Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the chief spokesman on the Government side, the hon. member for Sunnyside, had a lot to say and spoke with great authority. He was very quick to criticize, but the only valid point of criticism he could raise was the reference I had made in passing to the R4 million profit. I readily concede that it applies to the additional appropriation only. I was in fact reading the tariff increases, on which I was concentrating when I heard the hon. the Minister, who was then delivering his speech, mention the R4 million. Of course, as I had to reply immediately thereafter, I made the mistake of interpreting it incorrectly. That is my reply to the hon. member’s only point of criticism. Other than that, the hon. member tried to lecture the House on basic economics. With great respect, I think the hon. member is direly in need of a refresher course. Referring to the increase in tariffs, the hon. member for Sunnyside said the following—

How, if I may ask, can an increase of 10% promote growth when it does not even meet the inflation rate of 11%? In other words, it is not sufficient to purchase goods the prices of which have been increased by 10%, an amount which represents the additional increase in the cost of living. The hon. member for Sunnyside should know that growth, expressed in economic terms—that means in real purchasing power—is now in fact 1% less than before. The argument that this budget is not inflationary can therefore not be sustained.

Furthermore, the tariff increases will or may become effective on 1 October 1979. Prices will be increased even earlier, in anticipation of the introduction of higher tariffs. In any event, prices will be increased not later than the date on which the tariff increases will be coming into effect. The usual pattern will follow as sure as night will follow the day. That is that the consumers will have to pay the marked-up price of goods, a price which is calculated on the percentage of profit. In other words, the consumer will prematurely be made to pay higher prices for goods, thus ensuring undeserved profits for the sellers of these goods. The hon. member for Sunnyside, in arguing about growth, should also remember —and he has perhaps forgotten that—that capital growth can only be calculated in terms of a total amount spent in South Africa in order to promote industry in this country. It must, in other words, stimulate growth. I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no quarrel whatsoever with the practice of purchasing electronically controlled switching systems, whether it be the French E10 or the German SWD. However, referring purely to the hon. member’s argument in connection with growth, of the capital of R315 million, at least R15 million, it seems, is going to be spent overseas. That means that the whole amount is not to be spent to promote growth, as the hon. member tried to argue. Where then is the growth about which the hon. member for Sunnyside shouts so loudly?

Finally, I want to refer to the general principle involved here. In this regard I want to make use of purely common sense arguments and not necessarily of arguments based on economics. The 10% increase in salaries of postal workers will affect 74 225 employees. However, the additional cost involved will be placed on the shoulders of the entire population of South Africa, approximately 26 million people who will have to pay the increased tariffs which have been announced by the hon. the Minister.

I have already referred to the extra revenue of R82 million derived by the Postal Administration from the increase in postal tariffs during the 1975-’76 financial year. Reasoning on that premise I also disposed of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Sunnyside, and that means that there can be no further quarrel about that.

*The hon. member for Wonderboom said the Post Office announced tariff increases in certain services for the very reason that the Post Office did not want to go bankrupt at some future stage.

†This is supported by the hon. member for Kempton Park, who asked whether we wanted the Post Office to go broke. Well, I am astounded that hon. members do not seem to realize that the operating loss suffered by the Post Office during 1976 amounted to R14 million. In 1977 it was R21 million, and R31,8 million in 1978. In 1979 it was R50 million. I want to ask whoever will do business with these people. They themselves do not even know when they are bankrupt. The Post Office has always been bankrupt. I am therefore surprised at the arguments hon. members have raised. In dealing with the operating surplus of R56,13 million, the hon. member for Wonderboom said—

Well, what is so terrible about that? I will deal more fully with this argument at a later stage. The hon. member wanted to know where the R52 million would come from after the R20 million had been paid on interest and on standard equipment He then quoted the hon. member for Durbanville as saying that the surplus would be only R3 million. That I will explain in a moment. The hon. member for Wonderboom and other hon. members— and I say this quite frankly—seem to be hiding behind the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. They seem to be using those recommendations as an excuse for increasing postal tariffs.

*Now I should like to know from the hon. member for Verwoerdburg: Who actually made a fool of himself. Was it I? Was it the hon. member himself, or was it perhaps the hon. member for Kempton Park or the hon. member for Wonderboom? The hon. member for Verwoerdburg argued that there was no alternative to increase tariffs.

†The argument that the prices of goods and services will increase is irrefutable and the man in the street will have to bear the brunt. I think it was the hon. the Minister himself who correctly pinpointed the correct issues, namely, in the first place, the question of whether tariffs should be raised, and secondly, the correct timing of increasing tariffs. I want to deal with both. Firstly, hon. members of the Opposition have resolutely opposed the increase in tariffs. Hon. members of the NRP have said the increases in tariffs are too harsh. However, I want to say in passing that although the hon. the Minister has referred to a 12,78% increase, this is misleading to the public. Of those items which the public will have to pay for, they will have to pay a 25% increase. As far as that is concerned, I think that it should be put right.

Hon. members on that side of the House ask where the money must come from in order to pay the salaries. They insist that the increase in tariffs is justified because of the formula laid down in the report of the Franzsen Commission. Yesterday I quoted par. 195. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is in fact a Cabinet committee which, in terms of that paragraph, actually sit and decide upon the formula. Hon. members on that side of the House speak of 50% of the revenue going to capital. However, the actual report I read states that it is 40%. Where does the 10% difference come in and where is the committee’s resolution?

We all agree that this is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. I want to submit that the Government is now on the wrong track and that it has failed to keep its finger on the pulse of the present climate. The formula is out of date and not opposite to the present economic climate. The Government has missed the entire point of the recommendations. If hon. members will bear in mind that the Franzsen Commission was appointed on 26 November 1967, and made its findings in 1970, they will remember that at that stage it was difficult to obtain money on loan. It was also very expensive. Because of the climatic conditions at that stage, the commission made the recommendation to help public authorities and Government departments to meet the situation. The whole purpose of that recommendation was to deal with that situation and therefore they made those recommendations. It is a different ball game today. Money is readily obtainable and building societies will in fact inform one that one can get as much money as one likes. It can also be obtained in the market where loans can be raised. One can get a loan at a rate from 9%.

The fact remains that on these estimated figures the net operating surplus is R76 million. The tariff increases amount to R53 million, and therefore it leaves R23 million to play with. How is the formula of 34,9% as to 65,1% going to make any big difference in so far as the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is concerned? The loan component can be stepped up and if it is even brought up to the mark of 41% as was the figure last year, an extra 6,1% is needed. If it is calculated on a capital of R363 million, all that is required is another R22 million. Surely such a loan can be floated. A public loan can be called and R22 million can be floated at a rate of 9% without any difficulties. In that way one will avoid the imposition of tariff increases. Furthermore, loans can be obtained from foreign countries, and if that is done, one will in fact bring in money from abroad and the balance of payments of the country will be eased.

[Inaudible.]

That is fine. One has to pay all the money back in any case.

Regarding viability, I think the main argument has been that the whole Department of Posts and Telecommunications must be viable. It is not necessary for merely the postal services to be viable. It can be carried by the big amount of R124 million, the excess obtained in revenue from this department Not one hon. member on that side of the House has refuted this allegation which we have made. They merely hid behind the report.

I want to turn to the timing. The timing has been argued by the hon. the Minister. We now come to the question of this being ignored. I believe that the emphasis should fall on when it is to take effect. What has been ignored, is the argument which I had introduced as a background. Hon. members on that side of the House have completely missed the point. The Government has now conceded the entire argument in regard to the implementation by not implementing the tariff increases now, because if the increases were so vital, as argued by hon. members, and so necessary, it would have been introduced from 1 April. Therefore they concede our argument that this is not the time for these increases to be put into effect. Why then do they announce it now? Obviously for one of two reasons. Either it is not necessary, or else the timing for it is bad. If the latter is true, our arguments are conceded. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can say now what the climatic conditions will be on 1 October when it might be implemented. The looseness, lack of clarity and lack of definition as to when this is to come into affect, destroy the entire argument and case that was so strongly made by hon. members on that side of the House as to why these increases have to be announced now. It can therefore be said that the hon. members for Durbanville, Sunnyside and Verwoerdburg have made fools of themselves. I want to submit that the answer lies firstly, in a revision of the recommendations made by the Franzsen Committee. In the second place, it lies in efficiency, productivity and careful management. Thirdly, it depends on the careful slotting in of increases in the economy. Fourthly, a five year forward planning of capital payments and priorities. Fifthly, those priorities should be screened and, sixthly, there should be an acceptance of the principle that the Post Office is a public service which will always run at a loss. Seventhly, there should be a speeding up in the provision of telephone services, as this will generate more capital, and because it is so profitable, it will add to the revenue.

In the light of those circumstances, we on this side of the House remain adamant that there is no justification whatsoever for the increase in tariffs as proposed by the hon. the Minister. We feel that the hon. the Minister himself has conceded all the arguments made by this side of the House that these tariff increases are not necessary because he can get by. He said that he can get by until October or April of next year. He might even get by for the whole of next year. In the second place, these increases do not fit into the general state of the economy, and we shall only know what the state of the economy will be when we see the main budget in a week’s time. Accordingly we remain opposed to these tariff increases.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I know the hon. member as a very friendly type of person, but I had the feeling this afternoon that he was a little ill-humoured when he spoke. He used rather strong language against this side of the House. It reminded me of what the late Senator Langenhoven said, i.e. that if one’s cause is right, one can afford not to become angry, and if one’s cause is wrong, one cannot afford to become angry. The hon. member carried on in particular about what other hon. members who had participated in the debate, had had to say during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage. He referred, inter alia, to the hon. members for Sunnyside, Wonderboom, Durbanville and Kempton Park. The hon. member will agree with me that all those hon. members made excellent contributions to this debate and I do not agree with him when he criticizes them unnecessarily.

The hon. member objected vehemently this afternoon to the announced tariff increases, which will possibly take effect on 1 October and possibly even later. The hon. member also complained about the timing of these increases. He stated that they were not appropriate to the present economic climate. The hon. member must see this matter in perspective, and he should take into consideration that during the past three to four years, when the economy was burdened by many problems, inter alia, high inflation rates and rising costs, the Post Office succeeded in avoiding tariff increases. But the hon. member did not take that into consideration. These increases are not aimed only at the future, but should also be seen as an effort to accommodate the rising costs over the past few years. I do not know whether it is not perhaps a very good policy to announce tariff increases at the beginning of a period of boom, instead of announcing them during a slump. In my opinion the economy is much more capable of absorbing tariff increases during an upswing than in a period of slump, when people are less able to afford it. As the hon. the Minister announced, the matter will be observed very carefully and if necessary, the tariff increase will be postponed even further.

The function of the Post Office and the telecommunications network in South Africa should also be taken into consideration. The Post Office is operated as a business enterprise. This statement is correct and I agree with it completely. A business enterprise is geared for profit. To be able to make a profit, costs must be cut to the bone. Productivity must be pushed up as high as possible and the more profit is made, the more effective the organization. This should be taken into consideration. However, the Post Office is also a service organization and its whole history testifies to this; after all, the Post Office was first a department under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. This is also substantiated by the deficits on the distribution of post because this is a service provided to the country.

However, what is the function of the Post Office? The function of the Post Office, in any country in the world, is to bring about effective communication and to provide it to the inhabitants of the country. Effective communication causes growth in the economy of a country. The more efficient the communication, the more beneficial it is for the profit motive. In the first instance, we in South Africa do, after all, believe in the profit motive. Reviewing the record of the Post Office over the past ten years, one finds that it answers all the requirements put to it.

In this regard I want to furnish hon. members with a few figures. Since 1968 the revenue of the Post Office has increased by 376%. The operating expenditure has increased by 413%. This high increase in the expenditure also demonstrates that tariff adjustments must be introduced at this stage, because the revenue has not increased to the same extent as the expenditure. The capital expenditure rose by 682%. Everyone who knows the Post Office, knows that it was necessary to incur very heavy capital expenditure. Continually there is a tremendous technological development in the telecommunications industry in the world. Systems become obsolete and better systems become available. In any country, and particularly South Africa, it is necessary to keep pace with technological development, because we do not want to be saddled with old obsolete equipment in five to ten years’ time which would result in our no longer having effective communication.

The number of telephones has increased by 90% over the past 10 years. This is certainly a wonderful achievement. This testifies not only to the achievement of the Post Office, but also to the growth in the economy of South Africa over the past decade. The number of metered inland call units has grown by 350% and the number of telex lessees has increased by 303%. The international telex and telephone traffic, expressed as paid minutes in millions, has risen by 1 355%. South Africa does not live in isolation and this increase is very effective proof that not only the State, but also private initiative, has contact with the outside world. Means to make this contact possible, have been put at their disposal.

The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the fact that tariff increases should be avoided by better management and more effective administration. I think the Post Office organization, from its top management down to its most humble staff member, deserves the highest praise of this House. After all the increases from 250% to 300% that I have mentioned, the staff increase in the Post Office has only been 49%. I do not think one can receive a better testimonial than this. Since we are on this fine road of efficiency, I think that the Post Office can only improve in future. Let us now compare the income per staff member over a number of years. In the year 1976-’77 to 1977-’78 it rose by 5,9%. The increase was 10,3% in both the previous year and the year before that. In my opinion the reduction is due to the fact that the economy was in low gear, but I believe it will pick up speed again.

I should now like to advance an argument justifying the increase in the postal tariffs, an increase from four cents to five cents per letter. I think one should analyse the letter in a little more depth to see what a letter really is and how it is handled. I know from my own experience that a letter is handled many times before it reaches its destination. I should therefore like to enumerate to hon. members a few stages in the handling process. Of course one gets many types of letters. One gets business letters, letters from one’s member of Parliament and letters from one’s family. One also writes many letters oneself. I think a letter is one of the most beautiful things in the life of a person. It gives me great pleasure to read letters that my late grandmother wrote to my late father about 80 years ago. One should bear in mind that I, for example, would pay R5 for such a letter whereas the postage in those days was perhaps only one cent. A letter is, of course, a very personal thing. A telephone call may be much quicker and more effective, but a letter is something which you can keep, can put away in your file. It is something which can remain of great value to one. However, let us examine the handling process. After a letter is posted, in the post-box here in Parliament or in a red post-box in the street, it must be taken out by an official. It is then taken to the sorting office where it has to be arranged. In the old days we said “one must face it up” so that the addresses and stamps all face one way and the stamps are all on top. After the arrangement process the stamps must all be cancelled. This is a separate process and can be done by hand or by machine. The fifth step is the first sorting where the letters are sorted according to routes, because some letters go to Johannesburg, others to Pretoria, etc. Then there is the second sorting process where letters are sorted specifically in accordance with their destination. The letters are then loaded into mail bags after first having been tied into bundles to facilitate handling and also to preserve the postal articles, because if one threw all the postal articles together they could bend or tear. The mailbags are then taken to the station or the airport to be loaded onto a train or an aircraft. After the letters have been conveyed by train or aircraft, they are awaited by an official that I have already mentioned previously in Parliament. In post office jargon he is known as the “sakke-roller”. The actual translation for “sakke-roller” is “pickpocket”, but this person is not a “pickpocket”. He has to receive the bags, open the bags, take out the letters and check the registered postal articles. Then the bundles of letters are cut loose—this is always step No. 11—and the letters are sorted once again.

