Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the progress of this Bill through the House, there is very little time available to us to discuss the details of the Bill. Of course, we have no intention of doing that. There are, however, some observations we can make about the contents of the Bill and about certain points which have been made in the debates on it. One point I should like to discuss briefly, is the account the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education gave of what I had said about what happened to Fort Hare 10 years ago. Amongst others he referred to a remark I was supposed to have made about the “denigration” of Fort Hare, the “rape” of Fort Hare. I only want to make one simple observation in that connection. For this purpose I want to quote the definition of a “university” as contained in Act 61 of 1955. The definition of a “university” in that Act is: “‘university’ means a university established by Act of Parliament and includes the University College of Fort Hare.” In other words, at that stage Fort Hare had reached university status. In 1959 Fort Hare was erased as a university; it then ceased to be of university status. That is all I meant when I spoke about the “denigration” of Fort Hare—it was reduced in status. Even now it has not yet reached the status it had 10 years ago.

During the course of our discussions of this Bill, from the beginning, we have done our best in offering co-operation. Accordingly, our amendment at the Second-Reading stage was straightforward, and contained what we thought was the obvious solution to the department’s difficulties. We proposed that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before its Second Reading. That would have enabled us to offer our co-operation, talk to the people interested and formulate a better Bill, if it were necessary, or get to know the sentiments of the people involved in this institution. Well, the hon. the Minister was unable to accept that suggestion; that was the best we could do. During the course of the Bill’s passage through the House in the Committee Stage subsequently, we submitted several amendments that would have improved the Bill. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Our amendments would have improved the Bill and given greater dignity to the university. But all our amendments were turned down, and some of them would have improved the Bill greatly. However, our co-operation was refused again. Now, what can we do at this stage, Sir? Obviously there is only one course open to us; we must vote against this Bill. If we are not able to meet the people concerned; if our suggestions for improvements are not accepted and if they are not even considered seriously, there is only one course open to us: that is to vote against the Bill.

The hon. member for Kensington went out of his way to try to emphasize that the Official Opposition had given its support to this Bill but that at this stage, because their amendments had not been accepted and had all been rejected, they were going to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Sir, this is nothing new. Since 1948, since the ’fifties, as well as after the establishment of these universities, this has always been the attitude of the Opposition whenever these matters were broached. In the fifties, when a commission was appointed, the Opposition also opposed the Bill which was presented to this House. I do not want to repeat what was said in the 1959 debate, but there most definitely was no co-operation at that time. On the contrary, what happened at that time was exactly the same thing as has been happening this year over the past two or three weeks: Virtually every word of this legislation was opposed by the Opposition. Not only did they oppose the Bill, but also practically every clause and every principle contained therein. The Opposition called for a division on every clause of this Bill. The hon. member for Kensington is the last person who should maintain sanctimoniously that there was co-operation from the Opposition in connection with this Bill. As regards the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton, I shall comment on that later. At this stage I only want to say that there was even less cooperation from her.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I deem it necessary to consider a few aspects raised in the course of the debate and to ask oneself the question to what extent this Bill meets those aspects and to what extent the National Government, in the application of what it has in mind in connection with this university, is succeeding and will succeed in future in establishing a successful university. This idea of establishing an autonomous university in the form in which it is now being done, is nothing new. The idea of separate universities for the various population groups is nothing new. As long ago as 1910 General Smuts said—

In the report of the Commission on Native Education of 1949-’51 the following statement appears (translation)—

But the commission went on to say—

This thought runs throughout the Report. In 1959 there was the Commission, which has often been mentioned here and the work and report of which are known. This Commission laid down various principles in 1959; the Commission also stated, inter alia, that this principle of separate university development had its origin, inter alia, in the traditional policy of separate development, and to the Bantu this in fact meant development along their own lines. The Commission also found that our policy was intent on Bantu communal development, and this could only be carried out effectively if it went hand in hand with Bantu university development as well. As long ago as 1957 a young man who was an official of the Department at that time, Dr. P. G. Koornhof, stated the object and the functions of the university, as now contemplated in this Bill, as follows (translation)—

This is what is being established here—

In addition he said that every university should be tested against the service it was rendering to a nation. I shall come back to this and deal with it in more detail. A further finding of this Commission was that it was very clear that a considerable section of the non-Whites wanted these universities. The non-Whites still are of the same opinion to-day; and what really surprises one so much of the Opposition is that they once again want to oppose this Bill to-day because technically the Bill does not fit in with their concept of a university, with their concept of an autonomous university, with their concept of an academically free university. But the Bantu of South Africa want these universities. The Bantu of those areas would like to have these universities. They are looking forward with much pleasure to the finalization of this legislation for the establishment of their own universities. This Commission said even at that time that it would be unrealistic to expect Bantu university institutions of this nature to be controlled in the same way as university institutions for the Whites, for example, and that these university colleges should bear the stamp of the national culture and the national life they would have to serve. It is interesting that a Bantu chief said the following in 1950 at Eshowe in connection with his experience of Bantu education. What his words amounted to was that Bantu education was adjusted to skimming off the brightest boys and girls for the Whites. He then said the following (translation)—

The concept of such a university is enunciated very fully in the report of the Commission, and I do not want to repeat it, except to summarize it briefly and to the point by saying that a nation, in addition to its other institutions, also needs its own universities in order to develop a feeling of self-respect and independence. These must be institutions of which they may rightly be and feel proud because they will grow to maturity through their own efforts.

These universities which are now being established, also give rise to certain questions. So it was said in the course of this debate by the hon. member for Berea that the Bantu universities as yet did not provide all the educational facilities; this was such a serious shortcoming and for that reason consideration should not be given at this stage to the establishment of an autonomous university of this nature, because all the various departments were not available as yet. But it is very clear that the hon. member, who unfortunately is not present at the moment, did not give consideration to the position at other universities. If he did, he would have found that there are several universities to-day which still do not have a faculty of engineering. There are several universities which do not have a Department of Pharmacy. The hon. member would also have known that he could not cast that slur, because how many universities are there in South Africa which have a Medical and Dental Faculty? For theology there are only a few, and for agriculture there are only a few, and these can only be provided in accordance with the need, the source of supply and the available capital which can be provided. What development has there been since 1960 to bring this university college to where it is to-day, to the point where this legislation is going to make an autonomous university of this institution? I want to refer to a few of the extensions in the various faculties. To the Faculty of Arts, for example, were added departments of Greek, librarianship, sociology and social work, German and industrial psychology. To the Faculty of Natural Sciences were added a department of land surveying and sub-departments of geology, statistics, etc. The Faculty of Education has been extended in particular, and when one consults the number of students and the statistics provided by the Department, it is interesting to note how many students there are in the Faculty of Arts as well as in the Faculty of Education. Various new departments have been established, such as empirical education, history of education, philosophy of education, etc. In this way a full-fledged Faculty of Commerce and Administration has also been developed with a department of economy and economic history. There is a full-fledged Faculty of Theology, and Faculties of Law and Agriculture have also been established.

Surely this is not a high school, as it was spoken of by the hon. member for Houghton, this is not an institution with that status. When one has regard to these extensions of and to faculties, surely that is indicative of tremendous university faculty extension. As a result of the concern expressed by the hon. member, I should like to refer to some of the research programmes which are already being undertaken at this university which is not a high school. A comprehensive socio-economic investigation into the Ciskei is in progress, the Faculty of Education is conducting a comprehensive investigation into teaching methods in schools; the Faculty of Arts, in co-operation with the Faculty of Bantu Languages, is compiling a new Xhosa-English-Afrikaans dictionary; the Faculty of Commerce and Administration is conducting extremely important research concerning the establishment of Bantu agricultural corporations; and the Faculty of Agriculture is completing research on the soil potential of the Transkei. These are comprehensive research projects. These research projects show that this institution which is to become the University of Fort Hare has already reached the stage where it is possible to refer with pride to the independent and high quality work which is being done there in the field of research as well.

The same hon. member also expressed concern about another matter. The hon. member for Berea asked whether the numbers leaving the secondary schools justified a separate university. While the hon. member was referring to the relatively low matriculation pass rate, he said: “And I say advisedly and with conviction that it is due in the main to the fault of this particular Government and the failure to provide facilities for pupils at secondary schools.” In other words, the Government is to blame. But what is the real position? The pass rate in respect of the Std. 6 examinations increased from 64 per cent in 1957 to 84 per cent in 1963-’64. This surely is indicative of very positive endeavours on the part of the Department of Bantu Education and the Government. The pass rate in respect of Std. 8 increased from 57 per cent in 1962 to 78 per cent in 1963, and 74 per cent in 1964. The numbers in secondary and high schools increased from 34,983 in 1955 to 53,444 in 1963, an increase of 52.8 per cent. I have other statistics as well, which I should like to quote. The numbers in Std. 6 showed an increase of 128.8 per cent. If the hon. member opposite wants to dabble in figures, I can readily refer him to comparative figures in respect of population groups similar to ours and the rest of Africa, as well as reasonably developed countries, but I shall leave it at that for the moment. Mr. Speaker, the accusation that the Government is not doing enough for education to make provision for a university of this nature is surely not borne out by these facts when it is taken into account that 537 school boards as well as 5,144 school committees were established in the past few years. Approximately 56,000 male and female Bantu are playing active roles in the administration of education in the Republic. This most definitely is indicative of the opposite of what was alleged by the hon. member opposite.

Previous speakers, and the hon. the Minister in particular furnished the statistics relating to the ratio of students to lecturers. The latest figure in respect of Fort Hare is available this year, i.e. 5.5 to 1. The figures in respect of Turfloop and Zululand are 7.7 and 5.3, respectively. The Opposition wanted to make a strong point of this, but when one goes back in history it is interesting to note what the position was as regards the initial years of the white universities in South Africa. The Opposition would very much like to suggest that this state of affairs was out of all proportion and that money was being wasted on Bantu education. In 1912 the ratio was 6.6 to 1. In 1913 it was 6.6, later 6.3 and still later 6. Subsequently there was another increase in the ratio to 6.8 to 1. These are the ratios for those years. In addition it is interesting to note that reference was made here to the small numbers of Bantu students and to the amount of money which was being spent on, inter alia, the University of Fort Hare. But was the same argument raised during the initial years of the white universities? In 1916 there were 490 students at the University of Cape Town, At the University of Stellenbosch there were 442 students in 1916, and 548 in 1918, when it became an autonomous university. This number of 442 is below the number of students who are attending the University College of Fort Hare this year. At the University of the Witwatersrand there were 168 students, in Pretoria 197 and in Natal as few as 49. Originally the University of Potchefstroom had 65 students. At that time this kind of complaint was not raised. At that time everyone was inspired with a desire to develop these universities. I want to admit readily that the population setup and the standard of development of the population possibly differed from that of the population we are at present trying to put on its feet. But one should not look to numbers only and then say that because the numbers are small, one should not be idealistic and should not spend money and should not try to put these people on their feet.

You are putting them on the wrong foot.

Never mind, the hon. member will get his turn.

Concern was also expressed about the aspect that the establishment of this university would bring about a lowering of standards. I do not want to go into this in detail, but if hon. members opposite would only take the trouble to consult clause 20, there could really be no cause for concern in this connection. Clause 20 makes specific provision for the standards to remain the same as those at white universities. The four aspects which are important in this connection are the following. No person shall be registered as a matriculated student of the university unless, in the first place, he has obtained the matriculation certificate of the Joint Matriculation Board; in the second place, he is a graduate of a university institution or has been admitted by a university institution to the status of a graduate; in the third place, he has complied with such other conditions as the council may prescribe by regulation; and, in the fourth place, he has paid the requisite moneys. I leave it at that. There can no longer be any doubt whatsoever in respect of the concern which was expressed in this regard.

The other important aspect about which hon. members of the opposite side were equally concerned is the links which will be maintained with other universities. Clause 30 lays down the same procedure as that which is applicable at white universities as regards the appointment of external examiners and moderators by the council on the recommendation of the senate.

There is a final matter on which I should like to comment, and this arises from the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. In her speech the hon. member dealt more particularly with the question of academic freedom or the autonomy of a university. As I understand the speech of the hon. member and the speeches of other hon. members opposite, this so-called autonomy amounts to academic freedom. However, the question of the autonomy of the university was dealt with so comprehensively by the hon. the Minister that I do not want to make any comment in this regard.

As regards the question of academic freedom, however, the hon. member cannot go free. The hon. member placed particular emphasis on questions and statements such as “the right to decide who shall teach; what shall be taught and who shall be taught”. She pointed out that the powers of the council and the senate were and ought to be unrestricted. The members of these bodies are nominated by the hon. the Minister, and because they are nominated that, according to the hon. member, would mean that they would be influenced indirectly by the hon. the Minister also with regard to syllabuses and examinations. In addition the hon. member said that this Bill provided that the university would not be allowed to receive any donations or other gifts under certain circumstances without the Minister taking cognizance of such donations or other gifts, and that the university would consequently be restricted in what it might teach. The hon. member said that the university could be restricted in what it lectured, because it was not allowed to receive donations freely. I do not want to wrest the hon. member’s speech from its context, but arising from her speech I wonder whether the hon. member did not mean by that that if such a university were to be disallowed to receive a donation from The Defence and Aid Fund it would not be allowed to give any lectures on terrorism, communism or any other undermining activity. If the hon. member does not want such deductions to be made, she should be more careful in her choice of words and the statements she can make with such irresponsibility at times.

The hon. member also dealt with “the right to decide who shall be taught”. She said more particularly that the fact that white students could not be admitted to these universities, formed the entire basis of her argument in connection with academic freedom. She said the Minister would be able to exercise control over the teaching of certain subjects. Here I should like to refer to part of the hon. member’s speech in respect of which I am of the opinion that the hon. member should apologize to the hon. the Minister at a later stage. During the discussion of clause 14 the hon. member said—

In other words, this hon. member wants to suggest that the hon. the Minister will have whatever subject suits him taught in a different way than that demanded by the real, scientific truths embraced by those subjects. I think this is a truly scandalous allegation to make and the matter must certainly not be left at that. When the hon. member makes such allegations it is clear to me that she has done some research. I want to refer to the report of the Commission on the Separate University Education Bill, and it is clear to me that the hon. member read paragraph 18 on page 61 of the report. One Professor Olivier, gave evidence, which I now want to quote here, before this Commission, and if my information is correct he is a person with fairly progressive and liberal ideas. He said at that time—

If the hon. member still was purely a university lecturer, as she used to be, she would definitely not have told this kind of political tale. Unfortunately the hon. member met friends on the way who influenced her. While one was listening to her speech it became clear that she had also read the speech of Professor Matthews, which he delivered at the University of Cape Town on 15th August, 1961, on the occasion of the T. B. Davie memorial lecture. He said, inter alia—and this is what the hon. member for Houghton also quoted virtually word for word in the debate as her own view on the matter—

Very well spoken.

These words sound extremely familiar. It is clear, however, that the hon. member did some more research, because her speech appears equally as familiar.

You did some research yourself.

