Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am rising merely to make two points. The first is that we shall support the Third Reading of the Bill just as we did the Second Reading.

Secondly I want to rectify a little matter in connection with the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading. With reference to my Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister tried to make the point that I had deliberately brought the colour issue into the discussion of the Bill and that I had to a certain extent given a misrepresentation of the objectives of the Bill. Let me say at once that I really enjoy listening to the hon. the Minister. He is a compelling speaker. He has the ability to make straight for the fundamental point of a person’s arguments. In the short while I have been in this House and have entered into debate with the hon. the Minister, it seems to me that something happens whenever he reacts to a speech which I have made. It is almost as if a nerve malfunctions and the Minister then falls a victim to word inflation and hyperbole and begins to impute things to me which do not appear in my speech at all. I want to demonstrate one of these occasions to the hon. the Minister. In his reply to my speech the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 31 March)—

It is the hon. the Minister who maintains that I said this. Thereupon the hon. the Minister went on to say the following (Hansard, 31 March)—

I then said by way of interjection—

Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said—

I just want to refer to that portion of my speech to which the hon. the Minister referred during his reply. What I said there—and I am quoting from the English version of Hansard—was the following (Hansard, 15 March 1978, col. 3126)—

And I want to repeat this, Mr. Speaker—

That is precisely what I said. I did not exclude anything, and I did not say that there were clear and conscious attempts on the part of the Minister to cast people into limbo. I said that the practical implications of this Bill were such that the advisory committee and the constitution of the policy council were being limited by the Bill to housing matters which excluded an enormous number of people who were in need of housing. I said that I considered this to be an important deficiency. That is the actual point which I made. The hon. the Minister then came here and said that I was bringing race matters into this. If we look at the Bill, specifically at that clause which refers to the Community Development Act as well as the Housing Act, and we study that legislation, I challenge the hon. the Minister to say that that legislation contains no reference to race. It is interspersed with references to race, and consequently I have to bring in the same argument to explain what its practical implications are. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister started waving his hands about and imputing a standpoint to me which I did not adopt at all. Perhaps he wants to make a contribution to the theatre of Parliament. That may also be done, but, Mr. Speaker, it does not help us to debate with one another in this manner on the various standpoints which we adopt in this regard. I just wanted to clear up this point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rondebosch tried to run away from his Second Reading speech. However, may I quote a portion from it. He said, inter alia, (Hansard, 15 March 1978, col. 3126)—

The hon. member said that as far as housing was concerned, it was largely concerned with low-cost housing, and his entire argument during his Second Reading speech dealt with the issue that low-cost housing was being excluded from this legislation. He took that amiss of the hon. the Minister. He took it amiss of the hon. the Minister that no provision was being made for low-cost housing in the legislation and he also took it amiss of the hon. the Minister, as he said, that it was primarily the non-Whites who were being excluded, with the result that their interests were not being looked after. Is that correct? The hon. member is nodding his head, and that means that my statement is correct. Why is the hon. member running away now?

But that is not what the hon. the Minister said.

The hon. member has intimated that it is correct that he alleged that the interests of the non-Whites would not be looked after. That the interests of the non-Whites will not be looked after, is completely untrue. I am sorry that in the discussion of such a splendid Bill, by means of which it is intended to promote housing for all population groups in general, the hon. member found an opportunity to drag politics into the matter. A moment ago I quoted to him from his own speech—he confirmed his speech—and from that speech it is clearly apparent that the hon. member said that the Bill is discriminatory because the interests of the non-Whites are not being looked after. That is in fact the problem with the Official Opposition: They try to suck venom from every possible Bill and from every possible discussion in this House so as to play into the hands of the enemies of South Africa in this way.

The advisory committee is concerned primarily with housing matters, but according to the hon. member the advisory committee will, in the discharge of its functions, only look after the interests of the Whites. His allegation is absolute nonsense. The hon. member should read page 128 of the report concerned. The hon. the Minister also pointed out that more than 50% of the Whites qualify for housing which is being made available by means of public funds. If he agrees with that, the hon. member must also concede that his statement is indeed untrue, and then, surely, there is a political motive in his allegation that low-cost housing is exclusively for the non-Whites.

I never said that.

The hon. member for Rondebosch said it was primarily for the non-Whites.

His allegation that it is primarily for the non-Whites, is not true. [Interjections.]

He did not say that, and you quoted his speech yourself.

The report indicates that more than 50% of the Whites also qualify for that; how, then, can the hon. member suggest that the interests of the non-Whites are not being looked after, and that the legislation is consequently discriminatory? What are the facts? If we look at the functions of the proposed advisory committee as far as township establishment procedure, the size of plots and the standards of housing are concerned, we realize that these are all things which will be not only to the benefit of the Whites, but also to the benefit of the non-Whites. Surely the hon. member cannot deny it. All benefits which flow from the functions of the advisory committee will be in connection with housing, and it does not matter which income category or population group is involved. But as I have said, the hon. member has to suck political venom from it to see whether we are not perhaps discriminating against the non-Whites again. I want to refer to a simple example. Let us suppose that the advisory committee institutes an investigation into solar heating and arrives at a method by means of which it may be utilized everywhere. Does the hon. member want to suggest that solar heating will be utilized exclusively for White housing?

No, I would not say that.

But then, surely, the argument of the hon. member falls away completely, for he is implying that it is the interests of the Whites that will primarily or mainly be looked after here. Something like the matter I have just referred to will surely be at the disposal of all population groups and may be utilized to the benefit of all, even to the benefit of the non-Whites who are being singled out by the hon. member. What is more, surely there are many Coloureds and Indians who acquire housing in the same way as the Whites. Therefore township establishment affects them in exactly the same way as the Whites. How can the hon. member therefore try to imply in this way that the legislation is only to the benefit of housing for the Whites? It is a pity that the Official Opposition always wants to drag the colour issue into all legislation. As I have said, it is being done with only one object, viz. to play into the hands of the enemies of South Africa once again.

What are you talking about?

If all the recommendations of the Bill are implemented, many of the problems in respect of housing are going to be eliminated. I would go so far as to say that I think it is a pity that legislation such as this was not submitted ten years ago and its provisions largely implemented. In this way many of the problems, not only the problems of the developers, but also those of the buyers of stands, would have been eliminated. Many of the actions of the developers which led to their own downfall, could have been avoided in this way. It is also true that many people lost their savings because of plots that were not proclaimed. One could mention many examples, but I do not want to bore hon. members with them.

I want to advocate that special attention be given to a few recommendations. The advisory committee should, for example, devote very careful consideration to township establishment procedure. It would be of value if this procedure were left to our city councils, particularly the larger city councils that have the necessary staff. I could mention examples of cases where city councils submitted township establishment plans to provincial authorities and the plans were approved exactly as they were submitted. Nevertheless it took quite a few years before official approval was obtained for them. The guide plans which many of the larger city councils already have, can be used to very good effect to eliminate many of the delays.

One little matter in regard to the report in question which I am perturbed about are the cases of township establishment involving two, three or four plots which took two to three years or even longer to be approved. One has to accept that it was quite simply a subdivision of a larger plot, and one therefore asks oneself why the city councils did not undertake that subdivision itself. After all, every town has its own town planning scheme and the necessary machinery.

Another recommendation which will be made in terms of this Bill and which we hope will receive a great deal of attention, relates to the better utilization of our land. I have always thought, and still think, that the inhabitants of Sandton have very poor political judgment, to judge from their representation in this House. Yet I think that something good has come from Sandton. I am referring to a survey on the subdivision of land which was made in Sandton. More than 60% of the inhabitants of Sandton were in favour of subdivision. As reasons they advanced that the maintenance costs of the large plots had become exorbitant as a result of the increased rates, a shortage of labour, etc. Ultimately the city council then gave its consent to the subdivision of the plots. In this way there are many other cases which one could point out of plots which I think are altogether too large. In these cases the example set in Sandton could be followed, not as far as their political choice is concerned, but as far as the size of plots is concerned. In this way we could eliminate unnecessary costs.

As to the second aspect, viz. the better utilization of land, I think that there are many cases where with proper planning, a second house could be allowed on a plot. All the services, for example electricity, sewerage and water, are available; there are roads and the plots are large enough. If we could allow a second house to be built on that plot, in a properly planned way, it will not only help to solve the housing problem to a large extent, but will also save the owner many expenses.

I think the State is also a great culprit. I have said on a previous occasion that in every city and town in South Africa there are numerous pieces of unimproved land which belong to the State. As an example I want to refer to Boksburg, where there are 80 pieces of unimproved land, 22 of which have been lying vacant for the past 85 years, and 18 for the past 50 years. I am certain that that land will still be lying vacant in 85 years’ time. Cannot that land be better utilized, particularly if we know that it is never going to be used by the State?

We wish to support whole-heartedly the recommendation on the size of plots. I hope that the advisory committee will also make such a recommendation, and that the hon. the Minister will be able to take a similar decision in conjunction with the provincial authorities. I believe that apart from all the development costs which we are able to save, we are committing an injustice against our descendants because of the very good agricultural land which we are using for the development of residential areas.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill again. I wish to assure you right at the start that this is not going to be another tirade or a “State of the Union Address”, as has been mentioned the other night. I counted something like 101 interjections thrown at me at the time. The view I adopted in my Second Reading speech to this Bill was very clearly spelt out. I wish to mention that up to this stage we have had a very enjoyable debate.

During the Committee Stage I moved five amendments. Yesterday in the Lobby one of my Nationalist friends said to me that I had a very good record as I moved five amendments of which I won three, drew one and had one disqualified. That was a very interesting thought. However, on reflection I thought that that was not quite a correct statement. I saw it slightly differently. The hon. the Minister won three new good amendments and lost two in that one was disqualified and the other withdrawn by me— let us draw on that one. The country gained some additional advantages here. I think it is a pity that the one I really wanted the hon. the Minister to accept was ruled out of order.

I should like to reiterate what I said in the Second Reading debate, namely that we gladly support the principle of the Bill because we believe that it is a genuine attempt to co-ordinate housing matters. It will no doubt improve the housing situation and iron out a large number of the problem areas which exist in the field of residential township establishment and development for the upper and middle-income groups.

I should also like to add a few comments and make a few suggestions to the hon. the Minister, relating again to time and costs. This is an ideal time for the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of the department to deal with the factors of time and costs. At the present moment very few townships are in the pipeline of South African township development and is therefore absolutely an ideal time to now set up the machinery which will work well when once we have a boom in township development again. And we shall experience a boom again. A boom, coupled to a pipeline which could deal with it, not like the pipeline that caused the crisis we had in the early 1970s. I believe that the secret lies in the fact that we should iron out the red tape and increase the speed at which townships can be promulgated and taken through their various stages of development. I had a long discussion with the hon. member for Langlaagte on the same point and he agrees with me that one of the critical issues which should be considered is to set a limit to the time in which each authority can take a look at a township planning scheme. I see no reason why a township from its initial planning stage to the time of its draft establishment should take more than six months. At the time when I had a lot to do with township development, there were 27 different authorities dealing with these matters. I do not know how many there are today. On an average it then took four years to get a township promulgated. The plans were thrown back at the developer every time a small problem cropped up. What I suggest is that a number of these proposals be sent to all the authorities that need them. They should then be given six to eight weeks, whatever is necessary, to deal with it. They should, however, be told that within that period they have to comment and have to come back to the authorities in order that that particular township can be proceeded with. If they do not reply, one can assume that there is no comment and the development of the township can be proceeded with accordingly.

I should like to touch upon another point which we raised, namely the constitution of the advisory committee. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in this instance he look at the possibility of appointing young men. In the case of the six people who are to be appointed from outside I ask him not to appoint old-age men, men who are now retired, who are not really interested in their jobs and who are merely sitting on various boards. I suggest that he finds capable men, men who are vitally involved in the industry and who see a future ahead.

Certainly not Sias Reyneke.

I have seen what has happened to so many Government boards whose members consist of retired members of the Public Service. They may be highly esteemed, but they are tired. I suggest that the hon. the Minister appoints young men. The hon. the Minister himself pointed out that he wanted these six members to be specialists; so let us go and find those specialists. The people I am thinking of in this connection are people who have to do with town planning …

How about a retired judge?

No, I think that is stretching it a little bit far. As a politician, a retired judge may be a very able man. I am not denying that fact. But we should look to town planners, builders and to such a man as Mr. Theuns Bester, a good friend of the hon. the Minister and me, a man who could be of tremendous advantage because of his experience. The hon. the Minister should introduce people like these into the committee. Mr. Bester and I grew up together and we worked together in this field. He is a man who could be of tremendous advantage to the department. We should look to quantity surveyors who have the knowledge regarding housing and we should look to architects who are dealing with housing and to civil engineers who can deal with pipelines and the reticulation services of our townships. My request to the hon. the Minister is to go and get the young people. There are some very capable men, for example among the research officers at the NBRI. These people should be brought in. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I am going to look at this election and, next year, we shall raise this matter again if we see that there are a bunch of old age pensioners on this committee.

I should again like to deal with clause 3(3). I think the hon. the Minister missed a golden opportunity …

We have finished the Committee Stage.

I realize that, but I am discussing the principle of the Bill. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke will not understand it anyway. My amendment was ruled out of order because it affected the principle of the Bill. The hon. the Minister, however, missed a golden opportunity of creating a body which would have been an umbrella covering all housing affairs, a body of which the Secretary of his own department would have been the chairman. Such body would have given us a total coordination of the entire housing question in South Africa. Housing strategy can be planned only if we have one body in total control of all housing matters. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister to think again. I implore him to read the speeches made during this debate and to reflect on whether, when dealing with this Bill in the Other Place, it would not be appropriate to create one single body which could coordinate all housing matters. I am not going to labour this point any further, because, as hon. members know, I motivated it fully at Second Reading.

I must admit right now that I am slightly devious, because … [Interjections.]

Well done!

Honesty will not get you far! [Interjections.]

Why I would like the hon. the Minister to go ahead and to do this is because he can, in fact, create a very good Ministry of Housing. Once the NRP takes over the Government, I would like to do just that. [Interjections.] I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that he should do a very efficient job in this respect because I want to stake my claim right now. The hon. the Minister has four years in which to do this. He should get his Ministry of Housing under way and I can assure him that the NRP will make a success of the Ministry of Housing. That is what is necessary in this country. [Interjections.]

You first have to put your own house in order!

Our house is in order. It is the NP which has to put its house in order.

In conclusion, I want to state that I was very pleased to see the smiling face of the hon. the Minister on TV last night. I think the hon. the Minister has a very good face for television. He should appear on TV more often. [Interjections.] Last night he mentioned rent control. Now, we in the NRP are very pleased that the Minister raised that matter and we want to thank the hon. the Minister for trying to find a way out of this problem, for trying to create a system for assisting the highly under-privileged, those people who cannot afford expensive housing. The hon. the Minister has now found some formula, and we would like to assist him further in the matter because we also believe that it is now an ideal time to phase out rent control, with the prerequisite, however, that it does not affect the highly under-privileged people. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister seems to have found a formula which enables him to deal with this matter.

Just before I sit down, I want to refer to two minor off-key notes struck during this debate. One was struck by the hon. the Minister, and the other by myself. The one struck by the hon. the Minister was when he said that I had stated that only R16 million was available for Black housing. If the hon. the Minister reads his Hansard he will find that that is not correct. I just want to point this out to him. However, I will not labour the point, because I think I got even with him yesterday by pointing out that he had not done his homework either. [Interjections.]

The other off-key note was struck by myself. I wish to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for my using unparliamentary language during the Second Reading debate. I am most unfortunate in that I am one of those people who, when I get cross and when people interject while I speak, tend to lose my self-control. I do not have the experience which the hon. the Minister has, particularly when it comes to the usage of language. Therefore I want to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and the dignity of your office. I would also like to point out that these hon. Whips of my party are having an even harder time than you, Mr. Speaker. They also find problems in controlling me in the caucus room, due to the language I sometimes use. [Interjections.] However, by the time I become the Minister of Community Development or of Housing, I think I should have my parliamentary language under control. [Interjections.]

Joking aside, in conclusion I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the tenor in which this debate has been disposed of. We support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I really must congratulate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South very sincerely on the fact that he has now, probably for the first time in his short career in this House, succeeded fully in controlling his temper. All we have heard from him up to now have been tirades. I want to tell him that if he continues in this way, he might even be able to make positive contributions in this House. We accept the good excuse of the hon. member that he does not have any experience of how to control his temper and compose himself. One can understand that one’s approach to a speech in this House has to be somewhat different to one’s approach when one is addressing a large number of labourers of a building firm. The procedure one adopts in these two cases is not quite the same. Therefore one’s approach should also be a little different. So I think that it is a little unfitting and uncalled for to recount in this House how many houses one has built in one’s life, and that the Minister will therefore never acquire that knowledge of housing. But in view of the good spirit of the speech made by the hon. member today, Sir, I do not want to go on being negative. I just want to tell him that I think it is only because of the shortage of members in his party to fill the front benches there, that he is not sitting in the back benches. In other words, he did not get his promotion on merit, but on the basis of discrimination! [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that they were going to take over in four years’ time. To me it seems as though this department has, during the past few years, made one mistake. If one considers the domicilium of that party, it seems to me as though this department has only built houses in Natal. In order to help that party along, we shall have to furnish accommodation in the other three provinces as well. Nevertheless I trust that it will also be possible to lift that party out of its dilemma.

Sir, I am very grateful that the Opposition parties maintained a very positive note on the principles of this Bill throughout. I think that the hon. member for Rondebosch in particular made a very positive contribution, and I should like to tell him this. It is to be regretted, though, that he made a few statements and insinuations alleging that discrimination had been introduced in this sphere. I think that in the case of legislation of this nature, one should distinguish very clearly between the type of legislation he had in mind and that legislation in the case of which there are no political motives whatsoever. In this case what is involved is purely the performance of a positive task to the best of our ability, and politics does not enter into it at all. I think it was unfortunate that he did this. The use of that word by him did not contribute anything to his otherwise very good effort.

What else can one do but agree on the main motives of this legislation? We are dealing here with the Bill, the main object of which is soley the provision of housing, the making available of additional opportunities to provide housing, the promotion of township establishment procedures, and the coordination of all factors which could contribute to achieving this ultimate aim. I believe that there is one aspect one should bear in mind at all times, and never lose sight of. It is that the primary responsibility for the provision of housing in the first place rests squarely on the shoulders of the State. We can never get away from that. If one considers this, one realizes that one is actually dealing with three levels of Government. In the first place the duty and the responsibility for the provision of housing rests squarely on the shoulders of the local authorities.

We have spelled out this aspect very clearly to those outside, particularly with the amendment a few years ago of the Slums Act of 1934. On that occasion it was very clearly spelled out that it is the responsibility of the local authority to provide housing, and that the local authority can indeed be forced to discharge this duty. In the second place it is not only the local authority as such that has this duty, but also the local authority as controlled by the provincial administration. But the provincial administration is not omnipotent either. The provincial administration acts in accordance with the clear guide-lines, the housing policy and the fiscal policy laid down by the Department of Community Development. The authorities are therefore the primary bodies responsible for the provision of housing and for the establishment of townships, and the private developers are supplementary. To my mind this is very important. If the private developers collapse—if one can use the terminology as it has been applied during the past two years— the State cannot escape its responsibility. The function of the State has to continue and it has to endeavour, via the necessary channels which exist, to achieve the main object and maintain the establishment of housing.