Let us now take the letters destined for delivery. They are first sorted according to route and then in street order or delivery order. This is almost like an election campaign where one has to visit houses in a certain order when one canvasses votes. Then the postman takes his bicycle or motorcycle and delivers the letters. After all those different steps in the handling process the letter finally reaches its destination. Just think, that letter now costs us a mere four cents and after 1 October it will only cost us five cents. When one pays one’s five cents, one has little realization of the number of times that such a letter has to be handled before reaching its destination. In view of this long handling process, I think that four cents or five cents is very little to pay for such a letter. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the postage in England is 12 cents. I believe that the English are also very fond of writing letters, and they do not complain about the tariff. Have hon. members ever thought of treating the postman—who may be White, Black or Coloured; a Black man delivers my post and he is always very friendly and never late—as a person too? We express a lot of criticism here, but let them offer him a cup of tea or a cool drink or merely greet him with a friendly “good morning” or “good afternoon”. He will appreciate it greatly. I think that postmen do excellent work.

For the sake of a little humour I want to broach another subject. In Cape Town there is an office which we used to call the RLO, i.e. the Returned Letter Office. Letters which are poorly or incompletely addressed, are sent to this office in Cape Town. There they open them and try to ascertain the address of the sender of such a letter in order to return the letter to him. This office deals with thousands of letters of that nature. The public can greatly assist the Post Office by addressing their postal articles clearly. Comic cases occur, particularly among the letters of unsophisticated writers. For example, I had a letter before me on which the figure 24 appeared below the name with beside it a drawing of a river. This was the destination indicated on the letter. The destination was really Vier en Twintig Riviere in the Northern Transvaal. One gets many such examples of humour in the post office. It would surprise hon. members how the post office nevertheless succeeds in delivering such letters to their destination.

I think that the postal administration, the Postmaster-General and his staff, deserve a great deal of praise for the work they do. It is perhaps unnecessary for me to praise them so much. I should very much liked to have seen perhaps a little more praise for the officials being expressed by the Opposition. However, one realizes that they are in the Opposition and cannot go too far in their tributes. I just want to say to the Postmaster-General and his staff that they perform their tasks so well that it reminds me of the remark which you hear in the Cape, viz. that good wine needs no bush.

I have high expectations of the Post Office. The money collected through tariff increases, will not be wasted. It will be utilized productively and will facilitate the financing of the Post Office a great deal. I think that the Franzsen Committee’s recommendation that a 50:50 ratio be applied in respect of the Post Office’s capital requirements, is a very sound recommendation. I think that the hon. member for Hillbrow will concede that point.

Mr. Speaker,

may I ask the hon. member why he is tied to his bench?

Mr. Speaker, I think that that is a very unfriendly remark.

It is a stupid remark.

Perhaps the hon. member tried to put me off my stroke, but he will not succeed in doing so. I think that the principle of the proportion of 50:50 in respect of the Post Office’s capital requirements is a very sound one. It can only be to the good. The hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members will concede that when a business enterprise is based on business principles, the businessman must ensure that he does not get so deeply in debt that he is ultimately unable to pay it. The more one can build up reserves, the more one can keep pace with developments, the easier it is to obtain financing and the better will be the service that one can render. Today I want to make the prediction that if problems arise in future in times of a slump, the Post Office will again be able to avoid a tariff increase, because they have made provision for the needs of the Post Office in good time.

I gladly support the Third Reading of this Appropriation Bill. I am sure that the public of South Africa are thankful for the services rendered by the Post Office in spite of the criticism, fair or unfair, which may be advanced by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member for Germiston District that it is abundantly clear that he speaks from experience. It is also perfectly clear that he delivered his articles and ideas at the right address. This is most probably due to the fact that the hon. member was an employee of the Post Office for many years, or otherwise he is one of those people who have written and received many letters and in that way has gained an intimate knowledge of what is happening in the Post Office.

In addition to other points, there were two important factors which the hon. member discussed, and I think the hon. the Minister should give these two basic principles very thorough consideration indeed. In the first place, he discussed the method of increasing tariffs. He said we could expect the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to increase tariffs more or less every four years. So for a period of three years the hon. the Minister will create the impression that no problems are being experienced and that no major losses are being sustained, and in the fourth year we can expect him to introduce very substantial tariff increases. The second basic principle to which the hon. member referred was that the Post Office was to be regarded as a service organization—a “diens-organisasie”. In the light of these two basic points of view, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the hon. member for Germiston District that these are in fact two constitutional principles—if one can call them that—according to which the hon. the Minister is going to run the Post Office.

†I say this because these two principles referred to by the hon. member for Germiston District are vital to the way in which the public and hon. members of this House will be able to judge the actions of the hon. the Minister. The first aspect is that every fourth year the hon. the Minister will announce whacking big tariff increases, after holding them off and running at a loss for three years. The second aspect is whether he is going to see the Post Office as a service organization, a non-profit orientated organization. A definition from the hon. the Minister in this respect is vital for the future interpretation of the actions advocated by him. We in the NRP do not believe that any Government department should run at a loss every year. Its budgeting, control of costs and management should be sufficiently realistic to ensure that there is a minimal profit. In the sense that a Government department such as the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is a utility organization in South Africa, that profit will obviously have to be ploughed back into capital equipment or into working capital in order to enhance the services, or perhaps even to reduce tariffs one day. After the hon. the Minister has explained his policy in respect of tariff increases and the question whether this department should be a service organization or a profit or loss organization, I believe the challenge which will face him and the Post Office in the next year and in future years will be to effectively bring about rationalization of our postal and telecommunication services. This rationalization will, firstly, have to relate to the utilization of the assets which fall under the general category of premises, the physical and tangible assets which belong to the Post Office and about which I spoke yesterday. Secondly, I believe that the rationalization of the utilization of staff, the services of the staff and the salaries of staff are going to be a vital component and one of the most interesting, if not the greatest, challenge which the hon. the Minister and his senior executives in the Post Office will have to face in the next few years. Indications that rationalization is required are to be found in the fact that almost 10% of the salaries and wages paid by the Post Office last year, amounting to R24 million, almost 10% of the total amount paid in salaries and wages was paid in overtime.

The question which we ask is not whether that overtime was justified or whether the R24 million was justified, but whether in fact a sufficient rationalization of services has taken place in order to cater for the fact that so much overtime will be required. One wonders why it is necessary to have so much overtime in the Post Office. There must be very valid reasons. The hon. the Minister will obviously tell us about them and we hope that in this rationalization process of the utilization of staff he will take this into account.

The next point I should like to raise as far as salaries are concerned is that I believe that urgent attention should be given to the fact that so many of the people in the Post Office are still earning wages below the poverty datum line of R140. I think the hon. the Minister should look very carefully at this, because if, as the tables indicate, more than 80% of the non-White workers are earning less than R175 per month and probably many of them R140 per month, then the work study department of the Post Office must examine the rationalization of those services and the possible mechanization and automation of some of them. I think the conversion in the postal service side—I am not talking about the telecommunications side because I believe in that field we can show the world that we have done extremely well—and the rationalization of the labour intensive side should receive priority in the next few years. Looking at the excellent report of the Postmaster-General I had one big disappointment other than the exceptionally high hike in tariffs, namely that the work study department of the Post Office is a terribly small one and that only seven or eight lines of the report are devoted to the function of this department. Any modern organization which has accepted the fact that it is not a charitable organization, that it is private, free-enterprised based and that it is there to provide an essential service, should have a considerably bigger work study function than is indicated by the report. Unless it is possible to attract this kind of person, to employ them and to pay them the right salary—I am talking about work study engineers—it will not be possible for the hon. the Minister (a) to contain tariff increases and (b) to undertake the vital rationalization which I spoke about.

One very commendable aspect of the hon. the Minister’s speech is that he is going to strive to implement a policy of equal opportunity employment. The hon. the Minister said so yesterday, and we in these benches welcome that, provided equal pay goes with equal responsibility. We in these benches do not advocate equal pay for equal opportunity for the sake of equal opportunity. We believe that every citizen in South Africa—and by that we mean every citizen— should earn on merit and by a justification of service on merit he should have the opportunity for equal employment.

Then I should also like to make an appeal for the fairer sex of our world and appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of the better utilization of the females of our population. If one visits factories overseas—and I believe we have five suppliers from the East, the West and from central Europe—and look at the people who are actually involved in the manufacture of telecommunications instruments, we shall find that the females are the people who are used in these factories. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of the training of female staff in the high technology aspects. They should be trained to maintain, to install and to service high technology electronic equipment. They have the aptitude for it, they have the willingness and I believe we can make excellent use of their services. At the same time, however, I do not want to detract from the very fine work which is being done on the basis of developing the Indian, Black and the Coloured staff.

Concluding I should like to make one final appeal to the hon. the Minister, and that is that he should not accept—perhaps the hon. the Minister will reply to this—one of the principles elucidated by the hon. member for Germiston District, namely that they see the Post Office only as a service organization which is not profit-orientated.

Lastly, I should like to say to the hon. member for Virginia, in case he misinterpreted me when he asked where we are going to find the money for wages and I replied that less people should be employed, that I meant that more work should be done by less people. In other words, a natural turnover of losses in staff is allowed to take care of the reduction in staff. For the rest people must be trained and motivated to do more work—and more work does not necessarily mean working harder, sometimes it means the direct opposite—so that they may be given the opportunity to earn higher wages and attain a higher quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, you will still recall that a few years ago the previous member for Waterberg, the late Mr. Joost Heystek, addressed a remark to Mr. Etienne Malan, the then member for Orange Grove and chief Opposition speaker on Post Office matters. At that time Mr. Malan had been carrying on just as wildly as the hon. member for Hillbrow did yesterday and I think that the remark Mr. Heystek made at the time could now be applied to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Mr. Heystek said that the hon. member for Orange Grove put him very much in mind of the time when the Angel Gabriel said to Hagar, the slave of Sarah, that she would bear a son whom she was to call Ishmael. The Angel said unto her: “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

The hon. member for Hillbrow put his foot in it again this afternoon. Yesterday he spoke of a profit which was in fact a deficit, and in the process he really made a fool of himself. I am pleased that he rectified it this afternoon, because it seems that he learnt something from yesterday’s debate and from my speech in particular. Instead of taking the lesson to heart and leaving it at that, he put his foot in it again this afternoon by quoting from my speech. However, why did the hon. member not quote in full? Why did he present only a portion, a half-truth, a misrepresentation, if I may call it that? I now want to read out what I said. I wish the hon. member had another turn to speak so that he could reply to this. I now quote from Hansard, 21 March—

These are the true facts. However, the hon. member wanted to teach me a lesson and he even went so far as to say that growth would depend on the capital expenditure in this country but in the same sentence he refuted his own statement. He stated that of the R350 million that would be spent, R15 million would be spent overseas and would therefore not promote domestic growth. I agree with that, but that is the portion I am talking about when I say that it is inflationistic. If the hon. member can subtract R15 million from R350 million, he will find that an amount of R335 million remains for internal expenditure and for the promotion of growth. I ask the hon. member: Which amount is the greatest— R335 million or R15 million? Only he should not display the same profit and loss idea now that he displayed yesterday. Of course R335 million is the greatest and this is the amount that will ultimately find its way to the industries of South Africa. As I explained, this will provide additional employment opportunities. Surely that is growth.

The hon. member also referred to the 10% salary increase. If only he had not said that. He put his foot in it twice. He said that there were only 74 000 officials who would benefit from the increase while 26 million people would have to pay for it Did the hon. member not want the 10% to be given to the officials? It is approximately 1% less than the inflation rate of 11% in this country. Consequently we take cognizance of the fact that the PFP, through its principal spokesman, refuses to grant any increase in the salaries of the Post Office officials in order to bring them to some extent on a par with the rising cost of living. The hon. member is opposed to this. He says that 26 million unfortunate people have to pay for this. The hon. member still owes me a reply.

He spoke again about the self-financing of capital works. Why does the hon. member not reply to my question in connection with the 15% interest? The hon. member made little calculations and said that we could have borrowed a further R6 million if salary increases had not been introduced.

I said 6%, not R6 million.

Consequently the hon. member does not want to increase tariffs, but wants more loans to be negotiated. I pointed out to the hon. member yesterday that what we now have to pay from the current expenditure in respect of interest is already 15%. What does that hon. member want? Does he want it to be 20%, must the interest be so high that it amounts to 20% of the operating expenditure? Does the hon. member want it to be pushed up to 25% or 50%? I am already feeling like an auctioneer, because I cannot elicit an argument from that hon. member. I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member for Durban North spoke about fewer people having to do more work. I shall come to a point later when I shall reply to him at the same time. It is not that I am ignoring him; I shall come back to him later.

I want to say to the hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members opposite that the Post Office renders certain services and that there is a great deal of work. The hon. member for Hillbrow put a question to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications on 2 March 1979, of which the content was the following—

The hon. the Minister replied that there were 471 002. The hon. member wanted to stir up trouble in this way, and I want to ask him why he did not refer to this. The hon. member’s question read further—

The reply was 59 836, i.e. 12,7%. Twelve per cent entails two months’ work. This is something positive and it is a fine thing to point out how the Post Office worked. The hon. member went on to ask—

The reply was 468 064.

But the hon. member will not say anything positive about the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and the staff of the Post Office. Why does he not publicize these figures and say to the world: “Look at what the people of the Post Office achieved.” Why does the hon. member not do this? Instead the hon. member wants to criticize and find fault with everything. No recognition is given to excellent services, good planning, effective services, motivated people and officials of the Post Office who have worked hard.

The hon. member said just now that three hon. members on this side of the House had made fools of themselves. I just looked at him then and wondered who was talking.

Who is talking now?

That hon. member made a fool of himself and not hon. members on this side of the House.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Hillbrow has interjected enough.

The hon. member for Sunnyside is asking me questions.

The hon. member need not reply any more.

I have now discovered that it is very necessary that we should go and show the official Opposition what the Post Office is doing and what it has achieved. We must also show then how efficient and how productive the officials are. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could arrange for this to be done in the Transvaal during the recess. I want to mention a few things just to give hon. members opposite an idea of what they can expect. While other people pass the time of day, I shall then give the hon. member for Hillbrow economic lessons. The places which can be visited, are inter alia, the satellite station at Hartebeeshoek, one of the places which I think must certainly be seen, and the largest single automatic exchange in the southern hemisphere in the Carlton Centre in Johannesburg. It is good to realize that it is the largest in the southern hemisphere, but hon. members would do well to go and see for themselves how it functions. In the third place there is the automatic mail sorting machine in Johannesburg, and the microwave towers such as the J. G. Strydom Tower and the one at Lucasrand that one could visit. At the same time I could also make use of the opportunity to show the hon. member how well off the inhabitants of Sunnyside are.

Then he could also see that the flat-owners of Sunnyside look after their tenants and do not try to create problems for them. This I shall also show the hon. member. We could also pay a visit to the new computer centre in Pretoria and go and see the new technical laboratory which is to become the home of Potelin, as soon as it has been properly developed. I think these are places we should go and visit and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could arrange these visits for us. There are also many other places which we could visit and many other places worth seeing.

The hon. member has said that we should not increase tariffs and that we should save. However, the hon. member wants us to be able to provide everyone with telephone services. I quoted to the hon. member in this House how many new telephones have been installed. Does the hon. member know what it costs to install one new telephone? The telephones to which I referred, included farm lines. It could very easily happen—I saw an example of this recently—that a farm line has to be installed over a very long distance, for example six kilometres. It costs the Post Office between R400 and R500 per km to install that line. I advise the hon. member to make a little calculation and see what the costs amount to. If that one farm line is not laid and that farmer does not receive a telephone, what will that hon. member say then? Of course he will not care two hoots and he will do the same as the hon. member for Yeoville who said that the Afrikaners could go to blazes because they wore skins, etc….

When?

The hon. member for Yeoville said that in the Transvaal Provincial Council, and that hon. member was there to hear it. He cannot deny it, because it is true.

This indicates to us that tariffs had to be increased to enable the Post Office to render these services to South Africa.

