated in that way, but the inter-disciplinary approach which modern universities adopt in respect of courses of study, has the effect that an engineering faculty, for instance, and a medical faculty can maintain very close liaison with each other in certain fields, and that necessitates their remaining in close touch with each other. That is why I should like to point out that although land is expensive at present, provision should nevertheless be made for sufficient land, because land will be even more expensive in the future.

I conclude by conveying my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister on the great honour which has fallen to his share, namely that of being responsible for the birth of two South African universities. That is not a privilege many people are destined to enjoy. It bears testimony to particular vision and insight, and soon, when these young universities, for the establishment of which he is responsible, start producing dynamic young leaders of whom our country is in such need, the people of South Africa will be sincerely grateful to him. On behalf of the young University of Port Elizabeth I should like to convey the heartiest congratulations to the new Rand University.

There are educationists who believe that it would be better to extend and improve our existing institutions instead of establishing new universities in South Africa, and I have heard some of them making out a reasonably good case for doing so. I believe, however, that in years ahead higher education in South Africa will have to be made much more freely available than is the case at present. Therefore I regard all extensions which are effected at present, such as that which is being effected here this afternoon by means of this Bill, as a step in the direction of making new facilities available which will open the way to the future when university education will be made available more freely and abundantly than at present. Over the years we have obtained many improvements in regard to the availability of bursaries to young students, but even so I am afraid that we are still rather bound to the old system, namely whether a child can further his studies does not depend so much on his special talents and his ultimate value to society, but rather on the ability of his parents to foot the bill. I think that is a wrong principle in a rich country such as South Africa. Here we should be moving away from that principle. We on this side believe that advanced education should not depend on the ability of a parent to foot the bill for his child, but should depend solely on the ability of the child to develop his talents in the service of society. We should like to see a stage being reached in our country where a child who has proved his talent may rely on the full support of the State to see him through his higher education. Education should be regarded at all times, not as an item of expenditure but as an investment. It is a simple fact that money invested in education is not money spent but is money invested; because the person who equips himself to the best of his ability, with the assistance of the State, if necessary, will, as a result of his higher training be so much more able to occupy a good position in society and to earn a better salary; and the person who earns a better salary gives back more, financially and otherwise, to the State. For that reason I am hoping that we shall progress much further in the direction of making university education available on the basis of the ability of people to render service to society and to develop their talents, rather than on the ability of their parents to foot the bill. This is the first reason why we support and welcome this Bill, because we feel that we are dealing here, in the first place, with an extension of facilities for higher education and the creation of an extra instrument in South Africa for the encouragement and the promotion of higher education.

The second reason why we welcome this Bill, is the following: South Africa is a country of variety. We do not like compulsory separations a great deal, but we do like an acceptance of our variety and diversity in South Africa. To-day one may enter a Dutch Reformed Church or a Catholic Church or an Anglican Church and one will immediately be aware where one finds oneself. The same applies to schools. If one enters Bishops one is immediately aware that one is entering an English school; if one enters Jan van Riebeeck one is immediately aware that one is entering an Afrikaans school; if one enters the German school in Tamboerskloof one is also immediately aware that one is entering a German school. It is not always so easy to explain why that is so, but there is something which is peculiar to each of them; but all of them are South African and the one is not less South African than the other because it has that character which is peculiar to itself. All of them, whether they are Afrikaans or English or German in character, are an integral part of our South African diversity, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the past number of years the Afrikaans community of Johannesburg has increased to a large extent, and for that reason we feel that the establishment of an Afrikaans university on the Witwatersrand is not only desirable but essential. In the establishment of such an Afrikaans university on the Rand we are merely being true to the South African character of diversity. For this reason I as a Johannesburg member may say that the establishment of this institution not only has our support but is welcomed by us. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not quite sure that we have chosen the best name for this institution. I want to make it quite clear that I have no objection at all to the name “Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit”. After all, the value of an institution is not dependent on its name. But I do wonder whether the best choice has been made, because, in the first place, we are living in a period in which words are abbreviated and I must admit that I am not particularly impressed by the sound and the appearance of the abbreviation r.a.u. But this is not the predominant consideration. What is predominant to me is that the name “Randse Universiteit”, as this institution will generally be known, will create confusion and, in the second place, does not altogether do justice to Johannesburg as city. We have the University of the Witwatersrand, popularly called Wits.; but that institution is also generally referred to as the “Randse Universiteit”. It is a practice amongst many people who hold degrees of the University of the Witwatersrand to place the word “Rand” in brackets behind their degree. The University of the Witwatersrand is popularly referred to as the “Randse Universiteit”. I must say that to me it does seem like some lack of originality to call this new university “Randse Universiteit”, although its full name will be the “Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit”. I do not want to make a too serious matter of this, because to me the institution is more important than the name, but I nevertheless find it a pity that justice is not being done here to the name of Johannesburg. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) pointed out that for the first time in South Africa one now had a city accommodating two residential universities within its boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, there are, inter alia, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of Port Elizabeth, the University of Pretoria. That does not mean that the University of Stellenbosch, for instance, is only for people of Stellenbosch. It has a much wider range; it is a university for everyone in South Africa. Johannesburg is the largest city in South Africa to-day; it is the most important city in Africa, and it is a city which is known throughout the world; it is known world-wide. Wherever one goes, everyone knows where Johannesburg is, and I find it a pity that in this case the university is not called the “University of Johannesburg” as it should be called and that the Government is participating in this disparagement of Johannesburg. Whether it is too late to effect a change the hon. the Minister himself will know, but if it is not too late I want to ask him to consider whether it would not be better to call the new institution the University of Johannesburg.

Quite a number of objections were raised to the question of the “conscience clause”. We are in full agreement with the point of view expressed by the hon. members for Musgrave and Rosettenville. The entire record of the Opposition shows that it is a champion for protecting the rights of minorities and that it is a guardian of the idea of freedom of religion. There cannot be any doubt about it that if the Opposition was not satisfied with the situation as stated in Clause 20, it would have been extremely difficult to give this support to this Bill this afternoon. But I nevertheless want to say to the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill: The conscience clause is a university tradition, and one wonders whether it is worthwhile to substitute a new formula for the conscience clause. I am only mentioning this because a university is very dependent on the goodwill of the public, and this new Afrikaans university on the Witwatersrand will have to rely not only on the support of the Afrikaans-speaking section but on the support of all population groups.

During the past five years South Africans have contributed approximately R20,000,000 in the form of gifts to South African universities, and of this amount more than 70 per cent came from business concerns in South Africa. If a university wants to grow, then it needs the goodwill and the confidence of a much wider circle than the circle of the Afrikaans community on the Rand and in South Africa; and while we are satisfied—otherwise we would not have given our support to this measure—that Clause 20 is satisfactory I am merely mentioning that the question does arise whether it is worthwhile to arouse suspicion by not using the traditional formula. I must say that people attach a quite exaggerated value to the meaning of the so-called conscience clause. On the long run it is, after all, the university authority which decides in a variety of ways who is to study at the university and who is to teach at the university, but then, of course, the argument also holds good for the hon. the Minister and for those who wish to do away with the old formula, namely that they, too, should not attach such an exaggerated value to the conscience clause. Be that as it may, we may perhaps add to the reply we have given to the objections raised by the hon. member for Houghton, that Afrikaans-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking concerns generally prefer a more positive approach than that of the traditional conscience clause. For this reason we adopt the attitude, in view of the fact that this is the wish and the approach of the majority of the Afrikaans-speaking people, that it would be wrong to be opposed to this entire institution on the grounds of an objection to the form of the conscience clause. There are people who prefer the old conscience clause, which actually is in the nature of a prohibition, to the command contained in Clause 20, but we are satisfied that Clause 20 meets the requirements and that it is also closer to the general feeling of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population.

In conclusion: Here we are standing on the eve of something good being born. The hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill is the person who has the authority and it is largely going to depend on him how the new university is going to progress from this point onwards, and therefore I should like to say to the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House: The Afrikaans community is not different to other sections of the population. We also have our various groups and our various schools of thought in the Afrikaans community. Were that otherwise, we would not have been a mature community but it is going to be of the utmost importance in what hands the hon. the Minister will let the control and administration of this university fall. We have in our population group people who are inclined to think negatively and who believe that the future of the Afrikaner lies in seclusion. There are people who interpret the history in such a way that the Afrikaner’s salvation lies in seclusion and in a spirit of anti-all-the-others. Unfortunately in this case, too, there were people who could not speak with any authority but who did the wrong thing during the early stages and wanted to justify the establishment of the university in a spirit of anti-this and anti-that. The hon. the Minister has made it obvious to the satisfaction of all that this is not his attitude nor the attitude of the Government. But from this point onwards the management and the progress of the university will be in his and in the Government’s hands. We believe that he will be rendering the Afrikaans community a great disservice if he does not exercise the largest measure of selectiveness when it comes to those who will have to build up this university.

We all know that tremendous challenges are awaiting South Africa and we South Africans and therefore also the Afrikaans-speaking South African. In the years ahead we shall have to seek understanding with other population groups. At present thousands of people come to South Africa who are not Afrikaans-speaking and who have to find a place and make themselves at home in South Africa. We shall have to seek understanding with new countries around us, and this will not only require knowledge but also contact, and for this reason we believe that exaggerated seclusion holds no salvation for the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner. It has already been proved that the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner can hold his own in competition with anybody else and also that where there is contact and co-operation with others he is often called upon to take the lead. Therefore we feel that it would not be fair to the interests of the Afrikaans child if the development of this new university should come in the hands of people who display an anti-spirit towards others and who believe that the salvation of the Afrikaner is to be found in seclusion and in separatism. Let the spirit of this university be a positive Afrikaans spirit. We hope that it will become an Afrikaans institution which will develop the power to attract and on which South Africans of all language groups can be rightly proud. In this spirit it affords us much pleasure to support this Bill.

As the last speaker on this side of the House it is my pleasant duty, just before I proceed to discuss various other matters, to express a few words of thanks, in the first place to the hon. the Minister of Education for his sympathetic and helpful approach to this effort which was begun by people on the Rand a few years ago. He put his shoulder to the wheel and assisted the Rand Afrikaners in every possible way to establish this university. We are reaping the benefit of that assistance to-day in the form of this Bill. In the second place I want to pay tribute to Dr. P. J. Meyer, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, who, with his team of helpers, did the spade-work, the pioneer work, over a period of many months in order to make this effort what it is to-day.

I think that I am speaking on behalf of all the Rand Afrikaners when I say that something great is yet to happen as far as this Rand Afrikaans University is concerned, and this through the work of this team of people led by Dr. Meyer. In the third place I should like to express my thanks for the congratulatory messages from the Cape, from, with one exception, the youngest university in South Africa, viz., the University of Port Elizabeth, through the medium of the hon. member for Algoa. I just want to tell the hon. member that I am sure that when the Rand Afrikaans University becomes operative in 1968, we shall certainly be able to take a leaf out of the book of the University of Port Elizabeth, which has already done its spade-work and which has already begun to teach students. I want to thank the hon. member very much indeed for his kind words and for the suggestions which he made in his speech.

I want to say that this is a red letter day for the Rand Afrikaners. It is a joyous day for us, not only because this university is being given corporate status here in this House, but also because we have to-day experienced a wonderful spirit on the part of hon. members of the Opposition. We want to thank them very much indeed for the helpful spirit and lack of antagonism with which they have approached and accepted this ideal for which we have striven for so many years. We have thus made further progress along the road of fostering a better understanding between the two sections of the population as far as our language and cultural matters are concerned. I want to say furthermore that we on this side greatly appreciate the fact that the Opposition. with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton, have dissociated themselves to-day from efforts which have been made in the past to arouse suspicion as regards the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University. We are very grateful to them in that through the medium of their Speeches here they have proved conclusively that they feel that there is a need for the establishment of a second university on the Rand, a university which will cater for the character and spirit of the Afrikaner.

I just want to point out that only recently an English-language newspaper referred to the Rand Afrikaans University as an “x tribal college”. I am very pleased that we have been able to-day to move away from that sort of approach and atmosphere and that all we have had here has been praise for the efforts which are being made to establish an university for Afrikaners on the Rand, a university which will have an Afrikaans atmosphere. It was very clear to us at the start when this effort was begun that there were many bodies —and I want here specifically to exclude the United Party—which did not exactly accept the effort with open arms. That is why we are so grateful for the friendly approach that we have experienced here to-day. We think of the unfriendly attitude which we experienced in the educational sphere on the Rand in the past; we think, for example, of the struggle we had a few years ago when we wanted to establish an Afrikaans commercial high school in Parktown; we remember how certain bodies made use of every possible method to place obstacles in our path.

Recently too, when negotiations were being carried on with the Johannesburg Country Club in order to acquire the site for this Afrikaans University, it was noticeable that certain bodies tried to stir up the feelings of those inhabitants who would be affected by the purchase of certain stands to make up the site for this university. We are very pleased that those attempts failed completely and that we have to-day had this sympathetic approach on the part of the Opposition. One cannot get away from the fact that there are nevertheless bodies and persons on the Rand that begrudge the Afrikaner a place in the good area of Johannesburg for the establishment of his academic institutions. In actual fact they do not want the Afrikaans university to be established on the Rand. I am not referring to the Opposition when I say this; I am referring to certain bodies and persons that have always been inimically disposed towards the aims and ideals of the Afrikaner, and for this reason we again express our heartfelt thanks to the Opposition. Those of us who represent constituencies on the Rand know what a joyous day this is for the 400,000 Afrikaners throughout the Witwatersrand in that the establishment of this university has now become a reality.

I believe that the Afrikaner people could to-day have been playing a far larger part in the industrial and business life of Johannesburg. Immeasurable talent among our Afrikaner boys and girls was lost to us because we did not have an Afrikaans institution for higher education which was in keeping with the character and ideals of the Afrikaner. This Bill which the hon. the Minister is piloting through this House will satisfy the highest ideals of the Afrikaner. We have travelled a long road. One does not want to go back too far into history because one might perhaps open old wounds, but there was a time 30 years ago on the Rand when the language and culture of the Afrikaner was denied and trampled underfoot; when it was necessary that an organization like the Handhawersbond be established, an organization which had to protect the interests of the Afrikaner’s language and culture. Mr. Speaker, how many young Afrikaner boys and girls, the children of workers in the various suburbs and areas of Johannesburg and throughout the Witwatersrand, were deprived of an academic education because their parents simply could not afford to send them to university?