There is nothing concerning the policy for the provision of housing—as contained in this Bill—which cannot be properly complied with by the State, with or without the consultation of whichever authoritative outside bodies may exist, and we have a large number of them. There are those of the engineers, the architects, the surveyors, etc. They all belong to organized bodies, and they are all people who are prepared to furnish expert advice because what is involved here is the pursuit of a primary objective. The State dare not ever discriminate, nor does it do so when it comes to the provision of housing. It does not discriminate between Brown, Black and White. If it were to do so, it would be committing the gravest injustice one could ever commit. Nor does it discriminate when it comes to the provision of housing to those in the lower income, the middle income and the higher income categories. The State does not discriminate. The State has special duties to its citizens, and I want to enumerate those duties as follows.

Its first duty is to create employment opportunities, and in respect of the employment opportunities people also have to be disciplined in a labour context. I think this is very important. Once a person has been employed and he has an income, that person must be afforded an opportunity to acquire housing, and then that person must also be subject to discipline in a housing context. For the housing privilege the person concerned then has to pay a consideration from his income. If one is able to comply with these basic requirements, other things such as sophistication, education, school attendance, the cultivation of a greater sense of responsibility, family planning and other factors then obviously follow. All these things result from the exercise of individual discipline at home.

It is South Africa’s duty to create the best lubricated housing machine humanly possible. It is also South Africa’s duty to make the community happy and to keep it happy under the prevailing circumstances. This is all the more its duty if one takes the world situation, world pressure, the stricter sanctions, the complex ethnic structure of the South African population and similar factors which could have an influence on the minds of our people into consideration. Not only is it the duty of the State to accommodate people, but also to accommodate them happily. It is also the duty of the State to keep pace with the problems caused by the migration from the rural areas to the urban areas, the existing housing shortage, the natural growth of the population and the additional housing requirements which this entails, etc. It is South Africa’s task to create the best lubricated machine, and to be able to think big about the creation of housing, to be able to plan in advance for housing and constantly to investigate new building methods as needs and circumstances change, to convert subeconomic units into economic units as and when required, to eliminate departmental red tape and to eliminate delays in the establishment of townships. It is extremely important to speed up township establishment procedures as much as possible. In short, it is South Africa’s duty, by way of constant investigation, to do everything possible at all times to create housing opportunities for all levels of the population, by means of all kinds of housing.

Probably there has never been a greater need for uniformity than these very times in which we are now living. Consequently I ask myself why township establishment procedures should differ so tremendously from one province to another in South Africa. Why should it take four to seven years in the Cape, Natal and the Transvaal, to get the establishment of a township approved? Why should there be a delay of six months in a Government department or some other body before comment can be obtained on a particular matter? Very often the cause of this delay is the developer himself; very often it is not. Why is there a difference in policy in respect of the provision of open spaces and of cash endowments? Where does capital expenditure end, if one adds the interest? Where does the developer ultimately end up? In what kind of financial quagmire does he find himself as a result of the fact that the financial implications become ever more serious? Eventually the financial implications are shifted onto the shoulders of the purchaser and he then has to pay an enormous amount for the stand which he would like to acquire. Problems of this kind have a ripple effect and become progressively worse.

It is a generally-known fact that when the developer finds himself in financial difficulties it is only human that he should try to get out of them. To do so, one frequently makes use of positive and frequently, too, of negative methods. Very often it is not a question of mala fides on your part, but of one genuinely looking for a way out of one’s financial distress. These are the things which together with other related circumstances, contribute to debacles such as Glen Anil. Therefore I believe that the statutory bodies which are being established by this Bill, have a very wide field to cover. If one thinks of the hundreds of purchasers who paid the purchase price in the case of Glen Anil and then, owing to the particular circumstances, were unable to take transfer, it is gratifying to see that a Bill appears on the Order Paper at present which will try to afford alleviation to the 1 600 purchasers who virtually paid for their plots in full, but who, owing to circumstances beyond their control, were unable to take transfer. These are people who met their financial obligations, but who were unable to take transfer because the plots were sold before the township was proclaimed, because there were no available funds to provide the necessary services, or because the developer in question overburdened that particular property to such an extent, in order to continue with other developments, that the innocent purchaser who had already met his financial obligations was simply unable to take transfer. These are the problems one experiences.

Numerous questions and problems present themselves when one thinks of the situation which arose from time to time in the history of housing in this country and which will also arise from time to time in future. The Housing Policy Council will have to give attention to a great diversity of matters. Very often one will find that the Housing Policy Council will operate in a sphere very close to that of the Department of Economic Affairs because there is certain legislation which relates directly to housing or sectional title schemes which are in fact dealt with by the Department of Economic Affairs while in fact it has to deal with the establishment of housing which falls directly under the Department of Community Development. For example it may be asked whether an investigation should not be instituted into whether it is desirable that it should not be possible to sell plots before a township is proclaimed. In addition it may be asked whether an investigation should not be instituted into the desirability of deciding that a person should not be allowed to purchase a flat in terms of a block share system in those areas, particularly in Natal, where leasehold systems are applicable and where flats are being sold on the block share system. In the case where a person purchases shares and meets his obligations in full, but the owner does not use that money to redeem his bond, the question arises whether, in view of the existing sectional title legislation, people should not in future be prohibited from selling flats in terms of this legislation before the sectional titles schemes have been properly registered. Should the Sale of Land on Instalments Act not be adjusted? Should the deficiencies in that legislation not be eliminated? Should it not be clearly spelled out to the purchaser that he should not be misled into thinking that the Act in question replaces the normal way of acquiring property in South Africa by means of transfer legislation, so that the purchaser will realize anew that this is in fact legislation to protect him as far as is practicable, but that ultimately, the duty and responsibility of obtaining transfer registration still rests on his shoulders.

This policy council and the advisory committee will from time to time have to institute investigations into any supplementary legislation that may be required, and into legislation which will from time to time have to be adjusted. In terms of this Bill, we are creating statutory bodies which have only one main object and that is to make recommendations in order to eliminate shortcomings in housing and township establishment matters. In addition to that the object on the part of the authorities is to do their utmost in the national interest in order to promote housing to the maximum. That is the main object here. The authorities want a clear conscience, they want to cleanse their conscience and be able to state that they are creating these opportunities. The authorities want to be able to say that they have determined the need and are seeking the effective methods. The authorities want to be able to say that they have a duty towards all layers and all classes of the population. It is the primary task of the authorities to provide housing, and they want to succeed in this task.

We are seeking a foundation for success, and I think it is to be found in proper advance planning. I think it is also to be found in efficiency. I believe that efficiency requires speed, and also the meaningful regulation of the rate of availability of plots weighed up against the demand at any particular juncture. It also requires the establishment of uniform co-ordination from one province to another, and from one place to another.

That is why I believe that the passing of this Bill is one of the biggest and most positive steps in the history of the department and also in the history of South Africa to try to do the utmost at all times to achieve everything possible for the sake of the main task: The establishment of housing in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a short, but forceful and very interesting debate and I am very grateful to the hon. members who participated in it. In particular I want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg and the hon. member for Durbanville for their contributions. The hon. member for Boksburg identified many of the problems with which we are dealing. I found it interesting that as he enumerated them—and the same applies to the hon. member for Durbanville—it became more clearly apparent how essential a measure such as this Bill is. What astonishes me sometimes is how we managed for so long without such a measure. I want to thank the hon. members very sincerely. I listened attentively to the elucidation by the hon. member for Durbanville of the philosophy behind the responsibilities of the State. I think we all found it very interesting. What he said was very true and also brought home to one the magnitude of the problem and of the task we have to fulfil.

I want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg in particular for having replied to my friend, the hon. member for Rondebosch. If the hon. member for Rondebosch tells me—as he did in fact do today—that it was not his intention to drag colour into this matter unnecessarily, I accept it. I shall always accept his word, for I have respect for the hon. member. But I want to tell him at once that he must not think that the dispute between us on what he said has in this way been settled.

No.

I still think it was extremely unwise of him, and I also think that he failed to avail himself of opportunities to rectify the matter. I do not wish to repeat everything which the hon. member for Boksburg quoted from the hon. member’s speech, but the hon. member for Rondebosch did point out that the Bill largely—if he prefers that word—excludes the non-Whites. I was worried about that, because it immediately gave me the impression that this was another attempt to indicate that we are doing the non-Whites an injustice of some kind. I then said by way of an interjection—and it is recorded in Hansard (Wednesday, 15 March 1978, col. 3127)—

That was his opportunity to say to me: No, that is not what I mean by it. But he did not do so. What he did tell me was that I should not become excited. He said this as though he had been very effective by dragging in the colour issue. He is a person with a quick brain, and he could have reacted immediately by saying: No, but the hon. the Minister is wrong. What he did do, however, was to tell me not to get excited.

But read further.

He had an opportunity to do so, but did not avail himself of it. The hon. member belongs to the PFP, which is deliberately bent on creating the impression in South Africa and abroad that we have a Government in South Africa which is maltreating the non-Whites and which is guilty of injudicious discrimination. The hon. member belongs to such a party. What he is doing in that party I shall never be able to understand, bearing in mind his background, insight and intelligence. However, he is in that party; that is where he finds himself. If an hon. member of that party makes a statement such as the one which has already been quoted, inter alia, by himself as well, it is inevitable that it creates the impression among us that this is simply part of the pattern of dragging in colour again and implying that we are, with this innocent, positive, constructive measure, once again committing a racial injustice. The hon. member must realize that he belongs to a party which makes it necessary for him to weigh his words, because there is an image, they call it a “mental set”, in that party from which he cannot escape. He must also remember that it is an axiom of the South African administration of justice, as well as an inexorable piece of logic, that it is assumed that a reasonable person realizes and intends the consequences of his actions. He acted in such a way that the inference was inevitable that he was dragging colour into the issue. Nevertheless, I accept his word that he did not do that, but I warn him to be careful: He must always remember that he finds himself in a party in which has does not belong and that the inevitable result of this is that things which he might perhaps say innocently, will be interpreted in the light of the associations which he has accepted for himself in this House.

The only trouble is that Helen will put such pressure on him tomorrow that he will only see colours.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on his speech. I also want to mention the charm which radiated from it. It was very pleasant to listen to him. Since he takes a special interest in this portfolio, he and I will in future conduct very pleasant debates on it. I shall always try, together with him, to eliminate misunderstandings.

However, he raised a few matters which have really been very thoroughly discussed on previous occasions. One of the main objectives of the Bill is to overcome and eliminate delays experienced in regard to township establishment. The Fouche report teems with positive recommendations in this regard affecting the Department of Community Development as well as other departments. Although I do not think that further legislation will be introduced in the course of the present session with a view to the implementation of the recommendations, I can give him the assurance that many of the recommendations on the administrative level will be implemented, so that when the boom comes, as he says, it will be possible to take quick action. The old bottlenecks, which gave rise to delays of eight or nine years in the establishment of a township and which gave rise to losses and an accumulation of costs for the developer, will no longer occur. In this regard the hon. member and I think alike, and we feel the same way about it. I think he will be satisfied with the actions which the Government will take. Perhaps there are other departments involved in the matter as well.

The hon. member again spent a great deal of time on clause 3(3). He wants us to see the problems connected with low-cost housing in the same light as those connected with really economic housing. I tried to enter into the hon. member’s mental processes which make it possible for him to see these things as a homogenous problem which should be dealt with by the same body and organization. However, with the knowledge which I have of the administration of these measure, I simply could not do so. There are problems which affect low-cost housing, but they are being dealt with and resolved in a dramatic way by machinery which exists in the form of the Community Development Council and the Housing Commission. Those two bodies are working on these problems on a full-time basis. The Housing Commission deals with thousands of applications from people who want to initiate building undertakings. The Department of Community Development has applications by people from all over the country who want community facilities or housing for the aged over the country who want community facilities or housing for the aged and the disabled. The amount of work which those people have to dispose of is quite unbelievable, yet they are achieving results.

During the discussion of my Vote we shall have another opportunity to discuss these results. It is really encouraging to see what is happening. I do not want to burden these people who are dealing with the tremendous problem of low-cost housing with yet another task. I do not want to saddle them with problems which are unique to economic housing and are not in the nature of their work. For that reason I have introduced this Bill, which the hon. member supports in principle, so that separate machinery can be created to tackle the problems on that level and, it is hoped, solve them effectively. I hope the hon. member will accept my good faith in this respect. I hope he accepts that there are truly strong motivations for our not wanting to duplicate the procedure for dealing with these two levels. One should beware of excessive government, i.e. that a large, new organization is established to do things which are already being done by the existing organizations. In that spirit I am sorry but I have to continue to differ with the hon. member.

I am grateful that the Bill has progressed this far. I think it is another milestone along the road we are following in order to tackle and solve the housing problems of South Africa in an imaginative and constructive manner.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last week, I was busy dealing with the effects of clause 1 and had made the point that clause 1 seeks to amend section 12 of the principal Act and that the overriding principle contained in section 12 of the Act is participation by the community in the educational system and that this has to be done via school boards. Apparently this system has worked well for a period of many years. However, this system of guaranteeing participation via school boards is now being broken down. I want to reiterate that right at the beginning. I have indicated to the hon. the Minister that we in the NRP would like to get a definite assurance from him that active negotiation will continue in order to get school boards functioning again, and that there must be an element of limitation on the period during which a person can be appointed to carry out the functions of a school board. These suggestions of ours must be accepted, otherwise we will not be able to support the Bill.

I am the first to concede that the hon. the Minister has been forced by circumstances to approach Parliament to give him power to make such appointments. If these appointments are to be for an indefinite period it will in effect of course mean the end of active participation by the community in the control and management of community schools, unless the system of school boards is revised. We are judging the Bill as it is before us now. As the new subsection (4A) as proposed in clause 1 reads at present, these appointments can be for an indefinite period. We find this aspect unacceptable and will therefore be unable to support the legislation unless we can get the assurances in this regard from the hon. the Minister. The proposed new subsection (4A) states that a person appointed to perform the duties of a board or council will be appointed “for such period as the Minister may determine”. The hon. the Minister would have had our unconditional support at this stage if the Bill provided for the appointment to be for a specific period, for instance a period not exceeding six months. Under those circumstances support in principle would have been possible. The lack of limitation in regard to the period of appointment must, therefore, be seen as the reason why it is impossible for us to support the Bill at this stage. We realize that the hon. the Minister is experiencing difficulties with school boards and also that the duties of school boards cannot be left in a vacuum. There are people who have to be paid their salaries. For that reason we are quite prepared to accept that emergency steps must be taken in order to overcome those difficulties. We have been accused of not being prepared to meet those people who for instance are finding that they cannot get their salaries because the school board is not functioning and there is nobody else to pay the salaries. We should like emergency steps to be taken in this regard. However, as a responsible Opposition we are not prepared to prop up with artificial means a faulty system which could go on like this indefinitely. It could be regarded as unqualified support if we do not voice concern at this stage.

The real danger of this type of legislation being implemented, especially if the implementation is free of any time limitation, is that it can create the facade that the system is indeed functioning well and will continue as such. Herein lies the danger, not only for Black education, but for all of us.

Let us consider the facts. The composition of a school board is such that when it cannot function, the system of school committees and schools within its jurisdiction cannot function either. We may ask why that is so. It is so because the school committees form the basis for the election of parent members of the school boards. Parent members constitute at least two-thirds of the total membership of school boards. They are elected via the school committees. A minimum of six out of nine and a maximum of at least 12 out of 15 members are elected from school committees. Surely we must be living in a cuckoo land or in a dream world if we think that by appointing one person—as the Bill reads at the moment, it could possibly be interpreted that it could go on indefinitely—to perform the functions of the school board, such a serious disease as the non-functioning of school committees will be cured and the problem facing them will be solved. That is the fundamental problem we have to face. We cannot use Parliament as a sort of magic wand which can cure artificial diseases which really require fundamental and drastic changes.

For those reasons I ask the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that there will be active negotiation with the communities to revive the system of school committees and school boards as soon as possible in order to get the participation of the communities themselves. The hon. the Minister has announced that a new Act would eventually be introduced. However, at this particular point in time we are dealing with this amending legislation. By announcing that a new Act will be introduced, he is possibly indicating that the Government is thinking that the arrangements which have been made will not be indefinite.

The other reason why I am so keen to have an inclusion in clause 1 of a limitation of the period for which one can have this one man school board system, is because this Bill can then be seen for what it is, namely an emergency measure. When a time factor for these abnormal measures forms part of the Bill the sense of urgency to rectify the root cause of the problem will constantly require official attention. This is the reason why we are so keen to have it introduced. When there is no actual time limit placed on these things the temptation to pack such a problem away, as they say, to become another skeleton in the cupboard, will not be there. Unfortunately this can happen where there is a system where one person can be appointed to do the work of the school boards indefinitely.

Let us be under no illusion: the root cause of the problem is the reluctance of the Black community to continue to participate in the control of its own intimate affairs. It can be said that they have been intimidated by people telling them not to serve on their school management committees, not to serve on their school committee, or not to serve on their school board, but what we have to face at the moment is the reality of the reluctance of the school parent body to participate in the education of their own children. This is the problem from which we cannot run away.

Secondly, we must also bear in mind that in terms of the regulations issued in October 1977, school management committees can be appointed with the same powers and privileges as a school board in respect of schools entrusted to it—even community schools. It can perform all the duties and functions of a school board. I refer to regulation No. 2178 of 28 October 1977. We must remember that such a school management committee consists of not only one person, but may consist of up to five people, appointed by the secretary. A member of a school management committee, as stated in the regulations, shall hold office for two years. A time-factor element is being introduced. In respect of school committees one finds that when the control or management of one or more community schools which is being entrusted to it is handed back to the school board, the term of office of all the members is deemed to have expired.

One must remember that the school management committee is not an elected body and can consist of from one to five members. It is appointed by the secretary, has all the powers, but right throughout there is the element of a time factor placed on it. It is stated that members may only serve for a period of two years. School management, therefore, must already be seen as an emergency measure. That is what it is. That is indicated. We therefore feel that a specific limitation as far as the time factor is concerned should be introduced into this legislation before we can give it our unreserved support. School boards which represent full participation of the parents, school manage ment which represents a temporary deprivation of parent participation, and this Bill, which creates what could be described as a one-man school board for an indefinite period, must be seen as steps in a worsening situation as far as parent participation is concerned. School management, however, could consist of up to five members and in respect of community schools could be of a definite temporary nature. We have to judge the Bill as it stands before us at present. In terms of this legislation what we are doing is to launch a one-man show which could be for an indefinite period.

A little while ago—I bring this up merely as an analogy—this House dealt with the Community Councils Bill, a measure aimed at rectifying inadequate legislation. In that case the weakness in the principal Act was that when the community council could not function because of insufficient members having been elected—in other words, the reluctance of the community to participate in the system—further participation by the community was ruled out because no provision had been made for by-elections and the council had to rely for its future and continued existence upon appointed members. This weakness was rectified through legislation which made by-elections possible and which, as such, ensured future participation of the Black community in its own civic affairs. Of course, that was the sort of course which we felt we could support without any reservation.

With this amending legislation, however, the ball is in the court of the hon. the Minister, as I have already said. It will be easy for him to give us an indication, and unless we get that indication he will not receive our support for this measure. I have already placed an amendment on the Order Paper, an amendment which I shall move during the Committee Stage. However, I would like the hon. the Minister, if possible, to tell us, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, whether he would meet our requirements and whether he accepts that we could argue about the principle of a time limit. If he accepts that, he will have our support. I can assure the hon. the Minister he will find that this is only an emergency measure and that that is the reason why we want a time limit of, say six or 12 months. Without that we will, through this amending legislation, be taking steps which will only be leading us away from the full participation of the Black community in its own affairs. As it stands here this is a measure which is based on just the opposite principle which was accepted when we dealt with legislation on community councils earlier this session. In that measure the principle was established of moving towards participation and of ensuring full participation by Blacks in their own community affairs.

