I have given further consideration to the point raised by the hon. the Minister of Transport on the 17th of March (Hansard, Col. 2668), in respect of the article written by the hon. member for Yeoville, Mr. S. J. M. Steyn, for the Cape Argus and published by that newspaper under the heading “Manpower Shortage on S.A.R.” on the 14th March, at which time the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill was being considered by this House.

There is no rule under which I can prevent an hon. member writing for a newspaper about certain aspects of a debate presently proceeding in Parliament. It is a matter in regard to which the hon. member concerned must exercise his own discretion. I do feel, however, that hon. members should ask themselves whether it is conducive to good and proper debating to write for the public Press while the particular debate is still proceeding in the House.

At this early stage of the discussion in Committee I should like to say that now that it has been decided that Fort Hare shall become a university, we are anxious to assist in giving it the appearance of a university. To that end we shall submit certain amendments. In view of these amendments I should like to move at this stage—

I do this because if our amendments are accepted, clause 1 will be affected thereby. Hence my motion that it stand over until the end.

Motion put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I want to move as an amendment—

I had expected much for Fort Hare from this clause. I expected, first of all, that Fort Hare would be returned to the status it previously enjoyed—that of a full university. However, those hopes were dashed.

Clause 2 (2) lays down that the centre of this university shall be Alice. I am sure nobody in this House will object to that. But the Minister has spoiled the effect thereof by subsection (3) where it is laid down that this university shall serve the Xhosa national group. Now. the word “shall” is mandatory. However, if the Minister does not accept this, then I should like to put it another way by saying that it has the effect of limiting, or precluding, the attendance of persons of other Bantu groups, especially if this provision is read in conjunction with clause 22. It is for this reason that I have moved my amendment. Is it the Minister’s intention that this service, to use his own term from the Bill, shall apply to students only, or is it his intention also to limit the professors, the lecturers and administrative staff to members of the Xhosa group? If so, why this compartmentalization? Is it really necessary? Or is this only a further manifestation of this Government’s pathological obsession with the grouping of people? Is there any reason at all to apply this mania for the grouping of people to the Bantu people, particularly when it comes to their educational needs? How does the Minister intend applying this in practice? If he gets a group of Xhosa-speaking students from the townships around Port Elizabeth and East London applying for admission to Fort Hare, he will find that he gets such surnames as Rajwili, Ndhlovu. Mda, Sinaba, Motloung, Gumede, Mamelodi and Pilane. [Interjections.] That hon. member need not try to be funny. If he has read the Bill, he ought to know what clause 21 says. And he must not come and say that I am going to argue in favour of the integration of Whites in this institution. Not one of us have queried clause 21. So, there is no reason for the hon. member to come with that. Let us get this clear and straight right at the beginning—we are not pleading for integration in this university, at least not integration of White and non-White. But, and this is what I want to know, why should the Bantu people also be separated into separate groups? In this question lies the crux of my amendment but judging from the expression on the face of the hon. the Minister, I think I may perhaps be wasting the time of this House by going any further at this stage, because he looks as if he may be tempted to accept this amendment. Therefore I am going to sit down and am anxious to know what the Minister has to say.

Although I am prepared to accept one of the other amendments of the hon. member to one of the other clauses, I am, unfortunately for him, at this stage compelled to tell him and the Committee that I cannot accept this particular amendment of the hon. member. The hon. member knows about clause 22 because he referred to it. Let me say this initially, and this is perhaps a compliment to the hon. member. When we drew up this Bill departmentally we did give consideration to the idea of inserting a word there like “primarily”, or “hoofsaaklik” in Afrikaans, but because of considerations of a more technical nature it was found wise not to insert that word because clause 22 makes ample provision for people of other ethnic groups to be allowed at the University of Fort Hare and also in the case of the other two universities. So it was not necessary to insert the word “primarily” here, because the same effect will be obtained through clause 22. But to put in the word “primarily” here would cause us some other technical difficulties which we would prefer to avoid. Therefore I hope the hon. member will accept my explanation. Of course I am glad to hear from the hon. member that they do not stand for integration of White and non-White there.

We never have.

But we also would not like to integrate the various Bantu peoples at the colleges; we would like to obviate that as well as far as possible, and therefore we have three different universities catering for the three big families of peoples, as I put it yesterday.

Segregation within segregation inside apartheid.

Therefore I think it is necessary to say the character of the University will be Xhosa and not mainly Xhosa, with the necessary provision for exemption to allow people from other ethnic groups where necessary. And of course we go into that properly. We have at present already at all three of the colleges individuals from other groups than those primarily provided for by those colleges, and that will also be the case in regard to the universities. These stipulations in clause 2 do not apply to the teaching staff of the colleges or of the universities.

I shall vote against this clause. I have not put any amendments on the Order Paper because I admit that I am very sceptical in this regard. I do not believe the hon. the Minister will accept any amendments of any real importance in this Bill. I regret to say that at this stage and I hope I may be proved wrong, but from previous experience of Bills of this kind I doubt whether any amendment of any significance, will be accepted by the Minister. I am here simply to argue against these clauses and to vote against the clauses, because I have made it quite clear that even with amendments, this Bill will not be acceptable to me, because I do not believe we should be at this stage converting these colleges into universities. I do not think we have had nearly enough enquiry into or information about this matter, and I think the whole thing is highly premature. Therefore I do not propose to move any amendments. Clause 2, which we are discussing now, typifies the attitude of the hon. the Minister and his Government towards ethnic grouping, to which I am completely opposed. I believe it is a dream world to talk about separate families in South Africa, when the vast majority of our citizens have become integrated in work, in economic life and in practically every possible respect of the actual living of their lives in the so-called white areas of South Africa. To think that this university is serving an ethnic family living in an ethnic homeland is, I believe, completely unrealistic. I am sure that the vast majority of students even presently at these ethnic colleges do not necessarily come from the homelands, but that they probably come from the urban centres, at great cost and with great difficulty. Therefore I am opposed to it. I might say I believe that the policy of the Government in locating these colleges in the isolated rural areas where access to the universities is made so much more difficult for the most advanced section of the population living in the urban areas is another thing which obviously dooms these university colleges to failure long before they can be expanded into great universities. The fact that after ten years Fort Hare still has something like 500 students is surely indicative of this. These university colleges have been deprived of the advantage of having large numbers of part-time students who would be able to attend the universities and continue to work while they are studying. This fact accounts for the initial success of the white colleges in South Africa long before they became the very big urban universities that they are to-day. Sir, we seem to be discussing in part clause 21 at this juncture because the two clauses are to some extent related. Unlike the hon. member who has just sat down I do have objections to the absolute prohibition against white students attending these non-white colleges. I think there may be fields of study where it is greatly to the advantage of white students to be able to attend universities which possibly specialize in certain aspects of what is known as ethnic culture or languages, even to a greater extent than the White universities offering such courses. Most important of all, of course, I believe in the ability of young white South Africans to get to know and study with their fellow non-white South African citizens, and I see no reason why the ethnic college of Fort Hare should be any different from the open universities in this regard. In other words, just as I am in favour of non-White students being allowed to come to the open white universities, so equally would I say that white students should be allowed to study at these non-white ethnic colleges. I shall oppose this clause.

I am rather disappointed to hear from the hon. the Minister that he feels he cannot accept this amendment. Sir, we have before this House a Bill, which we will consider later, which makes an absolute mockery of any attempt to define the various Bantu groups. But apart from that, we also had the statement made during the Second-Reading debate on this Bill by the hon. the Minister and by the hon. the Deputy Minister in another debate yesterday about Malawi students attending some of the Bantu universities in this country. Surely this invalidates the Minister’s whole argument about segregating the various Bantu groups. Surely if we are freely going to allow non-Whites from outside the Republic, or at least with the consent of the powers that be, to come to these universities, does this not invalidate the Minister’s whole argument about segregating these people?

Then I want to go on to another aspect and that is the effect of trying to make these universities cater for one group only. We already have a serious shortcoming in the whole education policy as applied to the Bantu people of this country and that is the deplorable lack of choice in the type of education that they can get. Sir, they have access only to secular education controlled by the Department. Apart from the Inanda seminary and two schools in the Transkei, I can think of no schools which are not controlled by the Department. Sir, I have the choice of sending my child either to a Government school, or to a private school or to a church school. These people, however, have no choice at all, with the three exceptions which I have mentioned and of which I know. There might be more and if there are more I shall be glad to hear it. Sir, this is a choice which people throughout the world have, and here at the highest level, at university level, we now have an attempt by the hon. the Minister to limit the choice of parents once again. A Xhosa may only send his child to Fort Hare; a Zulu may only send his child to Ngoya. Sir, it goes further than that; there are the other non-white groups, and in this I can agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Houghton, namely that it is wrong for us to separate the other non-white groups from these universities as well. I agree these universities should serve primarily the interests of the groups who occupy the areas in which they are situated. I agree with the hon. the Minister that Fort Hare should perhaps have a Xhosa character. I will not argue with that. The last Bill of this nature which we handled here was the Bill concerning the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit but the Bill did not say the university was limited only to people who live on the Rand; it did not say that institution was primarily for Afrikaans-speaking people. Indeed, I am free to send my child to the R.A.U. The point I am making is: Why limit the choice of education for these people? I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment and see whether he cannot perhaps accept it.

