Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate we stated our attitude very clearly. Apart from our general objection to education being divided on racial lines, we stated that our concern was to ensure that the conditions of teachers should be as equal as possible, irrespective of race.

Generally this Bill appears to move in that direction. It has updated the nomenclature in regard to education to bring it into line with other educational practices. It deals with the conditions of service relating to teachers, particularly to the question of their retirement. It also deals with discipline and the degree to which the teachers will be allowed to participate in the activities of political parties.

During the Committee Stage we pointed out certain unsatisfactory features of the Bill, particularly the method proposed by the hon. the Minister in this legislation in regard to the taking-over of State-aided Indian schools, where we felt that the notice to be given was inadequate. We still adhere to that view.

The Bill also deals with membership of unlawful organizations, and we dealt with that yesterday during the Committee Stage. Our view was that it was quite unnecessary in legislation of this kind to make membership of an unlawful organization one of the grounds for misconduct, our view being that there was adequate legislation dealing with membership of unlawful organizations and that it was therefore inappropriate, in a matter dealing with the service conditions of Indian teachers, that this should be a ground of misconduct. We still adhere to that view. It is not necessary for this provision to be in this Bill. We adhere to that view also because it is contrary to the other directions indicated by this Bill, mainly that there should be the same sort of conditions applying to Indian teachers as apply to teachers of other racial groups.

I pointed out to the hon. the Minister yesterday that looking at provincial ordinances, one cannot find such a condition relating to the conditions in connection with teachers of other racial groups. The hon. the Minister also mentioned yesterday, and I have his Hansard with me, that this condition obtained in regard to the Public Service Act I have looked through that Act very carefully today and nowhere can I see membership of unlawful organizations as a ground for misconduct in terms of that Act. In the cause of accuracy the hon. the Minister should perhaps have a look at that to make quite sure. The answer he gave me yesterday is stated quite clearly in Hansard, where the hon. the Minister stated quite categorically that one of the objects of this Bill was to bring it into line with the Public Service Act. In this regard I could not find any reference in the Public Service Act to this particular aspect as a matter for discipline. To my mind this is logical because quite clearly this Act itself, the Unlawful Organizations Act, gives the authorities adequate powers to deal with anybody in the Public Service as in the teaching profession if they become involved in activities which are unlawful. I think it is unfortunate that this provision should remain in the Bill, because I do not think it is appropriate in legislation dealing with Indian teachers. However, subject to these reservations, the Bill is an improvement on the existing Act and for that reason we will support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP we made it quite clear during the Second Reading debate that we support this Bill, inter alia, because it is an effort to modernize the existing legislation. One finds also that this is an attempt to bring the legislation for all race groups more into uniformity. This is very commendable, and it is the type of thing we would like to see more and more in the field of education. The reason for that is that we are obviously dealing with professional people who have the same kind of qualifications and who are subjected in their daily lives to the same kind of stresses. The classroom situation does not really differ whether you are a teacher in the White education department or a teacher in the Indian education department.

We find therefore that we are in full support of this Bill, and we are glad that the hon. the Minister has taken certain steps to bring their conditions of service into line with those of other departments. I want to make use of this Third Reading debate to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to see to it that this trend is accelerated, not only in respect of the method of dismissal of teachers and their conditions of service, but also in regard to the utmost important factor of disparity which exists in the salaries that are being paid to various teachers. When people have exactly the same sort of legislation controlling their profession, the necessity is compounded to have a quality in regard to salaries, etc. I therefore merely wish to say that we support the hon. the Minister’s intentions to bring these issues into line.

We do not necessarily want all schools under the control of one education department. We do not have any difficulty with that as such. We do regard it as a right that people should have their own departments, and we believe in decentralization of decision making. We therefore have no fight with the hon. the Minister in this respect. Whilst people can have it all separately and decentralized, we believe, especially when they are professional people, that they should not only have a say as to their conditions of service or to the rules relating to the services they render to the community, but also to rules concerning their own financial situations. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the two Opposition parties, we on this side of the House also wish to associate ourselves with the legislation. We wish to express our pleasure at the fact that this legislation places the seal on Indian education, as I said in the Second Reading debate. It effects uniformity in education legislation throughout the country. We are grateful that a situation that has prevailed in South Africa for many years is now coming to an end. It has been like that since Union because initially there were major differences even among the various White education departments and their rules. To a certain extent these were perpetuated by the introduction of Indian education and Coloured education in separate departments. With this legislation as a further step, a great measure of uniformity has been effected in the conditions of teaching staff throughout the country, in whatever department they may be.

When we say that we are in favour of uniformity, it does not mean that we agree with the hon. member for Musgrave that all education in South Africa should be administered by a single department. I do not want to go into details, but the statement that all education in South Africa should fall under a single department remains, in my view, little more than a debating point. If one takes into account that notwithstanding the fact that it is general knowledge today and all agree that the differentiation and control in our White education is actually a legacy from the old colonial jealousies and disputes, and that there is still divided control over White education, it is highly improbable that uniformity of administration can be effected in regard to White, Coloured and Indian education. This is so largely because differences in regard to these groups are accentuated even more by cultural differences, which are recognized by the hon. member for Musgrave and his party and which they have intimated they want to promote. Apart from that, it also means that the existence of separate departments for Coloured and Indian education offers greater promotion opportunities to the members of those population groups that are still in the process of development. It also offers them greater opportunities to fill senior positions in their own society and in the greater South African society. Consequently there is a lot to be said in favour of the fact that the administration of education still falls under different departments and, as far as we can see in the light of developments we expect in the years ahead, will remain in different departments indefinitely.

We welcome the uniformity of terminology that has been effected and also the uniformity in respect of the basis for subsidies and for the procedure relating to the takeover of State-aided schools and private schools. We also welcome the uniformity in respect of the registration of schools, service conditions, pension rules, regulations governing retirement, and rules regarding discipline. Finally, we also welcome the greater measure of uniformity effected by the legislation in respect of civil rights for teachers in the Indian community to place them on an equal footing with the equivalent rights in the White community.

In this connection, I still want to say a few things to conclude with. Due to the provision made in this legislation in respect of civil rights, the teachers in the employ of the Indian Education Department are now on an equal footing with those in the employ of the Transvaal, Free State and Cape Education Departments. In regard to civil rights, too, they are being brought into line with the provisions of section 24A of the Civil Service Act and as far as privileges enjoyed by public servants in general, they are being placed on an equal footing.

I wish to reply briefly to what the hon. member for Musgrave has said in connection with clause 9 of the Bill, in which a distinction is drawn between membership of an unlawful political organization and membership of a political party. I submit, with respect, that we are here dealing with a case of hair-splitting. The only difference existing in respect of Indian teachers here is that on the one hand there is reference in one subsection of clause 9 to membership of an unlawful organization and on the other, in another subsection of section 9, there is reference to membership of a political party.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Musgrave that section 24A of the Public Service Act combines these two subsections of clause 9 of the Bill before the House into a single phrase, because section 24A(a) provides that an employee or officer may be a member and serve on the executive of a lawful political party, whereas the legislation before the House refers in the first subsection of clause 9 to an unlawful organization and in the second subsection to a political party. This is really a case of hair-splitting on the part of the hon. member, because the end result is exactly the same.

It is perhaps one of the most important changes in this legislation, particularly with a community like the Indians who are on the threshold of a major political development, which I do not want to enlarge upon. We are aware of the fact that the Indian Council is developing into a fully representative body and that it is in fact to become a parliamentary institution. For a community such as this, which is in the process of constitutional development it is of the utmost importance because just as it was the case with the Whites in the past that the members of their teaching profession played an important role in the political development of the White ethnic group in South Africa, the educational staff of the Indian community will play a leading role as the intellectual leaders in their process of development. This legislation affords them exactly the same opportunities as are being enjoyed by their White colleagues.

While on that subject, I just wish to state that it was particularly gratifying to me to hear from the hon. member for Durban Central that he was also in favour of uniformity in respect of the conditions of service of educational staff. I therefore wish to suggest to him that he recommend to his own party that the participation of teachers in the Natal Education Department should also be regularized to bring them into line with those in the other provinces, in the Public Service and in the Department of Indian Education. At present, participation in the activities of political organization is denied the White teachers of Natal altogether. Membership of a political organization, and even comment on the policy of a Government department, is denied them.

But it is exactly the same.

If the hon. member for Durban Central is so concerned about uniformity …

You are talking about the 1942 ordinance.

… then perhaps he can explain to us why, in terms of the ordinance of his province, it is an offence for a teacher to express himself in public on policy matters relating to the administration of any department or branch of the public service of the Republic, the service of the Railway Administration, the Natal Provincial Administration, or any other provincial administration, and why it is an offence for him to become a member of a political organization or actively to participate in politics.

No, that was the 1942 ordinance. The 1969 ordinance changed the position.

Very well then, I accept the hon. member’s statement. But what he has just said proves in any event that it took quite long for the Natal department to reach that stage. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House believe that through this legislation great progress is being made, not only in respect of the Indian teacher, but also as a result of the leading role which the Indian teacher can play in the political development of his community. This is progress which will affect the pattern of development of the Indian community in South Africa as a whole, and consequently we welcome and gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended participating in the Third Reading debate on this Bill. [Interjections.] I must, however, for the record, react to what was said by the hon. member for Umlazi in making certain remarks about my colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave.

Just for the record, let us see exactly what happened. During the Committee Stage, whilst clause 9(g) was under discussion, the hon. member for Musgrave moved an amendment asking for clause 9(g)—not clause 9(gA)—to be deleted. At the moment, in the Bill as it is before us, clause 9(g) reads as follows—

When this was being debated in the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister conceded that he saw the point made by the hon. member for Musgrave, and he was dealing with two amendments. Then he said that the same provision was also in the Public Service Act.

The point has been made adequately.

But this was referred to again by the hon. member for Umlazi.

He was not listening.

Yes, it really seems as if he has not done his homework, because section 24A(a) of the Public Service Act reads as follows—

If that wording is good enough, and we accept that it is, let me say that all my colleague was asking for in the Committee Stage, something which he has now reiterated in the Third Reading debate, was that we should have the same wording. If the hon. member for Umlazi likes and supports that wording, as I assume the hon. the Minister does, what we want to say, without kicking up a great deal of fuss, is that, if we are trying to rationalize matters and to have all legislation for teachers in exactly the same form where appropriate, let us stick to the wording as it stands, viz. “… be a member and serve on the management of a lawful political party”. That is all we are asking for, nothing more and nothing less. I say that despite the fact that we have already indicated that we are in general support of the legislation before us and will certainly support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the hon. members on all sides of the House wholeheartedly for supporting this Bill in principle. I am sorry that there are a few minor points in respect of which certain hon. members felt that they were not quite happy. They discussed these in considerable detail in an attempt to effect certain amendments. I am nevertheless pleased that notwithstanding the minor differences, there is a clear unanimity in regard to certain important matters. I am pleased, for example, that my friends in the New Republican Party …

The New Republic Party.

You must now get it right once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, if it had been important I should have taken the trouble to remember it, but we are dealing here with something of passing interest. [Interjections.] The New Republic Party has made me happy by stating that they do not agree with the PFP that it is wrong that there should be a separate organization for Indian education. I wish to express my appreciation for that.

The fact that a separate institution exists for Indian education, has meant a great deal to the Indian child. Before the central Government had taken over Indian education, it was shamefully neglected. I have mentioned in this House in the past what the Indians in Natal used to say about that in the olden days. When the Natal Provincial Administration managed it, education was subsidized with £5 per pupil per annum, and then they still made a profit on it! The position is now that as from this year, Indian children have compulsory education on more or less the same basis as is applicable to the Whites.

The Indian pupils are getting excellent results. Last year, more than 90% of those who had written the matriculation examination, passed. This is an excellent record. As hon. members will know, those examinations are monitored by impartial external examiners. It was a first-class result. We can really be proud of it. Their university is chock-full and their College for Advanced Technical Education is bursting at the seams. This is a remarkable achievement and I am pleased that the New Republic Party realizes that.

I could not accept the motion by the PFP. The Indian pupils were so neglected that to have put them into the same schools as a more advanced group, would simply have meant that it would have been more difficult for them to make up their leeway, and at the same time the advanced group would have suffered. For that, my hon. friends opposite must accept their share of the responsibility because it was the colonial policy of their people that neglected the Indians like that [Interjections.] The NP had to rectify those faults, and Indian education owes its present favourable position to that. The hon. member for Umlazi has also strongly underlined that. He has even more justification than I to be proud of the achievement of the NP. I am very pleased that he has seized upon the opportunity of pointing that out.

The hon. member for Durban Central has also raised another matter. He has said he would like to see the wage gap closed as soon as possible and uniformity effected in this respect. I just want to give the assurance again that it is indeed the policy of the Government and of the Department of Indian Affairs to close that gap and to effect uniformity, as far as other population groups are concerned as well.