The hon. members also raised another matter, i.e. the narrowing of the wage gap. I wonder whether hon. members have ever given this matter some thought. The hon. member for Durban North maintained, inter alia, that fewer people should do more work. Who must then be paid off, Whites or non-Whites?

No one.

How does the hon. member then want to ensure that fewer people are employed?

They resign themselves.

Those hon. members have a lot to say about the wage gap, but do they realize what they are doing? They are playing with fire. The Government is in the process of narrowing the wage gap; this has already been announced. However, one cannot summarily proceed to narrow the wage gap, because the effect this would have should be borne in mind. If one has ten labourers in one’s employ and one pays off four to be able to narrow the wage gap, six remain who would now earn as much as ten did. However, the other four are now unemployed. This is what happens. The narrowing of the wage gap creates unemployment, particularly when it is done on an irregular, ineffective and summary basis, as those hon. members want it to be done. If the wage gap is simply narrowed summarily, mechanization will have to take place. The whole of our society, industry, commerce, the agriculturist, the Government and the Post Office, all are dependent on a profit. One cannot make progress if there is no profit motive. When mechanization takes place, labourers are paid off, and this results in greater unemployment. One of the Opposition’s ulterior motives is to try to create unemployment in South Africa …

Oh no, really.

The hon. member for Durban North cries out “Oh no”, why does he not rather cry out “Oh yes”? Surely this is true. Those hon. members have all sorts of ulterior motives to get at the Government. Just as in other countries, they do not care a rap about what becomes of South Africa; just as long as they can get at the NP. They can get at us, but they must do so in a reasonable way, without harming the labourer of this country. Hon. members should place less emphasis on the narrowing of the wage gap, for then hon. members would not come forward with arguments such as those of the hon. member for Durban North, who wants us to pay off people so that we can get more productivity from the remaining workers.

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

No, my time is limited.

It is a very important question.

No, the hon. member has had his chance, but did not use it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the hon. member for Sunnyside has quoted me incorrectly.

No, Sir, the hon. member maintained …

Order! That is not a point of order, but the hon. member can ask to address the House on a point of explanation. The hon. member for Sunnyside may proceed.

The hon. member for Durban North stated very clearly here that there should be fewer people who have to do more work. The Postmaster-General must please return to his people and tell them—it is true, because it is on record—that this hon. member accused Post Office workers of being lazy, of not doing work and of being capable of doing far more work.

You can do better than that.

He did not say so, but that is the conclusion one may draw.

Your conclusion is incorrect.

Very well, then we differ on this. I want to state candidly to the hon. member that even if he did not say that, that is the conclusion that may be drawn. Why does he not come forward with other suggestions? Much better recommendations could be made. We are not afraid of criticism. On the contrary, we welcome it. There is nothing better for a Government, or for a person—and I include myself—than criticism, but then it must be positive. There must be no character assassination and people must not be denigrated. A person who levels positive criticism is always appreciated. The hon. member for Umhlanga—which almost became Umhlanga Rocks—made positive suggestions, which are appreciated. He also expressed criticism.

I think there is one matter which the Postmaster-General should consider and that is that it is being found that public telephones in cities are being damaged. Many public telephones are out of order or have been removed. Public telephones have now been installed in shops and other places. A person now walks down the road in search of a telephone because he does not know in which shop there is a telephone. Is it not possible for shops which have public telephones to have sign boards in front of them indicating that fact? This would assist the public greatly and would also mean additional income for the Post Office.

I want to conclude by referring to the amount of R81 607 000 which is spent on international obligations and agreements. In this respect I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department which, in spite of difficult circumstances and problems, have always succeeded in expanding their contacts with foreign countries to such an extent that today we have direct dialling to a large number of countries. There were problems with agitators in other countries who wanted to harm South Africa, but they did not succeed. However, the hon. the Minister and his department have succeeded not only in maintaining good contacts with foreign countries, but also in expanding these contacts so that they are one of South Africa’s greatest assets today. I think that hon. members on both sides of the House should say thank you for that service.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to the speeches made by hon. members in the Third Reading, I want to refer briefly to a few matters which were raised in previous debates and which did not perhaps receive sufficient attention in the heat of the moment.

In the first place I want to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Wonderboom in the Committee Stage. He spoke very knowledgeably about citizen band and radio communications in general. He did so with authority, as indeed he could, being as he was a member of a committee which I appointed, i.e. the Committee of Inquiry into Radio Communications over Short and Medium Distances. It is already common knowledge that the recommendations contained in their report, have been accepted.

Over and above the thanks which I have already personally conveyed to the members of that committee, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom and all the other members of the committee very sincerely in public for the hard work which they have done. The classification they carried out laid down guidelines for us the effect of which will, I believe, be that the channels available to us for the various users of radio, may now be utilized properly on an orderly and coordinated basis, to the benefit of South Africa and the interested parties.

I should also like to announce that the Post Office will finalize the conditions which will be attached to licences before the end of April, and the Post Office will then be ready to receive applications and proceed with licensing.

In the second place I should like to refer to the plea made last night by the hon. member for Constantia in connection with conditions in Bergvliet. I notice that the hon. member for Constantia is not in this House at the moment and I therefore hope that his colleagues will convey my words to him. I referred him to expenditure which was to have been incurred this year. I also want to provide him with further information. Besides what I said to him last night, I want to add that a start will also be made with large scale expenditure on telecommunications equipment. In Bergvliet, for example, we are planning an extension for 6 000 lines. The cost of this is estimated at R2 140 000. A start will be made with expenditure in this regard in the coming financial year.

I now come to this debate. We are now at the end of the Third Reading debate and also at the end of the discussion of this budget. Therefore, I want to make use of this opportunity to thank all hon. members who participated in the previous stages and also in this afternoon’s Third Reading in particular. I want to thank them for the constructive way in which they have approached the Post Office’s problems and for the positive approach evident from everyone’s speech, a positive approach to the services rendered by the Post Office, the challenges it has to face and the loyalty of and good work rendered by its officials.

The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the Franzsen Committee and mentioned that 50% of the Post Office’s financing has to come from self-generated sources and 50% from loan capital, which we have accepted as policy. However, he quoted from a report by a Franzsen Committee which was appointed in 1967. The Franzsen Committee which was appointed to investigate the financing of the Post Office, was only appointed in 1971 and only brought out its report in 1972. [Interjections.] Therefore, his reference to a figure of 40% in the Franzsen Commission report apparently refers to a completely different matter. He quoted from a completely different report to that relating to the Post Office as such.

He made a fool of himself.

This has nothing to do with the 50:50 ratio pertaining to the Post Office. Difficult as it may be for me, I really have to say that I can come to no other conclusion than that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. [Interjections.] I now want to quote what the correct report, the Franzsen Committee report of March 1972, has to say in this regard—

It then goes on to say what it has to cover. A fairly long exposition of that is given. The hon. member was apparently under a misconception, and I want to recommend that he obtains and studies the correct report so that we can debate this matter again next year if he does not yet agree with me at that stage.

He went on to argue that the fact that the increase would not take effect on 1 April, demonstrates that the increase is unnecessary. That was the crux of his argument this afternoon. With due respect to the hon. member I want to say that one could regard his argument as sophistry. Surely we do not budget in a vacuum. We do have statistics. Surely we know what our revenue was in the previous year and the years before that. Surely we know what percentile increases in revenue we have had.

And you still cannot make up your mind.

For that reason we do not venture onto thin ice when estimating our revenue. We are reasonably sure of approximately what it will amount to. We indicated that there are exceptional factors which may influence our estimates. For that reason there is a slight possibility of flexibility as far as the date is concerned. I shall come back to that point. However, we have already built into our budget an estimate of a normal increase in revenue based on our experience in the past. Similarly we have statistics on expenditure and we can estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty what our expenditure will amount to. Similarly we know what our capital requirements are. We know what is required where and for that reason we can determine the approximate costs. Having done all that, we have to balance our books. Moreover we have done. To say that we do not need an increase because we are not introducing it on 1 April, points unmistakably to the fact that this matter is being approached from the wrong angle. The result of all our estimates and of all the intensive studies and work done in advance, is that we realize that unless something unexpected happens this year, our books will not balance if we do not introduce increases this year which we think at this stage should be introduced on 1 October. If this is not done, we shall have too little money to perform our task properly within the framework or guidelines of financing from self-generated sources and loans.

Furthermore the hon. member really took something I said last night out of context. The Press also erred somewhat in this regard. The hon. member tried to create the impression that the department and I were unsure about the date on which tariff increases would take effect. Has the hon. member forgotten that after I had expressed the hope that, against our expectations, the date would be postponed to after 1 October, I stated the following—

This is what we firmly expect. The mere fact that I expressed the hope that there may be abnormal growth in our revenue which could enable us to postpone the date at a later stage, should not now create the expectation that it will definitely be postponed. However, the hon. member can rest assured that whereas the revenue trend will be more marked after 1 April, we shall still give notice well in advance of a possible change in the date of 1 October.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban North. He has asked whether a drastic increase can now be expected every four years. In saying that he is insinuating that we in the Post Office follow the policy of not increasing tariffs when necessary, but for the sake of popularity—perhaps those were not the words he used—we would operate at a deficit for even a few years and then suddenly hit the country with a drastic increase. The reply to this is a very, very definite “NO”. In our minds we are not tied to any time scale and we only allow ourselves to be guided by the normal factors applying to the drafting of a budget. In the first place there is the guideline of 50% financing from self-generated sources. We do not link this inflexibly to one year, but we try to apply this flexibly in the short and long term. Furthermore there are factors such as our requirements and anticipated revenue—and all this within the framework of the Franzsen formula. Let us test his insinuation, the venom he has tried to suck, against the increases now being implemented. After four years we are now announcing an increase of 12,78%. Surely this is not a drastic and disruptive increase. Surely this is not an increase which will pull the carpet from under one’s feet or totally bedevil the economy. Surely this is also not an increase which will leave us with vast surpluses. After all, the hon. member has the figures. This is a reasonable and fair increase. Surely the hon. member is not serious when he says that this is a drastic increase.

However, let us go on to test this on the basis of the argument advanced by hon. members. Hon. members say that we should examine the separate items. There was a 25% increase in telephone rental and a 25% increase in the postage stamp tariff. However, one should see this in context. I have already explained to hon. members why we cannot fragment the increase in respect of letters, why we should rather not work in smaller units than one cent. However, let us test these data. Hon. members state that telephone costs have increased by 25%. In October this year it will have been 4¼ years since we last increased them. If I divide 25% by 4,5, I get a figure of approximately 6% per annum. Is that drastic and unreasonable? It is much less than the inflation rate. Let us examine the increase of 25% in respect of postage stamps on letters, an increase they have made a great fuss about. We have to divide that figure by 8,5 because this tariff was last increased in 1971. If my calculations are correct, the increase per annum is, therefore, approximately 3%. This is as reasonable as can be. Has the hon. member not read the Post Office report? Has he not read that over the past decade up to the present the Post Office has limited its total tariff increases to 64%—the proposed increases excluded—whereas the consumer price index has increased by 114% over the corresponding period? As we have done during the past decade, we shall try to keep the tariffs as low as possible at all times in this new decade without prejudicing our charter of keeping pace with the development of our country and ensuring that our country has a proper communications system and that communication in South Africa is flourishing and meets the needs of the population.

†The hon. member for Durban North again referred to rationalization, overtime, work studies and productivity. I want to deal with these four matters.

Firstly, there is the question of rationalization. Rationalization in the Post Office is a continuous process, and I think that is illustrated by the restructuring which I have announced in my Second Reading speech and which we have discussed in some depth.

The second aspect the hon. member mentioned, was that of overtime. Overtime work is done in the Post Office primarily to cope with the daily fluctuations in the flow of traffic. I want to give the hon. member an example. We cannot gear our staff establishment to the high level of traffic at the end of a month. If we do so, we shall have tremendous wastage, because great numbers of staff members will be idle during the slack period of the month.

In the third instance he referred to work studies. The relatively short reference to work study in the report is no yardstick by which to measure either the magnitude of its role in the Post Office, nor the importance which we attach to this facet of management. The Post Office attaches great importance to work study. Apart from the work study division at head office, we have trained work study officers also in all our regions.

Lastly, the hon. member referred to productivity. I can give him the assurance that we are fully aligned to the need to increase productivity. An analysis of our achievements will prove the advances we have made in this area. The hon. member may be interested to know that we have invoked the assistance of the National Productivity Institute in studies to improve productivity and that in this respect we are really making good progress.

*The hon. member for Germiston District made a positive speech. I want to thank him for the appreciation he expressed towards the Post Office and its officials and for the positive support he gave without reservation to this budget and the proposed increases. I am very grateful for his contributions. They enrich us and were truly positive and beneficial.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also participated and put certain questions to me which I should like to conclude by replying to. He asked that, in order to illuminate the dark comers in the minds of some hon. members opposite, we should invite them, together with members of our group, to visit the Transvaal, where there are large concentrations of the activities of the Post Office in respect of various matters. I am already planning such a tour in my mind and I am pleased that the hon. member has also brought it up. The members of the Post Office group of all parties, as well as those members of the Select Committee who are not members of those groups, will in due course be informed of the arrangements in this regard. I attach only one condition to this, viz. that not all members of this House should not join this group, because in that case we shall be unable to handle all of them!

The hon. member also proposed that we place signboards outside buildings which have a public table telephone. I think this may be a good idea in principle, but the question is whether this falls within our sphere or whether it is not in the interests of the lessee or occupier of the premises with such a telephone, to do it himself, because in this way he attracts people to his business. He can really advertise a facility he offers, himself. Nevertheless, we shall consider the matter.

This brings us to the end of the debate. I want to thank hon. members for the patience with which they have listened to me and particularly for the friendly words expressed to me and my department throughout the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause has to do with one of the main principles of the Bill. I assume that we shall follow our normal procedure in allowing at least the first speaker of every party to state his party’s standpoint, even though it has to do with the principle of the Bill. In effect what is happening with the deletion and the addition of words is that instead of the University of Fort Hare being confined only to Xhosa students, it will be now opened to all Black students. The words of the proposed subsection (3) read—

During the course of the Second Reading we made the point as strongly as we could that we believe this to be an improvement on the present situation and therefore this was one of the main reasons why we supported the Second Reading. When one examines the policy of the Nationalist Government over the past 31 years I do not think anyone on that side of the House would want to deny that in its early days and for a considerable period of its life, the Government believed that the way to resolve the potential conflict in South Africa was through and by racial separation. This was only another name for apartheid, but let us use the perhaps more gentle approach and talk about separate development. It was separate development based on race, and I think history will show this to be true. Therefore there had to be separate amenities, separate facilities and separate provisions for the different race groups. We have a long list of legislative measures on the Statute Book which will testify to the NP’s endeavour to follow this through to its logical conclusion. Now history has caught up with the NP, and we know that there is abundant evidence that the policy is no longer one based purely on race or colour separation.

It has never been.

It has been. It is quite clear. There is indeed still enough legislation on the Statute Book to bear me out on what I say now. The Immorality Act, for example, is one such piece of legislation. Universities are run in terms of divisions on racial grounds. However, the other arm or development of that policy, as we understand it, was that this ought to be not only on race, but also on ethnic grounds, that we were a country not merely of Black and White, but a country of many nations. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, I know, but I think this is what the argument of the NP has been. The argument has been that there are Zulus, Xhosa, Tswanas and so on. We know the whole story.

Do you want to dispute it?

No, it is a fact. I agree with that. There are Zulus. There are Xhosas, and so on.

What an admission!