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the stage in considering these Bills where we know them off by heart. I wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he compares clause 2 (3) with the corresponding subsection of the Bill dealing wit the University of the North. The argument put up by the Minister and hon. members on the other side is that these colleges provide for an ethnic group, but clause 2 (3) of the Bill dealing with the University of the North provides for five groups, not one group. What character is that? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is simply asking that the institution should be primarily for these students, and after that the Minister or the council can use their discretion in admitting other Bantu students. It seems to me quite reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, are we not going to have an answer from the hon. the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, I would gladly reply if there is something to reply to, but I am not going to be ordered by hon. members opposite to give a reply when it is not necessary for me to do so. I was waiting to hear whether other hon. members were going to ask questions regarding this legislation.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something in reply to the remark of the hon. member for Kensington in which he referred to the provision contained in the University of the North Bill. Both yesterday and a moment ago I explained what the position is. Teachers are accustomed to repeating themselves, though, and therefore I shall now repeat it for the benefit of an ex-teacher, because repetition is the best way of driving a fact home. I therefore repeat that these universities, which have until now been colleges, are for families of nations. As the hon. member said, the University of the North Bill makes provision for five national groups, inter alia, for the North-Sotho, the South-Sotho and the Tswana national units, and these three nations constitute an intimate family of nations. Then there are also the Tsonga and Venda national units, but they are not as close to the family circle as the first-mentioned three national units. They nevertheless have their own homeland near to the proposed university. There is thus a very good reason for the said Bill mentioning five national units. We must not, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) implied, act as though there is a geographic restriction at Fort Hare. We do not say that only the Xhosa of the Transkei may go there, we say the Xhosa may go there, and in terms of clause 22 other persons who do not belong to the Bantu national unit referred to may also be admitted there, as has already been done. I now want to tell hon. members opposite that experience showed this year that there is no appreciable demand by people to attend a university college which is not actually meant for their group. Therefore this provision is perfectly in line with our practical experience up to now.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also spoke of Natives from outside the Republic, but I think that that point received an adequate reply yesterday. The word “primarily” would have been correct here, because these universities are primarily intended for South African Bantu. But if all kinds of other considerations, for example accommodation, permit it—I do not want to go into the considerations now—persons from outside the Republic can be admitted. I supplied figures yesterday to indicate how many such persons have already been admitted.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

At the Second Reading this House accepted in principle that this institution would become a university. Now, if this is to be a university, one might well ask, what university is there that has a restriction like this? This is worse, because the hon. the Minister appoints the council of the university. Except for the three members appointed by the senate, he appoints every single member, and not less than eight. The hon. the Minister then chooses the people who are to form the council, who are in the end the body to determine these matters. And yet he cannot trust the very people that he has to appoint himself. What sort of insult is this to our South African concept of a “university” that the hon. the Minister can provide that when the university itself wishes to exchange some immovable property or grant some servitude over that property, or sell or let it, they must first have the approval of the Minister? If this House really meant what it said at the Second Reading, namely that it really wanted a university and that it wanted the Minister to appoint the council so as to obtain the right people there, then surely one can trust them in a small matter of administration such as this.

With regard to the second part of my amendment. I find it almost unbelievable that this provision can be here at all, that the University of Fort Hare is not to be allowed to receive a donation. No one is allowed to put a bequest in their will, that when he dies a trust or a scholarship should be formed in respect of Fort Hare University. The University is not allowed to accept the money or make use of that bequest, except with the approval of the Minister. One wonders at this stage if the hon. the Minister had moved to insert these words, if they had not been here at the Second Reading stage, whether you. Sir, would not have ruled them to be out of order, because they would have been against the principle of the Bill, namely to create a university. I have a feeling, Sir, that that would have been your ruling. That there should be ministerial approval, is entirely against the principle we accepted during the Second Reading. Ministerial approval for a bequest and for the donation of money to the University? If some benefactor or believer in all the thoughts that have been expressed by hon. members on that side of the House during the Second Reading Debate, or someone who sat in the Gallery and was moved (by what was said) decides to leave all his money to the University of Fort Hare, the University cannot accept it unless the hon. the Minister approves. What has it got to do with the Minister?

They have got a millionaire in Lusikisiki.

Yes, there are many rich people in the Transkei. You know, Hans Abraham himself might one day decide to leave some money to the University.

Order! Is the hon. member suggesting that I should rule his amendment out of order now?

No. What I said was that had my amendment been the other way around, in other words had the words I proposed should be omitted, not in fact been in the Bill and the hon. the Minister had proposed at this stage to introduce them into the Bill, then I would suggest to you that you would have ruled that amendment out of order because it would not have been in keeping with the concept and principle we accepted at the Second Reading, namely that we should have a university.

I have a good mind to rule the hon. member’s suggestion out of order now that he is suggesting it.

I do not think my amendment goes in that direction. It goes in the other direction.

The hon. member may continue.

One wonders what the principle is that we did accept at the Second Reading and whether it was in fact a university that we voted for or whether it was an institution which has this sort of restriction on the powers of the university. The third part of my amendment is to omit subsection (4). Does the hon. the Minister really want to humiliate that institution to this extent? This subsection provides that the university must, in respect of stores, namely pencils, paper, rubbers …

Slates.

… and slates, be subject to the direction of the hon. the Minister. One can go so far in trying to support something like this, but when the hon. the Minister has to approve the way in which stores are dealt with. I think it is going a bit too far. It is an insult to these people. I therefore move my amendment to omit these three aspects of this clause which would at least restore some of the dignity which the clause otherwise deprives the council of.

Mr. Chairman, may I at the outset move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper and let me say that contrary to my colleague the hon. member for Durban (North) in deleting I wish to add after the word “property” the words “and of investing, lending and borrowing money.”. I therefore move—

During the Second Reading Debate in the interchange of views with the hon. the Minister he said that our interpretation of statements which had been made prior to the introduction of this Bill had been completely incorrect. He said then that the only new principle which he had introduced with this Bill was, in my words, the cutting of the apron strings of the University of South Africa, and that this would lead to a greater measure of academic freedom. I told the hon. the Minister then that I considered that, fine as that principle might be, another principle that one might say is embodied in this Bill, was the taking of greater administrative control by the hon. the Minister and the making of this institution into just another Government department. This is one of the clauses I was referring to at the time I made those statements and I stand by those statements. As the hon. member for Durban (North) pointed out we have accepted the principle of this institution becoming a university. This clause sets out to define the status of that university and it starts off by defining it as a body corporate capable of suing and being sued. This means that tremendous powers and status are being given to this university, namely that it has the power of suing and the responsibility of being sued. The clause reads further “subject to the provisions of this Act” and with this we have no argument. The clause then reads that University shall be capable “of purchasing or otherwise acquiring, holding, hiring, letting, selling, exchanging or otherwise alienating any property movable or immovable and of granting to any person any real right in or servitude on its property”. Then of course we come to subsection (3), in which my hon. friend has moved the omission of “with the approval of the Minister”. But this body corporate, which has all these powers and privileges and which, of course, has to accept the necessary responsibilities which go with that, cannot invest, lend or borrow money. It is given power to do all sorts of things with fixed and movable property, but it can do nothing with money. Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention that it shall not have any money to handle or is it his intention that it should not do anything with any money without his consent? I am sure that occasions are going to arise when money will possibly lie idle in the name of this university, pending development if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North) is accepted and the university is given the power to accept bequests. I am sure that there will be times when loans will be offered for specific purposes. But this body corporate does not have the power to accept such a loan or such an offer of a loan. As it stands now the hon. the Minister has taken full and complete control of this university. He has even gone to the point where he personally will appoint or nominate the members of the council. Then he puts into this Bill a provision such as this where he then, after appointing these people, passes what is tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in the ability of this body corporate to run the affairs of the University of Fort Hare.

In these circumstances I move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Chairman, we have here a singular phenomenon as far as the hon. members for Durban (North) and Pietermaritzburg (District) are concerned. One can in fact call it pathetic. The one hon. member wants to have parts of this clause deleted, while the other hon. member wants parts to be added. The hon. member for Durban (North) referred to sub-clause (2) and asserted quite theatrically that there was no other university to which this restriction was applied. I should like to read to the hon. member from a University Act. This is in connection with the Rand Afrikaans University and also the University of Port Elizabeth. I shall read to you from section 4 (2) of Act No. 51 of 1966, because this is the same passage as the hon. member for Durban (North) would like to have deleted from the University of Fort Hare Bill. The hon. member said a moment ago that he knew of no university on which such a restrictive influence was being exercised. He should therefore listen carefully to what I am going to read now:

The exact words that the hon. member wants to have omitted from the University of Fort Hare Bill are therefore contained in another Act which we passed in this House in 1966.

Then the hon. member did not object to it.

That is correct. Then he did not object to it.