The speech of the hon. member appears equally familiar when one looks at the speech delivered by Professor C. W. De Kiewiet of America on 27th July, 1960, during a similar T. B. Davie memorial lecture at the University of Cape Town. Professor De Kiewiet is president of the University of Rochester in the United States. He was invited to lecture in this country, and in that lecture he made extremely controversial statements about the proposed university college legislation which was before Parliament at that time and which was subsequently passed. It was not nice of him to have expressed himself so strongly about certain matters he mentioned. He said, inter alia, the following about this question of academic freedom, which hon. members opposite are following so slavishly at present—

He went on to say the following—

This, more or less, is the vein in which he spoke, except that later in his speech he emphasized that these universities would be nothing but technical colleges—this comment he could most certainly have left behind in America—and that there should be absolute equality. At the end of his argument, in which he attacked our views in connection with universities, an argument which sounds as familiar as the refrain from the opposite side of this House, he said—

In other words, this should simply take place on an international, loose as well as unrealistic basis. I do not want to make any further comment in this regard.

The ideas expressed by the hon. member are also identical to the work of Professor Jaspers of Germany, “The Idea of the University”. It is typical of members of the Opposition to look for all the most liberal reading matter in order to comment in these debates on the so-called academic freedom which should be carried into effect. I just want to say that there are certain parts of this book which most definitely are very interesting, positive and constructive reading matter. Unfortunately hon. members of the opposite side like to stick to those parts which are not so constructive. He said, inter alia—

I cannot make any other deductions except that the hon. member had occupied herself with this type of reading matter before she commented on this aspect. Before referring hon. members to what the late Dr. Verwoerd said in this regard, I should like to refer them to what was said by the commission as far as this matter is concerned. If those hon. members had read this part, I do not think there would have been any doubt in their minds. I read from paragraph 47 of the report of the Commission on the Separate University Education Bill—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should be very flattered! The hon. member for Potchefstroom has been burning the midnight oil. He has obviously been making vast researches into the sources of my Second-Reading speech, and I am glad that he thought that it was worth all that hard work on his part. As a matter of fact, I am delighted to hear him quoting a lot of excellent authorities to support the views which I have put forward. Some of these views are views which I might very well have absorbed in my own days as a student and my own days, indeed, as a teacher at an open university. I spent a number of years, first as a student and then as a lecturer, at an open university, the University of the Witwatersrand. As far as Professor De Kiewiet is concerned, I am deeply flattered that the hon. member for Potchefstroom should have put my feeble reasoning on the same level as that professor’s, who is one of the most renowned economic historians this country has ever produced. As I say, willy-nilly, Sir, some of those thoughts have certainly embedded themselves in my own thinking. I have done a great deal of reading on the subject and I see no reason to excuse myself for having prepared a speech. I think it is an excellent thing. Only it is a pity that more members of this House do not do the same before they come to this House and take the floor. I want to tell the hon. member for Potchefstroom that he has missed out one source, not that I necessarily admit to all the sources he has given, but he has missed out one altogether. That is Professor Malherbe. I have certainly asked Professor Malherbe for his views on this Bill. I mention this specifically because the hon. Minister in replying to the Second Reading of this debate, rather inferred that I was putting my foot into it by quoting Professor Malherbe as being somebody who might well be against the Bill. I want to quote from the letter which Professor Malherbe wrote in reply to my letter asking him for his advice after the Bills had first been published:

He goes on to say in a later telex which he sent me—

I hope, Sir, that the hon. the Minister is now under no illusions as to what Professor Malherbe thinks about the promotion of these university colleges to universities at this juncture. Another thing that I want to say at this stage is that I prophesied, at the beginning of the Committee Stage of this Bill, that the hon. the Minister would accept very few amendments of any importance whatsoever. That was the main reason why I did not bother to move any amendments, although I was quite prepared to argue each clause and to vote against the important clauses. Of course, I was right. The hon. the Minister accepted two or three minor amendments. In fact, the only one which I can think of is that he allowed the council to elect its own chairman, and since the council is itself largely appointed by himself, it is not really a great concession on his part. Nothing has happened during the course of the latter stages of this Bill, since we discussed it at its Second Reading many days ago; nothing has happened during the Committee Stage, which could in any way make me change my attitude towards this Bill. We have exactly the same structure, the same Bill, the same absurdly autocratic powers taken by the hon. the Minister over these so-called autonomous universities. It is farcical to call them autonomous in the light of the control which the Minister, in spite of what happened in the Committee Stage, still maintains over the appointment of the Council, the appointment of the senate, the appointment of the advisory council and the advisory senate, the appointment of staff to the university and the dismissal of staff from the university and the absurd regulations which I have no doubt whatsoever are going to apply to the students of this university, just as they applied to the students of the university college. Nothing of any importance has happened which is likely to change my mind about this Bill. I want to say to the hon. member for Potchefstroom, before I forget, that if the African students were so desirous of having their separate university institutions, it amazes me why we went to all the trouble of having all-night sittings and why we had the fights in this House over the passage of the original Separate Universities Bill. If the hon. member was so convinced that African students were going to flock to these separate institutions, there was no need whatsoever to close the open universities to nonwhite students. Those students would willy-nilly have gone to their own university establishments and the supply of non-white students to the open white universities would have dried up. We did not need all the coercion which was brought to bear upon the white open universities to close their doors to nonwhite students if that had been the case.

Sir, I want simply to emphasize two or three aspects of the Bill to which I am still totally opposed. The one is the whole question of the exclusion of Convocation from this university’s constitution. It is completely excluded, and no allowance is even made for a future Convocation. There is no reason why Fort Hare, with its long history and the many hundreds of graduates it has already produced, should not immediately he entitled to the inclusion of Convocation in the constitution of the university. But, Sir, I want to point out that in the constitution of RAU, which has only been in existence for a very short time and, of course, has not yet produced any graduates at all, provision is made for a future Convocation. That is accepted. But in the case of an African university college, which is now being converted into a university, an institution which over the years has produced hundreds of graduates, there is absolutely no provision made for any part to be played by Convocation in the university. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have been delighted to have sought out past students of this university and to have obtained their support and encouragement for the project which he is now undertaking. But no such thing is happening; they are excluded altogether. The fact, too, that the conscience clause is omitted from the constitution of this university is, as I mentioned during an earlier stage of this Bill, one of my prime objections to it. It strikes me, Sir, that tradition is valued when the Government wishes it to be valued, but the minute it does not suit the Government tradition—and the conscience clause is part of the tradition of our university education in this country—becomes the dead hand of the past and it is abandoned. That is another major objection that I have to the Third Reading of this Bill. Of course, the segregation clause is another very important objection that I have—the fact that under no circumstances, even with ministerial permission, as is the case in respect of students of other ethnic groups who wish to attend this Xhosa university, would white students be allowed to enter the doors of this non-white university, so that segregation becomes a built-in part of the constitution of this new university.

Sir, I am going to conclude now. There are other members who wish to take part in the short Third-Reading debate. I want to conclude by giving the hon. member for Potchefstroom, to whom I listened with great interest since he was quoting sentences with which I greatly agree, the benefit of what I believe a university to be. He has given us the benefit of his profound thoughts on this subject and I would like to give him the benefit not of my views—because I do not claim that these are my original views—but of the views of others, views with which I agree 100 per cent. The words which I am going to quote here were used at a conference held in Cape Town in 1957 which representatives of the University of Cape Town and of the University of the Witwatersrand, including the then chancellors of the respective universities, Judge Centlivres and Judge Feetham, attended. They gave their definition of what they believed to be a university. This is how it reads and I think it is a timely reminder to this House as to what a university in fact should be—

Sir, that says in words far better than any that I could conjure up, what I believe a university should be. For all these reasons and for reasons which I have given at earlier stages of this Bill and which have not changed at all because we have had no changes introduced into the Bill during the Committee Stage, I propose to vote against the Third Reading.

Sir, we have now been debating this Bill on and off for days, in fact since 6th March, and one presumes that after all these words have been spoken about it the position of these new universities is going to remain more or less the same for some years to come. The hon. the Minister is not going to come next year or the year thereafter with far-reaching amendments, although he might come with minor amendments. In the light of that I say that the hon. the Minister has missed a very great opportunity indeed by turning down the suggestion and the proposal of the hon. member for Kensington that this Bill should have gone to a select committee before the second reading.

Sir, I am surprised at the language used here by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. In fact I am shocked that he should have accused the hon. member for Kensington of “hoogheiligheid” in moving that this Bill should go to a select committee before the second reading. [Interjections.] I am giving the hon. member a free translation of what he said; he said that the hon. member for Kensington was sanctimonious about it. Is that a good enough translation for the hon. member?

It was well meant.

It was well meant!

The hon. member should know what good work we can achieve in a select committee.

I would never insult the hon. member for Kensington. I did not mean it in that spirit.

Well, I accept that.

Do you think you should insult me?

The hon. member knows what good work we can achieve in a select committee by improving Bills of this nature, and other Bills. Sir, the suggestion was also made from this side of the House that what was in fact warranted for the Bantu, having regard to the present number of Bantu students, was not three universities but perhaps one, which would have served as an umbrella university and of which the other Bantu colleges would have been constituent colleges. If that suggestion had been adopted, Fort Hare might well have been that umbrella university.

If that had been the case, we would have been able to draw on the brains, the abilities and the experience of all the Bantu people and not merely of the Xhosa people alone, and there would have been a much better chance indeed that the degrees and diplomas of such an umbrella university would have gained a wider recognition than those of the three separate universities are liable to gain. This Government has set the Bantu people on the road to self-government; yet apparently among those Bantu people we still cannot find people whom they feel can play a full part on the councils and senates of these universities. I say that if there had been one university they would have been much more likely to find those people than if there are three. But the Minister has cast aside that opportunity and he has in fact removed the umbrella of the University of South Africa, whose degrees are internationally recognized, and instead of that he is setting up these three independent Bantu universities. What is the Minister going to achieve? He is giving a measure of academic autonomy in that he is giving these universities the right to decide, inter alia, on the syllabuses and to confer degrees, etc. Viewed against the powers that the Minister is retaining unto himself under this Bill, this is really a very halting and faltering step forward on the road to true university autonomy. It is window dressing because the people who are going to be in control of these universities are still going to be white people and not Bantu.

Again we have this paradox that the Government says these people are fit to govern themselves in ever-increasing measure and they are speeding up the tempo of this move towards self-government, but they say they are not fit to run a university. They are fit to run great portions of our country, but not fit to run a university. When this Bill finally becomes law, the hand of the Minister is going to lie on most of the important functions of these universities, or could lie on them. Right throughout the Bill the words “the Minister” appear in virtually every important clause. The Minister appoints the rector and he appoints the council and the council in turn will elect the senate. So you have ministerial control from top to bottom, throughout all the executive bodies of the university.

But the Minister is not even satisfied with that. When it comes to staff, the appointment and discharge of staff are vested in the council provided that appointments, etc., in such posts as the Minister may determine shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. The same applies to the conditions of service. It is the council with the approval of the Minister which determines the conditions of service. In cases of misconduct and inefficiency of the staff, the Minister may direct the council to hold an inquiry into the cases of people who are alleged to be inefficient or whose conduct is alleged to be unsatisfactory. I say this particular provision could lead to some of the more unfortunate results of this Bill. This opens the way to informers and snoopers on the campus.

There are plenty of those.

The Minister said during the Committee Stage that he would only listen to responsible persons, but it is again the Minister who will decide who is a responsible person to listen to. This particular provision is one which is certainly not designed to inspire confidence on the part of the staff, or to make those people feel more secure. Again, when it comes to the question of fees, it is not the council but the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance who decides on that. Even stores and equipment are really controlled by the Minister, and donations to the university can be made only with the approval of the Minister. The Minister justifies his interference by saying that there is even more State control in some of the overseas universities and he gave a series of examples.

Among others he cited some United States universities, particularly the University of Ohio, the State University of New York and the State University of California. I think that in at least two of those cases the Minister might have cited more fortunate examples, because when the hon. member for Algoa, who is not present now, spoke in this debate, he had quite a lot to say about student unrest and student disorders. But from what I have read, and I have various extracts here which time does not permit me to read out, some of the worst disorders on the part of students in the United States have taken place at the University of California and at the University of New York. I think this is proof that if you have State control, that does not necessarily mean that that university is going to be free from dissension and unrest on the campus. I will go further. It shows that people who are appointed by the State to the governing bodies of the universities, namely the councils, are not necessarily the best people to administer a university.

I wonder whether this is perhaps the reason why, when the Minister appoints a person—let us take for example one of his own supporters like the hon. member for Cradock—to the Council of Fort Hare, he has so little faith in such an hon. member and his other colleagues, who have also been appointed by the Minister, that at almost every turn the Minister limits the responsibility and the exercise of power by the council by reserving all these very wide powers to himself. Is that the real reason? If the Minister decides that the Xhosas are not yet fit to run their own university and that he has to keep control in white hands, then again I want to ask him why has he put so little power into those very same white hands in which he says he wants to keep control?

I want to turn to another aspect entirely. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite have laid great stress throughout the debate on the ethnic nature, the racial or tribal or national nature, of the proposed universities. The Minister complained, in replying to the second reading, that “agb. lede”, referring to hon. members on this side of the House, “nie ’n universiteitskollege wil gee vir elke volksfamilie van die Bantoevolke wat uit eiesoortige kulturele agtergrond hulle eie inrigtings behoort te hê nie”. A little further on he says the following—

The hon. the Minister has not been alone in this. The hon. member for Koedoespoort followed him up and said that we know that the syllabuses can now be adjusted to the population group’s own identity and national needs; in other words, the syllabuses of Fort Hare and the other colleges can be more nationally orientated. The emphasis the whole time is on the national unit and on the ethnic considerations on the term “eiesoortig”. During the Committee Stage I put a question to the hon. the Minister about the Bantu resident in the Hersehel area who speak Sesuto, but who live in what is portion of the Ciskei which is administered as part of the Ciskei, and there are thousands of them. I asked the Minister whether these people would be able to go to Fort Hare without seeking the approval of the Minister first. The Minister said yes and he said that actually he could give me a much better example than that; what about Chief Moshweshwe, who is a member of Matanzima’s Cabinet. The hon. the Minister was quite right, because Moshweshwe is a Hlubi from East Griqualand. They are also people who speak Sesuto although they live in the Transkei, and again there are thousands of them. They will be portion of the Xhosa national unit. Sir, may I emphasize that I welcome the reply of the Minister that it is not necessary for them to apply for his permission for them to go to Fort Hare. This Bill speaks of the Xhosa “national unit”. In other words, this university shall serve the Xhosa “national unit” and not necessarily the Xhosa “ethnic group”. So we have the position, according to the Minister’s reply, that people belonging to the South Sotho ethnic group, from Herschel and East Griqualand, can go to Fort Hare without Ministerial permission whereas, presumably, they cannot go to the University of the North without his permission, although the University of the North is designed to serve the South Sotho unit. Really, Sir, this is a farcical situation. Here we have Sothos who can freely go to a Xhosa institution where the syllabuses, according to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, will be adjusted in accordance with the Xhosas’ requirements and national needs and not to the needs of the South Sotho. There these South Sotho have now to absorb a “kulturele agtergrond, spesifieke kultuurerfenisse en ’n volkskarakter” which is “eiesoortig” to the Xhosa and not to the South Sotho. Presumably the Minister is allowing this for reasons, I will not say of expediency, but at least of common sense. He knows that the distance and costs involved will make it difficult for these people to attend the University of the North. But, at the same time, it makes nonsense of this high-flown talk of a group’s own national identity and national needs. This is talk designed to wrap in gift paper the Government’s policy of apartheid, as applied to universities, between one black man and another. I hope the hon. the Minister’s reply to this will not be that there are. after all, only a few of these in comparison with the number of Xhosas in the Transkei. I hope he will not use that argument, because I can well remember that when the no-confidence debate was on and we raised the question of the number of Bantu in the white areas, hon. members opposite said that numbers were not of prime importance; it was the principle that counted. Well, here it is a question of principle too.