But it must be accelerated.

Sir, up to now two main budgets have been submitted, namely the Railway budget and the Post Office budget, and on both occasions it has been shown that steps are being taken in this direction. Every time salaries are adjusted, this matter is carried further. We cannot do it more often. When the central budget is submitted, further steps may perhaps again be taken. I sincerely hope so. I just want to state that the Government will go even further than that. In the course of this session we shall make an announcement to indicate how seriously the Government views the matter. We shall hear about plans to expedite the narrowing of the gap. I am therefore looking forward to the hon. member enthusiastically lending his support to the new measures that will be taken to close the gap.

†The hon. member for Musgrave raised a point in connection with section 16(g), a point which was supported by the hon. member for Pinelands. I want to say that yesterday I was under the impression that a similar provision existed in the Public Service Act. Apparently I was misinformed or my homework was not properly done.

[Inaudible.]

I am always grateful when somebody helps me to keep on the straight and narrow. The point is that in the Act we are amending today, there is a cumbersome provision to the same effect, namely section 16(g) which reads as follows—

We felt that rather than the Minister declaring a special set of unlawful organizations for the purposes of this Act, it would be better if we generally put a prohibition on membership of organizations that are unlawful under the other normal laws of South Africa and not to put the onus on the Minister of Indian Affairs to declare a new set of unlawful organizations. To me that seems to be sensible. It is an improvement on the existing Act. As I said yesterday, if such a provision does not exist in the other ordinances or Acts, I am glad that the Department of Indian Affairs can set an example. In this Bill we are trying to improve our measures to become the equal of the measures applying to other groups. So I am glad to know that there is an opportunity for the other groups to improve their respective measures to become the equal of the legislation relating to Indian education.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, if ever an amending Bill before the House reflected the dilemma in which the NP finds itself, I believe the amending Bill before us at present reflects that dilemma very clearly. Because the first part of this debate took place some two weeks ago, I want to recap and say that there are two changes that we consider to be major changes in this amending Bill before us. The first is that whereas in the past the Universities of Fort Hare, of the North and of Zululand were restricted to the intake of students from their respective national groups or units, they are now enabled to admit students from any Black group. We regard that as a slight cosmetic improvement and we have said that we welcome it as such. The second major change contained in this Bill, a change with which we find ourselves at strong cross purposes with the hon. the Deputy Minister an his party, is the provision under which it is within the jurisdiction of the Minister to decide whether students of any other race group may be admitted to the so-called Black universities. It is on that basic fundamental principle that we in the NRP differ from the Government and it is on that basis that we are opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.

I think we are all aware of the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has made it clear that he is not prepared to die for apartheid signs in lifts. I must say that that puts the picture in a nutshell very well. It is a pity that the hon. Minister is not here today because I had intended asking him whether he was prepared to die for the right of the hon. the Deputy Minister who is sitting opposite me to make decisions relating to the admission of White students to non-White universities. I think that is a pertinent question and I might put it to him at some future stage. Meanwhile perhaps some of the hon. members opposite might care to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to die for the right of the hon. the Deputy Minister sitting opposite us to decide whether he will admit White students to non-White universities. There lies the whole heart of the issue. If we believe in university autonomy—and hon. members opposite us indicate that they would like to believe in it— it is surely up to the council of the university to decide whether they wish to admit students of other race groups.

You do not know what autonomy means.

We know exactly what we are talking about, and that hon. member knows that the point we are making is a very valid one. It is the whole heart of the amendment Bill before us. We are going to be very interested to hear the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because we believe he has a problem on this issue. As a matter of fact, we believe that all the hon. members sitting opposite us have a problem on this particular issue. This is one of those measures which in effect is perpetuating grand apartheid. That is what in fact it does. We might be dismantling some of the pillars that hold up the verandah of small apartheid— “klein apartheid”—but it is measures like this, this particular clause to which we take exception, that is perpetuating grand apartheid and means that apartheid itself triumphs because of the introduction of clauses like this in legislation before this House.

You are talking nonsense!

They are sharp words, but they are true words. I think the hon. member would do well to consider them and decide whether perhaps the time has not come to leave some of these decisions to the councils which, after all, are the people closest to the problems concerned. This is the whole viewpoint of this political party, the NRP, namely that those decisions should be taken by the councils of universities. Surely they are not going to allow a university with a particular ethnic identity and a particular ethnic relationship to be flooded by students of other race groups. But, nevertheless, the decision should be for them to take and not for the Minister. Times could be very busy. The Government could find itself in a time of problems—as it is at the moment—when the time of hon. Ministers is much taken up with other weighty matters, and decisions such as this could therefore best be left to the decision of the university councils.

I believe we have elicited during the course of this debate a most astonishing admission from hon. members opposite. In the clauses of this Bill relating to the admission of students other than Black—we have referred to this briefly during an earlier stage of the debate—the wording clearly indicates that the Minister could approve of the admission to a Black university of any person who is not a Black. We looked at this and accepted it as a step forward, a step in the right direction. We believed this was the kind of change that really meant that South Africa was getting into the 1970’s in great stride. However, we were assured by several speakers on the other side of the House that this was not the case and that that particular provision was purely to allow for the admission of lecturers who might be lecturing at that particular institution. I believe that will be a terribly retrogressive step if that is in fact the intention of this legislation. We hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to make this absolutely clear when he replies to the debate, because if one reads the language as it is printed, “any person” does not restrict such admission only to persons who may be lecturing at that institution. It in fact means “any person”. We believe the hon. the Deputy Minister owes us an explanation and we hope he is going to give us that explanation in due course.

I do not wish to seek too much trouble with my friends of the PFP on my right, but I do find their attitude on this legislation very significant. When they spoke in this debate they made it very clear that they had relatively few problems with it. It was only when we made our standpoint clear that hon. members of the PFP really became aware of the importance of this legislation, and to motivate my case may I point out that the amendments which they put on the Order Paper are exactly the same as those moved by our hon. Chief Whip who made this point the basis of our opposition to this legislation. He made this point during his speech at Second Reading. I find it somewhat amusing that the official Opposition should now be adopting the same standpoint as we are. I believe it indicates very clearly who did their homework on this Bill, who appreciated the real implications of the changes envisaged in this legislation, and who are in fact offering effective opposition in this House.

I believe, however, that I have made my point. I will therefore leave my little tussle with hon. members of the PFP at that. I certainly hope that when it comes to the Committee Stage, they will be supporting our amendment on that particular clause. I want to make that absolutely clear. It is on the basis of the amendment moved by the PFP through the hon. member for Musgrave that we saw this as the issue on which the NRP was going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.] I think I have motivated my case. I believe we have put the hon. the Deputy Minister in a bit of a fix. We are going to find his answer very interesting. I leave the case there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal immediately with the hon. the Deputy Minister who is in charge of this piece of legislation. During the course of my speech I will respond—I will not answer, because it does not require any real answer—to the hon. member for Berea. [Interjections.] I must say that I find it really interesting and quite fascinating that it should be this hon. Deputy Minister in particular who has introduced this legislation. He and I cross swords regularly, almost on a weekly basis. However, I want to remind him and hon. members of a debate which took place here in the House on 2 June 1978, when the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to a Press statement that I had made concerning a speech he himself had made at the University of Stellenbosch. He was very upset about it, but I want to remind him again that I am not responsible for headlines in newspapers. Newspapermen made their own decisions about their headlines. However, I thought the headline at that time was most apt. It said: “Dr. No says no.” It seemed to me to make a great deal of sense, especially when one looks at the record and when one reads the writings of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to quote specifically what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in an attempt to make the policy of the NP in regard to education absolutely clear. He said (Hansard, 1978, col. 8317)—

I should like to underline the fact that it is not a question of moving away, but really the question of the development of a position.

… not only at school level but also at the universities, viz. that people appreciate their own communities, that they seek only the best for their own communities and that they realize that the best people to serve those communities are their own people, when they are qualified and equipped for their task.

[Interjections.] The hon. member must not imagine that the hon. Deputy Minister cannot answer for himself. He is very capable and very effective. [Interjections.] It is quite amazing that the hon. members are really so frightened. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] I agree that he is in a terrible predicament. [Interjections.] But he will have the opportunity to reply to this debate.

My point is that this is the hon. the Deputy Minister who has made a fetish of ethnicity. He must therefore have found it a very difficult task indeed when he was asked to present this legislation to the House. It is a contradiction to what he himself stands for. It is my judgment, when I read the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speeches he makes at universities and in the House that he really is not even in favour of the progress that has been made or the fact that certain so-called White universities have opened their doors to a restricted number of members of other race groups.

In this particular situation the Nationalist Party has up to this time said over and over again in debate after debate in the House, with the support of many of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s colleagues, that they believe it is absolutely essential to fulfil the educational task, for each national group to have their own schools and universities. The attempt was made in Soweto even, with people from different parts of South Africa, to have schools scaled on an ethnic basis. But it has failed there, just as it has failed in universities. That is why the hon. the Deputy Minister had to introduce this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister is of course sensitive about this and his colleagues are very anxious that they have the right answers.

In his introductory remarks the hon. the Deputy Minister made the point that the amendments—and he referred to several of them—did not mean that the reality of ethnic varieties had been lost sight of or had been disregarded. In other words, he wants to make his own position very clear indeed when he says that ethnicity is here to stay, despite the fact that they are making these adjustments, which fly in the face of ethnicity. They absolutely do.

We have tried to make that point over many years and we will make it again. That is why we are delighted that the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced this legislation and that is indeed one of the major reasons why we are supporting it. We believe it is a move in the right direction. However, I must warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is in very serious trouble.

When this legislation was first introduced, I was unfortunately ill and therefore had a great deal of time while lying in bed under traction to read and study it. I began to think of the plight of the hon. the Deputy Minister because I have a regard for him. I kept on thinking of him as being up a tree. Perhaps that is not quite right. The picture that comes to my mind is rather that of a man who sits on a branch of a tree while sawing that branch off himself.

A branch manager!

Unfortunately he is going to fall. Time is running out, because there is an election just around the comer. At any moment from now the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to find himself in the Cabinet, at whose expense we do not know. What is going to happen to his principles then?

What about “klein” apartheid, never mind grand apartheid? What about his own standpoint that if you change any of this, then the whole building is going to come tumbling down? He is actually right, far more than the majority of members on that side of the House. He knows he is right that as one starts dismantling this great edifice, all is going to come tumbling down. We are seeing this happening all the time. What is his position going to be? I want to change the metaphor slightly and say that it is almost as if the hon. the Deputy Minister is sitting in the bath with the plug pulled out while he has stuck his big toe into the plug hole through which apartheid has been going down into the drain, and he is trying his utmost to make sure that he does not go down with it. That is his problem. The hon. member for Virginia valiantly tried to support the hon. the Deputy Minister despite the obvious inconsistencies in this regard. He said: “We do not change our principles, just our policy. We do not change our principles; we do not stand still.” But when one reads some of the other speeches of the hon. member for Virginia, one finds the following (Hansard, Vol. 74, col. 8306)—

In this case the hon. member for Virginia had the unenviable task of trying to support legislation which he himself does not really like. He does not like this change, and I have great sympathy with him, because his task is a difficult one. We really ought to have been concerned about his attitude, because on the one hand he says: “We do not change our principles, the principle that if you are going to succeed in the educational task, then you have to gear your education on national lines. Because there are more than one nation in South Africa, you have to design education along that particular line.” Now suddenly this principle is being attacked, and we must not underestimate the significance of this change. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come to the House. Here we have a departure from one of the major principles of the NP, and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. the Deputy Minister for this. We are pleased that at long last they have realized the inevitability of such a step. When the hon. member for Virginia tried to defend this move, he said …

When are you going to join us?

That I do not know. When you make me Minister of Education, then I shall consider it [Interjections.] I shall then implement fully the principles towards which the NP is now beginning to inch its way. The hon. member for Virginia tried to defend his support for this amending legislation by saying: “We are not changing our principles; all we are doing is that we are trying to be practical.” What a change! At long last the NP way of thinking is coming closer to the reality of the South African situation. They are beginning to realize that they cannot have these separate universities, one isolated from the other. We said so at the very beginning, and there is no need to refer to debates of 1959 and 1969. The evidence is all there in Hansard for everybody to read; [Interjections.] We said at the beginning that one could not have a structure of education based on so-called nationalisms, that it was absolutely unnecessary.

Why not?

We actually said that it was not going to work and that it would create very real problems. The hon. member asks why not Has he not read this legislation? The legislation makes it clear that it cannot continue.

Nonsense.

Withdraw the Bill then.

You are missing the point.

