Mr Chairman, as I was saying before the House adjourned last night, I wish, in the very short time at my disposal, to confine myself to the effect of privatisation on the grading of city councils. I am going to do so on the basis of an example, and the example I am going to use is that of one of the city councils in my constituency, viz the city council of Welkom.

Over the past two years the city council of Welkom has, in accordance with stated Government policy, followed a policy of progressive privatisation. It was also the first city council to privatise its bus service by selling it to a private agency. This was followed by the privatisation of the administration of the agricultural showgrounds, as well as that of fuel sales at the local airport. At present the possible privatisation of the sewage purification works and the computer system is being investigated.

As might be expected, this privatisation programme has also had a favourable effect on the budget of the city council, as is evident from the following figures. In the 1985-86 financial year the revenue from the bus service amounted to approximately R2,1 million while the expenditure amounted to R3,6 million. The revenue from the showgrounds was a mere R5 000 while the expenditure was R132 000. The revenue from fuel sales at the airport was R200 000 while the expenditure was more or less the same. In the subsequent financial year the revenue from the bus service was R68 000 while the expenditure was R500 000. There was no income from the showgrounds, while expenditure of R30 000 was incurred.

It may therefore be inferred from the above figures that the net deficit on these three services had declined from approximately R1,6 million to less than R500 000 by way of privatisation. The privatisation programme has accordingly resulted not only in a real decline in expenditure but also, of necessity, in a decline in the real revenue of the city council, viz approximately R2,3 million in the 1986-87 financial year.

In 1984 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning agreed to the grading of local authorities on the basis of the 13-factor formula in terms of the provisions of section 8 (1) of the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act in 1984. In terms of this formula the revenue of a local authority contributes a weight of 25% as against the other factors such as services, etc. It is ironic that privatisation has now had a detrimental effect on the grading of the city council. The loss of real services amounting to approximately R2,3 million in the past financial year currently represents 7,88 points on the grading system in terms of the 13-factor formula.

At present, after privatisation, the relevant city council qualifies for 747,3 points in terms of the existing formula. If the council had not privatised, the additional 7,8 points would have taken the council beyond the cut-off point of 753 points.

Order! There is too much talking in the committee.

Accordingly this local authority would have progressed from a grade 10 to a grade 11 authority, and this has not happened. Seen in this light, the effect of privatisation on the grading of city councils may in future be regarded as a inhibitive factor, and the same applies to the salaries of officials. Today, therefore, I wish to call upon the relevant hon Minister to examine the possibility of adjusting the formula relating to the 13-factor grading system in such a way as not to inhibit the initiative taken in privatising local government services.

Mr Chairman, one would be justified in asking whether the Government is really serious as regards retaining full-fledged own local authorities. The retention of own White local authorities is a ticklish matter for the Government because it is a way in which it can create the impression among the voters that it is not going the way they suspect it is really going.

I wish to dwell in particular on two problems that have emerged, and evidence of that is that this question may justifiably be asked. If the Government is really in earnest about this department and its activities, why does one encounter the situation here, as with other own affairs departments, that the head of the department does not have the status of a Director-General? The head of this department literally has second-rate status. As far as salary and status are concerned he is second-rate; he is at the level of a Deputy Director-General.

In the second instance this department is still incomplete as far as its activities and functions are concerned. It is four years now since the implementation of the Constitution, and the functions relating to own White local authorities which were to have been transferred to the own affairs administration have not yet been vested in the department. Every year we hear once again that the process is under way, but we do not arrive at the point for which provision was made four years ago. The question is whether it is the intention to convey these functions to this own affairs department at all. One would be justified in asking whether other plans are not already being made and whether the entire constitutional structure is not being reconsidered now from the point of view of the scaling-down of White local authorities to such an extent that at the end of the day one will not really be able to speak in terms of local authorities as we knew them.

It is a well-known fact that the recent conversion of the Cape Divisional Council into the Cape Regional Services Council meant that control of local Coloured affairs was transferred to the House of Representatives. Is the Government indeed in earnest in also wishing to transfer White local authorities to the White own affairs administration? Are the Indian and Coloured township areas that still fall under White local authorities at present, really going to be emancipated? There is the anomaly that a White local authority, which is a so-called own affair, is linked to Coloured and Indian communities that cannot be classified as White own affairs.

The untenable situation exists that the mixing of functions and interests brought about by the constitutional dispensation of this Government creates such anomalies that one wonders whether the effort to make White local authorities an own affair was not an interim measure with a view to eventually conditioning the voters for a dispensation different to the one they say we are going to have. [Interjections.]

It is a question whether the full consequences of moving towards one undivided South Africa, with universal citizenship and franchise for all inhabitants of the country irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex, can really include full-fledged own White local authorities that fall under own affairs administrations. [Interjections.]

We have the situation that the Coloureds and the Indians refuse to be emancipated, in the sense that they do not wish to be separated from the White local authorities to which they are linked. After all, the hon the Minister knows that there are several cases in which the Coloureds and the Indians are insisting on full integration with the existing structure of the White local authority. There are cases where the Coloured and Indian communities have to be forced by the White administration by way of withholding communication, by refusing to speak to them—this is what happens in practice—unless they accept that that particular White local authority wishes to proceed on its own. In the meantime White local authorities are being fragmented.

I do not wish to reiterate what has already been said ad nauseam in this debate, but the fact is that the establishment of the regional services councils is gravely undermining the full-fledged White local authorities as we knew them. For example, we have had the efforts of the Government to, for example, impose integration on White local authorities in White towns in terms of section 19 of the Group Areas Act.

Surely it is true that there are cases where the White local authorities clearly get the message that on their part they must identify a specific section of the town to be declared an open trading area in terms of section 19. If that White local authority should then indicate that it has no such need, it is clearly given to understand that it had better develop such a need, and that it must identify such area in that town which will be acceptable to higher authority; otherwise there is a threat of unilateral action, the unilateral identification and declaration of an area as a free trading area. All these things one has to interpret against the background of the delay in the transfer of functions from the provinces to the relevant own affairs administration.

We also have the situation that with the crowding-out of Whites from their own residential areas, the character of existing White residential areas is being changed. In this way one finds that people from all ethnic groups—various race and ethnic groups—are living on a mixed basis in the relevant community. This is another way of undermining the basis of a full-fledged own White local authority.

In this debate the hon the Minister also complained about the incorrect perception that there was an overall surplus of White housing. I want to tell the hon the Minister that I greatly appreciate that he is trying to rectify this matter; that in fact it is an incorrect perception. The fact of the matter is, who helped create this mistaken perception that the Minister is justifiably-complaining about?

Surely it was colleagues of the hon the Minister who told the voters in the election that the CP stories about Whites being crowded out of their residential areas were untrue, that it was merely a situation of White houses standing empty, a surplus of White housing and an acute shortage of Black and Coloured housing that had created this temporary situation in which non-Whites were occupying White residential areas.

In other words, I want to tell the hon the Minister that he should speak to his colleagues about the creation of that incorrect perception.

Finally, I wish to refer to the acute shortage of homes for the infirm aged. In my constituency, for example, we have the situation that in Warm Baths, 70% of the population is aged, while in Naboomspruit the figure is 30%—to mention only two places. We also have a very cumbersome procedure for establishing a home for infirm aged. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we as members of this House had to read in the Press this morning that the Government had plans to introduce a new system specifically to finance own affairs activities, which will take the form of what is described in these Press reports as a “user charge services levy”. The Press referred to it as a new form of tax, and in a subsequent statement the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare objected to this report, more particularly to the description used, although he may not want to admit that that was what his objection was all about. I must say, however, that by the look of it, it is a very fair description to call it a tax.

Let me assure you right away, Mr Chairman, that I believe that this matter falls very squarely within the framework of what we are discussing under this hon Minister’s Vote, because his department, among others, is and will be providing services for which they presumably can claim levy payments to finance their activities.

Municipalities are clearly mentioned in the Press reports and there is no reason to doubt what is said. They seem to be correct, judging by the response of the officials quoted in these reports.

The officials quoted in the Press reports do not deny the plan for this new system, neither do they confirm it, but they go to great lengths to justify it.

I would just like to refer very briefly to the statement issued this afternoon by the hon the Minister of the Budget. Let me be frank in saying that this statement is, to say the least, obscure. It is much more significant for what it does not say than for what it does say. In the first paragraph he makes this statement:

This is playing with words; this is semantic politics at its worst. Later on he makes the following point:

It is interesting to read what the Constitution Act actually provides. It states:

Let me say at once immediately that this statement seems to suggest that only payments for services rendered—one can call them levies or whatever one likes—can be received. That is not, however, the correct position if one looks at what is written into the Constitution Act.

Let me say that it is certainly no less than a reflection on the quality of democracy in South Africa that this new scheme, with its enormous consequences, should be uncovered by Pressmen, obviously with the reluctant co-operation of certain members of the Public Service, at the very time when a Vote that seeks to benefit by the system is being discussed in this House and immediately after another Vote has been passed. I think at least one, if not two, other own affairs Votes have already been discussed in this House. This is not mentioned, however. The hon the Minister does not breathe a word of it to this House.

This must be an indication of the attitude of the Executive in this country and of the Executive’s attitude towards Parliament because, firstly, it seems that Parliament is the last to hear about new plans which the Government may have in mind; and, secondly, that Parliament is given the least amount of information and is humoured rather than treated as a substantial part of the decision-making process in this country. [Interjections.] Thirdly, it seems that obscure sections of the Constitution Act are being used to place extra financial burdens on the public in this country, so that the political fuss created around the discussion of the national Budget can be dissipated. All these factors are a terrible reflection of the cynical attitude which this Government takes towards Parliament. [Interjections.] It is certainly also an indication of the cynicism underlying the Constitution Act itself.

Furthermore, the question should be asked whether this new system was considered at the time when regional services council levies were being considered in Government circles and discussed with other interested parties. Was it even considered when the national Budget was being drafted? Was the Margo Commission informed of this new scheme which the Government was considering while it was ponderously analysing the existing tax system and potential new systems in order to come to some sensible conclusion? The credibility of that commission as well as its work and recommendations must surely be undermined to a considerable extent by the fact that the Government simply goes ahead and introduces new systems of raising revenue all along the line. This is not the first time that that has happened since the establishment of that commission.

I believe that the taxpayers of South Africa will be justified in being irrated beyond belief by this sort of development—particularly taxpayers in the business sector who have not only had to accept the ridiculous regional services levy but are most likely also going to be affected by this new system if it comes about.

They would surely be justified in being irritated and angry at once again being on the receiving end because of a Government that seems to be hungry for money to an unbelievable degree, a Government that claims that it is committed to deregulation, to free enterprise, but which is absolutely insatiable when it comes to collecting money for its own increasing activities and its own increasing involvement in every conceivable element of our national life.

I should just like to ask this hon Minister—it is not all his fault, since he has to speak to other members of his Ministers’ Council, particularly his Minister of the Budget, and to members of the Cabinet. Is it not about time that the Government took Parliament into its confidence about plans of this nature? The hon the Minister of the Budget said—this was part of his statement—that knowledgeable persons were appointed to carry out a thorough inquiry into the powers of the Administration of the House of Assembly in this regard. Knowledgeable persons are appointed to discuss and analyse this sort of thing but it is kept under wraps. The people who are elected to serve in this House by the public in this country are kept in the dark. [Interjections.] We will no doubt be faced with a fait accompli at some future stage. Is it not about time for Parliament to become part of this planning programme, and given some kind of intimation, some kind of indication of what the Government has in mind and what it is planning, and be allowed to make some sort of sensible contribution to it. No, Sir, that is not the attitude. Their attitude is rather to come here with a scheme that that has been completed, to humour Parliament and treat it as a display window, as a pretence and a hypocrisy in this country. I suggest to you, Mr Chairman, that if there is a reason for undermining the relevance of Parliament in this country, then it should be sought with the Government.

It is they who create a situation where people outside increasingly ask us—we are asked this question all the time—what we are doing in Parliament. We are asked why we are being treated like this by people who take power away from us and whether we just sit here to create the impression that South Africa is a functioning democracy. I am suggesting that in terms of democratic principles this sort of thing stinks. It is a disgraceful and cynical reflection of the increasing attitude of the Government towards democracy and the functioning of Parliament. I hope the hon the Minister will take the opportunity of opening up so that hon members have at least some chance to make their contribution.

Mr Chairman, there are so many positive aspects one could discuss under this Vote that I do not even want to react to the negative points raised here by the hon member for Green Point.

To begin with, I want to express nothing but praise and appreciation to the hon the Minister, his department and his staff for the tremendous task they are carrying out for us daily, and more specifically their search for solutions to our housing problems.

In the frenetic and developed world of today there are many matters to which priority is given, but I believe that housing could be the top priority. We can argue about many things, as does in fact happen in debates, but the fact remains that everyone has a need for some form of housing. There is no country in the world that can say that it is not struggling with housing problems. Probably it is almost impossible to determine all our housing needs in this country, and this applies to all population groups.

Since this Vote is of course an own affair I shall confine myself more specifically to White housing. Housing plays an important part in determining each individual’s standard of living. Moreover, home-ownership is not always within everyone’s reach, as hon members know. The ideal is to bring it within the reach of the largest possible number of our people. This can be done by way of low-cost housing. Therefore I do not think a finger can be pointed at the Government for not doing everything in its power to make it possible for our people to obtain housing.

I do not wish to go into too much detail about those things that promote home-ownership, but I do want to mention a few of them.

The maximum amount of R20 000 that may be saved on the basis of the State-supported home savings scheme is still realistic because it provides security for a housing loan of approximately R100 000.

The 33⅓% bond interest subsidy scheme which is in fact a bridging phase for the first five years of payment, when many buyers often find it difficult to afford payments at the current interest rates, is also payable up to a maximum of R40 000, and that excludes the cost of land.