We do have the University of the Witwatersrand there, and under no circumstances do I wish to cast any reflection upon the academic standard of that institution. It has produced outstanding leaders in various spheres in this country, but unfortunately it is a fact that in recent years a liberalistic spirit, a liberalistic tendency, has become noticeable on the part of this institution, and for this reason many Afrikaans-speaking parents, imbued with the idea of having a university in Johannesburg which would breathe the nature and the character of the Afrikaner, did not see their way clear to sending their children there, and one could not blame them for feeling this way, no matter how high the standard of academic education at the University of the Witwatersrand was. The Johannesburg Afrikaners refuse to allow more Stephanie Kemps and Lynette van der Riets to be produced. Many of these Afrikaans boys and girls came from good Afrikaans-speaking homes but they went to study at the liberalistically inclined universities and I need not remind the House of the end result of their so doing.

Nor do I understand why the hon. member for Houghton is so upset about this conscience clause. I want to say too that we appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Kensington accepted the hon. the Minister’s assurance that this conscience clause contained nothing sinister. We naturally expected this attitude on the part of the hon. member for Kensington because he is a person who was for many years an inspector of education in the Transvaal and dealt with both sections of the population. We are very grateful to him for having accepted that assurance from an Afrikaans-speaking Minister.

I want, however, to come to the hon. member for Houghton now. I want to ask her whether she has any objection to the new formula which has been devised for the appointment of lecturers and staff at this Rand Afrikaans University which is to be established. All we are doing is to reiterate our humble submission to Almighty God, as is provided in the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic. We reiterate too in Section 20 that we are convinced of the necessity of standing together in order to safeguard the freedom and inviolability of our country, and secondly, to maintain law and order therein. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she does not subscribe to those important principles, as defined in our Constitution? All that is happening in regard to this new formula that has been devised is that an attempt is now being made, in no uncertain fashion, to keep communists and atheists out of this university. We do not want to discriminate against anybody on the grounds of religion. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that according to this new formula not even members of the religious faith of her particular race will be discriminated against. If they want to go and study at the Rand Afrikaans University, they may be admitted. Members of her faith may be appointed as lecturers too. No attempt at all is being made to discriminate against anybody on the grounds of religious convictions. This change has simply been effected to prevent atheists and communists from pursuing their activities in the lecture halls and on the campus of this new university, as has happened in regard to other universities. We want to prevent what happened, for example, in the case of the University of the Witwatersrand, where an association called the Rationalists’ Society was founded. It was simply a conglomeration of atheists, and the chairman of that society was the late Professor Eddie Roux, a listed communist. I understand that the son of a former D.R. minister is now the chairman of that society. We want to avoid a similar trend at this university. Because of the times in which we are living, we shall have to adopt a watchful attitude in this new university. Because our enemies have been beaten on the political battle-field, they are now attacking the South African nation on a new front, namely, the intellect of our youth, and attempts are being made to make them ripe at university for Liberalism and Communism with a view to its being so much easier at a later stage to indoctrinate them. I believe that the time has come—and I think I am speaking on behalf of all the Afrikaners on the Witwatersrand, indeed, on behalf of all in South Africa—for the cause of conservatism in South Africa to be put fearlessly and clearly against Liberalism, also as far as our university institutions are concerned. We on this side of the House are not afraid to say that the Rand Afrikaans University will exude a conservative spirit; that it will have an Afrikaans spirit and character which it will maintain. I believe that this university will be established in that spirit and will make an important academic contribution towards strengthening the Afrikaner, not only on the Witwatersrand, but throughout South Africa.

I think the hon. member for Turffontein will pardon me if I do not follow him too far in the arguments he has advanced. I believe that where we are dealing with this fine new idea of an Afrikaans university on the Rand, we should rather look at the constructive results which may be achieved in the future as a result of the establishment of this university and that one should not pay so much attention to the past. I am sure that both of us, as representatives of constituencies on the Rand, share in the joy over the fact that an institution such as this is going to be established, and we are glad of the fine spirit that has prevailed on both sides of this House at the birth of this university.

I welcome this university, more particularly for the following six main reasons, which I shall mention briefly. First of all, I believe that any institution of an educational nature which will add to the sum of human knowledge and will increase the knowledge of our young South African men and women is to be welcomed, whether or not one agrees with everything in that institution. I welcome such an institution as long as it serves the great task of education generally.

My second reason is this: More particularly I welcome the fact that we shall have such an institution on the Witwatersrand. It is an indisputable fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people on the Witwatersrand for whom a university such as this will be of great importance, for whom a university such as this will be able to fulfil a need which the University of Pretoria or the University of the Witwatersrand cannot fulfil. In saying this I do not mean to attack those two universities. If we look at the reports which have been submitted to us in this House, if we look at the shortages which exist in the scientific field, the shortage of technicians in our industries, in our mining industry and in our Public Service and if we look at the enormous expansion we expect will take place in our country during the next century, we can only welcome the establishment of this institution for that part of South Africa, which is the soul of the country’s industrial and economic life. I am sure that an institution such as this can and will become the pride of the Witwatersrand, which it is called upon to serve, and it would be most irresponsible for me as a representative of a constituency on the Witwatersrand to oppose a university such as this.

The third reason why I welcome this university is that I am firmly convinced that the Bill, as it stands here, forbids any form of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. What is written here, will be interpreted by the courts as meaning that Clause 20 has the same force as any conscience clause. I want to make it very clear that if I were not convinced that this particular clause had the same force as a conscience clause, I would not have voted in favour of this Bill. There is such a thing as a prohibition and there is such a thing as a commandment; there are prohibitions and there are commandments. The Great Tables of the Law contain laws which say “Thou shalt not” and others which say “Thou shalt”, but both have the same force. That is why I also believe that this provision which says “Thou shalt” has the same force as a provision which says “Thou shalt not”. Our attitude in this connection is based on the best legal knowledge to be found in our country. I feel satisfied with this particular clause in this Bill because if it should ever happen that any particular person should complain of discrimination on the grounds of his belief— something I hope will never happen—it could be tested in terms of this clause. By virtue of this clause such a person may then take recourse to the courts in order to obtain a decision. In the light of what we have heard, particularly from the hon. member for Musgrave, I am convinced that we shall find that we have here a satisfactory, and even more than a satisfactory, guarantee for the liberty of conscience we seek. I also want to express the hope that the so far unknown lawyer of the hon. member for Houghton will then also be allowed to put his case.

The fourth reason why I support this university is that we should recognize that this university is being established mainly for the Afrikaans-speaking section on the Witwatersrand, and if there is any section who should have a say in the form this university is to take it is the Afrikaans-speaking section on the Witwatersrand. I think too that the university they are going to have here will be in accordance with what they, and we, are seeking. I am convinced that this university, in the form it will take, will attune itself to the feelings and needs of the Afrikaans-speaking section on the Witwatersrand.

I now come to the fifth reason why I support this university. The hope has been expressed here this afternoon that this new university will not mean competition for other universities, and so forth. I for one adopt a completely different attitude, because I sincerely hope that this new university will provide healthy competition for the existing universities in Pretoria and on the Rand. Where would Cambridge have been without Oxford? Where would Stellenbosch have been without Cape Town, or vice versa? Where would they have been without healthy competition on the sports fields and in the academic sphere? It is because this competition has existed that these universities have developed all along. Personally I am already looking forward to the first inter-varsity between these two universities on the Witwatersrand.

There is also a sixth reason why I support this Bill. All of us have our own ideas about the kind of university we should like to see established. In fact, there are four or five or six different kinds of universities one can think of. For example, there could have been a university with the old traditional conscience clause; there could have been a university with a clause such as Clause 20 of this Bill; and there could have been a university without any provision of this nature at all. Even if we did not have Clause 20 in this Bill academic freedom would still have been guaranteed. But now that this clause is contained in this Bill I think we have something more than merely a Bill without any provision whatsoever. We could also have considered a Bill which could in certain respects have gone specifically against the conscience clause. In this connection I have in mind especially the university at Potchefstroom which, for historical reasons, has the words “Christian historic” in its preamble, in addition to having the specific clause which deals with appointments at the university itself. There were, however, reasons for that. It is quite interesting to recall that General Smuts was one of the members who voted in favour of that Bill when it served before this House. We could also have considered a university with a highly exceptionable clause such as the one suggested for the University of the Orange Free State a few years ago. In that clause it was laid down that regard should be had to adherence to the Protestant belief when persons were appointed to that university. We strongly opposed the proposed clause at the time, with the result that it was rejected.

The last alternative we could have had was to have no university at all. As far as I am concerned, we had to choose between either the university asked for here by the Minister or no university. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, her choice was either no university or a university as she would have liked it namely a university with the ordinary conscience clause. Apparently she did not consider this, but if she had to choose she would have preferred not to have a university rather than to establish one that would be an educational institution where scientists and technicians needed for the development of South Africa could be trained. If she cannot have it her way as far as the conscience clause is concerned, she does not want the Afrikaans-speaking section of the Witwatersrand to have any university at all. I reject that attitude most strongly. If I have to choose between either no university or a university of this nature, I choose a university of this nature.

This new university will only harm itself if it does not uphold the traditions of academic freedom and the highest traditions of liberty of conscience. I do not believe it will do so, but if it does not uphold those principles it is the institution itself that will suffer most. Of course, I hope the leaders of this university will be responsible enough to see to it that these high standards are maintained.

As a university which is being established by means of legislation, it is only in its initial stages. Its development will come in the course of centuries. Viewed in that light, I wonder whether we may speak of a university in South Africa, even though some of our universities have been in existence for 40 and 50 years. Over against that I think of universities such as those at Salerno, Bologna, Paris, Marburgh, Bonn, Oxford, Cambridge, Grenoble and other great universities which have been in existence for nearly 1,000 years. They have built up their traditions during that time. If we compare our universities with them, we realize that we are only making a humble beginning here. What this university is going to become in the future will depend on its leaders. It can act as a leavening agent in the community, and I hope that the community will also make its influence felt on this new university. I hope that many years hence, when all of us will have passed away, this university will occupy a proud position amongst the other universities and that it will be a great honour to our country.

The establishment of a new university in South Africa is an event we do not witness every day. In the past two years, however, we have witnessed the establishment of universities first at Port Elizabeth and now on the Witwatersrand. In my opinion, that is a more than conclusive reply to the allegations that were made in this House only recently, i.e. that this Government devotes too little attention and spends too little on the training of our talented young people. I believe it will not be inappropriate if on behalf of the oldest Afrikaans university in the country, namely the University of Stellenbosch, I convey my congratulations to the hon. the Minister and to all other hon. members in this House who exerted themselves in the cause of this university, as well as to the university which is to be established as such. It is the youngest baby in our university family. The congratulations of the University of Stellenbosch are particularly appropriate, because it reached the climax to the festivities in respect of its centenary this very week. One must of necessity recall the circumstances in which the first Afrikaans university came into being. At that time there was the feeling in South Africa that there was actually no room for an Afrikaans university. All endeavours, funds and powers were devoted to the establishment of a university here in Cape Town. There was a small group of people, however, particularly at Stellenbosch, who had the foresight to realize that special provision had to be made for those people who spoke the Afrikaans language, people with the outlook of Afrikaners, and that another university next to the University of Cape Town, even in a competitive position, would best serve the interests of South Africa.

I do not want to boast of the achievements of the University of Stellenbosch, but I cannot help comparing them with the future that awaits the university we are establishing now. This university, of course, is being established under different circumstances altogether. Firstly, it is interesting to note the date. On 5th October, 1960, i.e. exactly six years ago, South Africa decided to become a Republic. On 5th October, 1966, i.e. to-day. this House is deciding that an Afrikaans University shall be established on the Witwatersrand, under circumstances that are completely different from those that obtained when the University of Stellenbosch came into being. The need for this new university is felt in the largest urban complex in South Africa, where the Afrikaner has since ensconced himself and has by now become virtually the strongest section of that community. When the University of Stellenbosch came into being, the Afrikaner was mainly in the rural areas.

A special task awaits this new university, namely to serve as a training centre for our Afrikaners in the large cities, in this case on the Witwatersrand. If we consider that on 5th October, six years ago, we decided to become a Republic, and we see the establishment of this new university six years afterwards in the same context, then this new university can enter into its task under completely different and more favourable circumstances, starting with the congratulations of the English-speaking members in this House, such as the hon. members for Kensington, for Rosettenville and others. I want to join the ranks of all those hon. members who have conveyed their good wishes to this new university. I trust that one day, when this new university celebrates its centenary, it will be able to look back on a period in which it was able to render great services to South Africa, and particularly to the Afrikaans-speaking people in our cities.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. House of Assembly has to-day once again proved to the whole world, and particularly to South Africa, that it has maintained the sound traditional university policy which it has always adhered to in respect of the passing of private bills. Some of the hon. members on the Opposition side have stated quite rightly that in this regard the desire of a certain group of people was being satisfied. At the time when the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer Onderwys was established, that principle was adhered to by this hon. House. The University of Potchefstroom requested that in its private Bill the conscience clause should be defined so positively, in accordance with its Christian character. Although it was introduced by a private member and not by the Minister, and although it was a private measure, a free vote was allowed, and just like to-day, the Opposition and the Government concurred. Not only do I want to thank the Opposition, in the first place, but I also want to congratulate them for having shared the broad view of the Government side, namely that if a group of people want their own institution and the institution they prefer is such that it will not come into conflict with any of the broad principles of the country, then that desire should be honoured. We have witnessed that to-day.