There is only one further point with which I should like to deal. I have not been present during the entire debate, but from what I have heard and from what I have read I gathered that the hon. the Minister and hon. members from the opposite side paid tribute to what the authorities and staff at Fort Hare had done. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with that wholeheartedly. Furthermore, they have also paid tribute to the University of South Africa. Wll. I join them in paying that tribute. But I think the Minister has been less than generous, less than gracious, perhaps even a little bit churlish, in not paying tribute to Rhodes University for what it did in the early years of Fort Hare.

Hear, hear!

You see, Mr. Speaker, Rhodes very largely built up Fort Hare. It is well to remember that up to 1960 Fort Hare, under the wing of Rhodes University, produced no less than 1,193 graduates. In my view it is one of the minor pities of the situation we have got now, that the Minister will not allow further co-operation between Rhodes and this new university, co-operation which could have been beneficial to both sides. The hon. the Minister could have taken a leaf from the constitution of the University of Port Elizabeth which makes provision for one member from the University of Stellenbosch and one member from the University of Rhodes to be on the council of that university. I say that it is a pity that this link which Fort Hare had with Rhodes University has now been broken and, furthermore, it is a pity that the role Rhodes has played in the build-up of Fort Hare, has hitherto received so little recognition in this debate from the opposite side.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the speech made by my hon. colleague the hon. member for Potchefstroom. But I must say that she did not understand what he was talking about. However, it is clear to me that what he wanted to tell her was that as regards her sources for academic freedom she drew on the most liberal thinkers of our time. And she subsequently proved this by referring to this work “The Open Universities of South Africa”. The sub-title of this little booklet reads as follows: “Published on behalf of the Conference of Representatives of the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand”. This was at the time when they met with the very object of attacking separate universities for our Bantu peoples. Let us see in what company the hon. member for Houghton finds herself.

Amongst those present at that conference we find people such as Professor J. S. Marais, Leo Marquard, Professor Tobias, Sheila van der Horst, Monica Wilson, and then that archliberal whom I still remember from my student days, Ernie Wentzel. He played an important role in Nusas. That is the company in which the hon. member for Houghton finds herself.

This Bill will have a specific effect when it is enacted. It will affect specific facets of our society. In the first instance, it will have an effect on the Whites of South Africa. We may not be giving this much thought, but it will in fact have its effect on the Whites, especially on the white political parties we have in South Africa. It will clearly show up the contrast which exists between the views of the National Party and those of the United and Progressive Parties—the views of the National Party under the leadership of our Prime Minister Adv. Vorster, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, those of the United Party under the leadership of Sir De Villiers Graaff. From the discussion of this Bill it appears that the United Party, and its predecessors, were uncertain as to how the education of the Bantu should be approached. This uncertainty which we find in the United Party as well as the Progressive Party, is evident from their failure to notice the difference of the Bantu, and their own distinctive educational needs which arise from that. They could not reconcile this with their own educational ideals for the Bantu, i.e. that the Bantu will eventually become completely westernized.

In other words, the reality of the South African situation clashed with their philosophical ideals. This is clear from the standpoints which they adopted throughout in the various commissions which sat on this matter, irrespective of whether they were in the majority or in the minority. Furthermore, this is also apparent from the speeches of leaders of the United Party before audiences at Fort Hare. Here I am thinking, for example, of General Louis Botha, General Smuts, Minister Jan Hofmeyr and the progressive-liberal friend of the United Party, Mrs. Ballinger. In contrast to this incompleteness of the United Party, it has been recorded very clearly in the history of Fort Hare that the handling of this contact situation between Black and White by the National Party, does not lead to any clash between the reality of the South African situation and the ideal which the National Party strives after in this connection. The Bantu education policy of the National Party, as our chief leader has put it on many occasions, takes into account the reality we have in South Africa to-day. That is why we find that the grafting of Western educational institutions on the educational facets of the Bantu’s pattern of living under the National Party, cannot only be effected quite easily, but also bring harmony, as well as unlimited possibilities of growth for the Bantu in the educational field. This cultural innovation is being implemented so effectively by our Minister and his Department that this bringing together of the old and the new—the university as the Western world knows it, and the old traditional pattern of living of the Bantu—creates no disintegration in the pattern of Bantu society. On the contrary, the very thing it creates is orderliness.

This contrast, this fundamental difference between the National Party and the United Party, is very evident. The way in which university education for the Bantu has been handled by the National Party over the years, clearly indicates the difference between the National Party’s policy of separation between those ethnic groups which, inherently and because of the course of history, have to be separated, and, on the other hand, the policy of the United Party and the Progressive Party, which, in respect of these various groups, are not only seeking their downfall, but also want to create a completely new society. That is the effect on our political situation.

It also has an effect on the Whites outside. Many Whites are saying that the National Party is doing too much for the Blacks. They say that our establishing these universities in our society, is really the wrong thing to do. This is a mistake which is made by two groups of Whites in South Africa. The one group consists, in particular, of the supporters of the United Party in the rural areas. During the recess I listened to a speech made by Sir De Villiers Graaff at Frankfort. In keeping with the atmosphere created there, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “The Nationalist Party is doing far too much for the Bantu.” That, then, is the one group. Then we find other groups in our society, whatever they call themselves, that do not have the faintest idea of what the standpoints of the National Party are, nor are they making any effort to understand them. They advance very superficial arguments, and then they give themselves out to be the people who advocate the actual true viewpoint of the National Party. They do this out of ignorance. When these people level criticism, all one can do is to put the true and actual facts of the policy of the National Party to them. The standpoint of the National Party is guardianship, and that means giving in a responsible manner and helping in a responsible manner so that those to whom one is the guardian may, in turn, eventually help themselves in a responsible manner.

How does this Bill affect the Bantu as a whole and how does it affect the Xhosa national unit in particular? The Bantu as a whole are affected in the following ways: The Bantu will know that the National Party has an understanding of their ethnic diversity, as this ethnic diversity reveals itself in their history and in their respective ways of life. Secondly, it confirms once again the National Party’s guardianship in respect of the Bantu. Thirdly, the National Party approaches each national unit against its own particular background. It does not help the one at the expense of the other. It does not favour one above the other. In its help and in its guardianship it does not discriminate amongst the various ethnic national units which exist.

How does this affect the Xhosa, in particular? Although a university is clearly distinguishable, one cannot separate it from the community, one cannot separate it from that community in which the university is situated. One cannot separate it from its social organization, one cannot separate it from its political organization, one cannot separate it from its economic organization and, in particular, one cannot separate it from the family units constituting that community. Nor can one separate it from primary and secondary education. One cannot, therefore, divorce the university community from the history, from the nature and from the ideals of those people by whom and for whom it was established. Least of all, can one in this case divorce Fort Hare, as a university which has to serve the Xhosa national unit, from the Xhosa national unit itself.

If one traces the history of the universities of Africa, if one traces the history of the Bantu students—the “Africans” as they are called by the hon. Opposition—irrespective of whether they studied in America or in Europe, one will notice that in cases where they did not receive their training against the background of the community from which they come and with which they would eventually have to integrate themselves again, and if one does not take into account the needs and the nature of the community which they have to serve later, then one is creating a new kind of élite in the community of the black people. One would be creating an intellectual or academic élite which is isolated from the community it has to serve. To prove that this is the case, I want to refer you to the book which was written under the editorship of Aidan Southall, i.e. “Social Change in Modern Africa”, in which, in a certain chapter, he devoted his attention to the fact that universities in Africa had, in effect, only produced a kind of academic élite so far, which was isolated from the community and which actually exploited the community they were supposed to have served, for their own personal gain. The planners and supporters of Fort Hare also realized that this institution should really have been established for the non-Whites. Quite often they were forced by circumstances of a practical nature.

I want to quote certain examples in that connection, and I am quoting from the book by Alexander Kerr, the first rector of Fort Hare. The title of his book is “Fort Hare, 1915-’48—The Evolution of an African College”. Amongst other things he wrote, with reference to a speech made by Prof. Dingemans of Rhodes University at the first graduation ceremony on 3rd May, 1924, the following in his book. I iust want to add here that this is where Z. K. Matthews, who subsequently became a well-known Bantu professor, obtained his first degree. He wrote as follows—

Then Prof. Jabavu replied to him as follows—

He went further. Then I could go on to quote examples from what was said by these people in regard to their views on tribalism (page 129). This merely amounts to the fact that they realize, that although the Bantu is being drawn into the great body of wisdom and knowledge of the Western world through his university education, he must nevertheless retain his ties with his particular tribe. The matters Dr. Henderson (page 136) discussed were actually of a similar nature. The link with the Whites is based on guardianship. That is why we cannot allow an academic elite to be created at this Bantu University of Fort Hare, an elite which would be cold and indifferent to what is their own, because such an elite class would contribute to a loose, fluid state of affairs, in which it would also be difficult for peaceful coexistence to succeed. In other words, if the establishment of these universities is not brought into line with the basis of the National Party’s views, they might very well, by becoming seed-beds, as Nusasoriented universities sometimes tend to become. create great problems for the man in the street later on. That is why the Bantu universities should develop from what is traditional, what is peculiar to them and what is inherent in their particular national character. The planners and those engaged in academic training, who refuse to recognize these facts, will never make any progress in the field of Bantu education. Many modern education planners, and this most probably includes certain members on the other side, would frown on my saying that the traditional education system of the Bantu, if one analyses it, involves many fine possibilities, to which not only tertiary education, but also primary education may be adapted. I should like to mention an example. Many problems and complaints have been raised in regard to the tribal schools by missionaries who have had to deal with them and even by educationists. But if one analyses the tribal schools of the Bantu, one finds that there are two basic aspects which become apparent and which the Bantu in his traditional way of life wanted to teach the emergent generations. The first is physical toughness. He must be made strong. The second is knowledge of tribal history, tribal laws and tribal etiquette. These two principles, implied in the traditional educational facet of the Bantu way of life, provide, when one wants to introduce a change, an excellent link which runs right through from primary to tertiary education. When one wants to establish these universities for the Bantu, one finds that they cannot materialize out of thin air. They are not to be obtained from England, America, the Ikeys, Wits or from Houghton. They must link up with those things which are peculiar to the nature of the Bantu.

If one traces what has been done on the part of the Opposition, one finds that even a man like C. P. Loram, in a very good work for his time, in which he discussed “the education of the South African Native”, only devoted the following, in a book of about 300 pages, to the Bantu traditional system of education:

Throughout the history of South Africa the educational system of the Bantu, even on a university level, had one shortcoming in particular, namely, that it was derived from the intellectual world of the white man. They never gave thought to what was peculiar to the Bantu and what his opinion of it was. Hon. members of the Opposition are erring in exactly the same way. Representing, in essence, an extension of an imperialistic attitude which prevailed a century ago, they still want to bring those attitudes to bear on every facet of our thinking in South Africa.

Then I want to express a last thought. This University of Fort Hare will serve the Xhosa national unit. I just want to quote practical proof of this to hon. members. Under the guardianship of the white lecturers they have there, scientific research work, in conjunction with the Bantu students, is already being undertaken there in a thoroughly scientific manner. I shall only mention two departments. There is, for example, the department of Bantu languages. I am quoting different projects. The first is “research into the subject of the comparative phonetic and morphological aspects of the dialects of the southern Nguni, including the lexical influence of the non-Bantu languages”. The second is “The development of the novel in Xhosa from 1940 to 1964”. The third is “The development and growth of drama in Xhosa”. The fourth is “The structure and linguistic features of the Lala dialects of the Cape and Natal”. We have often heard members of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Houghton, saying that the Bantu language has no place in the modern world. They say: “These matters which you emphasize every day as far as the Bantu are concerned, cannot be studied by present-day science.” Here we have proof, over a short period, of what scientific work has been done, in conjunction with the Bantu lecturers and students, merely in the sphere of Bantu languages, research which will make the University of Fort Hare famous throughout the world; not as a second or third rate university, but as a university complying with everything modern society requires a university to be.

Finally I want to say that this legislation in respect of Fort Hare, if it is studied in the light of its history, indicates very clearly the difference between the National Party and the United Party, the National Party under the leadership of the Prime Minister, and the United Party, a bankrupt party, under the leadership of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, if we had been concerned with primary education this afternoon, I think the conclusions of the hon. member for Rissik would have had some value, because his whole approach to the question of university education was an attempt to justify the basing of that education on the ethnic customs and differentiation of the ethnic groups of the Bantu in South Africa. I want to suggest seriously that such attention to ethnic differentiation is pertinent and necessary in the elementary stages of education. I want to suggest also that its importance disappears as the groups progress in the field of education, from primary education and secondary education to university education. It is for that reason that I say the hon. member’s approach was one which was directed and which was pertinent to the policy or the principle to be applied in the field of primary education of the black people of South Africa. We have had several attempts to find justification for this legislation and why we should allow this Bill to be read for the third time. I am, however, still unconvinced that this Bill should receive a Third Reading this afternoon. I say this because I have taken note of and studied the replies given by the hon. the Minister and the contribution of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who dealt with another of the trio of university Bills. I have also listened to the contributions by hon. members on that side of the House. We on this side of the House have found that in some respects there has been a hesitant but nevertheless noticeable agreement with some of the points we have put forward, and I would like to refer particularly to the question of whether we are wise in passing this Bill in its present form rather than having an umbrella university to control all Bantu university education. The hon. the Minister brushed this idea aside as something that was not necessary, but the hon. the Deputy Minister in dealing with the necessity of another university did tell us that this was a problem which gave him considerable need for thought and that he came to his conclusions after a great deal of thought. I believe that this Bill has indicated the necessity of further and more thorough investigation and that the form in which it now is at this Third Reading is a form which I think is doing a disservice to the planning of Bantu higher education in the future.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom raised an interesting point when he replied to the argument as to the faculties that can be made available in these various Bantu universities. He very correctly pointed out that the same faculties are not available in all the white universities, that there are selected faculties and that one university may specialize in one department and another university in another department. He pointed out that there was no uniform pattern of faculties and this is a very interesting point. But how does this answer our point that there should be one umbrella university? The white student is not precluded from going to the University of the Witwatersrand, for instance, where there may be a special course which is not available in the University of Cape Town or the University of Stellenbosch, for instance. But if we are to deal with these matters in ethnic groupings as they are, it can only be the isolated exception who with the permission of the Minister can avail himself of a curriculum at another university, other than the one for which he is ethnically qualified. I believe, and I have no reason to depart from what I have said before, that one umbrella university will enable us to make the maximum use of the teaching talent that is available for Bantu universities, because there will be no unnecessary duplication of faculties for a small number of students in each university. It will also ensure that the maximum benefit of the money spent on Bantu education will be attained and it will, I believe, certainly ensure a uniformity of standards and an acceptance thereof as far as the degrees granted by these universities are concerned. The hon. the Minister has turned down this proposal and we do not believe that he has done so with justification.