The 90% housing loan scheme is for people with a maximum income of R800 per month, with a limit of R29 700 as far as the amount of the loan is concerned. This is not available to people who do not need direct assistance from the Government. The scheme is used for the minimum immediate needs of a family. The family can subsequently enlarge the property using its own finance.

One final aspect that I also wish to mention here is the basic home pilot project. This involves only the most essential rooms in the first phase or only the outside walls and, as needs justify it, rooms may be added. It is clear, therefore, that we are doing everything in our power to make it possible for all our income groups to obtain housing. Therefore I wish to express my thanks to the department and the hon the Minister once again, because approximately one third of my constituency is affected by State housing. There is a large number of blocks of flats in my constituency and I also want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the department to upgrade and beautify those flats to some extent. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Parow had to say about rentals according to income. This makes it practicable for more people to rent such flats.

There is also a Government village, Cradock Place, in my constituency which again bears eloquent testimony to the Government’s earnest intention of also providing the lower income groups with housing by way of rented accommodation. The rental is a minimum of between R11 and R20 per month, depending on the person’s income and the size of the house.

Because this is an own affair and is not only a matter of deep concern to me but is also a priority in my constituency, I must mention the squatter conditions on the borders of my constituency. This is something that should be prevented from spreading. I am fully aware that within declared White areas the implementation of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act is entrusted to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works.

He does not know how to apply it.

I also know that the department has the means of dealing with these matters when problems crop up.

I wish to conclude with a quotation from the annual report, as follows:

And this also relates to the latter part of what I mentioned here—

Stability and law and order form the basis of our survival, and accordingly I have the fullest confidence and faith in the department in this regard and I am sure that these sensitive matters, including those relating to housing, will be dealt with with the utmost compassion by the hon the Minister and the department.

Mr Chairman, there is one central theme that has been dealt with in a very responsible way by all those who have taken part in this debate. I refer to the whole issue of welfare housing, service centres, institutional care and the question of retirement villages. Accordingly I think it is appropriate that in this debate—since I am the last to participate in the debate before the hon the Minister makes his final reply—we should just turn our attention to this matter once again.

The emphasis placed on this matter in the course of the debate shows once again that the greatest need as far as White housing is concerned, revolves around the care of the elderly, retirement villages, service centres and the provision of institutional care. Indeed, when we look at the department’s figures we note that 65% of the finance budgeted for the department goes towards care of the elderly and institutional care. I want to reiterate that this emphasises that this facet of White community life is a very high priority for the Government.

If institutional care or care of the elderly has been identified as a primary need then I think it is also appropriate that as far as this identified need is concerned it is necessary to carry out planning and take maximum care to ensure the optimum utilisation of State finance. So when I say we must plan with regard to these four facets, then it is my opinion—I wish to put this to the hon the Minister as a suggestion—that in one’s planning one should take specific principles and a specific concept into account. The principles underlying all four of these facets of welfare housing to which I have referred, are security and medical care. We must try to incorporate these two principles into the policy and administration of welfare housing. We must try to adopt an overall approach in providing services with regard to these facets. What I mean by that is that a retirement village needs a sick-bay, an old age home needs a service centre, and in our planning we must see whether it is not possible to accommodate these different functions within a specific geographical context or—this would be the ideal situation—within one central building. What advantage would this have?

In the first place, medical care becomes necessary for the care of the aged as years go by. If provision has not been made for medical care or institutional care in the old-age home in question, this person has to be moved to a different locality.

Usually service centre facilities are not situated close to those who really need them. I am not referring to service centre facilities in the community as a whole, but to service centre facilities as an essential element in the functioning of every old-age home. Be it a retirement village or an old age home, these elements must, as far as my limited knowledge goes, form an integral part of care of the elderly. In this way duplication of various service centres that overlap geographically will be eliminated. By means of such an approach one could also rationalise the very high cost aspect of institutional care.

The hon the Minister mentioned a very important matter relating to retirement villages, which is that this concept is going to expand because there is a need for such places. However, it can also be exploited because it is an easy target. Usually it is a cash transaction that is concluded, and for that reason security of title or residence must be guaranteed. The hon the Minister has given attention to this matter.

However, there is another aspect of retirement villages which deserves attention, and that is the question of medical care. High pressure sales techniques create the impression among buyers that there are certain medical care facilities at retirement villages. Once they have bought, and as their health deteriorates, these buyers discover that the medical care is not of the nature, degree and quality they were led to believe. These elderly people are then caught up in a situation, because they are unable to withdraw. I think it is appropriate that medical care in retirement villages should be looked into.

It could be rectified by the introduction of medical care subsidised by the State but linked to a retirement village complex, because I can tell hon members that no private developer can provide the necessary medical care and at the same time make the scheme pay. Therefore, if one can have a total approach and can combine subsidies by the State or the department with a retirement village, initiated by a private developer, one has the ideal concept on which a sound retirement village can be based.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Bellville for the very fine speech that he has just made. The proposals and recommendations he made are certainly worth considering, and together with the department I should like to pay attention to them. With reference to the hon member’s speech I shall also be referring to the committee to which I referred yesterday, which deals with retirement villages and more specifically, the question of security. One of their instructions is of course to ensure that the undertaking to create certain facilities in retirement villages should also be secured—if I may put it like that—in the agreements and in whatever accompanies them. Consequently I should very much like to pay further attention to what the hon member said this afternoon.

Hon members will understand that a wide range of matters was raised, and in the nature of things it will be impossible for me to deal with all of them this afternoon. However, I shall give hon members’ proposals, suggestions and requests my thorough consideration and attention. Where necessary, I shall also make further announcements in this connection.

Before I reply to certain matters, let me first deal with a few personal matters. Firstly I should just like to refer to the retirement of Dr J H Jooste—this was announced some time ago—the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly. On behalf of my department I should like to convey our thanks to Dr Jooste as Director-General. Dr Jooste did more than could be expected to look after the interests of the department during the stage in which it was being established. Inevitably the work that had to be done involved demanding negotiations and standpoint-formulation. He certainly carried out this job in a pioneering way. He did his work and guided this department with tremendous thoroughness and professionalism. I want to wish him and his wife everything of the best, and I do so on behalf of my department as well.

Let me also say, for the edification of hon members in this House and my colleagues in particular, that since we discussed our Vote last time, Mr Nico van Rensburg, a very experienced officer, has become the chief parliamentary officer. I not only appreciate his work, but I also want to say that hon members are welcome to make use of the knowledge and guidance of the parliamentary team of the department. The administrative secretary, Mr Bertie Böhmer, whose work I appreciate a great deal, is also a member of the parliamentary team now, and I wish him everything of the best in his career in the department.

I should like to inform hon members that Mr Jaap de Villiers has recently joined the department as administrative secretary. I take pleasure in inviting hon members to feel free to pay a visit to the parliamentary team to discuss any matter. The department would very much like to contribute its share in the job of providing service in this sphere of work. I also want to mention that Mr Chris van Niekerk is the other officer who has joined the parliamentary team, and hon members are welcome to make use of his services, particularly in the housing sphere.

I shall react in a while to some of the speeches that were made here this afternoon. First of all I just want to finalise a few matters with regard to housing and speak about local government matters. In the Second Reading debate on 12 June I referred to the safety of the aged and I now want to link up with speeches of colleagues in this debate by making certain announcements.

I greatly appreciate the positive and constructive contributions in which hon members elucidated the bottlenecks and problems the aged are saddled with in the housing sphere. In fact, the hon member for Bellville also referred to this this afternoon. Hon members who referred to this in particular, were the hon members for South Coast, Parys, East London City, Meyerton and Rosettenville on this side of the House, and standpoints on this matter also came from the other side of the House. The hon members for Cape Town Gardens and Witbank, as well as the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis referred to this.

I should like to say that the emphasis that has been placed on the needs of the aged, serves as a confirmation to me of the high priority the Government is placing on the matter. This is borne out by the fact that close on 70% of the available funds are being spent on welfare housing and facilities and by the in-depth investigations that are at present in progress to find solutions to these bottlenecks and problems. Yesterday in fact I also referred to the question of legislation that is being envisaged to entrench the rights of the aged who buy an interest in retirement villages. This is further proof that the Government is in earnest about this matter. The Committee of Investigation into Housing for Retired Persons which proposed these measures, is urgently continuing with its work and I place a high premium on the next report of the committee.

The need for financial assistance in connection with safeguarding the dwellings of the aged is a matter of urgent public interest, and as I said I would do on 12 June, I want to announce a few specific measures for implementation. In the interest of the aged who require financial assistance to make their homes secure, I am pleased to be able to say that approval has been given for a loan to the maximum amount of R2 000 with a redemption period of five years to be granted to existing home owners, or home owners who lease dwellings to the aged, out of the Development and Housing Fund. Repayment with regard to people with a low income is calculated on a favourable base. To qualify for this scheme, women have to be 60 years or older and men have to be 65 years or older, with an income of R1 000 at the most, or in the case of married couples the joint income should not exceed R1 000.

The loan can be used to burglar-proof windows, to add security gates to outside doors and/or one inside door and to buy any other security equipment that could be justified in specific circumstances, as well as covering bond registration costs, inspection fees and so on where necessary. As the need becomes clear from practical experience, other items may be added to the list.

Local authorities are being approached to administer the scheme together with the other existing loan schemes, subject to specific policy provisions laid down by the department. The department will pay out loans to the local authorities to be paid out to the individual borrowers after receipt of their prescribed application by the local authority. Applications from local authorities should be handed in at regional offices of the department where full particulars will be available.

A circular will also be sent out in this connection. I trust that this newly created facility will be used according to need that local authorities can be depended on for their enthusiastic support for the announcement and application of the scheme, that it will indeed contribute to the safety, security and peace of mind of the aged and that it will enable the aged to remain part of the community longer than would otherwise have been the case.

The appeals and the suggestions made here by the hon members to whom I have referred, will either be conveyed to the particular investigative committee or will be cleared up in consultation with other interested institutions and departments.

The hon member for Parys referred to the question of the possible utilisation of housing in Vierfontein in his constituency, and I should like to indicate that I have requested the department to investigate this matter.

†I should also like to thank the hon member for Rosettenville for a very constructive contribution to the debate. I would like to say that the question of local authorities being precluded from providing and running frail aged care facilities will be taken up by my hon colleagues the Ministers of Health Services and of Welfare.

*I now arrive at a number of other matters. The hon member for Bethal referred to the works functions. I should like to refer him to paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, which makes it clear that auxiliary services under which the acquisition, alienation, provision and maintenance of and the control over land, buildings, works and accommodation for the purposes of the administration of own affairs, is also an own affair. Together with its housing functions the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works already shares extended auxiliary services, as mentioned, with the departments that fall under the Administration: House of Assembly.

The management of auxiliary services with regard to those own affair functions such as education, hospital services, public resorts, museums and library services that have already been transferred from the provinces to the Administration: House of Assembly is at present under consideration.

The hon member for Bethal also referred to the question of the Paul Kruger statue being moved, or supposedly being moved, as part of the proposals of the city council for the replanning of the city centre. I should like to tell the hon member that the Church Square Committee was approached by the city council of Pretoria on this matter whereupon cognisance was taken of the fact that the draft planning proposals with regard to Church Square had to fit in with the replanning of the city centre. It was decided that in principle there would be no objection to these proposals of the city council of Pretoria if the cultural-historical aspect of the square was not affected in any way.

Furthermore, it was indicated that in principle there was no objection to the redevelopment planning continuing, but that when the detailed planning on Church Square continues, it will have to be referred back to me. I shall then submit the proposed replanning to the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly for consideration.

†The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis also referred to the question of basic home pilot schemes and the high standard of dwellings. In this regard I would like to emphasize that the primary objective of pilot schemes of this nature is to promote the wider acceptance and application of the principle of basic homes, that is, the provision of a basic dwelling unit large enough to meet the immediate needs especially of young couples with small families. It is designed to facilitate future extensions, preferably by employing self-help methods as incomes increase and the need for larger accommodation arises.

This concept lends itself to successful application regardless of income group, and for this reason standards which meet average needs were chosen.

I appreciate the hon member’s support for this concept which he will be gratified to know has gained fairly wide acceptance in the private sector.

I refer to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South who made a very interesting speech. There is no doubt that the various development bodies countrywide such as the Natal Development and Services Board and the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas as well as the divisional councils have done and are still doing a lot to promote local government among rural areas and other small communities in our country.

At this stage I want to express my appreciation for the work they have done and may still be doing. The reasons why these bodies are undergoing change must not by any means be construed as a vote of no confidence in these bodies. While it has been decided by the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs that those local government bodies have to be reformed in view of the policy of self-determination in own affairs and joint responsibility in general affairs, as well as the fact that new local government bodies like regional services councils are being established, these development bodies should form part of such reform. These reforms will be undertaken with compassion and with the utmost regard for the functionaries, that is the committee members, board members or council members, as well as the personnel involved.

*In linking up with this I also want to reply briefly to the questions of the hon member on Bethal on the TBDPA. The Commission for Administration recently sent a report to all interested parties. This also concerns my department and we have also received such a report. The final decision on the placement of personnel is expected soon. The standpoint that the personnel of the TBDPA are primarily being earmarked for placement in the Administration: House of Assembly had already been placed on record during the consideration of the Abolition of Development Bodies Act. As the hon member probably knows, this standpoint stems from the fact that the preponderance of functions with which the TBDPA is charged, have already been identified as own affairs functions. The action committee of the coordinating council has also made it its business to see to it that the final placement of the TBDPA should be completed as soon as possible.

I shall react to what the hon member for Potgietersrus said when I come to the reply on the regional services councils and local authorities. Perhaps the hon member should hold discussions with some of the people in the two departments who deal with the regional services councils, so that they can give him specific information.

However, I just want to tell the hon member that with every Vote under discussion he has something to say about the head of the department. I now want to know whether I heard the hon member correctly to say that the head of department's situation was in fact second rate. [Interjections.]

You must have heard what I said. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am treating the hon member very politely. His attitude therefore confirms that what I said he said is correct.