In the second place I want to thank them very much for that. I think that when such a new institution is established, and in view of the fact that we are dealing with matters that are superior to party politics and in the interests of the country as a whole, with acknowledgment of the diversity that exists, as was also pointed out by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the diversity that has always existed and that will always exist in our country, it need not result in quarrelling, jealousy and the detriment of one or the other. The best thing about a garden of flowers is always its variety of colours and scents, although the whole presents a beautiful display. The only discordant note in the entire House to-day is the hon. member for Houghton.

The weed.

It is really a pity that that should be so, but that is the type … [Interjections.]

Now, the great pre-requisite of a better understanding of each other in South Africa is to be less suspicious, to begin to think positively and to stop reading things that are not there. Now I thank the Opposition for joining this side in reading correctly. The Rand Afrikaners want a university that will be an Afrikaans University in spirit and character. They are entitled to that. They want a university where, just like any citizens of the country, they will subscribe fully—as was done by this House in 1961—to the preamble to the Constitution, with heart and soul.

We now come to the fundamental principle, and that is this positive statement. A great deal has been said about it to-day. Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton should read between the lines where she had the wrong ideas, or perhaps not the wrong ideas, but where she deliberately allowed herself to be misled. Surely we have grown and matured with regard to this entire question of the approach to religious convictions and religious freedom. Show me a country with a tradition like that of the Republic of South Africa, where the religious convictions of everybody may be freely pursued. That freedom has not existed only from to-day, it has not existed only since we became a Republic, but it has existed in this country for many years. There have never been restraints on the pursuit of anybody’s religious convictions in this country. Even in the entire Western world this is one of the few countries where that is the case. There are parts of the civilized Western world where one does not find the freedom of religion enjoyed here in the Republic of South Africa. There are countries that speak of a State church. No State church is recognized here. Nor is it the function of the Government to interfere with the beliefs of its subjects. It is in fact the function of the Government to see to it that there is law and order, and that there shall be no persecution of any religious belief. That is its function. It may not venture into that sphere. That is the Calvinistic view of the relationship between church and state.

Our state is essentially Christian. We are that. But we recognize all the other religions—recognize is the wrong word; we grant them full freedom to act as they wish. When we deal with a clause such as this, it goes without saying that the Afrikaans community, which will have control over that university, will select the persons who are to do the lecturing. In fact, that has been conceded here. No matter what clause one inserts to deal with religious convictions or religious freedom, it does not belong here. I repeat what I said the first time: It does not belong here. I could mention a string of other things. Do we want only people who tell us that they cannot be precluded because they belong to the Reformed Church or to the Dutch Reformed Church? Is that all? Will there be no enquiries into the man’s moral life, into the way he lives up to principles? Will no other norms be applied to such a person? Of course. One will do that, no matter what clause you have. But one will not start a witchhunt by saying that because this person adheres to that religious belief, we do not want him. I can imagine, for example—as the clause reads at present—that if the new Rand Afrikaans University offers a course like Hebrew, for example, and there is a Jewish rabbi who is well-versed in it, then he will be appointed. Why not? Hebrew is his subject. One will not preclude him because he is a Jewish rabbi, and appoint someone who knows that subject less well. Or if lectures in Greek are offered, why should one not appoint a Greek who can do that lecturing properly, even though he belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church or to any church whatsoever?

Let me take another example. In the provinces teachers are appointed to our high schools. Nowhere in any of the Ordinances in respect of high schools will one find a conscience clause. As the hon. member for Orange Grove said, even there there cannot be a conscience clause. Even if there had been nothing at all, discrimination would still not have been possible. As I have said, no Ordinance contains a clause that provides that there may be no religious discrimination, or that there may be no enquiries into religious convictions. We have been working on that basis for all these years. But there is much more, if we want to begin placing one prohibition after the other on the type of man that may be employed. Once one becomes suspicious in this era in which we live, there are many more things in respect of which such a clause may be inserted than that in respect of which the hon. member for Houghton wants it now. She is merely tied down to the traditional practice. She has obtained a legal analysis of this aspect, and she says that if we omit it, it means by implication what she has said. I think the hon. member for Musgrave has given a conclusive reply in respect of that matter. There is no doubt about it. I think the hon. member for Houghton should go and consult her legal adviser again, or she should get another one.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker—particularly at the request of the hon. member for Rosettenville— that there is not the slightest attempt here to evade responsibility so that we may later say that, as a result of the omission of the customary and traditional conscience clause, the Rand Afrikaans University was not committed. I say I repeat that. Not only is that an assurance; it is in the first place a legal fact, as set out here to-day by lawyers, and secondly there is no sense in it. The hon. member for Houghton referred, for example to Section 11 of the Act of 1955, which gives a council the right, subject to the provisions of the University Act concerned relating to the prohibition of religious tests, to refuse admittance to any student who applies for admission should it consider it to be in the interests of the university concerned to do so. But at present one does not consider the interests. That is what the hon. member is missing altogether. If there is no such conscience clause, surely there are all the other provisions by which one may preclude him. Let me tell the hon. member for Houghton that if any of those wild young gentlemen applied to that university for admission and wanted to propagate all kinds of mischief there in respect of foreign ideologies, then as I interpret the Afrikaans spirit, this University Council would have the right to keep them out without abrogating academic freedom. All this hiding behind so-called academic freedom has simply become university licence. It is devoid of all value, and a breeding ground of iniquities. The Afrikaans spirit and character of that university will ensure that that cannot happen.

I do not think there is much I have to add to that, except for this: As regards this university’s conscience clause, there were some hon. members who asked whether in making this amendment the game was worth the candle. We were asked why we were doing it and whether it was necessary to do it. They said that if the amendment was meaningless, the existing clause could just as well have been retained. Well, as I said in my second-reading speech, there has been slavish imitation by the seven universities in this respect ever since 1916. The University of Port Elizabeth made a slight change. But everybody said that the retention of this clause was the easiest way of getting by. I think that in the enlightened times in which we are living, we should not demean ourselves and cramp ourselves with the idea that the problem of discrimination nowadays is a problem in the religious sphere. With her ideological view on matters, there are many other spheres which should cause the hon. member for Houghton concern, where she will not succeed either, with or without this clause. Here we have a positive statement. What do we want in a university? Has the hon. member for Houghton ever gone to the trouble of seeing whether there are in fact conscience clauses in other university laws in the rest of the world? I went and looked for them, and I did not find them. But this is something with which we here in South Africa have been burdened for years, without any religious persecution taking place in this country. Everybody can be assured of his position here. I think we have made history to-day by accepting this principle. We are now taking our stand on a great and a broad principle. All of us stand together on a platform of knowledge, and we tell the world that South Africa is now over its adolescence and that it is mature and that its people must have academic qualifications if they want to lecture or study at the university. And when it professes to its beliefs, it can do so in a short preamble, just as this university has done, an Afrikaans spirit and character based on the preamble to the Constitution; in other words, South African through and through. What more do we want? We are harming no one. We are prejudicing no one and we are establishing a new university on a basis of knowledge. So much for Clause 20.

I just want to deal with a few points raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) said that it was a university of and for our times, and I want to underline that, because I think it was succinctly put. That should actually become part of the motto of the new university. As regards Clause 20, the hon. member also expressed a thought which I should like to confirm and underline. Our interpretation of the conscience clause is positive selection instead of negative discrimination. Negative discrimination testifies to immaturity. A mature person does not care for that type of thing, but select positively and you are achieving something.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) once again on the very thorough way in which he refuted the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. That was well done. It evokes general agreement. But it is also clear to me that the basis on which the Opposition supports the Bill is that basis and that one only. The congratulations conveyed on behalf of the various university towns, such as Port Elizabeth and Stellenbosch, are highly appreciated, and also the cooperation of the West Rand and the East Rand, as well as all the fine things said in respect of myself.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made certain observations about the name. The hon. member should realize that we had some difficulties with the name. We could not use the name “Witwatersrand”; we had to define it more precisely and we had to bring in the Afrikaans, because the certificates of the Witwatersrand University contain the word “Rand” in parenthesis, and here we had to give a different definition, but we could not use “Johannesburg”. It has been a joint effort by the entire Witwatersrand. and we therefore could not call it the Johannesburg University. I may tell the hon. member that there were difficulties at the beginning, because Boksburg asked: “Why not here?” And Germiston said they would donate so many hundred morgen of land, and Alberton and Krugersdorp all made offers, and to satisfy all of them we now place it in the centre and we call it the Rand University. Money is now flowing in from all those municipalities, and we therefore have to keep to the name.

Finally I want to say thank you very much for the fine spirit displayed to-day in this new establishment which we have witnessed together. I want to give the House the assurance that the motive for the establishment of the university for the Afrikaans-speaking people on the Witwatersrand is an impeccable one. It is a motive of service, and there are no ulterior motives. It is not directed against other institutions. It will be a subsidized institution, just as all the other institutions are subsidized, even if they are not always very courteous. But we put knowledge above everything else; we want to have the emphasis on the great value of the freedom of knowledge. If that has a certain meaning to the hon. member for Houghton, then it has a different meaning to hon. members on this side and also to many members of the Opposition. The freedom allowed to her to pursue her knowledge, we claim for ourselves. The history that has been made here to-day, that we could do it in such a way, is worth remembering. We want to express our gratitude and give the assurance that this university, in the ranks of the universities, will pursue knowledge and seek truth, and I am convinced that it will be an asset to our country and our people.

Motion put and division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Clause 1:

Instruction stated to Committee.

I want to move an amendment to Clause 1 which does not appear on the Order Paper, but which is quite simple. After consultations with my senior officials and myself, the university started classes at Vereeniging this year. This amendment of the Bill is therefore necessary to legalize those classes from the outset. As a result of certain representations, however, the Council of the university decided not to pursue their university activities at Sasolburg as well. I therefore move as an amendment—

Briefly, what it amounts to is that the university will be extended only to Vereeniging and Vanderbylpark, and that Sasolburg is deleted.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put.

Sir, I wish to address you on Clause 1.

The amendment to subsection (1) has already been agreed to and the hon. member cannot discuss sub-section (1) any more.

But I wish to address you on the clause, Sir.

Well, I put the clause and nobody rose to address the Committee. The amendment at the end of sub-section (1) has already been agreed to, so we cannot go back to that sub-section.

Then I would like to debate the amendment because I have not had an opportunity of doing so.

I put the amendment and no one objected. Therefore I thought it was agreed to. I am sorry. I now put Clause 1. Any objection?

On a point of order, Sir, cannot the hon. member discuss the clause?

I first put the amendment and it was agreed to, and after that the discussion closed, and now I put the clause as amended.

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

Very well, I will allow the hon. member to say a few words on the clause as amended.

May I just explain that I did stand up when you put the clause and then the hon. the Minister stood up and I gave him an opportunity to move his amendment.

I did not see the hon. member.

I merely want to ask for information about this clause. I am referring to the proviso. Now the University of Potchefstroom, similar to the new Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, is extending its activities to other parts of the Transvaal in addition to its work in Potchefstroom, and I should like to know how that work is to be carried out. Will it be carried out through extramural classes, or will there perhaps be correspondence courses? Will there be itinerant lecturers travelling from Potchefstroom to lecture at these places? Personally, I think it is a desirable development and I am not criticizing it, but I am anxious to know how it is to be carried out. I think the omission has been one of the weaknesses of our university development. In the old days Professor Orr, in establishing the Technical College of the Witwatersrand, had classes on the East Rand and on the West Rand, and he had itinerant lecturers in both places giving these courses. I should like to know, if the hon. the Minister can give this information, how this work is to be carried out. Will new classes be opened there and will property be purchased? What is the general plan, seeing that this is a new departure?

The only course they are giving now is for the B.Com. degree. They found quite a number of students living in Vereeniging who could not attend the classes at Potchefstroom, although it is only about 36 miles away, and so they arranged that internal lecturers of the Potchefstroom University should go to Vereeniging and give these classes extramurally. But that is only for the B.Com. course at present. Later on perhaps this may expand. We do not know, but up to now there are only a few classes, I think, two or three times a week.

Is this similar to the arrangement that Rhodes had at Port Elizabeth?

No, it is not on the same scale.

Rhodes had that arrangement with Port Elizabeth and it also had an arrangement with Fort Hare before we established separate university colleges. Is this the usual extension course held extramurally?

That is all.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I move the amendment printed in my name—

(c) by the substitution for paragraph (b) of sub-section (7) of the following paragraph:

May I ask whether this instruction is similar to the one we had in the case of Cape Town University?

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 4:

I move the amendment as printed—

4. The following section is hereby substituted for Section 9 of the principal Act:

Agreed to.

Title:

I move the amendment as printed—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether Water Affairs and Agricultural Technical Services have been put simultaneously?

No, the Water Affairs Vote has not been put. Water Affairs is Vote No. 34.

In the ten minutes at my disposal I should like to tell the hon. the Minister a few things about the Verbeek Report. This committee on drought-feeding was appointed as long ago as 1961. In December last year this committee presented its report and according to Landbounuus of December last year that report was to be made available to interested parties so as to enable them, in the first instance, to study the recommendations contained therein, and, in the second instance, to submit their views to the hon. the Minister who would subsequently decide what action to take in this connection. I want to say immediately that we in this House, particularly members on this side, naturally are very interested in the contents of the Verbeek Report. To my regret I must tell the hon. the Minister that no hon. member on this side of the House has seen or inspected that Report up to the present time, over and above what has been published in Landbounuus and in Total se Plaasgids.