I want to return to the question raised by the hon. member for Rissik, namely the necessity for the separate ethnic institutions. We are dealing here not with the school child, but with the education of Bantu people who have passed through their ten standards plus the sub-standards of normal education. I believe that to have separate ethnic institutions is not only extravagant, but that it will be a limiting factor in the quality of the education which is to be granted. I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees with me that the knowledge acquired at a university is not confined knowledge within the language of a certain group of people. It is not knowledge confined to a racial group or to a particular country or knowledge that is confined by territorial limits, but it is international knowledge. It is knowledge that breaks down ethnic groupings and the barriers between races. At the moment we know of the exchange of technical knowledge at university level between the countries of the East and the countries of the West. We also know of the exchange of knowledge, scientific and otherwise, which is university knowledge, between the socialist and capitalist states. These barriers are broken, but we are asked to-day to approve the Third Reading of a Bill in which the hon. the Minister still feels that this must not be done and that the education must be available on an ethnic basis. I believe, as I have said before—and the hon. the Minister has given me no reason to change my mind—that this Bill indicates bad planning as far as Bantu education is concerned. I believe that the basis upon which we are proceeding in this country, namely of building up quickly the number of Bantu children attending school, is leading to the creation of a large semi-educated proletariat. I say semi-educated because 50 per cent of our 2 million Bantu children who are attending school do not go beyond Std. II. Although we appreciate that this education is being extended, we are now asked to pass a Bill which is dealing with the 4.8 per cent—not the vast number the hon. member for Potchefstroom referred to—of Bantu children attending school who reach Std. X. There are 2 million Bantu children attending school and the hon. member can work out what percentage 50,000 of them is.

I will.

It is even a little less than 4.8 per cent. This is the percentage that is in Matric and I believe that we are being asked to pass this Bill to provide for university education in a most expensive manner where the demand does not exist at the present time. It is Government ideology and not educational reality which the hon. the Minister is asking us to approve of to-day. We are called upon to support a Bill to maintain this plethora of ethnic groupings in all facets of life in South Africa. The educational pattern amongst the Whites is quite a different one. The educational pattern has been a satisfactory one, the emphasis has been in the right direction and although it can be improved, there have been attempts to provide for more and more children receiving a secondary education rather than the expansion of universities. Between 1955 and 1965 the number of matriculants and school-leaving certificate qualifiers in respect of Whites, increased from 12,908 to 28,876. The number of Coloureds increased from 329 to 832; the Asiatics from 291 to 1,210; and the number of Bantu—the total number of matriculants and school-leaving certificate holders —increased from 465 to 1,100 over this period of ten years. Sir, I still have to be convinced that it is necessary to have this university in addition to the other non-white universities. Is it necessary to have three Bantu universities to provide degree and diploma courses, as separate entities, for a maximum potential enrollment of 1,100 students per annum? If every matriculant and every holder of a school-leaving certificate went to the universities, the total maximum enrolment for degree and diploma courses would be 1,100. [Interjections.]

The maximum number of Bantu available to be admitted is 1,100. Sir, I do not know why the hon. member cannot follow what I am saying. I have indicated to him that 50 per cent of the Bantu school-going children leave school at Std. II, and of the total number only 4.8 per cent reach matriculation standard. In ten years of growth the number of matriculants and school-leaving certificate holders has increased from 465 to 1,100. It has taken ten years for that. Let us assume that we continue to have the same percentage increase.

You should treble it.

Or let us treble it. I still say, is there any need for us to-day to legislate to establish three Bantu universities for a potential intake of 1,100 students at the present time? Sir, when we said to the hon. the Minister that there was no urgency in this matter, he would not listen to us. I believe that this Bill is hasty. It is a Bill which has not been given the thought and investigation which I believe is necessary and should have been necessary. I believe that it is a Bill which is like so much other legislation that we have had before us, measures such as the Planning Act and Education Act, which are dictated not by need and necessity but by Government race ideologies, requiring the separation and requiring the show-window of opportunities of development. The emphasis is in the wrong place; the emphasis for the development of the Bantu people should not be placed on these universities but should be placed on the proper approach to their education at a lower level. I believe that for those reasons the House should reject this Bill and refuse to grant it a Third Reading.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom started his speech by quoting a translation of a statement made by the late King of the Zulus, the late Paramount Chief Cyprian, and the first line that he read out was: “Wat doen julle met ons seuns en dogters?” Sir, in that phrase lies the whole crux of our opposition to this Bill: What are you doing with our sons and daughters? That was the reason for the amendment which we moved at the Second Reading, an amendment which unfortunately was rejected by the hon. the Minister. In that amendment we asked him to refer this Bill to a select committee; to go and consult with the people concerned, the people whose sons and daughters will be educated at this university, and to ask them to come and join us; help us to establish a university of which not only we, the Whites, but of which they, the Xhosa people can also be proud. We further asked the hon. the Minister to allow the Xhosa people, through their elected and constituted bodies, through the Transkei Parliament, through the Ciskei Territorial Authority, to elect or to nominate persons to the council and to the senate of this university so that they themselves could have some say as to what is to happen to their own sons and daughters. Unfortunately this was rejected. So we find to-day that this university college, which is now going to become a university, is going to continue more or less as it has in the past. What is going to be the effect on that university college when this Bill becomes law? The only change is that the university will be allowed to set its own examinations; the university will be allowed to issue its own degrees. Sir, the hon. the Minister, in summing up the Second Reading debate, went to great lengths to justify what he described as the greater academic freedom which he is endeavouring to grant, through this Bill, to the University College of Fort Hare. Sir. there was no need for the hon. the Minister to go to these lengths to try to justify this. We wanted him to go further. But what he should have justified is the effect that this Bill is going to have as a result of the greater administrative control that he is going to exercise. Sir. I do not want to bore the House with a repetition of arguments which have been advanced here day after day over the last few weeks, but it is apparent to everyone who has read the Bill, to everyone who has listened to the debate, that the hon. the Minister has taken more powers of control than he ever had before over the destiny of the whole university. [Interjections.] Sir, there is no need for the hon. member for Zululand to keep on muttering over there in the corner; he will get his opportunity to speak when we discuss the University of Zululand Bill and I hope that we will then hear something constructive from him instead of annoying mutterings in that corner. As I was saying, the hon. the Minister should have justified this taking of greater administrative control. He stated that he had consulted with the advisory council. But was the advisory council really truly representative of the Xhosa people of the Transkei and the Ciskei and also of the other ethnic groups which are going to be grouped together with these people? Sir, while we are talking about grouping, I wonder if the hon. the Minister has really realized what he is trying to do when he tries to define the different Bantu groups in the country, especially in view of the fact that this House is going to be asked to accept that Bantu persons domiciled in an area shall be grouped with the people in that area, irrespective of where they were born, irrespective of the so-called “nation” to which they belong? Is the hon. the Minister aware that this House is going to be asked to accept that a Bantu who speaks a particular dialect will be grouped with the people in that group? Does he know that they are going to be associated with people with whom they identify themselves? Sir, the hon. the Minister is taking on a dreadful task, as I said to him yesterday, in trying to decide, when a person asks for a permit to attend Fort Hare, whether or not that person is a member of the Xhosa national group or to which national group he belongs.

You need not be concerned about that.

This Bill is one from which I expected a lot, just as I expected a lot from the other two which the hon. the Deputy Minister is handling, especially in view of the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister last year when he said this with regard to the question of granting greater autonomy to the university colleges—

After that statement by the Prime Minister, we now have this Minister coming along and saying, “No, I do not think that these universities have reached that stage; I cannot give them the freedom which the Prime Minister envisaged last year”. Sir, this is to be deplored because here we have a case of the white man going back on his word, of not sticking to his word and giving the Bantu greater opportunities.

Sir, much has been said about precluding members of other Bantu groups from attending this university without the express permission of the hon. the Minister. I want to go further and say to the Minister that the complete negation of his claim that the Government is justified in limiting attendance at this university to persons belonging to the Xhosa national group, is the fact that at some of these universities the Government has allowed even Bantu from outside South Africa to attend. I think the hon. the Minister told us that there were 17 Malawi attending Bantu universities in this country.

Are you against it?

I am not. The hon. the Deputy Minister has got me quite wrong; I welcome it. But, surely, it is an insult to people who are educated, to people who have matriculated, people who have attained a civilized standard of education, to say to them, “You shall go to this university; you may not go to that one unless I, the big white Chief, give you permission to go there.” This is the whole point. Sir, I made the point earlier that the Bantu people resented the narrowness of the education they get in this country. They resented the fact that they have no choice in their education, and here, even at university level, we are not giving them any choice. There are five universities which they could possibly attend, but we are saying to each and everyone of those Bantu people, “You may only attend that particular university; if you want to go anywhere else you must first get the permission of the Minister.” Sir, what assistance are we giving to these people to develop? The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech: “This is a further step in the development of the Xhosa people.”

Sir, I do not see that this is an advancement, because they are still being tied down in their choice, like little school children; they must first get permission if they want to go to a particular university. I agree that this university should primarily serve the interests of the Xhosa people, because they are the people who are in the closest proximity to this university. In exactly the same way as this Bill limits the choice of other people and insists that any person other than a Xhosa who wishes to attend Fort Hare must get the permission of the hon. the Minister, so this Bill also limits the development of the Xhosa people themselves. The hon. the Minister is limiting the choice of the very people whom he is trying to help with this Bill; he is limiting their chances of development. The impression has developed over the years, particularly since 1959, that Fort Hare is a college which is being unilaterally run by this Government under its policy of separate development, and that it has been run with the purpose of promoting that particular political faith. The Minister in this Bill had the opportunity to rectify that thought. He had the chance to justify the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister. He had the chance to say to the Xhosa people: Come and join us and help us to educate your people and to make this your university. But he failed. He missed his chance to draw the Xhosa in to co-operate with him and to partake in the running of this university and I, like my colleagues on this side, will vote against this Third Reading.

I should prefer to begin with the other hon. members first, but before doing that I want to say this. I am a little disappointed to find that all we are getting here in the Third Reading of this Bill is just rehash of old exhausted topics. Matters which we have thrashed out time and again in the previous stages, have now been restated here as if they would have more value. What I would have liked to have seen in the Third Reading is hon. members discussing the future application of the University of Fort Hare Act and what advantages it could imply, and I would have been very receptive to good advice on how we should apply the Act to the benefit of the Bantu. But there is nothing of that kind, obviously because the speakers on the opposite side did not have a desire to do so, and, I think, did not have any knowledge in regard to how we could apply the Act in the interests of the Bantu of the Transkei.

The hon. member for Houghton must have a thorough understanding of in what connection I reminded her of Professor E. G. Malherbe. I do not know whether she misunderstood what I said. I quoted Professor Malherbe in regard to one matter only, and it has been properly recorded. It is when I stated that Professor Malherbe had suggested in 1959 that the establishment of State universities, such as these colleges in a certain sense are, was nothing new in the world and, as he expressed it, that there was nothing inherently wrong with that principle. That is what he wrote in 1959, and I said nothing further about him in that regard. Nor do I want to say anything further about him. For he is not to my way of thinking of any further value at all as an authority to whom we need appeal. [Interjection.] No, I know him too well.

The objection the hon. member and others raised in connection with the absence of a convocation has been dealt with by me under the relevant clause, and there is no need for us to repeat committee stage work again during the Third Reading. I said, and I repeat, that when the time is ripe and convocation can with good effect be introduced into the functioning of the university, we will introduce it. After all, our legislation is not static. We can introduce whatever is necessary, and we shall also do so from time to time. In regard to her objections on the conscience clause I want to say nothing more, except to refer the hon. member back to what I said when we were discussing it. The hon. member also deplored the segregation clause, as she calls it. But I want to hear from the hon. member, and also from the hon. member for Durban (Central), who had the courage to rise when the other hon. members opposite did not, and I also want to hear from my good old friend the hon. member for Kensington why the three Bantu universities should be opened to Whites? Have the Whites in South Africa too few universities? There are nine or ten white universities. Why, I am asking again, should the Bantu universities be thrown open to white students? Is there a single course or degree being offered there which cannot be followed at the white universities? Is there any region whatsoever in our country which does not have a university close enough?

It is just the principle.

It is just the principle, says the hon. member. She must not say it is just the principle; she must only say it is the belief, because that is part of her secular belief, and that of the hon. member for Durban (Central) and the others who did not have the courage to confess it. To salve their liberalism they want to be able to say that it is an open university, but behind the scenes they do as much as possible to make sure that it is not a mixed university, as they did at Wits, where the hon. member for Houghton was a member of the lecturing staff. It was open, but we kept it as closed as we could. It was merely to salve their consciences. But we are not here to salve the consciences of liberalists; we are here to serve people, and that is what we are doing with this university. The hon. member for Houghton spoke about this segregation clause which she was so opposed to. I asked her why these universities should be open to Whites. They are of no practical value to the Whites, as she made very clear to us. Apparently she admits what I said is true, i.e. that the Whites have the same facilities at virtually all the other universities as they can get at Fort Hare or at one of the other Bantu universities. She does not want it for practical reasons but for her ideological reasons. Let us take the other argument. Why should the Bantu not have an opportunity of developing their own universities with our assistance, as the hon. member for Rissik sketched it very well, and under our trusteeship? That is why we said from the beginning that we were opposed to the so-called umbrella university, about which the hon. member for Green Point had such a lot to say. Why should there be such a single Bantu university? After all it is not in the interests of the various Bantu nations into which we differentiate the Bantu masses in South Africa, that there should be only one university. It may happen that in the far distant future, in regard to which I do not even want to make a prediction, there could perhaps be more Bantu universities for the other nations as well, if that could be justified. At the moment we could not justify this financially. That is why we initially said, and we still adhere to that, that for the three major classifications of nations, of families, of the Bantu, there could be these three universities, so that from the university, from the top through to the bottom, that inspiration and that education for the Bantu could make its way downwards into, their own separate national development, which we on this side of the House candidly and proudly say the Bantu must have. Because what we want, and we are still going to have an exhilarating discussion on this subject later on during this session, is that the Bantu nations should each develop their own national pride and have their own national idiosyncrasy and content, as the hon. member for Rissik very neatly put it. What is there which can crown this to better effect, alongside such an important institution such as a distinctive form of government? There is a distinctive educational system and there are miscellaneous cultural and administrative instruments which they can have, but above all there is the tertiary layer of an educational system, namely a distinctive university. But we would very much like the Bantu nations to develop in their own directions towards their own national destination, so we know that the hon. member for Houghton and the other members on the opposite side are not interested in a separate national destination for each Bantu nation, with, consequently, a separate road leading towards that destination, and, consequently with separate service institutions on that road leading to a separate national destination. They are not interested in that. What they like is one single ethnic destination, one single commonality. Now the hon. members have departed slightly from their own ideological foundations of ten years ago, because then they stated more frankly than now that there need not be separate universities for the Bantu. Now they are saying: Let there be one university for the 12 million Bantu. This is a kind of Pan-African approach; let there be one university for all, as if those 12 million Bantu are similar, as if the Tswana and the Xhosa are so alike that they want to share these things, and so on with the other nations which we can enumerate.