Withdraw the Bill. [Interjections.] It is very important to note also that we have been informed that these amendments which we are debating are actually being introduced at the request of the universities themselves. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what other requests, if any, were made? What was the extent of the requests? We are told that the amendments have been asked for, and I accept that and am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has responded positively. I would like him to tell us in his reply to the Second Reading debate is whether there were other requests. Were requests made that the universities concerned should be enabled to admit anyone or is it limited to the amendments contained in this legislation? We on these benches are delighted that this legislation is before the House because it will help to take us away from the derogatory terms such as “bush college” and “tribal college”, terms which have been used by the students and the staff themselves.

But who initiated it?

The hon. the Minister gives us far too much credit. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations imagines that we went around telling the students that they should describe their universities as “bush colleges” and “tribal colleges” … [Interjections.]… and, what is more, he even imagines that the students listened to us. He does not know that the students are not listening to that kind of thing any more. They make up their own minds.

How do you know?

It shows how out of touch that hon. Minister is if he does not even know the beginnings of it.

I work with the students.

The hon. the Minister says he works with the students. When last did he talk to a Black student?

Why should I tell you? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important reports of a commission ever to be tabled in this House was the report of the Snyman Commission. I am not going to deal extensively with all the recommendations made by this commission, as it has already been done by the hon. member for Musgrave. What, however, emerged from that report was that one of the root causes of tension which existed on the campus of the University of the North was the clear statement by the students that they did not want to be part of a university which was restricted merely to one particular group. That was their own statement. The hon. the Deputy Minister has accepted the recommendation of the Snyman Commission and I want once again to congratulate him for doing that.

There are two basic approaches. Firstly, the NP said there must be total racial separation at our educational institutions and this was brought about. The emphasis was on racial separation. But we have moved away from that. For example, I think there are more Blacks enrolled at the University of Cape Town this year than there has ever been in the history of that university. We on these benches are delighted, because we believe that universities ought to be open. We believe that there ought to be autonomy in the university. Over the years we have always made that point. It is there for anyone to read. But that certainly was not the position of the hon. the Deputy Minister. That is why I say that there has been a very significant shift, and we are glad to see that. The second approach, however, was not merely one involving racial separation. It had to go farther than that and embrace separation on an ethnic basis. That is why one had the University of Zululand, the University of the North, the University of Fort Hare and others. Now we are finding that there is a departure from that approach as well. That has failed, and we are glad because we believe that it is in the best interests of education and in the best interests of all South Africans that it should have.

I obviously have to reply to the comments of the hon. member for Berea and the earlier comments of the hon. member for Mooi River. The NRP’s position was set out clearly by the hon. member for Mooi River. The NRP was delighted at certain changes being made, but those hon. members have serious reservations about permission for White students to attend Black universities being restricted to that given by the hon. the Minister. We do, of course, think they are absolutely right on that point. We agree with that because we do not like that prescription at all, and we never have. What they seem to have overlooked, however, is that at the present moment, with the status quo, White students have no right whatsoever. It is not a question of suddenly needing the hon. the Minister’s permission. What is happening is that White students can attend Black universities providing they have the hon. the Minister’s permission. This means, in effect, that certain White students are going to be able to attend Black universities, and we believe that this is an advance.

Only if they lecture there.

[Inaudible.]

No, that is where the hon. member for Berea is quite wrong. He referred to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech in which the word “primarily” was used and not the word “only”. There is a vast difference between those two concepts.

Quote him the law.

The hon. member for Virginia said it was “chiefly” for staff members, not “only”. That is in the hon. member’s speech. I read it this morning and I am sure the hon. member was listening to that speech.

It is the intention, is it not? Is that not the important thing?

[Inaudible.]

As I read the amending legislation, the reference is to “any person”.

And they deny it.

Well, they can go on denying it. My concern, however, is to see what the amending legislation states. That is what one has to go by. One cannot go by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word, and I do not mean that in the personal sense.

He has to give his permission.

[Inaudible.]

I do not like the idea of the hon. the Minister having to give permission …

But that is not the principle.

… but that is not the principle of the Bill. Let me try to explain why we are supporting this, even with this qualification, and why the hon. members of the NRP are not supporting it…

Surprising!

… and why we find this a little surprising.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Houghton allowed to prompt the hon. member for Pinelands all the time? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed, but I think the hon. member for Houghton is a hindrance to her colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I shall of course accept your ruling although, speaking for myself, I find her a great help. [Interjections.] I do not find her a hindrance at all. Our group discussed this very fully and we were unanimous about the fact that this represents a material change, and a change for the better, and that it is therefore absolutely right and responsible to vote for it, because if we did not, and if we happened to win the day, this would mean that Blacks could not attend other universities and that White staff members and others would not be allowed to attend Black universities. I certainly do not believe that that is what the NRP wants.

Read our amendment.

Never mind that. This is the Second Reading debate.

Just read our amendment.

We are now talking in the Second Reading debate and they are saying the legislation must not be passed. We cannot, of course, go along with that at all.

The hon. member for Berea says there are two basic principles. One is that Blacks can now go to certain other universities, and he describes this as cosmetic. I can understand the use of that word, and I have used it on many occasions. This is, however, not a cosmetic change. It is an absolutely fundamental change. It is what Black students, Black staff members and Black universities have themselves requested, and I believe it is worthy of support.

The other point relates to Whites attending Black universities. Why should we penalize staff members and other persons who may wish to do so? We do not like the restriction imposed by the hon. the Minister, but nevertheless we believe that this is a very definite improvement on the present position. Therefore, whilst, as I have said before, the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to find himself in a very difficult situation personally because of his own views and principles, we are delighted with this legislation. We confirm our support for the principles contained in the Bill which represent a movement away from enforced ethnicity and, therefore, away from apartheid and a movement towards what we have described as voluntary association. We are glad to welcome those concerned to the club.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the hon. member for Pinelands I want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Berea. He gave me the impression that he gazed at this Bill quite rigidly. He was obsessed by certain words in the Bill. Referring to the clause in terms of which the consent of the Minister has to be obtained for the admission of Whites, he referred time and again to the two words “any person”. He got no further than those words. We are dealing here with universities for the training of Blacks. What is involved here in the first place is not the tertiary training of Whites. The Whites have already been fully accommodated. In this Bill we are dealing with Black universities. The admission of Whites to these universities is secondary. To wax eloquent here about how the Minister should not be allowed to decide who should be admitted is pure politicking.

I think that the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands this afternoon was the poorest he has ever made in this House.

But he supports the Minister.

The fact that he was absent when the Second Reading of this Bill began sent him completely off the rails.

You have just broken my record.

He stood and gargled—if he knows what that means—for 20 minutes and said nothing.

He is still under the influence of the anaesthetic.

The hon. member for Brakpan says he is still under the influence of the anaesthetic. That is what it looked like.

The hon. member for Pinelands found it very strange that it was in fact the Deputy Minister of Education and Training who dealt with this Bill. Why he found it strange I do not know.

Where have you been?

However, the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite capable of replying in person to the two questions which were put to him. I shall return later to the allegation made by the hon. member that the NP has allegedly deviated from its declared policy and principles as far as education is concerned.

2853

2854

We are dealing here with a simple yet very important measure, a measure which regulates the tertiary education of the Blacks in South Africa and places it on a better basis. Two important principles have been included in this measure. The first is the recognition of the human dignity of all population groups, and the second is the opportunity for complete development which each population group is receiving. The complexity of the population structure in South Africa makes heavy demands on the country and particularly on the Government of the country. No one, except hon. members of the official Opposition, will deny that the ideal would have been to have been able to give each population group its own full-fledged university. That would have been the ideal.

I maintain that if it had been possible and if we had been able to accomplish this, we would have unleashed a terrible row on the part of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Houghton waxed eloquent about how the Government had allegedly abandoned the principle of ethnicity and that we had allegedly thrown it out the window, as she said. I want to state categorically that if the Government had been financially able to give each ethnic group a university of its own, that would certainly have been done. We would not have hesitated for a moment.

However, the Government is more realistic than the political opportunists whom the hon. member for Houghton and her party nurture in their midst. We know that at present there is not a sufficient demand for Black university training to justify nine or 10 Black universities. We also know that such a university requires heavy capital expenses and that it costs more than R3 000 per annum today to keep one Black student at a university.

The hon. member for Berea only raised one matter in his speech with which I am in agreement with him and that is that the hon. members for Houghton and Pinelands do not feel happy about the fact that the NRP are opposing the Bill, while their party is not doing so. In my opinion the inevitable and unfortunate absence of the hon. member for Pinelands caused them to make this blunder. One certainly cannot blame the hon. member for Houghton, for with the passing years age creeps up on one and often one is not as alert as one should be and one does not always realize that one’s enemy is not necessarily one’s friend. I believe that in this case they have come to realize this once again.

I want to repeat that it would be desirable if we could give each national group its own amenities for tertiary education, just as it is the ideal to give each group its own secondary and primary education. That would be the ideal. The Opposition must not understand this measure to mean that the Government is moving away from that ideal and endeavour. Because we grant every individual the right to have what we ourselves have, we grant every inhabitant of this country the privilege and opportunity to undergo university training. We do not want to deny them this. For that reason I believe that this Bill is of cardinal importance. However, I am convinced that with the years the need will arise in each Black nation for a university of their own, whether the Progs want it or not. I believe that each national group is in future going to set this up as an ideal for themselves, an ideal which I believe they will try to realize.

I want to return to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands and tell him that every nation has a built-in need to receive its education and training in its own national milieu and against its own national background. This is an inherent part of its nationhood and no one, not even the Progs, can deprive it of this right. Since this legislation is now being introduced to afford Blacks opportunities so that they no longer have to attend a certain university only, in accordance with geographic or ethnic limitations, we are doing so in the first place to afford all who can and want to receive tertiary education to do so, and secondly to cultivate leaders whom I believe will have to walk the difficult road of subsequently, schooled by the hard reality of circumstances, being able to lead their people forward into the future.

Surely it is true that every nation goes through a process of growth; sometimes a painful process which arouses latent needs. These cannot be neutralized by means of artificial alternatives. Eventually the built-in national needs and national ties will emerge and then the insistence of the various Black people on a university of their own will become ever stronger. They will work towards that goal. They are going to ask for and work for it in future. It is this side of the House which will eventually make it possible for them. Therefore I see this measure as an instrument to pave the way to training the Black nations in South Africa in such a way in future that they will be able to negotiate their own nationally orientated national institutions. That is why we should very much like to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to the speech of the hon. member for Gezina, but would prefer to state our attitude. I should, however, just like to tell the hon. member for Gezina that he was totally wrong to attack the hon. member for Pinelands, because the hon. member for Pinelands put the case of the Government far better than many of the hon. members of the NP. The hon. member for Gezina should in fact thank the hon. member for Pinelands.

We would prefer to see the Progs as “Sappe”.

I shall come to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The surprise of the afternoon, while the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was out, was that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Pinelands were coming so close to each other that the hon. member for Pinelands made an offer to join the party of the hon. the Deputy Minister, subject to certain conditions. That is a surprise to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. He may find himself having to move out of the party which shall consist of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Pinelands.

I shall be the Minister.

I cannot guarantee what the hon. member will be, but I do not know where the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will be. The hon. member for Pinelands congratulated the hon. the Deputy Minister more often than even his most ardent supporters during the Second Reading debate. There is something cooking when the hon. member for Pinelands puts up a better defence for the hon. the Deputy Minister than the defence put up by any member of the NP.

Having listened to the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members, I have come to the conclusion that basically all of us think this Bill is an improvement, except for clauses 5, 10 and 19. The Bill has the effect of building bridges between the various peoples of South Africa. We welcome the effect of this aspect of the Bill in terms of which Blacks from different national units can attend any of the universities that are under discussion at the moment. There is, however, one aspect about which we have serious reservations, viz. the admission of a non-Black to the university being controlled by the Minister. The admission of students should be controlled by the university council. Their autonomy must be accepted and must be recognized at all times. The university has a duty to ensure that admissions and the control of the admissions must have the effect of producing the best possible results. There are too many dropouts, some because they genuinely do not attend to their work, others perhaps because they do not have the capabilities or because they do not even try. University councils and university authorities have a responsibility in this regard, a responsibility which they have to meet I believe that if the hon. the Deputy Minister reserves the right of admission for certain students he will be cutting across the autonomy of the university. I am sure he realizes that. If the hon. the Minister did not reserve the right, I cannot see a vast influx of White, Coloured or Indian students into Black universities. One may find a minimal number of students interested in studying the literature and the culture of a particular Black group. They will apply for admission to that university, however in very limited numbers. We would, however, like to see the hon. the Deputy Minister adopt a reasonable attitude in this regard, and we are going to ask him if we are correct in assuming that merit will be the criterion operating when each application is considered. Therefore, the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to judge the situation after a few years of seeing the numbers of applications received. If the percentage of acceptable applications is high the hon. the Deputy Minister can decide whether the red tape contained in this legislation is desirable or not.