I just want to say that the post of the head of department was in fact upgraded last year. The fact is that—I shall return to that in a while—if considerable functions are added to the department, surely another look is taken at the position of the department and the head of department. That principle was spelt out and accepted in this House a long time ago, long before the hon member became a member of this House. [Interjections.]

I do not think that the hon member’s behaviour is reasonable when he makes such statements. The head of this particular department deals with the matters as such and in cooperation with other heads of departments. As far as that is concerned, he has absolutely full and equal status among the heads of departments. The hon member should not fling arguments of this kind across the floor or try to belittle people.

I want to refer to the hon member for Welkom. He made a very interesting speech on the privatisation of local government functions. This is a problem that is being investigated at present and that will have to be considered seriously if the principle of privatisation is not to come to harm either. I have been informed that the possibility that is at present being investigated by the Advisory Committee for the Remuneration of Town Clerks, the Permanent Finance Liaison Committee as well as the co-ordinating council, ought to be to the advantage of the grading of a local authority rather than have a negative effect on the grading. Together with possibilities of providing suitable incentives to productivity in a local authority, there is the idea that the grading formula should be adjusted and refined to make provision for this. This is a possibility that we are investigating.

Local authorities should also be allowed to conclude partnerships so that the necessary contact with the privatised function can be maintained and an eye kept on the financing of the function, financing that will ultimately come out of the pocket of the taxpayers of the local authority. It would therefore appear from this provision that grading should not be affected adversely by the privatisation of functions.

I also want to refer in general to the speeches made by the hon members for Ermelo and Meyerton, and in particular to the question of greater powers of local authorities. I want to refer hon members to the ordinances of provincial authorities, which deal inter alia with the establishment of towns. This ordinance was recently finalised in the Transvaal and there is a system of authorised and non-authorised local governments in operation in accordance with which certain city councils now deal with the establishment of towns in their own right. This system was recently put into effect and naturally time scales have not yet been linked to processes involving the establishment of towns, for example, but it should lead to a considerable saving of time and costs.

I have been informed that in a particular case a municipal area was proclaimed within seven months of the date of application. What I want to say with this is that considerably greater powers in this one sphere alone have already been given to local authorities in the recent past.

The hon member for Koedoespoort made an interesting speech on the holding of simultaneous elections and I should also like to pass this on to my colleague and the department involved with this. It would be worthwhile for this matter to be investigated further.

The hon member for Edenvale spoke about the management of solid waste structures. I have told her that in my view she made a very good speech. The problem to which she referred has been on the agendas of municipal institutes for quite a while by now and has also been discussed at municipal symposiums.

As far as this function is concerned, it is possible in future that a regional services council, for example, could manage such a function in a meaningful way, depending on certain circumstances. It is also possible that the function of removing and recycling solid waste could be privatised. Certain city councils have already successfully transferred some of these functions to private contractors. I have also been informed that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs, is at present preparing comprehensive regulations for the handling of waste in South Africa.

†The hon member for South Coast requested that senior citizens should be assisted in the payment of property rates to enable them to stay in their own homes for a longer period of time. In certain provinces arrangements of this nature already exist, and many senior citizens have been assisted in this way. A request like this nevertheless confirms that the time is now more than ever ripe for the rationalisation of local government legislation where necessary.

*The hon member for Green Point rose to his feet with the statement of my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, in his hand and set up a straw doll which he then inflated. I just want to quote the following from the statement:

I should like to emphasise the following statement:

I do not know on what grounds a supposition such as the one the hon member spoke about here this afternoon can be made. I wonder if the hon member does not firstly want to establish exactly what the facts are. He simply came along and quoted a passage from this morning’s Cape Times.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, my hon colleague has dealt with the matter. I think the hon member should really just settle down a little now.

The hon member for Algoa spoke about specific matters in his constituency, amongst other things, about Algoa Park. He is aware of the fact that at this stage the situation in Algoa Park is being examined under the guidance of the ministerial representative, Mr Dercksen. Steps have also been taken in the past to improve conditions there. I would in any case like to give the hon member the assurance that the question of Algoa Park is receiving serious attention.

He also referred to Cradock Place, the Government village in his constituency. Without going into that in too much detail let me just say that at the moment the situation with regard to Government villages is being fully investigated, particularly as far as the relatively poor appearance of the buildings are concerned and the fact that the structures are old.

I instructed the Development and Housing Board to investigate the position of all the Government villages in South Africa, in which our Whites are living. With a view to increasing the quality of life of the inhabitants, they have been instructed to investigate and to make recommendations to me on the condition of the buildings, the infrastructure, the acceptability of the town planning and its possible replanning, occupation density, community facilities, services that can be provided to the inhabitants, social aspects, the qualifying requirements for admission and continued residence in Government villages as well as at the selection of tenants, the question of rents, the linking up of Government villages with the rest of the community, better utilisation of the land, the desirability of the continued existence or replacement of specific accommodation, their situation, the possibility of transferring the Government villages to local authorities and even the possible sale of these dwellings to the tenants.

I now arrive at a final aspect. Various hon members on the Opposition side, and on this side too, referred to the question of local governments, regional services councils and so forth. I want to begin by placing only one matter in perspective by saying that the Act, as hon members know, is administered and controlled by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and that the Administrators and the Executive Committees are the functionaries who take the lead in establishing and introducing regional services councils.

The hon member for Pietersburg, whom I want to congratulate on his appointment as chief spokesman on this Vote, like various other speakers, concentrated specifically on the possible inroads that the regional services councils could make into the functions of local authorities. This afternoon the hon member for Potgietersrus also stated this almost as if it were a fact.

In the debate that we conducted here, in my view, the problem with regard to this aspect received an effective reply. The hon member may look at various speeches of hon members on this side, amongst others that of the hon member for Walvis Bay, who spoke at length on this subject. He also went into detail on a second aspect and that is the accusation that also came from the Opposition side that the Regional Services Councils Act had in fact been introduced without consultation. Yesterday afternoon the hon member for Walvis Bay set out in detail the historical factors leading to its coming into existence and I want to refer hon members to the hon member for Walvis Bay’s speech.

I should like to give some perspective to this allegation that the regional services councils will make inroads into the functions of local authorities. We should view it against this background. If one looks at item 6 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution of 1983, one sees that “local government within any area declared … as a local government area for the population group in question …” is an own affair. However, it is an own affair subject to certain exceptions, and one of these exceptions is that it be made subject to “any general law in relation to matters to be administered on local government level on a joint basis …” From the contributions of hon members, particularly the hon member for Middelburg—he is an experienced local government man—it is clear, and in fact the hon member has spelt it out, that there are already matters that are at present being dealt with on a joint basis by local authorities, even in rural areas. These matters are general functions, which will have to be taken over by the regional services councils. This eventual take-over will allow the local authorities to deal with their own affairs in their own rights. A regional services council is therefore also necessary from the viewpoint of self-determination over own affairs. [Interjections.] Hon members do not have to be so concerned—they simply have to listen.

I should also like to associate myself with hon members on this side of the House who pointed out that regional services councils will not reduce the primary local authorities to meaningless institutions. I should like to thank the hon members for Bellville, Walvis Bay, Klip River and Beaufort West who made this clear.

Regional services councils, on the contrary, could make it possible for many more matters to be dealt with at the local level. With regard to this hon members are welcome to peruse the schedule of the Regional Services Council Act. I want to clear up an important misconception. When provision is made in the Regional Services Councils Act for the regional services council to be able to provide bulk services, these particular services are in fact the provision of bulk services to a local authority and not by a local authority.

The distribution of services in a declared local authority area therefore remains an own affair. Only where it is provided by a regional body when a regional services council comes into being, as is the case with electricity in, for example, the Durban metropolitan area, is it a function of a full-fledged regional services council.

It is a fact that the various own Ministers are closely involved with the Regional Services Councils Act, but I should like to point out to the hon member for Losberg that this involvement does not extend to the designation of the seat of a regional services council. It actually seems strange to me that the hon member is a member of a party that rejects regional services councils, because yesterday he argued here that the seat of a regional services council should rather be transferred to the main town in his constituency.

Mr Speaker’s constituency!

Potchefstroom is surely part of the hon member’s constituency, is that not true?

I want to point out to the hon member that the Administrator and the Executive Committee make this decision. I think that the allegation made by him yesterday afternoon is a reflection on the decision of the Administrator and the Executive Committee. He said that that decision was taken because the Government had no respect for traditions and so on. [Interjections.]

People are very perturbed about it in Potchefstroom. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that he really does perturb us terribly in this House. [Interjections.] The hon member for Losberg has pleaded for the seat of a mixed council to be in his constituency—surely that is what he pleaded for. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to another matter. The hon member said here yesterday that the financing of regional services councils was based on Marxist principles.

I did not say that.

No, of course he said that.

I said that the redistribution of wealth …

Order! The hon member for Losberg cannot comment now on what he might have said yesterday. The hon the Minister may continue.

The argument that the hon member used yesterday reminded me a great deal of a certain student. This student had problems proving a hypothesis. He wanted to prove that an old Morris was better than a Mercedes 280. The student told the professor that the old Morris was better than nothing, and nothing is better than a Mercedes-Benz—therefore a Morris is better than a Mercedes-Benz. [Interjections.] That was the kind of argument used by the hon member yesterday.

Is that your reply to the problem?

No, the hon member must give me a chance.

He should go and see what it is all about when we speak about the redistribution of revenue. What I find tragic is that at this stage, when the broadening of democracy is at issue, when allowing people to participate in decision-making that affects their lives is at issue, when the development of backward areas is at issue, when the development and creation of an infrastructure is at issue and when the socio-economic development is at issue—all of them being factors that combat the influence of Marxism and communism—this hon member states that the financing of regional services councils is based on Marxist principles. It is pathetic when an hon member from the region of Potchefstroom comes along and makes such a statement. I think that the hon member ought to withdraw that statement unconditionally. [Interjections.]

I think that I should give the hon member for Losberg a quotation for the road ahead. In Proverbs 28: 27 we read:

I still get the feeling that what the hon member said yesterday and what the CP is trying to apply in their policy approach to other people in South Africa is that they will just have to muddle through in their own way. [Interjections.]

The hon member cannot get away from it, because he said that yesterday. What were the intentions of the hon member when he said yesterday that the financing of regional services councils was based on Marxist principles? I think it is … No wait, let me rather hold my peace.

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

No, Sir, I did not interrupt that hon member when he was speaking. [Interjections.]

It is an easy question. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I do not want to stoop to the level of the hon member. He was associated with a university, but never learnt anything. [Interjections.] He has a long way to go. I shall reply to any question of the hon member, but he must give me a chance to complete my argument. There is a Third Reading as well.

Thank you very much.

In section 12 (6) of the Regional Services Councils Act provision is clearly made for the RSC to spend its funds in such a way that it is used for infrastructure in those areas where the need is the greatest. Surely that is fair and reasonable.

I just want to tell the hon members for Pietersburg and Losberg that we do not share their fear at all about decision-making at the level of the regional services councils. I also want to say with all respect that I do not understand how the hon member for Pietersburg can mention the voting percentages and then say that it proves an opinion of his party that this form of decision-making will not work. Some of the RSCs have already been established and they do work. I say that the system will work.

They will flop.

I should like to convey my thanks to the hon members who discussed the functions of local governments and their transfer. The official mouthpiece of the UME has also presented arguments with regard to the transfer of the functions of local government.

Are regional services councils an own or a general affair?

I think that the hon member should just go and read the legislation and the Constitution thoroughly. Perhaps he needs to do some studying. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg will not be allowed to make any more interjections while the hon the Minister is speaking.

As far as the own affairs functions and the transferals are concerned, I just want to refer hon members to a speech made by the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Minister of National Education, on 28 April this year. I also intend it partly as a reply to the pointed references made this afternoon by the hon member for Potgietersrus. The first fact is that the most important technical objections against the transferals were dealt with last year by the provinces. Hon members know about that. Specific ordinances were carried through in terms of which local government areas were declared. The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also said, and I quote:

Only little Red Riding Hood believes that.

I continue:

Let me say that in the meantime—this was in April—a report of the project team of the Commission for Administration on local government functions was received by the Administration: House of Assembly. This was during July this year. Comment on this is being prepared at present and finality on this matter is therefore expected shortly. The role of local authorities in the self-determination concept has indeed been emphasised since the new dispensation came into operation, and this hon members will also notice in the annual report, if I may once again refer them to it.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the question of municipal elections. In so doing he really wanted to suggest that municipal elections at the political level were actually the result of actions taken by this side of the House.

Of course! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member really does not have to try to hide something like that. We already know what their declared standpoint on management councils, school committees and all these things are. Now the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis announced here yesterday evening that the CP won the by-election in Ermelo. [Interjections.] Surely there have never been party political elections at the local management level in Ermelo. [Interjections.] The hon member most probably was only asking what will happen in Transvaal as far as municipal elections are concerned. I just want to tell him that the NP will, as far as municipal elections at the political level are concerned, deal with matters in terms of its judgement of the particular time and circumtances, and in the interest of local government and of the communities that are being served.

†Mr Chairman, I should like to refer now to the hon member for Claremont. I also want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Parow regarding the representatives…

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I want to point out that I have already been informed that my time has almost expired. I hope the hon member will understand that it is not possible for me to reply to questions now.

I would really have liked to discuss the speech made by the hon member for Claremont at greater length. However, time does not allow me to do this. Because I promised to do so, I should therefore just like to react briefly to the contributions of the hon member for Constantia.

†The hon member for Constantia made a positive contribution to this debate, which, I must state, was quite amusing. In fact the hon member illustrated to this House—this is the point I should like to make—how decision-making is also shifting to communities. He also illustrated that a community does indeed have own interests, and in many cases also an identity of its own. That was of course what the hon member said in his speech yesterday evening.

[Inaudible.]