Are they not all South Africans?

We can argue that matter in connection with a different Bill. It is really not relevant here and now. I am sorry if the ignorance of the hon. member does not allow her to understand this.

The hon. member for Albany raked up old embers here and said that there were no Bantu on the council of Fort Hare, while we had given the Bantu their own system of self-government. But the hon. member does not want to think fundamentally about these matters. He ought to know that if we introduce Bantu on that council at this stage then we must introduce something which is parallel to that in order to have Xhosa in this House of Assembly. We have developed a distinctive political system of control for the Bantu, and we are also gradually developing a distinctive university system of control for the Bantu. That is why we say that there will have to be a council, and that there will also have to be an advisory council on which the Bantu will serve. I have already furnished detailed information on how the Transkei and the Ciskei Bantu are in fact being represented on that advisory council of their university. The idea behind the advisory council, as opposed to the other council, is an old idea which we have already discussed a great deal in the past, namely that the natural development must be such that the advisory council will in this way become more deeply involved in the work and will in this way enrich its knowledge and experience of university government so that the advisory council can ultimately become the main council of the university while, as far as Whites will still be necessary then, the Whites will form an advisory council to that university. Naturally we cannot begin along those lines now, but it is the development which ought to take place during the course of years as the Bantu learn the ropes of university government and make this part of themselves. Then the Whites will be able to dissociate themselves more and more and merely act in an administrative capacity. And in this way as well, the same thing can happen as far as the senate and the advisory senate are concerned. But it is a very long process, as we know, because the necessary Bantu academics are difficult to find. We are having enough of a struggle finding white academics in South Africa. What a struggle will it not be to find sufficient Bantu academics?

What about the other non-white lecturers?

What about them? We are appointing them. The figures in this connection have already been mentioned. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister also quoted figures. I myself indicated in my speech by means of figures how Bantu professors and lecturers were being appointed to the Bantu universities. Now I want to state unequivocally to the hon. member that, if with the term non-Whites he means Coloureds and Indians, every individual Coloured and Indian who is academically capable of being a lecturer or a professor, has a university to which he should rather go. I would be allowing a bitter injustice if Fort Hare were to appoint a Coloured professor while that Coloured professor could preferably be appointed at the University of the Western Cape. Is that what the hon. member wants? Apparently he does. He does not mind. The greater the conglomeration, or the merry mix-up, the more he likes it.

Let us hear. What is your policy?

I discussed that yesterday, but those intractable members did not want to listen. I explained my policy in a previous stage to that very hon. member, when he asked me to do so.

The hon. member for Albany mentioned that there should be only one university. I have already, when I was referring to the hon. member for Houghton, said that the greatest injustice which the United Party is committing against the Bantu is the fact that they do not want to accept the natural, God-given differentiation which exists among the Bantu nations, and base their policy on that. We know that in former centuries there were policies in South Africa which were aimed at making imitation Whites of the Blacks. I want to say to that hon. member that one must be true to one’s nature. We as Whites have the duty, the calling in terms of our trusteeship to make of the Bantu what they are destined to be. That is what our policy is based on.

Is that why you have Sothos who are Xhosas, or Tsongas who are Zulus?

Sir, I realize that there are people who cannot understand these matters. The hon. member for Albany spoke about the big American universities which I called state universities. He said that these were the places where student unrest occurred. But surely that is a Std. VII argument.

That is inter alia.

Now it is “inter alia”. A moment ago the hon. member did not say “inter alia”. But what about, inter alia, the other universities where this did not take place? Unrest can take place anywhere, at a State university or anywhere else for that matter. The hon. member knows to what the unrest at European universities can be attributed He knows where that unrest comes from. This has nothing to do with that. The hon. member for Albany also stated that Fort Hare, as far as the ethnic aspect is concerned, was being made to appear ridiculous as a result of South Sotho who are to be found in that vicinity. I have dealt with that argument before. I have pointed out, and I want to say again, that Fort Hare is a university for the Xhosa ethnic unit. The hon. member ought to know that, on a political level, the entire population of the Transkei is being treated as a national unity. As I have already explained, the entire community of the Transkei, including the South Sotho and the groups in which the Xhosa people are subdivided, the Pondo, Tembu, Fingo, etc., is being treated as an ethnic unit. The University of Fort Hare will of course take that into consideration. That is why the admission of persons who differ ethnically from an ordinary Xhosa, but who speak the Xhosa language can be consented to. I do not know what he envisaged by doing so, but the hon. member for Albany tried to arouse feelings. In the case of my good old friend from Kensington, he succeeded.

I am an emotional fellow.

We know that. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member on that score. I have known him from the first day to be a very emotional member, particularly on some occasions, Sir. As long ago as 1959 we converted the necessary expressions of gratitude to Rhodes for what Rhodes had done. Rhodes’s task in respect of Fort Hare was concluded in 1959. At the time the necessary appreciation towards Rhodes was expressed by my predecessor. I associate myself with that. I am not denying that Rhodes did something good. During the past ten years we have had a certain professor from Rhodes on the council. His name was mentioned here. The hon. member knows him well. But must we adopt a motion of gratitude to Rhodes? Is there not some stage or other where one concludes matters? The position in respect of the University of South Africa is in fact now being concluded to a large extent. It will probably not be altogether concluded, because we can still make use of their individual lecturers. That is why it was fitting that we expressed our specific appreciation here towards the University of South Africa. However, I do not think that it was fitting for the hon. member to have made such an important point of this matter in his speech.

The hon. member for Green Point had quite a lot to say. His arguments were really quite childish. He said that the speech made by the hon. member for Rissik was a speech which should have been made under the discussion of primary education and not under the discussion of university education. It is a very childish argument, and in addition it was a misplaced argument, for if there was ever an hon. member who had a great deal to say about primary education in this council chamber in a Second Reading debate it was the hon member for Green Point in his speech last Thursday. He had a great deal to say about primary education. Consequently the hon. member should have saved his argument for an occasion when university education was not under discussion. But, Sir, we must also remember that the remarks made by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. that we could not even refer to primary education here was a back-to-front argument. It also arose out of the hon. member for Green Point’s idea of one university and the suppressed ideas of many hon. members of the Opposition, such as the hon. member for Durban (Central) for example, that there should not be integration at the universities. In that attitude of the hon. member for Green Point we still see the old idea that we should still take into account the ethnic nature of the Bantu child but that as soon as they have become adults, we can go ahead and make imitation Whites of them. Then they can all be thrown together into one pot. The hon. member for Green Point must give these matters a little more fundamental thought. I know he is capable of doing so, and he would be well advised to do so.

The hon. member also spoke about the umbrella university which should be established and to which all the university colleges should be joined. I have already mentioned the reason why hon. members advocate this idea. They are basically anti-ethnic. They have absolutely no feeling for the ethnic differences which exist among the various Bantu nations. They have no urge to stimulate the different Bantu nations properly and to develop them properly along a distinctive road to a distinctive destination, away from the Whites. I also wanted to say to the hon. member that it is a complete exaggeration to say that these institutions are being limited to an exclusively ethnic basis. I have already this afternoon said enough about that matter in connection with Fort Hare, and have already pointed out that the South Sotho can be admitted to Fort Hare. The figures also prove this. The Act allows this to be done at other places as well. We are dividing them up according to the major ethnic families.

With your consent.

What is wrong with that? Hon. members want these things to develop on an integrated basis. We want each nation to develop its own national, educational and academic pride. That is why we must help them with this development.

Are the Sotho part of the Xhosa family?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is now waking up to a point which I have already dealt with. I am not going to repeat what I said. The hon. member for Green Point said there should be only one university, because the maximum intake of students is 1,100 per annum. But surely that is not a static figure. How can that hon. member say that it is a static figure? Was it 1,100 ten years ago? Was it 1,100 five years ago? Will it be 1,100 in ten years’ time? No, the hon. member must realize that the intake figure for students is not a static figure. That figure will of course increase. I have already in former stages of the Bill given this other reason as to why there should not only be one university and why it was a good thing that a start was made with three, namely one for each of the separate ethnic families. It was also done for financial reasons. The hon. member for Green Point has enough knowledge of finances to agree with me—not to-day because he is not in favour of it to-day—that if we were to establish three universities for the Bantu in ten years’ time, i.e. in 1979-’80, the costs then would certainly be proportionate to the fact that it was being done 20 years later than is the case now. The costs would therefore be very much greater. I think the hon. member for Zululand furnished certain figures in regard to the capital which was being spent on the university colleges. The costs would be considerably higher later on. What we have done therefore has been a great service, also to those who say that we should not spend a great deal on the Bantu, by laying the broad foundations at an early stage and laying out the campuses, buildings and basic establishments for the Bantu universities at a stage when the costs were relatively low. In 1959 we also thought that it was expensive. But then we did not have the financial perspective of 1969. To say nothing of that of 1979. That is why I say that we will be thanked even more profusely in the future than we are being thanked to-day, from the side of the Opposition as well, for the fact that we have these three universities, with which an expensive start was made—and I have already dealt with this in a previous stage—at a time when they were much cheaper than they would be now. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) would be advised to refrain from committing such an injustice as he did here this afternoon when he quoted certain words of the Deputy Minister. The hon. member was referring to a quotation by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the words spoken by the late Paramount Chief Cyprian of the Zulus, and then went on to elaborate on them. Why did the hon. member do that? He alleged that Paramount Chief Cyprian had supposedly said: What are you doing for our sons and daughters? Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) went and implied exactly this, and did in fact say here this afternoon: Yes, what is the Government doing with this Bill? But why did Cyprian ask that question, and what was the reply Cyprian himself furnished to it? Cyprian furnished the reply to that question himself in the symbolic language which is quoted here by saying: You trained our children under the wrong system, so that they grew out above their people like bluegum trees while the nation below dried up. What he meant by that was to approve what we are doing, namely to introduce a distinctive Bantu educational system and a distinctive Zululand university. He approved of this. Now this hon. member comes along and even goes so far as to jump on to the back of a deceased Zulu Chief.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has alleged that we have given ourselves greater administrative control over these institutions compared with what there apparently was before. But the hon. member must at least come and prove that to us. He cannot merely say a thing like that. I maintain that it is not true that we have retained a greater degree of administrative control. We have made a few changes, even though they are less important changes. We have made several changes by means of which the control of the university has been relaxed. Even if we had not brought any alleviation we have still not gained any greater control because in point of fact the entire financial system of the University College of Fort Hare has not changed in any way when compared to what it will be in the shape of the University of Fort Hare. The hon. member ought to know that there has been no fundamental change to the entire system at all. The administrative control, however, has been relaxed here and there. In certain functions which the State President performs, such as the appointment of the council and the rector, changes have also been made. Generally speaking there has been a slight relaxation in the administrative control rather than an intensification of administrative control. Thus an objection like that cannot be brought against us.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the debate on the University of Fort Hare. As I said at the end of my Second Reading speech I am grateful, all things considered, for the way in which the Opposition overtaxed its resources in order to throw the spotlight on this Bill. I was quite astonished to see what type of resources the Opposition utilized. But they overtaxed their resources in throwing a spotlight on each clause and each stage of this Bill. I am grateful for that because it gave us an opportunity of scrutinizing the Bill from within and from without and of presenting all our objectives, activities, achievements and aims properly. If I owe the Opposition a vote of thanks then I want to say thank you very much to them for having afforded us the opportunity of debating this matter and exposing their arguments to the extent we did in fact do so. That is what we on this side of the House did. Since we have now reached the Third Reading stage I am grateful to be able to say and to conclude this stage in the knowledge that we have with this Bill once again done something constructive towards the promotion of our policy of separate development for the nation, each with their own separate idiosyncrasies. We are granting these university colleges and Fort Hare greater academic status and greater academic freedom. Not total and general academic freedom—this is something for the future when they are ripe for it, as they are now ripe for this phase. [Interjections.] Yes, it is a well-known policy. I am sorry if the newcomers on the opposite side of the House do not know that our policy is one of gradual development of the Bantu in every respect, until they become ripe for the greater responsibilities which they have to undertake.

And independence.

To the hilt. Our policy is known to all and proceeds on a gradual basis as they prove themselves capable. Although we are now giving the university greater freedom I want to say that this is no reflection on the University of South Africa. That we know. In fact, I think it is a compliment to the University of South Africa because that was the institution which fostered this process of maturation. And that is why I say once again that we want to express our deepest appreciation to them as well as to all the lecturers of all the colleges, including those at Fort Hare, which we are dealing with here, and towards the department. This is something good in which we all had a hand, i.e. to assist the Bantu to move forward along their road of distinctive development. It makes provision for the training of the Bantu, not only direct training in the classrooms, but also provision for training in managerial matters, such as on the advisory council, committee and all kinds of similar matters, and as far as I am concerned, I hope on an advisory senate as well as soon as possible. This is of course something which we are also trying to accomplish with the Bantu on other managerial levels, i.e. to let them acquire by means of experience the necessary training for greater responsibility. I am proud of this Bill because we are with it giving further shape to the work begun in 1959, i.e. to develop for the Bantu as well a university type which could be a type of the Bantu themselves. Because it is not right that the Bantu should have Afrikaans, English, American, Russian, Chinese or German universities. Just as the Bantu must have a Bantu system of government and a Bantu way of life, they must in the same way also have a university and an educational structure which is adjusted to their nature and which serves their needs. This is what is being done with this Bill.

You mean a traditional Bantu university?

It could be called that, and will in due course become a traditional one. They are still too young to be that, and it will still become a traditional one. I only hope the hon. member is also able to spend a little time at a traditional institution in order to pick up a little general knowledge. It will do him good. I conclude by making an appeal: Since we have now dealt with the Fort Hare Bill which apparently had to be opposed in this House merely to oppose the Government, I want to ask the Opposition to be constructive in the years which lie ahead in the debates which we will have under my Vote, and to help to build these institutions and not to demolish them. This is an appeal which I am making in all earnest.

Notion put and the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bemidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to make a statement of national importance?

The hon. the Minister asked me for an opportunity to make a statement, and I granted his request. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, according to what we already know, the Republic of South Africa is richly endowed with mineral resources, more so than most other countries of the world. I deem it a very special privilege to make the following historic announcement, and it is with a feeling of deep and humble gratitude to the Giver of all good things that I do so. I am overjoyed to be able to announce here to-day that the national search for natural oil has produced its first success.

†It gives me special pleasure to announce on behalf of the Chairman of Soekor, Dr. G. S J. Kuschke. and on behalf of Superior Oil Company and its co-ventures, Cities Service Company, Highland Resources Incorporated and Tenneco Incorporated, represented by Superior’s Resident Manager in South Africa. Mr. H. E. Harrington, that a significant petroleum gas discovery has been made in the first well drilled by the drilling ship Glomar Sirte in the Group’s exploration block on the continental shelf off Plettenberg Bay, the first well ever drilled in our seas.