As I said earlier, and as has also been said by other hon. members, because we believe that this is a vast improvement on the existing legislation, we will support it.

Mr. Speaker, the support which the hon. member for Walmer pledged to this legislation is certainly appreciated. Perhaps he is still inclined to attach a little too much value to the concept of the autonomy of the university council as far as the admission of students is concerned. On the other hand he does not attach enough value to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in circumstances such as these, is able to evaluate the situation in general. After all, the hon. the Deputy Minister has all the relevant information at his disposal. He knows what the financial, staff and other implications entail, while it is inevitable that each university council to a large extent sees matters from a limited point of view. In the nature of things a university council considers every matter in terms of its own knowledge and how the matter affects its own specific university.

Apart from our minor difference in that respect, I appreciate the attitude displayed by the hon. member for Walmer. Next I just want to refer briefly to the allegation that cosmetic improvements are ostensibly being effected by this legislation. The hon. member for Berea had a great deal to say about the so-called cosmetic improvements. However, I think that he and all hon. members will agree when I say that it will indeed be no cosmetic improvement for the NP if the hon. member for Pinelands were to move to the opposite side of the House. I am reasonably convinced that he will not look very pretty there. [Interjections.]

In a more serious vein, however, I want to point out something which I find tragic. I have not been terribly active in politics for very long. Nor have I had the privilege of sitting in this hon. House for very long. What I find tragic, however, is the fact that whatever the NP tries to do, there will always be hon. members of the Opposition who will disparage all positive steps by the Government, who will tell the Government that it is not honest and sincere in its efforts and that everything is mere cosmetic eyewash, completely without depth or earnestness, and without honest motives. Unfortunately it is a fact that it sometimes seems as though hon. members of the Opposition feel that they have to oppose merely for the sake of opposition. When they have no alternative they say that certain changes and certain obvious improvements are of a merely cosmetic nature. I do not know whether hon. members have considered what real practical advantages this legislation entails for the various ethnic universities, as well as for their students.

In order to bring one of these practical advantages into greater prominence I want to place more emphasis on the staff position at universities and at the developments which normally occur at certain universities. Although I grew up in the Cape Province I went to the University of Pretoria, and I am not sorry I did so. [Interjections.] In my heart, however, I remained loyal to the traditions of the Cape. When members of the various ethnic groups go to a university other than their specific ethnic university, I believe that they will continue to retain their love and loyalty for their own group, as I retained my love and loyalty for the Cape traditions. Yet there are perhaps very good reasons why a person would rather go to a university other than his specific ethnic university. I want to seek this reason in a practical factor, viz. the staff position.

It is known that various universities develop various specialized departments and a specific university subsequently becomes known for the great prestige and strength of a specific department. When that happens, that department continues to grow and of course attracts more students and more teaching staff. Even in our White universities, it is a natural development which has taken place that certain departments are stronger than other departments and will attract students to it for that reason. One can expect this development to take place at the ethnic universities as well. Because I have the privilege of serving on a university council and know that it is sometimes very difficult to find teaching staff in specific disciplines, precisely because the top men in a specific discipline are very often attached to certain other universities that have already made a name in that specific field of study or department. Therefore the staff which one would like to have cannot always be made available. It is a practical impossibility for each university to ensure really top notch tuition from top rate staff in all the departments.

An hon. member on this side of the House referred earlier to the R3 000 per student which it costs to keep a student at a university. Even if we have the money and are able to spend as much of it as we like, if that were theoretically possible, we do not always have the available staff. Staff cannot necessarily be bought with money, because staff members have to be afforded an opportunity of developing. It is for that very reason that I think that we are dealing with a practical situation in this case which is to a large extent going to benefit all the ethnic universities.

When I was still a student it was an uncommon phenomenon to find a very young person, someone in his ’twenties, occupying the position of professor. At present this is no longer an uncommon phenomenon. It supports and confirms what I said in respect of staff problems. As far as practical aspects are concerned, this Bill is opening the door so that specific departments of ethnic universities can develop and become so strong that they are able to attract staff, with the result that students from other groups will attend those universities. It will actually be to the benefit of the various Black students from the various ethnic groups to be able to attend such a university in which specific departments will develop.

It is not correct to say that as a result of these practical changes and the steps which are being taken to benefit these universities and students, we have now deviated from our basic principles and pattern. After all it is still the case that if one considers the matter in its essence, the premise and general approach is still that the ethnic universities will be there and that the ethnic groups must develop their pride in and loyalty to their own universities. However, on the basis of practical considerations and in order to help these people, provision is being made for alternative possibilities, which cannot be allowed and will not be allowed to get out of hand. These possibilities will consequently fall under the control of the hon. the Minister. He will state his conditions in this regard and will have to grant special permission. To me it makes no sense to try to suggest that the hon. the Minister who will be involved will act in an unreasonable and restrictive way when justified applications are made by certain students to attend universities other than their specific ethnic universities. Why would the hon. the Minister introduce this legislation if he did not really envisage applying the provisions of the legislation in practice and ensuring that they function smoothly? That is why I may confidently pledge my continued support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany said it was not justified for one of the members of the NRP to refer to this legislation as “just effecting cosmetic change”. It is unfortunately a fact that in certain respects there are, on the road towards full university autonomy, certain cosmetic changes being effected. If he will listen to what I have to say, he will see that that is so.

I, like the hon. member for Pinelands, was not present when the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill in his Second Reading speech. I have, however, read his speech and also those made by other hon. members. The hon. member for Mooi River has already moved a reasoned amendment in opposition to the Bill, and I think I should emphasize the word “reasoned” because I have already noticed that some hon. members want to accuse us of being against Blacks attending any Black universities in their own right, or of being against Whites attending Black universities. They are doing this by simply arguing that, if one is against the Second Reading of the Bill, one is against those principles as well. I should like to read out the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River so that people will know exactly what our objection is. The amendment reads—

This is why we are objecting to this particular Bill.

In support of this amendment I should like to mention that the root cause for our opposition to the Bill lies in the sincere desire of the NRP to normalize and modernize the university scene or system in South Africa. We are convinced that the normalization process can no longer be denied, and it is because that is so, that we believe that in a normal university system, there is no place for this type of ministerial permission. What surprises me is the fact that memories tend to be very short. It was only recently, in 1974, that there were certain disturbances at the University of the North, which were followed by the report of the Snyman Commission in 1975. We have already had ample evidence in that report that Black Power has developed instead of Black nationalism at Black ethnic universities. This is the result of an abnormal university structure in South Africa. The main point in this regard is that in a normal university system there are autonomous universities at which the fundamental principles of academic freedom are upheld. In a normal university system within a plural society such as ours there is obviously room for universities to cater for certain sections of the community in the manner or fashion in which they, as autonomous institutions, wish to do so. The principal Act dealing with these universities embodies, as we all know, gross violations of university autonomy and academic freedom.

About this there need be no argument. Hon. members of the PFP in fact agree with me on this. That being so, the test that the members of the NRP had to apply to this amending legislation, which incidentally amends the very sections which presently prevent the application of academic freedom and the upholding of full university autonomy, was therefore a very simple one. This test was whether the envisaged changes would result in the restoration of academic freedom and full respect for the very principles of university autonomy. I submit that the answer to that can only be a clear yes or no. It cannot be “no, but…”. These are very important principles and my colleagues and I were not prepared to compromise on those principles. We carefully considered the consequences of our actions. We sincerely believed, however, that this is not an issue on which one can compromise. I want to make it quite clear that in real politics there is always a time and a place for a compromise. If I, for instance, on behalf of my party demand a 20% pay increase for teachers, and the Government says that it is only prepared to grant a 10% increase, we can reach a compromise on 15%. I therefore accept that there is a time and a place for compromise. On these very important aspects, however, a compromise is not possible. We were therefore not prepared to lend any respectability to this type of legislation. The reason for this is that under a normal university system no respectability can be given to any legislation which still prevents the practical application of university or academic freedom and violates university autonomy.

With these guidelines in mind, we on these benches analysed this Bill. As has already been said by the hon. member for Mooi River, a certain amount of administrative flexibility is proposed in this Bill, and we welcome that. We also accept the legislation in as far as the election of the convocation is concerned. With regard to the clauses dealing with the admission of Black students, the Government in line with the recommendations of the Snyman Commission report has taken a positive step towards the restoration of university autonomy. In this regard I refer to clauses 1, 6 and 11. This we do not deny. These universities can now, by right, become multi-national Black universities.

It should, however, be remembered—and I was surprised that people did not analyse the situation as it is at present—that the finding of the Snyman Commission in respect of the University of the North is that this university is at present a de facto multi-national university. [Interjections.] It was never in practice an exclusively ethnic Black university. I must admit that I was surprised at the attitude of the official Opposition and at much of what the hon. member for Pinelands had to say about the new development that will mean that in practice one is going to have people of different ethnic groups mixing at the same university. This has been a de facto situation as far as the University of the North is concerned. In the Snyman Commission’s report one finds that in 1975 86% of the students at the University of the North came from five different South African Black groups. The remaining 14% came from all over the rest of South Africa. So, in practice, it is not that big a deviation that is taking place. I do concede the point in theory. Obviously, as far as this is concerned there has been a restoration of university autonomy. At first glance it would appear that this movement towards university normalization—I want to emphasize the word “normalization” because in a normal society one would prevent the rise of things like Black consciousness, Black Power and so on—was carried one step further by the deletion of the old provisions which prohibited the admission of Whites as students.

I am referring here to clauses 4, 9 and 14 which involve a total prohibition. If the matter had only stopped there the legislation would have passed the tests we set for it, but the moment one looks at the very next clauses, clauses 5, 10 and 15, the truth, with its full impact, hits one and one discovers that with regard to the admission of Whites the Government could not see its way clear to entrusting the universities concerned with this matter, therefore granting them full autonomy and respecting the autonomy of those universities. That is the point. That is why I say one cannot go any further with this. One’s support for this cannot go any further. As fully-fledged universities, they should be entitled to this.

We have no quarrel with that.

The hon. member says he has no quarrel with that, but I shall tell him later why it is totally impossible for me to support this. In fact, in a Second Reading debate I shall never attach my own approval, or that of my party, to this sort of legislation.

You did it yesterday, man!

But that involved sportsmen and matters relating to sport and one cannot draw a comparison between such matters and the autonomy of universities. [Interjections.] This provision, of course, makes it clear that admission can only be obtained by the kind grace of the hon. the Minister.

[Inaudible.]

I want the hon. member for Pinelands just to give me a bit of a chance here. As long as there is any talk of ministerial permission, there can be no talk of university autonomy. It should also be remembered that one of the recommendations in the Snyman Commission’s report was that universities must clearly be seen to be autonomous institutions. However, as long as admission is subject to ministerial permission, these universities will clearly not be seen to be autonomous institutions.

Another reason why we cannot afford to compromise on this important principle is that the hon. the Minister made it clear that permission is primarily for the benefit of the White staff, and I quote from his speech—

Let me just mention the fact that this type of legislation is enabling legislation in the sense that it places the discretion in the hands of the hon. the Minister. Therefore no matter what the legal situation is—and the hon. member for Pinelands did refer to the legal situation— the person whose word will count is the man exercising the discretion in terms of the legislation, and the hon. the Minister has made it clear that the provision is primarily for the benefit of the staff. In no way is there consequently a tremendous change of heart that is going to come about. In saying what he said, the hon. the Minister clearly indicated that far from his having undergone a fundamental change of heart, part of the motivation could easily be regarded as a desire to nurture the self-interest of a select few. Again, one finds enough evidence in the Snyman Commission’s report of the resentment between staff and students. I am very conscious of the fact that this system is going to operate through the kind permission of the Minister. At best this system of ministerial approval, far from resulting in a normal university scene, can only lead to the admission of a few, token, Whites. This immediately introduces another important aspect. One of the factors which give rise to mistrust between Black students and their White lecturers is the unfounded, perhaps, belief on the part of the students that they are being discriminated against. I have reliably been informed that many Black students, when they fail, believe—it is what they believe—that they are being discriminated against by their lecturing staff. If only these Blacks could be placed in a normal situation so that they could see that not only they but also others, who happen to be White and sit for the same examination having had the same lecturers, failed those examinations, we would be able to cross one more important hurdle towards real improved race relations.

What will be the result of this type of legislation? We have heard that it is primarily for the benefit of the staff and others whom the hon. the Minister in his discretion will allow to attend. If, however, the fellow White students happen to be only staff members, they are unlikely to fail and, if there should be a few other Whites attending with the special approval of the Minister, they are likely to be above-average students. In other words, they will not be normal run-of-the-mill students. As a result, Black students who fail may even have further grounds for their unfounded suspicions. Can hon. members now appreciate why it is so important that one should move towards a normalization of the state of affairs?