As clause 1 now stands—and it sets no time limit here—it will in fact cause a move away from a system of full participation. It is on this point that we would want the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance we have asked for.

*Now I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance at once that—with the exception of clause 1—we find no fault with this proposed legislation. The rest of the Bill contains purely administrative and technical measures. It envisages positive and progressive steps in connection with the control of examinations, the examination board, etc. I specifically want to point out that I am very pleased—and now I am referring to clause 4—that it has been possible to find a definition of mentally retarded children without using the word “uneducability”. It is unfortunately the position that in similar legislation relating to White children, this particular term is used. I have always considered this to be an unfortunate term, one which is to be shunned as far as possible at all times.

I am therefore very pleased to note that the definition of a mentally retarded child is couched in such terms in this legislation that the thought of an uneducable child does not arise. Other hon. members on this side will spotlight this aspect. Therefore I shall not elaborate on the matter any further. All I still want to say is that I trust the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accommodate us in this regard. If he does that, this legislation will really serve its purpose, viz. to meet an emergency situation which might develop.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central devoted his entire speech on this Bill to clause 1. He indicated that he accepts all the other clauses as being very positive measures, and that he endorses them. However, I still do not know whether his party is going to support this Bill.

But I said it depends on the Minister.

He indicated that they will be prepared to support the Bill if the Minister will make one change only in clause 1 and define the period for which a person is appointed. I just want to say that the hon. member is really exhibiting very little self-confidence. Does he have no confidence in his ability to persuade the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment during the Committee Stage? After all, the principle is not changed if the period is specified. The hon. member endorses the principle, whether the period is six months or an unspecified period.

No.

Sir, the hon. member feels very strongly about this. Like other hon. members who spoke on this measure, viz. the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Virginia, the hon. member also began by congratulating the hon. the Minister on this, the first Bill which he is introducing as Minister of Education and Training. Unlike the other two hon. members who spoke, however, there was a sting in his congratulations. He made a reservation and said that if the hon. the Minister would not agree to his request to go on a crusade to put those school boards which have stopped functioning, into operation again immediately, he would withdraw his congratulations. The hon. member said several times: “The Minister must revive these school boards”. He gave the impression throughout that school boards from the Cape as far as Messina in the north have collapsed in ruins.

One thing about you; you never exaggerate!

Sir, surely this is not true. Surely the entire school board system has not collapsed in ruins. As far as my knowledge goes, a few school boards in Soweto were done away with. Nor did the hon. the Minister simply act arbitrarily in doing away with those school boards. As the law provides, he launched a very thorough investigation and there were extensive negotiations with the interested parties. The activities of some school boards were temporarily suspended in consultation with those people. However, the hon. member is trying to create the impression that the whole school board system simply collapsed in ruins. He feels so strongly about it that he is going to withhold his congratulations to the Minister if the Minister does not succeed in putting the school boards into operation once again. Sir, anyone will get the impression that the hon. member for Durban Point feels very strongly about school boards and parent participation in education. He is a very vigorous campaigner for this. Now I want to ask the hon. member the following: Does this hold good for the White child too? Must there be a school board system for White children too? Must there also be a system for them in which parents have a meaningful share? Sir, the hon. member must not talk to his neighbour now. I asked him a very courteous question. Does he feel so strongly about this matter in the case of the White child?

May I just tell the following speaker what he must reply to this?

Order!

Actually, Sir, what applies to the White child is probably not so relevant, but it is tremendously interesting to me to see how silent the hon. member is when I ask him this simple question.

Wait a moment! I can give the answer. The following speaker will give you a good answer to it.

What I really hold against the hon. member for Durban Point, is that he said this is a measure which is going to make a further contribution to the frustration of the Black man.

It may contribute if you do not …

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

Sir, the hon. member expressed it even more strongly. He said this measure has the potential of creating greater friction between White and Black. He said it is a measure which is going to frustrate the Black man. Sir, the word “frustrate” is a terribly hackneyed word, but I want to tell the hon. member that there is one thing which is gradually beginning to frustrate me, and that is that there are people in this House who are always suggesting to the Black man that he is having a thin time of it, that we are not promoting his interests, that we are discriminating against him and that we want to frustrate him. These hon. members want to sow suspicion and create a climate like this between Black and White. If there is one thing which must come to an end now, it is that one section of the White population is always accusing another section of the White population of not giving the Black man a place in the sun. In the times in which we are living, I cannot think of any more important task in this country than creating sound ethnic relations, and any attempt to sow suspicion amongst other people, must be rejected. There is a question which I want to ask that hon. member. What is there in this Bill which frustrates the Black man? What is there in this Bill which can frustrate the Black child? He is really silent now. When I asked him a few questions about school boards a moment ago, he at least made a few inaudible interjections.

Mr. Speaker, may I answer?

No, the hon. member may not answer.

See, I may not answer.

Mr. Speaker, you have saved the hon. member. He spoke for half an hour and continually insinuated that there are measures in this Bill which frustrate the Black man, but he never elucidated his allegations. That attitude of his was calculated to sow suspicion amongst the Whites, to frustrate them and to prejudice the relationship between White and Black, and that is why I say that the hon. member’s attitude was a highly irresponsible one. Like every one of us, he should pray every day for a watch to be put on his mouth so that he will not draw poison from things out of which poison should not be drawn.

This is a Bill with positive measures, a Bill which is going to refine things and make them more pleasant for the Black pupil in many respects. No far-reaching new powers are being granted to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is not being authorized to do away with school boards as he wishes, on an arbitrary basis. In fact, he already has that power in terms of the existing legislation, the principal Act. When some school boards could no longer function, as happened in the case of Soweto, the hon. the Minister had no choice but to do away with those school boards and to turn those schools, which had been community schools, into Government schools. With this Bill he has now established the machinery which makes it possible for community schools to continue to exist, even should the school board no longer be able to function for some or other reason. This is a positive measure and that is why we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just sat down has a few tremendous problems. One of the problems that stood out very clearly this afternoon is the fact that he cannot stand up and make a speech without referring to hon. members on this side of the House as being people who are attempting to cause frustration and create difficulties between Blacks and Whites, and all the usual kinds of exaggeration that are the stock in trade of that hon. member.

And if it is true?

I say categorically that it is totally untrue. The hon. member for Durban Central came along with a most reasoned speech, a quiet and well-presented speech in which all he was saying was that we do have difficulties in principle with the legislation before us. To say that we are now going to withdraw our support and our congratulations from the hon. the Minister and that we are stirring up the entire Black population is the sort of unadulterated political hog wash that makes the contribution of that hon. member so absolutely negative in the House. I think he should really be ashamed of himself for making that kind of speech on an occasion like this.

He is stirring up trouble overseas.

That is right. He is bringing the whole of our legislation into difficulty overseas. I think this is a thing he ought to consider very carefully before he makes another speech like that in the House. It is quite obvious that the board is there to facilitate the administrative work of the department in dealing with the Black child.

The hon. member for Durban Central put a question to the hon. the Minister and it is in respect of this that we require confirmation. He has to take steps to appoint members to the board in order to keep this system operative. There are many people suffering today as a result of the fact that the system has broken down. Our submission to the hon. the Minister is that every effort should be made to re-involve the parent-population in the administration of the school by participation on the board. That is the message the hon. member for Port Natal should have gleaned from the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central. It is our concern that this system should operate. It is the key to the success of the whole operation of Black education. It is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of South Africa that the education of the Black child should have become a political issue, that there should be intimidation and that the parents should consider it advisable in their own interests and for their personal safety to withdraw from participation in a system like this. That is what the hon. member for Durban Central was saying. We are convinced that this is a system in respect of which the hon. the Minister should continually engage in negotiation to re-involve these people. If one cuts oneself off from the education of one’s children, one is in effect turning out the light for those children. One is then cutting oneself off from the one factor which can liberate the Black child from the age-old plagues of Africa, and those plagues are hunger, poverty, ignorance, squalor and so on, which can be resolved to create an entirely new situation for the Black child through education and through the services the hon. the Minister and his department provide for these people.

Our whole concern is that the hon. the Minister should give us this reassurance for the protection of the system and in order to re-establish the worth of the system in the minds of the Black parents. It is not a matter of stooges being appointed by the Minister or that he will continue to allow this system to run on the basis of appointees. In his heart it must be his design that the Black community should re-involve themselves in this. They should have the courage to defy the people who attempt to intimidate them and who attempt to make it difficult for them to participate in a system such as this.

The hon. member for Durban Central has indicated that in the Committee Stage he will move an amendment to provide for a period of six months within which the Minister shall be able to act as provided for in the Bill. It may well be that a period of six months is inadequate. It may well be that there must be continuing periods. This is a matter which, as the hon. member has indicated, we can discuss with the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage. We propose to move this amendment not because we want to ride across the tracks of the hon. the Minister, but because we want to help him to re-establish the status and standing of these boards in the minds of the Black community whom they are intended to serve. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will accept an amendment which provides that, in cases where this has to be done, it could be mentioned in the report of the Secretary which is tabled in the House every year or in a special report to Parliament so that Parliament can have some idea of the scope of the problem. We should know in how many cases it is happening, whether the situation is improving or whether we are losing ground, and what in fact is happening in regard to this matter. We do not want to be unreasonable at all in discussing this with the hon. the Minister. There are very serious practical problems which he has to face and we are trying to help him to find a solution. Indeed, the Bill is intended to provide a solution, but it is our submission to the hon. the Minister that it must not be regarded as the ultimate solution but that there could possibly be something better which would serve to re-involve those people. We accept that the hon. the Minister has that in mind. However, the hon. member for Durban Central will propose in the Committee Stage that a time limit of six months should be introduced within which the Minister must reach an agreement with those people. The hon. the Minister says it is totally impossible and that he cannot do it.

What we would want him to accept is an obligation which should be written into this Bill to provide that he has to do it within a time period. It can be an elastic time period. But this is a matter which we can discuss at length during the Committee Stage.

The mentally retarded children.

Yes. Mr. Speaker, I was so involved in what I was saying that I almost forgot to say what I actually stood up to say. It concerns clause 4 and the question of the mentally retarded children.

Just look around you.

Yes. I doubt whether the interjection of the hon. member for Durban Central actually has a bearing on clause 4, but in case you rule that out of order, I withdraw it. Very close to where I live is the Umgeni Waterfall Institution, an institution for White mentally retarded people, not only children, but adults as well. A school has been started there which is called a training centre. It is quite incredible what amount of work has been done at that centre within a period of a year. The hon. member for Durban Central has mentioned the fact that they are people who are ineducable. Mr. Speaker, if you came there a year ago and saw the sort of people who were admitted to that training centre, you would have said that there is no way on earth in which one could get hold of the minds of those children who were I think under the age of 18. These are children for whom the mind has darkened. With them it was a case of darkness of the mind. What is happening is that in the training that is taking place in those centres, light is being brought into the lives of these children to an extent which I think is absolutely incredible. One cannot believe it if one sees the work that those children are producing after a period of only one year. What concerns me is that the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech seemed to imply that the department would not be able to handle this kind of situation, that there would not be institutions under the control of the department, but that private organizations would be handling it and that the department would subsidize them and help them to get this project going.

A tremendous problem is to find the teachers who are prepared to teach in a situation of this nature. I can assure hon. members that I have the most immense admiration for people who are prepared to do work of that sort. It is really the most heartrending situation to be in to have to teach in a school like that where one is reaching out for minds which are really and truly darkened to an incredible extent. I would like a reassurance from the hon. the Minister that a situation like this can be coped with. I understand that this is probably something which is starting ab initio. As far as White children are concerned this sort of education has been going on for a year or two and it is only very recently that educational authorities in this country have decided that it is possible to reach out to those minds. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us certain information when he replies to this debate. The department has plans which include the organizations which deal with these matters. However, I think the hon. the Minister should accept sooner or later—it is obviously a question of funds, organization and that kind of thing—that initiatives will have to be taken by the hon. the Minister’s department in consultation with the homeland authorities and everybody else to cope with a situation where children can be reached by his department and where teachers can be specially trained to cope with that particular situation. This is one of the things which I welcome tremendously, namely that steps should be taken to bring about a totally new light to people who are really tremendously handicapped. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some assurance when he replies that the department can see beyond, what I understood him to say, merely helping other organizations to do it and that they will in some way or other be able to provide the continuing finance. One of the problems with so many of these things are that organizations spring up which are designed to meet a need and are fueled by people who have the most intense concern for that matter. As long as those people are involved, that concern goes on. However, one gets to a stage where people fall away or lose interest, and one then finds the whole thing faltering or breaking down and gradually disappearing into the sands of time. That is something which we do not want to happen in a situation like this. It so often happens that some authority, whether it is a municipality, the province or somebody, has to step in and take over.

I would say to the hon. the Minister that he must not rule that situation, because sooner or later he is going to have to deal with organizations and situations in which the only authority that can take a hand and can keep a situation going once it has been set up and training has begun, is the hon. the Minister’s department, the education departments of the independent homelands, autonomous authorities or somebody else like that. The initiative in this case is going to have to come from the hon. the Minister and I urge him to accept that this might well be something which is going to be brought about by the situation to which he is heading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, was rather touchy because the hon. member for Port Natal had pointed their shortcomings out to them. Hon. members are particularly opposed to clause 1 which provides for the continuity of employment in the sense that no specific limitation is placed on the time. According to my learned friend, the hon. member for Mossel Bay, the plural holds for the singular in the case of clause 1, in terms of legal rules, where permission is granted to the hon. the Minister to authorize a person to carry out certain activities. This person can also be a group, committee or a community council itself which then performs that duty. Let us assume that it is a community council. To me this would be very meaningful, because then the people of that territory are involved in the education and handling of discipline in those schools.

Hear, hear!

Then I feel that the objection which hon. members have towards the measure, is not of such a nature that they will still insist on that specification of a period, because then we are dealing with a community council consisting of the people themselves and therefore it cannot be a “one-man school board” or a “one-man show” as the hon. member said. We shall then be dealing with a community council which serves its particular community. If we handle the matter in this way, the objection of the hon. member for Pinelands in this regard also falls away. The hon. member said he would like to see a “suitable person” serving in this regard. In the light of the hon. member’s argument, the community council is probably well enough equipped and capable enough to carry out their task for their community to the best of their ability.

The new courses which may be introduced in accordance with the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, are a very good arrangement. There is a great deal of flexibility in the measure and, as the need for new courses develops and as the labour market set new requirements in respect of the qualifications of its workers, the hon. the Minister can make the necessary arrangements from time to time so that those people can be trained in the spheres in question.

As regards the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill, I want to associate myself with the arguments raised by previous speakers. Clause 4 lays down that the community must be involved to an increasing extent in the care, training and handling of the mentally retarded. It remains the duty and privilege of any community—whether White or non-White—to care for the interests of those people in its community. This is a sphere in which other bodies in our national community have already left their mark and the hon. member for Mooi River has also pointed this out. We foresee that in this regard the hon. the Minister will be able to create a sphere in the departmental context as well in which that useful service can be developed further.

Since this amendment Bill always has the strong underlying motive of the provision of order, discipline and continuity of work, I want to conclude my speech with an idea which I want to lay at the door of our fine Department of Education and Training. I do not want to draw this idea from our local history, because it may perhaps seem as if we want to prescribe to those people. I want to draw the idea out of European history, where even the centuries of education have become very old. At the end of last year a large congress was held with the theme: “The courage to educate”. The congress established a small nucleus committee which they called the “Preparatory Working Party”, in order to investigate education. This committee arrived at nine points of departure for the education of Europe. I think it is fitting that I put these nine statements to this House and the department. I quote the statements as they appeared in the German Tribune of 29 January 1978—

1. 1. The Working Party rejected the idea that the emancipation that school should achieve is to be found in the ideal of a future society of complete freedom. The practical result of this philosophy was lifelong unfreedom.
2. 2. Education should not lead children to expect and demand happiness. Happiness did not come from wanting and demanding this and that but from doing what is right.
3. 3. There should be a return to the old values of hard work, discipline and order.
4. 4. Children should not be brought up to be hyper-critical. “Only those who accept the society they are in will be able to resist the ideological seducer.”
5. 5. Children should not be encouraged to insist on their interests. “The first and main task is to teach them what life is about and to allow their interests to develop gradually.”
6. 6. All education should be based on the realization that people are not equal in their ability.
7. 7. School should not be misused as an instrument of social reform. “No society can accept a kind of school which teaches pupils to admire other social systems.”
8. 8. A stop would have to be put to the over-scientific approach to education.
9. 9. Education is not just the task of professional teachers. Parents should also be encouraged to educate their children.

With these few ideas we should like to support this Bill, which will accomplish a meaningful task.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands has already set out the attitude of the Official Opposition to this Bill. We on this side of the House find ourselves in some difficulty, certainly over clause 1. We have made it clear to the hon. the Minister that we do not like the clause, but we are persuaded by the case which is being put up that this is in fact an emergency measure for a temporary period. We hope it will be a period of very short duration. For that reason, as the hon. member for Pinelands said when the Second Reading debate commenced about a week ago, we shall support the Second Reading of this measure.

One has to be conscious of the circumstances in which this legislation is introduced. We believe it is essential in present circumstances that provision should be made for those schools whose school boards and school committees have collapsed. In that sense we give our support to the Bill. The hon. the Minister must understand that we give our support on the basis of the assurances he has given us and on the basis of the case he has made out for this as a temporary piece of emergency legislation. We know the collapse of the school boards has taken place in critical circumstances. We know the collapse has been caused through circumstances of unrest and frustration in the country. Since the Bill has been brought before the House, we in our turn have had the opportunity of discussing its contents with Black parents and Black teachers’ organizations, and they themselves have expressed the need for these powers to be given at this stage, so that these boards can be reconstituted.

The hon. member for Pinelands has gone to some detail in analysing the tragedy of the circumstances arising out of the collapse of these boards. We believe fundamental changes are going to be necessary to deal with the frustration which does exist in these areas. We believe this may well be achieved by the new Bill the hon. the Minister has indicated he is going to introduce. We welcome the news that an entirely new Bill will be introduced and we await the sight of that Bill with considerable interest. For those reasons, as I have said, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

We shall also look sympathetically at the amendment to be moved in the Committee Stage by the hon. member for Durban Central. He has suggested a time limit and we believe, certainly in principle, that a time limit should be imposed. Whether in fact the time limit suggested by the hon. member for Durban Central is long enough or not, is a matter for consideration. I certainly believe that the hon. the Minister will make it much easier for the passage of this Bill through this and the other stages if he can give assurances that this is an emergency measure of temporary duration only. On that basis I believe we shall find it possible to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I await the hon. the Minister’s reply with interest.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an interruption of this debate, but I want to start right at the beginning. The first speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Pinelands, and other speakers, inter alia, the hon. members for Virginia and Durban Central, congratulated me on my appointment. I want to express my appreciation for that. The problem is, however, that one can sit and bask and be soothed by fine words and congratulations, but fortunately I have reached the point of being level-headed by now and I am fully aware of the extent of my task.

†I regard my task as a difficult one, but also as a challenge. I appreciate it that the hon. member for Pinelands has also expressed his sympathy with my difficult task. I am not going to make promises or give undertakings. The only promise I can make is that I shall do my level best and that I shall dedicate myself to my task and to the people whom I am to serve. In doing so, I trust I shall be serving South Africa and all the peoples of South Africa.