In addition the hon. member for Durban (North) moved that the words “with the approval of the Minister” be omitted. The hon. member advanced no arguments here which illustrated the necessity for that.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) read many things into this Bill and now he comes along here with a clever move in wanting to add certain words. The one member wants a passage deleted which is similar to one in an Act which has already been passed here, while the other member wants to add something. The hon. member obtained these words which he wants to add, from subsection (1) of the same section to which I referred. Section 4 (1) contains precisely the same words and that is where the hon. member derived them from. There it is stated, “and of investing, lending and borrowing money”. The hon. members must please agree beforehand about who wants to add something to a clause of a Bill and who is going to move that passages be omitted.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure whether the hon. the Minister is going to accept my amendment to subsection (1) of clause 8 where I propose a new council. The hon. the Minister is going to accept that?

The reply is no.

By the time we get to that, he will have been moved by our arguments. Let us assume for a moment, that he is not going to accept it. Then he will have a council, as it has been provided for in clause 8, in which there will be, firstly, the rector of the university, i.e. the man he appoints. In addition to that there will be two members of the senate, and in addition to that eight members appointed by himself. Therefore, what the hon. member for Durban (North) is asking, is to give these people some power, because the Minister has two checks. His first check is that he is appointing his own people to run it, his own nominees. His second check is that this university which we are creating will depend upon the Government for its subsidies and for its financial support. If that is the case, why should he hesitate, because if they do not do what he wants, he will simply say that he is not prepared to subsidize them, and to some extent that is true of white universities. To some extent this is true, because they cannot establish any faculty they wish without the consent of the Minister. Because the Minister subsidizes—the Minister for white universities subsidizes—they have to get his consent. In this case, where the Minister has all his own people on the council, it is rather like having them on his staff in the Department of Bantu Administration and Education. He has complete control; why does he need these three sub-clauses to which my hon. friend the member for Durban (North) objects?

Mr. Chairman, I do not quite agree with what the hon. member for Kensington has just said. It is true that where courses and faculties at the white universities require full subsidization by the hon. Minister, his approval is required. But there is nothing to my knowledge in the constitutions of the other universities, apart from the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, to which the hon. member for Koedoespoort has just referred. The other universities are able to set up any course or faculty they like, provided they can subsidize it fully themselves and provided that they are financially fully responsible. So, this is not quite the same situation, for they do not need the approval of the hon. the Minister, unless they are unable to finance those courses or faculties themselves. This is rather different. Not only do all the courses and faculties require ministerial approval irrespective of anything else, but here no donation, no matter what it is intended for, can be accepted without ministerial approval. No doubt the hon. the Minister will allow certain donations to be accepted. I am quite sure of it; even from Mr. Hans Abrahams in the unlikely event that he should like to give some of his money to the new University of Fort Hare.

That is hypothetical.

I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will allow certain donations to be accepted. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is what exactly is behind this clause. What sort of donations does he think might be unacceptable to him, and will not meet with his approval? Is he thinking about all sorts of sickly humanists rushing along to give donations to the University of Fort Hare for dangerous chairs in race relations, or things like that? What is behind it? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell the House this, because in the course of his Second Reading speech I do not think he gave us the benefit of the real reason for his having inserted this clause in this particular constitution, and I do not believe, incidentally, that he told us at the time we discussed the Rand Afrikaans University or the Port Elizabeth University why in those instances he required this power to refuse donations.

This Committee has now listened to the lovely voice of the sly temptress, but I am not going to allow myself to be trapped by the hon. member for Houghton into listing for her a whole lot of theoretical donors whose money I shall not approve of. But it seems to me something is pricking the hon. member for Houghton’s conscience, and that is at least a good sign.

I want to deal with the amendments in the order of the sub-clauses, and I shall therefore commence with the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The hon. member will find the greater part of his reply in this clause, i.e. in sub-clause (3), which states that the University may with the approval of the Minister receive money or property by way of donation or bequest or in trust and may control, use or administer it or deal with it subject to the conditions of the donation, bequest or trust. Provision is made for all purposes, which will include certain of the purposes which the hon. member wants to achieve with his three words. Then he will find the rest of the reply in the wording of sub-clause (1) itself, where it is stated that the university shall be a body corporate capable of doing certain things. It is inherent in the character of an institution which is thus incorporated by law that it may exercise those functions, and it is not necessary to include therein the words “belê, uitleen en leen” or “invest, lend or borrow”, because inasmuch as the inherent character of the body corporate does not make provision for that, sub-clause (3) does supplement it. Therefore it is not necessary to insert those words. However, I just want to say to the hon. member that he should realize how those universities obtain their money and how the colleges have thus far done so. They obtain it by way of revenue derived from their fees and they obtain it by way of appropriations by this Parliament. It is not lent to them. The money is made available to them in terms of the character of the trusteeship exercised by this Parliament over the Bantu in South Africa. It is the same principle which we also have in the Department of Bantu Administration and in the Department of Bantu Education, where money is allocated to the Trust and not lent to it. It is the same principle on which the finances of the colleges have thus far been administered. It is therefore quite clear that these universities do not need to go and borrow large sums of money outside. Provision is not necessary for them to go and borrow money from outside, nor is it necessary for them to lend money, because the State will surely not give those universities money in order that they may lend it to others. And as far as money is concerned which must be lent to students to enable them to study there, by making loans or bursaries available to them, the Department of Bantu Education makes provision for that. That money comes from the Department of Bantu Education. Therefore I think the hon. member really has not made out a case for the insertion of his three words.

Then we come to sub-clause (2), the deletion of which has been moved here. I am afraid that we cannot consider deleting those words, and I find it a terrible anomaly and an oddity that the hon. members should now come along and ask that ministerial control be done away with. Morning, noon and night, in season and out of season, we hear in this House that we as a State should not to an ever-increasing extent relinquish parliamentary or State control in favour of subordinate bodies. But here the hon. member comes along and asks that we should in fact do so in a case where the very essence of the financing of those institutions is financing by the State. It would be very unwise of us to relinquish that control. As long as the State must finance this institution to so large an extent as has been the case until now, that provision is very desirable and it would be unwise of us to relinquish it. And it is not strange, as the hon. member for Durban (North) suggested. In my reply yesterday I gave examples of universities elsewhere in the world where there is far stronger State control over the universities than is embodied in this clause, for example, to the effect that their budgets must be approved in detail by the State itself. What we are doing here therefore compares very favourably with what is taking place elsewhere in the world.

Then we come to sub-clause (3), in respect of which it has been moved that the words “with the approval of the Minister” be deleted. It would obviously be an anomaly to delete these words while retaining sub-clause (2). Sub-clause (2) is being retained, and therefore this one must also remain. But apart from that, there is another and very important reason why these words “with the approval of the Minister” must be retained in sub-clause (3). That is that the State, as I have just said, makes provision for the funds which these universities need, and if donations are made to them, the Minister, who must canalize those funds to the universities, must know about it; because we have to obtain the funds from the Treasury in order to be able to give them to those universities. It would be very improper if we did not know how much they obtained by way of donations, while knowing that what they lack we have to supplement. We therefore have to know what they receive, because we are responsible for supplementing the shortfall from Government sources. For that reason we cannot have this sub-clause (3) amended either in the way proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North).

In connection with sub-clause (4), I cannot add anything either, because in essence the same reply as was given in the previous explanation is applicable there as well. But I may just say that as far as sub-clause (4) is concerned, these are existing statutory provisions. All the universities have been functioning in terms of these provisions and none of them has taken or felt them to contain an “insult”, as the hon. member termed it, during the nine years in which they have been functioning in terms thereof; and in the negotiations with them, in drawing up this Bill, not one of them asked that these provisions be deleted either. I therefore do not think that the hon. member has made out a strong case here.

As far as sub-clause (3) is concerned, I just want to point out that we find precisely the same contents in regulations which have been applicable to the colleges all these years. The hon. member will recall that in my introductory speech I said that we had incorporated quite a number of existing regulations in the Bill now before us. This is one of them. It is an existing practice which we have merely converted from regulation form to statutory form. Sir, I can still say more, for example about the great speculation and hypotheses about donations of money, but if there is any possibility of money being donated I should very much like to see the hon member for Durban (North), and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who also spoke by way of interjection about this matter, putting their words into action. I can assure them that I shall accept donations from them if they want to make them to any of the three colleges.

Sir, I must give this hon. Minister the prize for the most extraordinary reasons for retaining this provision. He has no case whatsoever, no case at all, and he has given us some reasons.

You would not admit it if I had a case.

Sir, I would admit it if someone had a case, if someone makes a point.

As when?

Well, I am going to do it now. I am going to tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort that I did not realize that this same provision which I propose to omit in sub-clause (2) was in the Rand Afrikaans University Act. I did not know that; the hon. member has pointed this out to me; I have had a look and he is quite right. But, of course, there is a very big difference. The hon. member for Kensington pointed out two of the differences and there is another difference. The other one is that you must look at the Council of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit and compare it with the council here. There you find that there are a few members who are appointed by the Minister of National Education, one of the four consuls of higher education. The State President appoints four persons, and then there is one from the council of the University of Pretoria, one from the council of the University of Potchefstroom, one appointed by the City Council of Johannesburg, one appointed by the council of the Reef municipalities and then—and this is very interesting in relation to the other amendment that we have here—there are two persons on the council of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit who are elected by persons other than municipalities who, according to the provisions of the Statute, are donors. They are elected by virture of donations made by them to the university. There is one person elected to represent the high schools etc., three persons to represent the congregations of certain churches, one person elected to represent the Afrikaans cultural societies in the area, one person to represent the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and so on. In other words, there is a majority of persons other than State nominees who have an interest in this university.