Let me refer to a further detrimental factor. As long as there is a system whereby the Whites who are allowed to attend can only do so with ministerial permission, the Black students are entitled to hold the view—and if they do not do it, others will—that those students are only there because the Minister wants them to be there. This will create additional unnecessary tension. Now hon. members can see why we speak of the need for the normalization and modernization of the university scene.

The interference with university autonomy is undoubtedly regarded as the fundamental reason for our opposition, but the danger of the unnecessary deterioration of race relations forms another leg of our opposition. In a normal situation the presence of Whites will lead to an improvement of race relations, but that will not be the case under the system whereby attendance by Whites is made possible with the kind favour of the Minister. In this Bill the hon. the Deputy Minister says the Black universities can be fully entrusted with the admission of Blacks, but in the same Bill he says that they cannot be fully entrusted with the admission of Whites. Far from there being a tremendous change of heart on the Government side, we are once again up against a system which has had a bad effect for South Africa over the last 30 years, namely that colour and colour alone decides who shall do what, how and when. I do not see the Bill as representing a change of heart in that regard. We all hope that these university councils will soon have a majority of Blacks on them. If we can entrust Blacks to run independent countries, we can entrust them to manage their own universities and to accept full responsibility for the application of university autonomy and academic freedom.

Hon. members must start to look at South Africa as having a normal plural society. We in the NRP believe that there is a strong voluntary desire amongst people to be identified with the particular element they stem from in our plural society. They need not fear that these universities will be overrun by Whites or that the university authorities will be unable to deal with attempted abuses. We have sufficient confidence in the integrity of the people who control universities to feel that they should be entrusted with this important task and that they should have this discretion.

I want to stress a final point Some people may say that perhaps we are being cruel or unkind to the staff members, but in this respect we have to be cruel to be kind in the end. It could be argued that we are inconsiderate towards the staff, but this is not our intention. The issues at stake are of far greater, fundamental importance. As a responsible Opposition we must say that the days are over when the Minister could perhaps err and have only Whites or the staff derive any benefits from a Bill, that there is no place for that kind of thing any longer. There is a further test which can be applied. I shall and can never accept the prevailing situation at White universities in which they are being denied full university autonomy and academic freedom. I am sure the official Opposition cannot accept this either. In 1971 the Extension of University Education Amendment Act, No. 29 of 1971, was passed. This Act makes provision for Blacks to attend White universities, but that, too, is by kind favour of the Minister. This Amendment Act provides that a non-White student is not allowed to attend certain universities without written permission from the Minister. The then official Opposition, quite correctly I believe, opposed this on the very grounds on which we are doing it today. If I am prepared to stand up and fight for the removal of ministerial permission as far as White universities are concerned, how can I not stand up and fight for the removal of that particular restriction in respect of Black universities? One has to be absolutely consistent in this respect One hon. member has said that Black universities may have asked for this. I am quite sure they will ask for things which they think will, within the framework of Government policy, be granted by the Minister, but that does not necessarily mean that we cannot ask for something more. As we have indicated, if the provision in respect of the ministerial approval as far as the admission of White students is concerned, is removed from this Bill, we shall accept it. We believe that now is the time for the Government to be bold and to do the right thing. I think it can be done so easily. It was totally unnecessary to perpetuate a system in which ministerial permission is required. When we are dealing with such important fundamental principles, I find little consolation in saying that the Nats have started to crawl and that soon they may walk on the right road. I find very little consolation in such an attitude when I know that, like Clara of Heidi fame, they can really run already, but only lack the courage to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply immediately to the hon. member for Durban Central by saying that in the Committee Stage I think we shall begin agreement with many of the arguments he is now using, so to that extent he has made a very good Committee Stage speech. [Interjections.] I put it to him, however, that he confuses two values that are intimately linked up with university life. The one is academic freedom, in other words the right of a university to teach what it wants to whom it wants, and to have this taught by whom it wants, and the other is university autonomy which, on the other hand, refers to the relative degree of freedom that a university has vis-à-vis its social environment, in other words Government, big business, etc. Both these values are indeed values. In other words, they are ideals for which a university strives. There is no university in the world that experiences complete academic freedom or complete autonomy. That is a statement of fact. Therefore, what one is trying to achieve is the greatest degree of autonomy and freedom possible in a society. This point, however, seems to have escaped the hon. member for Durban Central completely, because he says that the sole motivation for the NRP opposing this Bill lies in the answer to the question: Will the envisaged changes result in full university autonomy or not? They come to the conclusion that it will not. But it is really a false question that is posed because there is no university with full autonomy and full academic freedom. There are only universities with more or less autonomy and freedom. The question that has therefore to be answered is whether this Bill increases the relative degree of autonomy and freedom of the university or not? If it does, and if one supports the principle of academic freedom and university autonomy, obviously one has to support the main principles of the Bill. This is simply a question of logic. Having said that, I immediately understand the dilemma of the hon. member for Durban Central…

It is a matter of opinion, that is all it is.

… because logic is a factor which was singularly lacking in his whole speech. He did not apply his mind and did not use logic in arguing his point. May I put a question to the hon. member? Let us assume a situation in which all the different Black universities had such a relative degree of freedom and autonomy that students could go from one university to another, irrespective of their ethnic membership, and that then the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced legislation to the effect that students could only go to universities which reflected their own tribal or ethnic origins. Would the hon. member have supported that legislation? Obviously he would not, because that would have decreased the relative degree of autonomy. Precisely the opposite is happening in terms of this legislation, however. The status quo which is now being altered is that people of certain ethnic origins have, by statute, always had to go to the universities of their particular tribes. Now he is doing away with that and is increasing the relative degree of autonomy of the university to decide whether to accept those members. Those are the simple questions that have to be answered. Therefore I want to ask the NRP members in all seriousness: Do they regard this as a step in the right direction? This is the question that one has to answer. This is the guiding principle that operates under any kind of legislation that one evaluates in terms of one’s principles and values. If one is committed to the principle of university autonomy, is this a step in the right direction in realizing that principle? [Interjections.] We say yes and the hon. members of the NRP say no, but I do not think the difference between us is something that can be decided by shouting at one another. It is a simple matter of appreciating the facts and using one’s logic. [Interjections.] I am afraid, however, that those hon. members have not done that.

*I come now to the hon. the Deputy Minister and I should just like to ask him a question. My real reason for rising to speak on this Bill is that there is something I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I could perhaps illustrate it in this way. The hon. member for Gezina said it was still the ideal to have national universities. He said it remains the ideal, but as a result of the broken reality in which we are living at present, one is unable to realize that ideal immediately. However, it still remains the ideal. In other words, the principle of national or ethnic universities is the principle which is going to be pursued, according to the hon. member for Gezina. I find it strange, however, that one is in reality moving away from an ideal, for that is in effect what is happening here. That ideal has been realized in legislation.

The situation of national universities already existed, but now we are moving away from that ideal owing to the demands of reality. I should say one usually goes about it the other way round. One states one’s ideal and then one looks at the possibilities in reality, and one tries to realize that ideal gradually. However, we are now going about it precisely the other way round in this particular case. This brings me again to the hon. the Deputy Minister, for if we go back to 1959, when they decided that Blacks would no longer be able to attend White universities, etc., we see that the major argument of the people who were opposed to this move was that it was purely a case of racism. The defence of the Government, from that time up to the present, has been that it is not racism, because one does not deny access to the universities on the ground of the fact that such persons are Black but in reality because they belong to different national groups. That is why provision for tertiary education for all the different national groups has to be made. Now even that rationale is being removed by this legislation. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is in effect achieving through this legislation is to remove the differences between the various national groups by statute. In other words, the freedom now exists for the various Black universities to accept each individual student voluntarily, provided he is Black, and not provided he is a Xhosa, a Zulu or a Tswana, but provided he is Black.

If that is the case, the question arises whether we are not dealing again with the problem of racism. On the so-called White side, English- and Afrikaans-speaking persons are allowed to attend one another’s universities. There are no statutory provisions in that regard. Every university is more or less able to maintain its national character on a voluntary basis. Black people are now being allowed to do the same. Black people, whether they be Xhosas, Zulus, Tswana, or whatever, are not being allowed to attend one another’s Black universities. There are no statutory provisions which prohibit that. A White student, however, cannot simply attend a Black university, and a Black student cannot simply attend a White university. What is the basis of judgment in this case? It is purely a racial consideration. It is no other consideration. It has nothing to do with culture or with national background. It has to do purely with the fact that one man is Black, and therefore cannot attend a White university, and that, in the other case, the student is White and therefore cannot attend a Black university. What does this racial criterion—and I want to hear this from the hon. the Deputy Minister—have to do with the principle of separate development, where, as I understand it, the basic principle has always been the question of a diversity of nations? That is why we on this side of the House say that this principle is being affected. As far as this principle is being denied in the present legislation, and a greater degree of autonomy and voluntary association arise from it, we support this legislation and we regard it as a step in the right direction.

I should just like to point out in passing, in the same context, that provision is being made in the legislation for a White student to attend a Black university, and to do so with ministerial approval. Here I should like to come back once again to the hon. member for Durban Central, and perhaps also to the hon. member for Berea. They say that that is their most important reason for not supporting this Bill. I should like to argue, however, that we are taking a step in the right direction in this case as well. After all, there is an improvement. Previously no Minister had the discretion to allow a White to study at a Black university. In this case he at least has that discretion now. As far as such discretion is a step in the right direction, and allows a greater degree of academic freedom at a Black university, we support it Of course, it is not the ideal. Naturally we believe that, just as Black students are allowed to attend one another’s universities—and the same in the case of Whites—they should also be able to attend one another’s universities. That is what we regard as the ideal. However, in so far as this discretion is moving away from the status quo, we support it. In this respect, the Minister has the responsibility to see to it that a racial criterion is not applied in admitting White students to Black universities, and the other way round.

I want a specific answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister on this matter. I know what the hon. the Deputy Minister’s thoughts in this respect are. He usually argues very clearly with regard to these aspects. In this case—and although it is clear, it is not necessarily correct—it seems to me as though the hon. the Deputy Minister is really faced with a dilemma, in the sense that a racial principle now applies in determining who may attend a specific university, and who may not. It is, therefore, not the so-called national or ethnic principle which now applies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure hon. members on the other side that replying to this debate is not an embarrassment, but indeed an occasion. I welcome the opportunity we have of exchanging views here. If I understand the ruling of the Chair correctly—perhaps it is an unwritten ruling—I think we need not stay within the narrow confines of the legislation in our discussion. I think there is some justification for us to go a little beyond those confines, in the spirit of the legislation. To begin with, I want to assure hon. members on that side of the House, including the hon. member for Pinelands, that the surge of joy felt by the hon. member for Pinelands was premature. His delight at the embarrassment which this Bill was supposed to cause me was unfounded.

Before I come to the hon. members of the official Opposition, I should like to thank hon. members on this side of the House for their contributions. I think the speech made by the hon. member for Virginia showed him to have the knowledge and experience of a pedagogue who knows education, who has studied the legislation and who knows what the policy of the NP is. He knew, therefore, whether this measure constituted a deviation from the policy or whether it was only an implementation of the policy with a sense of realism. I shall have more to say about realism shortly, something about realism which hon. members of the official Opposition have lost sight of, a realism which has been shown since 1959 by the people who have implemented this policy and who have created the laws for the establishment of separate Black universities, a realism in connection with the interests of Black people who report for university training. The hon. member for Virginia also pointed out that the overriding ambition of the various Black leaders is to have their own universities for their particular ethnic units as well as their particular States. One could say more about that.

I also want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietersburg. He also made a substantial contribution. There is a Black university in his vicinity. He has studied the situation at that university and has also made a study of universities in general. He made a statement which is in danger of being forgotten. That is that if the PFP and the old United Party had been in power today, we would not yet have had universities for these Black nations. [Interjections.] They cannot find a word to say.

The hon. member for Pinelands would not have lifted a finger to establish a university for Black people. The hon. member would have been one of the people who referred to these universities as “bush colleges”. The term “bush colleges” was not coined in the bush and is not a term which originated in Waterberg. The inhabitants of Waterberg are better informed than the hon. member for Pinelands. That language originated on that side of the House. It was the cynical and derogatory terminology with which the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 was greeted.

The hon. members on that side of the House probably thought that Black people could not read. But they did read what the hon. members said and some Black people picked up that idiom and are still using it today.

I was not even here in 1959. [Interjections.]

The hon. member was in the loins of his predecessors, and he will realize that I am talking a language now which he ought to understand very well. The hon. member is only echoing the language of his predecessors.