Therefore one has to have not merely an allowance for or a recognition of that fact, but one also has to cater for it in such a way that one has people placed in strait-jackets. The way, for example, to protect the identity of the Xhosa is to make it absolutely clear to him that he is a Xhosa, that he must never divert to anything which may be foreign to his own culture, no matter how developed or how developing the situation might be. Therefore, in every area of life he has to make sure that he preserves that, even if he does not want to. In this way one has an enforced ethnicity as one of the major components of NP policy. I do not believe anybody would want to quarrel with me when I say that.

During the Second Reading debate I suggested that both these principles—the principle of separation based on race, and now the principle of separation based on ethnicity—have gone by the board. The cracks in the granite wall of NP policy are very real, very evident for everybody to see. I believe those cracks are widening. Those cracks are threatening to become a flood which will carry away that hon. Deputy Minister and those who think like him. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know, from previous speeches I have made, that I have read his writings with great interest, particularly one of his more recent publications—Credo van ’n Afrikaner. I have read it very carefully.

You do not understand it.

It may be that I do not understand it. It is not an easy book to understand. However, there is one thing that comes through very clearly, very clearly indeed. That is a major thesis that one cannot do away with petty apartheid if one wants big or grand apartheid to remain. That is exactly the point. I have asked the hon. the Deputy Minister across the floor, and he agrees with me. Now, I should like to hear from those hon. members who have been so vociferous in their comments and in their interjections. Do they agree with that? Absolute silence! Now they are all absolutely quiet. [Interjections.] Because this is a Committee Stage, perhaps hon. members on that side of the House will describe to us what “petty” apartheid is and what “grand” apartheid is. Hon. members must tell us about it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is very clear and knows where he stands. However, as for the rest of the hon. members on that side of the House I am not at all sure where they stand and I do not think that they know either. That is the reason why I suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he was in trouble over this legislation. I had a great deal of trouble to encourage him to respond, and I must say that we had a very long and interesting response indeed at the end of the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech was not really directed at me, but at the hon. members who sit with him on that side of the House. [Interjections.] It was a speech with the message not to worry, that everything was going to be all right. It is true that the cracks are there, but for practical reasons all these things have to be taken into consideration. “But,” he seems to say, “it is all right. I am in the House, waiting for my position and place in history.” The hon. the Deputy Minister is like a jumbo in the circus. The balls are in the air, he is jumping with them at the moment…

Brandy bottles.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is like a juggler. But the balls are tumbling down.

When we talk about the University of Fort Hare, we are talking about a university with a very fine tradition. In his reply the hon. the Deputy Minister saw fit to make specific reference to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and suggested that I was one of those who were holding on to his coat tails, to use one particular phrase. He said I was one of his “agterryers”, but that I had been kicked off, dumped, and that there was no longer room for me. I want to remind hon. members that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi is quite rightly proud to be a Zulu. He is proud to be a South African too, just as I am. [Interjections.] That Zulu leader was trained at a Xhosa university, at the University of Fort Hare. It did not rob him of his ethnicity.

It was not a university.

The hon. the Deputy Minister makes my point. The university was open to all Blacks. All the Black universities were open to all Blacks and nobody lost their identity. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi remains a proud Zulu. They did not take his identity away from him at the University of Fort Hare, even though it was not restricted to one ethnic group. The hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that.

You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not accept that? What is happening, is that the Nationalist Party is progressing backwards. [Interjections.] That is why we support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the NRP is concerned, clause 1 of the Bill is one of the clauses which is in fact a fulfilment of the recommendations of the Snyman Commission. We regard it as a positive step towards the restoration of university autonomy as was debated by us during the Second Reading debate. For that reason we fully support clause 1.

The old article provided that a well-known university with a long history, such as the University of Fort Hare, was only limited to people of the Xhosa national unit by right. It was virtually like going to people in the Free State and saying to them that because they were in the Free State, there was by right only one university which they could attend, namely the University of the Orange Free State, no matter how much they would have loved to have come down to an English university, such as the University of Natal, or, if one was a very good rugby player, to the University of Stellenbosch.

This was, of course, a cardinal mistake to come to people and to say to them: “We have decided that this is your own, and now you must be very proud of it.” What is actually taking place is that these people are being condemned to lead a particular way of life. The Government regulates their lives throughout. We are therefore glad to see that the Snyman Commission found that behind the unrest at the Black universities, was this compulsion, because it created a system whereby people could exploit their discontent. I am not referring only to Fort Hare now, but to all the other universities as well.

The other clauses can be debated later. I do not intend doing it at this time. For practical reasons, however, we must admit that the Government has already started to move away from this state of affairs. We do not share the view of the PFP that this great and dramatic break has occurred all of a sudden, now for the first time. If hon. members will look at the clause dealing with Medunsa, the Medical University of South Africa, they will see that this same Government already established a multi-national university approximately three years ago. Incidentally I think the PFP voted against that Bill. I am not sure.

We did so for very good reasons, e.g. that it closed down the Natal University Medical School.

There could have been many other reasons.

That was the major reason.

There might have been other reasons, but I shall accept the word of the hon. member for Houghton. History will show, however, that when that dramatic break took place, the PFP voted against the measure. We in these benches accept that this measure is an improvement, as I explained during the Second Reading stage. If we had to deal with the provisions of this particular clause only, we would have had no difficulty with the Bill. As far as the grouping or the de facto situation at many of the universities is concerned, they have been multi-national universities in the past, although this was subjected to permission.

I very briefly want to deal with the issue as we in the NRP see it. The character of a university is determined, in many respects, by the type of people it serves or by the community in which it is situated. Its geographical situation is an important part in this respect. Even with the deletion of the provision dealing with the national unity of the Xhosas, the very location of a university like Fort Hare will give it a Xhosa character. We believe that it is not necessary to make legislation to enable people to be proud of their identity. We believe that when all restrictions are lifted by the Government, the natural desire amongst people to identify themselves with the particular group from which they stem in our plural society will persist.

You would never have given them anything!

That hon. member says: “You would never have given them anything,” but quite frankly, this is not a debate about who is giving what, etc. Fort Hare was, in any case, not a creation of the NP, as far as I remember. Do hon. members on that side of the House really think that they created a university such as Fort Hare? I do not know when it was established.

This whole idea is totally irrelevant. We are debating the situation as it is today. I want to conclude by saying that this particular clause has our whole-hearted support in principle, as well as in its application. There are, however, other reasons why we were unable to support the Bill at Second Reading, but I shall deal with them later.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central.

It needs support.

We in this party of course always support each other. We have become known for it.

With regard to the history of this particular clause it is interesting that the definition of the Xhosa national unit, which also related to the admission of students to the University of Fort Hare, was enacted by the Promotion of Black Self-government Act of 1959, which, of course, was the cornerstone of the grand apartheid policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd.

Order! That is no longer under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am just referring to the wording of the clause.

With respect, I am just reminding the hon. member that it is no longer under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling, but it is the wording of the clause that is under discussion. I want to make the point that amending legislation is now before the House. We support the proposed amendments, as my hon. colleague said, but I think one must look a little further than just straight support of these amendments and say that the original legislation was typical of the way in which the National Government dealt with issues. The multiplication of facilities for each specific group was something like, multiplicatio ad absurdum. There was an absolute fetish for creating specific facility for each group. As time passed, the official eye was closed to minor infringements of clauses such as this, until those infringements became an established fact, and when the infringements became an established fact and people became used to it, the Government brings amending legislation such as this Bill and changes it, saying: “See what good chaps we are.” I think this history should be remembered and that is why I referred to the Promotion of Black Self-government Act of 1959 and the late Dr. Verwoerd. I believe that in discussing this clause we should see it in the light of that history. When we say that we accept this amending legislation, we are also saying that this amending legislation should not have been necessary. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary that we cover the whole field of the principle of the Bill once again. In the discussion of this clause I think hon. members on the opposite side of the House were looking for a reason to turn it into a political issue, but for them politics is still as barren as it has been for the past 30 years.

The hon. member for Pinelands is opposed to our “differentiation on the basis of ethnic differences”.

†He suggests that we cannot get away from petty apartheid without doing away also with grand apartheid.

That is what you said.

It should interest the hon. member to know that I do not speak of petty apartheid in my language. [Interjections.] It should also be of interest to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who knows Afrikaans. This concept did not find its origin in the vocabulary of separate development. It originated with the derigators of separate development. The denigrators of separate development spoke of petty apartheid. The hon. member does not know what the difference is between the so-called “small” apartheid and “petty” apartheid. The normal distinction can be drawn between constitutional structures and also distinctive social structures when it comes to what is virtually the root system of society. I have also indicated profusely that there are certain structures, organizations, vital relationships, associations, etc., which are precious to any community which is aware of its own identity and which it should like to regard as its own and which it does not wish to throw open to everyone. It acts in a protective way in that respect. I see the hon. member agrees with me. My question is, therefore: What is he kicking up such a fuss about?

He referred to Chief Buthelezi who did not lose his identity when he studied at the University of Fort Hare. That is a glimpse of the obvious!

Thank you.

Afrikaans-speaking people who attended universities abroad, for example in Holland and in England for many years, did not lose their identity there either. Some did indeed come back a little dishevelled, but that did not stop us in South Africa from establishing our own universities for the Afrikaans-speaking people at Stellenbosch, Bloemfontein, Pretoria, or wherever, and from extending English-speaking universities where there were mainly English-speaking students. These grew in the normal way from the needs of the communities and provision was made in that way for the needs of the particular communities. This applies in general to a White community, because the cultural groups in a White community are generally more acceptable to one another than Whites and Blacks are acceptable to one another in the social sphere. Therefore, just as there is a degree of free movement between White universities, one also finds the free movement of Black students between a diversity of Black universities in terms of the amendment Surely this is no problem.

The hon. members are now pretending that we are introducing a completely novel idea here. Surely this is no novelty which is suddenly appearing on the programme now. When we originally made provision for separate universities—twenty years ago—we kept the practical situation in mind. If a need for it had existed at the time—as the case seems to be today—if it had been necessary and practicable, we would, if possible, have given each of those groups its own university. However, it was impracticable. That was the situation in the time of Dr. Verwoerd. Now those hon. members are trying to imply, however, that it is a sudden novelty, after 20 years, while this grouping together of the students of ethnic groups at a particular university was already taking place 20 years ago. Therefore it is nothing new. What the hon. members very conveniently forget, however, is what has been brought into existence and what is happening at present. For instance, Venda approached the hon. the Prime Minister and requested that the department should examine the possibility of a university of its own. Therefore, the idea behind the 1959 Act and the 1969 Act, is now being borne out by the applications which come from these Black peoples themselves. The Transkei, for instance, already has its own university and Bophuthatswana has already appointed a board with a view to obtaining its own university. I now have to accept, however, according to the hon. members on the opposite side, that it goes absolutely against the grain for them that such movements and requests should come from the ranks of the Black peoples. A request has already been made by Qwaqwa—and they are only a small nation—that a committee should be appointed to examine the possibility of a university of its own. I see that hon. member looking at me.

But why? Because they were not allowed to go to White universities.

This comes from the people themselves. It was possible for them to attend the University of Zululand, but they nevertheless came forward with the request for a university of their own.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can tell us whether the requests of Venda and Qwaqwa means that only their own people will attend those universities they want, or whether it means that they wish to make them open to all?

They could perhaps state it on paper that the university would be open to everybody, but what would the position be in practice? Why are they requesting their own university? Is it not because they want to have a university for their own people? In practice, they want to have a university for their own people. They also know that the control of such a university would be in their own hands. That is important to them. In the same way, every White university which is autonomous, has control over its own people. However, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech, we are still exercising a degree of control over the admission of Black students to White universities, for particular reasons. However, we may leave it at that. I have made my point.

The hon. member for Durban Central had a great deal to say about universities which were being forced upon people …

In the past.

Yes, in the past. But I do not believe that that is the full picture. When we talk about the past, we can go back to the situation which prevailed 20 years ago. As far as the admission of Black and Coloured students to White universities is concerned, the hon. member will know what the situation was at the time. He will be aware of what privileges they enjoyed and of the shabby social position they were in. If one had now wanted to accommodate the expected increase in the number of non-White students, one would have had very large numbers of students at those universities, which would not only have created an accommodation problem but also a vast number of social and political problems in such a university set-up. We saw those factors in a different light. We realized that the desire would arise with these peoples to study in large numbers and we realize that we had to make provision for it. Nor did it happen without consultation with these people. They were indeed consulted. It is for that reason that we got the co-operation of the peoples who are represented today in the council of the University of the North for example. They are represented there because they have certain interests there. Those are not simply general interests, but national interests, and they realize them through their representation on that council.

I do not believe it is necessary for me to elaborate any further on this measure since it seems to me the hon. members on the opposite side agree with me in any case.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I think that our attitude to this clause was stated clearly during the Second Reading debate. We see this as a slight improvement on the existing situation in that it at least allows the council of a university to decide whether or not to admit as students people who are not Black, albeit that they can take such a decision only in very restricted circumstances and always with the permission of the Minister. In that sense it represents, a slight improvement. It is a tentative attempt to open, even if ever so slightly, a door which has been totally closed since this university was established in 1969. It at least admits of the possibility of a White person being admitted to a Black university if the council of that university wants that.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it falls very far short indeed of the ideal situation which should obtain in regard to university administration and organization. Why should it be necessary for the Minister to interfere in the decision as to who should be admitted to the university concerned? Why can it not be left to the council alone to decide who should be admitted? This, really, is the basic principle in respect of university autonomy. This relates to the matter whether a White can be admitted to a Black university, in this case the University of Fort Hare. Surely, this ought to be a matter for the council of that university to decide on. That is the view we in these benches hold.

At Second Reading the hon. the Deputy Minister said in reply to the points raised in connection with this clause that the Government was entitled to this control because it paid for this university education. One wonders what sort of a principle that is, where it ends and where it begins, because if one looks at the contents of this clause, one sees that this is a clause which contains a principle which is nothing less than blatant, unadulterated race discrimination. This is what it means. It says that if the council of the University of Fort Hare should want to admit somebody who is not Black—it is put on a totally racial basis—it will be the Minister who will decide whether to give permission for the admission of that person or not. This is not merely a question of the recognition of different races, as the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to indicate in his Second Reading speech. This involves applying a racist principle as to who will or will not be admitted to a university. He believes that ip that sense the principle is one which certainly is quite contrary to the principle of reasonable university autonomy.

I want to ask again why the council cannot decide in such cases. Why are the Government afraid to allow the council the discretion to decide who shall be admitted to the university? The Government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand the Government says—and the hon. the Minister has reiterated this in his reply to the debate on a previous clause and in his Second Reading speech— that the Black people want to preserve their own strict ethnicity. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. It was the strange reference that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi asked people not to differentiate between the urban Zulu and the rural Zulu. That is purely a question of ethnicity. However, I do not want to deal with that at this stage. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why, if he is so sure that the Blacks require total recognition of absolute ethnicity, the Government are so afraid of allowing a Black university council to decide who should be admitted to its university. The Government cannot have it both ways. I believe that the reason why the Minister wants to retain this power so that it is only with his permission that any person other than a Black can be admitted to this university, is that he himself recognizes the fact that the Black universities want the right to admit people other than Blacks. The Minister is, however, not prepared to give them that right. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not hide behind the point that it is because the State must decide. He must indicate quite clearly that this Government, contrary to the views of the Black people in charge of these universities, do not want to give them the right to determine who should be admitted to these universities. As I have said, the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted the words of Gatsha Buthelezi. I wonder if he believes that Chief Buthelezi would believe in anything but an open university for the Zulu people. I believe that the principle contained in this clause is something that is quite untenable. I want to say that, while we do not approve of this, I did indicate that at least it opened the door ever so slightly and that at least there might be the possibility of a White person being admitted to one of these universities.