Of course that was what the hon member said. Therefore I want to state that I can react positively to both questions he put to me. I have in fact already reacted positively in relation to the interim recognition of bodies in local areas being represented on RSCs—that is what the hon member appealed for—especially when this will in fact largely contribute to the income of the RSCs. An official of my department, if necessary in co-operation with the provincial administration, will also be of assistance to the ratepayers’ executives when such requests are received. I suggest the hon member communicate with the department for further particulars in this regard.

A very important development which I should like to point out to hon members is the following. I suggest hon members take cognisance of the fact that local areas were transferred on 29 June 1987 to the Ministers responsible for local government in the House of Assembly and in the other two Houses. That was when the Divisional Councils of the Cape and Dias were abolished. This in fact serves to confirm that local government functions will in future be transferred to own affairs Ministers. It does not only confirm that local government is in fact an own affair; it also confirms that the RSCs will only be able to perform general affairs functions in their own right.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Mr Chairman, I have already indicated that my time is very limited. I cannot take any questions now.

*Mr Chairman, an important aspect to which both the hon member for Constantia as well as the hon member for Beaufort West referred, was that of development with regard to rural councils, which is at present being dealt with in draft legislation. Notice has been taken of the potential loss of franchise that certain rural communities who had a vote before, could suffer due to the abolition of divisional councils. I do not want to go into this in detail, but I think there is also a very positive development in this regard in the amending Bill that has already been introduced in Parliament.

†should like to conclude by referring to the matter raised by the hon member for Claremont. I just want to indicate with regard to his remarks concerning the representativeness of a person being judged by voting percentage only, that it was in fact pointed out by no less an organisation than the Council of Europe that a small percentage poll in municipal elections can be construed in many cases as voter satisfaction with the way in which their local authority is being run. In cases where controversy exists, the percentage poll is normally high.

Along with other speakers he also referred to persons being appointed to RSCs and I would like to point out that in fact only the chairman of an RSC who has no vote in any matter is appointed by the Administrator. All the members are appointed by their respective local bodies.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question? [Interjections.] Order! The hon the Minister has indicated that he will be prepared to do so if there is any time left.

I should like to say, Mr Chairman, that I find it quite amusing that when the hon member addressed this House last night he indicated that he apparently objected to White local authorities serving on the same body as Coloured, Indian and Black local bodies. However, that is how democracy works. The hon member indicated as much. Those serving on an RSC have been appointed by their own communities and if they are not representative of a specific community the community itself will be given the opportunity in 1988 to change their representatives. That is how democracy and voter control work.

*I should like to conclude by saying that to me this was a very pleasant debate and in connection with the activities of the department I just want to say a few words of thanks. I should like to express my thanks to my esteemed colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who in the housing sphere, and particularly in the sphere of local government as well, has done a great job. I also want to convey my thanks and that of my department to him for the guidance that he gave particularly in regard to the affairs of the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government. I am also pleased to say that we enjoy co-operation as Ministers of Housing. I also extend my thanks to my hon colleagues here and in the other Houses.

The co-operation and liaison between the UME, the official mouthpiece of local government in South Africa, their officials and my department was also only of the best. This also applies to the liaison with members of the UME and the various provincial and municipal associations. I think that a very healthy basis for liaison, for which I have nothing but appreciation, has been laid.

I have on various occasions in the past placed my thanks on record for the sacrifices made by the functionaries in the sphere of local government in the interests of their communities. The importance of a stable local tier of government is regarded world-wide as one of the most important factors in the establishment of stable communities. To manage this tier of government requires council members and officials who will know the needs and the values of the communities and will make an effort to satisfy these needs to the best of their ability. The signs are there that the importance of the roles of these functionaries are being realised more and more and I want to express my thanks once again for what the local government tier is doing for our country. I want to conclude by thanking all hon members for their participation and friendly words extended to me as well as to the heads of departments and also by expressing my heartfelt thanks to my private secretary, Gerrit Wissing and secretary, Susan de Villiers, who has been working for me for five years this week.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill amends the University of Zululand Act of 1969, the University of the North Act of 1969, the Medical University of Southern Africa Act of 1976, and the Vista University Act of 1981, so as to give effect to an amendment of the Universities Act, 1955, that was introduced during the 1986 Parliamentary session, that is, by means of the Universities Amendment Act of 1986.

The effect of the last-mentioned amendment is that all the South African universities, including therefore also those for Blacks, now fall under the provisions of the Universities Act of 1955. This means that the Minister of Education and Development Aid, as executive Minister responsible for the universities for Blacks, will derive certain powers which are common in relation to all the South African universities, from Act 61 of 1955, instead of, as is presently the case, deriving these powers from the respective university Acts applying to the universities for Blacks. This amendment also has the result that the rectors of the universities for Blacks will become members of the Committee of University Principals.

This Bill in itself introduces no new principles and only gives effect to those principles already contained in the Universities Amendment Act of 1986, to which I have just referred. What is mainly brought about is merely that all the separate provisions in the various university Acts, relating to matters already regulated by the Universities Act of 1955, are now repealed. Parallel provisions in the university Acts concerned, which have become redundant as a result of the overall Universities Amendment Act of 1986, and which are being repealed, are inter alia those relating to—and I mention just the main ones—conditions of service of staff members; the admission of students; agreements regarding the training of students; the establishment of departments or new study courses; the admission of students to equivalent status; the framing of statutes and regulations; the financing of universities; and accounts and audit with regard to universities.

As I have already mentioned, the Bill now before Parliament introduces no new principles, but is intended to link up the university Acts for which the Department of Education and Training is responsible, with the overall Universities Act of 1955, as amended by the Universities Amendment Act of 1986.

In conclusion it should be mentioned that the provisions of the various university Acts are changed in respect of the composition of their senates, so that provision will no longer be made for the appointment of professors from other universities to the relevant senates of those universities for which I am responsible. Consequently, the autonomy of the universities concerned will in this respect in future be on exactly the same level as that of all the other South African universities.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill deals with consequential amendments arising out of amendments made last year to the Universities Act, Act 61 of 1955, and contained in the Universities Amendment Act, Act 86 of 1986. The provisions of the legislation have two main objects. First of all the amending Bill includes all universities in Act 61 of 1955. Secondly the legislation provides for rectors of Black universities to become members of the Committee of University Principals.

We opposed the legislation last year, and we oppose this measure which proceeds from that legislation. This measure is a further step in the direction of continued integration in education at the tertiary level, because here we have one piece of legislation for all population groups. The representatives of all population groups will be involved in this legislation, as well as in its administration. There will be only one Committee of University Principals for the rectors of universities of all population groups. I assume that this is in keeping with the Government’s more recent reasoning, viz that one must have integration in order to have self-determination.

This legislation is a direct result of the Government’s altered constitutional perspective and policy, viz that South Africa is one, undivided country with one citizenship for all the people. That altered perspective of the Government affects all facets of life, including education. [Interjections.] That is why all universities in South Africa are being integrated to an increasing extent today. There is not one White university left in South Africa. Nor is there an Afrikaans-language or an English-language university that caters specifically for those population groups. Already 25% of the students at the University of Natal are from other race groups, and the rector of the University of Cape Town has already stated that the University of Cape Town is going to become a Black university.

It is interesting to note that Business Day contends that the poor performance of the PFP in the recent election can be ascribed to the fact that too many people from other races are being admitted to English-speaking universities, that those universities are losing their character, and that the culture of the English-speaking people is being destroyed because of this.

It is also true that all statutory education councils are being integrated by the Government. The process of integration is taking place to an increasing extent, therefore, and this measure is a step in the direction of continued integration at education level.

The CP holds a totally different view, and that is why we are opposing this Bill. We say that education should be culturally oriented and that control over education should vest in the representatives of that specific people. Only in that way can an own system of education, which matches the character and the needs of that people, develop from that people. The highest standards and the greatest performances in education cannot be achieved in any other way. Moreover, the history or the development of education in South Africa has shown that the South Africans feel a strong desire or urge for own education under the own control of a specific people. One of the first things done by the Black peoples who became independent, was the establishment of their own universities. When Bophuthatswana became independent it did not have a university of its own, and one of the first things it did was to establish its own university with its own Act. Its own representatives, accountable to the people, incorporated that Act in the Statute Book. Those representatives are responsible for it and they administer it.

The same thing happened in Transkei. They did not have an own university, and although they are very near to the University of Fort Hare, they established an own university. The University of Venda came into being after Venda had become independent, and I am sure that when KwaNdebele becomes independent, they will have their own university before long. That is fit and proper, and these universities will be in the hands of their own people.

The students of Medunsa demonstrated in striking fashion that they do not want White students at their university, and the students of the Universities of Potchefstroom, Pretoria and the Orange Free State decided by majority votes that only White undergraduates should be admitted to their universities. However, the Government is forcing integration upon these people, against their will, and this Bill is a further step in that gradual process of integration.

Initially the Committee of University Principals was a body made up of the rectors of the White universities. Subsequently the rectors of Coloured and Indian universities were brought in, and one Black rector served on that body as an observer. Now it is being fully integrated, and all the rectors of all the universities are now to become members of the Committee of University Principals. [Interjections.] The move, therefore, is away from own bodies towards integrated bodies, whereas the process should really have been in the opposite direction. We should move towards greater independence, with each people having more own participation, own inputs and an own say in respect of its own university, where its students are to be educated.

In this regard the Government is adhering slavishly and precisely to the recipe of the USA by beginning the process of integration in education at the top and moving downwards from there to the secondary and primary schools. Very gradually and carefully they are integrating education from the top downwards. The Government is also doing this in the sphere of sport, and we also see it in the growing number of people of other races at our universities and our schools. In this whole process the Government is making a total farce of own affairs, because in terms of section 14 of the Constitution and Schedule 1.2, tertiary education is an own affair, and is labelled as such by the NP.

This Committee of University Principals has specific duties, functions and responsibilities and must inter alia advise the Minister on certain matters such as financing. The important question now, however, is what Minister has to be advised. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture is not being advised, as would have been the case had this been an own affair. The committee does, however, advise the hon the Minister of National Education, who is responsible for the general policy. If it were really an own affair, these rectors of the White universities would have advised the Minister of Education and Culture: House of Assembly, while the Coloureds and Indians would have advised their Ministers, and the Black rectors the Minister of Education and Development Aid. That is not the case, however.

That is how it is stated in the Act!

No, Sir. I shall come back to that. There are also matters on which they advise the Minister of Education and Culture, and that is important. But the question is, on what matters do they advise their own Minister. They advise their own Minister on the sharing of facilities. [Interjections.] I ask that hon the Minister to reconcile this with his party’s latest line of reasoning that one must integrate in order to have self-determination.

With regard to own affairs at tertiary level, these rectors advise their own Minister on how he should share educational facilities. That is what remains of own affairs. Own affairs has become equivalent to the sharing of facilities. This Government has very adroitly introduced a loophole. While it says that education, including tertiary education, is an own affair, it has very adroitly built a loophole into the Constitution by means of which it can integrate education. The loophole is in paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, which provides for the various departments and Ministers to make arrangements in certain circumstances with regard to the sharing of facilities. The emphasis now falls on paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, on the sharing of facilities, and not on section 14 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, on own education.

All these things the Government is doing will necessarily lead to further integration, and the result will be that all education in South Africa will be completely integrated. That is essentially the course on which the Government has placed education, and it has certain consequences. This increasing measure of integration is creating more and more tension at the universities where people from different cultural groups share one campus. The hon the Minister’s colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, announced measures and held discussions with the rectors yesterday or the day before on how they had to maintain discipline at the universities. He also said that the Government was going to exert pressure on the universities by means of the formula and financing. I have no objection to that; he can do so. However, while that hon Minister is saying that the rectors must exercise greater discipline and that he is going to put pressure on them by means of the formula, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is busy aggravating the causes of the tension by admitting more and more people of other races to our universities, establishing mixed universities. The more he does that, the more tension he is going to have at the universities.

He need only go and see where there is tension and unrest on the campuses. It is where the various cultural groups share the same campus. When, traditionally, there was a single cultural group on one campus, there was absolute peace, and tertiary education was successfully provided in all respects. Even if there are only different Black cultural groups on a campus, there is tension on that campus, and proper tertiary education cannot be provided under those circumstances.

Instead of integrating more and more, we should move more and more in the direction in which each people will have its own educational institutions, including its own tertiary educational institutions, at which its children and its young people can enjoy the best education. All the things the Government is doing—more integration, more tension, more unrest at the universities—are leading to one thing, and that is a lowering of standards at the level of tertiary education. As a result of all these things, examinations are postponed and all kinds of costs increased. The CP’s standpoint and policy, therefore, is that each people should have its own educational institutions. Soon, when we take over power, we are going to implement this policy forcefully and purposefully, and we will teach the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, who was a rector himself, an object-lesson on how sound tertiary education should be applied and implemented in South Africa.

We say each people should have its own system of education and its own educational facilities, and each people should have complete control over its own education. It is only under those circumstances that we can bring about tension-free education in South Africa. Under such circumstances the highest standards and best performances can be achieved, and that would ensure peace and satisfaction. Moreover, it will ensure the maximum degree of development of South Africa’s young people as well as the maximum degree of development of the resources that will have been entrusted to the various peoples.

We do not support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg excels in scaring in himself and his party colleagues. I want to assure him, however, that he is not succeeding in scaring us. [Interjections.]

I should like to put a question to the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] He now says the CP wants to establish autonomous universities for each population group. Does the CP now want no consultation whatsoever between the universities? Is each one entirely on its own, completely and utterly autonomous?

That is not the issue here.

It is. That is precisely what the issue is! [Interjections.] I ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether there should be no consultation or communication whatsoever between the various universities? Is the CP opposed to that?

Mr Chairman, does the hon member want to tell me that consultation can only take place when there is a mixed statutory body? Can consultation take place in no other way?

The aim of this legislation is in fact that consultation shall take place in a meaningful and orderly way in the Committee of University Principals. That is the aim of this legislation. In other words the CP has nothing against communication and consultation, only they want to do it in different way.

Under a tree!