The hon. member for Pietersburg said it was a privilege to be able to receive university education, and he would do well to emphasize this fact. He also referred to the desire of the Black population groups to have their own universities. Although there are many problems in this connection, these problems can be faced. He also pointed to the increasing acceptance of these Black universities by the students. This is so, and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations will be able to tell the House to what a large extent the University of the Western Cape is accepted by the community concerned.

I said so in this House last year.

He said so, and I am glad that he has a good memory. The hon. member also emphasized another fact, i.e. that we would do well to move away from these cheap little words which are fine-sounding but meaningless, concepts such as “an open community”, “an open university”, “open residential areas”, “open schools”, etc. These things sound better than they work out in practice. Our experience has been that the people who are the most vociferous in their demands for open residential areas, open universities and open schools are the very people who resort to all kinds of subterfuges when it comes to the push. There was a bishop here in Cape Town who took part in marches against separate development, and who secretly approached the Minister to inquire whether he could not remove the Brown people from his neighbourhood. That Minister confirmed it in public. That is what we are dealing with.

The hon. member for Alberton also made a fine contribution in this connection and pointed out the value of the university to a lecturer, and said that a lecturer who devoted his time, his energy and his talents to the service of the community to which that university belonged should be able to enjoy the benefit of research at that university. The hon. member rightly pointed out the realities which the NP is facing up to. In this connection I do not want to repeat the speech I made on another occasion last week. But if we consider realities in South Africa, we find that there are not only economic, material or financial realities. These things certainly are realities in South Africa, but then one is also confronted with the realities of the relations between people, the distinguishing characteristics of people and groups of people, the reality of ethnic plurality, the reality of interdependence, and also the reality of the refusal of the one to be subjected to or dominated by another. One is faced with the desire for self-determination with regard to one’s own affairs. One is faced with the demand for power within one’s own power context and one is faced with the transfer of the power which is necessary. These are all aspects we are faced with, also within the context of the legislation and the arguments advanced by hon. members.

I think, for example, of the desire, the aspiration and the will of a diversity of communities to have available to them that machinery, functions or structures which give meaning to their communities, and to give them a character of their own. I do not want to enlarge on this, because the hon. member for Gezina discussed it in detail.

We are concerned here with Black universities and the training of Black students. In this connection, the Government has a definite standpoint, and the Government is not ashamed of its standpoint. The Government’s standpoint is that there is a diversity of communities in this country. If those hon. members cannot identify the communities, then the communities identify themselves. Those hon. members sometimes hide behind the group of people who are supposed to be acculturated, those people who no longer have a cultural context of their own. The hon. the Minister of Education and Training will confirm that the situation exists in practice where people say that they do not want an ethnic identification, that they simply want to be Black people or South Africans. However, just force upon such a person and upon his children a school where a language medium other than his mother tongue is used and force upon him teachers and a principal who do not belong to his ethnic group, and he will ask: “Why can’t my people be taught in their own language? Why can’t my people have a school with a principal who belongs to the ethnic group to which my children belong?” The Secretary to the department is not a member of this House, but hon. members could see how he nodded his agreement with regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Gezina pointed out the opportunities that were being created for everyone, the opportunities to nurture leaders, etc. There is no need for us to make provision for White students at other universities as well, because there is almost too much provision for White students. Enrolment at White universities is declining and there are vacancies, so much so that universities are asking whether they cannot be allowed to admit people from the other population groups as well.

The hon. member for Albany rightly said that we should consider all the possible implications. We are not only concerned in this connection with the fact that classes are given and that knowledge is imparted to certain people. The primary objective and the primary reason for the existence of universities is of course to train people. But the people who give and receive the training are not simply a group of individuals without any identity, without a language, without any attachment to a specific ethnic context and without a specific racial context.

While I am on the subject, I just want to say that I am not one to run away from the fact of race. One who runs away from the fact of race in the world is just as unrealistic as an ostrich that buries its head in the sand. I am not saying this out of any desire to be branded a racist. I am simply repeating that a person who disregards the fact of racial differences is so unrealistic that he cannot participate in South African politics in any meaningful way. He cannot. I could quote N. P. van Wyk Louw, Prof. Ben Vosloo, Prof. A. H. Murray and others on this point, in case hon. members think that I am just one swallow that is trying to make a summer.

I am not referring now to the hon. member’s visit to Tukkies. It seems to me that the hon. member finds two airports equally attractive: the one is D. F. Malan airport, from where he was able to leave to study at Tukkies, and the other is Jan Smuts airport, from where he could come home to the Cape!

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave said that this legislation was a milestone in Government thinking. He considered it a major retreat from rigid, compulsory ethnicity, a major change since 1959, and the hon. member rejoiced in the fact that hon. members on this side of the House had at last seen the light.

The angels are rejoicing.

The hon. member for Musgrave says the Government has retreated from its principle and he rejoices in the fact that here is larger scope for voluntary association.

*I do not want to disappoint the hon. member, nor do I want to cause dissatisfaction among other hon. members of the official Opposition, which might lead them to say that they would rather not agree with the Government about the legislation.

They will agree with us.

Perhaps the hon. member for Durban Central needs a little more than moral support with regard to his standpoint, because I am still coming to him. This hon. member really jumped right over the horse and one can see from his appearance that he fell off on the other side.

Hon. members now have the impression that as the so-called verkrampte member for Waterberg, this legislation has placed me in an embarrassing position. They referred to standpoints I had adopted in the past, including a speech I made at Stellenbosch last year in which I discussed open universities. On that occasion I quoted an opinion of a former principal of the University of Stellenbosch, Prof. Thom, and said that I agreed with his standpoint. Prof. Thom said that whereas a university had formally been regarded as a kind of ivory tower, or as a reserve for the privileged, or as a monopoly for the intellectually gifted, there has been a democratization of universities over the past two centuries, led by the Americans. In other words, universities no longer represented those unapproachable, intellectually superior persons, but really became the property of the people.

Now hon. members can see that I am in very good company in speaking of the ethnic identity of a specific university. It has become an image of the community. We are now dealing with the basic philosophy of the National Party. We are not running away from ethnicity, and I shall say a little more about it. In South Africa—and this is the line of thought expressed by Prof. Thom—we find, because of our population structure— Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, Coloured and Indian communities and various Black nations—institutions which, historically or as a result of legislation, primarily serve the interests of some specific community. Prof. Thom went on to say—

I could quote further from Prof. Thom’s remarks, in support of the idea which I subscribe to and which is not foreign to the Government, an idea which was expressed by the previous Prime Minister quite recently, and that is that every nation not only wants its own schools, but also its own universities. Then Prof. Thom asked the following question, and this is important—

And then he referred to the ex-students—

The desire of a community to have its own university has a deeper meaning. It is a community which recognizes its own needs, and those needs have to be met by people from their own community who understand their language, who have the necessary cultural background, who are inspired by the aspirations of the community and who share its vision. The hon. member for Musgrave referred to my reference to Dr. Verwoerd. However, I am not going to run away from it by any means. Dr. Verwoerd said in 1959—

Those were the old days.

I do not know whether that hon. member’s opinions on this subject are on the same level as those of Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

May I conclude at this point by saying what I then told my audience as my own summary. I said—

I have no fault to find with that and I see no reason for deviating from it. Nor do I have any reason to think that it is no longer the standpoint of the Government.

I should just like to say a little more on this subject for the sake of those hon. members who think I am being embarrassed by my own standpoint. However, those hon. members would not know, because they are not present when I discuss these matters in my constituency. In the Waterberg constituency there are people who are much more up to date in their political thinking than some members on the other side, because those people read their newspapers, listen to the radio and also watch television.

Oh!

Does that hon. member mean to insult my people? [Interjections.] I have told those people that the policy of the Government is separate development. I have also said that the policy of the Government is separate facilities for the various communities. Those communities that want a power structure of their own also want their own basic social structures, including their own universities, schools, residential areas, sport clubs, etc. That is the demand which those communities are making. I have added—and my people understand me, because this was also the standpoint adopted by Dr. Verwoerd after 1959, after the passing of the Extension of University Training Act—that if we want separate development to succeed, we shall have to train the people who can serve those communities and who can accept responsibility for the development of those communities. However, if those communities do not have their own facilities where their own people can be trained to serve their own population groups, we must make a plan— and this is what I have told my people—and we are willing to train those people at institutions in White areas where necessary. Does this come as a surprise to hon. members, or do they think that I have been sitting in this House under false pretences in this connection? Surely I have been conveying that idea to my people all along and they have accepted it without giving up any principles. In applying principles, after all, one is dealing with a practical situation which must be overcome. In handling that practical situation, one must give these people an opportunity to be trained in order to achieve one’s ultimate objective, and that is what we are doing.

The hon. members on the other side are very quiet now. It seems to me that they believe me. I would not say I am surprised at that, but…

A joke is a joke.

The hon. member for Musgrave asked: “Why the cost of all the separate universities?” Do I understand the hon. members correctly? They ask why the enormous cost of separate universities is being incurred. But they themselves say in this House', every time a small step is taken in the direction of greater autonomy for the universities: “Move a little faster!” Is this not political cynicism? On the one hand, they fought the establishment of these institutions tooth and nail, but now that we have established them, they mount the horse and they want to ride it! This is political cynicism, if not opportunism, if that is parliamentary.

It is not necessary for me to quote in detail from the report of the commission on the subject of the Separate University Education Bill. In paragraph 35 of that report, which forms the basis for the Extension of University Education Act, the hon. member will find the whole motivation. I do not think I have to repeat the whole thing.

No.

But perhaps I should give a brief summary for the edification of hon. members opposite.

I have already read it.

This hon. member said a short while ago that he had not been a member of the House at that time. Allow me, in order to refresh his memory

He was still a demonstrating Ikey at that time.

I do not know what march he was participating in at the time, but the intention was—

Then there are three more points which I need not repeat now.

What do we find now? The hon. members think we are now moving away from our principle. Let me tell the hon. members that while we are conferring upon the councils of the Black universities the power to decide about the admission of Black students to those universities, we are still faced with a practical situation. The Government of Bophuthatswana, for example, has established a university council of its own in anticipation of the establishment of a university of its own. We read these signs, and the idea of the Government, of the NP, the basic philosophy we advocate, has found support among those people and they want to put it into practice, they want to implement in practice the idea of a nation’s self-determination and the provision of its own social and educational structure. Surely this is encouraging. It is not in conflict with our principles; it is the application and acceptance of the principle by the Black nations themselves. Of course, the various Black nations still have their representatives on the council of the University of the North, for example, and those representatives concentrate on the interests of their specific ethnic groups who still rely mainly on that university for the admission of their students. They take note of that, and they watch over the interests of their own students.

The hon. member for Mooi River, who moved an amendment, and the hon. members for Berea and Durban Central, who spoke in the same vein, regard this measure as a tremendous curtailment of the principle of university autonomy. I want to tell them that one is surprised at the fact that there are hon. members in this House who opposed that principle when the Extension of University Education Act was passed and the various colleges subject to the University of South Africa were established. If they had had their way, no such universities or colleges would ever have been established. They simply wanted to throw open to everyone all the universities which existed at that time, a wish which is probably shared by the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. members for Houghton and Rondebosch. The NRP, which opposed that principle at the time, now wants to take over from the NP and to steal a march on us by asking why we are being so slow to implement our own principles. I think this is political irony. Now they are the advocates of university autonomy. The hon. member for Mooi River got going here and I wonder whether he realizes where he ended up, because he spoke of the ethnic group as the basis of our community, of “the universities as the basis for cultural pluralism”. If I understand the hon. member correctly, his idea of academic pluralism is that a variety of language groups, cultural groups and communities should be represented at the same university.

You did not quite follow him.

I did not quite follow him? [Interjections.] Then I might try to take the hon. member’s ideas further so that they may make sense. If one wants to talk about pluralism—I am not being patronizing now—one must know that it is not enough simply to say that we are a plural community in South Africa. Surely that is not enough.

Of course not.

They agree. The hon. member knows, after all, that in speaking of plural communities, we have different dispensations, structures and models. There is the American model, according to which people want to argue away all differences, to sweep them under the carpet and to achieve consensus.

Our Bols is much better than your Bols.

I think the hon. member has had the wrong drink. Then there is the Swiss model, which involves consociation. None of these models is a South African model.

Exactly. That is why we have our own system.

If the hon. member agrees with me, we are making progress, because he realizes that there is a third model, where one is concerned with the factual situation in which many divisive factors, including race, ethnicity, national feeling, language, culture, religion and historical background play a part. If one were to force the various communities possessing all these characteristics into the same unitary dispensation—whether it be a social dispensation, an educational one or a political one—would be creating what is called mounting or cumulative conflict. That is the conflict model of which South Africa is the example.