In his introductory Second Reading speech, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it would be applicable “primarily” to staff, while the hon. member for Virginia said in his Second Reading speech that it would be applicable “chiefly” to staff members who want to attend these universities. I believe there will be people who live in close proximity to these universities who might well want to attend these universities. People in, perhaps, the Pietersburg area, in Zululand, or whatever the place may be, might find it convenient and economic to attend these universities. I hope the Minister will find it possible to use reasonable discretion in exercising his powers in terms of this provision. I hope it will not be purely restricted to staff members or their families. The hon. the Deputy Minister used the word “primarily” while the hon. member for Virginia used the word “chiefly” in this respect. However, I hope this power will be used with considerable discretion and that the Minister will be generous in exercising that discretion in order to allow people other than Blacks to attend these universities.

I am told that the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which I should like to have moved, an amendment which obviates the need for the Minister to intervene in this matter by omitting the words “, with the permission in writing of the Minister granted on such conditions as he may determine”, and which therefore makes quite sure that only the council shall determine this matter, will not be allowed in terms of the rules of the House. I am told that the first part of the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper will be out of order. In any event, I wish to move the second part of my amendment, viz.—

This, too, deals with the exercising of the Minister’s rights to give permission. The clause, as it stands, states that the Minister will give permission subject to “such conditions as he may determine”. Subsection (2) of the clause states that the Minister may at any time withdraw that permission if conditions are not complied with. This puts a university in an untenable position and also puts the students in an untenable position. It means that there will for ever be a Sword of Damocles hanging over a student at that university because at any time the Minister may decide, on the basis of his own interpretation, that any conditions which he may have laid down have not been complied with and then, all of a sudden, he can withdraw the permission for that student to remain at the university. I therefore believe that subsection (2) should be omitted. I should also have liked, as I have said, to omit the words I dealt with in my amendment, but I am not going to be allowed to do so in terms of the rules of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave has made a considerable attack on the hon. the Deputy Minister and the principle contained in this clause. Our attitude towards the Bill at Second Reading was based precisely on this clause, and I echo everything the hon. member for Musgrave has said in attacking the hon. the Deputy Minister on his intention, but we opposed the Bill at Second Reading precisely for this reason. We regarded the offence given by the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister as being so important that we were not prepared to support the Bill at all. If the hon. member for Musgrave had supported that attitude at Second Reading he would have been on much firmer ground than he is at the moment.

Let us look at what the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing. In replying to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted certain words of mine conceding the point that it was the basis of our policy that these universities should be part of the cultural set-up of the various groups of people, for instance the Zulu people at Ngoya University. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that in a unitary State the recognition of cultural pluralism is something which would inevitably lead to conflict. For that reason he was justifying the fact that there should be separate universities, separate States and everything else. For that very reason our party has adopted the attitude of a federal-confederal set-up in South Africa to accommodate precisely the problem the hon. the Deputy Minister sees, without going so far as to fall completely off the board because he cannot, any where in his thinking, conceive of a system which can include, in some sort of a consociation, different groups of people who may be culturally different.

Where are the little balls?

You know where they are. I have got them. I have said to the hon. the Deputy Minister: “My Bols is beter as sy Bols.” That is the simple truth of it. The ideas that we have can accommodate this particular problem that the hon. the Deputy Minister has. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing here is showing that he does not have the confidence in the council of that university to accommodate what is now probably the smallest part of the responsibility that they would have if he were to give it to them because he gives the council the right to run the university. He mentioned the enormous sums of money involved. The council of the university spends the money and runs the whole university, so surely the hon. the Deputy Minister would trust such a man as Prof. Kgware of the University of the North to decide who can come to his university? He also mentioned in the Second Reading debate that all kinds of weird people might want to associate themselves with the Black universities for whatever purpose. Surely a rector of that stature would be able to say that he did not want people like that at his university and surely to goodness it can be left in the hands of a university council, which is charged with looking after the cultural needs and the intimate concerns of its own people in a university of this nature, to see that the wrong sort of people do not get into that university.

Order! Which part of the clause is the hon. member discussing now?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has taken …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that there is no amendment before the Committee. The hon. member is speaking with reference to an amendment which does not exist.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister still owes us an explanation, not having given us an adequate explanation in reply to our objection to this clause at Second Reading. Surely, Sir, I am entitled to continue in that vein, because I am motivating the fact that this particular clause was our reason for objecting to the Bill at Second Reading. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister still owes us that explanation. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing in this clause is to ensure that he himself has it in his own hands to determine what White students will be allowed to attend these universities. That is what we object to. That is our reason for not agreeing with the Bill. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should tell us whether he has confidence in the people running the university or whether he has not, because it boils down to the question of confidence in the council of the university, and nothing else but that. Should the hon. the Deputy Minister like to reply to that we would be interested to hear what he has to say. We can then take the matter further.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a close look at this clause, because it has obviously been the cause of some dissention. The question, I believe, is: What does this clause actually do? As far as we can see, it is actually for the first time allowing some Whites to attend what have hitherto been ethnic universities. This is something new. It is putting right something. It is giving people the opportunity, the privilege, the right which they have actually been denied, but which they once enjoyed. Because of that it seems to us to make good sense to support the hon. the Deputy Minister in this respect. What we do object to, however, is that it is limited to the discretion of the Minister. That is why we tried to move the amendment, an amendment which is not before us now. Therefore I cannot speak to it. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I will observe your ruling.

I do not think this House should overlook the fact that what we are actually doing in clause 5—in the clause, not in the amendment —is that we are actually improving the status quo. Our appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister is this. Not only do we say “well done” because the hon. the Minister is allowing some Whites to attend these universities which were once closed to them, but we also ask him to lift his hand and let the council make the decision as to who those people ought to be. If he is not prepared to do that, we say “well done” as far as those are concerned who will now be allowed to study there. However, we still request him to be as generous as possible in extending this to as many people as may wish to study further.

And now I come to the final word I want to say in connection with this matter. There is no question about the fact that people go to different universities for different reasons. Very often someone chooses a university, not only because of its culture or its character, but because of a specific professor or a specific subject. I did that myself. Years ago I went to a particular university because the head of a department there was specializing in the subject in which I was vitally interested in terms of my own Ph.D.

Was she nice?

Very good! That is why I got such a good Ph.D. I did not go there because of the university or its geographic location, but because the head of the department was a known world expert. There are going to be people in this country who wish to attend universities because they are particularly and definitely interested in a subject. We therefore hope that the discretion that the hon. the Deputy Minister exercises will include these people as well because I think this could only enrich the university and assist those students who wish to study there.

Mr. Chairman, right at the beginning we must express our appreciation for the fact that the official Opposition now also agrees that clause 5 has a lot wrong with it in principle.

We said so during the Second Reading debate.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member only said that there was something wrong with the detail.

But what is the detail?

The hon. member for Musgrave later went on to repeat what I had said during the Second Reading debate. He says it affects the basic principle of university autonomy. He also says this is a blatant form of racial discrimination, an untenable situation.

[Inaudible.]

Those are the words now being used. During the Committee Stage all I want to establish is that these matters, which were quite correctly raised by the hon. member for Musgrave, are not matters of detail. Good heavens, no! They are matters of principle. I wonder what will happen when we come to the Third Reading debate.

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

All right, Mr. Chairman. I will now put some pertinent questions of the hon. the Minister.

*In the first place I want to refer to the speech he made yesterday when he said that he would exercise the discretion he had. He called it a situation which existed under the old dispensation when colleges still fell under the University of South Africa. What was before the House at the present time, he said, was in a sense a return to what was applicable at that time but which was held in abeyance at the time of drafting various Acts concerning Black universities.

We accept the practical application of clause 5 as it stands. Unless the hon. the Minister puts the matter in a different light, it must be accepted that in practice this simply amounts to the rights of staff members at Black universities being restored. This is not something new either, since this was the position prior to 1969. In the second place I just want to say why I am dealing with this particular clause. As long as the system of ministerial permission exists, one is going to have the problem—and at present I believe the hon. the Minister is right when he states that only White staff members will be allowed—of inevitable and continual friction between student and lecturer.

During the Second Reading debate I said there was evidence that Blacks who did not pass their examinations at Black universities ascribed their failure to some form of discrimination. The hon. the Minister is going to prescribe the regulations, and I want to ask him what kind of studies staff members are going to take up. Will it be limited to postgraduate studies or will it include undergraduate studies as well? The fact remains that the conditions that are going to prevail with the application of this clause will be such that the few Whites who are allowed to study at the university will always be the people who are going to do well, since abnormal circumstances will still be prevailing instead of normal circumstances in which it will be clear to the Black students that lecturers, whether White or Black, might also be unable to pass. This is the kind of unnatural situation which is being created. He claims that it was necessary for them to retain this power, because one will find “strange people” going there. The hon. the Deputy Minister added: “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.” The hon. the Deputy Minister proudly mentions that the majority of members on the council are Black and that all the various people are represented on the council.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister really believe that he cannot trust those councils, particularly the council of Fort Hare to handle this matter? Fort Hare is an old university and in respect of its convocation one finds that members have made their mark in university affairs. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that up to this year—we have almost reached 1980—we have made so little progress that he cannot trust a predominantly Black university council to protect their own institution from “strange people?” Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not realize that a clause like this, when read in conjunction with the excuse offered by the hon. the Deputy Minister, constitutes a terrible insult to these people? Not only does it indicate that we do not trust these people, but it is at the same time a terrible insult to them.

The situation which is being created here, constitutes no step forward. I believe it is very clear from the various statements made by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard that the only people who are going to derive any benefit from it will be a few lecturers and a few staff members. Because of that we are writing something into the legislation which can only be interpreted to mean that the present Government does not have sufficient confidence in those councils at the moment or will not have such confidence in them in future. For the moment, therefore, we can forget about the other principles which we referred to in the Second Reading debate, viz. university autonomy, etc., which are not relevant now. Can hon. members imagine a bigger insult than this?

The responsibility is very great.

No. The hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to get away with it so easily. I want to discuss that responsibility aspect at once. The fact that the State pays 85% of the costs of White universities, whereas it amounts to 100% in respect of non-White universities, is in my opinion no argument to hide behind. After all, it does not make all that much difference.

The last aspect that I wish to discuss, is the interpersonal relations of the students. These relations must be normal, but I cannot see how they can be normal with the practical implementation of this legislation. If there are going to be White students at this university, who are not also lecturers, their Black fellow students are going to know that they are the selected few who bear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s stamp of approval. This creates an unnatural situation. When a White student appears on one of these campuses the Blacks will know that he is there because he has met the requirements set by the council. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister regards the presence of White lecturers and staff as safe. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already assured us that such a person will not be a “strange person” and will not be one who would want to oppose the Government either. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister himself said here. For that reason I ask: Why can we not have a little more confidence in these councils? Why is it still necessary for us at this stage to come forward with this kind of legislation? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to my mind the sooner the hon. members of the Opposition parties accept the fact that the NP is uncompromisingly committed to the recognition of ethnicity and nationally orientated universities, as stated during the Second Reading debate, the better. The hon. members for Mooi River and Durban Central based their attack on the clause on the impugning of the concept of university autonomy. The hon. member for Rondebosch, if I remember correctly, indicated very clearly that this principle cannot be absolutized. Various examples were quoted by the Opposition to show that we are in fact dealing here with an impugnment of the concept of autonomy.

I should like to quote to hon. members from the principal report by the Commission of Investigation into University Affairs, the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, what their finding was as regards this autonomy. This ought to solve the Opposition’s problem regarding the clause with which we are now dealing. I quote from page 56 of the report—

If this is borne in mind, the State has a very special interest in the universities which this clause concerns because, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, the financial contribution to them is so substantial. Because of this, and because it forms part of the concept of autonomy, the State, and more specifically in terms of this clause the Minister, is fully entitled to lay down his conditions within the framework of the principle of autonomy.

It is not a matter of a lack of confidence in the university council, as the hon. member for Durban Central tried to show, because the council of the university, like the university itself, is committed to the principle of autonomy. They are the personification of the university. Within the council, therefore, there are also representatives of the State who form part of those principles of autonomy. This is not a matter of a lack of confidence. We can quote numerous examples from various Acts where the provisions “with the permission of” or “after consultation with” or “in consultation with” the Minister concerned apply. Why? Because the Minister concerned, and consequently the State as well, have a special interest in that particular aspect. This is exactly what is happening here. With great respect towards the hon. member for Durban Central, it is not a matter of a lack of confidence in that council. It is senseless to argue that way.

Mr. Chairman, in addition I want to express a few thoughts on the second part of the original amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave which deals with the withdrawal of permission if the original conditions for admission have not been met. The hon. member argues that this is unfair, but it has surely been proved so clearly, in so many different spheres, that some people obtain the right on the basis of certain conditions whereas they do not comply with those conditions in practice. Surely that is not amusing. Does the hon. member now want to come and tell me that people will not fail to comply with the conditions? If he wants to do so, I can only say that he is living in a fool’s paradise. Clearly, if one seeks to protect the rights of the State in those institutions in which it has an interest, one must surely afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity to act according to his own judgment, if conditions are not complied with. But those hon. members are so inclined to quote absurd examples, for instance examples which seek to give the impression that the hon. the Minister will be unfair to people. That is not the point, however. Surely we could have confidence in the Minister concerned, enough confidence to believe that if the original conditions are complied with, there will be no problems. I repeat what I said at the beginning. The sooner those hon. members accept that the fact that some Whites can go to those universities is the result of the Government’s wish to help them in their particular practical circumstances, the better! The basic principle remains, however, that various ethnic universities were established because that principle is educationally sound and in the interests of the Black people themselves. Interestingly enough, I read only yesterday in The Argus that even a man like Mr. Harry Oppenheimer had emphasized in a speech at Wits University that there should be separate universities. I should like to quote him.

Order!

May I not say that, Mr. Chairman?

Order! I do not believe the subject of separate universities is relevant to the discussion of this clause.

But Mr. Chairman, with respect, I say that merely to illustrate that the State is justified in establishing separate universities and cannot simply grant unqualified admission to anybody. However, I shall abide by your ruling.

I believe I have replied adequately to the hon. member’s commentary.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia, who has just resumed his seat, made out a very good case in support of our opposition to this clause. When he was dealing with this clause, I thought to myself how well he was supporting our argument, and we are very pleased to have his support because this is the direction in which we should like to see Government thinking move.

When we looked at this clause we said that if words have any meaning, we must weigh up the words and try to establish the intention behind this clause. On considering the clause, I have come to the conclusion that the main intention is clearly to empower the hon. the Minister to take the decisions which he wants to take, thus concentrating power in the hands of the hon. the Minister as opposed to giving those powers to the council. I say that to summarize the comments my hon. colleague made earlier. I do so because I want clarity on that matter.

Having said that, let me add that if one looks at certain words in the clause, one finds another very clear intention coming to the fore. For example, in line 21 there are the words “of any person who is not a Black”. I want to deal with the intention behind those words and put forward a case that is a little different to that put forward in previous discussions. Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose you would allow me to say that in the light of the debate that has taken place that particular wording is somewhat less than honest. I do not think you would let me say that, would you? You might, however, let me say that wording the clause in that particular manner is a little less than specific. This kind of play on words is certainly not in the interests of our image because I have seen people— usually Government supporters—take legislation like this and quote words like that out of context to indicate that in South Africa the hon. the Minister can let any person who is not a Black go to a Black university, and they do this to justify the fact that this Government is making progress. I do not believe, however, that that is really the honest way to do things. Judging by the way the debate has gone, with the hon. the Minister stating in much clearer terms what he really intends, I think that we have made out a pretty good case for saying that that wording is very misleading. We object to that wording. In fact, we object to the whole clause. Having put our case, we would be interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in reply.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to react briefly to a point which the hon. member for Virginia made on this clause with reference to me. It dealt with the whole question of the discretion of the Minister and the autonomy of universities. In the nature of things, the university is not absolutely autonomous. That I concede to the hon. member. The university stands in a certain relationship to the State, society, etc. When it concerns the principle of the autonomy of universities and academic freedom, the only valid criterion is whether measures are being applied that determine admission to the university on an unacademic basis. That is what is at issue. Two criteria which are pre-eminently unacademic are racial and ethnic considerations, that is to say, compulsory racism and compulsory ethnicity.