That is not relevant at all.

A fine council.

But here this Minister appoints the council. Two of them are appointed by the Senate but the rest of them, not less than eight—it could be a hundred—are all appointed by the Minister. The Minister takes this power because he cannot trust anyone else. He cannot trust the people he nominates, and he has indicated already that he is going to turn down the amendment on the Order Paper, that we are going to propose, in relation to the composition of the council. He cannot trust anyone even the people whom he himself nominates. They are not to sell property; they are not to hypothecate it; they are not to let it and they are not to exchange any of the immovable property that they have. Really, Sir, what a sorry pass we have come to if this is the sort of attitude that the hon. the Minister adopts. He cannot trust anyone else. He cannot place this university in the hands of the people concerned. He cannot even ask the Transkei Legislative Assembly, the Transkeian Government, to nominate even two people to this council; he has to have absolute control of the council. He is not prepared to allow them to deal with these matters although he appoints everyone.

Sir, let us have a look at the other answer. So far as donations are concerned, if anyone wants to donate any money to the university either in trust or by way of a bequest, the hon. the Minister says: “I must know what it is and in what respects it is going to be applied, because in the first place we must know how much money the Government has to give them, and in the second place we want to know in what direction they are going to use this money so that we, the Government, can know how much money to allocate to that direction.” Sir, what a nonsensical argument! It is now provided that you have to have the Minister’s approval. Why should the Minister have to approve of their getting it? If the Minister said that he must be apprised of any donation made to the university, then he would have an argument; that is a different matter altogether. But the hon. the Minister has the power here to refuse the university the right to accept a donation in a bequest, in a will or in any other form.

Try it in your will.

I only bet on certainties; I am a lawyer; I deal with words; I deal with rights. I would not leave any money to any institution if the hon. the Minister had to determine whether they could get it. Would anyone do it? Say the Transkeian Government said that they wanted to donate R10,000 to this university, the hon. the Minister could say “no”. If Rhodes University wanted to do it he could say “no”. If someone says, “I want to endow a chair in anthropology”, or “I want to endow a chair in Afrikaans or in English,” the hon. the Minister can say “no”. If someone wants to leave them just R10, he can say “no”. Sir, the hon. the Minister has not given an answer to this. His answer is: “I have to know what is given and where it is going to be applied because we, the Government, are in fact financing this university”. Well, if that is his argument then he should agree to the deletion of these words and the substitution therefor of the words, “in cases where donations are given the Minister must be apprised.”

Then in relation to the third part of the amendment the Minister says that these powers have been there up to the present time; in other words, the power to dispose of stores or to deal with stores—pencils, paper, desks, wastepaper baskets, slates and everything else you can think of—has always been there. That may be so, but what is the object of this Bill? My hon. friend, the hon. member for Wynberg, has pointed out to me that if you look at this Bill and if you look at the Fort Hare University College Bill there is really very little difference.

It is identical.

My hon. friend says it is virtually identical. In that case I say to you, Mr, Chairman, what is the object of this Bill if it is identical? The object of this Bill is to make this university college into a university. Is that right? The hon. the Minister is silent. Obviously that is the object of it. That is the stated object of it, at any rate. One could disagree as to whether it achieves that object but that is the stated object. Well, if that was there when it was a university college, and it has been there up to now, it might have been necessary, but if you transform an institution into a university, a universitas with autonomy, then surely you do not have to have a Minister controlling the way in which they deal with their stores. It is quite incredible, Sir, and the hon. the Minister has not given an answer to that; all he says is that it has always been there. I hope the hon. the Minister will get up and indicate to this Committee some better reason than the one he has given, because up to now I am sure he has not persuaded anyone, even on his own side, because up to now only the hon. member for Koedoespoort has decided to speak on this and he can defend one part only; he cannot indicate and no one else could indicate why the other aspects of the amendment I have moved should not in fact be accepted.

The hon. member for Durban (North) lauded himself to the skies, apparently because nobody else on his side wanted to do so. He sung his own praises by calling himself a “lawyer”.

But is he not a lawyer?

Perhaps he is one. But what the hon. member for East London (City) is, I do not know. At any rate, if the hon. member for Durban (North) is in fact a lawyer, I wonder whether he could have become one without attending a university. He referred to “stores” which I was allegedly going to control at Fort Hare now, and as an example of these stores he referred to slates. As far as I can remember, and this is no longer the case at present, slates were used by children in bygone days during the first years of their school career, but most decidedly not at university. If the hon. member did make use of a slate at university, then it does not surprise me that his knowledge is such as it is. He would also be well advised to exhibit his histrionics elsewhere. It is typical of the conduct of a lawyer who has to defend a lost cause in court to jump about and to throw books about, as the hon. member did with this Bill, amidst exclamations such as, “What is this? What is this?” The theatre people of Cape Town may need an actor, but definitely not this House.

For ten minutes the hon. member struggled to get past the argument advanced by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. In actual fact he only mentioned two things to which I need refer again. He asked, suppose the Transkeian Government wanted to grant the university R10,000, what would happen then? Sir, what limitless ignorance is displayed by mentioning that example? Does the hon. member not know where the Transkeian Government gets its money from? Does he not know that they get their money from this House?

All of it?

By far and away the major part of it. Just look up the Estimates. If the Transkeian Government now wants to redonate donated money, why can it not be donated directly to Fort Hare by the original donor, i.e. this Parliament? Sir, it does not become an eminent lawyer such as he is to quote such absurd examples here. The other example he quoted, was that of the establishment of a chair at this university. This is in fact a relevant example. The council of a university, together with the Minister and his Department, plans the development of that university. We plan how courses of study which are introduced, may at a later stage be converted into a chair. Or we plan where, when and how a particular chair may be established. With a view to that we then make certain preparations. Should we now permit simply any outside donor to rush in and donate money for the establishment of a chair? Can we permit a donor to donate money for the establishment of a chair as a result of which the State would be burdened, directly or indirectly, with obligations, whereas the State may perhaps be planning to channel the development at that university in another direction because there is a greater need for other chairs? The hon. member really struggled to find examples, and those he mentioned were the worst he could have mentioned. I can merely refer the hon. member once again to subsection (4), which provides that the university may acquire for its use such stores and equipment “in such manner and on such conditions as the Minister may determine”. This also applies to paragraph (b). As circumstances permit, as the experience of the administration of the university permits, the Minister may to an ever-increasing extent leave it to them to decide about those things. The sub-section refers to “conditions’” which the Minister may determine. One of these conditions which the Minister may determine, is that the university should investigate this matter and look after certain things itself. As it is phrased here, it is flexible and as such it ought to satisfy the hon. member, except, of course, if the hon. member wishes to be suspicious, and I am afraid that in actual fact he is a little suspicious.

After this display of old-world charm and courtesy on the part of the Minister, may I suggest that instead of casting aspersions on members on this side of the House he ought to attend a finishing school because that is what his education missed.

Oh no, I am not a true-bred Englishman.

One need not be a full-blooded Englishman to be a gentleman.

You get many gentlemen outside the English world.

I have just said that very thing. Abuse is no argument and therefore the hon. the Minister has produced no argument at all. He still has not told us what he is afraid of. What is he afraid of? Who is he afraid will give or bequeath money to this university? Because, surely, the Minister wants people to bequeath money to this university. That being so, who then does he not want to bequeath money? Surely, in the end this Fort Hare institution will become a university in the true sense of the word. At least, that is the hope on both sides of the House.

I doubt whether that is so on your side.

There you have it, Mr. Chairman. I have just told the hon. the Minister that that is in fact our hope, that one day this will become a university in the true sense of the word and that it will be completely independent, as every university should be. Independence of universities is like independence with individuals—a financial independence. But here there is a provision which discourages people to …

Why? Tell us why.

The law is rather complicated when it comes to wills. Say, for instance, the hon. member draws up his will and says that he is going to leave R10,000 to the University of Fort Hare. What happens now if that bequest is refused by the Minister?

What is going to happen if the Minister says that he is not going to allow the university to accept that R10,000? You may make stipulations in your will about what should happen under this and that condition, but in this case you may not have such a stipulation. Speaking for myself, I would certainly not want to bequeath money under conditions. After all, my last will and testament is an expression of my desire about what should happen to my money when I kick the bucket. That is my particular right. Should I go to the Minister beforehand and ask him whether it will be all right if I leave R10,000 to the University of Fort Hare? Say, for instance, I want to leave that amount of money to the Department of Anthropology of that university, out of which scholarships may be awarded.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far now. He should come back to the clause.

Sir, the word „Request” is being used in this clause.

That is rather farfetched.