*I also appreciate the fact that hon. members show insight into the problems of the task, because it is not an easy one. However, I want to make the very friendly request that in the handling of the affairs of this department we will always adopt the basis of pure, accepted educational and teaching principles and that we will stay as far away as possible from other matters which one is sometimes inclined to bring into education. It is true that an educational system is not isolated even from political systems, but one can do a great deal of damage if at every opportunity one brings in matters which do not have a direct bearing on education. I trust that we shall be able to discuss the activities of this department in that spirit in future. I also have appreciation for the point of view adopted by the hon. member for Pinelands and their attitude that they see the education of Blacks differently than we do. They want to see it under the control of the Department of National Education. He indicated himself, however, that that is a matter which we can discuss later. I want to say to him that I am looking forward to that opportunity at a later date when we shall be able to debate this matter with each other.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the few remarks which I had made when business was suspended, I just want to say that, as has also been the case for generations, there are many people who like meddling in education and training, and in recent times in South Africa people who in the past did not pay much heed to this matter and whose criticism was not very constructive. I am prepared to listen to constructive criticism, but it is of no use our coming forward with instant solutions, with solutions which have scant educational merits. That is not going to get us anywhere. I ask again that we give status to education by discussing the matter on its pedagogical merits and educational foundations.

I shall leave clause 1 until last, perhaps, because the most important discussion revolved around it. But I want to refer to what the hon. member for Pinelands said in regard to the person who is appointed, whether we should not perhaps qualify this by inserting that it should be a suitable person. We have legal problems with this. I just want to point out to the hon. member that in the same Act, in section 10(2)(b), one also finds a reference to any person as far as the dismissal of a teacher is concerned. I also want to refer to section 10quat (1) where additional teachers may be appointed to the establishment. There is no specific reference to “suitable” teachers there either. As I have said, one could insert the word, but one could then, if a lawsuit were to arise from the matter, experience problems with the interpretation of the word. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that it will not simply be a person who does not take much interest in education, and if it is a single person and not a body, it will in fact be a person who has knowledge of education, who is interested in education and who will be able to deal with the matter properly.

The hon. member also referred to the penal provision and asked whether the penalty is not perhaps being increased a little too drastically. I want to point out to him that we are dealing here with maximums, and that the magistrate will still be able to determine the amount at his discretion. But we are dealing here with a particularly serious matter. I want to put it to the hon. member in this way: If students or pupils who are writing examinations smuggle examination material into the examination room and if there is any falsification of certificates, and so on, we are undermining the value and status that a certificate has, for people are then acquiring certificates on the basis of knowledge which they do not really have. Then, on the other hand, if one comes to employers with those certificates, and it subsequently appears that the person who presented the certificate does not possess the knowledge indicated on that certificate, we will also eventually be shaking the confidence of employers in the certificates which are presented. In other words, the entire image of education suffers as a result of the actions of individuals. This is also unfair to those scholars and those candidates who have written their examinations honestly. Even they and their certificates are eventually questioned. We are dealing here with an exceptionally serious matter. It is a gross misdemeanour which is being committed here. I want the hon. member to accept that in the few cases where scholars are caught committing these abuses, it is in fact possible to act within those penal provisions.

The hon. member made a few references to adult education. We have so far already achieved great success with our adult education campaign. We are giving attention to illiterate people; we involve them in those classes in order to begin with literacy, so as to proceed subsequently to more formal instruction and to take them further up to matriculation standard. We are receiving more and more support for this, and we trust that this will continue to be the case in future so that, as far as this campaign is concerned, we will also be able to proceed with further expansion.

I come now to an important aspect raised by the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Musgrave also referred to it. I now wish to state my standpoint, as well as that of my department, in regard to the involvement of parents. It is our endeavour to involve the community, particularly the parent community, in education. In fact, we have written it into the Bill as an aim. We are making every possible attempt to involve the parent community in the school and in the education and training of their children wherever possible. We are even going so far as to make attempts to establish parent-teacher associations or parent-teacher committees for State schools where there are no school boards which exercise control over the school, so that those parents, too, may become involved in education. When the hon. member therefore suggests that there is little interest on the part of the parents, he is not entirely correct. It is true that there is little interest when people are being intimidated. Then they prefer to stay away.

But I can quote examples of cases in which there is more interest in the parent-teachers’ associations than the parents display when a school board election is held. In any event they are under no obligation. In other words we try wherever we can to involve the community concerned in education so that they can help to carry out the obligations in regard to the education and training of their children.

Over the past years we have been so successful with this, with people who have as it were been trained and educated in the process, that we have already been able to establish and build up eight homeland departments with the aid and assistance of Black people who, over the years, acquired experience in this way. We are therefore aware of the great need to avoid eliminating the parent community. It remains my conviction that, even in cases where we have converted community schools into State schools—and this took place, inter alia, owing to the circumstances which occurred in Soweto—we wish in those cases as well to turn the schools in question into community schools agais as soon as possible. If circumstances in any way allow us, we do so immediately. The long argument presented by the hon. member for Durban Central to persuade us of the importance of parental involvement, was therefore in a certain sense unnecessary. However I am glad to hear that they adopt the same standpoint. But it is not necessary for them to try to persuade us of its importance. This is something which we accept as being of material importance, i.e. that the parental community should also play a part in the overall control structure of the education of their children.

I want to emphasize that we shall do nothing to reject in any way the co-operation which we are seeking—the co-operation which we had already obtained in the past and which we still have now in most cases— nor to shake the confidence that exists in the people concerned in any way. Therefore I shall not—although I am entitled in terms of clause 1 to determine a certain period—extend the period unnecessarily. If circumstances should in any way allow the number of persons on a school board—in cases where their numbers have perhaps been thinned out—to be augmented, or in cases where a new school board has to be constituted from scratch, we shall not waste a single day in reestablishing such a school board. My only problem is with the period that has to be laid down. If the hon. member moves his amendment, which makes provision for a period of six months, it will cause me problems as far as certain specific areas are concerned. Take for example the case of Soweto, where community council elections are in progress. If I were bound to a period of six months, I would not be able to say to them: “Wait a minute; give me a little longer. They are establishing a community council in Soweto. The community councils will eventually have an interest in education as well. Let us therefore wait until the community council has been constituted.” If that were the case, I would in any case have to ask for such a period of six months to be extended. I am not reluctant to allow myself to be bound even to a certain period, simply to prove my bona fides, but I think that I am going to experience problems in certain specific cases if I include such a provision in the Bill. I want to ask hon. members not to press me on this point. It is the endeavour and the aim of the department to involve the parent community in education, and we demonstrate this in practice, but we have the problem that we may experience problems with such a time limit in individual cases. In such cases I must have the freedom to have a longer period available then. If I were bound, even to a period of a year, I should have to insert somewhere in the legislation that if the prescribed period has elapsed, I shall have the right to extend that period. This will have to be done if I find it necessary to exceed that specified period. So there is no real sense in laying down a fixed period. I trust that hon. members will accept it in this way.

If a report on this matter can be made to Parliament, for example in the Secretary’s report, we shall be satisfied to accept the position in this way.

I am prepared to allow that. Cases where we were compelled to apply this provision may be reported. For example it may be stated in the Secretary’s report in the case of how many school boards we availed ourselves of this power. An indication could also be given of the period which has already elapsed. I am quite prepared to give such an indication of cases where it was necessary to enforce this power which is being given to me.

There are only three additional matters to which I want to refer. In the first place the hon. member for Mooi River referred to mentally retarded children. I appreciate the interest displayed not only by the hon. member for Mooi River, but also by the hon. members for Pinelands, Virginia and others. I want to mention the following points in this regard, in an attempt to satisfy the hon. member for Mooi River. The very fact that we are making provision in this Bill for these children indicates the concern which the department has in this regard. We feel that we have an obligation towards these unfortunate, less-well-endowed people. The department should like to make it its task to look after these people in order to give attention to them in some way or other and to further their limited abilities. The hon. member also asked whether suitable teachers were always available. We have an in-service training programme by means of which we are in fact training some of these teachers. It is true that there is no special course, but this programme, by means of which we train these people, is so successful that a country such as Ghana frankly admits that our system is the best they have come across so far, and that they are going to take over our system of in-service training just as it is. In other words, we are making provision in this connection.

May I associate myself at once with the words of appreciation expressed by the hon. member for Mooi River for these teachers. Any society is fortunate if there are compassionate people of this kind who come forward. In this highest Chamber one must express one’s appreciation, even one’s admiration, for these people. I do not know which of the hon. members have already paid visits to these institutions, but I want to say that one must probably have received a special kind of grace to present oneself for work among these children. I gladly associate myself with the praise expressed by the hon. member for Mooi River in this regard.

In respect of the question of financing, the hon. member for Mooi River expressed his fear at what could happen to a subsidized welfare organization if it were to experience problems. He said that they might have to call a halt to their educational task in respect of these children, and that another body would then have to take over. In most cases, in our contact with such a welfare organization, we make provision, and they are aware of this, for the department to be able to take over the control of such a school in the case of any problems, and the financial provision which we make is precisely the same as that which we make for such institutions in our White community. I do not have the time to quote the particulars now, but if the hon. members are interested, I could furnish the relevant subsidy figure. Hon. members will then be able to see that ample provision is being made for these children. I trust that the hon. member will be more satisfied with this reply, and furthermore I hope that we shall also in this way give new life to people who cannot normally expect much from life.

The hon. member for Virginia raised an important matter. He said that those pupils who would like to attend school, should be afforded an opportunity to do so. This is an important matter. Unfortunately I am afraid that we frequently give exaggerated attention to the disrupters and the inciters, and that those who would like to get on with their instruction and education are shifted to the background and are not taken sufficiently into account. The welfare of the child is the concern and task of this department, and we should like to get on with this task. Therefore we ask the inciter and agitator to do his inciting and agitating elsewhere and not in the schools, for they are obstructing the education and training of many people who form part of the future of a nation. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution. I do not think we can sufficiently emphasize that there are people who in a civilized community do want to receive their education in a normal manner and that we should constantly be interceding for them and condemning the work of the agitator and inciter as far as we are able. I think the hon. member for his remarks. I am fortunate to have so many teachers here on my side. There was for example a former school principal who also spoke, the hon. member for Standerton. They are people who are still speaking from their recent experience in the class-room where they worked with children.

Just one last comment on what the hon. member for Standerton said. That hon. member referred to certain fundamental factors which the people of Europe would like to accept as the basis on which they want to build their education. This is perhaps not the occasion to elaborate on this, but there is something I do want to say about one matter. I am referring to the question of discipline, which the hon. member raised. In education we are, after all, developing the abilities of the child in an orderly manner and setting his feet on the road to adulthood. If one is engaged in an orderly process, one also requires discipline. One cannot guide the child who has to become an adult into adulthood if one does not couple that educational task with discipline. In reality no education or training is possible without discipline and authority. On this score the hon. member and, so I believe, the entire House will agree with me. The ultimate task of the pedagogue is to lead the person who is being educated towards self-education, and for self-education constant discipline is necessary. The person who has been educated must ultimately find himself a niche somewhere in society, and this society in turn demands from him certain norms of behaviour and discipline. In this way one may draw the line all the way through. That is why I almost feel like attaching a motto to this, as William Bagley did in his Education, Crime and Social Progress. Listen to this splendid statement—

This is the only way in which one can do so, in education as well. I thank the hon. member having referred to this matter in this discussion.

I trust that, although briefly, I have dealt with all the matters which hon. members referred to to their satisfaction.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Briefly the amendments which this Bill seeks to effect to the University of Durban-Westville Act are that greater powers and responsibilities are being granted to the council of the University in respect of the negotiation of loans; the acquisition and control of stores; the appointment of a rector and acting rector; and the determination of the establishment of the university and the class fees payable by students.

Furthermore, provision is also being made in the Bill for the appointment of a vicerector; an alteration in the constitution of the council; a convocation; and for the obligation of an appointed member of the council to resign as member of the council if he accepts a post on the establishment.

Hon. members will note that, although more powers and responsibilities are being entrusted to the council, the actions of the council are still subject to the concurrence of the Minister. No fault is likely to be found with this, for this university is not yet autonomous in all respects and does not have its own funds. The university is still a State institution which is dependent for its funds on the State. Therefore it is necessary for this reason that a measure of control should continue to exist.

As far as the determination of the establishment is concerned, this matter may be left in the hands of the council after a proper basis or formula has been worked out by the council and myself. After this has been done and the directions have been issued, the council may proceed with the matter. Section 14(2) of the principal Act affords me the powers to prevent the council from arbitrarily discharging, transferring or seconding staff in categories which I may determine.

As far as the creation of the post of vice-rector is concerned, it is probably unlikely that hon. members will find any fault with this either. It is the general practice that such a post exists at all “major” universities and today Durban-Westville is no longer a “small” university. What is more, although the main object of a vice-rector is certainly to act as an assistant to the rector, there are many other duties which a rector cannot cope with alone, particularly at a university such as this one. I am thinking in particular here of liaison work with the general public, as well as with Government departments dealing with the development of the university.

Then, too, there is the essential liaison with the students themselves which, hon. members will grant me I think, differs considerably from the situation at White universities. Sound liaison on this level can to a large extent determine the success achieved by the institution on all levels. Therefore, apart from the fact that the rector is sometimes absent a great deal in the performance of his task, a vice-rector can be of great assistance to him in many other respects as well.

As far as the constitution of the council is concerned, provision is now being made for the number of members appointed by the State President to be reduced from eight to six and for the convocation, depending on its membership, to elect one or two members of the council. To my mind this is a very sound principle.

Hon. members will note that the constitution of the convocation makes provision not only for membership of students of the university itself, but also for those students who obtained their degrees at the University of South Africa while they were in reality students of the University of Durban-Westville, during that period when it was still known as a university college.

Clause 6(g) is self-explanatory and I just want to say that this provision became necessary because a member of the council, after having been appointed as such in his personal capacity, accepted a permanent position at the university.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced is certainly an improvement in respect of the institution known as the Durban-Westville University in the sense that the Bill contains the principle, as the hon. the Minister has said, of giving greater powers and greater responsibility—in other words, a greater degree of autonomy—to that university institution. In that sense and for that reason we in these benches will support the Second Reading of the Bill. However, we do intend moving a number of amendments in the Committee Stage.

The hon. the Minister has indicated a difference between this institution and other universities. He said, namely, it is a young university which depends on the State for its finance.

It is fully financed by the State.

It is fully financed by the State, but does that differ much from the so-called White universities which are subsidized by the State to the extent of about 60% or 70%?

I will explain it to you later.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister, when he replies, will explain that, because we have a situation here where we see this measure as a move in the right direction. We believe that the changes being made will make this a more effective university institution than it has been and is certainly in keeping with its growth and its stability over the years of its existence.

The hon. the Minister has said that the Bill provides, inter alia, for the appointment of an assistant to the rector, a vice-rector. This clearly is an advantage over the present system and will clearly assist the existing rector in the carrying out of his duties. This, too, is in keeping with the practice at all other recognized universities, where provision for this sort of deputy post has always existed. It is also encouraging to see that the hon. the Minister at this stage has recognized the need for the university to have its own convocation and for that convocation to take its part in the administration of the affairs of the university, again in keeping with general and normal university practice. It also gives the university greater powers for investing and borrowing money subject, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, to very strict control—I shall come back to that—by the hon. the Minister. It gives the university council greater powers in a number of ways and particularly in regard to its status. It increases its status relating to the appointment of a rector and a vice-rector. It reduces, as the hon. the Minister has said, the number of members appointed to the council by the State President from eight to six, and in this we also see an encouraging move in the right direction. It also, of course, gives the council more status in determining file establishment of the university generally. In principle it accordingly moves forward to far greater autonomy than has existed up to the present time.

We have always seen two basic weaknesses in the Durban-Westville University, and certainly in the other so-called ethnic universities. Firstly, I would say generally there were two weaknesses: One the ethnic exclusiveness and the other the nature and the extent of State control over these universities. In this sense these universities have differed from the existing so-called White universities. We know that the first of these objections is being slowly removed. The hon. the Minister has indicated during the course of this session, in answer to question, that he will, in fact, allow and will certainly not prevent members of other racial groups attending the Durban-Westville University subject to the facilities there being always available to members of the Asian community. We know too that the hon. the Minister has indicated that at certain other universities around the country some 700, 740 or 750—whatever the figure is—Indian students have been admitted around the country. It will be seen here that ethnicity, which has been one of our principle objections to this type of institution, is also slowly being removed. We have always maintained that it is totally unhealthy to have university institutions which are exclusive for the use of one race, because we believe that this would encourage group thinking, might encourage group animosity and might result in the people attending those universities not being fully equipped to take their place in what is after all a multiracial society. It would appear, however, that the Government is now beginning to acknowledge this and we believe that this also is a step in the right direction. We also maintain that it is the function of an autonomous university to decide whom it shall admit and whom it shall not admit. We hope that the recent move by the Government in this direction amounts to a greater recognition of that very vital autonomy.

The second objection that we have always had, is the fact that there has been too much State control, which again has meant less autonomy for the university. In a sense this Bill alleviates the stranglehold which the State has had on the University of Durban-Westville, and we believe it is a step in the right direction.

Having said all this, one wonders why the hon. the Minister does not go a little further. As I have said, the Bill is certainly an improvement on the existing situation, but we would of course like to see the hon. the Minister go a good deal further. In this regard I would refer again to the borrowing powers of the university. Clause 2 of the Bill before us recognizes the rights of the university in regard to the investment, lending and borrowing of money. One wonders, however, why the hon. the Minister could not have introduced the conditions which relate to the White universities. In this regard I think particularly of sections 20, 21, 22, 23 and 23bis of the Universities Act, No. 61 of 1955, which set down the basis upon which those institutions can come to Parliament for loans. They can be financed by money voted by Parliament, control could be kept over the loans, and matters of this kind. One wonders why it could not be possible, at this stage, for this university to be given the same rights as other universities have in this regard.

Then I want to refer to the question of the appointment of the rector. This is now allowed to be the responsibility of the council, but subject to the concurrence of the hon. the Minister. In our view this should again be something in respect of which the hon. the Minister need have no authority. Why must the State, the hon. the Minister, intervene in regard to the appointment of the rector or a vice-rector? We would like to see the same principle applied here as is applied in other universities in terms of which the university itself is able to decide on these appointments without having to obtain what is termed in this Bill as “the concurrence of the Minister”. The hon. the Minister, in other words, sits as a supervisor over the university and situations could arise where the hon. the Minister could veto any appointment suggested by the council of the university. We suggest that the time has come that the university should be treated, in regard to this function, in the same way as other universities and that the council itself should have that power. The same applies to clause 5 of the Bill, which relates to the appointment of a vice rector.

We welcome clause 6 of the Bill in the sense that it reduces the number of appointees by the State President from eight to six. In our view six are still too many. We would like to see the number reduced to four, thus, to my mind, would be a more acceptable figure. In the case of the University of Stellenbosch, for example, four people are appointed by the State President to each council, and we wonder whether the time has not come to be a little more realistic than merely to reduce the number from eight to six. On the subject of the composition of the council, there would also seem to be a case for increasing the size of the council. If one looks at the existing provisions, one realizes that it is a very small council. If one looks at other institutions, e.g. again at the University of Stellenbosch, one finds that they have a council which consists of a rector, four appointees, six members elected by convocation of the university, three professors chosen by the senate, one person by the town council, one person by the divisional council and three because of their activities in donating money to the university. It is thus a fairly big council. In the same way the Rand Afrikaans University has a council of something like 25 members. I would say that there is a strong case for the University of Durban-Westville to be allowed to have a far bigger council than it has at the present time, and I would like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this.