We on this side of the House cannot always rely on departmental reports being made available to us, but I do want to tell the hon. the Minister that this Report is so important and that so many well-known and so many efficient officials served on this committee that it would be no more than fair to place that Report also at the disposal of hon. members on this side of the House who are interested in the Report. Therefore I am compelled this afternoon to put certain question on this Report to the hon. the Minister. In the first place, as I have already said, this Report was referred to interested parties for their comments. The Report was forwarded to interested parties for their comments virtually a year ago, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in formulating its ideas in so far as this Report is concerned; I should like to know whether the Department has received the comments of the interested parties or whether their comments are still being awaited? The other question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he can take us into his confidence and tell us when we may expect something more definite in connection with the Report he him self is going to present in this regard. There is one very important recommendation in the Verbeek Report. I have obtained this information not from the Report itself but from Total se Plaasgids. Apparently they have perused this Report and I want to quote to you what they stated (translation)—

I think that this particular recommendation is probably the most important recommendation in the committee’s report although I must admit, as I have not perused the report, that there may, in fact, be other important suggestions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends complying with the request that a central drought committee should be instituted for coordinating all assistance in times of drought. We are compelled to-day to bring the serious conditions existing in many areas of South Africa to the notice of the hon. the Minister once again. I think the hon. the Minister himself is aware of them. It is essential for us to do something of a permanent nature in order to prevent a repetition of the serious consequences of this drought. Various bodies and persons concerned in the agricultural industry have requested for many years that something of a permanent nature should be done in order to ensure that, in the event of a drought, we will have the necessary means at our disposal for combating its consequences as far as possible. I think that it is absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should take us into his confidence. I think that the basis of what we can do in this connection in the future is most probably to be found in the report of the committee on drought-feeding.

I do not want to say a great deal about the matter raised here by the hon. member for Newton Park. He really only tried to obtain information from the hon. the Minister. He is still harping on the drought and he wanted to know what the Government was going to do to prevent serious droughts. I do not know how the Government will be able to ensure general rains and to prevent droughts. Mr. Chairman, the United Party is finding the going very heavy. If the drought is broken, I do not know what they are going to speak about in this House.

About washaways.

Before proceeding, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the previous Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, namely Minister Le Roux. We shall always remember him as the Minister during whose term of office as Minister of Agricultural Technical Services many major projects were piloted through this House. Then I also want to welcome our new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. We know that he is a very sympathetic person; that he has much sympathy with the farmers. I want to make an appeal to the farmers of South Africa as well as to the villagers who need water to treat the hon. the Minister with leniency during this period of drought. It is not his fault that there is a drought. I want to appeal to the farmers that where the Minister sometimes has to curtail water supplies, where he has to limit their turns to use water, they will accept that in the right spirit. Where it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to give more water to people, I want to give them the assurance, especially to the farmers, that if they feel badly about the fact that the Minister had to curtail their supplies of water he himself feels worse about it because it is very difficult for him to say “No” to a farmer. His heart and soul is in the farming industry. We hope that Providence will bring rain so that the difficult task the hon. the Minister has to perform during these times of drought will be alleviated.

I now want to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister which has been affecting the farmers in the Eastern Free State for many years. I want to ask that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should render assistance to the cherry industry in that region. This industry has been established for many years. The Eastern Free State is a region of the country which is particularly suitable for this type of farming activity. The farmers themselves have made a great deal of progress on their own initiative. Many other kinds of fruit have also been cultivated in those regions in the past number of years. The cherry industry has developed to such an extent that the farmers there have been exporting cherries during the past number of years. A factory has also been established near Johannesburg for the local manufacture of crystallized cherries. The result of this is that it is not necessary to import such large quantities of crystallized cherries, in consequence of which South Africa has to send less money abroad, and, in addition, is earning foreign exchange abroad. Unfortunately, however, a virus disease, a type of curly leaf, has made its appearance amongst the cherry trees.

Root disease.

There is also root disease, but the virus disease affects both roots and leaves. This is a disease one even finds in England. It has an adverse effect on the yield of the tree and also shortens its life. We have made progress to the extent that the Department has imported a number of trees from England and has planted them at Stellenbosch by way of experiment. But the trouble is that the climatic conditions and the soil in the Eastern Free State are totally different to those in Stellenbosch. Therefore we would prefer the experiments to be conducted in the Eastern Free State. The tree is, in fact, growing at Stellenbosch but yields no fruit here. The difference as regards climatic conditions and the nature of the soil between Stellenbosch and the Eastern Free State is so marked that even in the case of peach trees one cannot prune a peach tree in the Eastern Free State in the same way as in Stellenbosch; one has to prune it differently if one wants decent fruit. In the Eastern Free State we have severe winters and we have our rains in the summer. In other words, conditions there are totally different to those in Stellenbosch. The reason why we prefer a research station or an experimental farm to be established in the Eastern Free State is the following. One finds curly leaf and root disease even here in the Cape Province where cherry trees are cultivated. The nurseries here sell those trees to farmers in the Eastern Free State. Thousands of cherry trees are planted annually in the Eastern Free State at present.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour.

I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of myself and my colleagues on this side of the House to welcome the hon. the Minister to this new position he has undertaken. I know that he is a very practical farmer and I think that he is a man who realizes the difficulties of the farmers in this country. I think I can assure him that if we on this side of the House could have selected someone from the Government benches, that is, both members and Ministers, we would have chosen the hon. the Minister for this position. I think he realizes the enormity of the task which lies before him. It is a very difficult portfolio and one which requires a tremendous amount of hard work. I think he measures up to the hard work and I think that he has shown that he has a good deal of drive in him and we hope that he will be able to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet that his Department requires far more than it has had in the past. I believe that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been the stepchild of the Government and it is up to the hon. the Minister, and we believe that he will do his best in this regard, to see that it is no longer the stepchild and that in the very great task ahead of him he will receive the necessary support from his colleagues in the Cabinet.

The hon. member for Ladybrand told us before the House adjourned that we only talk about droughts, referring to the hon. member for Newton Park. I want to tell the hon. member that we realize the farmers’ position in this country is, amongst other reasons, due to this drought. We realize that they are having a difficult time and I can only interpret the words of the hon. member as showing that he does not realize what the farmers in this country have to cope with. During the course of this Session hon. members have said that the farmers are not having nearly as bad a time as the Opposition is trying to make out. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree that the farmers are having a difficult time and that the hon. member for Ladybrand does not seem to know very much about this. The late Prime Minister said in Bloemfontein last year that food production is of fundamental importance. I think we all agree with this. Food production is indeed of fundamental importance to this country. When we consider that our population will most probably exceed 40 million in the year 2000 and that we will be required to produce approximately four times as much food as we are at present, we realize that the task to produce such an amount of food is extremely great and that priority must be given to this Department. The drought has shown us that soil conservation still lags far behind and that little has been done in comparison with the immensity of the problem. I believe that the progress we are making in connection with soil conservation is by far too slow. I believe that the damage which has been done through soil erosion is actually greater than the amount of reclamation which is being undertaken. I remember that about six years ago I mentioned in this House that the amount of soil lost amounted to approximately 300.000.000 tons per annum. This is equivalent to the total destruction of approximately 200,000 morgen. Hon. members on the other side and, I remember, particularly the late member for Kimberley North disputed the figure and said that it applied to the situation as it was 15 or 20 years ago but that the position had improved greatly and that the amount of soil lost did not amount to 300,0,000 tons at the time. Since then however no one less than the hon. Deputy Minister for Agriculture told us two years ago that the annual loss of soil amounted to 400,0,000 tons. In other words, he admits after he had helicoptered across the country, especially parts of the Free State, that we have not yet caught up with the destruction and that the destruction had increased. We have authorities on this matter who tell us that destruction is taking place at an alarming rate. Mr. Coertze, the Chairman of the Midlands Agricultural Union in Port Elizabeth, said:

Mr. B. van der Merwe, Chairman of the Cape Woolgrowers Association, said recently that there has been no real increase in the amount of wool produced in the past 30 years. He went on to say:

I should like to give the views of Mr. Wouter van der Merwe:

One can quote numerous authorities in this regard warning us that deterioration is taking place at an alarming rate. It is not only the loss of soil that is important but this soil gets washed into our dams and we are slowly but surely losing our best dam sites. Lake Mentz, Grass Ridge and Boegoeberg have lost a large amount of their storage capacities already. We are now building two big dams, the Verwoerd Dam and the Van der Kloof Dam, and unless active steps are taken, because we know that the Orange River carries an enormous amount of silt, the future capacities of these dams will be in danger.

Order! Is the hon. member now dealing with matters which concern the Department of Water Affairs?

No, Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking about dams, but dams endangered by soil erosion. A survey is now being undertaken in the valley of the Upper Orange River to examine the position but its findings will have to be implemented at once and very speedily if we intend to save our dams. Apart from this, we have erosion caused by wind in this country and over the past few years I think it has been worse than ever before. I grew up in regions where there were dust storms and I have experienced dust storms in my day. I have never experienced dust storms such as the ones we have had the last few years in the Free State, the Northern Cape, the North-Western Cape and other areas. In the Western Cape the sand drifts are spreading further and further and to restore sand drift requires very expensive methods. Everything possible should be done to prevent this sand drift from spreading. We hear about the encroachment of the desert from Bechuanaland into the Western and North-Western Karoo, the Northern Cape, the Northern Transvaal and the Western Transvaal and we are losing more and more of our country. Bush encroachment is taking place. I remember that the former member for Vryburg used to tell us every year of the enormous encroachment of bush in the Northern Cape.

I went there to see the position for myself and I agree.

Yes, we all agree, Mr. Chairman, but I am mentioning the fact that it is a danger and means a loss of grazing land and that it must be stopped as soon as possible. We are also fighting jointed cactus but it is still spreading and more and more of our valuable country is being lost as a result of the spread of jointed cactus. We have already lost approximately 2,000,000 morgen and it is still spreading. This problem is growing more and more serious. I should like to read to the House the view of the Soil Conservation Board in this regard:

This is not our first drought, nor will it be the last. This is not our first serious drought and I do not think that it will be the last. We have therefore got to do our best to protect our soil from the ravages of the drought as soon as possible.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL SERVICES: Try to make a suggestion as to how the position can be improved.

I am not trying to suggest that nothing is being done. We know how many district conservation committees have been established and that this is a department consisting of men who are devoted to the job, but there are far too few of them and the problem is far too big for them to cope with it. There is, however, too little positive action and the results are too few. In the August issue of Farming in South Africa an article by Mr. J. P. van der Merwe, the Director of the Soil Conservation Board appears and I would recommend this article to every citizen in the Republic. In the article he mentions the steps which must be taken. He says that considerable progress has been made in regard to soil erosion, and I agree with him. He also says that genuine soil conservators have proved to themselves that it is a good thing and he mentioned several things that have been done in regard to soil conservation. He then goes on to say:

The rest of this article is really worth reading by anybody who wants to read it. The plans are not being carried out. So many plans that have been made, are not being carried out properly. The annual report by the Department mentions the following—

Why do we find a position like this in this country? In this respect one must ask oneself the question: “Is dit ons erns?”. Firstly I think this position is due to the farmer’s economic position. The farmer does not have the capital to do certain works. In the 1964 report of the Soil Conservation Board the following statement is made—

I think this is correct. It is not only due to the drought, but to the fact that the farmer’s economic position as a result of low prices is such that he cannot afford to make his capital work and he also cannot get a subsidy. He can get loans, of course. But many of the farmers are already so burdened with loans that they do not have the means to pay the interest. What is more, their incomes are so small, that they are compelled to overstock their farms in order to have the necessary income. They are compelled to exploit the soil so as to ensure a sufficient income to make a living. I should like to know, and it would be very interesting if the hon. the Minister could tell us, how many farmers have applied under his new scheme to withdraw portions of their farms from grazing on the subsidy basis. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the State must take a bigger part in combating soil erosion. The farmers cannot do it. The State must do far more than it is doing at present. This has become a national matter, as the Board said, and it is of utmost importance. There are also cases where there is not the urge on the part of the people who should do this work to do it. There are farmers who do not do it and who do not really realize that they have to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there are road planners and road engineers who do not really plan their roads with the object of preventing soil erosion. They plan mainly to make their roads safe and in so doing accumulate waters which cause further erosion. They should be better informed in this respect. Erosion is also to a large extent due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the farmer. In an article in the Farmer’s Weekly of the 1st June, 1966, Mr. J. de V. Burger, chief extension officer for the North-Western Cape, made it clear that the farmer does not always understand why he has to undertake conservation works. He made a survey of his area and from the survey three startling facts emerged. The application of rotational grazing was completely ineffective on most of the planned farms, the crop rotation methods did not agree with what was recommended and too little provision was being made for fodder to bridge dry periods. An example of what has been happening was encountered in the Graafwater survey which showed that even on the planned farms many farmers were unwittingly doing the very things which aggravate erosion. For instance out of 48 planned farms under cultivation, on 35 fallowing was done in August and September when this would lead to excessive sheet and wind erosion. Out of 58 farms, 15 had veld camps. Only 27 out of 64 farmers practised any rotational grazing whatsoever and in only 13 cases could this be described as in any way satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman, the point is that many of the farmers do not really know what is required of them. We have mentioned this before. We have indicated—and it has been proved—that radio talks and articles in periodicals were not effective in conveying to the farmers the necessity of soil conservation. This can only be done by personal contact with the farmers, i.e. by meetings, soil conservation committees, and so on. This is the only method by which you can really teach the farmer what he has to do in this regard.

That is being done.

I think there is a lack of drive on the part of this Government. I believe that very many of them do not really realize the seriousness of this problem. In this country we have one extension officer for 750 farms. Rhodesia has one for 45. The Board made mention of the fact that there was a slowing-up in the process owing to the loss of personnel in the last year or two. This is due to a lack of “kragdadigheid”. I put the question: “Is dit hulle erns? Is dit die Regering se erns?”. We have to make war. This matter is of as vital importance as a war. We are now spending R250,000,000 per annum on our defence.