All right, Mr. Chairman. Let me then bring it down to a simple matter of fact. The position now is that the Minister has to decide whether or not a person can bequeath money to the university for the endowment of a chair. The university authorities themselves cannot do so any more. What justification is there for this? What justification is there for this if there is a council of the university who should decide that? What is the justification for that if we are establishing a university here? What right has the Minister got? What justification is there for this power he is taking? What we want to know is what he is afraid of. Why should someone not leave money to the university? Why should the university council not decide whether or not to accept it? It will be a contract in the end. If somebody wants to donate money to the university for a specific purpose, he cannot do so any more, because the Minister is in the way. Perhaps there is some other reason for this. Perhaps the hon. member for Koedoespoort can tell me, but I notice that that hon. member is not in the House. He too has deserted the ship. [Interjections.] Can anyone else tell me where else a similar provision exists? I really want to know. The only answer the Minister has given to date is this. When I suggested that the Legislative Assembly or the Government of the Transkei might wish to make a donation, he said: “Oh, look where they get their money from, don’t you know this, that and the other.” In fact he said the South African Government finances them. That was merely an example. Would the Minister not like them to take an interest in this institution, would he not like them to encourage people by example to give donations? Very often this is why donations are given. Would he not like to encourage the communities and the local authorities in the area to give such donations? As I have indicated, in the legislation dealing with the R.A.U. we actually make provision for the representatives of the donors to the university to have representation on the council. This is an intolerable provision if we really wish this institution to become financially independent. What we want to know is this: Why does the Minister have to approve? Why? There may be another example somewhere but he did not give it to us. We want to know what he is afraid of, who he is afraid of. Surely our laws are sufficient to prevent money that is received being used for a wrong purpose. The council nominated by the Minister will determine how this money should be used. So the Minister cannot fear that some foreign institution which he does not like is going to give money to the university and oblige it to do certain things.

Order! The hon. member should stop repeating.

I never mentioned foreign institutions before, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member has been repeating his arguments. He is saying in different words what he said in his first speech.

The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is one has to try and articulate what one thinks is in the Minister’s mind because he has not told us. Is the Minister afraid of some foreign institution giving money to the university on certain conditions? If so, surely the council can refuse to accept it on those conditions? What is he afraid of? We have not had an answer and so we should like to have an answer. I see the Minister is now getting some more advice, and I hope perhaps he will give us the benefit of that advice.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Durban (North) tried to substantiate his arguments by saying that he was a lawyer. I do not wish to say that he is a bad lawyer, but I am convinced that he was not in earnest about the arguments he advanced, because they are so weak, so unfounded. He wants to suggest that the hon. the Minister is afraid of something. He says the Minister will have the right to refuse a gift or a testamentary bequest or the endowment of a chair. If the Minister trusted the council, as the hon. member suggests, to refuse something of that nature if it is justified by circumstances, then, surely, we accept that that council appointed by the Minister, would also give effect to the Minister’s wishes because it is, after all, his council. Surely, if the Minister refused something, then the council would, after all, refuse it for the same reason. If the council can have that right, then, surely, the Minister might as well have the right to refuse such a donation.

The hon. member wants subsection (4) to be deleted. Surely, it is being provided, and the Minister also mentioned it, that the object of this legislation is to grant them academic freedom, not financial freedom. As this institution develops, as development takes place in all respects in the interests of the separate development of the ethnic group in question, as the council shows how it is developing, the Minister may, after all, grant them those rights. This is being laid down in the Bill. If in the opinion of the Minister the council shows satisfactory development and progress, he may grant them all those rights for which provision is made in the clause, rights which the Minister reserves to himself at present. As matters develop, as the Minister deems it necessary, and as they prove their competence, the Minister may delegate more and more powers to the council. Subsection (4) can be amended in such a way that all the matters mentioned in clause 3 are subject to the control of the council. Subsection (4) grants the Minister the right to grant the council powers which have a bearing on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Durban (North) that he need not think that fear is the dominant factor as far as the insertion of this clause is concerned. I do not know why the hon. member himself is so fear-conscious, but now he thinks that we on this side are fear-conscious, too. There is nothing we fear in this respect. We have two objects as far as this provision is concerned. The first one is the necessary coordination which we must have. The Minister, the Department, the State accepts responsibility for the financial control and the provision of finances for those institutions, and that is why the State has to know what is happening as regards money which may go to those institutions through other channels, with a view to what the State has to provide. Such co-ordination must exist. We cannot set to work in an unco-ordinated manner. The second object is as follows: The hon. member heard what the hon. member for Houghton had to say. She went much further than the hon. member did by saying what I caught to be afraid of. She mentioned the type of institutions I ought to be afraid of. I am merely being cautious, that is all. We want to apply caution in regard to where the money comes from and for what purpose it is donated. We want to know whether it is not perhaps intended for purposes which are not really relevant. Caution and co-ordination are therefore the bases of this provision, and not the fear to which the hon. member referred.

Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for Durban (North) on what he said when he was on his feet the last time. I say to the hon. the Minister I am prepared to accept his bona fides, but then I expect him to also accept ours. Unless we accept the bona fides of individual members when we discuss matters in this House, and unless we accept the bona fides of a group, as we are here as the official Opposition, we can get nowhere when we discuss matters of this nature. There was really no need for the Minister’s outburst. I think we can leave it at that. I repeat: We must accept the bona fides of both sides, we must believe that what we are doing is what we consider to be the best for this proposed University of Fort Hare.

The Minister spoke about the endowment of a chair and the hon. member for Durban (North) asked him whether he would refuse such an endowment and, if he would, why he would refuse such an endowment. The Minister said if gifts are made, he should know about them so that he would know how much money must be voted for the university. I accept that perhaps he should know what is going on at these universities, he should know how much money is available, because he needs that information to decide how much money should be voted by this House. But the question remains unanswered: Will he refuse such a bequest? What is he afraid of, as was asked by the hon. member for Durban (North)? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would accept the following amendment, which I now move—

This is what he has intimated himself. The only reason why he is taking this control is to be able to know what is coming in, so that he can budget accordingly.

In furthering this argument with the hon. the Minister I want to refer to clause 40 of this Bill, which says that “all assets, liabilities” etc., which accrued at the date on which this institution becomes a full university, or “would have vested in or devolved upon that council”, shall continue to apply. There is a proviso that those moneys which will come in future, after the date on which this Bill becomes law, “shall be applied by the university in accordance with the conditions of the trust, donation or bequest”. Is this not in conflict with the Minister’s intention under subsection (3) of clause 3, which we are now discussing? Here he says that he must have the power to refuse or to accept, but in the other clause, which we will discuss later, the power is given to the council to accept and to carry out the wishes of these donors.

To come back to subsection (1) and to my amendment, the only reason the hon. the Minister has given for declining to accept this amendment is that it is not necessary in that it is implicit in the definition of a body corporate that they shall have these powers. Am I correct in my interpretation? Did the hon. the Minister say that the fact of this university being a body corporate gave them the power automatically of investing, lending and borrowing money?

I said that some of those three aspects are implicitly in the definition.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us which of those three are implicit in the definition?

I said “investment”.

Then the question of lending and borrowing is not implicit.

They are covered by subsection (3).

I might be a bit dull in this connection, but I am sorry; I cannot see that subsection (3) covers those particular provisions.

I want to go further and say that the hon. member for Koedoespoort raised the objection that I had only introduced these amendments because I had seen them in the Rand Afrikaans University Act. I must admit that that is where I got them from. But let me put it to him this way: If they were good enough for that Act, surely they should be good enough for this one. I wonder if this is really the only reason why the hon. the Minister does not want to give the council of this university the power to borrow, to lend and to invest money.

I should just like to say that I cannot accept that amendment either, because it amounts to the same as the previous one.

Mr. Chairman, may I reply?

Order! The hon. member has already spoken three times.

No, Sir. I have only spoken twice.

The hon. member may proceed.

It is rather hard to follow the reasoning of the hon. the Minister in this respect. He made the categorical statement that he wanted to know what was going on. He made the statement that the reason for this control was that he should know how much money the university has so that he could budget accordingly. The hon. member for Durban (North) asked him if he was afraid of anything, which bequests he would not accept and why he made this provision. The hon. the Minister does not want to tell us. Why does he not want to tell us? I feel that the hon. the Minister should take this House into his confidence. If he has fears and if he is afraid of money coming from some source which he feels should not be accepted by the university, will he not take the House into his confidence and tell us exactly to what he has objections and which money he would not accept?

First amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber put and negatived.

First and second amendments proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. M. T. Webber put and negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (i) a convocation.

There are three parts to this amendment.

Order! Does the hon. member move the amendment as a whole?

It is one amendment, but it consists of three parts. The first part is really only to ask for an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to what the procedure will be. I shall come to that in a moment. The second part of my amendment is to omit paragraphs (d) and (f). as the hon. the Minister can well expect. These paragraphs make provision for an advisory council and an advisory senate, respectively. The third part of my amendment is to add a paragraph after paragraph (h), to add another element to the constitution of the university, namely a convocation.

Order! Are these three amendments inseparable or must they be taken as a whole?

Yes, they can be taken as a whole. The first part of my amendment is merely to ask the hon. the Minister for an explanation.

My ruling is that I am unable to accept the amendment as far as paragraph (i) which deals with a convocation, is concerned because it seeks to establish a body not contemplated by the Bill at the Second Reading. There is no definition of a convocation in the Bill, nor is there a description in any clause of how a convocation should be created. An amendment regarding a convocation is therefore out of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when we started this debate the hon. member for Kensington pointed out that we had certain amendments which we intended to make and asked for clause 1, which would have given the definition of a convocation, to stand over till the end. I submit that due notice was given of this and that you should perhaps reconsider your ruling.