Evaluation tests conducted by Superior and officially witnessed by representatives of Soekor and the Government Mining Engineer have confirmed gas production in an upper zone of the order of 25 million cubic feet per day. This well therefore qualifies quantitatively as “a first discovery” gas well and hence for a taxation rebate. Of considerable importance is the fact that the well also produces condensate—this consists of volatile, light petroleum fractions—of the order of 100 barrels per day.

*Mr. Speaker, I have here two bottles of the condensate. The one bottle contains the less pure condensate which emerged first, and the other the purer condensate, smelling very much like kerosene. I may just say that this is an important part of the find, but that the gas is the most important find.

†A second gas zone at a lower depth, tested over a shorter period, has indicated a production of the order of at least 10 million cubic feet per day. This zone will be finally evaluated at a later stage. Coming so soon in our national oil search I believe that a new era in South Africa’s mining industry has commenced with this dramatic discovery. We are on the threshold of a great acceleration in this search. Of considerable significance also is the fact that Soekor holds an option to participate in the exploitation of this discovery.

This is an occasion of thanksgiving and rejoicing. I wish to thank and compliment Superior and its co-ventures with this wonderful achievement. To those of Soekor who have effectively organized the search for oil, we are greatly indebted and we wish them further success in their efforts.

Last but not least I wish to congratulate the drilling team of Superior and the crew of the domar Sirte for achieving this splendid technological feat, often during the most unfavourable weather conditions.

*The Government trusts, firstly, that this historic announcement will be received with great jubilation by every South African and also by our friends elsewhere; secondly, that everyone will offer thanks in an appropriate manner for this further addition to the riches of our fatherland; and thirdly, that the rejoicing and celebrations of our people will be characterized. not by a spirit of recklessness, but by self-control and a sense of responsibility.

It has given me great pleasure to have made this announcement and I may just add that immediately after this there will be a Press conference in the Government caucus room where the interested parties will be present. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was pointing out to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs that it was quite unfair to compare the Bill presently before the House with previous Bills dealing with the establishment of the Bantu universities in this country. In the case of the Bantu, there were no statutory bodies to whom the subject matter of the establishment of Bantu universities could be referred. There were no advisory councils whose opinions could be sought on the constitutions of the proposed Bantu universities. But in the case of our Coloured citizens a different picture presents itself. Their case is absolutely distinguishable from that of the Bantu. In the case of our Coloured citizens, the Government has decided in lieu of their continued representation in Parliament to establish for them a democratically elected Coloured Representative Council to handle Coloured affairs in this country. Parliament last year decided to establish an enlarged Coloured Representative Council to be elected by the universal suffrage of all Coloured men and women in the Republic over the age of 21 years. The Government has also taken unto itself the right to nominate 20 members of the council in addition to the 40 elected members.

This new Coloured Representative Council we hope will come into being by the end of this year. One of the most important functions of this council laid down by Statute, by an Act which this Parliament passed, is to advise the Government in regard to all matters affecting the educational interests of the Coloured people of the Republic. This is a law which this Parliament passed. Surely, therefore, the establishment of a Coloured university must fall into this category. Can hon. members imagine anything more important affecting the educational interests of our Coloured people than the establishment of their own Coloured university? I suggest that there cannot be anything more important. Why should they not be consulted upon the constitution of their first Coloured university in this country? This is one of the most important matters that they will ever be called upon to deal with. Why should they be ignored? To sidestep this Coloured Representative Council on this important educational matter is, to my mind, making a complete mockery of the council.

What is the urgency for passing this Bill? Our Coloured people have suffered under the disability of not being able to have free access to our hitherto open universities since 1959. They have been virtually restricted, except under Ministerial permit, to the University College of the Western Cape for 10 years. Will another six or 12 months make any material difference? Surely, it is better to keep face with our Coloured citizens by honouring our assurances to them that in all matters affecting their educational interests their own council will be consulted and their advice sought in terms of our own laws, the laws which we passed formerly. Can hon. members imagine what an awful start we will make and what a disheartening image we ourselves will create with regard to this new representative council if we override our own laws on this important issue just before the council starts functioning? Can hon. members imagine the adverse criticism that we are inviting from the outside world—I say this advisedly—just when we are overcoming the shock of having deprived the Coloured people of the last fragment of political rights which they have enjoyed for generations? We put this Coloured council in place of these political rights, and we deprive them of the first matter which they ought to be called upon to deal with. Surely, the hon. the Minister must realize that there is no necessity to rush this Bill through Parliament. There is no urgency for this. Surely, the Government must realize that the honest and statesmanlike thing to do is to allow the new Coloured Representative Council to come into being and to express their considered views and give their advice on the constitution of their own university.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday, when dealing with the constitution of the council of this new Coloured university, that he was certain that Coloured leaders would say that the time is not ripe for the council of the university to include any Coloured members, that there are not sufficiently qualified Coloured persons available to serve on the university council. I say to the hon. the Minister and. incidentally, to the hon. member for Malmesbury, who supported this contention, that if they are so certain of what the Coloured leaders would say, let them put it to the test. Let them put the question honestly, fairly and squarely before the new Coloured Council and let us see what their answer would be. Why should we assume what the council’s answer will be?

They are being elected this year.

They are coming into being before the end of this year. Nothing that has been said so far justifies this Bill being rushed through this House without our first obtaining the considered views and the advice from this Coloured statutory body which we ourselves have created and which has been created for the very purpose of giving advice and guidance in all matters affecting the education of the Coloured people. Surely, Sir, this Bill is one of the matters upon which the new Coloured Council should be invited to express their views and proffer their advice.

I would like to admit immediately that the basic intention of this Bill, namely to establish a university for our Coloured citizens, is under the present circumstances a most commendable one. I feel it is only fair that I should say that the Government’s intention to grant recognition as a university to the present University College at Bellville is, in the present circumstances, a step in the right direction. Generally speaking, this action on the part of the Government will receive a large measure of support from our people. One would naturally have preferred that our Coloured citizens should have had the right to be enrolled in the hitherto open universities and that the necessity of providing for them a separate university of their own would not have arisen. One would have hoped that our Coloured people would have been accepted as part of the white population of this country and that they could have enjoyed the same university facilities as their fellow white citizens. But I must admit that one has to be realistic in this matter.

The Whites in the Republic, through the Government which represent them, have adopted a policy of separate development for the different sections of our multiracial population. It would seem, therefore, that for the foreseeable future, at any rate, our country is set on this course of separate development. In the circumstances, whether we support this policy or not, there will have to be made available to our Coloured people university facilities of their own. I accept that and acknowledge it to be the case. The basic intention, therefore, to provide these separate university facilities to cater for the needs of the Coloured people, is one that had to arise and should be encouraged. But what disturbs me regarding the measure presently before us is not the basic intention of the Bill, but the all-embracing and restrictive provisions of the measure.

I am far from satisfied that the terms of this Bill will give satisfaction to our Coloured citizens. I feel that if the proposed Coloured university is to be a success, as we all hope it will be, it is necessary for the Government to receive the support, the co-operation and goodwill of our Coloured citizens. I wonder —and I want to put this to the hon. the Minister—if any real Coloured leaders have been consulted in regard to the details of this Bill. I wonder if any real Coloured leaders appreciate the terms of this Bill and the restrictive measures contained in it. I repeat, that the Government should not rush this very important measure through this House. It occurs to me that the Government should confer with the leaders of the Coloured people so that after consultation with them there will emerge a measure which will have the backing of the Coloured people. It is only in that way that you can make a success of this proposed Coloured university.

To my mind it is fundamental to the success of the new Coloured Representative Council that the constitution of the Coloured university envisaged by the Minister should be one that is approved by this new council. They, after all. are going to be the duly elected leaders of the Coloured people of South Africa. I repeat: What necessity is there for us to sidestep this very important body, which is being created by Statute and which will have to deal with this matter ultimately as one of their most important functions under the law? Why should we ignore them; why should they not have a say in the constitution of their Coloured university? Why cannot the hon. the Minister agree to defer the passing of this Bill until such time as it has been fully considered not only by university experts but also by our Coloured educationists in this country and particularly by the duly elected leaders of the Coloured people. Sir. I would urge the hon. the Minister not to rush this Bill through the House. I would urge him to allow the subject matter of this Bill to be discussed calmly by a committee of this House, which should have the right to receive the representations and the advice of this new Coloured Representative Council.

By these means the Minister will at least be able to establish a Coloured university which will have the backing and the goodwill of our Coloured people. Sir, I understand and I accept that it is the Government’s intention to grant to our Coloured people a university which will serve our Coloured citizens on the same basis on which the white universities serve the white citizens of this country. If that is in fact the Government’s intention, then I feel that the Bill before us to-day has many shortcomings indeed. This Bill, if passed in its present form, will virtually place the proposed University of the Western Cape under the complete domination of the government of the day. This is my fundamental objection to the Bill in its present form. My objection to the terms of this Bill would apply to any Government in power or to any Minister of Coloured Affairs. I want my hon. friend the Minister to appreciate that there are no personal feelings in this matter. My remarks and objections would apply to whatever Government was in power or to whoever occupied this portfolio and controls the affairs of this university.

Sir, the civilized world has come to regard a university as an institution organized for teaching or study in the higher branches of learning and for widening the boundaries of human knowledge without the interference of any political considerations. Sir, that is a fundamental concept: Without interference of any political considerations. Universities have come to be regarded throughout the civilized world as the guides of public education. It is universally acknowledged that the distinguishing characteristics of a university are its zeal for the advancement of learning and its endowment of research without political interference. Those fundamentals are entrenched in the constitutions of the great universities of the world. Sir, what have we in this Bill which is presently before us? Apart from the fact that the Bill provides for the establishment of this University of the Western Cape to serve persons who are members of the Coloured group, as defined in the Population Registration Act, practically every important provision of the Bill places this Coloured university under the political control of the Government of the day, and that is my fundamental objection. Let me for a brief moment deal with some examples to show how there could be political interference with the conduct of the normal affairs of this proposed university. I take clause 3 as an example—I am now taking these examples at random. Under clause 3 the university will not have the right to let its immovable property without the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Let us assume that the university authorities wished to let one of their halls for a concert to an outside body, for a national cause if you like. They could not do this in terms of clause 3 without first obtaining the consent of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. This is the extent of the autonomy that the Minister is going to confer on this university. Then again, in terms of sub clause (3) of clause 3 the university may not receive any money or property by way of a donation or bequest without the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. What sort of autonomy is this? What university, in the real sense of the word, can this University of the Western Cape be if it is restricted in this petty fashion? It may be of interest to the hon. the Minister to know—and here I want to make a personal remark—that at the request of Dr. Meiring and other authorities of the university college, I have succeeded over the years in obtaining for that university college a number of substantial donations and bequests to help indigent students by way of bursaries. If this Bill goes through in its present form, this university will not be entitled to receive these donations or bequests unless it first obtains the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Is this type of control necessary if we genuinely wish to establish a university in the real sense of the word for our Coloured citizens?

Now, Jet us look at some of the other provisions of the Bill to indicate the extent to which there could be political interference. I am not suggesting that there necessarily will be political interference, but as the Bill now stands it could lead to political interference in the control and executive powers of this university. My hon. friend the member for Kensington, has pointed out that clause 8 of the Bill provides that the control, the government and the executive powers of the university shall rest in the council of the university. This council shall consist of the rector of the university who is appointed by none other than the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs under clause 7. The rector’s conditions of service, his powers, his duties and his functions shall be determined by whom? By the council but only with the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The other members of the council of the university shall number not fewer than eight persons appointed by the State President, which again means not fewer than eight persons appointed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and two members of the senate of the university which, in terms of clause 10, is directly under the control of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The chancellor of the university, the vice-chancellor, the rector, the council and the senate will all come directly and indirectly under the control of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. This is the extent of the autonomy that we propose to vest in this Coloured university.

Take clause 9, Sir. It is intended to establish an advisory council. This again will consist of not fewer than eight persons appointed by the State President, which means the Minister of Coloured Affairs, who shall have the right to designate one of these persons as chairman of the advisory council. I understand that that is likely to be amended. In addition, under clause 11, the Minister, merely by written notification to the council, takes unto himself the power to establish an advisory senate and to prescribe the constitution, the powers, the duties and functions of this advisory senate. The entire staff of the university will fall under the direct control of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Under clause 14 the establishment at the university shall be determined by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. This clause contains the extraordinary provision that the appointment, promotion, transfer, secondment or discharge of teaching and administrative staff in such posts as the Minister may determine shall be subject to his approval. This is the extent of the autonomy granted to this new university.

Sir, last night the hon. the Minister said—

Sir, is this Bill the extent of the autonomy and the independence that the Government has in mind for our Coloured people, when every step that they may be able to take in regard to the development of this university will be subject to the control of the hon. the Minister? I repeat that I am not referring to the present incumbent of the office. The same remarks would apply to whichever member of this House occupied the post of Minister of Coloured Affairs. If we are going to give the Coloured people a genuine university of their own …

You did not listen attentively to what I said. I said that we were placing the university on the road to autonomy. I did not claim that this Bill was giving autonomy to the university.

With great respect to the hon. the Minister, I cannot see how it can be claimed that any of the provisions of this Bill place this university on the road to autonomy.

It is granting academic independence to this university.

Subject to rigid control by the Government.

Correct, because it receives 100 per cent financial assistance from the State.

But other universities also receive State assistance.

But not 100 per cent.

No, not 100 per cent, but they receive a tremendous amount of financial support. Yet you do not restrict them in the way in which you restrict this proposed university. After all, Sir, let us call a spade a spade. You cannot compare this Coloured university with the Bantu universities. We are dealing here with a highly developed section of our people. Surely, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is not going to compare the Coloured people of this country with the Bantu people and put them on the same level as some of the Bantu? Sir, this is an important matter of principle. But in any case, this council which we ourselves have created should surely have been consulted about this; that is my point. It is true that right throughout this Bill it is provided that the Minister shall have the right to do this, that or the other “after consultation with the council”, but I suggest that these words mean nothing because the Minister consults with the council and in terms of this he has the right to do whatever he likes in relation to any matter or all matters and to make all or any of the appointments to which I have referred. Even the salary scales and allowances and fees and other privileges will be all determined by the Minister. If any member of the university staff is alleged to be unsatisfactory the Minister reserves the right to himself to order an inquiry and to take such action as he may ultimately determine. Even to the extent of giving petty financial or other material assistance to any student of the university, the Minister of Coloured Affairs controls the situation; this is contained in clause 25. Even the fees payable by students will be determined by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Sir, one wonders what the council of the university will do. What will the senate do? Nearly every activity of this council or of the entire university will be in the hands of the Minister.