We do that to prevent an attack on our country and to prevent the destruction of our cities, dams and so on. If it should happen, we can rebuild them. We can rebuild dams and cities. Europe has shown us that that can be done. If we lose our country as a result of soil erosion, we cannot reclaim it. Therefore it is of very great importance to the future of the population of this country that this matter should be tackled on the same scale as that on which we tackle the defence of our country. What do we spend on soil erosion, Sir? Over a period of 20 years we have spent R33,000,000 in respect of farmers’ works. In respect of State works R3,500,000 has been spent over three years. On top of that there have been loans, subsidies and bonuses of R13,000,000. Then I daresay you also have to add salaries. This is, however, nothing in comparison to what we spend on the defence of this country and it is of exactly the same importance. The longer we wait, the higher the cost. The work becomes more, construction costs increase, and the problem becomes bigger and bigger. What should we do about this? The hon. the Minister asked me what we should do. I shall tell the hon. the Minister the first thing we should do. That is that we should change the Government. [Interjections.] We should have a Government which will really tackle this problem properly. We should make every individual in this country, be he an urban or a rural dweller, conscious of this problem. We must have a larger personnel. If we can find the men for our armies, we must be able to find the men for this war which we have to declare. We have to train more and more men. They must have technical knowledge. I have already mentioned road construction people. We have to see that we get the right people on to the district committees. If I had the time, I could read a report in which it is stated that there are too many people on these committees who do not do their jobs. These soil conservation committees are doing a job. They can do a wonderful job. They do, however, have to be trained properly and, as I have already said, the right people must be on those committees. We have to see that these committees function properly. I should like to come back to the Minister’s scheme of withdrawing certain parts from grazing. I want to ask him if he really thinks that it will be effective. I will say straight away that I think it is a step in the right direction. But will it be effective? Will it be practical? How many farmers under the present financial difficulties can afford to withdraw areas from grazing with the subsidy that is being paid, which is on the small side. It is R8 per beast for a year and a half.

No, they are being paid R8 per annum.

In respect of sheep, it is R8 per six sheep. This is too small an income. The farmer cannot afford to let his ground lie idle on such a small income. I should like to know how many people have applied for help under that scheme, because it was to come into operation on the 1st September and we should know about it. A farmer would have to sell his stock to reduce it. I should like to know how practical this scheme is. The idea is right, but it has to be made absolutely practical because it has to be put into effect. We have to see that the planning I have spoken about is actually carried out. For 20 years we have worked on a voluntary basis. I think that the time has now come where all farmers must fully realize their responsibilities. Once they realize that, steps must be taken to see that it is carried out. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. members for Ladybrand and Gardens said in connection with our new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. I should only like to add one word, namely “Vrystaat”. The subject for discussion I have chosen is also the soil of South Africa. I shall try to indicate in the course of my speech on what I agree and on what I disagree with the hon. member for Gardens, if I have the time to do so, because the hon. member has had half an hour at his disposal and I only have ten minutes. Recently I had the privilege of attending a show of slides taken by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and one of his chief officers in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. In the course of five days they took these slides from a helicopter over parts of Natal, the Free State and the Northern Cape. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Deputy Minister of Agriculture most sincerely and to tell him that we—not only the farmers but the nation as a whole—appreciate the fact that he went to the trouble of making a personal investigation during this period of five days. Sir, I must admit that what I saw shocked me What I saw convinced me that enemy number two of South Africa is soil erosion. [Interjections.] Enemy number one is Communism and enemy number two is soil erosion. In this I want to agree with the hon. member for Gardens, because if the soil is gone, food is gone and then the people of South Africa will perish for they will have no food to eat. I want to appeal to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services that that slide show should be converted into a film. That film should be widely distributed, not only amongst the farmers but also amongst city dwellers, so that we as a nation may become conscious of soil conservation. The film should be distributed so that we may show it to our farmers. The hon. member for Gardens referred to the quantity of soil which was being washed away to the sea and to our dams annually. I do not want to go into that. In any event, I want to give him the assurance that the new Minister of Agricultural Technical Services certainly is as concerned about this condition as he is and I am and the entire population of South Africa is. I want to point out to him that during the period 1946 to 1960, when the Soil Conservation Act came into operation, R20.800,000 was appropriated in respect of soil conservation. From 1960 to 1967, however, an amount of R17,000,000 has already been appropriated. I am grateful for what has already been done and I want to agree with the hon. member for Gardens that at this stage—and I believe the hon. the Minister is going to do so—revolutionary plans must be made for putting an end to the further destruction of our soil. I realize that even if this Government should spend millions of rand, perhaps as much as on Police and Defence, certain changes must be effected. During the past four years more than R100,000,000 has been appropriated in the Estimates for Defence and Police alone. This figure does not include the amounts appropriated in the Loan Estimates. Approximately R10,000,000 only has been appropriated in respect of soil conservation in both the Revenue and Loan Estimates. Therefore I want to make an appeal to the Minister to-night that, in view of our shortage of manpower, and as our soil conservation committees are mainly responsible for executing the soil conservation plan, members of those committees—there are courses for them at present—should attend more comprehensive courses. If a person then wants to serve on a soil conservation committee, he must first attend those courses; otherwise he should not serve on that soil conservation committee. I want to agree that if a member of such a committee does not do his work, he should be dismissed and should be replaced by a person who is really interested in the soil conservation idea. I want to go further, Sir. I want to ask the Minister that the members of the soil conservation committees who now have to do the work as a result of a shortage of technical officers, should be paid for the services rendered by them, because they are now rendering the services which would have been rendered by technical officers. They should also be trained to render those services. I make a further suggestion. I know that subsidies of 50 per cent are granted and in certain cases the subsidy may be as high as 85 per cent. However, I feel that the soil conservation committees, if they consist of properly trained people able to do the work of a technical officer, should be able to recommend in co-operation with the new Department of Agricultural Credit that a farmer should be subsidized to the extent of 100 per cent in cases where he is not able to do the work. In cases where it is not within his means to undertake the work himself it should also be possible for them to recommend that the work should be done free of charge for him and that the State has to pay 100 per cent of the costs of such work.

I also want to recommend that if we cannot go about things in this way—I am convinced that my words are not falling on deaf ears when I make this appeal to the Minister—the Minister should have a round-table conference with his officials. I believe that the Minister will be able to plan a scheme, similar to schemes he has already planned, for reclaiming those grazing areas in the Northern Transvaal which have been totally destroyed as a result of the drought.

I want to come to my final point. I want to bring an important matter to his notice. We are grateful to the companies manufacturing products such as insecticides and weed-killers. However, I want to point out to the Minister that dieldrin, which is used for killing the cutworm, is one of those toxic substances which never deteriorates. If I as a farmer put dieldrin on my soil for a period of 25 years, for instance, I want to know what the effect is going to be. It kills all insects. But I want to know whether that dieldrin is not eventually also going to destroy the bacteria in my soil after a period of 25 years. If that should happen I will have a dead mass without the necessary bacteria in that soil. Then my soil is worthless even though I have applied soil conservation and the soil has not been washed to the sea. What applies to dieldrin also applies to certain other substances. Therefore I want to ask that the Minister should give special instructions that insecticides and weed-killers may not be placed on the market before they have been thoroughly tested. [Time limit.]

I agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem and with the hon. member for Gardens, and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services also agrees that soil erosion and veld deterioration in South Africa must receive special attention on the part of the Government as well as the farmers. While I want to plead for certain matters, it is not because the hon. member for Gardens put certain words in my mouth or because the hon. member for Transkei said earlier that I agreed with the Opposition. We are advocating something practical here and asking certain things of the Government, but when we do so we do not merely criticize without suggesting any solutions. [Interjections.] In the 30 years or more since the introduction of the Soil Erosion Act we have already made a great deal of progress in South Africa. I can still remember very well how, in the early thirties, the Department had to go about trying to bring this danger of soil erosion and veld deterioration to the specific attention of the farmers. To-day South Africa is aware of these dangers threatening it, dangers which affect not only the farmers but the urban dwellers as well, and not only the Government but also the Opposition. But we have made progress in the past few years. Most of the land to-day has already been proclaimed as and divided into soil conservation districts, and more than 70 per cent of our farms have already been planned. Nevertheless it is with a measure of concern that we look at the condition of the soil of South Africa today, and I think that that concern does not only come from the Opposition side, I think it is to be found in all the layers of our population, and I think that the Government are the first to realize this thoroughly. Although this condition has recently been accentuated by this tremendous and devastating drought we nevertheless feel that the rate of deterioration is perhaps higher than the measure of progress, I cannot stipulate the reason for that. I do not want to say, as the hon. member for Gardens has done, that the State must day a bigger part. What I can say is that I think the Department has its ear closest to the ground as far as this matter is concerned.

But that is what the hon. member for Bethlehem says.

Dr. Penzhorn said in East London—

That may be one of the reasons why we have not progressed as far as we would have liked. What I do know is what the standpoint of the present Minister of Agricultural Technical Services is. At Vryburg, when he opened a Farmer’s Day there, he said that even if he had to become the most unpopular Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, he would see to it that this country was safeguarded for the future generations. For that we owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Where man has established himself and where he is using the soil to make a livelihood for himself, and where nature has been utilized, there has of necessity been a disturbance of the natural order and one has in due course experienced veld and soil deterioration. We must find methods of co-operating with nature. In older countries, where these problems were realized sooner, and in countries with a moderate climate and high rainfall, the problem is not so bad as it is in South Africa, where we have a relatively low rainfall and a soil which is extremely sensitive. In addition we in the initial stages had ignorance amongst the farming population as far as co-operation with nature was concerned. We have always had wide open spaces to which we could move. The person who drove the first plough furrow in a valuable piece of vlei land did not realize what he was doing. He did not realize that it would cause a donga. When stock was fenced in for the first time that person did not realize that by making the correct use of nature he would obtain the best results. A gradual deterioration in the veld has been noticed. Generations after these things happened we have come to realize that the carrying capacity had been reduced and that erosion was taking place on an alarming scale. At that time it required drastic action on the part of the farmer as well as the State. Governments before this one, and this Government in particular, have offered their services for the reclamation of the soil and of the veld. It is this problem which we have to face squarely, and that is why we are glad of the determination with which this Minister intends tackling this task.

We in Vryburg have a specific problem and I want to thank the Minister to-night for having come himself to see what was going on there. In the cattle grazing area of Kuruman and Vryburg. and even in other cattle grazing areas of the country, the fencing in of the veld which was particularly sensitive has taken place, and it has also caused certain problems. These things happened in spite of the fact that the farmers in Vryburg and Kuruman were conservation conscious. They applied grazing methods by fencing in camps and applying ley grazing and they obtained advice from the Department. Representations were even made at agricultural congresses for research stations to be established in those regions. But in spite of all those things we have to-day a position of tremendous veld deterioration, mainly as a result of bush encroachment. That is the position not only in those parts, but also in other parts. The Department of Agriculture was approached. We found that our carrying capacity had decreased tremendously, and that that had not been as a result of injudicious veld utilization but as a result of this alarming bush encroachment which has taken place in spite of rotation grazing. By means of co-operative tests devised by the Department and carried out by the farmers, it was found that where all the bushes had been taken out in certain camps the carrying capacity after a conservation period of two growing seasons was five morgen per large stock unit. [Time limit.]

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Gardens on the speech he made here this evening. If I may say so, I think the last election showed that this was the only garden in South Africa where conservation methods exceeded the erosion. [Laughter.] If the hon. members saw that joke, I must congratulate them on their insight into politics. In the short time at my disposal I would like to deal with a couple of matters which I would like to bring pertinently to the notice of the hon. the Minister. First let me say this, that since the Minister took over this portfolio he has travelled over very wide stretches of our country and I now want to invite him formally to come to the South Coast of Natal and to have a look for himself there, so that as the practical man he is he will be able to see for himself, without reference to any report and written papers, precisely what the conditions are. I realize that the Minister probably cannot come in the short recess.

When are the bananas ripe?

At any time. We grow that type. I promise to see to it that the Minister will have plenty of bananas grown in an area where we care for our soil and under methods which are a credit to the country.

There are two points I want to deal with as a matter of urgency. I do not want to deal with soil and water conservation methods in the usual sense, because I left that to the hon. member for Gardens, although I should have liked to do so. But I want to deal with two other aspects. I think that quite apart from dealing with soil and water conservation there is a different angle from which we can approach this question of the food supplies of South Africa. One aspect is by the production of foodstuffs, like food grains, which will grow and thrive … [Interjection.] I said I thought we should approach this question of food supplies for South Africa not only from the point of view of preserving our water and soil but also from the point of view of doing our best to produce new strains of foodstuffs, of cereals, which will grow and thrive under conditions of lower rainfall than has been the case up to now. I just want to give one example of the increased production in the grain belt in Canada. That belt was extended northwards by some 200 miles in an area where originally they could not grow wheat. But they were able to extend that belt by 200 miles over the whole length of the wheat belt because they produced a different strain of wheat which was able to withstand the climatic conditions in that area, which the old strains of wheat could not do. We can breed these types of foodstuffs, and particularly food grains, but there is no doubt that some countries in the world to-day are using a speed-up technique in getting new varieties and new strains. They are using what is called subjection to nuclear radiation for the production of new strains which have in them fixed characteristics, so that the new strain produced will continue to show the same characteristics in succeeding generations. They are inheritable characteristics which are fixed in that mutant by radiation. That goes for foodstuffs, particularly grains.

May I also deal with the question of livestock? Here we go on year after year with the same imported strains of livestock. The Afrikander breeders to-day are evolving variants from the original stock which give very good results. To-day we get the type of animal called the Drakensberger, but that is still using our own domestic bovine as the basic stock. I suggest that in this country with all its wild life we have never given adequate attention to trying to domesticate some of the wild animals which are immune to many of the diseases prevalent here. I am thinking at the moment of eland.

We tried that in South West Africa and there was no improvement whatever.

I should like to have a talk with the hon. the Deputy Minister about this later because my time is so short. But I want to say that these animals are indigenous here. We are now trying it in Natal and we are having a good deal of success. But the Russians, many years ago, got eland from South Africa, and to-day they have vast herds of eland in Russia. Do not let it be said that in this country, which is their natural habitat, we cannot make a go of it, while the Russians can. Not long ago I read that the Russians produced a strain of eland by means of precisely the same technique, the use of nuclear radiation, which gave them an eland which was adapted to their conditions. What they have now is really a new strain altogether which they are running in herds of hundreds. We have been trying to get information from Russia on this score but it is difficult to get it. We can get weights and we can find out how much milk an eland cow gives and the percentage of butterfat and what percentage is solids and not fat, and we can find out the birth-rates, which are tremendous.

But why do you want to worry about that? We have so many breeds of cattle that we can breed from.