Order! The hon. member’s submission is incorrect. The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

I hope I shall be able to get over this difficulty by omitting the addition of paragraph (i) and adding the words “past students”.

There is no way of adding another paragraph to clause 4. In every one of the other Acts there is a separate clause describing how that particular body has to be created and there is no provision made by any amendment in this Bill to do so.

My first amendment is to omit the word “shall” in paragraph (b) and to substitute the word “may” in the place thereof. As the paragraph reads now the rector shall also be the vice-chancellor of the university. If this is to be his title, I understand it. If the rector is, however, only to act as vice-chancellor occasionally, then I submit that the correct word should be “may” and not “shall”. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that the rector of the university shall also be the vice-chancellor?

Yes, the rector shall also be the vice-chancellor permanently and will hold both these offices.

The council can therefore not appoint another person as vice-chancellor?

No.

Some universities keep these posts separate. I now come to the important part of my amendment, namely the deletion of the paragraphs instituting an advisory council and an advisory senate. I want to deal with paragraph (f) regarding the advisory senate first. The hon. the Minister has said in reply to a question of mine that since these three colleges have been established they have not found anybody qualified to become a member of the advisory senate. He said that during the ten years nobody has qualified. Why is something like this necessary? Why do we say to a man who is on the staff of this university and is not white, that he is not qualified to be a member of the senate and that he is not even qualified to be a member of the advisory senate? In these colleges we have Black people who are professors, but we still say that they are not qualified to be members of an advisory senate. The simplest thing, therefore, will be to say that we will dispense with an advisory senate. This is the first part of my argument regarding paragraph (f).

I now come to the second part, namely paragraph (d), regarding an advisory council. We say that the council must be white and that a body which is not white will be an advisory council. During the Second-Reading debate I said that this is a humiliation for these people, because it is their university. This university is established for them and to say to them that in their own university they can merely act in an advisory capacity, is as I have said on a previous occasion, humiliating for them. I want to go further. The Department of Bantu Education has told us that its policy regarding primary school education is that a school committee or a school board can consist of uneducated people who are elected to control education at the secondary or primary level. They are not an advisory body at that stage but have control. When we come to the university stage, however, the department says that these people can act only in an advisory capacity and may not be members of the council. As we have seen from the list of the members of the advisory council of Fort Hare, members of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei are told that they will simply act in an advisory capacity when they deal with the University of Fort Hare, but in governing the Transkei, they will be the governors. This seems to be inconsistent to me. When they deal with the University of Fort Hare they will only be advisers, but when dealing with the Government of the Transkei they do not consult Whites at all, except when they need extra money, but that is not a matter of consultation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give these universities which we are now creating a fair start. I want him to say that we do not need an advisory senate. He agrees with this because he says nobody has qualified and that he has never appointed one in ten years. He should also say that we do not need an advisory council and that the council that is going to be appointed will have the same powers as the council of any other university. This is my appeal to the hon. the Minister. I will raise my final point when we come back to the question of the constitution of the university.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a pity that the hon. member for Kensington, who is an educationist and who really should be able to see the value of this advisory senate and this advisory council tried to bandy words in opposition to these institutions which most definitely can do outstanding work. Surely the hon. member knows that here we are concerned with a developing state of affairs and with a condition of evolution and growth. Surely the hon. member knows that the Senate of the University of Fort Hare cannot consist exclusively of Bantu professors. In this regard it would seem as though the hon. member is looking for the thin end of the wedge in an attempt to bring about integration in those two bodies. He knows that is contrary to the principles of this Government. With regard to the question of the advisory senate, surely the argument which the hon. member used, i.e. that the Government of the Transkei was succeeding in governing the territory but could not have full control over the university, is wrong. Here we have had a developing state of affairs for many years, and our provincial governments to which the Transkeian Government may be compared to some extent, do not have control over universities either, because this Parliament provides the funds. For this reason this argument as well as the argument that this advisory senate has not functioned up to now, do not seem to be good arguments. They fall away, because this is a developing state of affairs. In the course of time more and more Bantu lecturers will come to this university, and these people will be able to fulfil a very useful function, and in that advisory senate they will be able to learn more and more and make more and more progress and do more and more of the work in an advisory capacity until the day arrives when they can take over a full-fledged senate. Then they will be ripe to do so and then they will have the necessary experience. Also as regards the advisory council, it is an excellent idea that these people should have the opportunity of sitting on that council as representatives of their people, and their advisory voice will definitely receive serious consideration when it comes to important decisions. The council of the university as well as the Minister will take due cognizance of the opinions of that advisory council. Therefore I should like to give my support to the establishment of these two bodies.

The hon. member for Algoa seems to be back in the dark ages.

Are you on the moon?

He seems to think he has scored a tremendous bull-point here by saying that we are advocating integration. It was made quite clear that we considered the consultation with these people to be of primary importance. That was made clear by the hon. member for Kensington.

But you want to do away with the advisory council.

Yes, we do not want this advisory senate or the advisory council. We want consultation. We want those people to serve on the council and on the senate. Why should the non-white professors of Fort Hare not be allowed to serve on their senate? This is the whole crux of the matter, namely that the non-white professors should serve on the senate and that any representatives of non-white bodies, like the Transkei Government or others, who might be appointed to this council should serve on the council and get their education and their upliftment.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.

Order! The hon. member has just made a speech.

I agree that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. The hon. member himself has admitted that these people can do outstanding work and he has said what a wonderful idea it is that they should sit there and represent the Bantu people, in this case the Xhosa people, and that their advisory voice will be appreciated. But why must it only be an advisory voice? The point we make is that they should be on the council and that they should make their voice heard, not only in just an advisory capacity but that they should take an actual part in the running of their university; and make no mistake, Sir, it is their university we are establishing and not a white man’s university. We are establishing a university for Xhosa people. That we have already approved in one of the previous clauses. Let them serve on the council and on the senate, if their people are good enough to be professors and senior lecturers, and not merely on an inferior body and in an advisory capacity.

Sir, I submit that there are two approaches to these amendments. The first is what I want to call a factual approach, and I shall say a few words about this approach, but in the second place there is what I want to call a “point of order approach”.

As regards the factual approach, I first want to say for the information of the hon. members interested in this matter that the position of the two advisory bodies, the advisory senate and the advisory council, is a very important matter as I have already explained during the Second Reading, because as far as the advisory council is concerned, we should like to place Bantu individuals in a position to learn the administration of a university, to carry certain responsibilities themselves and to give advice on other matters in respect of which they are asked for their advice. As regards the advisory senate, the position is that we should very much like to have an advisory senate in operation at each of these universities; and for that one naturally needs a sufficient number of individuals to serve on them. But this sufficient number has never been available. It is my sincere hope that there will soon be a sufficient number so as to make it possible to have the advisory senate operating as a proper body. In any event, it is the practice at each of the three universities that even though an advisory senate is not in operation as yet, we nevertheless consult the Bantu professors at those universities, however few they may be in number, on an academic level at the university. The rector, the faculty boards, the senate, etc., have deliberations with them on matters in which they too have an interest.

Now I want to deal with the second approach, and that is what I call the “point of order approach”. With all respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I think that the motion that paragraph (d), which deals with the advisory council, be omitted, is out of order because if this Bill, as read a Second Time yesterday, contains one very clear principle, that principle is that there will be two types of councils, i.e. a council and an advisory council. This is a very substantive principle of this Bill and this Committee does not have the power to destroy that principle. This is my submission as far as paragraph (d) is concerned, and if you wish, Sir, you may give your ruling in this regard.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister in order in saying that we may not discuss this at all?

The hon. the Minister is raising a point of order and I shall give my ruling.

Then we come to paragraph (f), and here I admit very frankly that the argument I advanced with regard to paragraph (d), is not quite as valid as regards paragraph (f). There is only one reason for this, and that is that the nature of the clause constituting the advisory council, i.e. clause 11, is permissive. The senate is a permissive institution, whereas the nature of the clause constituting the council, i.e. clause 9, is not permissive but mandatory. Therefore it is a principle which is unassailable. The principle of an advisory senate might perhaps be assailed in some cases. My point is that we in fact want both these bodies. As regards the principles, I contend that this Committee may not consider abolishing the advisory council, it may consider changing the advisory council but not abolishing it. As regards the advisory senate, in this case the argument does not carry the same weight, but even in this case I do not think it should be allowed.

I shall first give my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. the Minister. The long title of the Bill makes no provision for anything specific in this connection, and consequently I am inclined to allow the amendment—for the present, in any event.

That does not apply to a convocation then?

The provision regarding a convocation has been ruled out of order. There is provision for an advisory council and an advisory senate in the Bill as printed and as passed at Second Reading. So the hon. member may discuss that, but he may not discuss the convocation.