In regard to clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill, I should like to say that here too we shall object in the sense that while this is an improvement there is still the overriding authority of the hon. the Minister allowed and inherent in these two provisions. The clauses concern the appointment of staff and the conditions of appointment which again have to be supervised, determined or undertaken with the concurrence of the Minister at the time. We believe that if this is a real university, this is really a function of the council of the university and not of a Minister of State. The same objection for the same sort of reasons applies to clause 10. Again, we believe that these are functions which in the normal course of events should be exercised by the council of the university.

In the sense, as I said, that the Bill is an improvement, that it is a step towards greater autonomy for the University of Durban-Westville, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I earnestly appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to making further concessions which would lead to greater autonomy for this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that criticism is levelled at whatever legislation the NP introduces. We on this side of the House think this is very good legislation. With every piece of legislation the Opposition asks us: What are you doing for the people of colour? With this Bill we are giving them what they are asking for, but in spite of that we are being criticized and the hon. the Minister was immediately asked why he had not gone further. Do hon. members not realize that one does not walk before one can crawl? At the right time those people will get to where the Opposition want them to be. The second attack and piece of criticism was aimed at the hon. the Minister. I expected this attack, and shall return to it later in my speech.

For my part I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the detailed elucidation of the Bill. He explained its object and purpose very clearly to the House. It is interesting to note that the entire object of the Bill is to make provision for the transfer of powers to the University of Durban-Westville. This is the beginning of the crawling stage to which I referred. What I found remarkable was the excellent exposition of the Bill. The particulars were set out very neatly. What the amendments contained in the Bill amount to is that the approval of the House is being requested for the granting of greater powers and responsibilities to the university council in respect of the following: Firstly, as the hon. the Minister put it, the acquisition and control of stores; secondly, the making of certain arrangements for the negotiation of loans by and the repayment of loans to the university—something which they did not have—thirdly, the amendment of provisions relating to the appointment of a rector and acting rector; fourthly, the appointment of a vice rector; fifthly, the amendment of the constitution of the council, etc.

I should like to point out that I find it interesting to note the phenomenal progress made by the University of Durban Westville before the Government presented this amendment Bill. Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that the Government is doing everything in its power to help these people to help themselves. Immediately I then ask this question: What has the Official Opposition ever done for these people? I want to emphasize that nothing was done for these people by that side of the House. I am going to illustrate this on the basis of what we have done. An investigation was held in Natal—most of those people come from Natal. After this investigation a report was published under the title Racial Battle. It deals with the things for which we are being criticized. It reads—

That is the Government at the time—

It is not I or the NP that says this, but people in Natal. It reads as follows—and this was after the survey was made—

They went on to ask what these people were afraid of. They then said that they were afraid that those people would infiltrate and would constitute a threat to them in the economic sphere. What is more: That they would be ousted by these people. For that reason they were being held back.

I now want to refer to what this university achieved after it was placed under the auspices of the Government. First the university was located on Salisbury Island in Durban. The university showed a considerable growth. In 1976 there were 3 200 students at the University of Durban Westville. The latest figure for this year indicates that there is a student body of 4 348. From 1963 to 1977 2 579 students graduated from that university and 1 195 students received diplomas. I could continue in this vein.

I now want to refer to the staff attached to that university. For the record I want to furnish facts from the report of the Department of Indian Affairs. I find this tremendously interesting because the Government is being blamed for having done nothing for these people. I want to hurl these facts back at them. Of the professors, senior lecturers, lecturers and junior lecturers attached to the university 78 are Indians. There are five professors of literature and philosophy who are Indians. Of the university staff, which consists of Whites and non-Whites, 63% are Indians. This shows us that the Whites are now being slowly phased out. As I said, those people must crawl before they can walk. Those things are being done by the Government to give these people eventual equal status and to allow them to control their own affairs, but what is more, to afford those people the opportunity of being proud as a nation which is in the process of developing.

The NP fulfils its principles. It is honest with the other population groups. The NP is honest and our motto is to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I want to tell the Opposition this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The time has finally arrived for those people as well to become aware of that in this country there are Whites who also have to be looked after, and not only the people of colour.

You are wasting your time with them.

I hear someone telling me that I am wasting my time, but in life and in this Parliament there is always a chance that a person’s eyes can be opened.

The Bill as we have it before us ought in my opinion to be welcomed by everyone because, as I have already pointed out, the council is receiving more powers and responsibilities. Because this university has been in existence long enough and there are sufficient graduates, there is a reason why the hon. the Minister is now proposing that a convocation be established.

The Opposition ought to give credit where credit is due. And to whom is it due? In this regard I should, on behalf of this side of the House, like to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister and his officials for what they have done and are still doing. As I have already indicated, enormous progress has been made, and with this legislation a greater step forward is being taken.

There is still one aspect to which I want to refer—it has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Musgrave—namely the power, as they put it, which the Minister has in terms of this legislation. The Opposition is asking that this be removed. Their amendment asks for “with the concurrence of” to be deleted and “in consultation with” substituted. Do they not realize that that university is supported by the State? It is completely financed by the State. If we look at the report again we find that the State, in the 1976-’77 financial year, spent more than R6 million on university education for Indians. Now, as they put the case, we must quite simply throw this away and allow them to continue as they wish; forget about the Government. I want to content myself with that. I feel that it is only right and fair, and this side of the House maintains that the hon. the Minister should remain involved in this entire matter.

I hope and trust that every student at that university will be proud and jealous of his own wonderful university. Consequently I am making a final appeal to the Official Opposition: Contain yourselves and, just for once, be true and sincere South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana ended by saying that we should all remember to be “ware en opregte Suid-Afrikaners”. I am sad. I am saddened by the fact that he has turned this debate into a political issue, a debate which, I believe, has concurrence among all the parties on this side of the House. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana feels that this is his opportunity of stating that every time that any Government measure is put before this House there is criticism, criticism of every piece of legislation. However, criticism can sometimes be tremendously objective and constructive. That is the sort of criticism that we on this side of the House try to bring into this House at all times. That is what this debating Chamber is all about. This is what Government and Opposition is all about. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana talks about being a “ware Suid-Afrikaner”. I want to say to him, however, that if he wants to wear that cloak he can do so, but without being paternalistic. He should not be paternalistic and speak of the Indians saying: “Daardie mense moet kruip voordat hulle kan loop.” [Interjections.]

All people have to crawl before they can walk.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said the Indians had to crawl before they could walk. [Interjections.] He did not say that everyone had to crawl before he could walk.

†The hon. member spoke of 750 000 proud Indians, who are citizens, and fine citizens, of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Didn’t you crawl before you could walk?

Listen to who is talking! This is the way the hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about the Indians. He should stop being paternalistic about the Indians and he should acknowledge and respect the fact that our South African Indians are proud to be called South Africans. [Interjections.] I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] Our philosophy is quite clear. We will support legislation that makes improvements. It may be that such improvements are not far-reaching enough, as is the case with this particular piece of legislation. However, it is undeniably so that it is a piece of legislation that brings about an improvement in the status of the University of Durban-Westville. That university is a fine institution. It takes pride of place in the community in which I live. Durban is proud to have it. Westville is proud to have it. We are all pleased to have it there on the hill. We show it off to people. We say that this legislation does not go far enough, perhaps, in that we would like to see the day dawn when this university could enjoy the same autonomy that all other South African universities enjoy. Let this university and others that do not enjoy that autonomy be granted such autonomy. I do not want to bring the racial issue into this, but I want to contend that all universities must be treated per se as universities. This is what we would like to see.

We have no argument with many of the clauses of the Bill. We do, however, have a difficulty in clause 4 and clause 5, and I have already put amendments in that respect on the Order Paper, amendments which have been hotly criticized by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He said that we must realize that the State finances this university to the tune of 100% of its financial requirements. All right, we do realize that. We accept that. We are not asking that the hon. the Minister should have absolutely no say whatsoever. We are asking that the Minister be consulted, and I shall motivate my amendment to this effect during the Committee Stage. That is when the matter will be discussed, and I can assure hon. members that I shall then motivate my case.

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

No, I do not have time to answer questions. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Musgrave when he says that he would be very interested to know why it is that the number of persons referred to in clause 6 should be reduced from eight to six.

In conclusion, I would like to deal with clause 10 and say to the hon. the Minister that we have no difficulty with it. We do in fact accept that it is an improvement, because we feel that the hon. the Minister of Finance should be involved in the determination of fees. This is what this particular clause seems to do.

So, Sir, let me say that we in this party support this measure. We think it is an improvement. We shall, during the Committee Stage, motivate the amendments we have on the Order Paper in respect of clauses 4 and 5.

Mr. Speaker, this feigned appearance of pained aggrievedness on the part of the hon. member for Umhlanga about the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is nothing new to us in Natal. That is an old trick of the old UP and now also of their successors in Natal, that their leaders and their followers bury their heads in the sand. As soon as one speaks the truth, they say that one is making politics of the matter. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana certainly did not try to say condescendingly, as the hon. member for Umhlanga has implied, that the Indian community of Natal must first learn to crawl. The hon. member said very clearly that any institution first had to outgrow its children’s shoes and that any institution should grow from its inception to full autonomy.

This Bill is another excellent example of the achievements of this Government, specifically in respect of other ethnic groups in this country. It is a fine example of the measure of success which the Government has gained in the process of building up national consciousness on the part of all the population groups in our country. It is a process which has been stimulated and cultivated by this Government for the past 30 years; it is not something which has merely come of itself. This feeling of national consciousness among all the population groups of our country has been cultivated by the Government in the face of the bitter opposition and vehement resistance of the members of the Opposition in our country and of the predecessors of the present-day political parties. The Opposition parties in this country are people who have never attached any value to group identity. Their approach has always been, and is still, basically colonialistic. Just as the ancient Romans believed that the summum bonum of the barbarians of that time lay therein that they should acquire Roman citizenship, and that that was the greatest thing to which they could aspire—and on top of that they were miserly with that citizenship—in the same way, the old British colonial masters and their successors in this country, who have inherited their political thinking, believed that all that the one-time “colonials” needed, were privileges, in small doses, from the ruling class to small groups of those people. That was indeed all that the Indian population could expect from the old dispensation before 1948; the right to live among Whites provided they could afford it, to be able to vote for White city councillors if they had sufficient property and education, and the right to send their young people to Wits or UCT if they could gain admission there. In other words, they gave in dribs and drabs to these small groups.

When the NP came along with the idea of nationally oriented education and university training, it had to do so in the face of violent resistance from the Opposition of the time.

What clause are you on now?

The hon. member for Musgrave came up with a soft reply today. He said the only objection they had ever had against this university, was that there was an ethnic exclusiveness attached to it and that there was too much State control. It is very clear that they are now trying very hard to qualify the unbridled language which they used earlier in connection with this matter, but in the process they have made all universities in South Africa suspect. What we see in other fields today, the Opposition and its predecessors did with our South African universities when the Government started with the development process of which we see a further step before us today.

The basis of this legislation which we are dealing with today, was founded in the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, and if one listens to what the hon. member for Musgrave has just said, and looks at his present approach, one sees how strangely it contrasts with what members of the Opposition said about that legislation at the time. I just want to quote a few examples. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following about the University Education Extension Act—

Today, however, we hear very mild words from the hon. member for Musgrave, but the language which they used earlier about this pattern of development—like the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in 1959—was language which made all our universities, and not only the universities for the Indians, for Black ethnic groups or the Whites, suspect in the eyes of the world. But that is not all. The hon. member for Houghton said in that debate—

What do they say now? Do they still say that? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout talked about Coloured youth, but he was discussing the Act which was passed at the time in connection with all non-White universities. He said at the time that he was so afraid that the new generation of Coloureds, the intellectual young Coloureds going to those universities, would regard those universities and their standards as the best which Western civilization could offer them and that in their desperation they would say that they would prefer to embrace communism than accept this kind of imitation university which the Government was wanting to give them. Is that the type of language which we heard from the hon. member for Musgrave today? No, Mr. Speaker; today he used much fairer and milder language. That same hon. member said in that debate—and he must tell me whether he still thinks so today—that the non-Whites were evidently not interested in tribal institutions which were divided up on an ethnic basis.

But it is not only the Progressive Party which attacked that legislation which is the basis of this amendment Bill. The hon. member for Durban Point, the leader of the NRP, also asked in the House at the time: What sort of universities are these going to be? What are they to teach: medicine or magic?

What did the present Minister say?

The hon. member wanted to know what subjects would be taught at these initiation schools? Even 10 years later, when the principal Act which this Bill seeks to amend was discussed in the House—that was in 1969—the hon. member for Mooi River said that what we had here was nothing but a straitjacket which was being forced onto the Indian community of Natal, because the Minister was merely following the model adopted by other Ministers. [Interjections.]

Did you not hear that we are supporting this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga must not sound pained because we dare to talk politics. He must not lose sight of the fact that his party, although it is still very young, also has a predecessor and a political past. He must account for these things which members of his party have said in the years gone by.

What do we find today in spite of all these prophets of doom of that time? We find that the University of Durban-Westville is the pride of the Indian community, the community which has shown its very high appreciation through the years for the value of education. That university’s buildings and equipment are among the most modern in the world. The university is expanding so fast that mention is made in the report of the department that the building programme will have to be accelerated. It has a contented student community. During the past two years that university has repeatedly proved that, because when there was unrest among other young people elsewhere in the country, there was no unrest at Durban. It is a model university which serves its people and of which its people are proud.

I do not want to refer to the figures which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has quoted here, but the number of students, the number of degrees and diplomas which have been awarded by that university through the years, the number of staff members and the number of Indian staff members who serve the Indian community today, all testify to the place which that university takes in the hearts of its people today. It can already boast achievements comparable with those of other universities. The first Rhodes student of the University of Durban-Westville was designated last year.

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

Mr. Speaker, the community is already beginning to show their appreciation for the university by means of donations.

In the next 15 years the population growth among the Indian population in Durban will be such that according to the expectations of regional and town planners in Natal, the population, which was 251 000 in 1960 when the university was established, will be more than 600 000 by the year 1990. The fact that the university has been established, the fact that the Government has guided it and, through this legislation is still guiding it towards the status of a full-fledged university for its own community, redounds to the enduring credit of the far-sightedness of the Government. If the Government, in spite of the abuse which it has had to endure over the years—abuse because it was supposed to be unfavourably disposed towards the Indian population—had not initiated and encouraged this development, we would have been faced with a problem in Durban and the whole of Natal for which we would not have been able to find solutions.

What is the problem?

The hon. member asks what the problem is. We saw even then, with the establishment of this university, that there was too little space, inter alia, for Indian students, at the White universities. Hon. members can imagine what the situation would have been if this situation had been allowed to continue. To us, it was a matter of pride to see what has been accomplished there, to see how that university develops and to know that it is the creation of the National Government.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend participating in this debate, but the hon. member for Umlazi raised a number of points which I believe should not be allowed to go unchallenged. In the first place he accused the Opposition of having adopted, and still today adopting, a colonialistic approach towards the other race groups in South Africa. Unfortunately the boot is on the other foot. In fact, this amending legislation is living proof of how this Government has been adopting a colonialistic approach through the years towards the non-White groups in South Africa, particularly towards the Indians.

That is advance in reverse.

The hon. member for Mooi River says that here, again, we are having progress in reverse.

What on earth does that mean?

I will explain to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Umlazi mentioned here what everybody else said 20 years ago. What has happened? Originally it was thought that if one has a university for each of the various non-White groups, one would have a Utopia in South Africa as all the White universities would be pure White and the Black universities pure Black. What is happening today? Today one is finding a tendency, with the blessing of the Government, for the Black universities to open their doors and allow Whites—where a permit has been issued—to enter, for instance in the case of the University of Durban-Westville. One finds that this step is being hailed as progressive whereas the White universities … [Interjections.]

Order!

They say it is a step forward when White universities are opening … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is quite capable of looking after himself.

Where White universities are opening their doors to Black students, it is hailed as a forward step. That is what we mean by advancing in reverse. One is advancing in reverse every time when, by abandoning the fundamentals of one’s policy, one is making progress on behalf of South Africa. As far as the question of colonialism is concerned, why does the hon. the Minister not say: “Fair enough. We are going to grant full autonomy to the Indians.” Why do they still have to be singled out?

Of course we can do it.

Pardon? I did not hear.

I say, we can do it. I agree that we can do it.

Why do you not do it then? It is because you are adopting a colonialistic approach and because you believe that they are not yet ready for it. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill provide that they can appoint their own vice-rector with the concurrence of the Minister. If it is not a colonialistic approach, why then do they still have to suffer that sort of humiliation?

The hon. member for Umlazi must not say that it is the Opposition that has been adopting a colonialistic approach towards the advancement of the other race groups in South Africa. The people who have been doing it over a number of years have been the Government and hon. members on that side of the House. The only time they made real progress or advancement, is when they abandoned some of their fundamental philosophies.

You might as well sit down now!

The hon. member for Kimberley South wants me to sit down because he does not want to hear the truth. I have risen to make this particular point clear merely because of the accusation made by the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mr. Speaker, I have again listened attentively to the speeches by the different Opposition speakers. It is pointless the hon. members for Durban Central and Umhlanga accusing this party and the Government of paternalism, colonialism and of progress in reverse gear. I did not intend dragging politics into the discussion of this Bill, but seeing that the political aspects have in fact been raised, I shall, with your permission, Sir, return to that a little later.

This legislation is definitely not progress in reverse gear. It is rather clear proof of progress towards greater autonomy for this university. It is therefore only right and fair that this should be seen as a logical step in terms of our declared policy in the direction of self-realization for this particular population group. What is more, it is a logical step, because a new constitution is envisaged in terms of which the Indian community will have full autonomy over their own affairs. There are however hon. members who want that to happen even now, but I just want to remind them that the new constitution is not yet operative; it has still to come. In my view it is a total distortion of the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to allege that he has said that the Indians should crawl before they can walk.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon. member for Benoni say that the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana have been totally distorted? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Benoni alleges that the hon. member for Umhlanga has distorted the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

I withdraw that, Sir, but I shall continue to believe that in my view it is a misinterpretation of the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to say that he alleges that the Indians should first crawl before they can walk. What he did say, was that the university is a new institution which must first crawl before it can walk. The legislation is, as I have already said, a step forward, and in view of the fact that the Indians are today accepted and regarded as being a full-fledged part of the South African family of nations, a community in good standing in all sectors of the economy which contributes towards the welfare and progress of this country, it is no more than just that this should be so. There are today approximately ¾ million Indians in South Africa, 85% of whom are living in Natal. Of the economically active part of this population group, about two-thirds are involved in industry, 22% in commerce and 7% in agriculture. As we have already heard from other hon. members, there are more than 4 000 enrolled members at the University of Durban-Westville in 50 departments divided into six faculties. A seventh faculty, a medical faculty, is being envisaged. It is of course true that Indians are at present still making use of the medical training facilities of the Whites in those disciplines which are not yet offered by the University of Durban-Westville. We all agree, however, that the university has made such good progress that it deserves the autonomy which it is to obtain. But if one has a university, whether autonomous or not, it is also axiomatic that there should be primary and secondary education before one can obtain the lecturers and the students for the university. I just want to bring to the notice of hon. members that the university—at the time it was still known as the College of Durban-Westville—was established under the NP regime in 1961, and that it was a disregard of ethnicity on the part of previous Governments, and a policy of paternalism, which denied tertiary education to the Indians in South Africa. Apart from the training which the Indians undergo at the University of Durban-Westville at present, Indian teachers are also being trained at the college at Springfield in Durban and at Fordsburg in Johannesburg. Both these colleges were established after 1952 …

Order! The hon. member is now really going too far. Those colleges have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I merely wanted to point out that if one wants a university, the lecturers and students must first be trained and surely they have to be trained some where. The opportunities for the training of lecturers and students were created during this Government’s regime. But I want to return to the Bill.