What is the difference, whether one does it under a tree [Interjections] or whether one does so meaningfully in a structured body such as the CUP? [Interjections.] That is the purpose of this legislation. In other words the CP have nothing against consultation or liaison …

It is a bush party.

… but not in a CUP. The CP wants to do it in an unstructured way.

This afternoon the hon member clearly indicated to us that the CP shies away from the realities. The CP shies away from accepting that in the field of education as well, common interests exist which require consultation in order to bring about order and meaningful co-operation in various fields.

The hon member referred to the Constitution and said that education was now an own affair at all levels. That is true, but, I quote from the Constitution:

1. (a) norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education;
2. (b) salaries and conditions of employment of staff and professional registration of teachers;
3. (c) norms and standards for syllabuses and examination and for certification of qualifications.

What is wrong with the need for consultation and that in respect of these general affairs consultation and co-operation are necessary. It is meaningful and will contribute to the orderly treatment of shared interests being dealt with in a systematic way.

South Africa’s future depends upon our ability to develop co-operative relationships with everyone. As far as this Bill is concerned, the CUP is a body which is being established precisely in order to have functions which are concerned with the points of contact between universities. It has no function in respect of own affairs. I do not know why the hon member is so concerned about that.

The committee advises the Minister of National Education on matters such as norms and standards and the financing of running and capital costs. Co-operation on the level of the CUP will lead to uniformity in the requirements for admission which are set by all universities.

Meaningful co-ordination which is logical and essential is necessary. It will undoubtedly lead to sound planning. At one stage only the White universities were fully autonomous; now the Black universities have also gained their autonomy and are able to deliberate on matters of common interest in this body and advise the Minister.

South Africa’s universities play an indispensable role in development and the progress in all walks of South African life. It is inconceivable that our country could exist without universities. We are proud of what our universities have achieved and of the dynamic way in which they are developing and progressing.

This legislation will as far as common interests are concerned, ensure orderliness in the university system. In the years that lie ahead this Bill will ensure that the greatest interests of the universities, the students and our country as a whole, will be served. That is why I gladly support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill is primarily consequential to bring the principal Act into line with the Universities Act which was amended last year. I would like to refer to a couple of features that we consider to be more interesting.

The first of these is that this Bill now makes provision for the principals of these universities to become full members of the Committee of University Principals. I believe they have been attending meetings with observer status for a while up to now, and I think it is excellent that they will now become full members of that committee, and we support that.

The Bill also makes provision for the compositions of the senates to be changed. Until now some of the universities had professors from other universities on their senates, and it is felt that they have now developed to a stage where that is no longer necessary or desirable. The result is that their senates will be constituted in the same way as the older more established universities, and by so doing they are being given greater autonomy. We support that as well.

This amending Bill also gives the council the power to cancel the registration of students. We expressed some reservations about this in 1985 when the idea was first introduced. Although it is specifically spelt out here in a new clause, it is only because the old section has been deleted; in that sense it is therefore not really a new provision.

Touching on that point I would simply like to say that I think it is correct that the universities be allowed to run their own affairs, and I would appeal to this hon Minister as well as the hon the Minister of National Education not to give way to pressures from the far right in respect to interfering in the affairs of universities. I believe that our universities should be judged on the medium-term results that they produce, and we have every reason to be proud of what our universities have produced over the years. I am very concerned lest because of popular pressure and the problems that the universities are grappling with—problems that are problems of our society that spill over into the universities—the State and the Government should give way to the temptation of showing that they are still tough by using a heavy hand and moving in there.

We must accept that in our society we have forced segregation in our school systems and in practice, until now and certainly for the immediate future, the education at other schools has not been of the same quality as that received by the pupils at White schools. However, the products of both the White and other schools have to end up in the same economy and compete for the same jobs. In this sense our universities that are training all our people, including those that are training our Black people—among which are traditionally White universities—are grappling with the problems of having to educate at the same standard at the tertiary level pupils coming from different school systems. We should be sympathetic and grateful that they are in fact wrestling with those problems.

Nobody is more interested in the future of those universities and their academic standards than the people who are running those universities themselves. I would therefore appeal to this hon Minister to show patience and thanks for the job that they are doing for this country, and not to give way to the temptation of stepping in because people on the right of the political spectrum are screaming and shouting about it.

I might say that the hon member for Lichtenburg made reference to the fact that the problems at universities have become greatly aggravated since the universities have been opened up. Some of them at least, such as the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand, were open prior to 1959. Because of the composition of the population, the proportions were not quite as high as they have been over the past couple of years, but there were plenty of students there who were not White, and there was no particular problem arising from that. What has happened is that as a result of apartheid the tensions in our society have become more and more acute. It is unrealistic to expect that these are not going to spill over into the universities and to any other activity in South Africa. It well behoves us to show patience, consideration and thanks to those institutions. I do not agree with all the things that they have or have not done, but I still think that they must be left alone to sort out their problems because they are dedicated to making and keeping those universities great.

In supporting this Bill, which we will be doing, may I just say again that we are pleased with the steps that bring about greater uniformity in the way the Various universities are being run and the Acts under which they operate. I hope that this will continue in other fields and spread into secondary and primary education as well.

Well done!

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Cape Town Gardens for supporting this legislation. I find it strange that he objects to the cancellation of the registration of students, particularly after the debâcle we are experiencing at present at a nearby university. This is in fact the case because a rector of a university did not have the courage to cancel the registration of students at that university when those people were involved— they still are—in activities that have nothing to do with academic matters.

I regret that we have to drag an argument like this into a debate such as this, in which the issue is the autonomy and the recognition of the autonomy of universities. I think it is the right of the universities and the rectors, councils and senates of universities to arrange matters in such a way that there is order on the campuses. The search for knowledge of the day is not restricted to a certain group in a community.

I found the reasoning of the hon member for Lichtenburg this afternoon very odd. When he himself was still in the Cabinet, there was, as he himself said, a Black rector with observer status on the CUP. It was not integration then. He happily allowed that, but it was not integration. However, when official recognition and membership are granted to a Black rector by way of legislative power, it is integration. The present Bill has nothing to do with the admission of students. This Bill deals thoroughly with the regulation of negotiations and talks regarding the diversity of universities in South Africa. We on this side of the House do not dispute the reality of such diversity, nor the necessity for each of these population groups to have its own university. However, the fact is that such universities exist, and with this Bill we wish to arrange for all the heads of all the universities in South Africa to sit on the CUP. This principle goes back to the level preceding tertiary education. The education programme is a complex one. As far as the level preceding tertiary education is concerned, there is a need for discussion between the heads and administrations of individual institutions with regard to the unique problems concerning interpretation of curricula, policy, standards and the interpretation of interschools relations. Then there are the official heads of these institutions, and because of the differences between Afrikaans and English sectors, there is a need for discussion among those heads representing various cultural groups amongst the Whites. This need exists, and much more so in the tertiary field, which is completely autonomous. It concerns itself in all respects with the limitlessness of science and its components, and is unique in an uninhibited way in its search for the greater truths of the day. How much greater would the need be for those people to engage in discussion with one another in an organised way?

I think it is probably one of our unintentional mistakes of the past that we left certain groups, which were established very recently, completely to their own fate to find their own way, whilst tertiary education in other sectors in South Africa, viz the White sector, had already reached an advanced level. In my opinion it is simply selfish to arrogate to ourselves the knowledge we have acquired over the years, and the successes we have achieved, without wanting to share them with others.

I maintain that it is probably an unintentional mistake we made in the past not to have made a start with this sooner, since it is true that there are problems at Black universities in the search for their future path. It is also true that there is reason for discussion about these matters in the Committee of University Principals. There is a real need for this. I am grateful that the opportunity has now arisen for these people to have official membership of such a committee.

I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg that as a former member of the Cabinet he should at least know better than he intimated. There is a big difference between the UTAC and its activities and the CUP and its activities. The UTAC acts as an advisory committee to the ministry concerned, and the CUP is, on an informal level, an inherent advisory committee of the Committee of University Principals in respect of its relations with the ministry concerned.

I wish to conclude. I think we have brought up the question of the need for this in our discussion of other legislation. We are grateful for the opportunity that is now arising for Black rectors to sit on the committee. We are grateful that with this we were able to put a process in motion which it is to be hoped will contribute to standards being adjusted quicker, and Black universities being able to develop more rapidly, so that equal standards can be achieved in the whole of South African society. We are grateful for this legislation and take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, once again it was quite an experience to listen to the hon member Brentwood this afternoon, an hon member who, a few years ago, was a champion of an own government and own educational institutions, and who on more than one occasion expressed himself strongly opposed to the trend of integrating students on campuses, which could be perceived at that time already. This afternoon he did an about-turn to plead for and try to promote more integration, which is necessarily going to arise out of this.

This is concerned with the council.

It is also concerned with the students, Sir; I shall point this out to you in a moment. [Interjections.]

This Bill amends the Acts for the various Black universities, which were established at different times according to the progress of tertiary education in the various communities for whom the institutions were established. This spans the period from 1969, when the legislation for the University of Zululand and the University of the North came into being, until the most recent Act, the Vista University Act, in 1981. It is therefore concerned with the legislation for the University of Zululand, the University of the North, Medunsa and Vista University.

The principle of the Universities Amendment Act of 1986 was piloted through Parliament last year, with this side of the House opposed to it. What is in fact happening now is that the provisions in the various university laws that have a bearing on provisions that are already regulated in the Universities Act, 1955, are being deleted. For example—the following examples are repeated each time in respect of the four different universities—the provisions being deleted make provision for such matters. In terms of clauses 4 and 5 the following sections are being repealed: Section 15, which deals with conditions of service; section 16, which deals with pension rights and retirement benefits; section 17, dismissal of a member of staff appointed on a permanent basis; section 18, misconduct and incompetent staff; and section 19, temporary detachment of a member of staff. Then there is section 20, which deals with registration as a student, as well as section 22, which is very important to me in this legislation, viz admission as students of persons other than Blacks at the universities which fall under the hon the Minister.

This legislation before us is therefore a consequential amendment of last year’s legislation. It also means, as the hon member for Lichtenburg rightly pointed out, that the rectors of universities for Blacks are to become members of the Committee of University Principals. The only difference between these Acts and the Universities Act is very clear, if we just look at the front page. It says: “Universities Amendment Bill”—precisely the same as the one which was amended last year—but it also says in brackets: “Education and Training”. In other words, the legislation as it is going to read now, is going to be exactly the same as far as content is concerned. Its heading on the outside is going to be the same. The only difference will be that there are going to be two Ministers who are going to deal with universities for Blacks on the one hand, and the Minister of National Education on the other hand.

Now I would predict that this is the case because the constitutional dispensation is at the stage it is now. But if the next step comes to fruition with the participation of Black people in central government, I would predict that the next step we will experience will be that this matter will also be amended and that all the Acts will read: “the Universities Amendment Bill”, and it will be administered by the Minister of National Education. This is the direction in which it is moving.

In essence, this is therefore a further step in the direction of the ever-progressing integration amongst the various peoples, as the hon member for Lichtenburg indicated—in this case at the level of tertiary education—or, in other words, it is taking away the legislation unique to the various Black universities. It therefore embodies the Government’s ultimate concept of the idea of one nation in an undivided South Africa. It is an identical Act for all the various universities, and is therefore a step in the process of further making all minority groups in South Africa equal.

This is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of this side of the House concerning universities. In our opinion, they should be the sounding-board of their own community, with a healthy interaction between the universities and the various peoples for whom that university was primarily established. The university must therefore be so enmeshed in what is unique to the people, that the educational role such an institution plays, promotes the culture, religion, philosophy of life and the world of the people it serves, and also steers it in a particular direction.

This was the case at our Afrikaans universities earlier. This is no longer the case everywhere, particularly at our Afrikaans universities here in the southern parts of our country. Earlier it was true that these universities adhered to and promoted the spirit of Afrikaner Nationalism. They sent a group of graduates into the world who made that ideology have a yeast-like effect on the community, which was to the great advantage of the Afrikaner people as a whole.

We would also like to see the various universities for Black people developing to the advantage and healthy interaction of their respective communities. It is very important that ethnically-oriented universities should also be established for the various Black communities and peoples, as the hon member for Lichtenburg indicated. The Bill before us, however, is moving in the opposite direction. It began long ago, with the admission of an increasing number of students of Colour, to our Afrikaans universities as well.

It is interesting to read last year’s debate when the Universities Amendment Bill was dealt with. It is interesting to see what the hon the Minister of National Education said during that debate. I quote from Hansard, 22 August 1986, col 10580:

He then went on to add that this must take place without them losing their character. The hon the Minister therefore argued that a greater number of students should be admitted. Under this hon Minister’s administration, section 22, which deals with the admission to Black universities of students who are not Black, is being removed.

If the process I have sketched here continues and is allowed to develop more and more, and if we take the demographic trend into account, then it is unavoidable that the basic character, association with the community, and the function of universities with regard to particular communities, will inevitably suffer. We know that the numbers at White universities are going to decline in the nineties for this very reason. It is probably going to be a drastic decline. Not only is this going to increase the potential for conflict amongst the students themselves, as we have experienced very recently, but it also promotes the philosophy of liberalism, and ultimately also the spirit of leftist radicalism recognisable on many of our campuses today.

I want to quote to this House what the hon the State President had to say on Friday, 5 June, when he opened the engineering building of the technikon in Pretoria. I quote from Die Burger of 6 June:

The hon the State President went on to say that it appears from subsidies for the 1987-88 financial year that not less than R1 127 million has been budgeted for universities. This is the taxpayer’s money. The hon the State President rightly issued the warning that taxpayer’s money cannot continue to be spent in this way indefinitely.