What is involved here is the discretion which the Minister has to determine admission to a university. I wish to make it very clear to the NRP that our argument is that in the past, it was statutorily determined on a purely racial and ethnic basis that certain students could not be admitted to a particular university. One principle, namely that of compulsory ethnicity, is now being removed by this Bill. In other words, from now on there will be discretionary freedom of admission. In the second principle a fissure has now appeared in that whereas no one previously had the discretion to determine whether a White could attend a Black university, the Minister will now have that discretion. In other words, the test to be applied is whether there is any possibility for a White student wishing to attend a Black university of applying to someone, whoever that may be, to accomplish that. In the past, he could not apply to anyone, but now he can at least address an application to the Minister and he stands a chance. The point I therefore wish to make, is that in the light of this amendment, we see our way clear to supporting the measure. At the same time, we support the principle that no racial or ethnic considerations should determine who may be admitted to a university. In that respect, I differ with the hon. member for Virginia.

Mr. Chairman there are a few things which the hon. members on the opposite side are not bearing in mind. Let me say at the outset that it remains ironical that hon. members whose predecessors in their political thinking opposed these universities and their establishment, now want to be in the forefront of the emancipation of these universities and their development into full autonomy. This is a kind of irony that one simply cannot understand. It seems to me, however, that on the part of the official Opposition, the “Progressive Party”—we shall leave the “Federal” aside—there is evidence of a little “progress” in the right direction.

Let me just touch on a few matters that the hon. members are overlooking. In the first place, the Black universities are State universities in all respects. They were established by the State in the implementation of a policy for which we received a mandate from the electorate. We are carrying out that mandate and we make no apology for that. The more progress we make with its implementation of it, the more acclamation and support we receive from the Black people themselves. The initial argument I therefore wish to raise, is that it is a State university and that the Minister is implementing that policy.

The second postulate I wish to make—and that is what hon. members fail to see—is what I am quoting from the report of the commission on which the 1959 legislation is based. In that report the further development of the policy is outlined, namely that it was foreseen that these universities would, in future, indeed develop towards full autonomy, when they would finance themselves and have full control over their own affairs. That is the direction in which we are moving. Hon. members are, however, overlooking this. In the report it was stated that these universities would ultimately be financed and controlled by the non-Whites themselves as full-fledged universities and that they would rank among the best in the world. I now want to tell hon. members that this is the course that is being pursued. The best proof that we are arriving at that goal is the University of Transkei, which is an independent university. However, this is an independence which coincides with the independence and self-reliance of the community for which it was established. Hon. members must not consider these two aspects separately. Hon. members must not tear these two aspects apart. In Transkei a community, a nation, gained its independence and together with that independence it also obtained its own educational institution. This is the direction that is being taken. Hon. members must just exercise a little patience. Surely this is the course that will be followed.

Hon. members are overlooking the fact that even in the case of White universities, the admission of Black students is still subject to ministerial approval. -

[Inaudible.]

How the hon. member carried on about that? [Interjections.] It is a pity that we did not make a tape recording of it. Last year, when the University of the Western Cape Amendment Act and the University of Durban-Westville Amendment Act were passed—legislation which provided that subject to stipulated conditions, Whites could also be enrolled as students at those universities, did the hon. members then kick up the same fuss and did they raise objections in principle to that? [Interjections.] It seems to me that they are not so sure any more. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the hon. member for Durban Central is merely a joker, and I do not know whether to take him seriously.

The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke about the “non-academic considerations” against the background of which he wishes to limit the powers of the Minister so that he will not be able to exercise his discretion in connection with the admission of students. That, then, would be a non-academic consideration. The hon. member is forever harping on a theme. But he and I and the NP and his party differ fundamentally with one another on principle. His idea is one of a university that is suspended somewhere between heaven and earth, that is not situated on earth within a particular political and social structure. According to him, a university must be an academic sphere in which a person merely imbibes knowledge, while the people in that sphere are not real people with a particular cultural, national and political context. In that regard, I differ bluntly with the hon. member. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban North is now shaking his head so violently that I can almost hear it. I am advancing a valid argument, that a university is not suspended in mid-air just for a group of people who want to study. A university is an institution for real and concrete people belonging to a particular social and political structure, and its presence at a particular place within a particular geographical area is not a mere coincidence.

It is altogether coincidental.

It is not altogether coincidental. I credit the hon. member for Johannesburg North with more intelligence than he is now displaying. I have an idea that he thinks better than he talks.

I could not quite discover what the hon. member for Durban Central was aiming at. He proceeds from the assumption that the amendment, as we said, is mainly directed at offering White members of lecturing staff at those Black universities the opportunity, while they are lecturing and are possibly also engaged in research while they are lecturing, of also enrolling at that university. What is wrong with that?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member now accepts that as fine. That is the main object. Surely White students have no need for it, apart from those exceptional cases, and I have already said that in reply to a question by the hon. member for Berea. There is no absolute, watertight exclusiveness. The principal object with this is, however, to extend the benefit to those people who are rendering commendable service to another university, to people of other nations who are not their own people, and so to grant recognition to their generosity, for to some of them it entails considerable sacrifice to be available to render that service to other communities. So give them the chance. Surely there is no quarrel about that. But now this hon. member is building an argument around that and asking: But will there not now be discrimination, and will there not be friction if one has a White student as well as a Black student there?

Not per se.

But the hon. member’s argument was that friction could arise, that there could be a feeling of inequality, or whatever. After all, the White man who enrolls at that university as a student, is a lecturer. His position as a lecturer can make him much more vulnerable as far as Black students are concerned if he fails some of them, than when he also enrolls as a student and perhaps passes while a Black student does not pass. The hon. member’s argument does not hold water. That poses no problem as far as I am concerned. I do not think that lecturer will have any problems, nor do I think the Black students will have any problems with a lecturer who has enrolled there. The hon. member has also asked whether this would now give rise to friction. Talking of friction, this surely does not come from one side only. After all, friction can arise on the campus of a White university, too. If friction were to arise there, it would take place on an unacademic level. After all, people do not fight in mathematics or am I off the rails? Surely it is the social situation within which that friction arises. After all, it is not necessarily at the academic level or at the level of the acquisition of knowledge. Surely it is in the social situation within which that friction arises. I now want to make the point that if it were to happen, the authorities would get involved. Then the hon. the Minister of Justice and of Police could become involved in such a situation. Then it is no longer an academic situation. Then it becomes a situation that has wider implications than merely the opportunity which a man has of studying. It concerns more than merely the jurisdiction of a council that allows people to study there.

I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss this at greater length. I think I have more or less said what was necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to make one particular matter very clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is the question of the possibility of friction. In this regard I wish to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to my specific statement during the Second Reading debate that I had been informed—and on very good authority—that one of the problems at the Black universities is that many Black students fail an examination prescribed and set by a White lecturer. My information is that although this is absolutely unfounded, a feeling has nevertheless arisen that Black students are being discriminated against. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to allow a normal situation rather than merely allowing a few select people to go and study there—people who would, in any case, be above-average students—and there were to be a White student at that university who attended classes with a Black student, and who wrote the same examination and did not pass, then the Black student would see that there was no discrimination. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister not understand this?

Oh, please!

The hon. members are saying “Oh, please!”. An unnatural situation is now being created here, because the only type of White student that will enroll at that university and with whom they will rub shoulders, will be an above-average student.

A post-graduate student.

That hon. member says he will be a post-graduate student. He might even be undertaking undergraduate studies in another direction. [Interjections.] That lecturer is already an above-average student. There will really be no problem of his not passing. Even if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to have the courage one day to allow a few select students to attend those universities, it would still be an unnatural situation. When the Black student sees, then, that there are no White students who also failed as he did, what will the situation be then? If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to tell me that he is unaware of this problem and of the measure of mistrust prevailing about this matter, I cannot but be perturbed. In that case I think the hon. the Deputy Minister had better conduct more interviews with certain university councils or members of the university councils, people who are aware of this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I know, of course, that hon. members of the NP are living in a dream world, totally isolated from reality. [Interjections.] They are living entirely in a dream world so it does not surprise me that they are unaware of these things. But I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept that this is a problem. Of course, I do not want to allege in any way that Black and White students at the same university will cause friction as a matter of course. It is only when they are thrown together in an unnatural situation, an abnormal situation, that friction arises. In a normal situation, a situation in which the good and the bad associate with one another and in which each can see that nothing untoward is going on, that it is not strange at all that one student is White and another Black, there will be no friction.

Mr. Chairman, we listened carefully to the reply given by the hon. the Deputy Minister to the arguments raised under clause 5 of this Bill. It is not an easy debate, because our amendment, in terms of the rules of the House, was not allowed. Therefore, I think I must, in a few sentences, make our position very clear. I have listened very carefully to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I regret to say that he has not helped us. We still feel as strongly as we did right at the very beginning regarding the ministerial hand he has in this measure. We do not like it. We have stated that. The hon. member for Musgrave has moved one amendment which is permissible. If this amendment is not accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, we will obviously vote for our amendment. In terms of the clause as a whole the hon. the Deputy Minister has again made the point that there are members of staff serving at these universities, and that because they are there they should have the right to attend the university if they so wish. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to staff and children of people in the particular vicinity. Because those members of staff are given the right to attend these universities if they so wish, we still support this clause. As we have said, it is an improvement on the status quo. That is how we will vote.

Mr. Chairman, what distresses me is that we have had absolutely no answer at all from the hon. the Deputy -Minister on the question of the faith and the trust in the council to run the affairs of the university. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing here boils down to nothing other than paternalism of the worst possible kind. I say that for the very reason that if this clause were one which intended to allow White students to attend these universities on a normal basis, as ordinary students, one could accept that this was in fact an improvement on the existing situation. However, it appears to me that what we have here is nothing other than a situation in which the hon. the Deputy Minister is, in virtually every case, denying White students the opportunity of attending these universities. That is how I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister. We have already agreed that these are universities which are the bastions of the culture of the particular groups for whom they are intended.

I refer again to the Zulu community and the university at Ngoya. What the situation ought to be, is that there should be students who are interested and wish to study at the very source of the culture of the Zulu community at that university and they should have access to that university as a matter of right, because they are genuine students. They want to go to the university to study the thing which interests them most, namely the culture of the Zulu people. They should be able to go there without having to go through what amounts to a process of selection by the hon. the Deputy Minister. That is outside the ordinary running of the university. That is my whole point and that is the trouble that I have with the interpretation of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is prepared to entrust it with the normal activities necessary for the running of a university, but when it comes to the selection of students, the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has to come into the picture and say “yea” or “nay” as to whether certain particular people may attend that university or not. It has been stated quite clearly that it is the intention to benefit specifically those people who are lecturers at these universities, simply because they happen to be there. If they were somewhere else, one must accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister would not allow them to go there. To me this is paternalism of absolutely the worst kind. I want a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to what his attitude in this regard is. He says that these are State universities and that the State pays 100% of the costs. That is a result of the society in which we live, and this society has been shaped for 30 years by the NP. Who knows what it might have been under another dispensation? The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot claim as a justification for what he is doing, that the present situation forces him into a situation where he has got to vet all the people who wish to attend these universities. He has not yet explained to us why it is necessary for him to have that power, rather than the council of the university to whom he entrusts every other power relating to the running of the university. I would like an answer to that question.

Mr. Chairman, the previous hon. speaker has had a great deal to say about paternalism. As I have tried to indicate, this side of the House perceived where its responsibility lay and carried out that responsibility towards specific communities in South Africa. I have further indicated that in carrying out this responsibility we are placing these communities and also the university structures we have created there in a growing position of responsibility, so much so that we granted independence to and emancipated an entire nation of people and a country with its university. Now, is that paternalism? It is the opposite of paternalism. I do not think it is necessary for me to make any further attempt to convince the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, because I get the impression that you yourself are beginning to despair of him.

The hon. member has raised the question of “the right to study”. Does the hon. member know how limited that right is? That right is limited by one’s qualifications for admission. That right is also limited by the diversity of communities, groups, residential areas and by land tenure. One is limited by all those factors and one cannot simply go where one wants. If the hon. member wants to go where he chooses, he will become entangled in quite a few of the laws of this country. When hon. members on that side of the House were still in the old United Party, they proposed segregation. But, Sir, I should be digressing rather widely from the subject if I were to point out all those things to the hon. member.

I just want to make the point that in practice, more and more confidence is being placed in these councils. We are making progress, but hon. members simply do not want to appreciate this. They want us to reach the end of the road without following that road.

You still do not trust them.

That hon. member knows nothing about trust. He and his predecessors placed so little confidence in these people that they wanted to cook up the whole lot in a stew at all the universities. So little confidence did they have in the integrity, the right of self-determination and the claims of the Black man.

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

No. The hon. member should listen instead. The hon. member for Durban Central has spoken about “unnatural”. I cannot understand what the hon. member means. If the hon. member really wants to create a natural situation, he must place kith and kin together.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must now give me a chance. He is seizing the wrong opening. What is really natural in my view is what is now happening, namely that Venda is asking for its own university, that Qwaqwa is asking for its own university and that there are even requests for an extension of the University of Zululand to the Zulu community at Umlazi. That is, in my view, a natural situation. Pursuant to that, it is only natural that those people for whom the university has been established, will advance their own academicians so that they themselves can fill the posts at that university.

There is nothing wrong with that.

The natural situation will therefore be that instead of White lecturers lecturing there, Blacks will perform the task. The hon. member for Durban Central must not make any mistake about what is natural and what is unnatural. In this regard, the natural situation would be, in my view, that there should be only Black lecturers there. But there are still White lecturers at these universities. I want these White lecturers to be afforded the opportunity of enrolling at that university so that they can undertake research there.

In my view, it is not necessary for us to debate this matter any further. We are now offering these lecturers the right to study further at those universities with which they are already associated. After all, adequate facilities exist for White students at their own universities and if a White student can really make out a case for wanting to study at such a Black university—for example, because it is essential for a study of the Zulu culture—then surely it is reasonable enough to evaluate such a case on its merits.

Mr. Chairman, the comments of the hon. the Deputy Minister are very revealing in terms of the principle underlying this particular clause and his motivation for putting it in the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he sees that the council is not yet fit to conduct the affairs of the university, and that this clause is therefore necessary so that he can regulate certain activities. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has consulted the relevant council, whether he has consulted any university council as to how they feel about the provisions of this particular clause. Is it their spontaneous and voluntary wish to have their procedures regulated by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this manner? The hon. member for Mooi River has indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister that unless it has been spontaneously, totally and voluntarily agreed to by the councils of the universities concerned, this is paternalism. It is paternalism, and we are still waiting for a direct answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to why he feels that he is more competent, better equipped and better informed than the council to regulate the admittance of students to that university. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Has he consulted the councils? Which councils did he consult, and what were their attitudes towards this issue?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is now raising the old bogey of paternalism. I did not say that the Minister was more competent, “more fit to judge” …

Then why do you not grant them these powers?

Now, hon. members must really not waste our time. The hon. member would do well to go and read my speech, because all the reasons why the development of these universities is the financial responsibility of the State appear there. Surely that is reasonable.

It is not reasonable.