The hon. member for Durban Central maintained that we had a colonial approach.

No, I said that the hon. member for Umlazi had alleged that we on this side have a colonialist approach. However you, of course, are now agreeing that it is you people who have such an approach.

No, I do not agree. Whatever the case, the fact remains that during the “neither fish nor flesh” situation which existed under the UP Government, a university for Indians could not be established because no progress could be made with Indian education. That was the tragedy of the situation. Previous Governments would not even recognize the permanent citizenship of the Indians in South Africa. That only happened after 1961, and you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, what happened after that. In that same year the College of Durban-Westville was established, the Department of Indian Affairs was established, the Indian Council was established and Indian education made great strides, so much so that we can now envisage an autonomous, full-fledged Indian university. As the hon. the Minister has said by way of an interjection, such a step is quite possible.

If I may, I again briefly want to sketch the background to this matter. I want to point out that the problem was that the Indians had never been recognized as a permanent part of the South African nation. Nobody wanted to grant them citizenship …

That has nothing to do with the matter.

It has something to do with the matter, because as they were not recognized as being permanent, no educational system could be established for them. It was the consistent policy of the UP Government to encourage the emigration of Indians. To prove this point, I must refer to the agreement concluded in Cape Town in 1927. With this agreement, the South African and the Indian Government agreed …

Order! The hon. member is now really going too far back. In 1927 there was not yet a University of Durban-Westville.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your decision. The fact that today we have a university which will shortly become autonomous, an institution of full status for Indians in South Africa, is the result of a relations policy which has made it possible that nations may live together in peace without one dominating the other.

Before we could always switch off the television set, but what do we do now?

It was not possible before the NP came into power. All previous efforts in the field of Indian education were directed at westernizing the Indian, but this never succeeded. That is another reason why this university ought to acquire greater autonomy and why ethnicity should also play a role in Indian education, because today the fact is that the Indian, after 120 years in this country, has not yet become westernized. In spite of all the efforts of church societies, etc., only 10% of them have been converted to Christianity. 65% of them are still Hindus and 20% are still Moslems. The remaining small minority consists of Jains, Parsees, Zoroastrians and Buddhists, etc. and Telegu, Tamil, Gujerati and Urdu are still the languages they speak everyday, while the Bhagavadgita and the Koran are still the supporting pillars of the cultural and religious instruction which their children receive after school in the temple, the mosque or the Madressah. For that reason I cannot understand why the hon. members of the Opposition do not want to support the idea of ethnicity or multinationalism. That is their criticism of this amendment Bill, namely that it does not go far enough in doing away with this. This university originated in the idea that a policy of multinationalism be recognized. It is only in this manner that it can progress to autonomy, because all other alternatives which have been tested, have led to friction among the population groups. That is why, during the 90-odd years before 1961, no progress was made in Indian education.

Mr. Speaker, I think I am an exceptionally fortunate Minister in that I have so frequently during the past few weeks been able to introduce measures in this House which all of us support in principle. I immediately want to express my appreciation to hon. members of all the parties for their very generous support of this measure in principle as well. Then, too, I think that I am an exceptionally fortunate Minister because of the support which I have received during the past few weeks from hon. members who belong to my party. I want to convey to them my special thanks for the contributions which they made and for the standard of those contributions.

It was interesting to note that after the first hon. member on this side of the House, namely the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, had spoken, there were immediate objections by my hon. friends on the Opposition side to the effect that he had dragged politics into this matter. Let us be sensible about this. Surely it is inevitable that politics will be involved when we discuss this matter. This is one of the issues on which a difference between the Official Opposition and us exists. I want to indicate how inevitable it is. When the main speaker on this matter, viz. the hon. member for Musgrave, began speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, he also emphasized the political difference between us. He spent quite a few minutes pointing out that the University of Durban-Westville is an ethnic institution and that they do not agree with it. That is the difference between us. He began by emphasizing that the entire nature of the University of Durban-Westville is contrary to their views on what South Africa should look like. My people then had to react to it. I find it quite strange that, after the tongue-lashing they received from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and other hon. members on this side of the House, they suddenly threw up their hands in defeat and said that we should not talk politics. I do not think that helps us in any way.

This afternoon I was again reproached because, in the years when the universities were established, there were those who thought that it should not be done. My hon. friends of the old UP are forgetting one thing, viz. that the standpoint of the UP on ethnicity, on the separate nature of the various peoples in South Africa, also underwent a development in my time and with a measure of co-operation on my part. They are also forgetting that they subsequently came forward with a policy which they called “race federation”, in terms of which the entire constitutional future of South Africa was based on ethnicity in South Africa which moved away from geographic context while the emphasis, for the organization of the State of South Africa, was placed on the ethnic nature of the various population groups in South Africa. So I pay no heed to those reproaches, for Durban-Westville fits in perfectly with the concept of a federal structure in South Africa, based on ethnic differences. The standpoint of the UP has changed from what it was in 1960 and for as long as I remained in that party.

I was attacked by two of the Opposition parties because we are ostensibly being colonialistic and parternalistic now. It was asked why I do not immediately put Durban-Westville on an equal footing with the old universities in South Africa. There are several reasons for this. The most important reason is that although I am introducing this Bill today as Minister of Indian Affairs, the Bill in fact embodies the desires and the requests of the University of Durban-Westville itself. This Bill is the product of the University of Durban-Westville, and not of the Department of Indian Affairs. They asked for it, and they had good reason to do so. Shortly after I became Minister of Indian Affairs, I spoke to Indian leaders on the future of the University of Durban-Westville, a university which is a State institution. It differs from the other universities in this respect that for the financing of the old universities a formula is being applied in accordance with the number of students and also having regard to the means at the disposal of those universities. But Durban-Westville, like its sister university which was established in the ’sixties, is an absolute State institution and receives every penny of its income, apart from donations, from the State. The responsible Indian leaders and the people of Durban-Westville told me that I should not be hasty to treat them in exactly the same way as the old universities, for they did not as yet have the means to make that possible. They said that it would simply mean that they would have to increase their fees to such an extent that hundreds—some said thousands—of Indian students who are now receiving university education, would then not be able to do so.

We must remember one thing, it is true that there are rich Indians in South Africa, but there are also a larger number of less well-to-do people among the Indian population than among the White population. Therefore, because we are eager to afford them the opportunities of developing and fulfilling themselves by means of university education for those who are equipped for it, it is right that we should for the time being retain this special nature of and the financing system for Durban-Westville. It is not we who are forcing this upon them. We are acting at their request in the interests of the Indian community in South Africa. I agree with hon. members opposite—I said it first—that they are a very important, law-abiding and respective nation among the ranks of the nations of South Africa. I have committed myself, while I am Minister, to making it my task to give them every opportunity to realize themselves to the full as an important nation in the national structure of South Africa. I am pleased my hon. friends are now going along with me. To have left the situation as it was, where only the rich were able to send their children to one or two universities in South Africa, would surely have impeded their progress. Surely their progress would have been absolutely confined in a strait jacket. Today, however, we have the University of Durban-Westville, an institution with almost 4 500 students and a campus which cost more than R18 million. It is something of which Durban may be proud. As the hon. member for Umhlanaga said, Durban and Westville are proud of their institution. It is an achievement for which we ought to be grateful.

As a result of the establishment of the University of Durban-Westville the Indian community is being afforded more opportunities for university training than they could ever have had under the old dispensation. But now I am being reproached because 700 Indian students are studying at other universities.

We did not reproach the hon. the Minister.

Of course it was a reproach. It was termed a failure of the policy of the NP.

We said it was retrogressive progress.

Oh yes, it was described as retrogressive progress. Then surely it was a reproach. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh, please, that was where it started. Let me inform the hon. member if I may that the University of Durban-Westville was established in 1961. The university came into existence on Salisbury Island, in old military buildings and with only 14 students. Today the university has 4 348 students. It has been the policy of this Government throughout—and I saw this when I sat on the opposite side of this House—that no Indian student was to be prohibited from receiving university education because the University of Durban-Westville did not have the facilities for his chosen field of study. This is the policy which I, too, am applying. If an Indian student chooses a field of study which is not provided by the university of Durban-Westville, he is afforded the opportunity of pursuing his studies in that field at a university of his own choice. I am grateful that the Afrikaans-language universities are also, to a large extent, now opening their doors to Indian students to pursue their studies in a field for which provision is not made at the University of Durban-Westville.

But it has always been inherent in the policy of the NP to act in this manner. It has never been the policy of the NP—and I was never able to criticize them on this from the opposite side of the House either—to withhold university training from any population group or from any individual in South Africa; on the contrary, the policy of the NP has always been to create more and greater opportunities …

In fact, the 1959 legislation is known as the Extension of University Education Act.

Yes. The object is to create more opportunities. [Interjections.] My English-speaking friends always say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Go and have a look at the University of Durban-Westville. Go and have a look at the University of the Western Cape. See what is happening there in the interests of those people. If the opportunities for higher education had not been created by the University of Durban-Westville, and if that university had not brought low-cost university training within the reach of a large number of students, it would not have been possible for me to tell the Indian Council that they may, if they so wish, introduce compulsory education for every Indian child in South Africa with effect from 1 January 1979. We owe this to the fact that the University of Durban-Westville is producing the teachers and creating the opportunities to do these things on a scale which would have been impossible within the White institutions who admitted, as a condescending gesture, a few non-White students here and there.

Not even with 18 million for the other universities. [Interjections.]

I understand what the hon. member for Parktown is getting at. He is referring to the R18 million which was allotted to the University of Durban-Westville for the building of a campus. But that brings us back to the fundamental difference between the hon. member for Parktown and myself. After all, the two of us cannot think alike. The hon. member thinks that the only future which an Indian in South Africa aspires to, is to become an immitation White. [Interjections.] We do not believe this, and the Indians do not believe it either. As long as the hon. member accepts this, he can continue to make that kind of obscure interjection. But the hon. member cannot conceal that his approach is one which is founded on sand and on false premises, particularly as far as it affects a multi-national country such as South Africa.

On the other hand hon. members of the NP, and to a certain extent hon. members of the NRP as well, think on the irrefutable basis of the reality of ethnicity in South Africa. On that we must simply differ then.

Sir, this university is a State institution. That fact is recognized in this legislation, but its future is not to be a State institution forever. As it makes progress and is able to improve its own financial means, it will continue to develop until it becomes the absolute equal of the other old universities in South Africa. That is its future, in terms of the policy of this party. However, it is as yet not able to apply the formula for its own financing which is applicable to the old universities. Therefore there are still important aspects in respect of which our approach to it differs from our approach to the other universities. Hon. members, who are after all responsible for the tax-payers’ money, will therefore not mind my saying that as long as the university is a fully-financed State institution, which makes use of the taxpayers’ money, then Parliament, through the Minister, must supervise the spending of the tax-payers’ money. The main criticism of the hon. member for Musgrave was in fact that the Minister still retains certain rights for himself when it comes to the spending and application of funds for those universities, but it is the funds of this Parliament which are being used in that way, and the executive authority, the Cabinet, is responsible to Parliament for what happens to those funds. Even if I wanted to, I cannot therefore leave the matter just as it is. I cannot do so at this stage, because it is a fully State-supported institution. I only hope that hon. members will realize this, so that we can argue with one another across the floor of this House during the Committee Stage more reasonably.

Sir, I cannot think of any other specific matters which should be discussed across the floor of this House now. I have already ascertained that various amendments are going to be proposed during the Committee Stage. Some of them are already on the Order Paper. On that occasion we shall then be able to go into the particulars more closely. I just want to point out that the hon. member for Durban Central admitted that he entered this debate without preparation. Therefore I do not blame him for it but he made a very big mistake with the nonsense which he spoke about colonialism, etc. This is not a colonial approach. In this way the wishes of the University of Durban-Westville are being acceded to I hope that, for the rest of our discussions, the hon. members will approach this Bill in that spirit. As a private member comes forward and asks leave to introduce a Bill at the request of one of the old universities, so I find myself to a large extent in the same position today.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During talks with the rector of the University of the Western Cape the former Minister of Coloured Relations indicated that in the light of the developments which had taken place at the University of the Western Cape, especially in the academic field, he was of the opinion that the University of the Western Cape Act, No. 50 of 1969, should be amended to give greater autonomy to the council of the university. The request was made that the council of the university itself should make suggestions to the Minister in this regard. Such proposals have not since been made and my department and I have taken the initiative in this regard once again.

In the interrim the Government’s White Paper on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters relating to the Coloured Population Group has been published and the reaction to recommendation 93 was as follows—

To give effect to this decision of the Government the previous council of the university was once again requested to submit proposals to amend the University of the Western Cape Act, Act No. 50 of 1969. The council of the university gave effect to this last year and its recommendations were included in the draft Bill.

The Government has decided that the present Act, Act No. 50 of 1969, be suitably amended with regard to the following aspects, thereby giving greater autonomy to the University of the Western Cape:

1. (a) To transfer the powers of the university relating to the acquisition and control of stores and equipment to the council of the university;
2. (b) to amend the provisions relating to the constitution of the university and its council;
3. (c) to amend the provisions relating to the appointment of a rector and an acting rector for the university;
4. (d) to provide for the appointment of a vice-rector for the university;
5. (e) to provide for a convocation for the university;
6. (f) to repeal the provisions relating to the delegation of certain powers of the Minister; and
7. (g) to provide for incidental matters.

I have noticed in line 7 on page 7 of the Bill that the word “members” may create a confusing impression, and therefore I intend moving at the Committee Stage to omit the word “members” where it refers to the representation of the University of Cape Town and the University of Stellenbosch by two people, and to substitute “respective senates”. This then will refer to persons from the respective senates.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is largely the same as the one we have just dealt with, and I assume that the arguments which applied to that Bill apply equally to this one. We supported the previous Bill, and for the same reasons we support this one as well. However, there are one or two points to which I just want to refer briefly.

Firstly, I must point out that our support for this Bill must not be seen as detracting in any way from our opposition to the Extension of University Education Act of 1959. Such a suggestion was made by the hon. member for Umlazi in discussing the previous Bill. That has nothing to do with this Bill, in any case, because this in fact represents a movement towards greater autonomy for this university.

Secondly, I want to refer to an aspect mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs when he said that the basis of these universities was the inevitable reality of ethnicity in South Africa. However, I do not know whether the same argument applies in respect of the University of the Western Cape, especially when one looks at the recommendations of the Theron Commission’s report. I just want to refer briefly to recommendation 94, where the following is said—

1. (a) all universities be thrown open to Coloured students (post-graduate and graduate);
2. (b) in addition to the existing arrangements, the University of the Western Cape be permitted to enroll approved White students at post-graduate level;
3. (c) the selection of students for admission should vest in the universities.

This is, in other words, a contradiction of this inevitability, because the commission in fact recommends that these universities should have autonomy in determining which students should be admitted. As I have said, I find an element of contradiction in this, for if one gives a university autonomy—and from what the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs said during the discussion on the previous Bill, it is clear that increasing autonomy is to be given to the universities—one cannot at the same time want to dictate which students or lecturers should be admitted to a certain university. In fact, it is clear in this Bill that the university is going to be given con siderably more power to enable it to decide for itself whom it wants to appoint as lecturers. If they decide to appoint the best possible lecturer, no matter who that may be, one cannot argue that they must necessarily maintain a specific exclusive character.

I believe that there are a great many misconceptions about the question of university autonomy. I personally believe that no such thing as absolute university autonomy is possible anywhere in the world. It is simply not possible, for the simple reason that a university is to some extent dependent on State funds. Therefore we are concerned with a relative degree of autonomy. We are concerned with the traditions which arise in that community around the degree of freedom which a university ought to have. The generally accepted convention with regard to universities in Western countries is that they must have the greatest degree of autonomy in deciding who is to teach, what is to be taught and to whom it is to be taught. This consideration lies at the root of the whole argument regarding the relative degree of autonomy enjoyed by universities in South Africa. I think we shall all welcome the day when a distinction can no longer be drawn between the relative degree of autonomy enjoyed by all the universities in South Africa on the basis which I have just described. In this connection one must naturally apply the standard of the universities in South Africa which enjoy the largest degree of autonomy, i.e. the so-called White universities. In this respect, therefore, one must have a point of reference, and the misgivings and suggestions of the hon. member for Musgrave in respect of the previous Bill are equally applicable to this Bill in so far as the clauses correspond. One must therefore try to reach the situation where one will eventually be able to tell anyone outside South Africa that there is no difference between the relative degrees of autonomy enjoyed by the various universities in South Africa.

In this connection, I find it interesting that in his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister referred specifically to recommendation 93 as a motivation for the introduction of the Bill. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs made great play of the fact that the Bill he had introduced was in response to a request made by the University of Durban-Westville. I had the feeling that the hon. the Minister was implying that the standpoint of that side of the House was that if a university felt adult or strong enough to request autonomy they would give favourable consideration to it. He said by implication that if they felt they had reached the stage where they were no longer crawling but walking, and if they then asked for a larger degree of autonomy, the Government would give this to the university. If one looks at the White Paper of the Theron Commission, one sees that the recommendation to which the hon. the Minister referred reads as follows—

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister actually said that one had to agree that there should be a movement towards greater autonomy.

I was quoting the standpoint of the Government in the White Paper. I quoted it in full and you need only look at it.

I know that is exactly what the hon. the Minister did, but in the quotation referred to by the hon. the Minister there is a misrepresentation of the recommendation. The recommendation is not that they should move in the direction of autonomy. The recommendation is that they should become autonomous.

Do you think it was realistic then and it is realistic now?

The hon. the Minister will have an opportunity to reply to what I am saying here. I just want to put my case. The difference is definitely there. What is the nature of the difference? The difference is simply that the authorities decide for themselves what degree of autonomy should be given in this specific case. The position is not, as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs wants to give out, that if those people feel that they are now able to walk, and they ask for permission to do so, it will be granted to them. It is for the Government to decide in its own good time when they may get autonomy. If this is not an indication of paternalism, I do not know what is. These people ask for this themselves. Only today I asked in this House, by way of a question to the hon. the Minister, what the Government’s reaction was to the request by the Council of the University of the Western Cape that they should fall under the Department of National Education. The hon. the Minister referred me in his reply to recommendation 95 of the White Paper. The hon. the Minister said in his reply that their request could not be granted because the Government was acting in accordance with the standpoint expressed in recommendation 95. I want to read recommendation 95—

That is what recommendation 95 says.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

It concerns the question of autonomy. The hon. the Minister said in the first paragraph of his speech that this legislation was concerned with autonomy. Autonomy, I assume, is the freedom which a university has …

It is concerned with greater autonomy.

Yes, but it is concerned with the principle of autonomy; the hon. the Minister said so himself. The reaction of the Government to the recommendation in the White Paper reads as follows—

I think that is a good standpoint to adopt. The question is asked …

Go on and read further. Read the other side of the page.