The fact is that one has so many of these divisive factors in South Africa that if one were to force into the same social, political or educational structure the various components actually embodied in the divisive factors, one would be creating accumulative conflict situations. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Durban Central does not want that, he must vote for this Bill and he must support the National Party, because the National Party is trying to defuse that problem through a policy of separate freedoms, a policy of separate facilities for the various communities—something which they are demanding and which is sensible in a country with such a diversity of communities.

The hon. member for Durban Central asks: “Why not trust the council to allow Whites into Black universities?” This again concerns the autonomy of these universities. I have already pointed out to the hon. members that they should not be so terribly sanctimonious in talking about the autonomy of the universities which they did not even want to exist. I think it amounts to political cynicism to demand autonomy for these universities now. I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch where he said that there was no such thing as absolute autonomy or absolute academic freedom. All autonomy is limited in certain respects. Even the sovereignty of a State, of a Government, is limited in many respects. Hon. members are biting off more than they can chew. They cannot swallow the idea of total university autonomy, because it is too big for them. In any event, there is no such thing.

Hon. members would like to know why we cannot trust the university and its autonomous institutions. They say: “Remove the hand of the Minister; the hand of the Minister is a relic of the past. A university must not be a snob symbol.” And the hon. members go on in that vein. There are a few things one could say about this matter. Firstly, the White universities, with which the hon. member for Durban Central and others wish to compare the Black universities, largely developed out of the various communities by way of private initiative, not State initiative. The respective communities are still contributing to those universities. It is true that the expenses of the universities are for the most part borne by the State, but a very large part of the community also contributes to those universities. When it comes to the Black, Brown and Indian universities, these were established, as the hon. members know, on State initiative, with the State bearing the full financial responsibility. This immediately makes a difference. I think anyone will concede that it is reasonable that if the State bears practically 100% of the expenses of a university, no-one can deny it the right to have a say in it as well. If it provides the money, it has a certain say in them. The same applies to the Black universities.

When one considers the financing by the State of Black students—which is much higher than the financing of students at White universities—it amounts to an average of R3 026 per Black student. When one considers, furthermore, that when buildings are erected for Whites, there is a subsidy and the universities themselves contribute about 15%, while the State is 100% responsible for the erection of buildings for the Black universities. And if one also considers that the class and boarding fees in the case of Black students are less than 40% of those paid by White students, we begin to see the picture in a different light, for then we not only see the enormous contribution made by the State to the university education of Black students, but we can also understand that one should not place the White student in a position where they can compete on an equal footing with the Black student at the same institution so that they may also enjoy the benefits of this goodwill on the part of the State in giving the Black students a fair opportunity to receive university training. That is why we say that the Black universities are not intended to be thrown open to all students, especially not to all White students. That is not the intention. That university was established by the State in the interests of the Black students, in the interests of the Black community, the Black nation, and that is why it accepts full financial responsibility for it, and that is why we want it to succeed and we have to ensure that it succeeds. One could go on to ask what would happen, for example, if the Black universities were simply to be thrown open. Those hon. members maintain that the Black universities would not be flooded with White students. Perhaps the hon. members are right. However, there are some strange people. One finds people who do things merely in order to be funny. Simply in order to be different, they could force themselves upon such a university and try to enroll there.

How could they get in there?

It is precisely in that respect that the Government is carrying out its responsibilities. It says that it created the universities itself. Those hon. members opposed it.

What about the council of the university? [Interjections.]

The council is there. We confer powers upon the council. The hon. member must realize that we are not so dense. Surely the hon. member has read the report on which Act No. 45 of 1959 was based. Then the hon. member will also be aware of the great responsibility which rests upon the State in this respect. We find it in paragraph 31 of the report. I need not go into it in detail, but I do want to refer to a few sentences—

This was still under Unisa—

If only hon. members of the NRP would listen to me now. Even in the report which served as the basis of the 1959 legislation, it was made clear that these universities were meant to undergo the same process leading to independence as the White universities did.

[Inaudible.]

Very well. We are not quarrelling about it, after all. Listen to this, however. Here it is even more clearly expressed. I refer to paragraph 31.4—

That is the ultimate aim. I want to know, however, why those hon. members are in such a great hurry now. It is said here—

Our standpoint is that as long as the State has 100% responsibility, the State also has a right to ensure that its objective with that university is achieved. That is the right of the State.

And its duty.

Yes, and its duty as well, its duty to do so.

Could the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us exactly what the contribution of the State to White universities is, percentage-wise?

I do not have the figures relating to White universities.

It is between 75% and 80%.

In any event, the figure is high. If the capital contribution by the State to Universities, for buildings, for example, is 15%, this means that the State’s contribution is approximately 85%. That is a large contribution. I am speaking under correction, but I do want to ask whether there are not representatives of the Government on the council of that university as well. Of course there are representatives of the State on that council. These hon. members want to anticipate matters. These universities are on their way. It is envisaged in that report that the universities for non-Whites will be financed and controlled by themselves as full-fledged universities which will take their place among the best in the world. That is so. In the process, however, there are certain things we still have to take into account. The flow of Black students between Black universities does not have the same implications, the same financial implications, as, for example, the flow of Black students to White universities or of White students to Black universities. The fact that the Government bears virtually the full cost of a Black student surely creates a different situation from the one of the White student. If a White student wants to go and study at a Black university because it is cheaper, is he to be allowed to do so? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members cannot keep on interrupting.

If a White student were simply to be admitted to a Black university unconditionally, should he be discriminated against, should he pay discriminatory fees? Should the Blacks pay nothing, or very little, while the White person who goes to study there has to pay the full amount? Should we really create practical problems of that kind in the administration of a university? The fact of the matter is that bursaries amounting to R1,3 million were granted to Black students last year. Now the question is whether these bursaries should also be granted to White students if they are admitted to Black universities. These are all questions which come to mind. The statement one wants to make in this connection is that the Black student also has to be protected against unfair competition, and we believe this to be necessary. We want the Black student to have the fullest financial opportunity of studying, in order to qualify himself for serving his community.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the 1959 Act.

†The hon. member welcomed the deviation from certain provisions contained in the original Act. She asked what had become of ethnicity. She claimed that ethnicity had been abandoned.

*I think I have already replied to that. Now that the PFP has discovered ethnicity, they want to know from us what has become of ethnicity! Life really is ironic. It is almost just as ironic in the case of the NRP. That is the party whose people voted against a Republic. Now that we have a Republic, however, they are the New Republic Party! [Interjections.] That is life. Now I find it rather amusing that the hon. member for Houghton should ask me: “What has become of ethnicity?” Ethnicity—and the hon. member will know this—is as alive, as real, as palpable as she and I are in this House. These are facts of the South African social reality, just like the fact that we are here today.

†The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that even Chief Gatsha Buthelezi pleads with the Government and other organizations not to divide the Zulu nation in a rural section and an urban section.

Are you aware of that, Helen?

Of course.

She does not like it.

I wonder if she is aware of it. Hon. members opposite can perhaps testify to the fact that Chief Buthelezi has got rid of his White cohorts.

*He has got rid of his White cohorts because he realizes that his liberal friends, people who speak the language of liberalism, who speak the language of equalization … [Interjections.] And the hon. member for Pinelands is one of the henchmen who has been discarded. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite realize that Chief Buthelezi does not like their advice to him. That is because he is a Zulu nationalist, a man who acts in the interests of the Zulu nation. Well, sometimes he makes other sounds as well, sounds which may appeal more to hon. members on the other side. The fact of the matter, however, is that as long as three years ago, he said in The World that the then editor of that newspaper, Mr. Percy Qoboza, should please refrain from separating the so-called rural Zulu from the urban Zulu, because they are one nation. He said that the two groups should not be dealt with as two separate nations.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister really must come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you wholeheartedly. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton raised the question of ethnicity. I find it such a fine and topical subject.

She led you astray.

Mr. Speaker, there are hon. members here who are naughtier than I! The hon. member for Houghton inquired about the number of students from the urban White areas. I can give her two figures. In 1977, 2 174 of the 4 528 students, i.e. 48%, came from the White areas. In 1978, it was 1 914 of the 4 771 students, i.e. 40%. This indicates that a growing number of Black students are coming to these universities from the Black States.

The hon. member also inquired about amendments to the 1959 Act. The 1959 Act really consisted of three parts. The one part dealt with the institution of colleges falling under the University of South Africa; the second one dealt with staff matters, and the third one contained sections 31 and 32. These two sections are still being implemented by the Department of Education and Training, since they are the two sections relating to the admission of Black students to White universities. Since the hon. members on that side of the House talk about university autonomy, we have a case here where the White universities do not have absolute autonomy either. The Minister of Plural Relations and Development still has a certain jurisdiction in respect of the admission of Black students to White universities. As for the rest of the 1959 Act, this has really fallen into disuse. In its place, three Acts were passed in 1969, i.e. the University of Fort Hare Act, the University of the North Act and the University of Zululand Act. The universities of the Black nations are really being regulated by those Acts. It is not the 1959 Act which is being amended here, but the three Acts of the various universities themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much more of your time. I could refer to the hon. member for Berea, who expressed more or less the same ideas as the hon. member for Mooi River. The replies I gave to the hon. member for Mooi River, therefore, are also applicable to the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Berea did mention some other things as well. He asked, inter alia, why the impression was being created that any White person would be admitted to these universities, while we had only lecturers in mind. One of the practical considerations in this connection is that one does not want to define a specific category of people, such as lecturers, their children and wives, those who do not live near a university, etc., in an Act every time. We just want to leave an opening for that White lecturers have been taken as an example, that it should be possible for them to enroll at the universities where they teach in order to do research there. This is a situation which existed even under the old dispensation, when the colleges still fell under the University of South Africa. The measure which is before the House at the moment is in a certain sense a restitution of the conditions which applied at that time, but which were left in abeyance when the various Acts regulating the Black universities were drafted.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that he is in fact restricting this permission to Whites to enter Black universities roughly to the category of a lecturer and his family?

It is in this instance for those people. This provision is made especially for …

Especially, but not exclusively?

No, not exclusively.

What other categories?

The question asked by the hon. member for Berea is not unreasonable. We are in the same position here as we were with regard to the amendment of the University of the Western Cape Act as well as the University of Durban-Westville. There, too, we had the situation that people were teaching at these universities while no legal provision had been made for them to enroll and study there. It is not our intention to throw the universities open to other White students. That is not necessary. There are ample study facilities for White students. We specifically want to accommodate this category of people, because it could be of great benefit to them.

I do not know whether I should enlarge on what was said by the hon. member for Pinelands, for I believe I have demonstrated to him that he has not got me in any kind of predicament with regard to this legislation. The hon. member made various remarks and I told him that in my opinion, he was one of the White henchmen whom Chief Buthelezi had got rid of. He referred, among other things, to the realities in South Africa, and he wanted to know whether there had been other requests as well from the Black leaders. There were no other requests, and if there were, they did not reach us.

I do not want to ignore the hon. member for Walmer, but he advocated more or less the same ideas as hon. members of the NRP. He regarded the Bill as an improvement, but he is also opposed to ministerial control over the admission of White students. He wanted to know whether merit would be the criterion. Certainly merit will be the criterion, but as I said in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Berea, the intention with the admission of Whites to these universities is not to throw open these universities to everyone, but to provide specifically for these people who serve those universities and who therefore have a legitimate claim to be allowed to use those facilities. In this connection it seems to me that I have also replied to the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central, because he seems satisfied. All he has to do now is to vote for the Bill.

The hon. member for Rondebosch wanted to know whether we were moving away from our ideal. Not at all. I believe I have already replied to that by implication. We are not moving away from our ideal, but if this hon. member sees a kind of racial consideration in this, I want to tell him quite frankly—I said this at the beginning of my speech as well— that we are not running away from the realities in South Africa, that we are not ignoring the realities. However, one need not be a racist to observe the fact of racial differences. If one fails to see it, then one is suffering from a lack of a political sense of reality. I do not think I should accuse the hon. member for Rondebosch of that. I do not want to refer any further to Prof. Kgware in this connection, but he has been quoted repeatedly as someone who says that the Black people also want their own universities. Prof. Kgware is not a racist; he speaks as a Black man and he is promoting the interests of Blacks. On that level, therefore, he speaks the same language and he expounds the same philosophy on the basis of the same principle that this Government stands for, i.e. the right to self-determination of the various nations, and the right, which is associated with that, to have their own social, educational and other structures.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. G. S. Bartlett, G. de Jong, D. J. N. Malcomess, R. B. Miller, B. W. B. Page, P. A. Pyper, W. V. Raw, W. M. Sutton and N. B. Wood) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has come to our attention that a small percentage of employers are behaving towards their employees as if section 4 of the Defence Act does not apply to voluntary military service. That amounts to a misinterpretation of the said section. In order to afford volunteers the required legal protection beyond any doubt, it is necessary to amend section 4 as proposed in clause 1.