The irony of the matter is that Die Burger of the same day carried a report on the induction speech of the new rector of the University of the Western Cape. I know that his university does not fall under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister, but I maintain that there are other heads of universities and senates that do fall under this hon Minister’s jurisdiction who adhere to the same spirit we read about here. I quote from this report what Prof Gerwel said in his induction speech:

He went on to say:

The rector then said:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister: Does this not contain a covert incitement to resistance and the use of university facilities and functions to carry on so-called extra-parliamentary activities and objectives on the campus? We find this kind of situation at the Black universities as well, inter alia at the University of the North. The hon member for Lichtenburg pointed out that where there are ethnically-oriented universities, like the ethnically-oriented universities of Venda and Transkei, we do not have this problem at all. Conflict arises where there is a cosmopolitan, multi-racial and multi-ethnic community.

I also want to refer to what happened recently here in Cape Town. We were told this morning that in order to combat this, certain steps were being planned, which would possibly affect the subsidies to universities, inter alia. We on this side of the House welcome this, since we cannot allow our campuses in South Africa to be abused for this kind of activity.

I want to refer hon members to the proposed section 23A of the University of Zululand Act, 1969, as contained in clause 6, which refers to the university council and provides that:

In my opinion, this provision has been inserted here to be able to effect a cancellation if the council deems it necessary or in the interests of the university that such a student’s registration should be cancelled. However, the irony is that it is in fact some of the heads of these universities and most of their senates that allow the registration of students who cause this kind of unrest.

I want to ask the hon the Minister how the Government aims to solve the problems on the campuses of the universities which fall under the jurisdiction of this hon Minister. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he could perhaps reveal what specific steps are going to be taken when incidents like this take place, for example, on the campus of the University of the North. This can no longer be tolerated, since millions of rands’ worth of damage has been and is being done to university property by leftist radicals and instigators. The South African taxpayer is justified in protesting against this state of affairs on our university campuses.

Therefore, since we regard this amending Bill as a continuation of educational integration at the tertiary level, we shall be opposing it strongly.

Mr Chairman, with the best will in the world, I fail to see how this amending Bill can be regarded as an attempt at educational integration. I do not see how this Bill could even be made applicable to the primary school level and that it could then be said that it will ultimately lead to integration in education.

If one listens carefully to the arguments being put forward against this amending Bill, in my opinion one cannot find one convincing argument as to why this Bill would give rise to integration in the future. With the best will in the world I fail to understand how a school-say a primary school—could be integrated in terms of this legislation. After all, one of the fundamental principles in our education is mother-tongue education, and if one wanted to integrate, which mother-tongue would that particular school have as medium of instruction? To what extent is one going to succeed in integrating such a school? I just cannot understand it.

Unfortunately, however, it is true that many people are being taken in tow concerning the so-called integration in our schools, or the so-called attempt by the Government to integrate schools. Since we are succeeding in having one medium of instruction in a school, however, I fail to see how the schools are going to integrate. It is certainly not the aim of this Government to integrate schools, or any field of education for that matter. How can we undo the years in which mother-tongue instruction was strongly emphasised and brought about at great cost in this country, by integrating? No, Sir, I do not think there is any reason to be afraid that this Bill will make our educational institutions integrate in any way.

This Bill contains no new principles, and simply carries into effect the principles contained in the Universities Amendment Act of 1986. All that is in fact happening, is that the provisions in the various laws pertaining to universities with regard to matters that are already regulated in the Universities Act, 1955, are being repealed. Other provisions are being amended or replaced altogether, but only insofar as it is necessary to synchronise the laws concerned with Act No 61 of 1955. This Bill amends the University of Zululand Act, the University of the North Act, the Medical University of Southern Africa Act, and the Vista University Act.

During the 1986 Parliamentary session, the Universities Act, 1955, was amended by the Universities Amendment Act, 1986—Act No 86 of 1986. The present Bill carries this amendment into effect. The effect of the latter amendment means that the South African universities, those for Blacks as well, are also being included under the Universities Act, 1955. The Minister of Education and Development Aid is the executive Minister responsible for the universities for Blacks.

Furthermore, the amendment means that the rectors of the universities for Blacks are now also becoming members of the Committee of University Principals. The Bill was drafted in consultation with the Department of National Education and the Committee of University Principals. I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill, and I see no danger of integration inherent in it whatsoever.

Mr Chairman, I wish to join my colleagues the hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon member for Pietersburg in their condemnation of this amending legislation. I also wish to add that I have heard little or nothing from hon members of the leftwing radical NP to allay my own concern and that of my people. While I do not accept the concept offered, I see this in fact as just another cosmetic measure designed to avoid the real issues.

I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a matter which I consider to be extremely urgent and extremely serious. This is something which I can now freely do, since it is obvious from the attitude of the leftwing radical NP that all matters concerning universities have become general affairs.

I refer to the matter of the financing of universities in terms of subsidies, although the totals of subsidies are separately available. This year’s Budget sets aside more than R1 billion for subsidies to universities. The hon the Minister’s share of the cake is R 140 million, a much bigger cake and one that has increased considerably in size since last year. The percentage subsidy for White students is 80% on the one hand and on the other at Black universities the students enjoy a considerably higher subsidy. The total received by the specific Black universities is R148,249 million and Wits, Natal, Cape Town, Rhodes and Stellenbosch, the homes of leftwing radicalism, receive R411,367 million. [Interjections.]

Whatever the case, Mr Chairman, a considerable amount of money is provided by the State towards the financing of all universities. This gives even the leftwing NP Government the wherewithal to ensure, if necessary, according to the hon the Minister of National Education, that students can enjoy at all universities uninterrupted and undisturbed tuition and study, and the functional, constructive and educationally responsible utilisation of taxpayers’ money; and the application of effective measures to maintain good order and discipline and the maintenance of the university’s traditional academic values and standards.

Hon members I am sure will agree with me that these are finesounding values, but for them to be worth more than the paper on which they are written they must be backed by a determination that is stronger than that being displayed presently by this leftwing radical NP Government.

Send in the AWB!

What body other than a leftwing radical government would allow a leftwing radical administration to clearly cock a snoot at it the way the rector of the leftwing, radical-controlled university of Cape Town has recently done.

After conceding to the hon the Minister of National Education recently that the present situation is a serious one and that it poses a threat to the essence of the university and what it stands for, the rector takes the same action of suspending six of the Black racists responsible for the disruption of Dr Worrall’s dinner meeting on Monday night. [Interjections.] Out of 120 or more Black racists, only six are punished. On the other hand, on Tuesday … [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member tell me which clause he is discussing now?

Sir, I am discussing the question of the financing of universities which is affected by this sort of thing.

Order! Under what clause is the financing referred to?

It’s the general financing of Universities, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I am afraid the hon member will have to come nearer to the amending Bill under consideration. [Interjections.]

Sir, may I address you on this question?

It is not necessary for everyone to comment on the chairman’s ruling. The hon member may proceed.

May I address you on this question, Sir? I feel that what has happened recently at the White universities is so serious …

Order! It is not a question for argument. That particular situation can be argued on the proper occasion. The fact of the matter is we are discussing this particular amending Bill and the hon member must bring his speech within the ambit of the clauses of this particular Bill. Unless he can refer me to a specific provision in the Bill, which has not been done so far, I shall not allow him to continue any further in that vein simply because the Rules of the House will not permit me to do so.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Then I shall continue talking about the whole principle of this legislation and that is further integration at university level. I refer to the problems that are being experienced as a result of the integration of Black racists are now establishing themselves in Black and White universities throughout this country.

I personally experienced an unpleasant incident—it was not as bad the one which occurred in Cape Town—in which a White student’s car was damaged to the tune of R4 000. This begs the question as to whether part of the subsidy which is being provided in terms of the Universities Act is going to be used to compensate such students instead of taking petty action against them. I attended a meeting at the University of Natal and was subjected by these Black racist students to a degree of intimidation which I find totally unacceptable.

I am sure that any hon member in this House would have objected in the same strong terms and would like to see the situation remedied.

I think that the whole present situation stemming from integration in universities is unacceptable. I think the hon the Minister has the wherewithal to act. This applies to both the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid in terms of Black universities and the hon the Minister of National Education in terms of White universities. I would like to call on them now to act urgently; to stop fiddling around and to get rid of these racists before they really kill somebody.

Mr Chairman, one sometimes becomes dulled to the ironies and anomalies one encounters in politics, but this afternoon I cannot but notice that the man who wants to try to teach us a lesson across the floor of this House on how a university should be run and what the values of a university are, is a man who was borne shoulder-high on an occasion when a political meeting was broken up in an uncivilised fashion. [Interjections.] His involvement was so prominent that he was even photographed, and his actions were published openly in the Press. [Interjections.] This is someone who wants to tell us how the values of a university should be maintained.

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

No, I first want to finish making my point. The hon member has just had his turn to speak.

This happens, of course, when someone is a prominent member of and a kind of ideological pace-setter in an organisation such as the AWB. He does not perhaps meet the requirements of the A section of the AWB, but rather those of a kind of AEWB.

What do your English-speaking colleagues say about that?

The irony of the matter is that the Official Opposition has a spokesman that wants to tell this House, the highest legislative body in the country, what should be done at university level and how universities should maintain order and civilised standards, whereas he is a man who was photographed at a public meeting in order to be depicted as one of the triumphant symbols of the break-up of the meeting.

I pointed out previously in another debate that it really is strange that the Official Opposition contains so many conflicting elements. On the one hand, there are people that lay down particular principles and, on the other, there are those that, in turn, lay down the exception to the principles. In this debate, too, the Official Opposition has as its final spokesman in this debate someone who, by his public actions, is a symbol of the antithesis of those values that should have a place at a university and be upheld there. If ever there was evidence of bankruptcy, it is this. [Interjections.]

There can of course be no doubt that my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, is pre-eminently the man who, with the necessary resolution—but in such a way that he gets the significant leaders throughout the community, and those at the university, on his side—will be able to succeed and is succeeding in imposing the necessary discipline and order, wherever this has not been satisfactorily applied previously. In that respect the hon member is correct. It is necessary to take action, but we are grateful to have an hon Minister who is taking the lead in this matter and who is not simply autocratic in his actions, but acts in such a way that everyone supports him in maintaining these values.

What the hon the Minister of National Education did yesterday, and also what he commented on in the public media last night, was a notable achievement. On a matter over which there has been sharp conflict and differences of opinion within the university setup—namely, exactly how good order should be maintained—he has succeeded in getting a spokesman and the academic leaders as well as the chairmen of our university authorities all on his side regarding the necessity for strong, firm and conclusive action.

The test of good government is not whether one can force a path open by autocratic means, but whether one can succeed in that process in getting everyone whose opinion is of importance, on one’s side and in so doing establish a stronger front in the implementation of such a policy.

This is a question of discipline. [Interjections.]

Discipline? Is this hon member talking about discipline?

Of course!

Good heavens! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman …

Order! I should like to point out to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis that when he rises he should say either that he wants to ask a question or put a point of order so that the Chair can know what the situation is.

Mr Chairman, may I ask whether the hon the Minister is prepared to take a question?

Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question at this stage?

No, Mr Chairman. If I am not careful I shall … [Interjections.]

The hon members for Lichtenburg and Pietersburg harped on the same string, ie that the Government is engaged in bringing about further integration. Very definite entrenchments have been built into this Bill in respect of the university setup as an own affairs concept.

The Committee of University Principals, which functions in this context, is a body that cannot impose any binding decisions on anyone. Indeed, anyone who is acquainted with the Committee of University Principals knows that it seldom comes up with a definite decision, unless it is a consensus decision. The committee is pre-eminently a forum where people with related interests deliberate and share their experience with one another, and it is certainly not a body that would cause a disturbance of the distinctive character or the administrative autonomy of the universities. Therefore, to regard the fact that the principals of universities which are intended primarily for various communities and population groups are members of the same body, as integration, attests to ignorance regarding the CUP and the concept of integration.

Integration is not simply a coming together of people of various backgrounds and cultures, but takes place when as a result of this coming together, people enhance or destroy the identity of the various communities they represent. This is precisely what is not happening here because each of these universities is, and remains, associated primarily with a particular community.

However, they need to deliberate jointly on matters of common importance. In response to the earnest entreaty by the principals of these universities—these are people from the particular population groups served by those universities—who were initially excluded from full membership of the CUP, we consented and included them in the CUP. There is therefore no possibility that this fact could in any way lead to integration.

Secondly, it is a fact that in this legislation—the general affairs Universities Amendment Bill of 1986, which forms the basis of the amendments now being introduced by this Bill in the separate legislation on universities—provision is clearly being made for advice, not only from the CUP, but also from the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council, to be conveyed to the specific Minister of the particular population group responsible for that university.

It is also true that in respect of the matters that are of general importance, the advice is conveyed to the Minister with overall responsibility for norms and standards in that regard, namely the hon the Minister of National Education. After all, we cannot expect to have equivalent university standards in this country if we have different financing policies for the various universities. In fact, as far as the financing of universities is concerned, the new groups who have recently progressed in large numbers to the level of universities and university study, are the very groups that received a more favourable subsidy than the older, more established groups, particularly the Whites, whereas the opposite is true in the case of schools. By regarding the financing of the universities centrally as a general policy matter, these inequalities can be ironed out …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As I understood the ruling from the Chair, financing does not fall within the framework of this legislation. [Interjections.]

Order! No, it is acceptable in this context. The hon the Minister may proceed.

By means of the definition of the word “Minister” in this general legislation on universities, provision is clearly made to ensure that when university matters intended primarily for the Black communities are being discussed, the relevant Minister will be the Minister of Education and Training. The same applies to each of the other population groups. Own affairs interests have therefore been built in.

Another matter that the hon members who are so critical are overlooking is that besides the Universities Act, which contains the general provisions applicable to all universities, each university still retains its own Act. If a particular university or group of universities wants to make different provision, even in respect of a specific matter which is contained in the general Universities Act, it is still possible to do so, for example, in connection with the cancellation of the registration of students by the universities’ council. That provision has been specifically included in the various laws of universities intended primarily for Black communities, because it is not stated in the general Universities Act, where it would apply to universities in general.