I take it the Minister is referring to domestic cattle. That is the whole point. I want to make the point that the domestic bovine that we have in this country is an animal which was introduced here. It was brought here, in the main, under conditions different from the conditions where we have the biggest rainfall in South Africa, 40 inches and over, and under those conditions there is continual feeding and care and Continual expenditure upon the domestic bovines which come from overseas stock, whereas if you have an animal which was born in this country it may, on the same veld and under natural conditions and with far less care, it not being addicted to the diseases of this country, be able to produce per acre so much more flesh per annum than we get from domestic stock. That is the point. Has it been tried on an adequate scale? The Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs says it was tried in South West and it failed, but it would be worth while going into the precise reasons why it failed. What were the conditions? We have more than one strain of eland here. I am not talking about the Derby eland at the moment; I am talking about the eland usually called the plain dun eland, the Drakensberg eland. But it may well be that they are not suited to domestication although they are very tame animals. It is the easiest thing in the world to domesticate them, but it may be that they are not suitable for domestication after the third or fourth generation. It has not been tried on an adequate scale, but it may be that we can change that stock in the same way that the Russians have done so as to produce a completely new strain of eland as the result of mutants derived deliberately and intentionally by means of nuclear radiation applied to the breeding stock. It changes the chromosomes so that you produce a strain which will carry mutants which are inheritable characteristics. This has never been adequately carried out, and in regard to foodstuffs and grains and animals these are the courses open to us, and I believe our scientists are capable of handling the job. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast must not take it amiss of me if I do not react to what he has just said. At the outset I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vryburg has said and also express my thanks and appreciation to the Minister for, after taking over the Technical Services portfolio, having immediately taken so much interest in the matter that he paid a visit to those parts of the country in particular where the drought was at its worst. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we appreciate what he did very highly.

I am getting up to discuss a matter which I have already raised in this House on a previous occasion. I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not once again discuss this matter. It concerns the termite plague. Last year I spoke about the same matter, but I am mentioning it again because I know what the dangers are and what we in the North-Western Cape have to go through as a result of that plague. It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister what things look like there. The hon. Minister of the Interior, when he was still Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, as well as the present Minister, both visited my constituency and those parts where the termites were causing such great damage. Year after year that land is deteriorating to an increasing extent. It is true that we have had droughts over the past three years, but I am convinced of the fact that if it had not been for the termites we would not have felt the drought so much. I can testify to the fact that there are farms which have been lying idle for the last two years and on which, in spite of the fact that we did have quite a lot of rain, there has not been a single animal. In other parts where there are no termites there is still grazing to-day, but in the parts where the termites are there is no grazing. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to-night to help us combat that plague. I want to admit candidly that the farmers in that part of the world are no longer able to fight the plague at their own expense. As a result of the long drought they can no longer do so, and if they do not receive assistance I want to state unequivocally that they will be staring bankruptcy in the face. I want to plead for assistance from the State in order to combat that plague. I regard that plague as a much more serious one than locusts, and locusts are regarded as a national plague. It is being combated by the State. I am certain that every farmer in this House will agree that the termite plague is much worse than the locust plague. It is easy to-day to exterminate locusts. One can combat that plague at various stages because one can exterminate locusts above the ground, but the termite is under the ground and that is why it is so difficult to get at them. It is not only that the grazing is being devoured by the termites, they also cause soil erosion because the veld becomes so bare. I am not pleading for my constituency only, I am pleading for the entire Republic because that plague is not to be found only in the North-West to-day, it is to be found in the Transvaal already and it has spread throughout practically the entire Free State and only recently somebody told me that they even had termites in the Western Province. I just want to tell the farmers in the Western Province that they must pray for rain, because with the first major drought they experience the termite will get the upper hand here as well. That is why I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to declare the termite as well to be a national plague.

The hon. member for South Coast has touched upon a very interesting subject here to-night. For quite a few years now I have also been a practical farmer and I take a great deal of interest in agriculture because it is my means of livelihood. I should like to reply to the suggestion made here by the hon. member for South Coast in regard to the domestication of the eland and the possibility of developing it as a meat-producing animal. I am sorry that I do not have the statistics available, but I shall show them to him one day. In South West Africa we have many elands and there are quite a few farmers who have started domesticating the eland. One specific farmer began doing so with the aid of the Agricultural Department and he applied all kinds of methods, but after 20 years he found that he had regressed instead of progressed. He sent those elands to the Republic and to-day they are somewhere in the Transvaal.

The eland is an animal which eats a lot because it is large and heavy, and also because it covers a lot of ground. It can only carry around that great weight of flesh when it is able to change its grazing as the seasons change. It moves from west to east and from north to south. It moves from the grasslands to the Mankettieveld, where, at certain times of the year, it finds pods and nuts, and then moves on to other parts. It uses its grazing sparingly and knows when to move on. But as soon as one fences them in and they can no longer move about, and they have to get along on the same type of veld the whole year through, they deteriorate and no longer carry the same quantity of meat. Everywhere in South West Africa where we have elands in private game reserves we find that even where they have considerable stretches of veld they begin to deteriorate as the veld deteriorates. Most of the farmers who have tame elands have to feed them as they would cattle. They do not get the same quantity of meat which they get from cattle. We have the example of our cattle races. The animals came from the east. We know that they developed from the Bos Taurus and the Bos Indicus species, and that they have been developed. The Afrikaner beast was a simple draft animal which could walk around in the veld and find its own food, but to-day it is a beef breed. If one does not house it in a stable to-day and feed and care for it properly, it degenerates and becomes like its small predecessors again. We have the wild cattle of Africa. We have the Zulu cattle and the other cattle there in South West Africa, and those cattle remain just as they are. They remain small and do not carry the quantity of meat which the breed cattle carry. I am of the opinion that we can start breeding that animal as an experiment, but in our own lifetime and for many generations after us we shall not get further than we have already done with the domestic animals which we have to-day.

Our climate in South Africa varies tremendously from one region to another. There are parts where one can farm with the imported races, where one can farm with the shorthorn or with the Angus, but there are other parts where you cannot farm with that race at all. I can tell hon. members that the Shorthorn, the Angus and the Red Poll have disappeared completely from South West Africa because they are not suited to the climatic conditions there. The only animals which are still surviving on the veld there are the Afrikaners and the other races with which they can be crossed. That is why I feel that whatever the Government does in that direction it will still not obtain the desired results. I should so much like to say more about agriculture, but I just want to quote two things more.

Much was said here to-night about the state of affairs as far as farming in South Africa is concerned. If our agriculture is deteriorating to the extent alleged here then I wonder whether our farmers have really deteriorated to such an extent. Are our farms really so over-stocked? We hear every day that our stock is not increasing. It is being alleged that our cattle and sheep population has not increased for many years, and we also hear that there is overgrazing on our veld. We hear that the position is worse to-day than it was ten, 12 or 15 years ago. Whose fault is that? Have our farmers become less efficient?

It is the Government which has become less efficient. It is becoming less efficient every year.

I just want to tell that hon. member that if the good Lord were to open the sluice gates of heaven to-day and we were to get rains throughout South Africa then we would not be aware of soil erosion, nor of overgrazing. I have been dealing with drought conditions for seven years “tow, so much so that in that large area of South West Africa one could not find a single ‘item of grass with which to clean one’s pipe. But we had one good rain year when the rains came at the right time and then there was grass for three to four years. We are not aware now of a shortage of grass in the central and northern parts where it has rained. One year of rain at the right time, provided it is enough rain, and one has no problems. But, Mr. Chairman, one must differentiate between one’s sowing regions and one’s grazing regions. If one has rains in the sowing regions at the right time, then one’s production costs are at the minimum and one’s crop is at a maximum and one farms profitably, one lives and one does not hear any complaints. But what happens when there is a drought? One ploughs, one sows, and one fertilizes; one incurs all the costs and one reaps nothing. Within two to three years that farmer has been ruined. The same applies in the cattle-breeding regions. If one does not get rain one cannot plan the farm just as one wants to. I have quite a few farms which have been planned. The farm is divided into camps to such an extent that it looks like a sieve, and one flees from this camp to that and from that camp to the other, but after two to three years the drought has brought one to one’s knees; it is no longer of any avail that one does not have many sheep; it is no longer of any avail that one toes have water: even if one were to have a quarter of the number of stock which one must have there, it is still of no avail.

But then agriculture has no future.

Agriculture does have a future, but hon. members must not blame the Government for droughts. We know that droughts come and go. Mr. Chairman, this country is well acquainted with droughts. I do not want to mention my own particular case but I just want to tell hon. members that I have, during the past few years, stored 12,000 bales of lucern which I produced myself. I had about 1,600 sheep here in the Republic on my farm. I moved back to South West Africa with more than half of them. I fed them those 12,000 bales of lucern. I am now proceeding and I am planning a further fodder bank, but now the Groot River is no longer running. It is of no avail to me that I have 20 to 30 morgen under lucern. My fodder bank is depleted; there is no water; I cannot grow any more. Is that my fault? Is it the Government’s fault?

But you nevertheless had a fodder bank.

Yes, I had a fodder bank, but it is no longer there. A fodder bank helps you to a certain extent and then it leaves you in the lurch and you cannot go any further.

Then there is no future for us.

No, there is a future for us because it will rain again. As surely as the sun shines, just as surely it will rain again, and just as surely we will have another drought. If that hon. member is so pessimistic he should have stopped farming-long time ago; he is acquainted with droughts. Mr. Chairman, South Africa has had worse droughts than the one it is experiencing today.

The Minister himself asked us in 1948 where our refrigeration rooms were and where our fodder banks were?

Order! The hon. member must give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to make his speech himself.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. friend knows nothing about drought. He should go and farm in the north-western parts of the Cape: he must go to certain parts of South West Africa and then he will know what drought is. [Time limit.]

A few weeks ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to laboratory facilities for diagnostic purposes at East London. I asked the hon. the Minister when such provision could be made and his answer was that he was considering it but that due to uncertainty as to when the funds would be available, a dependable indication could not be given at that stage. Subsequently I put another question to the hon. the Minister in regard to a certain disease or stock poisoning called seneciosis. The hon. the Minister gave me a long reply, as he will remember. He said that this plant was poisonous due to veld burning. My experience is that the senecio poison plant is only poisonous during the early spring when it is coming out of the ground and is very tender and young.

However, I want to come back to the question of a laboratory which we need so very badly, to cover the whole of the border area, a laboratory either in East London or situated conveniently anywhere else. Strangely enough, in spite of all the droughts we have had in the country, I firmly believe that more stock die in the border area and in the north-eastern Cape from stock diseases, internal parasites and overdosing, or dosing the wrong medicines, than as the result of drought. I cannot recall when we last lost stock through starvation resulting from drought, but we are losing large numbers of stock daily due to internal parasites. I concede that the veterinary surgeons are doing a wonderful job. They are few and far between but without the veterinary surgeon I really do not know what the stock farmer would do in regard to diagnosis of stock ailments. Some of the best stud stock in South Africa is produced in the border area. You can go to the Rand Easter Show or to the Border Show held at Queenstown every year and you will find that the best stock at those shows comes from the north-eastern Cape area. I am sure that the hon. member for Aliwal will agree with me.

That is a big boast!

Yes, it is a big boast but I think we are justified in boasting about it. We are very proud of the stock bred in the border area. I believe it is second to none. Sir, what I want the hon. the Minister to consider seriously is the question of the establishment of a laboratory for diagnostic purposes in East London or thereabouts as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister knows that we have an agricultural research station at Dohne, but that does not cover this problem. We have a research station relating to pineapples, in East London, but that does not cover this problem either. It is for stock diseases and internal parasites that I want a research station.

We have seen that surveys by botanists of the Department reveal a deterioration of the veld and that special measures are being taken both by the farmers and the State to check the retrogression of our veld. It has also been mentioned here that our veld is deteriorating rapidly. I do not want to suggest for a moment that the Minister and the Department have not done anything, or that they are not doing what they can, in framing laws and acts to try to counter this terrible disease, one of South Africa’s worst enemies. As the hon. member over there said, we have two enemies, the one being Communism and the other soil erosion. I quite agree, but it is of no use having a Soil Conservation Act on the Statute Book if that Act is not carried out and executed to the letter. I know what is going on. The farmers are very ready to start farm planning; that is done and there is no problem in that regard. It is no difficult matter to convince the farmer that all his property should be planned; he is very eager to do the fencing and, under the direction of the extension officers, he is keen to have water laid on to all his paddocks, but when it comes to sparing the veld, which is the crux of the whole issue and the most important part of the whole Act, of the whole farm plan, then the farmer turns a deaf ear. The hon. the Minister knows and the officials know and all the extension officers know that there are certain districts which have been planned completely. When one looks at the charts and maps of farms planned in different districts, one sees that in certain districts the farms are all marked in red, indicating completed plans, but very few of those farmers are practising rotational grazing and this is where the Government’s Soil Conservation Act is breaking down. We do not expect the Government to do everything, but the Government cannot expect the farmer to do everything either. We want more extension officers to supervise, and to see that the Act is carried out to the farmer’s advantage, but dry conditions do add to the problem.

The adverse conditions in agriculture are naturally having a detrimental effect on the whole of our South African economy. Not only this Government realizes, but past Governments have realized that whatever we take from the soil must be ploughed back. I think we all concede that it is a very sound investment indeed to invest in soil conservation. The money spent on soil conservation is not money thrown away, provided we attend to the rotational grazing system. It is all very well to say to a farmer that he must spare at least one-third of his property for 12 months. We know this is the solution but the whole of the country is experiencing a terrible drought; most of us are suffering at the moment, and it is the farmers in those areas which are suffering most, who should be helped in order to spare their properties today. But what does he do with the stock he should remove from his property? This is where the agriculturist has to turn to the Government for assistance. The Government should find a solution to the problem of finding either grazing for the stock or a ready market. Only then is there any hope of restoring the veld to an economic standard. I know it is a very complex problem, but if the hon. the Minister can find the answer as to what to do with the stock in order to be able to spare part of the farm, then he will have found the solution and a guarantee to South Africa’s agriculture. [Time limit.]