If the hon. member cannot appreciate the reasonableness, then I cannot feed it to them with a spoon.

Fix them, Andries!

I should rather not request the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to say something fitting. [Interjections.] If the hon. members wish to differ with me on this, then we shall have to leave it at that. If the State provides 100% of that money, then it is entitled to the control of such an institution. As soon as that institution is able to assume responsibility for all the financing itself, as is the case with other universities in the country, the full responsibility and authority will be transferred to those people. That is the direction in which we are moving.

Order! I note that hon. members are repeating one argument after the other. I am not going to allow this any more.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has shed some light on one aspect, and that is because there is 100% financing of the universities by the State, this type of legislation will be proceeded with.

Apart from all the other reasons I have mentioned.

As long as this 100% financing continues this state of affairs will also continue. Then it is very clear to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister should be able to use some criterion or other to tell us when he will be prepared to renounce this prerogative. Does he foresee a situation where the universities will be able to manage their own financing or even to bear 10% of the cost? When is that perhaps going to happen? I am very sorry that in this case we actually had to use the criterion of finances. In the South African society it is unfortunately true that the so-called “haves and the have-nots” are divided on a colour basis. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister used a very unfortunate example by stating at the end of the debate on this clause that the criterion was that the Government provided the money and that they would therefore continue to lay down the conditions.

Mr. Chairman, I only emphasized one single reason among the many, and the hon. member must please go and read my reply to the Second Reading debate again. The whole matter was argued there.

Mr. Chairman, the answer of the hon. the Deputy Minister confirms our worst suspicions on this clause. I believe that in the closing stages of this discussion, when we have heard all the viewpoints, our intention to oppose this Bill on the basis of our feelings of what was intended by this clause, was correct. Because it has become perfectly obvious to us on this side of the House that it is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to be “kragdadig” in this respect. It was precisely because we foresaw this intention in the wording of the clause that we have taken such a strong stand on this legislation. That is the reason why we have put up such a fight on this Bill.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided.

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

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I think you will be relieved to know that I am not going to repeat the argument I put forward during the Second Reading debate and also in the discussion of clause 1. Clause 6 is, of course, very similar to clause 1. Instead of referring to the University of Fort Hare Act though, as clause 1 does, this clause refers to the University of Zululand Act. Exactly the same sort of provision is being made, however, and we want to welcome that.

I just want to respond very briefly now to a couple of points which the hon. the Deputy Minister made when he replied on clause 1, points which I have not as yet had an opportunity to get round to. I think that we must stress and underline the fact that the one major point of difference between the hon. the Deputy Minister and ourselves is …

Order! The hon. member for Sasolburg may not stand in the passage holding a conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is one major difference in our points of view, or let me rather say our philosophies, and it is a difference that I think we should understand. Of course a university develops a personality or culture of its own. Of course the University of Zululand is peculiarly Zulu in its make-up. There is no quarrel about that. Let me indicate where we differ. If anyone living in Zululand decides for one reason or another that he does not want to go to that particular university but would prefer to go to the University of Natal in Durban or, indeed, to the University of Pretoria or Stellenbosch, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe it is his right to have a choice of universities. That is the fundamental difference between us. We say: Of course let a university have its personality; of course the university in Zululand will have a Zulu character—do not force the issue. Here we have one of the cracks in the wall. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is allowing by means of this legislation is that a young man from Zululand who wishes to go to the University of Fort Hare will have the right to do so without having to meet any special requirements. This clause establishes that he will have the right to apply for admission to the University of Fort Hare or the University of the North and that, provided his qualifications are in order, he can be accepted there. We believe that in this way the hon. the Deputy Minister is coming nearer to our way of thinking. I think this is very, very important. All we should like to stress is that we should not force people to go to one university rather than another. Let us give them the right to choose; let us allow them to go to the university of their choice. I believe that with this provision we are moving along the right road.

In his reply, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that this is not a great new thing, but that provision has always been made for exceptions. Of course there have been such provisions, but certain basic requirements had to be met. Now people have the right to go to the university of their choice. I submit that that is a step in the right direction. It is an advance in the Government’s own thinking and policy. That is the major reason why we believe that this legislation is a milestone and that is why support this clause as well.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to indicate that the motivation behind clause 6 is the same as that for clause 1. We in these benches have made it quite clear that we welcome the provision contained in this particular clause. We believe it brings us nearer to the ideal of full autonomy—the argument of relative university autonomy or full university autonomy is besides the point. The measure is still restrictive if one looks at the overall situation in South Africa, in that the Black will have a choice of only three universities and will not have the right to be admitted to any university. Nevertheless, this measure to some extent regulates something that had virtually become a practice, particularly at the University of the North. In addition, as I have already indicated, the medical university was not initially included in this.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to refer the hon. members to what I said in regard to the previous clause. We can take that as read.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, the rules will apparently not allow me to move both amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper. I believe I can move only the second amendment. That amendment is precisely the same as the one that was moved on clause 5 in relation to the University of Fort Hare. This clause, of course, deals with the University of Zululand. For the same reasons we advanced during the discussion on clause 5, I accordingly move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! I am unable to accept the amendment as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that, as we voted against this provision as it applied to another university, we do not intend to delay the House by calling for a division on this clause but shall record our objection to it for the reasons we have already given.

Clause agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, since this clause is similar to the previous two clauses we debated on, I merely want to say that the NRP will object to this clause as well.

I put the question. Can we regard the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply as read as well?

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to point out that during the discussion of a similar clause, the hon. member for Berea pounced on only one reason I gave as to why the Minister’s say in this case is retained. However, I want to refer him to my reply to the Second Reading debate, in which I discussed the matter extensively and gave a whole series of reasons. It is therefore wrong of the hon. member to pounce on only one aspect. I shall let that suffice.

Mr. Chairman, I must immediately react to the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, because this is the whole point at issue. At a previous stage arguments may have been raised to indicate a particular intention, but during the debate on the clause to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, it became absolutely clear, on further questioning, what his real intention strictly relating to that clause was. I believe that the way in which he has reacted has proved to us that we were right in seeing it that way. I wish to record that we stand by our arguments and reiterate them in view of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s raising this point again. We believe that his standpoint has changed …

Order! I have heard that argument already.

Clause agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, the specific principles contained in other clauses are once again applicable in this clause. I merely want to say that the arguments we advanced during the discussion of those clauses apply with equal force to these. Therefore we shall object to this clause.

Clause agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I now have some good news for the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are in full support of this clause and we welcome it. In addition I want to motivate briefly our support of it. We are now coming to the end of this debate and, as an accepted fact, we shall have a Medical University of South Africa serving the Black groups in this country. In this clause provision is made for the establishment of an institute or institutes as defined in the clause. We welcome this provision and should like to make a suggestion in all earnestness to the hon. the Deputy Minister. As this particular Bill concerns the Black people and provides for the establishment of an institute, and as it is an historic fact that the Black people of this country suffer overwhelmingly from particular diseases which have reached epidemic proportions and are endemic in certain areas of this country, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to use this provision in the Bill to establish a research institute to investigate all aspects of the disease of bilharzia and possibly also, because of the increasing importance it is assuming in the health services of this country, the disease of tuberculosis, which is affecting a particularly large number of Blacks. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has in his hands legislation which enables him to do something very, very positive, some particular research which relates to a particular group or groups of Black people in particular areas of South Africa where these two afflictions are prevalent. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister would be indicating his bona fides— which I am sure he would like to do—if he were to comment on my suggestion and indicate that he would exercise his mind along those lines. Perhaps when the university is fully geared up with its full quota of students and has overcome its staff problems which we understand it does have, and has overcome the problems under which it is labouring at the moment, then perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could assure of his intention to consider the suggestion which we have made.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the hon. member for Berea for this clause. I think the clause speaks for itself. One can draw all kinds of interesting parallels with institutions already established at other universities. As you know, Mr. Chairman, at the University of the Free State there is for example—which I think is more dear to you than other universities—the Institute for Social and Economic Research. There is also the Institute for Contemporary History, an institute which is well known throughout South Africa. There is also the Institute for Environmental Sciences, and I do not intend softening your heart by speaking about this any longer, because I do not need to speak at length. But for the sake of the goodwill of the Chair, I might just also point out that there is also the Institute for Ground Water Studies. There is also the Research Unit for Planning for Teaching Systems—all praiseworthy institutes at an existing White university. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman?

Yes, because apparently your cause is a good one.

My cause is indeed a good one. If one takes a university like the one at which the hon. the Minister of Justice and other have studied, we find there the African Studies Institute, the Bernard Price Institute for Geophysical Research, the Centre for Continuing Education, etc. I do not want to take up too much time, but these are very interesting things. Another very important university is Unisa. Unisa has a large number of these bureaux and institutes. The Bureau for Market Research has a somewhat different name, but I think it promotes the same purpose. Then there is the Institute for Labour Relations, which is a very important institute; the Institute for Foreign Law and Comparative Law, and Institute for Behavioural Sciences, an Institute for Criminology, an Institute for Training Technology and an Institute for Computer Systems. There are hon. members who could wax eloquent about what the task of such an institute involves. There is also the Institute for Theological Research, which I can highly recommend, with some reservations, to the hon. member for Pinelands.

We already have an institute at the University of Zululand. There already is an institute for Public Service Training, which is a very necessary and useful institute which provides an important service to the Black communities. Therefore I am glad that this idea has the unanimous support of the Opposition parties.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Two aspects concerning inquests are dealt with in this Bill. These are the appointment of assessors and the protection of the proceedings at such inquests. When a judge or a magistrate is confronted with a complicated case, or with a case involving expert knowledge of a particular subject, he is authorized, in terms of section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, and section 93ter of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944, respectively, to make use of the services of one or more assessors who either have experience in the administration of justice or have a special knowledge of the subject of the dispute, as the case may be. Such assessors accept co-responsibility for rulings based on the facts of the case, thereby considerably lightening the burden which rests on the judge or magistrate.

In the case of inquests, there is no authority for using the services of assessors who have experience in the administration of justice. Only people who are skilled in some subject which may have to be considered during an inquest may be asked to assist the magistrate. Furthermore, the assessors may only advise the magistrate concerning the subject to be considered, and the magistrate is solely responsible for the finding, with regard to the facts as well.

The facts and circumstances in an inquest can be just as complicated as in any criminal case. Therefore, a magistrate conducting such an inquest may also feel in a particular case that he needs the assistance of assessors who have experience in the administration of justice. Also, it may be just as essential that more than one person should share the responsibility which may arise from rulings on the facts concerned. It is therefore deemed essential that magistrates be given the same powers regarding assessors at inquests as they have in criminal cases. The necessary amendments in this connection are therefore proposed in clause 1.

In terms of section 108 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944, any person who wilfully insults a judicial officer or other officer of the court during a court sitting, or wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court, or otherwise misbehaves himself in the place where such court is held, is liable to be sentenced summarily. In terms of section 20 of the Inquests Act, 1950, this provision applies mutatis mutandis to proceedings relating to an inquest as if those proceedings were those of a court of law. Provision has been made, therefore, for the protection of the proceedings at an inquest from actions which in a court of law would amount to contempt in facie curiae. However, there is a shortcoming in that inquests are not protected against forms of contempt which in a court of law would amount to contempt ex facie curiae. For that reason, it is now being proposed in clause 2 of the Bill that any person who prejudices, influences or anticipates the proceedings or findings at an inquest shall be guilty of an offence. In this way, the principle of the protection of the proceedings concerned, which is already recognized in section 20 of the Inquests Act, will be extended to cover more than mere observable actions at the place where the proceedings take place. If the proceedings deserve to be protected just like the proceedings in criminal cases, this protection should also be complete, as it is in criminal cases. The intention with the measure is not to withhold information, but merely to offer our institutions an opportunity to function properly.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. the Minister that the PFP has no objections to clause 1 of the Bill. On the face of it, it certainly seems to be an improvement on the present system, since assessors able to assist and advise the presiding magistrate can henceforth include people with legal knowledge or legal experience.

I want to say in all humility, however, that the PFP is not prepared to support clause 2 of the Bill, because the hon. the Minister has not succeeded, in his explanation of the motivation for this clause, in convincing us that it is merely a question of affording some protection to the court investigator at an inquest. It seems to us—and I may be wrong, in which case the hon. the Minister will correct me— that this is an attempt to silence certain people or certain parties.

In short, we see here a step which can lead to the restriction of the powers of the Press and of public opinion. It is true that a court of inquiry, or a body of inquiry which functions virtually as a court, should be vested with dignity. After all, its chairman is a magistrate, and his assessor or assessors may be lawyers. In any event, it is a serious matter, where nothing should be done in facie curiae which could detract from the dignity of the inquiry or prejudice the proceedings in any way.

However, this is not what we are concerned with here. We are concerned here with things which may take place outside the court and which may prejudice or influence such an inquiry or anticipate its findings. Now we must realize quite clearly, of course, that we are not dealing here with a true court of law. In other words, this is not a court which is eventually going to make a finding and to give a ruling which will be binding upon any organization or person or party, as in the case of a court action. This is essentially a commission of inquiry, a commission appointed to make certain factual findings. The factual findings to be made by such a court, while sitting as a commission of inquiry, include the following. In the first place, the court of inquiry must ascertain the identity of the deceased. This is a particularly important fact which has to be established. Furthermore, it must try to establish the cause or the probable cause of death, as well as the date on which the deceased died. Finally, it must establish whether an identifiable offence has been committed; if so, whether it is able to identify the possible perpetrator of the presumed offence. However, this last finding is not binding upon anyone. It should not be seen as if the rule of res iudicata pro veritate accipitur were applicable to it. It is merely a finding in an administrative capacity.

Section 16(3) of the principal Act expressly provides that we are concerned here with a case where, if the magistrate sitting as this kind of court of inquiry cannot make any finding, he has to record that on the basis of the facts and the evidence presented to him, he is unable to make a specific finding. In other words, we are dealing here with a commission of inquiry. The first question which arises is how such a commission, such a quasi-court, can be influenced by what happens outside the court and what may be said and written by various persons. It seems to me like a far-fetched influence or fear which exists in this case. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister and his legal officers, this would appear to us to be a case of overprotection. It is not necessary to grant this protection.

If this is indeed only a court of inquiry, it seems that the danger of its being influenced is really minimal, especially since the hon. the Minister says that some of the assessors may also be lawyers or people with legal experience. In his opening address, the hon. the Minister did not tell us about any cases concerning which it was suspected or there was any evidence that such influencing or prejudicing really took place. With all due respect, the onus rests on the hon. the Minister, because he is asking for a specific amendment of the existing situation. Therefore it is not for the Opposition to say that the amendment is not necessary; I think it is the task of the hon. the Minister to show why this amendment is necessary.

The hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House will forgive the official Opposition for approaching provisions of this nature somewhat suspiciously. We live in a time in which many people on the Government side want the Press to be curbed and their right to report freely to be restricted. That is the impression which is being created. When we say now that we suspect that all is not as it should be with this proposed amendment, this arises partly from the general public’s fear that various steps may be taken, all of which will eventually amount to interference, no matter how small, with the right of the Press to report and the right of the public to know.

The Police Amendment Bill contains a provision which constitutes the same kind of interference, which may cause or really will cause such interference. That is why the official Opposition has reason to be suspicious when the hon. the Minister proposes this type of amendment and restriction of rights and is unable to furnish examples or any other very strong motivation to this House to indicate why it is necessary today to introduce this extraordinary protective measure with regard to a so-called court which is actually just a commission of inquiry. For this reason, we shall have to vote against that principle, as embodied in clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in being able to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North for the support he has at least given to clause 1 of this Bill. Furthermore, I also want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to him for the calm way in which he tried to advance his arguments and to put the case of hon. members on that side of the House. I do not agree with his arguments and I hope to show this in the course of my speech.