The proposed amendment in clause 2 seeks to require members of commandos who volunteer for service to serve in the commandos until they obtain their official discharge, just as in the case of the Citizen Force volunteer. At present a person who is over 16 years of age, or who has completed his service in terms of sections 19, 21, 35 or 36 of the Defence Act, who lives in the recruiting area of the particular commando, who is medically fit and complies with the other requirements for service may be taken into service or be taken into service again by a commando under section 36. Such a member may resign on three months’ notice or may be discharged for various other reasons, inter alia, if he does not make satisfactory progress in his studies or in his training. Although this amendment does not deprive a volunteer of the right to resign, it statutorily brings his discharge for these reasons into line with that of his counterpart in the Citizen Force.

Members of the commandos are grouped into an offensive and a defensive element. It is intended to amend the regulations so that the defensive element will only be utilized for service within the commando group area. It will be possible to utilize the offensive element, which will consist mainly of the younger members and will therefore include national servicemen, for service outside the limits of the commando group area—as is the case at present.

†Clause 3 envisages the realization of a long-felt need for protection of especially the younger members of the national service ranks and their dependants against total labour disability or loss of life while doing their national service. The benefits to which they are entitled in terms of the Military Pensions Act, Act No. 84 of 1976, are in themselves not sufficient to supply in their needs indefinitely as it is based on degrees of disability for the open labour market. To supplement these benefits the S.A. Defence Force wants to introduce a group insurance scheme of which the success would depend on the number of members taking part As especially the younger national servicemen either have not taken out insurance or cannot afford it, and the envisaged insurance will in most cases be the only cover they can afford, it is proposed that membership should be made compulsory for at least members of the Citizen Force and the Commandos. Members of the Permanent Force are covered by the Government Pension Fund, of which membership is compulsory. They may however also join the new scheme on a voluntary basis.

Clause 4 envisages largely an adjustment which has become necessary as a result of an amendment of section 80 of the Act by section 6 of Act 68 of 1977. Thereby provision is made that members of the auxiliary services may in future also be employed in a fighting capacity, e.g. certain Black SWA battalions who are members of the auxiliary services are at present employed in a fighting capacity. Black fighting units of the RSA are however members of the Permanent Force, and as such already subject to the Military Discipline Code at all times. For purposes of uniformity of discipline, members employed in an auxiliary capacity should be subject to the same code of conduct as their fighting comrades in the S.A. Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined the provisions of the Bill but there are a number of features in the Bill which we on these benches unfortunately at present find unsatisfactory. I therefore want to deal with the individual provisions of the Bill and express our views on them.

Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to amend section 4 of the Defence Act. As far as we are concerned the principle is accepted that not only is military service by means of conscription necessary in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself, but also if employers should create problems for the servicemen concerned, then there must be some protection for the servicemen and there must be some penal provision which applies. If the employer creates a problem, he can by doing so either hinder the defence effort or prejudice the individual. Neither of those two things should, in our view, be permitted. The existing section applies only to compulsory service in the Forces. In other words, it does not apply to voluntary service, for example, in the commandos. If one looks at the existing section, one clearly sees that it protects the individual in regard to his pay and in the sense that he may not be subjected to any penalty and may not be prejudiced in any other way. It also gives him certain rights which concern service increments, etc., it gives the apprentice certain benefits and also creates, for the purpose of facilitating a prosecution, certain presumptions of guilt in certain circumstances. The question that has to be asked, however, is whether these provisions can all be applied, bearing in mind the principles I have enunciated, to the volunteer who now decides that he is going to render additional service.

I should like to put the case, for example, of the small business which employ a very small number of men who may completely comply with the provisions of the Defence Act in terms of which people render service which they are obliged to render. There may, however, be an individual who may already have been carried for his two year national service, his camps and the other periods when he was called up to the border and who may now decide that he is going to volunteer for additional service. Where does the small businessman then stand? Can he actually bear that additional burden in those circumstances? In our view we do not want to discourage anybody from volunteering. Neither do we want to discourage a situation in which people who are very valuable to the service do not wish to volunteer. On the other hand, we see the dilemma of the small businessman who finds that the financial burden which is cast upon him in these circumstances is an extremely onerous one, and it can be a very serious burden on a small businessman who wants to comply with what he believes are his moral obligations towards the volunteer.

We believe that in these circumstances it should perhaps be open to the hon. the Minister of Defence to allow exemption from certain provisions. In other words, if it is found that a man who has a very small business cannot carry this burden, the question that arises is whether the hon. the Minister should not in terms of the individual provisions contained in sections 4(2), 4(2)bis and 4(2)ter—the presumption in section 4(3) is not that material—be empowered to exempt individual employers on stipulated conditions in respect of the penalties that apply and in respect of the obligations which that particular employer has. It may be found that in certain circumstances he would be ruined if he were obliged to keep a job open for such an individual. We therefore believe that the hon. the Minister should have a power of exemption in respect of particular provisions and certain circumstances and conditions which can be specified. Whereas we agree with the principle contained in section 1, we believe that there should be this power of exemption given to the hon. the Minister.

We also have some difficulty in clause 2. The principles and problems which we believe are behind this, we can understand, but at the same time we see a problem in respect of the indication the hon. the Minister gave about dividing the commandos into two categories and creating a situation in which the individual’s right to resign is affected. On the one hand one can understand the problem because if a unit is involved in a particular operation, people cannot simply resign and leave one in the lurch either immediately before or during that operation. That situation has to be catered for by some means. On the other hand, if very valuable people at present doing service had found out initially that they would not be able to resign in certain circumstances, they might not have joined in the first place, and so one may suffer more in the end and create a bigger problem for those people than one has at the present moment.

We again believe that there can be an answer to this. The answer to it is that we must not just be told that there are going to be certain prescribed conditions which we do not really know about. We do not know what the situation is going to be in relation to the problems we have referred to, and that is why we think that, firstly, we should know fully about the conditions which are going to be prescribed so that we can sit in judgment and form an opinion. Secondly, these conditions should be enshrined in the Statute Book so that they are there for us to see and debate. Thirdly, there must be some kind of provision inserted which deals with this problem of resignation. I also want to say that I believe that there are problems involved in the question of dividing the commandos into two categories, and that is why I believe that this section should be looked at again. We shall suggest to the hon. the Minister that the tradition should be followed that these matters be referred to a Select Committee. We do so even though we have been consulted on some aspects of this proposed legislation. We are aware, too, that some provisions were not available at that time. We believe that this particular problem could well be ironed out in a Select Committee, particularly as we do not believe this to be a political issue, being purely a practical issue of how best the country can be served in the circumstances.

I now want to discuss clause 3 which deals with insurance. I have spoken on insurance for servicemen in this House virtually from the very first moment I came here. The fact that there is now going to be a provision in the Act which will make insurance more readily available, is something I therefore welcome. Unfortunately the provisions of the Insurance Act were unsatisfactory from the point of view of the servicemen. The amendments to the Insurance Act are, to my mind, still unsatisfactory from the point of view of the servicemen, and therefore it is logical that there should be some form of group life insurance available for members of the Defence Force who are not members of the Permanent Force, because I concede that members of the Permanent Force are, relatively speaking, catered for, though to my mind improvements can be made even there. The question is firstly whether the insurance should be compulsory and, secondly, who should pay for the insurance. I want to submit that if the insurance is compulsory, the State should pay for it, but that if it is voluntary, the individual should pay for it in the circumstances.

These are, to my mind, the problems that arise. I should therefore like to refer to some of the problems that exist. Firstly, if one brings this scheme into existence, one is going to force insurance on people who may not want it. I know that there are people—I want to make it quite clear that I do not agree with them—who do not believe in insurance as a matter of conscience, and I believe some of them have made representations to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I happen to disagree with them. I think they are wrong, but their objection is based upon a religious belief, and who am I to say that somebody else’s religion should not be respected. I cannot force that individual to be insured against his will. I think it would be wrong to do so.

What percentage of the people object to it?

I think it is a very small percentage of people. However, the rights of individuals, however small they are in number, are something I respect, and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Agriculture shares that attitude with me. So the first aspect is the question of compulsion. How does one compel a man to do something, in these circumstances, and then also compel him to pay for it? That seems to be illogical. If there is going to be a basis on which people will automatically be insured, without having to do anything about it, the State must pay for that insurance in those circumstances. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that what he had in mind—he can correct me if I am wrong—was that he wanted to apply this only to national servicemen in the first instance. To my mind, if one is going to make insurance available, there is an even greater need for insurance in respect of people in the Citizen Force and the Commandos, because in most cases the national servicemen are young people without wives or children, although there are quite a number—they are not so small a minority, for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture—who do have wives and children. But when one is in the Citizen Force or the Commandos, after having completed one’s national service, one’s obligations become much greater.

What about the wives of national servicemen?

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is worried about minorities. In any case, some of the people have obligations to their parents even while they are still servicemen and all these factors have to be taken into consideration. I would be very unhappy if a scheme were introduced which did not include the Citizen Force people or the Commandos. I believe that it should be a voluntary scheme and that they should be in a position to decide whether to make use of it or not. Secondly, I believe there should be a degree of flexibility in regard to the sum involved, because once there is a compulsory scheme for which deductions are made, the flexibility in regard to the sum involved disappears. After all, different people have different obligations. A young bachelor who has no obligations to maintain his parents because they happen to be well-off is in a completely different position, from an insurance point of view, to a young married man with five children and a wife for whom he has to provide in case anything happens to him. Under the circumstances, I think this degree of flexibility is required and we therefore believe that this particular provision requires to be amended and needs to be looked at.

With regard to clause 4, I have been told what the problems are in connection with this and we shall accept clause 4. I do not intend to debate it; I am satisfied with what the hon. the Minister has said and with what has been told us earlier. I therefore intend to leave the matter as it is.

I now wish to come to the amendment we intend moving and in which we shall ask for a Select Committee to be appointed. I shall briefly motivate that. I have tried to indicate where in the Bill we suggest amendments should be effected. We believe this is not a political issue and that solutions should be found where required. We believe that it is the tradition that this type of legislation should be dealt with by way of a Select Committee and that unanimity should be sought to the greatest extent possible with regard to Defence legislation. Therefore I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the hon. member for Yeoville has so much fault to find with this Defence Amendment Bill. I always thought that the hon. member for Yeoville was a friend of the Defence Force, but now I shall have to reconsider this. The hon. member discriminated against volunteers who form a very important part of the Defence Force.

Nonsense!

The leadership element, an indispensable one, comes from these volunteers. He also found fault with one-man businesses. We still have a board such as the exemption board to which any person or any business enterprise that is experiencing problems may put its case. I am convinced that this board will be very sympathetic to people’s problems. Since the hon. member for Yeoville has requested that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, I want to say to him that this side of the House is certainly not in favour of that because there are no new principles which affect people at issue. It merely seeks to rectify misinterpretations. It is as simple as that. For that reason it is a pleasure for me to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for introducing this amendment Bill here this afternoon. I want to give him the assurance that it meets a long-felt need.

I want to confine myself to clause 1 which refers to section 4 of the principal Act. It provides that—

In this regard I want to put this very important question to this House at once: Do the Citizen Force and the commandos have a task to fulfil within the Defence Force in defence of South Africa? Without beating about the bush I say: Yes. If we reply “yes” to this, we must be prepared to take all the necessary steps so that these forces can carry out their task to the full in the interests of our country. The commando system is in my opinion one of the many fine systems in our Defence Force. The commandos cover our country like a network. Most of the members of the commandos receive training within their own area. Therefore they can get to know each inch of their particular area. This also has the advantage that each of them is able to undergo his training close to his private interests. It is extremely frustrating for every commanding officer and his staff who have to arrange a training camp, particularly if one bears in mind the costs and the trouble involved in such a project, to find when he arrives at the camp that the camp has a shortage of manpower and leaders. The task of training costs the State thousands of rands annually and I do not think that anyone in this House will disagree with me when I say that we should like to utilize this money effectively. We can only utilize this money effectively if we ensure that each member is, in fact, able to receive his training.

A large percentage of our employers know their duty and comply with it. These employers are prepared to grant their employees the necessary leave and even go as far as to pay them the difference between the allowance they receive from the Defence Force and their monthly salary. That is certainly commendable. However, there is another group of employers that has a negative approach to the Defence Force, that is not prepared to give the relevant employees leave, or if it does give them leave, requires them to take their annual leave, and this, of course, at the expense of their family. However, if the commanding officer, after a great deal of pleading, has got the employer so far as to grant leave, he does so without any recompence to the employee concerned. For that reason it is important that every employer should realize that he has a bounden duty in respect of the defence of this country. We can only continue our activities in this country in peace if everyone makes his contribution so that our Defence Force—and here I include the Citizen Force and the commandos—can perform its task properly in the defence of our country. For that reason I gladly and whole-heartedly support his Bill.