In listening to the speeches which have been made so far to-night, one comes to a full realization of the earnestness with which hon. members on both sides of the House view the agricultural industry. I may just add that it is quite natural. We all know that there are certain basic things which every country needs for its development. We all know that there are certain things in respect of which every country is basically poor. South Africa has sufficient land, but basically our land is reasonably poor, and because we have land which is basically reasonably poor owing to climatic conditions, it stands to reason that everybody in this country, and pre-eminently those people who are connected with farming, are deeply concerned or ought to be deeply concerned about the care of our soil. Unfortunately this soil of ours is of a type which requires a tremendous amount of care if we want to protect it as a vehicle for carrying our people into the future.

The hon. member for Newton Park raised the question of the Verbeek Report. The report of the Verbeek Committee was a departmental report which is normally not made public, but the report was sent to all agricultural organizations. At the moment the Agricultural Advisory Board is busy with it. Two or three weeks ago we had a long session here for the discussion of the report, and we shall have another session about it shortly. We decided that we had to discuss the entire question of drought conditions on a broader basis than we had the opportunity of doing here, and we shall have another session in Pretoria soon, on the 9th November. The hon. member asked me whether we were going to establish a central drought committee. I have already replied to that, namely that this question is being discussed at present.

I want to extend my hearty thanks to the hon. member for Ladybrand, who hails from the cherry part of the country, for the words of welcome he addressed to me this afternoon. The hon. member raised the objection that although Ficksburg was the place where cherry trees were suffering from a certain plant disease, the experiments in that regard were being conducted at Stellenbosch. That is not quite correct. What happens is that plant material is imported from Europe. Such budwood may be infected with the virus and that is why it is then quarantined and treated, if necessary, at our quarantine station at Stellenbosch. When it is disease-free, it is propagated in Pretoria, and from there it will be taken to a property which we are developing at Ficksburg at present. All budwood which is imported, is first put in quarantine at Stellenbosch.

The hon. member for Gardens also welcomed me and I thank him for it. He said that agriculture was treated as a step-child in South Africa. Really, Mr. Chairman, in the times in which we are living at present, it is proper that we should take a serious view of the problems threatening agriculture. I can also, as the hon. member did, mention an endless list of people who pointed out the existing dangers, but it is also possible to exaggerate the dangers to agriculture. The hon. member said that we were virtually at war and that we had to spend as much on soil conservation as on the defence of the country. The hon. member does not really mean that; it was merely his way of drawing attention to the earnestness of the problem.

As you are putting it now, it is an exaggeration.

We must, of course, spend a great deal on Defence. The first reason is that we must protect this country of ours so that we may always live and work here; that is why we must spend a great deal on Defence, but we are also spending a great deal on soil conservation. The figures have already been mentioned here. A very large percentage of our land has already been declared as soil conservation districts, namely, 815. As many as 37,000 farm plans have been completed, and it is of no use to say that we are not making progress.

Sir, the other day I took my car and drove up to the Vanrhynsdorp region. As soon as one drives out of Cape Town, one immediately sees the results achieved by field conservation works; one immediately sees the results of contour-ploughing. I was flown over the Karoo last year. I was like a baboon treading on a hot surface; I went from one window to the next, feasting my eyes on the erosion works I saw there. There are a tremendous number of erosion works. We are making rapid progress. We must remember that we in South Africa are living in a country, as the hon. member for Vryburg said, where we have grown up as individualists. Our farmers were people who farmed independently and their farming methods were traditional. The hon. member for Gardens is shaking his head, but it is the truth. For a number of years now we have been engaged in educating our people and doing team-work in regard to soil conservation, and progress has been made. I admit that progress has been far too slow, but we must not strain our farmers. In the last few years a revolution has taken place here in regard to agriculture. The hon. member for Bethlehem made a plea here to-night for tremendous changes in this sphere and for stronger action. I admit that we must take stronger action and I shall do so, but we must select the right time for anything we do in life, and the present is not the time, this stage where our farmers have gone through a five to six year period of mental worry, for urging them to do field conservation work.

Mr. Chairman, I am a man who applies good field conservation on my farm. For many years now my farm has been planned. I have been applying the three-camp system for years, and, do you know that I could simply not do it last year? Owing to the force of circumstances I could not apply it, and if anybody had approached me last year and wanted to force me to supply the three-camp system, there would have been blue murder on that farm. What a man cannot do, one cannot force him to do. If one wants to implement these things by means of force, one has to do so at the right time. I believe that these conservation committees can do tremendously good work in South Africa, but I admit that they are not doing their duty everywhere, because, as they put it, they do not want to play the part of a policeman as far as their fellow farmers are concerned. But the members of these committees are now being brought together for courses. They are given lectures and they are trained, and as and when these people are trained to do their duty, I believe that we shall see a tremendous improvement in South Africa in regard to the implementation of our soil conservation works. The danger at this stage is not that too little is being done for soil conservation, but that too little is being done as far as field conservation is concerned. If better times arrive for our farmers, I shall see to it that drastic action is taken to apply field conservation and to see to it that it is carried out, but I should very much like to retain the democratic basis of this legislation. I believe that by means of co-operation and education we shall get the farmer to do his duty.

Mr. Chairman, I admit that there are difficult farmers in this world. I admit that there are farmers here and there on whom coercive measures will have to be used. I want to tell hon. members tonight that, although it is for the sake of humanity as a whole that I have to apply the strictest water restrictions along the Orange River and other rivers at present, there are nevertheless farmers who have found a loophole in the Act and who simply carry on pumping. Unfortunately that type of person is to be found all over the world, and one also finds them among the farmers of South Africa. We shall have to close those loopholes in order to punish that sort of selfish farmer as severely as he deserves to be punished.

The hon. member for South Coast is not present at the moment. I shall therefore reply to him tomorrow.

Next I come to the hon. member for Vryburg who referred to forest encroachment in that area. Mr. Chairman, that is a very serious matter. Every now and then I feel disheartened and when I visited that area and saw the forest encroachment there, I simply lost heart. I am also convinced that the farmers are not to blame; it is not because these people farmed so badly that the forest encroached to such an extent; it can be attributed to the fact that they did farm at all and that they farmed properly. It is quite clear to me that one has such forest encroachment as a result of the fact that the veld was not burnt. When they set fire to the veld in the old days, new vegetation was destroyed by the fire and in that way the forest was checked automatically, but now that the veld is not burnt, now that farmers are looking after the veld, the forest simply encroaches to such an extent that it has virtually become impossible to farm; but, as the hon. member said, the farmers and the Department are making combined efforts at present to find the cheapest method of combating forest encroachment, be it by means of physical eradication or spraying. I have been in that area where the forest is being eradicated physically; I have seen them spraying the larger trees with hormones, but at this stage the results are not yet satisfactory; it is also still too expensive. But I am hoping that research will also show us the way in that respect.

The hon. member for Bethlehem also said that his great fear was that we were making too much use of toxic sprays. He said that soil erosion was our first and foremost enemy —I have already replied to that—and then he asked that those members of our soil conservation committees who were doing good work, should be remunerated. I shall go into that. If committee members have received training and we use them in regard to farm planning or the survey of contours and field conservation plans, then we shall see whether we can afford to compensate them. The other day I gave instructions that the Department had to go into the matter as well. Where we have trained young farmers who are capable of surveying smaller dams for our farmers, we can use them in those places where there is a shortage of technicians, and remunerate them for their work; I am going into that matter. If we can use these people in a temporary capacity, it will be a tremendous help to us, since we simply do not have the manpower in South Africa to fill all these posts.

The hon. member for Bethlehem is greatly concerned about the fact—and he has already spoken to me about it—that in respect of these sprays we are not yet sure as to the extent to which the poison accumulates in our soil. The hon. member wanted to know whether research in respect of Dieldrin had been conducted for as long as 25 years. I do not think so. If we have pests which scourge us in this country, for instance if cutworms threaten to ruin our maize farmers, we can most definitely not wait for 25 years before we finally use the pesticide. I realize the necessity of being cautious in this regard.

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke on the eradication of termites. He asked that we should make the eradication of termites compulsory and that the State should undertake the work, because he maintains that it is a more serious plague than the locust plague. But it is for the very reason that we are not at all sure of the end result of the only pesticide with which one can eradicate termites at present, that the State cannot accept that responsibility at this stage. Nobody is sure as to what the eventual effects of Dieldrin—which they are using for that purpose—will be on our grass and the livestock of the country. But I have this assurance—and I am giving it to the hon. member for Bethlehem—that the scientists are saying that it will have no effect whatever on the smaller organisms in our soil. When one comes to the dividing line between animals and plants, when those organisms become so small, it has been the experience of the world that Dieldrin will have no effect whatever on them. Our scientists are therefore reasonably sure that Dieldrin will not affect the fertility of our soil, but as far as the poisoning of our soil, our plants and our animals are concerned, they do not have any certainty as yet. It is for that reason that the State cannot at this stage use that persticide for combating the termite plague as a national plague.

Mr. Chairman, I regard it as a privilege to be able to speak immediately after the hon. the Minister. Tonight we have seen a Minister who is quite young in his post showing a sound grasp, right from the outset, of all the matters that such a complex department as Agricultural Technical Services has to cope with. The Minister had the additional handicap that he has taken over this portfolio at a time when our country is afflicted by one of the most severe droughts of our lifetime. Now he has to try to satisfy everybody. It is not an easy task. To-night we saw, however, that he not only has a sound grasp of the problems, but we also felt that he understands the position of the farmers, that he understands their difficulties and that he will not readily do irresponsible things.

The hon. member for East London North spoke of measures to impose laws on our farmers. This is not a communistic country. We must be careful to retain the right to decide for ourselves what we want to do. It is easy to say that someone should do this or that. But if nature forces you, as the Minister said, you sometimes have no alternative, and then you simply have to do what nature forces you to do.

We have heard of the necessity for research, and I want to say something about that tonight. We are all convinced that it will be our salvation in future if we have proper research. The Department is spending millions on research. We have all the various institutes, inter alia for tobacco, citrus, stockbreeding, deciduous fruit—the whole series, and they are performing splendid work. I wonder where we would have been without those institutions. Where would we have been without all the aids that the Government is employing continually to help our farmers? Would our position not have been much worse? Should we not sometimes, instead of merely blaming, also say thank you for what the Government has in fact done for the farmer? So much is being done. I think of our laboratories and our universities, which are doing research work all the time. I think of our agricultural colleges, our co-operative instruction, of the land service. I am grateful that our Department of Agriculture is also taking an interest in the land service, and is training our youth from their early years to understand the problems and to learn to work on the land. I should like to see even much more done, and to see the land service receive more encouragement.

Not only does the Department pursue its normal activities. Special problems are also investigated. In the latest annual report we see that there have been two committees of inquiry that published special reports. I think of the inquiry in respect of the central irrigation area and the research in the Eastern Cape. They are most important reports. We also notice in the annual report that certain parts of those reports were put into operation immediately.

While I am speaking of the Eastern Cape, I should like to point out that there is a deficiency in that respect. There, as in all other parts of the country, we need much more research. I want to say something to-night with regard to the Langkloof. The Langkloof is one of our best apple and deciduous fruit regions. They need an experiment farm so badly that they have donated land for that purpose. They lost their horticultural officer—they said he could go because they knew that they were getting an experiment farm. That experiment farm was then started. I now see in the Estimates, under Head M—Research Institute for Fruit and Food Technology—that there is a decrease of R10,300, and of that decrease R3,700 is in respect of the Langkloof experiment farm. I do not know exactly what that implies. But I want to bring the urgency of the matter to the Minister’s attention. Fruit farming demands long-term experiments. At present the officers of the Western Province fruit research institute visit the Langkloof once or perhaps twice a year. They then tell the farmers what is being done in Elgin, Ceres and the other apple regions. That is not enough. Every region has its specific problems. I am therefore making this appeal to the Minister, that the experiment farm in the Langkloof should receive attention. All around us we can see what an experiment farm can do for a region. I am thinking of what happened in George, where the Outeniqua experiment farm was established. Ten, fifteen years ago the people were poor and had virtually no income from farming. They lived from hand to mouth. To-day George is a flourishing agricultural region. There are canning factories, the people are prosperous and they produce. I am also thinking of regions like the Tsitsikamma in the direction of Humansdorp, regions that get a good rainfall but that have never come into their own because there has not been enough guidance on the part of the Department. That is proved by what happened in George, where an experiment farm was in fact established and where that development did take place.

M. Chairman, I also want to say something about my own region, namely the Gamtoos Valley. The Gamtoos Valley is a citrus producing region where vegetables, etc., are also cultivated. It is true that a Government dam is being built there at great expense. I should like to put it to the Minister that where expenditure is incurred in a region such as that in the Gamtoos region, and also at any other irrigation scheme, for example the Orange River scheme, that expenditure should be preceded by research. If people go there they can receive guidance as to the best crops to grow and the best products to farm with. I do not want to impose laws on those people. They have to gain their own experience. But where new regions are developed, it is essential that experiment farms should be established and that those people should receive guidance, as happened in Vaalharts. Where new regions are now being opened up and where there is land that belongs to the State, it is easy for the Government to step in and say, “I take this stretch of land for an experiment farm.” It should definitely be a matter of policy that where a large amount of Government money is hazarded on such a scheme, there should first be the necessary research to be able to give guidance to those people.

I believe that if we can keep ahead in research, we shall also solve many other problems, and then we shall also be able to solve this great problem of droughts in due course. One of the hon. members on the opposite side spoke of varieties. There is so much that can be done, the right varieties that can be grown. Then there is also the question of opening the locks of the dam at exactly the right time, to get the best results. I do not want to elaborate on that. I know we are all agreed that research is an important branch of the Department and we do not begrudge them the money spent in that respect. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to refer to what the hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs said here with regard to his fodder bank. Where would he have been without that fodder bank of which he spoke? Where would he have been and where would his stock have been? That is exactly what we have been emphasizing for years, namely that there must be a fodder bank to tide you over a certain period at least. Of course it cannot wait forever. If the drought lasts forever, all of us will go down. But so far the farmer has at least held out, and if it rains now he will be all right again. He has his cattle and he has his stock. But if he did not have that, what would his stock have been like by now? Would there have been any stock? No, Mr. Chairman. We have a drought every year. There is one for some period every year, apart from the protracted droughts we get nowadays; even during periods of normal rainfall, there is a month or two or three in the course of a year, particularly in the high rainfall regions, when there is a drought and when fodder is needed. That has to be provided for. There have to be preparations. And the Government must help with that. They must initiate the scheme.