As regards clause 1, on which there is unanimity, a magistrate will now be able at an inquest to make use of the assistance of one or two persons who have experience of the administration of justice. It is a recognized legal procedure for the assistance of assessors to be called for. The presiding officer—in this case the magistrate—will then give a finding on the legal question, and he can be assisted by his assessors in making his finding on the facts. We are all agreed about that.

However, I believe that hon. members of the official Opposition are not being quite fair in their evaluation when they say that they approach this measure with suspicion and that they believe it to be an attempt to silence certain people. They allege that all is not as it should be. The hon. member said that in his opinion, the right to report was being interfered with. I cannot agree with the hon. member, however, for as I see it, this does not interfere in any way with the reporting of an inquest. In my opinion, no existing legal principles or practices are affected. I believe it is the intention to create a climate of calm and order around such an inquest so as to enable those who are charged with it to establish the relevant facts and to apply the relevant legal principles.

We do not intend to hamper journalism, for surely the ability to report remains. However, these people are now being prevented from doing a few things. They are being prevented from prejudicing, influencing or anticipating the proceedings of the inquest on the one hand and the findings on the other hand. In my opinion, this is in line with legal practices and legal traditions as we experience them in criminal cases as well as civil cases.

This principle applies to courts of law.

For these reasons, therefore, I cannot accept the argument. The hon. member for Johannesburg North now interjects that these practices apply to courts of law and to cases heard in courts of law, and that we are dealing here with an inquest. Surely the responsibility resting on the presiding officer at such an inquest cannot be underestimated, and he may claim the same protection and attitude towards him as are found in courts of law. For these reasons, I gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Krugersdorp has congratulated the hon. member for Johannesburg North on the quiet manner in which he has stated his opposition to clause 2 of the Bill. I am afraid that I shall not be able to do things in quite the same way as the hon. member for Johannesburg North. All of us agree that clause 1 of the Bill is advantageous, a clause that must be accepted, and therefore we accept it without a shadow of a doubt. Nevertheless, I feel that the Bill before us should be viewed in the light of a number of events.

First of all we must bear in mind that this Bill is one of a group of three Bills which are to come before the House in the very near future. The Bills to which I am referring are the one in connection with inquests, the Police Amendment Bill and the Bill dealing with divorce. In everyone of these Bills there is a clause that can be regarded as affecting the freedom of the Press in South Africa. This is obviously a matter which is very dear to one’s heart, and one wonders whether the introduction of these three Bills is not evidence that among hon. members on that side of the House the more “verkrampte” element—to use that term—is perhaps gaining strength, and becoming more and more to be heard within that party. One also wonders whether this is not the first of the ranging shots in the hon. the Prime Minister’s campaign as announced in the Information debate in December last year.

I want to remind hon. members of what the hon. the Prime Minister said at that stage. These particular words were used by the hon. the Prime Minister in the early hours of Saturday, 9 December 1978 (Hansard, Second Session 1978, col. 513)—

Order! The hon. member’s remarks must be relevant to the Bill.

I respect your ruling, Sir. We must look at these Bills in the light of the freedom of the Press. Clause 2 of this Bill reads—

This means, in effect, that, if the Press is deemed to have done something of this nature, it will be guilty of an offence and can be fined. Consequently, I maintain that this Bill before the House has to do with the limitation of the freedom of the Press. I therefore wish to expand somewhat on the subject of the freedom of the Press.

The unfortunate thing is that, of the three Bills, this one is possibly the least important. At the same time one is going to have to use the same sort of arguments on the next one of these three Bills that will come before the House and to an extent one will be repeating oneself. The first comment I want to quote to hon. members relates to a statement made in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. And his 18th century English is still very quotable. He says—

There is no doubt about it that I am fully in agreement with this. I will, however, expand further on my argument. I want to quote De Tocqueville, who is one of the authorities on the freedom of the Press. He said—

This is one of the problems we are facing. One can further quote other authorities in regard to freedom of the Press, notably the Virginia Bill of Rights, which I will not quote now, and Mr. Justice Best. These last two statements deal with the free Press and the Government and this, I believe, is the most important aspect of freedom of the Press, i.e. the freedom to criticize government, to criticize administration; the freedom to be able to comment and freely criticize.

Order! The hon. member must restrict himself to discussing the freedom of the Press in so far as it relates to inquests.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Restrictions on matters of public importance—and I submit that an inquest can be a matter of public importance—no matter how seemingly small or trivial, can result in the ultimate restriction and placing of a muzzle on the Press. This being the case, no matter how small that restriction in relation to an inquest may seemingly be, there can be no doubt that an inquest can be a matter of grave national importance. We have had, in recent years, some examples of this, notably the inquests into the deaths of Steve Biko and Joseph Mdluli. These were inquests of grave national importance and I think the position we want to take up was expressed very admirably by the late hon. H. G. Lawrence during a debate in 1959, when the clause before the House was one that is at present embodied in the Prisons Act and which also relates to the Press. He stated (Hansard 1959, col. 1753)—

I think this puts this aspect of the matter very well.

On the other hand, in matters of State security we believe there should be some sort of restriction. We must not, of course, confuse State security with the security of the Government in power. In matters not affecting State security, there must be no restriction if the matter concerned is of public importance. On the face of it, this clause looks relatively innocuous but what will its effect actually be? In the vast majority of cases there will be no problem but there are without doubt, as I have said before, cases of national importance. If the Government is to blame, or if there are any facts which need to be published to inform the people of what is being done in their name by their Government, this clause can be an inhibiting factor. It can, for example, unnecessarily delay publication of the facts. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is quite right when he says that the hon. the Minister has not really given us any concrete examples as to why this restrictive legislation is necessary. There is no doubt that it can be restrictive in certain cases, although it will not be for most of the time. Insidiously and little bit by little bit, one can restrict what is a basic freedom. The Press could become afraid to publish news in case by such publication they are themselves prosecuted. I believe that these Bills will in fact do South Africa a disservice and the Bill before the House is of course part of the trilogy. They will be pointed to by South Africa’s enemies as evidence of a despotic Government. These Bills will place ammunition in the hands of our enemies and in the hands of those who seek to overthrow, by fair or foul means, the lawful Government of South Africa. There are many laws under which the Press can be prosecuted. I do not believe that in this particular instance it is right that we should add to these laws. If only one matter of national importance is sup pressed, albeit only temporarily, by means of this legislation, I believe it will outweigh any possible advantage this clause might have. I therefore implore hon. members on that side of the House to reconsider this clause in the interests of South Africa. I regret that we feel so strongly in this regard that I consequently move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for East London North has indicated that his party is not prepared to support this Bill, in particular clause 2, and because be spoke at length about irrelevant aspects such as the freedom of the Press, I want to ask him three pertinent questions which I believe to be relevant. I also want to ask him to reply to those questions. The three questions are actually related.

The first question I want to ask him is whether he is in favour of findings at an inquest being prejudiced. I believe that his reply will be “no”. Secondly, I want to ask him whether an inquest should be influenced. Thirdly, I want to ask him whether he is in favour of these findings being anticipated. If his answer really is “no”, i.e. that he is not in favour of these aspects I have pointed out, there are no clear and logical reasons for him to oppose this Bill today.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about suspicions. There may be suspicions, but at this stage, we are dealing with specific words in a specific Bill which is quite clear and unequivocal and which cannot be opposed by anyone who really has the interests of the administration of justice in this country at heart, because no one could believe that the proceedings at any inquiry should be prejudiced, influenced or anticipated. I do not want to say any more about the remarks made by the hon. member for East London North, because another speaker on this side of the House will react to them more specifically.

I appreciate the fact that the Opposition parties support the first clause of the Bill. For that reason, I shall deal with it only briefly, but it is nevertheless necessary for me to refer to certain aspects of it because it has a bearing on clause 2 of the Bill.

In our legal history, the assistance of an assessor during a court case is an established principle. It is a principle which has come into its own and has become more important especially since the abolition of trials by jury. It is infinitely better for the administration of justice that an assessor, who is an expert, should assist the presiding officer, rather than members of a jury, who are often not qualified for the duty which rests upon them.

As far as inquests are concerned, the position is that no provision existed for a person with experience of the administration of justice to be an assessor. One of the most important aspects of clause 1 is that provision is now being made for such a person also to assist a magistrate. Formerly, other experts assisted and, as has been indicated, usually gave advice. In this connection I refer in particular to doctors, medically trained people, engineers, mining experts and others.

I think that we should also thank those members of the public who are prepared to play their part in the administration of justice in our country and to render assistance. It is true that they receive some small compensation and that the proposed section 9(4) provides for a little better compensation than before, but that compensation is still very small, and therefore we should thank citizens of the country who play their part in this way.

Now that it has been made clear that a person who has knowledge and experience of the administration of justice may also render his assistance, we should note the interesting aspect that if a dispute should arise about the legal position, it is still for the magistrate alone to give a ruling about it. The assessor may advise the magistrate and may not actually take part in that ruling, even though he is a legal expert.

Having referred to this aspect of advice, I want to refer to the second aspect of this clause, and that is that provision is now also being made for the assessors not to give advice only, but to make a positive contribution to the ruling to be given and the findings to be made in terms of the law.

An inquest is a very important occasion. I certainly cannot agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North when he says that it should merely be regarded as a somewhat inferior commission of inquiry which does not produce any ruling of any importance, because, according to him, there can be no res judicata with regard to such a matter.

I did not say that.

The position is that rulings at inquests often have very important effect, perhaps more important than we think, and it is for that reason that there have been so many cases recently where no expense was spared to arrange the best legal representation for some interested parties and to use expert witnesses. I accept that our magistrates who conduct these inquests are competent people who would not easily be influenced, but I think that in view of the importance of the matter, it would be a good thing for the magistrates to be able to receive expert assistance in weighing up the evidence.

Although such a finding by a magistrates may not be binding upon other parties and other events, it may often be very important. In support of this I may refer to a particular incident A person died under somewhat peculiar circumstances and it was not clear whether the cause of death was suicide or an accident. His estate was sequestrated at that stage and he had quite a lot of insurance. During the inquest, it was found that he had not committed suicide, and that meant that the insurance company was prepared to acknowledge the validity of those policies and to make those payments. That was the end of the matter and no further litigation was required. The statement I want to make, therefore, is that these inquests do have a wider effect than it may seem at first glance. The civil and criminal implications cannot really be determined in advance. That is why it is so important for the assessors who will now be able to take part to have a specific share in the findings of the court. Now that they share in the ruling, I think it is necessary and desirable just to point out briefly what the rulings are that the court can give. In this connection I refer to section 16(2), which reads—

1. (a) as to the identity of the deceased person;
2. (b) as to the cause or likely cause of death;
3. (c) as to the date of the death;
4. (d) as to whether the death was brought about by any act or omission involving or amounting to an offence on the part of any person.

It is not for the magistrate to go any further in that particular case than to make a finding in terms of section 16(2). I want to emphasize this specifically, because it reminds me of recent cases where various parties and persons have shown their ignorance or malicious intent by blaming a magistrate at a specific inquest for not having furnished full reasons, but merely having made a finding in terms of the Act, which was all that was expected of him and must also be expected of him and of his assessors in the future. I have therefore tried to demonstrate that because of the surrounding factors and the possible further implications of such an inquest, it is a very important inquiry and it is a good thing that assessors will now be able to assist.

I come now to the influencing of the ruling given at such an inquest by the magistrate and his assessors. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said he could not imagine that such a case could be significantly influenced by what is said by the newspapers or something of that nature. However, he did keep open a back door by saying that there may be influencing, although he believed it would be insignificant. One of his reasons for taking up the attitude that there would not be much influencing in that a magistrate, as a judicial officer with a knowledge of the administration of justice, is not so easily influenced. But now we must remember that it is no longer the magistrate alone who is making that ruling; it is now being made by the magistrate with his two assessors. Nor is it necessary for the assessors to be trained in law. Both assessors may be experts, such as medical practitioners. Therefore the possibility is so much greater that they may be influenced by outside circumstances, whatever these may be, something which clause 2 specifically seeks to prevent.

The legislation clearly provides that where a magistrate differs with his assessors about the ruling on the facts, the finding of the court is that of the two assessors. If they agree and the magistrate differs from them, then the finding of that inquiry is the finding of the two assessors. It is possible that laymen may be much more easily influenced than others. However, this not only concerns the administration of justice; it not only concerns the man who has to make the finding; it also concerns the man who has to give evidence. Those findings are made on the evidence. If all kinds of outside influences are allowed, this is going to influence the potential witnesses. It may influence them unconsciously as regards the nature of the evidence they give, not that they would deliberately want to tell untruths, but they may be influenced unconsciously. On the other hand, it may inhibit that witness completely, so that he will not want to come forward to give evidence in the first place, or when he does give evidence, his evidence will not be complete or he may give evidence reluctantly.

I do not think any of the Opposition parties can claim to attach more importance to the freedom of the Press or to the rule of law than we on this side of the House. However, I want to make the statement that to my mind, a component of the rule of law is the fact that judicial officers may not be influenced. This has always been part of the concepts we have accepted. A situation could arise where, through a possible curb on the freedom of the Press, the influencing of judicial officers may be prevented—in other words, in order to protect the rule of law. Then one has to decide what is more important, the rule of law or the freedom of the Press. I am not saying that there is bound to be a conflict, nor am I saying that there is a conflict in this legislation. However, when such a conflict may occur, the rule of law is surely the principle which must be considered the most important. For this reason, I am quite willing to support both clauses in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get embroiled in the arguments that the lawyers are using one against the other.

You do not like lawyers.

I might tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that some of my best friends are lawyers. However, I must say that the argument just used by the hon. member for Albany, seems to be a bit extraordinary, because he brings in the argument about the rule of law. I should not have to remind him that he is a member of a party which has a long record of abrogating of the rule of law. Therefore it is hardly apt for him to castigate this side of the House for in any way affecting the rule of law. Secondly, it seems to me that his argument is a very poor reflection on the independence of thought of magistrates conducting inquests. Indeed, this entire measure is in itself a reflection on the independence of thought of magistrates who conduct inquests. Surely nobody can imagine that they are going to be so affected by what they read in the Press that they will be unable thereafter to make an impartial finding at an inquest I have always understood that an inquest is not a proper court of law and that the sub judice rule should not therefore apply to these inquests. I have understood that the object of the inquest—as I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North has already pointed out to the House—is to establish various facts, e.g. the name of the deceased, the identity of the deceased, the date on which death took place, the cause of death and, finally, whether or not an offence has actually been committed. Those are the objects of an inquest. The object is not to make a finding in terms of the guilt of anybody in particular, and therefore this is not a full court of law. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is attempting to introduce what is purely and simply the sub judice rule also as far as inquests are concerned. There are of course other examples of the Government trying to impose sub judice rules where they should not affect the case at all. There is, for instance, the Commissions Act. Fortunately our Supreme Courts have been sensible enough in recent cases to throw out certain objections which the hon. the Minister made, for instance objections affecting the findings of the Erasmus Commission. The sub judice rule can, of course, be applied to commissions in terms of the regulations under the Commissions Act. But other than that it does not apply as a normal rule. Now, as far as inquests are concerned, the hon. the Minister is trying to introduce what is purely and simply the sub judice rule.

I should now like to develop my argument about the objects behind this. I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister was having a twinge of conscience. I must say it does not often occur to me that such a thing could happen. Do hon. members realize the amount of coverage in the newspapers concerning the death of Steve Biko? Biko died some time in September … The hon. the Minister can laugh, because this is a very sore point with him.

Is he laughing?

Well, it is what I would call a wry laugh. It is not real humour.