The point is …

He does not do his homework, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister can point that out to me later, Mr. Speaker. My time is limited. The statement I am making here is: Who decides what community is to be served, and who decides how the university is to act in this connection? The State or the university itself? If these principles apply, why do they not apply equally to the White universities? After all, White universities serve Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. They serve the White community, and to an increasing extent they are now beginning to serve the Blacks as well in this respect. The principle of autonomy—which is at stake here—and the extension of autonomy present certain problems. I want to concede that one cannot discuss autonomy in the abstract, but that one should actually have a look at the relative degree of autonomy which exists in South Africa. For this reason one may rightly ask why the University of Durban-Westville or the University of the Western Cape cannot have the same degree of autonomy as, for example, a White university. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs says it is because of the financial circumstances. The subsidy received from the Government by White universities amounts to between 65% and 73%. Therefore they are completely dependent on the Government for their financing. However, this cannot be regarded as the decisive factor which determines the relative degree of autonomy they enjoy. I do not think that argument is very convincing. The question is how that university feels and whether it wants that autonomy. Does it want more control over its own affairs, for example, the people whom it appoints, the people who teach and what they teach? That is the real principle which is at stake in this Bill. Because—and I want to emphasize this—we agree with the principle of greater autonomy for the university, we support the Bill. The amendment we have in mind—to which the NRP gave rise—is in fact aimed at extending this autonomy.

This debate began quite peacefully, as did the previous one. There was a slightly somnambulistic atmosphere, but then the Government speakers began to talk themselves into an angry mood. One after another they began to talk themselves into an angry mood, until one hon. member eventually got up to say that we had better start fighting. Then all these other arguments began to emerge. What has actually occurred here is the application of a very simple principle, which the Government is now endorsing in the legislation as the extension of the autonomy of this university. This is a principle which is to a large extent handicapped by the provisions of the Extension of University Education Act, 1959. In this connection, there is a strong movement away from the strict provisions of that Act.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this legislation. It also gives me pleasure to welcome the fact that the Official Opposition supports this legislation in all its important principles. One of the great paradoxes of university education and of universities, is the fact that while the objective, the goal and the purpose of universities is a universal one— i.e. their commitment to the search for truth—universities as temporal and concrete institutions reflect the diversity of human society. If one therefore looks around, in particular to diverse societies, one finds that universities reflect that diversity in all its aspects. In Belgium, for instance, there are different universities reflecting the religious affiliations of the communities in that country. In a society like Canada, there are French-speaking universities, Catholic universities, Protestant and English language universities. In Africa, a country like Nigeria, which has a fairly developed university system, one finds that the universities reflect the ethnicity of that very ethnic society. And when one uses the term “ethnic” in this context, one is using it in a very general sense, and not in the narrow sense which the hon. member for Rondebosch attaches to it. I would recommend to my learned friend, the hon. member for Rondebosch, an article by Professor Nathan Glazer of Harvard University in Encounter of February 1976, for a treatment of ethnicity which expresses contemporary social science and political science attitudes towards this question and which is wide enough to take care of the particular problems which he mentioned.

These universities, and particularly the University of the Western Cape, were created in a climate of great adversity. There was a great deal of opposition to the establishment of this university. There was opposition, not simply on the grounds of the restriction of academic freedom which it entailed and the restriction of university autonomy which was involved when these universities were first created. It is therefore not correct for the Opposition to argue that that was the sole basis for their original opposition to the establishment of these universities. Their opposition went to the very principle of ethnic universities as such. They were opposed to the concept of ethnic universities and it is therefore quite correct for speakers on this side of the House, and for a member, like the hon. member for Umlazi in particular, to point out the contradictions in the erstwhile attitude of Opposition Speakers and their attitudes today, as reflected in the discussion of the previous Bill and of this one.

The fact of the matter is that this Bill very considerably expands the autonomy of the University of the Western Cape. University autonomy is, as the hon. member for Rondebosch said, a relative concept, and we all accept that. It is, however, nevertheless an extremely important concept, not merely to universities as such, but also to the academics in that university, to the individual scholars, and also to the community which is primarily served by that university. This concept of autonomy is also important in the relationship between the university and the State and it is particularly important in the whole Western political tradition, especially in the Huguenot political theory of the conception of the relationship between associations and corporations on the one hand and the State on the other.

Seeing that the hon. member for Rondebosch has made the very realistic point that university autonomy is a relative concept, I would like to point out that academic freedom is also a relative concept, and that it is something that can be threatened not just from outside the university. When the original Act was introduced, the attitude of the hon. members of the Opposition was that the Government intended wiping out academic freedom in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is true that threats to academic freedom and actual invasions of academic freedom come from outside the university, but it is also true—I think this an appropriate time to make this point—that the threat to academic freedom can come from within the university. When there is a reluctance to look at certain situations or ideas, when there is a dogma, something akin for instance to neo-Marxism as it pervades many American universities and many Western European universities today, when there is that threat from within a university, the lights of academic freedom go out at that university.

One of the provisions of the Bill relates to the dismissal of staff. I know of many cases where academics, for reasons which do not relate to academics or to their scholarly performance, have found themselves in the position of being threatened either with extensions of probation or direct dismissal. The particular provision which is introduced in this Bill and which provides the right of appeal to the Minister is desirable and necessary. It is something which will probably never be resorted to, but it is a necessary provision in the interests of academic freedom and of university autonomy as such.

The fact is that in all respects this Bill greatly increases the autonomy of the University of the Western Cape. This Bill is of special importance in relation to the Council. With the permission of the hon. the Minister I want to point out that a new council was appointed for the University of the Western Cape as recently as 31 December last year. Unless there are internal changes this council will, in fact, be responsible for the university’s affairs for the next four years. The calibre of the people who have been appointed to this council is a demonstration of the Government’s seriousness and its sincerity. There are 17 members on this council, excluding the principal of the university himself and the representatives of the senate of the university. I should like to mention a few of the people who are serving on this council. There is Prof. Dr. W. L. Mouton, who is rector of the University of the Orange Free State and was previously rector of the University of the Western Cape. He is a man of very considerable demonstrated ability in university administration.

Then there is Prof. Dr. A. M. Pelser, the vice-rector of the University of Pretoria, another man with very considerable experience. Prof. Dr. J. C. de Villiers is professor and head of the Department of Neuro-Surgery at the University of Cape Town. This is an important appointment in view of the Minister’s answer at question time regarding plans to establish a medical faculty at the University of the Western Cape. This is an important link and it is obviously a source of experience. Those persons who are likely to be donors to the university are represented in the appointment of Mr. Bill de la Harpe Beck, whom we know to be a leading businessman in Cape Town and a director of many leading South African companies. The professional teachers within the Coloured community are well represented. The Department of National Education is well represented in the person of Dr. F. J. L. Quint, who is the first Coloured person to receive a doctorate through the University of the Western Cape. Local government is also well represented. The names on the list are an indication of the Government’s sincerity which is also evident from other aspects of this Bill.

A further important aspect is the fact that there will always be representatives of the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch on the council of the University of the Western Cape. We all know that those are the two best universities in South Africa. [Interjections.] Apart from their being the two better universities of South Africa, the fact is that there has been a very good and healthy working relationship between the Universities of Cape Town, Stellenbosch and the Western Cape.

I believe that the additional powers which are being given in this legislation to the University of the Western Cape will be used wisely and well in the interests of that community, the university itself and our country. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is only natural for me to commence my speech by repudiating the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens by saying to him that he is wrong when he says that the Universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town are the best universities. There is of course only one university that is streets ahead of any other and that is the University of Potchefstroom. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised a number of questions concerning the autonomy of universities and ethnicity and I should like to respond to these. In the first place he mentioned the case of diverse societies such as Belgium and Nigeria. He said that those countries’ universities reflect the ethnicity of their society. I want to tell him straight away that we of the NRP have no objection to universities reflecting the diversity of the society. However, I should like him to tell the House whether in Belgium, for instance, there will be a law or a regulation which will prevent a French-speaking Belgian from attending a Flemish university. That is the issue. That is the crux of the matter. The matter has been raised again and again in this debate and also in the previous debate as to where we stand in relation to what was at one stage regarded as ethnicity in universities.

I want to say straight away that the matter with which we the NRP are concerned, is autonomy. We can see nothing wrong in an ethnic group establishing a university, but what we are against is that when that university, or the council of the university, is being denied the right to determine who shall attend that university. This is what we have against the system and that is why we are so pleased to see that even the Government has now gradually started to move away from this system. Quite frankly, I hope that we shall not have a repetition of hon. members standing up here and asking where we stood in 1959, because the party which was then the Official Opposition of this House exists no longer. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said that, whatever the views of the Opposition were in those days, he shared them. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs pointed out quite clearly that the UP came a long way from 1959 to 1969. It was in 1969 that the legislation was introduced giving these universities statutes, and at that time the Official Opposition’s main opposition thereto was not because of its ethnic character as such, but because it was felt at that time that they had not been given enough autonomy.

That is not what the hon. member for Rondebosch said.

I am only stating where the NRP stands in this regard. As far as the NRP is concerned today, we have nothing against people establishing a university as long as the character of that university is determined by the council of that university.

I want to ask one question and I hope the hon. the Minister can answer it. He objected when the hon. member for Rondebosch stated that the legislation concerned autonomy. He said: “No, it is a matter of greater autonomy.” What would be the reaction if the stage is reached where the University of the Western Cape has received its full autonomy and it is no longer just a matter of greater autonomy and it decides to throw open its doors to all race groups, irrespective of colour? What then would be the hon. the Minister’s reaction? Would this be allowed under the present Government? Before the university reaches the stage where they themselves can make that sort of decision, full autonomy does not exist.

*We should regard this legislation in the light of the history of the University of the Western Cape. It is a milestone in its history. When a university reaches the stage of establishing its own convocation, it means that it has come a long way on the academic road …

It has not yet done so. Provision is made in this legislation.

That is what I mean. I am saying that when we reach a stage where it is envisaged that the university can establish its own convocation, we must know that it has come a long way on the academic road.

I am sorry that we paid so much attention to political matters today. I had no idea at all that we were going to conduct a political debate on this matter. However, if we disregard political considerations, we have to admit that it did play a role in the establishment of the university. If we only look at the academical level, we have to admit that great progress has been made, so much so that it is generally felt that a convocation is something which could be acceptable. In this respect I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the university on its development, which is so closely linked to its academic achievements. Without those academic achievements they would not have been able to reach the stage of a convocation. The spirit of this legislation, as I see it—and this is why we can support it, although, to our mind, it does not go far enough—is a spirit of greater autonomy and independence, and this deserves our support. It creates a spirit of greater independence in respect of administration, donations and supplies, without unnecessary ministerial interference. They also receive greater freedom, and this is particularly important in respect of the provision relating to the establishment. However, it is a pity—as the hon. the Minister will know and as we said in previous debates and also on the basis of our amendments appearing on the Order Paper—that with regard to the important aspect of the rector, acting rector and vice-rector, the hon. the Minister does not at this stage see his way clear to granting greater independence to the council. To tell the council that they can make these appointments with the approval of the Minister, almost brings us back to the old system where the Minister actually made the appointments after consultation with the council. At this stage we feel it is unnecessary to cause the university to progress step by step in such a manner. We believe that the University of the Western Cape has in fact progressed so far in the process of emancipation that they are able to appoint the rector, vice-rector and acting rector themselves after consultation with the Minister. We accept that the words “after consultation with the Minister” should be retained. We know what the position is. All the other universities receive 80% of their financial aid from State funds, but here we are dealing with a university which receives 100% of its funds from the Exchequer. Therefore one feels that at this stage the Minister should still be involved to a certain extent. We should, however, have a look at what the position is in respect of the other universities. There are only two universities where a similar situation exists: Unisa, where a rector can be appointed after consultation with the senate, and of course the University of Port Elizabeth, where the rector can be appointed with the approval of the Minister. At all the other universities in South Africa the appointment of a rector is quite simply done by the council itself, according to the provisions of their statutes. I hope the hon. the Minister can see his way clear during the Committee Stage to accommodate us in this respect. For the rest, we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central referred to the difference between “after consultation with” and “with the concurrence of”. I think it is of a purely technical nature, and this is terminology which we shall quite rightly be able to deal with and discuss during the Committee Stage in the light of the amendment on the Order Paper. The hon. member also made use of his good right to inform the House that the best university in South Africa is in his opinion the University of Potchefstroom. I find it rather strange that the hon. member, who is a former student of the University of Potchefstroom, became the MP for Durban Central. It seems to me as if something went awry along the road between Potchefstroom and Durban Central. What this was is not quite clear to me.

He became completely lost.

The other aspect which I find really interesting, is how easily and how often hon. members on the other side can evade their previous statements, reproaches and accusations merely because they change the name of their party from year to year. They are no longer linked to their personal statements because they now belong to a different party.

Now I also find it interesting that this so-called “bush college” which was not conceded any economic viability at the time of its establishment, the university college which was referred to reproachfully in 1960 as a useless thing which could never be viable, should suddenly now, by general agreement, be granted greater autonomy. However, I am grateful that the hon. member for Durban Central does in fact agree that the giving of autonomy in this case is a positive step ahead. I think, however, that he is confusing political policy when he says he wants to know whether providing full autonomy also implies that anyone will be allowed to attend that university as a student. I believe that the hon. member is confusing policy with autonomy in this respect. One cannot abuse the autonomy of a specific institution and want to adapt Government policy as a result so that the political policy can be reconciled with that upheld by one’s own party.

I should like now to address myself to the hon. member for Rondebosch. At the very outset he made the statement—a statement with which I agree—that absolute autonomy for every university is not possible at all simply because a university is dependent on the Government for its funds. I agree completely with this. The hon. member went on to say that the matter which is really relevant here is in fact the largest measure of autonomy that can possibly be granted. After that the hon. member said that the problem with which he is faced, is the fact that in this case authority determines the rate or the degree of autonomy. The hon. member labelled this paternalism. I believe that these two statements contradict one another completely. After all, it is in fact the Government which allocates funds to a specific body and which then probably also decides in consultation with the relevant institution, taking into consideration the interests of that institution, what degree of autonomy will be granted. This links up completely with the statement by the hon. member to the effect that it is the granting of the largest possible measure of autonomy that is really relevant here. That is actually what it is all about.

In order to determine this, it is also important for us to take note of the extent of development of the relevant body. When we take a look at the history of the University of the Western Cape, we see that it actually reads like a storybook. This small college which was established in 1960 with only 164 students—slightly less than the number of hon. members in this House—has grown within a period of 18 years into a university with 3 183 students. This means a twentyfold growth within the space of 18 years. During the past 10 years alone the student body at the University of the Western Cape has increased fivefold—from 645 to 3 183 students. The University of the Western Cape which obtained university status in 1969—in terms of Act No. 50 of 1969—became academically independent within 10 years. The University of the Western Cape, a university to which foreign lecturers refer with the highest praise, is a university which has at its disposal facilities, apparatus and equipment, as well as academic teaching, which is of the very best, not only in South Africa but also in the world.

External examiners from Unisa have paid tribute to the quality of the academic work which they found at the University of the Western Cape. This has enabled the University of the Western Cape to draw some of the very best brainpower and academicians to serve on its teaching staff.

As the University of the Western Cape became vigorous and viable, powerful and strong, it is interesting to note that the English newspapers also modified their statements about this institution. For instance, The Argus reported in 1969—

So has the University of the Western Cape grown and gone from strength to strength. However, what is most important is that, since the establishment of the then University College of the Western Cape in 1960—and also since the institution obtained full university status in 1969—hon. members on this side of the House, as well as the Minister concerned, have referred several times to the course which this university is following. I refer there specifically to the statement by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs, on 24 March 1969, here in the House (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 3209)—

In other words, the Government was never forced to grant autonomy to the University of the Western Cape. This was something that had been planned from the very beginning. It had always been the plan to grant it systematically to the institution concerned, as it grew and developed. Development at the University of the Western Cape took place in an evolutionary manner. It was not an institution which could be forced to mature in an artificial way.

The University of the Western Cape is one of the spheres in which the development of the Coloured people has been decisive. It is one of the spheres in which the interests of the Coloured people could be delimited. In terms of the policy of self-determination, it can be handled and managed in all respects by the Coloured people themselves. The University of the Western Cape is the one institution that has withstood the test of time. It is an institution the control of which is being transferred to the Coloured leaders to an increasing extent. As far as practically possible, the Coloured people will eventually exercise full control over that institution. I believe that the development of the University of the Western Cape is the best example of evolutionary development within the framework of the policy of the NP.

We see that division did take place in the year of its establishment. However, at the same time the opportunity was created for students to achieve the highest possible educational standard at that institution. The University of the Western Cape offers its students the best possible opportunity for obtaining tertiary educational qualifications. As the university progresses and as more and more people obtain degrees at that university, more and more leaders emerge from an institution which we ourselves established. They are the leaders with whom we can sit around a table today, the leaders for whom we created the opportunities and with whom we can discuss a new constitutional dispensation today. This is how the policy of the NP works. The Government provides opportunities and, after it has given the people these opportunities, after it has subsidized them and educated their leaders, it consults those leaders and also seeks to grant them a greater measure of autonomy, and on many other levels as well. This also includes the level of political development.

It was necessary for the hon. the Minister to retain some control. It is also extremely important that he should retain some control. We must bear in mind that this institution is being given 100% financial support. We must also bear in mind that all running expenses, as well as the full capital expenditure of the University of the Western Cape, is borne by the Government. We must also remember that this university receives its funds in a much more favourable way than any other university in South Africa. That is why we find that the unit cost per student in 1977—the latest available figure—amounted to just under R1 800. This is what the NP Government has done because it is aware of its most important primary duty to create this educational opportunity.

The Government has also undertaken to withdraw its control systematically as the institution progresses, and to transfer autonomy to the university. The Government has also undertaken to appoint non-White teaching staff and also to include non-Whites on the university council.

Let us see now what the Government has done about that undertaking which it gave. Let us see whether it has been fair and whether it has kept its word. What do we find? In 1969 there was one Coloured lecturer. Today there are 77 Coloured members on the teaching staff including professors and senior lecturers. In 1969 there was not a single Coloured member on the council that controlled and managed that university. When we look at the composition of that council today, we find that of the 20 people serving on that council, nine are Coloured people. The university also has the additional right to increase the number of council members, according to the number of graduates in the convocation, at the rate of one per 500 or part thereof. In other words, in the course of time there will be just as many as or more Coloured people than White people serving on this university council and running their own university. In the meanwhile the White rector has been replaced by a Coloured rector.

There is virtually no course which a Coloured person cannot follow in South Africa. If the academic facilities are not available at the University of the Western Cape at the moment, there are ways and means whereby such a person can be admitted to one of the other universities in South Africa. Five years ago there were 33 faculties or departments at this university, which was an extremely high number for that time. Five years later those 33 departments had increased to 68. This simply gives us an indication of the dynamic growth that has taken place.

It is as well for us also to take note of other spheres in which expansion has taken place. Extensions amounting to more than R1 million were completed recently. At the end of this month, further extensions to academic offices for the teaching staff to the value of just under R2 million will be completed. At the moment there are four hostels under construction which will accommodate more than 1 000 students. Those hostels are being built at a cost of just under R8 million. More academic buildings will have been completed by January 1981. Those buildings will be erected at a cost of almost R3 million. A sewerage system to the value of R250 000 is being provided and, since the university is situated on low-lying land and all the storm-water has to be pumped out, a storm-water system is also being constructed at a cost of R2½ million. The improvements that are being made to that campus at the moment, including existing buildings, therefore amount to almost R22 million. Here I include the improvements that are still in the process of being effected. This shows just how dynamic the growth has been in all spheres and at all levels.

It is also interesting to note that the running expenses of this university increased from less than R2 million to R5½ million over the five-year period 1973 to 1977. This gives us an indication of the tremendous growth that has taken place spontaneously since this university began to develop and has developed further.