Sir, I think I have said sufficient in regard to some of the provisions of this Bill, which make it abundantly clear that the university envisaged in this Bill falls far short of the universal, fundamental standards required of a university, that is to say, the advancement of learning and the endowment of research without interference of any political considerations. Whilst, therefore, I feel that the Government’s intention to grant to our Coloured citizens a university of their own, is a correct one and indeed a laudable one, I am of the opinion that a far better Bill than the one before the House would emerge if the subject matter were referred either to a select committee of this House or, preferably, to an independent committee of inquiry consisting of our leading educationists, European and non-European, and university experts. Such a committee would at least explore the possibility of raising the proposed non-white university to a status equivalent to that of our white universities in this country. Above all, I consider that the new Coloured Representative Council should have a say and must have a say in this most important matter, a matter which is likely to affect their own people for many generations. Sir, my time has nearly expired. For all these reasons I intend voting for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington that this Bill be referred to a select committee. I would urge and sincerely urge the hon. the Minister to give this approach his most earnest consideration. I repeat that there is no real necessity for rushing this Bill through the House. I think that if this Bill were to go to a select committee and the committee has the benefit of hearing the evidence and the advice of our leading educationists in this country and of hearing the advice of the Coloured people themselves in the form of this new Representative Council, which we ourselves have appointed and created for this very purpose, then a different Bill and a better Bill will emerge. At least it will be a Bill which will have the backing and the goodwill of the Coloured citizens of the country. I commend this course very strongly to the hon. the Minister, who, as I said last night, is a fair-minded man and who has the interests of the Coloured people at heart. I commend to him very seriously that he should give very serious attention to the amendment now before the House.

We have to listen to the same arguments here to-day as we have had to listen to in the past few weeks. The hon. member for Kensington came along with an amendment to the effect that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Surely this is unnecessary. As an old member of the House he must surely have known that he has now had ten years to think about this matter. Why does he now want to refer it to a Select Committee which must complete the task in a few weeks? But I do not understand him very well. I should like to know from the hon. member for Peninsula whether he is still a member of the United Party? Is he still a United Party man (Sap)? It sounded a little confused to me. He spoke here of a Select Committee, but he also spoke about the Coloureds and other educationists having a seat on the committee. That is surely not a Select Committee. Surely he ought to know the procedure of the House by this time.

He made two proposals.

The previous speaker spoke here as if this were now going to be a politically controlled institution of the Government, but surely he knows that the people has had to give its decision about separate development at repeated elections and that it has declared itself in favour of it. And if the people outside accepts it, why do they not want to accept it here in the House? All those hon. members, including the hon. member for Kensington, must know that what this whole matter is about is the so-called control of the university. They want it to be placed in the hands of the Coloureds themselves at once; they must govern the university on their own and the Government must simply sit idly by. That hon. member who represents the Coloureds ought to know that the Coloureds in their present stage of development are not yet ready for that and that provision must still be made for that guidance. That is why this Bill is here, so that the Government may guide and control the institution. It is surely only right that if the State begins an institution under these circumstances it should also guide it in the right direction, and therefore it must also have very strong control initially. I now want to ask hon. members this. Go and ask the Coloureds whether they see their way clear to controlling such an institution themselves. I wonder whether the hon. member took the trouble to ask the Coloureds whether they see their way clear to controlling this university on their own. I do not believe that he did. He simply came along here and spoke about things he know nothing about, and now he is sitting still and does not want to reply. It is surely necessary for the Government, in fully supporting such an institution financially, to control it, not only financially but administratively as well.

Therefore we on this side of the House believe that when the time is ripe this white council and white senate will disappear and be taken over by Coloureds, but only when the time is ripe. Before we adjourned last night the hon. member said that there is one Coloured with the necessary academic qualifications and that he is not on that council. But surely the hon. member has been in this House for a long time and by this time he ought to know what this Government’s policy is, that we do not advocate integration and that we shall not allow an integrated council either. If he knows that why does he complain about it? Let us now once and for all understand one another well.

There has been a great deal of complaint here—I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington is not here now—about the shortcomings of this institution in that all the different courses are not given there. But now I want to ask him this, and I believe that all the members opposite agree with it. Let them name one single university in the Republic which provides for all the courses in all the fields of study. There is not a single one in the entire Republic that does it. Why do they now want all those facilities at a young university? Last night it seemed to me as if the hon. member for Kensington was making a plea to the hon. the Minister for Coloured students to be enrolled at Potchefstroom and Stellenbosch. Was that a plea for integration? That is after all their policy. We have asked them on previous occasions what their policy was, because they change their policy so rapidly that one does not know whether it is the same in the evening as it was in the morning. But what is the latest position in respect of open universities where Whites and non-Whites may study together?

Go and have a look.

In order to go and have a look, I go back to 1959 when the hon. member for Orange Grove expressed himself very clearly here—“we on this side believe that the door should be left open for non-white students at the white universities”. Am I to take it that that is what I must go and look at and that that is still their policy? But I want to say this to them. Go to this Coloured university and ask the Coloured students and the lecturing staff whether they want to admit Bantu? They will immediately say no, because they are just as proud of their institution as we Whites are of ours. We want every population group to have his own. All the things undertaken by this Government are always spoken of here with disparagement, but the great problem with the United Party is that no other population group here in South Africa, with an individual identity, has ever been granted anything by that side of the House. I am thinking of my own nation, the Afrikaners. What have we been granted by them? We have had to begin modestly and we have had to fight for everything we have obtained. But that is their policy, is it not. Keep the educational institutions with their individual characters and identities away from each population group; afford it no opportunity to develop and to have something of its own and then it will never develop, and then their policy of integration can be executed in full, is that not so. Let the United Party tell us what they would do if they were to come into power. I am now indulging in a fantastic flight of the imagination in thinking it possible that they may come into power.

We struck oil to-day.

The hon. member said that we have struck oil to-day. That has nothing to do with this matter, but they are the people who will now go around boasting of it, while it was the National Government which was responsible for the search. They will again want to stick a feather in their cap, just as they are going to boast of this university at a later stage. But I want to ask, if it should ever happen that they do come into power, will they close these non-white universities down or will they make open universities of them, and are they going to accommodate those institutions to their policy and their slogan of one people, one country, one nation, white and black mixed together? The United Party finds it difficult to swallow the fact that the National Party has consistently kept the promises which it made. Ten years ago, with the establishment of this institution, which this legislation is concerned with now, the Government promised that it would not be an inferior institution but would be made comparable to the best offered in that field to any population group in South Africa. The Government has kept that promise, and today the then accusers of the Government, the United Party, are in disgrace. The Government of 1959 brought credit upon themselves with what they established. But not only that; they have accomplished a great deal for the Coloureds. For the first time the Coloureds may also refer with pride to their own university with its own character and identity, an institution where they can train their own professional men and women in the service of their own people. There are many people who walk about each day and boast, announcing that they want to serve humanity. There are such people in the United Party. But it remains one of the facts of life that the greatest and loftiest service one can render is to be true to one’s own people and to serve them. But they want to deny the Coloured the privilege. This is simply one thing the United Party cannot and will not understand. They are not people who are imbued with idealism and national pride. For them the word “nationalism” does not exist, and I am not speaking of politics, I mean it in the broader sense. That word does not exist in their dictionaries and therefore, because they themselves do not have that feeling of nationalism in them, they cannot understand another population group such as the Coloureds either.

This university was established with the idea of growth and development and not with a view to suppression, as they want to suggest. It is an institution where the Coloured student can realize himself according to his own culture and his own customs. Or does the United Party honestly want to say that the Coloured students at the white universities have justice done to them, that they have a share in all the social benefits, that they are not discriminated against in any sphere. Let them tell us whether they think that the Coloureds receive their full share there. But then they must not say that they share in social benefits such as we witnessed during the rag procession in Cape Town last Saturday, where Whites and non-Whites intermingled, or such as that protest last year in Johannesburg where Whites and non-Whites were ranged shoulder to shoulder. Do they regard those as the social benefits of which they can partake, which are actually misused by associations such as Nusas for their own political aims? This university will be extended. What has already been achieved will be extended. In the years to come more such institutions will be established, as the need arises. But this first institution, which has been established under the guidance of this Government, will always stand as a monument. It will not only be a monument to the development of the Coloured, but it will also stand as a monument to the good faith of this Government towards the Coloured population group. We see the good faith of the Government in the establishment of this fully-fledged university, which the Coloureds can be proud of. It is an institution in which the Coloured can train his own thinkers, educationists, professional and technical persons from his own ranks, in the service of his own community. I now want to appeal to the leaders of the Coloured community. I want to ask them to encourage their people to make use of the opportunities offered to them, and to utilize those opportunities to the full. They must utilize those opportunities in the interests of their own Coloured community, and not only for their own personal benefit. I want to say to them: “Also utilize them in the interests of South Africa in general.” To the erudite and the prosperous in the Coloured community I want to make the following appeal: “Do not divorce yourselves from your own people. Make it your task to look after your own people and to bring them to the same level as yourselves.”

Mr. Speaker, we heard to-day about the discovery of gas. I think we have made a discovery right here in the hon. member for Boksburg. I have never heard a speech on this subject, with which we are dealing, to compare with the high-pressure stuff he put out to-day. I only hope that it can be brought under control. That is the typical sort of speech one hears from members from the Transvaal. There are people among us, who know the Coloured people and who know them well. I know them well. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about a black and a white nation. I should just like to ask him to walk outside in the street and see what the colour of the people is. These are all members of the South African nation. Some of them are black, some are white and some brown. It is a hard, incontrovertible fact. One can call them fancy names or classify them into ethnic groups, but South Africans consist of black, white and brown people.

That is your nation.

The South African nation is yours as much as mine. The hon. member for Peninsula made an excellent speech here to-day. He set out in great detail the objections to the Bill. I want to associate myself with those remarks, but in doing so, I do not wish to repeat what he has said. I want to go into a little more detail. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us, when it is his turn to reply, which Coloured leaders were consulted. or had sight of this Bill prior to it being made public. I should also like to ask him whether the Council for Coloured Affairs had an opportunity of studying the Bill and all its implications. I want him to answer these questions because, as you know, Sir, elections will be held for the Coloured people this year. They will want to know, which of their leaders agreed to a Bill of this kind. They will want to know whether their leaders subscribed to it. They will want to know whether their leaders are satisfied, that this is separate development in the form which was promised to them, and about which they have heard so much. As I have said before, there has been plenty of separation, but not much development. Here we have a Bill which depends upon the Minister’s goodwill at every turn. It is subject to his veto and his authority. We must remember that we are here dealing with the Coloured community, which has been in the Cape for 300 years. Coloured men have graduated and hold degrees. They are able in every respect. They can participate in, and will be able to conduct, the affairs of such a university. Were these people consulted? Was any effort made to find out their point of view? The answer, of course, is “no”. This Bill, together with three or four other similar measures, has been introduced to try to draw the non-Whites as a whole away from us. This Minister is creating a university for Coloured persons. But the Minister for white education says: “I am not going to have anything to do with those universities. They are not universities in terms of my definition.” Which will prevail, Sir, the opinion of the Minister of Coloured Affairs or the opinion of the Minister of National Education? I want to join in the appeal which has been made, namely, that this Bill should not be proceeded with hastily, but that a select committee should be appointed. I should like to correct a remark which was made in reply to the hon. member for Peninsula. He made two propositions. The first related to a select committee, which we favour, and the other was that there should be an independent commission. Either of those propositions is acceptable to us, because then at least, we shall hear the opinions of the Coloured people themselves. We shall have the opportunity to hear the opinions of parents, who send their children to university. and who have sent them there before. We shall hear the opinions of the men who would form the convocation of this university, if it were constituted on a proper basis as a university. These are the things which I think the hon. the Minister should think about, and to which he should apply his mind. We are dealing here with the creation of a university, and no one has any complaint against that. Fundamentally it is sound, but when one examines the details, one finds that it is very different. I should like the hon. the Minister to know that some of us have been instrumental in helping Coloured men and women to enter white universities which had certain courses which were not offered by the University of the Western Cape. For the information of hon. members on the other side, I may say that those Coloured men and women did so with the permission of the Ministers concerned. I believe that, unless the hon. the Minister obtains a fair expression of public opinion, and of Coloured opinion in particular, this university will not have the fine start which it would have had, had the whole of the community been behind it. I am one of those who, over the years, has been to this university several times. There are one or two things which I think are saddening and even tragic. When I heard the hon. member for Malmesbury say that there was only one Coloured man competent, able and qualified to sit on this advisory senate, I did exactly what the hon. member for Kensington did. I hung my head in shame, because I can assure you, Sir, that there are many Coloured men who are able to conduct themselves in the best possible way in the best company and who are able to display the best of good manners. When one takes an interest in the university, as I have done, one finds that there have been various complaints of different kinds. I have found the persons conducting the affairs of the university, most amenable, quite willing to assist and to lend a willing ear. At one time the complaint was in regard to the question of the English language. There are many Coloured boys and girls who are educated in English. They used to complain, and still do, apparently, that the instruction was predominantly Afrikaans.

I am not saying that that is wrong in any way at all, but I do submit that as there is only this one university to which Coloured people may go, or will be able to go, that this question of language should be tackled on a proper basis and closely examined. If what I say was not true, the hon. the Minister would not have taken the time he did, to deal with the basis on which English is used in the University of the Western Cape. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I accept his explanation, because I do not think that it is easy to find fully bilingual teachers. Nevertheless, students do complain that when they ask for something in English, some of the lecturers and the professors say: “Jy moet die teksboek gaan lees.” I was also told that the correct procedure for students, who are dissatisfied, is to report the lecturer. We all know that this is not easy to do, especially by young men and women anxious to get on, and make a success of their lives. It is an impossible situation. Therefore, I do appeal to the hon. the Minister not only to give an explanation of what transpires at the university in the use of languages, but to see, and to ensure, that English is used, that English is taught, that English is the method of instruction for boys and girls coming from English medium schools.

There is also something else, which I should like to deal with, and about which I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a direct question. I have in front of me, the list of members who serve on the university council and also the names of the men who serve on the advisory council. Can the hon. the Minister tell me in all sincerity that none of those men are competent to sit on the council and conduct the affairs of the university? I want him to tell me that, and I do not want him to talk about a “bontnasie”, a “bontkomitee” or a “mengelmoes”, or anything of that sort. The National Party suffers from colour sickness. White lecturers can address a class of Coloured boys or girls imparting their knowledge. Nobody takes exception to that. Can the hon. the Minister tell me what is wrong with it, if the Coloured people are to advance, why the Coloured council cannot sit there and have a few white people with them, to guide them if they need it? If there are any white men or women on this council, I have a list of names in front of me, who object to sitting at a table with Coloured persons, particularly the men whose names are mentioned here, then I say, emphatically, they have no right to be there. They should not accept nomination and they should go back where they came from. I do not think we can fail to face this question properly. The hon. member for Kensington mentioned one man on the advisory senate. Here we have a highly intelligent and intellectual person, a writer of poems in both languages, an erudite personality and he sits “stokalleen”, one man in an advisory senate. I want to know how much advice is being taken from him and how does he give it? Does he give the advice over a telephone; does he have a panel of glass on either side of him so that he does not breathe on the others? How does he give this advice?

Television.

That is one way, they may have closed-circuit TV. It might be the solution to the Minister’s problem.

I want to emphasize the folly, the stupidity of this attitude that, because the Government stands for separate development, it is a crime to have Coloured and white people sit around a table to run the affairs of a Coloured university, a university of which they hope eventually to take complete control.