I just wanted the position clarified. I do not think there is anything I can add, because in the Second Reading debate we explained why we thought these were unnecessary. This is a Xhosa institution, and to say to the Xhosa people that they will only be advisory in their own institution and the Minister will nominate people to do the work, or the council will nominate people is something that we will not stand for. Therefore I move my amendment as it stands, accepting that the part relating to a convocation was ruled out of order.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided.

Ayes—106: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C. Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S. Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak. J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan. J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, G. P.; Muller, H.; Muller. S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse. R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie. N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter. M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. H. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7:

I wish to move as an amendment—

1. (1) The rector of the University shall be appointed by the council in the manner prescribed by statute, and his powers and duties shall be as thereby prescribed.

; and in lines 45 and 46. to omit “The Minister may from time to time after consultation with the council” and to substitute “The council may from time to time”.

As the clause stands at the moment, the rector of the university will be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the council. So far as the acting rector is concerned, the Minister may from time to time, after consultation with the council, appoint an acting rector. The object of my amendment is to suggest that the rector of the university shall be appointed by the council in the manner prescribed by statute and that his powers and duties shall be as thereby prescribed, and that so far as the appointment of an acting rector is concerned, the council may from time to time appoint an acting rector. Sir, during the Second Reading debate we heard a great deal of this much vaunted autonomy, but one has reluctantly to come to the conclusion that autonomy in this Bill virtually means that the University of Fort Hare will now function without the overriding power and authority of the University of South Africa. I have sought in vain for any other indication that the autonomy which could have been envisaged in this Bill, has in fact been allowed.

I want to refer to a little booklet which was published by the Information Service of the Department of Bantu Administration in 1960. The booklet is titled, “The Transfer of Fort Hare University College”. It contains a reproduction of a speech which was delivered in the Other Place by the then Minister of Bantu Education, Mr. Willem Maree. On page 13 of this booklet we find paragraph 4 which is headed “Towards a Xhosa University”, and this is what it says—

The following words then appear in italics—

… the Bantu must be trained systematically for the eventual taking over of their own university institutions.

Then it goes on to refer to the evolutionary process foreseen by the commission which investigated this matter. It quotes 53 (5) of the commission’s report and it says this—

Order! What has that to do with this clause?

Sir, I am dealing with the question of autonomy and I wish to illustrate that in order to apply the question of autonomy it is necessary in clause 7 to allow the council to have some autonomous rights in the appointment of their own rector. As the clause stands at the moment, that is not the position, and I was seeking purely to indicate that as far back as 1960 the suggestion was that there should be a gradual granting of autonomous rights to this body. Sir, that was nine years ago. I do not wish to pursue this matter, Sir, if you feel that it is not necessary. I feel that I have made my point. There is just one aspect to which I do wish to refer and that is the gradual delegation of certain powers and duties of the Minister, as the representative of the State, to the council. This is referred to in the taking over.

Sir, it has been said on numerous occasions during the committee stage this afternoon that the council is the creature of the Minister. In the main, the members will be appointed by the Minister, so in effect the council is acting as the mouthpiece of the Minister. But even here where it could be suggested that the right to appoint a rector is a right which the council could well apply and use, the Minister has seen fit, in the wording of this Bill, to lay down that the rector shall be appointed by the council, but after consultation with the Minister. I believe that if there is any intention to grant autonomy in the terms in which I understood the Minister to speak during his Second Reading speech, this is one instance where a small concession can be made, which would add to the dignity of the people appointed by the Minister. After all, the Minister is appointing eight members to the council. The council is overwhelmingly composed of members appointed by this Minister. Surely it is not unreasonable, if we are seeking to give autonomy to the Xhosa people, to ask that in this particular instance the council should have the right to appoint its own rector and also the right to appoint an acting rector. The Minister will have to come to Parliament if ever he wishes to amend this clause or if he wishes to amend the composition of the council, so the safeguards are there. I only ask the Minister if he will accept the procedure and the custom which has been adopted in other universities. Let me take, just briefly, two universities. Take the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, for example—

elected by the council in the manner prescribed by the statute, and his powers, privileges, functions and duties shall be as prescribed by the statute.

If one looks at the Statute of the University of Natal, one finds that a similar position prevails there. I believe that if the hon. the Minister is sincere in his statement that he wishes to allow further autonomy in the administration of the university, then this is one occasion where he can accept the amendment moved from this side of the House.

I think the hon. member for Berea is confusing the universities belonging to the Whites with the University of Fort Hare, which belongs to the Xhosa ethnic group. Our aim is to develop the Xhosa and in order to realize that aim, we are making use of this university. I want to make a statement here now which I hope will be understood by the United Party—they should just give me an opportunity to explain this before they start shouting …

What does this have to do with the clause?

It has everything to do with the clause, because the United Party wants to amend the clause in such a way that that university will practically be completely independent. It is not impossible that this council may consist only of Bantu in future, and therefore the Minister must retain the right to exercise control. I now want to assert that this Government will never afford complete independence to that university. The privilege of doing so will be extended to the Xhosa population of the Transkei and the Ciskei when they are independent, so that they can then grant independence to their own university. It is separate development that we are applying in the case of this university. It is aimed at making that particular ethnic group independent. They will then have the privilege of granting independence to that university. For that reason the Minister will have to retain certain rights in regard to that university to-day and in the future. We hope that this council will consist only of the developed Bantu of the Transkei and Ciskei in future. This will come about as development takes place. Consequently there is no need for development to be forced upon these people from above. This side of the House wants the development to take place from the bottom upwards.

Order!

As those people develop, the university will also develop.

Order! Has the hon. member finished now?

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the new declaration of policy in regard to the development of Bantu education, especially university education.

Order! I should like to point out that I was on the point of calling the previous speaker to order because this has nothing to do with the clause under discussion. I should like the hon. member not to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Mayfair.

I did not dream of doing so, Sir. I found it most interesting listening to him. Truth will out, if I may say so. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, this is very simple indeed. The Minister’s attitude is that he will appoint the council. But, having appointed the council, he will say: “I cannot trust this council to do what I want it to do; so I shall appoint the rector over their heads”. The Minister does not think much of the people he is nominating to serve on the council, does he? He is going to nominate eight members. Two will come from the senate. The rector is the other member of the council. But he does not trust them. Only ten people could choose the rector, but he will not trust them. Therefore he says: “I shall do that, over your heads”. Now what is the hon. member for Berea asking? He is asking for something very simple. He said that the council should be the important body and that the rector of the university should be appointed by the council in the manner prescribed by statute. The hon. the Minister has to agree with the statutes. The hon. member’s amendment also states that “his powers and duties shall be as thereby prescribed”. Surely that is clear enough? The amendment in lines 45 and 46 is, of course, partly consequential. The hon. member wishes to omit the words “the Minister may from time to time after consultation with the council” and substitute “the council may from time to time …”. Surely that is obvious. This is a university not a primary school, we are dealing with. In this university the Minister will appoint a council and then say that he does not trust his own council. That is the position. The Minister will not let his council function. I think the defence of such a view is just too ridiculous.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot consider or accept these amendments. Furthermore, I think hon. members of the Opposition will appreciate, even though they do not accept it, that I cannot do so.

†I should like to say to the hon. member for Berea that it is not a sine qua non for autonomy that the rector must be appointed by the council. There are many instances where autonomous universities have rectors which are not appointed by their council. There are even university councils which have governors of state as chairmen. The same principle applies to the rector. The appointment of the rector by the council is not a sine qua non for autonomy.

As regards the other arguments which have been advanced, I should like to point out that the rector is, as the Bill states, the chief executive officer of the university. Because of the fact that the university is financially dependent upon the State, it is of the utmost importance that the Minister must have this say in the appointment of the rector.

Why?

I have already given my reasons. Now the hon. member asks me, why? The council will of course be consulted by the Minister, and that is an innovation. That is provided for by this Bill. It is something which we did not have before.

That is very generous of you!

The fact that the council is to be consulted before the rector is appointed, is an innovation. This can be done in various ways. We shall come to that question when such an appointment has to be made.

*I wonder what the hon. member for Berea would say to this. The appointment of the rector of the University of Port Elizabeth is subject to the approval of the Minister, by law. [Interjections.] The hon. member says this is strange, but he probably voted in favour of it a few years ago. The hon. member for Houghton says this is different. The difference is only a very slight one. What would

Mr. Chairman, is there any difference in the council appointing the rector with the approval of the Minister and the Minister appointing the rector, without any consultation of the council?

But there will be consultation.

Yes, the Minister may consult the council, but he does not necessarily have to take their advice. That is quite a different matter. If the hon. the Minister thinks that there is no difference, why does he not include the same provision which applies to the University of Port Elizabeth? This is quite different. At none of the other universities in South Africa is this provision part of their constitution. The only one where the approval of the Minister is necessary, is the University of Port Elizabeth, and, as I have said, even that differs from this provision.

The Minister mentioned that there were many universities where the appointment of the rector was not a sine qua non of autonomy. Perhaps he will tell us which of the universities he is thinking of. Is he thinking of any of the great universities of the Western world? I would doubt that very much indeed. There may be a few small state colleges in America which are financed entirely by the State, but I am quite sure that none of the other great universities of America or of England are those to which the Minister has referred. I do not even know whether there are any such universities on the continent. However, the hon. the Minister seems to have made a deep study of the constitutions of universities in other parts of the world.