Therefore by providing for the maintenance and retention of own Acts for each university, by the specific provision that the particular Minister will be the Minister responsible for the university affairs of that particular population group, and by a proper grasp of the functioning of the Committee for University Principals, it should be very clear to everyone that there is simply no substance in the contention that a continued process of integration would be taking place.

The hon member for Lichtenburg went on to say that as a result of Government policy, no own White universities could exist, that there could no longer be genuine Afrikaans-language universities, and that there could no longer be genuine English-language universities. I gather from what he says, and from what the hon member for Pietersburg—who basically followed his lead in this matter-says, that they want a guarantee that a university will be exclusively Afrikaans in composition and exclusively English in composition. If the argument is that the character of the university is disturbed by admitting a small number of non-Whites to a primarily White university, the same argument should apply with regard to language groups, namely that one would be disturbing the character of an Afrikaans university if one admitted ten or twenty English-speaking students, or the character of an English university if one admitted ten or twenty Afrikaans-speaking students.

Now I should like to know, if this dream—which the hon members opposite experience in their state of euphoria (roes) is realised—namely, that they will come into power, will legislation then be introduced to prevent Afrikaans-language universities from enrolling English students?

Order! I did not quite understand what the hon the Minister meant by their state of euphoria (roes).

Sir, it is a dream in which they are far removed from reality! [Interjections.]

It is that idiom that is bothering me. [Interjections.] Order! The hon the Minister must please withdraw it.

I shall withdraw it, Sir. We can simply make it a nightmare, instead of a dream.

I should like to know, and I think this House and our voters would like to know, whether this indeed forms part of the policy that will be implemented in that nightmare state, namely that there will be an entrenchment against all overstepping of the bounds of cultural groups by admission to universities?

The hon member for Pietersburg went even further in this regard and drew a distinction between the University of Venda, where supposedly the Vendas study, and the University of the North, where various ethnic groups are present. He said the University of Venda was the real model, because there is more unrest at a kind of cosmopolitan university—as I understood him—like the University of the North. I think I understood the hon member correctly.

This is very interesting because when the Extension of Universities Education Act was initially introduced, and universities for the various Black population groups were established, an ethnic entrenchment was built into the Act. The University of the North had to admit specific ethnic groups. The University of Zululand had to admit only Zulus, and I think Swazis, too, and the University of Fort Hare, people belonging to the Xhosa-speaking groups.

As is the case at RAU!

However, do you know who changed that, Sir? The hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Training at the time, the present hon Leader of the Official Opposition, changed that. [Interjections.] He is the man that altered this legislation in order to lift these ethnic restrictions so that there could be freedom of movement among the various Black population groups, which would enable them to attend the various Black universities. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will not deny this.

That is not true.

Oh, is it not true? I shall prove it, chapter and verse, in another debate. In fact, I have already indicated in a previous debate in this House that the change whereby the ethnic restriction on the Black universities was lifted, was effected by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when he was Deputy Minister. [interjections.]

Now I should like to know whether it is the intention of the hon members on that side of the House, when their nightmare comes true, to return to the old situation and entrench the ethnic restriction on the character of the Black universities, so that only Zulus may study at the University of Zululand and only members of a specific population group may study at the other Black universities.

I think the absurdity of this approach is clearly revealed when one analyses exactly the situation at those universities. It was stressed, with justification, by the hon members for Lichtenburg and Pietersburg, that these are universities of which one would, together with their founders, like to be proud. I refer here to the universities of states that have become independent, such as the universities of Venda and Bophuthatswana. Those universities, in the first place, are not restricted to Black students, nor are they restricted to students belonging to the particular people for whom that independent state was primarily established.

These are open universities and, as ethnically restricted as the University of the North is, they are unrestricted. Therefore, if we want to look for a reason for the difference in order at the various universities, we are involved in a fallacious argument. We should have our facts straight if we want to argue about that.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister the following question? In clause 5 of this Bill, section 22 of the University of Zululand Act is repealed. Section 22 restricted the admission to this university of students who were not Black.

Consequently there has been up till now a specific method whereby such students have been admitted there. I just want to ask the hon the Minister on what basis that admission will now take place.

Mr Chairman, allow me once again to make my point, from which the hon member is trying to move away, and tell him the argument he advanced—that in the case of independent states we have ethnically pure and unmixed universities, and that is why better order prevails there—does not agree with the facts, but conflicts with the reality.

As far as the hon member’s question is concerned, instead of the provision to which he referred, which restricted membership of the Black universities to members of Black population groups, the provision in section 25 of the general Universities Act, will now apply. According to this the admission of students from a population group other than that for which the university was primarily established, is subject to conditions the particular Minister responsible sees fit to impose. In my case, as far as the Black universities are concerned, I have already taken that course and told Black universities that I give their university councils the autonomy to decide for themselves whether they want to admit students from other population groups, subject to two conditions. In the first place, under no circumstances may a Black student be excluded by someone else who perhaps happens to have better marks than he has, or is in a stronger competitive position. Preference must be given to Black students. Secondly, the predominantly community-directed mission of that university, in order to render a service to the community concerned, must not be jeopardised. I am convinced that we can confidently leave this matter in the responsible hands of the university councils of these particular Black universities.

It is interesting that numerous White students, mainly at postgraduate level, but even at undergraduate level, too, have been admitted to the Black universities. In many cases it is lecturers or members of lecturers’ families, or State officials working in the area—particularly as seconded officials—that are studying there. I think this fact—that non-Black students, and non-Black lecturers that are connected to university life, in the way I have mentioned here, are being admitted to study further there—is an important reinforcement of the general acceptability of these universities. I hope the hon members of the Official Opposition will not object to that as well now.

I should also like to refer to the fact that the hon member for Lichtenburg and—I think—the hon member for Pietersburg, too, emphasised that education at university level should also be group-oriented. I have no quarrel with them as regards that point of departure, but throughout the world there is a need at university level for education not to be experienced only within an own group context but that there should also be a movement beyond the boundaries of the own group context to experience the stimulus and the enrichment of contact with other cultural communities. I think there are few people in the world whose leaders have made use of this opportunity on a larger scale than the Afrikaner people themselves. The Afrikaner people’s intellectual leaders of the previous century or half-century are good examples of this. After they had progressed to a more elementary level of study here, they went abroad to study at foreign universities in various cultural contexts—not only in the Netherlands, but also in Germany, England, America and numerous other countries. In fact, there was a stage at which the Afrikaans university academics in South Africa had a far richer assortment of foreign qualifications, if one were to determine it quantitatively, than their English-speaking colleagues in the universities of South Africa. It is therefore part of the Afrikaner’s educational tradition that he move outward at university level, and why would he begrudge people of other population groups the same privilege of coming to him and, as it were, imbibing and absorbing knowledge, in the same way that he went to other people to imbibe and absorb knowledge?

I believe it would be a sad day for South Africa if our leaders or bodies in authority were to block that source of spiritual enrichment—a broader contact on the tertiary level of education for us or for other population groups.

Even Andries did this.

Exactly. Yes, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition studied at the University of Cape Town after he had drawn himself out of the purer world of the University of Stellenbosch, but perhaps what he absorbed at Stellenbosch was so solid that he could risk exposing himself to the more contaminating influences at the University of Cape Town.

In that respect I also have confidence in the Afrikaner’s education. In my opinion the Afrikaner’s education is strong enough and has enough motivation to reinforce the own identity of the Afrikaans pupil in the education system. Therefore, when his studies reach an advanced stage, the Afrikaner can move out at the tertiary level without endangering himself or his own group identity by studying further at institutions that have been established for other peoples.

Furthermore, I should like to make some remarks on the address by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

†With reference to the clause providing for the cancellation of the registration of students if the council of a university considers it to be in the interests of the university, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens pleaded that the Government should not give way to pressure from the far right to interfere with university autonomy. I think the hon member knows as well as I do that the pressure under which the Government operates at present does not come from the far right but from the whole political spectrum—from the far right to the far left. [Interjections.] I think few sources have formulated and articulated this more eloquently than the newspaper, Business Day. I refer not only to this newspaper’s editorial columns but also to its extensive readers’ correspondence and to the exchange of views on this issue published in articles.

It is clear that there has been a tough awakening in the English-speaking community in South Africa. Some English-speaking South Africans have actually said that they considered the character of their universities to be threatened by the influx of too many militant elements from other population groups.

Therefore, I should like to emphasise, firstly, that the pressure for action against the unacceptable breakdown of discipline and the unacceptable interference in the normal functioning of some of our universities has not come from the extreme right. In fact, I think the extreme right knows very little of what is going on in these areas. It has come from the left, and the Government has taken notice of the fact that in this regard it has support from a very broad spectrum.

Secondly, I want to emphasise that the autonomy of universities, while it is an extremely important value of our society, is an autonomy with a specific purpose, namely to govern a university—not to influence politics, to manipulate labour relations or to promote strike situations in education or boycotts in the field of trade and commerce but to promote the functioning of universities.

When the university authorities allow the facilities of a university to be misused and misapplied for purposes completely unrelated to the operation of that university, that university autonomy is no longer autonomy; that is then the derision of autonomy.

Therefore it is important that in making demands upon the universities to put their own houses in order, it should be realised that the primary goal of this is, as my hon colleague the Minister of National Education said in his media interview, to ensure the proper functioning of the university as an educational, cultural and research institution, as well as the continued educational, learning and research activity by members of that university, be they students or staff members, without being interrupted by people who have no right to do so.

Isn’t that also what the universities want?

I should like to remind hon members of a rather shocking remark—I remember it very well—made in the columns of one of our very widely read English-language newspapers. It was to the effect that places that have been called universities for decades are in danger of qualifying for a different appellation, for instance, “training institutions”. I think we must seriously attend to this matter, viz that in upholding universities, we wish that they must really remain universities and not just become indifferent institutions which one could, in general, call training institutions.

The hon member for Gardens made another important remark which I want to comment on briefly. He asked for patience with and understanding of the programmes at universities to prepare students coming from different backgrounds, or perhaps from an educationally less privileged background, to adapt and adjust to the demands of that university. I think this is a very reasonable request. However, these programmes are organised at very great cost at some universities, and I think the universities which are primarily concerned with a specific community are more knowledgeable about how to run such bridging or adjustment and adaptation courses for students of such a community to ensure that they can adapt to the requirements of the university standards as well as possible. It would be a pity if one were to fragment this kind of programme at all universities, rather than to concentrate on a number of universities specifically dealing with the community concerned and which, in my opinion, can do this more effectively than some of the others.

*I should also like to thank hon members on this side of the House for their contributions. The hon member for Umfolozi demonstrated to us very neatly that the Official Opposition’s objection to the legislation concerning participation on the Committee of University Principals was not an objection to their deliberating together but was purely a matter of whether they were deliberating under a tree or inside a room. It is concerned purely with the method of deliberation; whether one deliberates as part of a body or not as part of a body. I want to thank him very much for the neat way he presented the case.

The hon member for Brentwood made several points worthy of consideration. He pointed out the need that exists for discussion between the principals of various universities. Each one’s university has its particular community character but because of this very diversity it would be stimulating to be able to confer with one another—Afrikaans-medium and English-medium universities, but also White universities and universities of the various non-White groups. It would be a pity if we were to restrict these discussions by not allowing everyone to become a fully fledged member of the forum in which this takes place, namely the Committee of University Principals.

The hon member for Brentwood also stressed the point that I myself raised a moment ago, namely that specifically on a tertiary level—to whatever extent education is otherwise group-orientated—there should be room to move with absolute freedom within what he called the unrestricted boundaries of science. I sincerely agree with him in that regard.

He also quite rightly pointed out that joint membership of the Committee of University Principals is also justified by the fact that it would be unreasonable if the older and more experienced universities were to, as it were, push the younger and possibly less experienced universities aside, leaving them to their fate, and not allow them to share in the stimulating talk of people who, although they may belong to different groups, are all engaged in the same pursuit.

I also want to thank the hon member for Maraisburg for his contribution in which he stressed that the hon members of the Official Opposition were dealing in a very superficial manner with the concept “integration” and that they were using it purely as a slogan in order to criticise the policy and actions of the Government.

I believe that with this I have dealt with the basic points raised by hon members. I should just like to stress briefly that there are a few interesting aspects in this Bill which in my opinion are very important. The first one I want to point out is the clause making provision for the termination of the registration of students if a university council deems this to be in the interests of the university. From the way the hon member for Cape Town Gardens reacted to this, I detected a moderate reaction which is fairly different from the rather more vehement objections that came from him and his party when this provision was incorporated in the university legislation on an earlier occasion.

I want to give the assurance that if I believe a university which falls under my general control as Minister is not giving proper attention either to rejecting students’ enrolment applications or to terminating of their registration once they have been enrolled—if they have good reason to regard the presence of those students as a threat to the academic order or general law and order at the universities—I shall approach the university bodies concerned and discuss the matter with them. I have always, without exception, received a positive reaction from them. This is not purely a theoretical provision but one that really does have teeth, and what is more, they are used.

A second point to be discussed in this legislation deals with the staff members’ right of appeal should they be dismissed by a university. They have the right to appeal to the Minister within 14 days of dismissal. This is being entrenched in this legislation where it did not exist before, because it is an old and traditional provision of South African university legislation. This entrenched statutory right of appeal which a dismissed university member has, unfortunately creates the illusion that a university staff member is absolutely entrenched and that he can simply make a mess and muddle through, academically or otherwise, and afterwards could always “threaten” the university by saying: If you dismiss me, I shall appeal to the Minister. I want to make it very clear that I have already considered various appeals of this nature. These are matters that are considered very carefully. However, when an aggrieved staff member appeals against a decision by a university, the Minister will overturn that decision only if he has very good reason to do so. The intention of this provision is not to undermine the authority and discipline of university councils. They must be able to take action when it is necessary to do so. In the case of these appeals only in highly exceptional circumstances was it necessary to set aside a ruling by the university councils. I just want to say that the university councils act with the greatest circumspection—I almost said with agonising circumspection—and investigate matters at great length before dismissing people on disciplinary grounds. I want to state very clearly once again that no one should expect the fact that this provision exists to be a kind of free pass for university lecturers to think that, by appealing to the Minister, they will be able to escape the discipline of the universities and university authorities.