The hon. member for Malmesbury, who unfortunately is not here at the moment, said that there were not enough Coloured men to run one local municipality.

It is not true.

Let us assume it is true, because the hon. member must know his facts seeing he comes from Malmesbury. Many things have been happening at Malmesbury recently. Surely, these Coloured people, if they are to learn, must be taught. How does one teach people? Do you teach them from a distance or does one use the closed-circuit television? I do hope that after to-day we will have no more of this nonsensical attitude, that because a man is a Coloured, white people cannot sit with him at the same table to give him advice on how to conduct the affairs of the university. That is if he needs the advice, because I do not think that he does.

The first two names on this list of members of the advisory council are men, who are the special protegés of the Government. The one man is the chairman of the Council for Coloured Affairs. They have been kept in office for 10 years without having to fight an election. They dare not. This man, in spite of the fact that he is acceptable as the chairman of the Council for Coloured Affairs, which conducts its business with white officials sitting by to advise them, is not fit to sit on this council which consists in the main of former Stellenbosch professors, at least according to my list. The chairman of the council is Professor F. du T. van Zyl, dean of the faculty of medicine.

I want to say that if any university should refuse to have anything to do with this University of the Western Cape, it will be Stellenbosch because they do not have a Coloured student there. The University of Cape Town has been taking Coloured students in at the request of the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has ever requested Stellenbosch to take in Coloured students who wanted to qualify or take their courses at Stellenbosch?

That will be the day!

I should like the hon. the Minister to answer these questions, because I think the Coloured community must know what the position is. In the Bill, where the hon. the Minister makes provision for the constitution of the council, no mention is made—I hope it will be—of the part that could be played by the University of Cape Town. There is only one man on the white university council who is a clergyman. Surely, every Coloured person does not belong to the one denomination which is here represented. There must be others. Will the hon. the Minister please say why he excludes all these other denominations? Why is the University of Cape Town excluded? These members are very well known personalities. I say nothing about these gentlemen’s abilities; I think they are a galaxy of talent. The hon. the Minister should explain why the Coloured community as such, are regarded by him and by the speakers who have spoken in support of the University of the Western Cape Bill, as neither able nor competent to conduct the affairs of the university, when these eight Coloured men have been doing the work as adivsers? He should also tell us on what these men have to advise the other council, because higher education is the same for everybody.

One learns to be a doctor, one does not learn to be a black doctor or a white doctor or a coloured doctor. One learns to be an engineer or a chemist or whatever the case may be: These are all professions which they will follow. Why do they have to have advice? If they take the advice, why could they not act in the first instance? Why does it have to be the second and third party, through which they get their points of view to the authorities? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. the Minister has made a good case at all. I believe that the time has come when we ought to have some plain speaking about the attitude of members of that side of the House, in regard to the Coloured people as such. We have had passing references here to the “optog” which took place here on Saturday. I am one of those who saw it. I do not propose to digress by discussing that here to-day, because it is not germane to this case at all. We are talking about the constitution of a university. The Coloured people, contrary to many opinions, do value the university, but they have the same concern that I have. I say this, because a few years ago I had in mind and I discussed it with the then rector to establish a Chair of Engineering or Metallurgy at the Western Cape University. I want to ask the hon. the Minister the same question as the hon. member for Peninsula has asked him: Does he think that big institutions are going to endow chairs and provide money for particular faculties if everything hinges upon the goodwill of the hon. the Minister? The whole of this constitution savours of political influence. These people are not going to be allowed to conduct the affairs of the university as they should be conducted. They are going to be induced, cajoled and maybe even threatened into courses of action, which Coloured people as a rule do not like. I can say that many Coloured persons are unhappy about the fact that the National Party persists in forcing its ideologies down their throats. They are the innocent victims of every bit of legislation dealing with colour. We have had them thrown off the beaches and off the buses, they are not allowed to go to sports grounds. At one stage they were not even allowed to go to the South African games at Bloemfontein. They are thrown out of the City Hall and out of cinemas. Where is all this going to end? I want to plead this afternoon and I want to say this in all sincerity, because I can really assure you, that the Coloured people welcome the advances which are being made. They want to share in them. I have asked various Ministers what opportunities there are for these men and women when they have qualified. Will they share in the prosperity of South Africa? I have always received a vague reply, indicating that one day in the never-never land of the future, when our grand-children have sorted it out and the Coloured man has found his soul, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, these highly skilled people which this university, I hope, will produce, will be able to share in that prosperity. They will be able to share in the prosperity provided, that they do not rub shoulders with anybody other than their own people. The exchange of views and the exchange of information is going to be confined exclusively to themselves. They are left to stew in their own juice. Therefore I say that this policy is wrong, that it has been proved wrong and that it is falling to pieces all around us. Here we have an opportunity. The Coloured election is coming off in September. Political parties are in the field, one of which is very heavily supported by the Government. We may not take part of course. That will be improper political interference, but be that as it may, these electors will elect people to the Coloured Representative Council. They have been assured that they will be able to run all local authorities; they will run all social welfare work, including pensions; they will look after the Coloured settlements and above all things the bait, which was held up to them was that they will also be responsible for education. With the Coloured elections upon us and with the new Parliament of the Coloureds, which is to assemble towards the end of the year, we now come to this great day in 1969 only to be told, that the University of the Western Cape is not to be controlled by the Coloureds, but by the Minister. Here we find that it is for the Minister to decide where they buy rubbers and pencils, where they do this, that or the other thing with their property. The answer given on the other side of the House on these occasions is that this is a Government-financed and a Government-sponsored university. So are all universities in a lesser or a greater degree, depending on the wealth, the age and the strength of the university’s convocation which influences money in the direction of the university. I want to join the hon. member for Peninsula in asking the hon. the Minister to do the big thing, to do the generous thing, to withdraw the Bill, and take it to the Coloured Representative Council after they have been elected; the university will come to no harm in the meantime. It will go on as it has done for nine years. Let these people have a share in this bright new future of which they are being told, but of which they see so little.

Mr. Speaker, I have known the hon. member for Karoo for quite a while and, as on previous occasions, he has not disappointed me this evening. His arguments were as always negative, destructive and sarcastic. He commenced straight off with the “South African nation” which he regards as a conglomeration. I merely want to tell that hon. member that we are dealing with basic differences here that will not be bridged. Least of all will they be bridged by the attitude with which the hon. member began his speech. He asked what Coloured leaders had been consulted before this legislation was decided upon. He immediately followed that up by declaring that the candidates for the forthcoming Coloured Council election should state their views on this question of the university. Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard more irresponsible utterances than I heard this evening. It was extremely irresponsible of that hon. member to drag a matter such as this into the as yet immature Coloured politics, thereby bedevilling the relations between Whites and Coloureds even further. The hon. member also spoke of tuition in Afrikaans and his big complaint was that there are so many students who cannot manage it. In the first place I want to ask him if he realizes what the predominant language of the Coloured is. It is Afrikaans. I recall that 25 years or a little longer ago a student at the mixed University of Cape Town, where almost half of the students in medicine were Afrikaans speaking, had to take the entire course in English. The day will also come when facilities will be made available for the Coloured who only speaks English. The day will come, as did the day when Afrikaans-medium medical schools were established, because this National Party looks after the interests of all groups. We also look after their interests as national groups, because we do not regard them as a conglomeration. The hon. member still wants mixed councils. So much has been said about these mixed councils that I do not want to add anything. I just want to read him the reply which the then Prime Minister, the hon. Dr. Verwoerd, gave ten years ago. The reply was furnished in that debate in 1959 about the Extension of University Education Act which also embodied the prospects of the University College of the Western Cape. At that time the hon. member for Kensington spoke of Professor Chris Coetzee a high-placed academician who had no objections to mixed councils, to non-Whites and Whites sitting on the same councils. About this Dr. Verwoerd had the following to say (Hansard Vol. 100, col. 3510)—

For “Bantu” we may read “Coloured”. Because it was the same principle for the same kind of institution. Dr. Verwoerd continued as follows—

The point here is that the people are not members of the same body. They can sit together round the same table, but as members of separate bodies. In addition Dr. Verwoerd stated—

I should now have liked to ask this of the hon. member for Kensington, if he were here, as well as of that hon. member. They agree with Professor Chris Coetzee, where he, as an academician, has no objection to mixed councils. Why do they not agree with him as well in his strong support of separate development? They only use those arguments of his which they need for themselves. Dr. Verwoerd indicated clearly here that it was a question between the theoretician and administration by the practical politician. We have to work with the people in a different way to what the academicians have to. I do not think that I should devote more time to the hon. member for Karoo, except for the one other matter which he also raised.

He spoke of the solitary member of the advisory senate. I myself greatly admire that particular non-White. I am aware of his works. Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton remarked here indirectly that we could learn quite a lot from him. Well, I have never been unwilling to learn from a non-White, but I also wish the Opposition would also learn because in ten years they have learned almost nothing. I only hope and trust that the discovery of petroleum at Plettenberg Bay will also have lubricated their mental processes. I want to ask the hon. member for Karoo if this is not a wonderful opportunity for that solitary member of the advisory senate to give his advice to the white senate?

How does he give it?

Oh, good heavens, this poor member! Those people are in constant touch with one another. I have just explained that the fact that they are on separate councils does not mean that they cannot sit together and discuss matters together. That hon. member knows that I was associated with non-Whites in the same university, and we did not create social problems in associating with each other in the academic field. We can associate on that level. The hon. member does not understand these matters correctly; I do not think he has proper experience of them.

He needs to be lubricated.

I think so. I hope he strikes thick oil quickly. I think that the hon. member will need a grade 40 oil because he cannot manage with a grade 10.

Let me rather continue and restrict myself to the essential aspects of this legislation. There are things one would like to say in respect of this development for the Coloureds. This University College of the Western Cape was also established under a cloud of disapproval. The hon. member for Kensington said that at that time they had given their blessing to the legislation, but that was not the case. If one agrees in principle that there must be development and that legislation must ensue, then one supports the second reading, does one not, and the other lesser points one tries to correct at the Committee Stage. But this they did not do. At that time they voted against the introduction and also against the Second Reading. They forced a night sitting about this. Where was the blessing which we hear of now? They were derogatory remarks about the quality of education and the quality of students. It was even said that a stigma would cling to lecturers willing to teach at such universities. What were the results? After ten years there are still ten of the original fourteen lecturers at this University College, seven of whom are professors and three of whom are lecturers. Does it seem as if these people are not satisfied with the work they are doing, as if there will not be continuity, as if there is no success? No one can say anything against these people; they are all distinguished academics. At that time we constantly heard of the unacceptability of State control. By the way, it is a control for which the State must pay. They spoke of the lack of a need for such an institution. I say that the institution of the Western Cape has stood up wonderfully to this test; it has passed the test of time. We hear once more the refrain of the costs which are too high, and we hear it growing louder and louder. I think that here it is once more a case of “the slip is showing”, as an hon. member remarked last week. I think that there is a particular objective which that side wants to achieve with all this talk of high costs. They want to say that we are doing too much for the non-Whites. The most objectionable thing at that time for the hon. member for Orange Grove was the fact that the open universities would no longer be unconditionally open universities. As has often been said in this House, the hon. member wanted the white universities as well as the non-white universities to be open universities. I therefore say that it is a basic point of difference which we shall not be able to bridge. But all the objections have been proved wrong in the course of time.

You did not read up about all these matters very well.

The hon. member now indicates to me that he knows absolutely nothing about this because if he had the facts, he would not have been sitting at the back there, but would have been here in front in his place making his own speech. I am still waiting for him. All these objections have gradually disappeared over the past nine years. They have faded and disappeared because the institution has gradually proved itself. About three weeks ago I read in the Cape Argus, which most certainly did not give its blessing to the university college or the legislation at that time, that this institution was doing well. In the Cape Argus of 26th February we find the following heading: “Coloured University Outstanding Success.” Then there is the following report—

—and here I add “sic” between brackets—

These people admit to its success. The Press follows the changes of the times, but the Opposition does not admit to them. Then they come along here with an idea about a Select Committee. Oh, Mr. Speaker, it is a terrible burden, is it not, if one cannot learn. Now that the stage has been reached for the institution to progress, the Opposition comes along with delaying tactics; now they come along with an amendment which requests a Select Committee, and even the Second Reading must be abolished. We now once more get an Opposition statement against the principle of the measure. Can this serve a useful purpose now? It is surely fruitless to delay a matter if there is no chance for us to agree about basic points of policy.

Let me now ask the Opposition a few questions fundamental to legislation such as this. Do they accept that the institutions which have already been established have justified themselves? Do they accept that the expenditure entailed has already justified itself? Do they accept that the University College, as far as both its staff and its students are concerned, has proved itself in the academic sphere? Do they accept the existence of and the set-up with advisory bodies? All we get are either indefinite replies or a backtracking to 1959. A Select Committee will take us back to before 1959, and that is what the Opposition wants. They do not want to accept that events and the development have taken a definite course. They still want to drag things back. One sometimes wonders who the donkey is.

The fact that the Government is keeping its promise to the Coloureds in this instance means nothing to them. It means nothing to the Opposition. But the promise was made ten years ago and it has been kept. The representations which came from the advisory council, the representations which have in fact come from the people mentioned here as being concerned with institutions, mean nothing to the Opposition. The negotiations on this matter which lasted for two years, mean nothing to them. On the one hand they are strumming the expenditure string and on the other the university autonomy string, and they are now moving to and fro between the two. Despite the refutation of all these points which that side mentioned, and I think they were very efficiently refuted, they are still being hammered on. They cannot stop because they must have their say to the end. Right, one cannot blame them either; they must talk, but we should very much like to see a little more quality in the arguments raised here by that side of the House. I must hurry because I see that there is not much time left.

The United Party is now asking the opinion of learned individuals. We already have sufficient opinions from these people. They are at our disposal, they are in the University senate. I say that it serves no purpose to ask outsiders their opinion after ten years, because they have not experienced the development, and neither do they have first hand knowledge of the administration, which is actually the most important aspect.

As far as academic standards are concerned, the senate is better qualified than anyone else to furnish an opinion. I now want to ask the United Party this question: what Coloured leaders did they ask about opposing this matter here in this way? Answer me that. I should like to know. Who did the United Party ask in coming to state here that these matters should all fall under the Department of Higher Education instead of the Department of Coloured Affairs? These people have learned to appreciate what is being done for them. No, Sir, we shall not fall for this idea of a Select Committee; it serves no purpose.

Finally, I merely want to say this. No student at the University College of the Western Cape will in any way be adversely affected in the academic sphere by this legislation. The Government does not interfere in the academic sphere. The Government does not take action as far as the freedom of speech, thought and research of students is concerned. They have the fullest right to learn what they want to learn. Only if they act in such a way as to endanger the order of this country, does the Government act. Name me one single instance where the hon. the Minister has interfered in the academic sphere, where he has concerned himself with the ordinary activities of the university, where he has concerned himself with the students’ opportunities for study. Mention one instance where he has acted in that way or where he has tried to apply repressive measures in that field. If they can mention one such instance, they will perhaps have something concrete to adduce against these measures.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.