The university is not an institution which is exclusively for academics. It has already become independent to such an extent that it can also create and extend facilities for the sake of and to the advantage of the community. I want to mention just one example of this. At the moment this university is involved in establishing the Cape Flats nature reserve in an area comprising 20,13 ha. This is a unique undertaking. There are few universities in the world that are prepared to attempt something of this nature for the benefit of future generations. They are making a unique attempt to conserve the flora of the Cape Flats and the sandveld. That nature reserve will be opened on 25 August this year. Since Jan van Riebeeck arrived here 326 years and one day ago, we have been able to preserve only 15% of those beautiful Cape Flats with their flora and fauna. This includes that section which is known botanically as the coastal fynbos. This university and its teaching staff have now taken the initiative to develop this reserve in order to preserve the indigenous flora and fauna and the coastal fynbos. Furthermore, they want to cultivate the indigenous vegetation as well as establishing a research centre for horticulturists with a view to the plant ecology in the area. This is an institution to which both students and outside experts will have access.

The Bill is a further milestone in the history of the university not only because it transfers greater autonomy to the university— in terms of the undertaking of 1969—but also because Government control is being considerably curtailed and because the hon. the Minister is forfeiting his powers in favour of the university. That is why one finds an entirely new composition of the university, a new composition of the council, a new composition of the senate. The posts of vicerector and acting rector are also being established. However, as far as I am concerned, there is another very important aspect. A convocation is being established. There are now sufficient numbers of former students or graduates to form a convocation in which they can proudly be united to serve their own Alma Mater and make every effort to make their university known to South Africa and to the outside world. They can also improve the image of the university, arrange symposia and do many other things to benefit this particular university.

I believe that the students at the university will have a real interest in this institution which will become their future Alma Mater which they can carry with them in their hearts. Simultaneously with the withdrawal of the hon. the Minister’s powers the council will receive greater powers. That is why the hon. the Minister is relinquishing his former powers and rights as regards the appointment of the rector and the determination of the duties and functions of the official concerned, as well as the appointment of an acting rector who may now be appointed exclusively by the council. In addition the council receives full control over donations and the disbursement and management thereof, and it also receives full control over the use of its stock and equipment. It also receives full control of its establishment—and this is a very important breakthrough—although this will still be done in close co-operation with the Minister concerned. In the past, the hon. the Minister has acted in all these respects after consultation with the council. In fact, it meant that he could do as he pleased. But now these powers are being delegated to the university so that it can act completely independently or in co-operation with the hon. the Minister. The withdrawal of ministerial authority is an act of confidence in the management, the control and potential of this university.

I want to conclude by mentioning two aspects. One of them is an aspect which I just want to clarify briefly. It is interesting that the University of the Western Cape is now gaining a vice-rector. His appointment to and inclusion on the university council is now being given statutory form. This university is receiving this within 18 years of its establishment, while the University of Stellenbosch, which was established in the previous century, does not yet have a vice-rector who is a member of the council of the university. This just shows what has been done in this case, if one wants to draw comparisons. The University of Stellenbosch is in fact giving attention to this matter but it shows how the hand of co-operation is being extended.

I also want to say how grateful I am that the hon. the Minister has thought fit to do away with the discrimination provision in the principal Act. I refer here to the provision to the effect that a female member of the teaching staff forfeited her position the moment she married. She had then to resign. I think the hon. the Minister has acted in a friendly way towards the fair sex by giving them the opportunity to supplement their husbands’ incomes by enabling them to remain on in that particular teaching capacity.

Finally, there is one last thing I should like to say. I am in fairly close contact with the teaching staff of this particular university and I know how circumspectly this university had been dealt with over the past few years. I know how circumspectly the staff situation has been handled and I know how circumspectly the student situation has been handled. Both of these situations have been delicate ones. I have therefore the greatest appreciation for the particular way in which the hon. the Minister has acted at all times and has at all times been prepared to grant and hold interviews. He has been accessible to White and Coloured staff at all times, both individually and collectively. He has given everything possible and at all times will give this university momentum on its road ahead.

Mr. Speaker, while I want to thank the Opposition parties, in addition to the two speakers on this side of the House, for their support of the Second Reading, I have to point out that the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Durban Central did something of an egg dance while they were making their speeches, and for that was to apologize for the attitude adopted by them to this and other universities in the past. The hon. member for Rondebosch said quite correctly that the autonomy of a university could never be complete. I whole-heartedly agree with him on that score. What the apology of the hon. member for Durban Central for their attitude in the past in actual fact amounted to was that they really wanted full autonomy as far back as 1969.

Like the other universities.

However, the hon. member must understand one thing. In this regard the hon. member for Rondebosch is correct. The autonomy of a university can never be complete. One can have degrees of autonomy, and this is what is at issue here today. We are making progress by granting a further degree of autonomy to that university, as well as to the other with which my hon. colleague dealt. We are making progress in terms of the Government’s stated policy. Why all this humming and howing? Whether one achieves full autonomy now, or whether one should in fact have achieved it in 1969, is not relevant. In the end the two hon. gentlemen also expressed their gratitude for the progress that had been made, but surely those hon. members must have some understanding of the situation.

The hon. member for Durbanville has just touched on the history of the University of Stellenbosch, and he indicated how many years it took—on one single aspect—for that university to grow and to develop up to a certain point. We are dealing with a young university here. Surely we cannot immediately grant it the same degree of autonomy—where it still is completely dependent on Government funds—as we can grant an old established university. The hon. member for Rondebosch referred me to Recommendation No. 93 of the Theron Commission and the Government’s reply to that recommendation and he made the point that I had quoted the reply of the Government to that recommendation in my speech as part of what had given rise to this legislation. However, he relied more upon the recommendation itself, which reads—

That “nou” does not refer to today. The report was signed two years ago, in April 1976—

The hon. member should have regard to how unrealistic this recommendation was at that time when the council was still a fully appointed body and was still on a lower level of progress towards greater autonomy.

Are you saying that the commission was unrealistic?

I am just saying that this part of the recommendation was unrealistic. The recommendation continues—

This is precisely what is being done now. All the Government said in 1976 was that at that stage it could not give full control or autonomy to a council, all the members of which were appointed members and not elected members. In other words, one does not put the cart before the horse; one puts the horse before the cart. This is what we are doing today. Is this so difficult to understand? Surely it is sound common sense to progress step by step. The term of office of the previous council expired at the end of last year. At that time legislation was being prepared to provide for the election of members of the council so as to grant representation to certain categories of the community, for instance, to the convocation, to donors and to the local authority. However, that legislation was not on the Statute Book— it is being enacted now—at the time of the expiry of the old council’s term of office. I consulted with the rector and others and formed the opinion that the appointment of the new council was not something that could be delayed. I then recommended a council to the State President—the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to this this afternoon—the present chairman of which is a former rector of the university and a rector of another university at the moment and on which three vice-rectors of South African universities as well as representatives of the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch are serving. In other words, academic strength has been built into the council, as I in fact said in my statement at the time. In addition nine prominent, well-educated Coloured members serve on the council. I am pleased that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens pointed out that the composition of the present council was virtually in line with the legislation which is to come. The first Coloured person who received his doctorate at the University of the Western Cape, was appointed as a member of the council with the intention of his representing the future convocation.

Let me say that, after this council had met for the first time, I heard from both the Coloured people and the White people, that they considered it an honour to serve on a council of such quality. I was even told: “We have never before served on a body of comparable quality”. Surely this is progress. Although the council is still an appointed body and not yet an elected one as it will be in future, this is the way in which one progresses step by step in the direction of autonomy. I hope the hon. member for Rondebosch, who was employed in an academic capacity, will see the common sense behind this step: One does not put the cart before the horse but the horse before the cart. We must progress in that way.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also drew my attention to recommendation No. 194 of the Theron Commission, to paragraph (3) in particular, which reads—

The hon. member will probably be aware of the Government’s reaction to this. I want to add to that, since we have been discussing the autonomy of the universities and their councils today, that the Government can do nothing but say, once a council has become autonomous, that it must decide on that matter itself in spite of what was recommended by the commission. Then, after all, one cannot force anything upon the council. However, I want to agree with the hon. member that the autonomy of a university is a relative concept. I hope the hon. member for Durban Central understands the message of the hon. member for Rondebosch: Autonomy is a relative concept.

That is correct. I just want the university to have the same degree of autonomy as the other universities.

In the argument about standpoints in the past, for instance whether a university should be established on grounds of ethnicity for a specific community, there was an attempt to get away from this completely or partially once the university had proved itself. The hon. member for Durbanville quoted interesting figures so as to illustrate the progress the University of the Western Cape had made in spite of growing pains. I want to pose this question: If the University of the Western Cape, with the defects which it had and still has, had not been established by the Government, what would have become of the nearly 3 200 students enrolled at that university this year? It is often said very piously that, if the universities were to be thrown open, it would not be necessary to have this type of university. Liberalism is a marvellous thing: Pious in its words, but when it comes to deeds, one finds the exact opposite. In 1976 I granted 404 permits for prospective Coloured students to attend White universities because the courses concerned were not offered at the University of the Western Cape. How many were ultimately admitted?—only 232. Then people come along with pious statements and criticism! In 1977 I issued permits to 491 students. Do you know how many those universities admitted, Mr. Speaker?—only 290! What would have become of the almost 3 200 students who are studying there at present if the University of the Western Cape had not been established?

This is the story of the University of the Western Cape, the University about which so many incorrect, derogatory things have been said in the past. It is a University that has gone through difficult times, but its story is that it has nevertheless been able to provide a service to that community by preparing thousands of students for life. That university has progressed to such an extent today that it could approach me to ask for a larger measure of autonomy, which, in terms of this legislation, it is being given and not being refused. I want to congratulate the University of the Western Cape on achieving this enhanced status. It deserves these congratulations.

Last Saturday I had the privilege of attending the annual graduation ceremony at this university. Unlike previous occasions, when there was a fair attendance at similar ceremonies, there were more than 3 000 people in the audience at that graduation ceremony last Saturday, an attendance which is seldom experienced at a graduation ceremony of the oldest and largest universities of our country. 259 degrees were conferred—if my memory serves me correctly—as well as a few hundred diplomas. The story which that large crowd told me, is that in spite of what has been said over the floor of this House in the past and in spite of what has been said at other places outside this House, the University of the Western Cape has succeeded in proving itself in its community. The community in turn has accepted the university; that is why they attended the university’s prestige day in such large numbers last Saturday.

I do not think it is necessary for us to dwell on the smaller points of detail. We can discuss them during the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Durban Central asked me what would happen if the University of the Western Cape achieved full autonomy and the council were to throw open the doors to everyone. Then the University would be on exactly the same level as other universities which have full autonomy and which have thrown open their doors to a lesser or greater extent. Then the university would be in the same category.

The hon. member also criticized the fact that some ministerial control was being retained over the appointment of the rector, the vice-rector, the acting rector, etc. The hon. member placed an amendment on the Order Paper in this regard. We can discuss this at a later stage during the Committee Stage. However, I just want to tell him what the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has told him too, viz. that this university has a larger measure of autonomy now, but that it still remains a State university. It is still being financed fully by the State. Therefore the hon. member will concede that there should be some control. If anything were to go wrong, the hon. member would attack me across the floor of this House, and surely I should be in a position to give an account. That is why I must have some control, although this matter can be left to the council. However, the council has to obtain my concurrence so that I can satisfy myself as to who is in full control of the activities which take place at the university from day to day. Just as I am satisfied about this now, and will probably be satisfied at all times, my successor one day will be satisfied at all times with those appointed by a council of quality, and we believe that the quality of the council will be even higher in future than it is today.

The hon. member for Durbanville furnished some interesting figures about the growth of the university. I want to thank him for that and for his personal interest, as well as for the words of gratitude which he expressed towards me. I want to add that the University of the Western Cape has seven faculties with an eighth—which is a very important one—in the process of being established, viz. its own medical faculty. Due to the present economic circumstances its establishment may take a little longer than was originally anticipated. However, a faculty like this is being envisaged, and according to the speech delivered by the rector of the university last Saturday, three new departments are also being envisaged to complement the existing 68, viz. a department of music, a department of drama and a department of physical education. This is indicative of the fact that university is able to meet the requirements of its community to an increasing extent. That is why I believe that there is no stopping the growth and progress of this university and I extend my heartiest congratulations to the rector and his council on the progressive step we are taking by reading this Bill for a Second Time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of the Development of Church Square, Pretoria, Act of 1972, is to control the development of Church Square, Pretoria, and of the premises adjacent to it and in its immediate vicinity. The Act lays down, inter alia, that no construction work or demolition of any nature may take place within the area defined in the Act without the written approval of the Minister of Public Works.

In the implementation of the Act it was found that it had certain shortcomings by which its administration was hampered considerably and by which the disposal of applications from property owners with regard to proposed constructional development on plots, or limited alterations to buildings situated within the area, are inevitably subject to long delays, to the great inconvenience of the applicants. The amendments have the following objectives—

1. (a) The appointment of an alternate chairman of the Church Square Committee who will only be vested with statutory authority when he presides at a meeting in place of the chairman if the latter is unable to preside at a meeting of the committee due to other commitments or illness.
2. (b) To enable the Minister to appoint an authority on the development of the city centre to the Church Square Committee in the stead of a representative of the Capital Planning Committee which has since been disbanded by the Cabinet. According to an amendment which was accepted in the Other Place, this now applies to two experts.
3. (c) To review from time to time the terms of office of members of the Church Square Committee appointed in their personal capacity.
4. (d) A quorum for meetings of the Church Square Committee which will ensure that the committee will be able to take a valid decision even though all its members are not present.
5. (e) To enable the Minister to delegate some of his powers to the chairman of the Church Square Committee to expedite the disposal of applications to effect limited internal and external structural alterations to shop and office accommodation situated in the area. The intention is to instruct the chairman of the committee to deal with applications of such limited nature after consultation with the City Council of Pretoria and the Church Square Committee, and to submit these to me quarterly for ex post facto approval.
6. (f) The validation of the delegation of powers by the Minister which may be made in terms of the amending Act but which were delegated before the promulgation of the amending Act, as well as the validation of the withholding or granting by the Minister of his approval in terms of section 2(1) of the principal Act in respect of any matter after consultation with the Church Square Committee during the period when the Capital Planning Committee no longer existed.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this amending Bill, which contains absolutely no contentious provisions, will eliminate certain obvious loopholes in the principal Act and will thereby contribute towards a more flexible administration.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the amendment Bill in principle and therefore we shall not vote against the Second Reading. We have, however, a problem with regard to the new composition of the Church Square Committee. The hon. the Minister indicated that he had already accepted an amendment in this regard in the Other Place. What that amendment amounts to is that there will be better representation on this committee for people who are not public servants. The public of Pretoria has always felt that there are perhaps too many public servants serving on this committee. After all, the main parties concerned with this matter are, in the first place the province of Transvaal, that is the owner of a great part of the western façade and, in the second place, the Post Office, that owns the other part of the western façade and urgently needs accommodation in that part of the Church Square area. The third party is the public of Pretoria, and hon. members who are in touch with the feelings of the public of Pretoria with regard to the western façade of Church Square will agree with me that there have been very few matters about which the public of Pretoria expressed themselves so spontaneously and with almost total unanimity. I do not want to discuss the merits of the case, because then we might bedevil the whole issue. Let me say, however, that the public of Pretoria is extraordinarily interested in what is going to happen now as far as the western façade is concerned.

Are public servants not part of the public of Pretoria?

Of course public servants are part of the public of Pretoria, but they are subject to the dictates of—what do they always say?—higher authority.

The interjection of the hon. Whip brings me right to the point. Not only is the hon. the Minister of Public Works the final authority, with or without the approval of the Cabinet, but the chairman of the committee is a member of the Department of Public Works, and another member of the committee of eleven is a member of the Department of Public Works. My submission is that the interest of the Department of Public Works in this matter is not so great that we should have so much representation—both ministerial and official—of that department on the committee. We shall, therefore, move in the Committee Stage that the chairman should not be appointed by the hon. the Minister, but should be elected by the committee itself. It will be interesting to see what arguments will be advanced by the other side of the House to refute this amendment of the Bill.

With regard to the confirmation of certain decisions which the committee has taken in the past, two reasons are advanced which might lead to certain decisions being null and void, and might also cause embarrassment to the committee as well as to the Department of Public Works and the Government. The question I want to ask is whether all the loopholes or the alleged irregularities or missing elements appear in this Bill. I do not mention any of them, because I would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie, rather than cause new problems. As I have said on a previous occasion in this House, we have now been struggling for 15 years to get somewhere with regard to the further development and the planning for the future of Church Square, and I hope that we are not going to struggle for another 15 years. Let us establish the Church Square Committee as soon as possible, get all those concerned together and reach a final decision. The Post Office is more than eager for us to find a solution as soon as possible, and the uncertainty with regard to the other part of the western façade in which the province of Transvaal has an interest, awaits speedy settlement and decision as well, if possible.

For these reasons we support the principle of the Bill. It is an improvement on what has taken place. We shall, however, during the Committee Stage raise the question whether a further improvement cannot be effected.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the hon. member sounded an interesting note by saying that he did not know whether the Bill would remedy all the deficiencies. He said, too, that he did not want to point out these aspects because he did not want to wake sleeping dogs. I should like to point out to the hon. member that he has a role in this House as a legislator. When he sees those flaws in a Bill, he should feel free to point them out. He does not have to be afraid that he might wake sleeping dogs. I can assure him that if the arguments he advances have any merit at all, he will have a sympathetic hearing from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member objected to the Church Square Committee as is now being envisaged in this legislation. He said that three parties were involved, i.e. the provincial administration as owner of a part of the western façade, the Post Office as owner of another part of the façade, and the public. The hon. member is, however, quite wrong. This Bill deals not only with the western façade, but with the whole of Church Square. Many more owners are involved with Church Square than those of the western façade only. Moreover, what is involved is not only Church Square as such, but also a certain surrounding area, which is described in the schedule to the Act. There are many other owners involved. The portion involved includes Andries Street to the east, Pretorius Street to the south, Bosnian Street to the west and Vermeulen Street to the north. There are quite a few private owners of buildings in this area. This Amendment Bill contains an authorization to the Church Square Committee pertaining to all these buildings, to alterations, additions and demolitions. All of us are aware of the fact that the western façade is a very sensitive matter. This Bill, however, does not deal with the western façade only.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North objected to the constitution of the committee. He furnished details of the constitution and said that there were too many Public servants serving on the committee. He then made a remark which we have to take amiss of him, namely that Public servants in fact form part of the public, but are subject to a “higher authority”. The committee is constituted of officials from various Government departments, the provincial administration and the city council. The hon. member is now implying that these people cannot exercise any discretion of their own and that they are merely the mouthpiece of some secret authority who tells them what decisions to make. I want to point out to the hon. member that no instructions will be given to a committee of this nature. That is not how the Government does things. It does not appoint a committee to serve merely as a rubber stamp because the Government has decided in advance what will happen. The committee has a specific discretion which it has to exercise. There are specific merits they have to assess, a specific report they have to bring out and specific recommendations they have to make. The hon. member should see the role of the members of the committee in that light. In these circumstances his objection to public servants as members of this committee falls away.

The hon. member objected in particular to the fact that two officials of the Department of Public Works will also serve on this committee. I think this objection, too, is completely unjustified and unmotivated. The hon. member must take into account that one specific department and one specific hon. Minister has the responsibility and deals with this matter. The hon. Minister concerned deals with this Bill. It is therefore obvious that two officials of that department should serve on this committee.

Finally I should like to reply to the hon. member’s speech by saying that the hon. Minister does not instruct the officials. On the contrary. The officials have to submit recommendations to the hon. the Minister.

Order! It is said in Ecclesiastes: “There is a time to every purpose under the heaven,” and that applies to a Friday afternoon as well.