If a university council deemed it necessary to take action against a staff member on the grounds of his participation in the visit to Dakar, and he were to appeal to the hon the Minister, what would the hon the Minister’s attitude be?

I would give it due consideration in the light of all the circumstances. If I were to give a decision here and such a case actually arose, it would be said that I had come to a decision on the matter beforehand. I do not think, however, that simply participating in a conference could disqualify anyone for a position at a university. Consequences could well arise from that participation which could place his effective functioning under serious suspicion.

I should also like to refer to another important aspect in this legislation, namely the provision that it is no longer necessary for universities for Black people to nominate outside academics at other universities or other institutions as additional members of the senate. This was a very valuable system which over the years brought about fruitful cross-pollination between the younger and the older universities, and which was initially deemed necessary as an academic guarantee that the senates of the new universities would maintain their standards. It has been clear to us for a very long time that the senates of all our universities are responsible enough to be entrusted with the maintenance of academic standards. The most important sanction on neglecting the duty and the responsibility a university senate has to maintain its academic standard, is that other universities are very quick to refuse to give equal recognition to year-long courses, degrees or diplomas with a view to continued study if they have any doubt regarding the standards of the university from which that student has come. In this respect, too, I believe there is a sufficient inherent guarantee in the demands universities set, within their autonomy, for the recognition of studies at other universities with a view to continued study at their institution.

I have already referred briefly to the importance of the provision in section 25, in terms of which the Minister responsible can lay down specific conditions with which a university must comply when admitting students of a different population group from the one for which the university was primarily established. This is also in itself an important method of assuring that the primary community-orientated character of our universities, despite the universality and cultural interaction necessary at university level, will nevertheless still be maintained.

Looking at all these considerations in the light of these matters, I think this House can confidently go ahead and give its support to this consequential section of the legislation, with reference to the laws governing Black universities, which then gives effect to the general legislation which the hon the Minister of National Education had already had passed last year.

Mr Chairman, I move:

During the 1984 session of Parliament an improvement in the benefits payable in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941 to injured workmen or their dependants was approved.

Since those amendments to the Act came into operation on 1 April 1984, however, the cost of living has increased by more than 40%, thus necessitating a general revision of benefits. General support for the proposed increases in benefits, which amount to approximately 40%, was obtained from the various risk-carriers and employers’ organisations. As a result of the sharp increase in wages, the statutory wage limit was raised by proclamation, with effect from 1 March 1986, from R18 000 to R24 000 per annum.

In addition to the Explanatory Memorandum which has been tabled, by way of further elucidation I wish to focus attention on the following main proposed amendments.

Basically the Bill provides for the maximum compensation for periodical payments for temporary total disablement, for monthly payments for 100% permanent disablement and for monthly pensions payable to dependants, such as widows or children under the age of 18 years, to be increased from an overall amount of R800 to R1 125 per month.

The proposal is also that the maximum lump sum payable for 30% permanent disablement be increased from R9 000 to R12 600.

It is also proposed that the maximum allowance for the necessary burial expenses of a deceased workman be increased from R650 to R900.

It is also proposed that all current monthly pensions payable to workmen, including pensions payable to the dependants of deceased workmen, on or subsequent to the date of commencement of the proposed amendment, in respect of accidents which occurred before the commencement of the Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Act, 1981, be increased by 25%.

With regard to pensions payable to workmen, including pensions of dependants of deceased workmen, which on or after the date of commencement of the proposed amending Act, are payable in respect of those accidents which occurred on or after the commencement of the Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Act, 1981, but prior to the date of commencement of the proposed amending Act, an increase of 10% is proposed.

The reason why the percentage increases in the monthly pensions differ in respect of accidents which occurred prior to and those which occurred on or after 1 April 1981, ie 25% and 10% respectively, is because prior to this date the maximum monthly pensions payable were much lower.

From this explanation of pensions payable, it is clear that the beneficiaries in respect of accidents which occurred prior to 1 April 1981 are in a less favourable financial position than those who are in receipt of pensions in respect of accidents which occurred on or after 1 April 1981. It therefore seems more equitable to increase the pensions of the first-mentioned category of pensioners by 25%, as against a 10% increase for the others.

That, in brief, is what the amendments comprise, and I trust that they meet with the approval of the House.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Bill because the amendment which is being proposed definitely constitutes an improvement for the worker. We do feel, however, that for too long a time too little was done. If we consider how long it took for the amendment to be made, it is in fact disgraceful that the Department of Manpower took so long before they increased the earnings limit for workers from R18 000 to R24 000.

The least which could in our opinion be done—and I appeal to the hon the Minister—is to bring the earnings limit into line with the limit that in the Unemployment Insurance Act, which at present stands at R30 000. Furthermore we are of the opinion that the hon the Minister—he has the power to do so—will in time have to have a person’s earnings taking into consideration when it comes to receiving compensation.

When someone is absent from work due to an accident—no one would injure themselves—he must receive full payment for that period.

We asked the hon the Minister to see to all these things. Furthermore, we feel that he must give attention as soon as possible to the pensions which are paid when a person is unable to work due to a disability. Once again an improvement has in fact been made, but we are concerned about those people who became disabled owing to an accident prior to 1984, They did in fact receive an 25% increment on their existing pensions, but the pensions of people who were injured quite a number of years ago are truly minimal. When one compares their pensions with the inflation rate of the past few years, one sees that they have not kept pace with the inflation rate. The same applies to those who were injured after 1984. They received an 10% increment. In their case too they have personally felt the effect of inflation because of the period which lapsed between the previous increment and the present one. They had to wait a long time for an increment. We ask the hon the Minister please, as in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to make regular adjustments and not to take such a long time about it.

Furthermore I see that at least there an increase in the amount being paid for funeral expenses. It has now increased to R900. We are all aware, however, that only a Third World funeral is possible with such an amount.

Although we support this legislation now, we want to request the hon the Minister to make further corrections to the Workmen’s Compensation Act as soon as possible. Our ultimate aim is that a person’s earnings shall be taken into consideration in all cases and not only a percentage of such earnings. With these words I want to repeat that the CP supports the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Carletonville and of course there is very little fault one can in the pleas he made, except that it is a practical problem we are coming up against. Money is the problem, as you know; and money is always a problem. There are so many different facets in our country which make a demand on the Treasury—this is but one of them—that it is possible for us to cover every particular item as we should like to do.

The hon member made appealed for a person laid from duty due to an injury to be paid in full. The hon member then used the argument that no worker would injure himself intentionally. Surely the hon member knows as well as I do that that argument of his does not hold water. Surely he knows that we have come across people in the past who cut off their fingers or hands merely to get hold of that amount as compensation. The hon member knows that if the State were to go that far, everyone who had only a minor financial problem and who did not care how they injured themselves might consider inflicting a personal injury on themselves because they know they would in so doing receive an amount of money. It surprises me that he did not make a further appeal here for a fantastic lump sum to be paid out to such a person if they incurred such an injury.

It is ridiculous. [Interjections.]

The hon member also asked for regular adjustments. We as Government should like to make an adjustment every six months but surely there are certain practical limits. We are not a completely socialist state; we cannot do everything for everyone in the state. We can only try to help and give emergency assistance where it is necessary. We realise that in this case it has become necessary; that is why the Government considered the matter. That is why the Government examined the matter. There has been an increase in the cost of living. I concede that. If there is an increase in the inflation rate every year let us say between 14% and 18%, surely we cannot adjust everything to the inflation rate. Where would it end? I am afraid that in doing so we would throw the entire economy of our country into chaos. In that case there would be absolutely no need on the part of anyone to increase their productivity because everything would be given to him according to the inflation rate.

An important facet of this amending Bill—I do not think the hon member looked at it—is that the increase which is being granted in terms of the legislation is going to cost quite a few million rands every year. We consulted various organisations and various people made contributions, and they were all unanimous in pointing out that the amendments that are being effected here are generally quite acceptable. And they will not increase employers contributions.

I want to conclude by saying that this amending Bill once again emphasises the extent to which the Government is in earnest about looking after the worker and his interests. Once again it is an indication of the sympathy which we as Government have for our work force. There interests are ours as well. I want to give that hon member the assurance that we shall continue to serve the workers of our country and that we shall not neglect them. Those hon members can laugh as much as they like. It is for that reason that we also increased the pensions. The hon member referred to that. I can only say that this amending Bill became necessary. We saw the necessity for it and for that reason we put it on the Statute Book. We fully support this measure.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PFP I would like to say that we have pleasure in supporting this amending legislation. Obviously all the sentiments on which the amendments are based are entirely acceptable to us in the sense that it is fundamentally a Bill which seeks to improve the position of the worker and to enlarge the category of workers who will be covered by the provisions for compensation, as well as one that seeks to improve the level of compensation.

I must, however, certainly agree with the hon member for Carletonville—something I do not very often do!—that the delay in adapting the level of compensation is unfortunate. It is a pity that we have to wait three to four years before the situation is adjusted. I would think that it would be far preferable if legislation of this nature could be adjusted at more regular intervals, preferably even annually, so as to keep in line with the cost of living index if possible. I am glad to say that, in terms of the amending legislation, it would seem that the hon the Minister will now have the power to do this because, as I see the amending legislation, the hon the Minister is given the power to make the necessary adjustments from time to time, in his discretion, to provide for compensation in terms of this Act. I sincerely hope that this will be done on a regular basis and that in doing so he will try, as far as possible, to keep the increases in benefits in line with the de facto increases in the cost of living.

Likewise I agree with the hon member for Carletonville that the increases in pensions payable, while to be welcomed, are nevertheless inadequate. I think it must be apparent to anybody that for people who went on pension anything from eight to umpteen years ago to receive an increase of 25% at this stage is totally unrealistic in relation to the actual increase in the cost of living over that period of time.

Likewise, I believe that the increase of 10% in pensions relating to accidents after 1981 is also far short of the actual compensation deserved.

I think there are certain aspects in legislation like this which one must bear in mind. Quite clearly the Workmen’s Compensation Act goes far beyond the normal law of compensation for damages under the common law in the sense that negligence is not a factor. Nevertheless, I do not think the fact that negligence is not a factor should necessarily be a determinant or an influencing factor in deciding what the quantum of compensation should be. It is generally accepted—I think anyone who has been involved in the practice of law will know this—that the sort of awards and benefits one receives in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act fall very far short of the just and equitable awards which one can receive under the common law through our courts of law for civil injuries.

I for one cannot understand the logic of our common law allowing for a man who loses his arm or hand in a motor accident to receive substantially more and substantially more realistic compensation than a man who has the same accident in the workplace receives in terms of statutory law. I cannot see the logic in the differentiation. I think it is particularly important that we should bring this legislation into line with what is just and equitable as far as the workman is concerned when one bears in mind that by virtue of the legislation on workmen’s compensation one is removing a man’s common law rights to proceed against a wrongdoer, if it so happens that the employer or one of the employer’s employees acting in the course of the scope of his employment is the wrongdoer. At common law a workman under those circumstances would have the right to go for full compensation determined by a court in terms of his actual loss, his pain and suffering and all the losses he would suffer, up to full compensation for past and future loss of earnings. Where, by law, we take that right away from a man, we should have the principle introduced in the legislation that, as far as possible, the workman will receive equivalent compensation.

I have already indicated that we in this party welcome all the provisions of the amending legislation because they improve the existing situation. However, I would urge the hon the Minister, who now has the power to do so under the amending legislation, to use his discretion in terms of the level of compensation payable. I would also urge him to bear in mind the principles to which I have referred so that workmen may in future receive compensation which, if not completely up to the level of that at common law, is at least in keeping with it.

With those words, Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in supporting the amending legislation.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to thank the hon members who participated in the debate, as well as hon members in general, for their support for this legislation. I also want to say that, as mentioned by the hon member for Groote Schuur, and arising from the request from the hon member for Carletonville that adjustments be made more regularly and more speedily in respect of compensation for injured workers and their dependants, powers are now by way of proclamation being allocated in this Act to the Minister to enable him to make these adjustments on a more regular basis. The problem hitherto has been that every time the compensation was increased it was necessary to come back to Parliament for that specific approval. As hon members may be aware, the passing of legislation by Parliament is to a certain extent a cumbersome procedure. There is a lengthy preamble to statutory amendments and they have to be prepared and introduced long before the time. In addition Parliamentary sessions do not take place regularly according to the calendar during the first six months of every year and parliamentary sessions are also interrupted as a result of elections.

In this legislation powers are being requested so that the Minister can make the adjustments on a far more regular basis by means of proclamation in the Gazette. I want to tell hon members that I intend making adjustments on a more regular basis in future so that a period of two years will not again lapse before further adjustments are made.

Four years!

I should like to touch on the point which hon members raised here, namely that increases have to keep pace with the inflation rate. The increases which are being proposed in terms of future cases—they will apply after the legislation has been passed—as well as increases of existing pensions are as high as 40%. That is precisely what the inflation rate was since the last adjustments were made. The issue of inflation is therefore being addressed.

For workers who were injured before 1 August the increase is 25%, which admittedly is not equal to the total inflation rate experienced since 1981. Nowhere, however, is a pension fund to be found of which I am aware which makes provision for full compensation for future inflation. The compensation is determined at a certain stage with regard being had to prevailing circumstances and monetary values at a specific juncture. To adjust these past allocations in full to the inflation rate will of course have tremendous and far-reaching financial implications. This fund is of course an insurance fund and an insurance fund is dependent upon its contributions for the benefits it pays out to injured workers.

I want to refer to the hon member for Carletonville, who asked for funeral expenses to be higher than R100. I am prepared to consider that aspect on a regular and ongoing basis.

I also want to thank the hon member for Stilfontein for his constructive contribution. I want to associate myself with the statement he made, namely that this amending legislation proved that this Government was in earnest about caring for the worker.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Groote Schuur for his support and his contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.