As a rule I do not have much sympathy with a Minister as such. Because, after all, he has his Department, he has his advisory councils, he has everybody to back him up. He should know what he is doing. He also has the policy of the Government to implement. But I must admit that I should like to convey my sympathy to the hon. the Minister whose Vote we are discussing at the moment. I do not want to sympathize with the Minister for the problems facing him at present, but because he is burdened with the task of going from one Department to another to correct the image of the Government in that Department. He is burdened with a great responsibility. Defence was a great responsibility, and as has been said—by way of comparison—our Agricultural Technical Services are also a great responsibility. I think the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services set out the problem very neatly when he recently said the following at the graduating ceremony of the University of Pretoria (translation)—

I think we all agree with that statement.

Mr. Chairman, then I want to point out that it was in 1963 that a motion was introduced in this House by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) in which he deplored the fact that through lack of planning and guidance the Government was no longer devoting any attention to the grave agricultural problems of South Africa. That was in 1963. To-night we see that it is generally agreed by hon. members on that side of the House that a tremendous problem does exist. The problem has been there a long time. We saw it; we saw it coming. Furthermore, hon. members on this side warned the Government year after year and said that action was needed and that steps should be taken without delay. In that debate the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing made a statement on the policy of the Government, and he said amongst other things that the highest degree of efficiency should be maintained. That was one of the fundamentals of the policy. Another was that the farmers should adapt themselves continually to changing circumstances. We are in complete agreement with the Government as far as that principle is concerned. But we are not agreed as regards the action to be taken in order to implement it. As the Government also puts it. efficiency does not come from one side only. In this regard it could not come from the farmer only. It must come from the Government for the main part. Surely the Government should set the example. The prerequisite was the very matter that was discussed here to-night, namely soil conservation. That was the pre-requisite. The implementation of those principles, the reclamation of our soil as the hon. the Minister also said, though not only of the soil but also of the grazing. Were necessary. Now the Minister has given us figures—figures which T. to be frank, expected—of what has been done. That is the position. There is no point in saying that South Africa has been divided into so many hundreds of soil conservation districts. As long as it is mere paper planning and that soil conservation is not really carried out, or rather, is not carried out in the context of the present problem, what is the use? We all know—and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) furnished figures—that until now we have only scratched the surface of the problem, even with all the conservation works the Minister has seen for himself. We know—as the Minister said—that tons of our soil are still being carried to the sea every day. It is no use saying that 31.5 per cent of the farms in these soil conservation districts have been planned, unless that planning is carried out scientifically, and unless the plans are in fact carried out. I shall come to the other matters raised here in connection with that planning. The planning, as it is undertaken for our farmers at present, is haphazard. You know that too. What happens if a farmer wants to plan his farm? Let us presume he buys a farm and wants to plan it. He makes application, he draws up his plan, he gets a map. He even draws up a plan for his farm. He discusses it with the extension officer, if there is one. Or else the committee comes along and makes a contribution which, of course, is also merely founded on their experience of that region. The plan is submitted, it is approved, a certain carrying capacity is laid down and a certain crop cycle is laid down. But what does that planning mean in actual fact? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, we have been listening to-night to speeches made by the hon. members of the Opposition in which the problem of soil conservation and soil erosion has been very clearly outlined and very clearly emphasized. It is very easy to outline this problem, and it is very easy to emphasize it. It is very easy to come forward with empty statements and say that there has been a motion here since 1963 in which the Government has been criticized for its lack of planning and that that important statement has just been left hanging in the air. No proof was put forward in 1963 by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). He simply made a statement, and the hon. member for King William’s Town merely repeated it just now.

Nevertheless it remains true.

Let the hon. members come forward and tell the hon. Minister that the Department has acted wrongly here, that it has not acted scientifically there, that it has neglected its duty in this case, that it has done what it should not have done or that it has not done what it should have done. However, we do not get that. It is easy to see and emphasize the problem, but we have not had any attempt whatsoever on the part of the hon. members to contribute towards solving the problem. It is very easy for hon. members to come along and say that we must have more staff, that we must offer more attractive salaries in order to draw that staff. But when this Budget is introduced, the Government is attacked if there is the slightest sign of an increase of tariffs on the Railways or an increase in taxation. Will those hon. members take the courage of their convictions in hand and say that the tax-payer must pay more taxes so that we can offer the staff larger salaries—which would in turn cause inflation —so that we can combat soil erosion? The Opposition does not have the courage to do so.

I am rising to convey, on behalf of myself, the constituency and the farmers in the constituency which I have the privilege of representing here, our unconditional support to the Minister and his Department of Agricultural Technical Services in this great national task which they have tackled, namely to safeguard and preserve the soil of South Africa. What he (the hon. Minister) said at Vryburg he said from the heart and we want to support him in that attempt. We know that it is not such an easy task, but we trust that nature will co-operate with us so that we can retain for all time this soil which is a national asset for South Africa, an asset not only for the farmer, but to the entire South Africa. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that we offer our services, for what they are worth, to him to make use of whenever he deems it necessary. We want to give him our support, and not merely criticize and attack him continually. We sympathize with him as far as this task is concerned. It is not only the task of the Department to help preserve our soil, it is the task of the entire population of our country.

What solutions are you suggesting?

I shall try and help to look for solutions. I should like to see the hon. member for Durban (Point) take a more serious attitude when we are discussing matters which affect the life of our nation and not always make a joke of those matters he is discussing. I am certain that if the hon. member knows what is happening in South Africa, things which are happening, in many cases, as a result of the injudicious actions of people, it would also affect him deeply because I know he also has a love for our soil. This matter has become a challenge to us, not only for the Department, the Minister or the House of Assembly, but for the entire South African nation. Soil conservation is a task all of us and not only the Department, must devote ourselves to. The Department undertakes research in this connection and furnishes information. Every member of this House can contribute his share in his own constituency by encouraging people to apply the information which the Department furnishes effectively.

The Department cannot come and do the soil conservation work itself. It can only undertake research and furnish us with the information. We also have a great deal of appreciation for the work which is being done in this field. It is time we launched a campaign in our schools with the purpose of making our children aware of the soil and developing in them a love for it. We must teach them to conserve it so that even if it is merely a matter of seeing a little footpath which has been trodden out they will report it and in that way help to rectify matters before a donga has a chance of developing. In that way they can make a contribution towards preventing300,000,000 tons of our most fertile cultivatable soil being lost annually. The child in the Netherlands has to help keep the dikes intact and their country safe from the encroaching sea. In that way too our children must learn to help conserve our soil for the generations which will come after us. If we succeed in doing that we will already have made a great deal of progress. We must realize that soil conservation is something which should not only be undertaken by the Department.

We must not saddle the Department with all the work. It is a task which must be undertaken by each one of us, whether we are farmers or whether we work in industries or in offices, to help conserve our soil and to make suggestions as to where and how that can be done. If we leave this House and go and arrange inter-school debates on matters affecting soil conservation, then we are going to get our children to take an interest in this matter, to debate it intelligently, to make a study of it, and one will in that way stimulate an interest in them in further training for that work. We can request our universities to make the theme of their rag procession one year, “Soil Conservation—Conserve Our Soil”. In that way we will make the people of South Africa, in all ranks of life, aware of the importance of conserving our soil, not only in the interests of that person who makes his livelihood from the soil, but in the interests of South Africa as a whole because what we have here is a national asset. We see this matter as a challenge. We do not only wish to criticize but we willingly offer our help and support to the hon. the Minister and his Department as far as this particular matter is concerned, one which is so close to our hearts.

I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who congratulated the hon. the Minister to-night on his appointment as Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. The hon. the Minister and I came from the same district originally and therefore I know of what calibre he is made. I know what standards he maintains in his farming activities and also what he knows about farming. I and the farming community in my constituency support him in the difficult task resting on his shoulders and we shall make our contribution wherever we can. I know that the hon. the Minister has accepted this portfolio in times in which South Africa is in the grip of a serious drought. It was said here to-night that this was not the most serious drought we had ever experienced, but I want to say to you that it is one of the worst droughts we have ever had and that it affects the largest area. I think we have had very few droughts afflicting such a large area of South Africa as is the case at present. For this reason it is fitting for us to-night to express our sympathy to our farming community which is carrying on its farming activities under extremely difficult circumstances and is trying to hold its own without murmuring excessively. We know that they are having difficult times and we know that the going is hard. Mention was made here of a fodder bank. My point of view in this connection is that the economic resources of every farmer must be such that he can maintain his own fodder bank. It is not the State’s duty to establish a national fodder bank. Every farmer must see to it that he establishes a fodder bank for himself. It will only be then that he can be assured that he will be able to hold his own under circumstances such as those we are experiencing in our country at present.

A large portion of my constituency is situated in the Upper Orange River region. Now, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for an agricultural research station there. The hon. member for Humansdorp also mentioned this. It is extremely important that provision for that should be made in the vicinity of Aliwal North, Herschel and those regions. Those areas have been denuded of grass and there are many ditches. The H. F. Verwoerd scheme is a very expensive project and is going to cost many millions of rand to complete. However, no purpose will be served if we complete this scheme and it is going to silt up within a few years. Along with the drought we are experiencing a termite plague. Here I want to associate myself with the pleas which were made here for the termite plague to be declared a national plague. This is extremely important. Where farmers have saved their veld, it has simply been stripped by termites. Just recently on the way to Pretoria I noticed how the veld had been stripped from place to place by termites. This is an extremely serious matter. If we can get an agricultural research station in that area it will assist in combating this plague.

Then there is another small matter I wish to raise here. It is generally known at present that the Karoo moves half a mile in an eastern direction every year and that the Karoo-bush is gradually taking over our grass regions. We will have to give attention to this. The hon. the Minister is acquainted with this problem. When I was a little boy the veld there was covered with red grass. But to-day there are only bushes in the mountains at Lady Grey and at Barkly East. Grazing control is, in fact, being exercised but the bushes continue to spread in an easterly direction. I think that a system of complete withdrawal from certain farms will assist in arresting this process. I know of no other way in which we will be able to effect this. Attempts are being made at present to farm on a system of rotation but climatic conditions are so adverse to the farmer that he in actual fact cannot continue. It was said here to-night that prices of agricultural produce were the cause of that. I can divide my constituency into two portions—the eastern and the western portion. In the eastern portion there still is steady grassland and reasonable supplies of water. Although our farming community there also has its problems, those problems are not so numerous as in the case of the farming community in the western portion. The drought is prevailing there. To-night I can testify here that it is not as a result of prices for agricultural produce being too low that our farmers get into financial difficulties but as a result of these excessively serious drought conditions.

I think we all appreciate the gravity of our position as far as the soil of our country is concerned. Of course, nobody could help or foresee the fact that we would experience a drought such as the current one. Even in normal times, however, there are also problems as regards our soil. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing a tremendous deal. For example, more than 2,000 research projects are in progress at the moment, projects of various kinds. These should also be noted with gratitude. Other hon. members spoke of our personal relationship with our soil, and also of the attitude of our children towards our soil. Years ago our schools had something called a tree-planting day. The children of the school got together to plant a tree and to hear a lecture on nature conservation. To-day, however, most of us are concrete dwellers, and because of that soil conservation is no longer regarded with so much interest and seriousness as in former years. Fortunately, we still have movements like the Land Service movement, the Voor-trekker movement and the Boy Scouts, but we should bring it home to our children that our most important possession is our soil. It has been predicted that by the year 2,000 our population may total 40,000,000. That should give us food for thought. Our country has 144,000,000 morgen of land, of which 16,200,000 is under horticultural crops, but this may be increased to 19,000,000 morgen; 105,000,000 morgen is grazing and mountains; and 12,000,000 morgen railroads and roads. Has the time not come that we should tell ourselves to be more soaring of our soil? It may be adequate for the present, and there is no need to plough right up against the landing strip of the airport, but the day will come when we will ask why it is necessary to leave and island 8 feet wide merely to separate two roads. A narrower strip is also adequate. You may think I am being extremistic; I merely mention this to show how essential it is that we should treat our soil with respect. We must not wake up too late and then try to change things. We shall vet see the day when we shall say that the old cemetery should be levelled, that it should be changed into pasturage for sheep. We cannot continue making injudicious use of our available land.

Then there is the harvester termite. It causes me sleepless nights. Spraying alone will not help. We have exterminated the natural enemies of the harvester termite. We have disturbed the balance of nature. Let me give you one example of this. We have failed to treat the guinea fowl with respect. We have destroyed the natural covering of the land, in which the natural enemy of the termite lived, by injudicious bush fires, etc. In some regions farmers have carried out private experiments. I mention this in order that the Department may take note of it and render assistance in that direction. In the constituency Heidelberg and in a part of the constituency Standerton, 2912 farms were proclaimed soil conservation districts. They cover 960,000 morgen, and yet there is only one extension officer there. The Department is not to blame for that, because our trained people are attracted by commerce. I am therefore grateful that the hon. the Minister has said that qualified farmers who are prepared to take over those tasks, even if only on a part-time basis, will be compensated. The fact of the matter is surely that a soil conservation committee simply cannot function well without the guidance of a technically trained officer. I know the hon. the Minister has no magic wand to put everything right in the twinkling of an eye. But we regard it as our duty to bring this matter to his attention. I see it is almost time, but I just want to mention something else, namely the pineapple industry in the Eastern Province. In this wonderful report we have received a tremendous field is covered. It mentions pineapple research in Natal, but I feel that there is a tremendous shortage of pineapples for the canning industry in the Eastern Province.

Progress reported.