I have told you that in Greece all the personnel of the universities are civil servants, and that is where our civilization comes from.

Greece is one country, and that is where the military junta is presently ruling. So perhaps it is a very good example for the hon. the Minister to follow. The military junta of Greece has now apparently become the Minister’s model. As far as I am concerned, I should like to have some examples from the great Western universities that all of us know about. He cannot give us an example from South Africa, because one does not exist. The one and only analogy he tried to draw, is a false analogy. So perhaps the hon. the Minister will give us some other examples.

Is the hon. the Minister not going to give us a reply?

There is nothing to reply to unless you yourself produce something.

I see. The hon. the Minister’s argument appears to be this. The council should not appoint the rector, but he, i.e. the Minister, should appoint the rector because the State is providing almost all of the funds. If that is correct, why does he have a council? What is the council to do? You have a council that cannot even deal with its own stores. It cannot deal with its pencils and paper, except under the supervision of the hon. the Minister.

And slates?

Yes, and slates, if you like.

You used slates at university.

Whatever the position, there are stores they cannot deal with without the permission of the Minister. Now you have a council that is not allowed to appoint the rector. Why? Because the Minister is in charge and because the State is giving most of the money. Well, this just is not an answer. Why does he bother to have a council at all? Why does the hon. the Minister not just say that the Secretary for Bantu Education shall be the council subject to the Minister’s decision?

I think the hon. member can raise that point under the next clause.

The amendment is that the council should appoint the rector. That is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. the Minister has one answer only and that is because the State has to pay for this university, the council should not do it. Now, what is the purpose of the council if this is so?

Its job is not only to appoint a rector. It has a million of other functions.

Yes, it has lots of functions and very important functions. But when it comes to dealing with stores, it has to get the approval of the Minister.

What would the Minister do to an official who comes to him with requests in regard to pencils and that sort of nonsense? The hon. member is talking nonsense.

Order!

Well, there you are. It is as the hon. the Deputy Minister says “with that sort of nonsense”. And that is what is in the Bill, namely “that sort of nonsense”. And that is our objection. The hon. the Minister acts as if he has given some great concession here. He is now actually going to consult with the council. That was not there before. It is marvellous and terribly big of him. How does he consult with them? He will write to the council and tell them that he proposes to appoint Mr. X …

Or Prof. Van der Merwe.

… or Prof. Van der Merwe, as my hon. friend says as the rector.

Or Mitchell?

Did an hon. member say “Mitchell”? No, we will not find the name Mitchell there if the hon. the Minister’s appointments in the past at Fort Hare in relation to the council or any other important position on it are anything to go by. There will be no name like Mitchell. What will the hon. the Minister do? All he will do is to say that he proposes to appoint Mr. X as the rector and then to invite their comments, and if the whole lot does not want Mr. X then that is all there is to it. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. His argument does not really take the matter any further. It means that he has no trust in the members of the council that he appoints to nominate as a rector the sort of person the university has. It makes an absolute nonsense of anything he might want to say about this being a university with any sort of autonomy.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is really pathetic that we should so often be reproached from the other side of the House this afternoon for allegedly having a “lack of trust”, as it is termed. The very best of relationships obtain between myself—and in a week or two I shall have been Minister of Bantu Education for three years—as well as my predecessor, who was Minister for a longer period, and the three councils of the universities. There is no trace or sign of any lack of trust. It is not a matter of lack of trust. It is a matter of responsibilities which the Minister has to fulfil since he is responsible to this House, which he asks for the funds every year. Must I make a daily round inspecting the administration at Pietersburg, Turfloop, Fort Hare or wherever? My Secretary of Bantu Education is the person who must account to the select committee concerned. And I am accountable to this House. How am I to give account here if I cannot choose the person and if I am not personally concerned in his appointment? That is the responsibility which I must exercise. And it is a responsibility which is of advantage to this House and the Opposition, if the Opposition wants to share in the responsibility in respect of the expenditure of public funds. It is a responsibility in which they share. That is why I have to exercise this function, and not because I am an authoritarian person, which I am not and will never be. To the appointment of the rector, as provided in the Bill, is added that the council will be consulted in future as regards the appointment of a rector. I said a moment ago that the way in which this consultation will take place will of course be ironed out when the first case occurs. It is not a question of lack of trust. I do not think hon. members should present matters in such a very pessimistic way. It is very wrong to present matters in that way.

Mr. Chairman, we are not being pessimistic. We are rather optimistic in that we are hoping that the hon. the Minister will see the light. This is supposed to be a university not on the American or Greek pattern, but on the South African pattern. We are creating a South African university.

We are trying to create a Bantu university.

Oh, is that not South African? That is a new approach. If we are creating a university in South Africa, then surely we are working in the direction—I do not say we are doing it here or not—of creating a university with a certain measure of autonomy. The executive power of a university is vested in the council. We therefore say that the council should exercise that function which the hon. member for Berea has so clearly stated in his amendment. I think his amendment is an excellent one.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the Opposition remind me of the little boy of whom the Jewish music teacher who gave him piano-lessons, said: “I teach him to play on the black notes and I teach him to play on the white notes, but he keeps on playing in the cracks.” That is what those hon. members are doing. It must be very clearly understood that this clause must be viewed in the light of an Act in which it must be emphasized that while greater academic independence is being granted to the university colleges, it is by no means the intention to grant complete independence to these university colleges, as hon. members would like to be done. When the hon. member for Houghton argues about these matters and sees that the Minister is accepting responsibility in respect of these very important institutions, she becomes quite blind. Time and again the hon. member baulks at the reality of the South African situation. One could add to the reasons mentioned by the Minister, that the reason for their objecting to the part to be played by the Minister, is that they themselves fear that the more the Bantu and Bantu universities come into contact with the Minister, the more the Bantu students and the Bantu community will realize that the Ministers means well by them. They have this fear, and at the same time they forget that the entire approach of the National Party to these university colleges is one of guardianship. In other words, it is being provided by law that the Minister should implement the guardianship concept which the National Party has in respect of the Bantu universities. Hon. members must not fail to appreciate this, for if the principle of guardianship is not appreciated, the actual truths contained in this clause cannot be appreciated either.

Order! Before I give the next hon. member an opportunity to speak I must say that the arguments are being tediously repeated. Hon. members must now come forward with new arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to argue against some of the tedious arguments we have been listening to.

What does the hon. member insinuate?

Arguments that are not necessarily repetitive but tedious. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the wonderful relationship that has developed between the hon. the Minister and the university colleges. I must say that that is cool cheek, if ever I heard anything, because if one thinks of the history of Fort Hare over the last year, anything but good relations between students and the hon. the Minister’s department have been demonstrated when two-thirds of the student body get sent down …

That has absolutely nothing to do with clause 7.

The hon. member has just made a statement which I am refuting. I come back to the hon. the Minister now. The Minister said that the reason why he has to introduce this tight control over the appointment of the rector, is because he is responsible and that he has to come back to this House bearing responsibility for the running of the university, the voting of funds, and so on. Now, what about his colleague, the Minister of Education? Does he not have any responsibility to this House as far as the white universities are concerned? Does this House not vote the money, the vast bulk of money for white universities? And yet at the white universities it is not the hon. the Minister who appoints the rector. It is done by the councils of those universities. Even if it is a question, as stated by the hon. member who spoke before me, of acting as a guardian to these colleges, the council which the hon. the Minister is appointing is not a council of Africans whom he feels he has still has to guide through all the intricacies of university control. This is, of course, not a principle with which I agree. I think there are many Africans, Indians and Coloured people already fully qualified to take on these jobs. But let us leave that aside. Even by the hon. the Minister’s own reasoning, as exemplified in the clauses of the Bill, which do not allow the appointment of a proper working council consisting of African people, but only an advisory council with no functions at all … Since he is appointing people who he believes will be capable of running the universities, why then does he put himself in a position different from that of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of National Education? That is a question the hon. the Minister has not answered at all.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mayfair centioned that the aim of this Bill and of the Department was to develop the Xhosa people. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the unsettled conditions which obtained at Fort Hare during last year.

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the clause?

I am coming to the clause. But there must be a certain amount of introduction to my argument.

The hon. member must confine himself to clause 7 only.

I am confining myself to clause 7, and I am sure that you will admit, Sir, that our debate up to now has shown that our amendments follow a pattern. They follow a pattern, namely to give the Bantu people more say in the control of what the hon. the Minister himself has just admitted is a Bantu university.

Those arguments have been raised before.

No, Sir, I am afraid I have not yet had a chance to develop my argument.

Order! If the hon. member does not want to adhere to the Chair’s ruling he must resume his seat.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member not entitled to use an argument on this clause which was used on another clause? The fact that that argument was used in relation to the debate on another clause, in my submission, should not debar an hon. member from using the same argument to illustrate his argument in respect of this clause.

The hon. member may proceed.

In this clause the hon. the Minister takes the power to appoint the rector. Our objection, as has been indicated by my colleague the hon. member for Berea is to the Minister appointing the rector. We feel that he should be appointed by the council.

That argument has been very ably put by the hon. member for Berea.

Yes, but this is merely introductory. We will move later that certain persons should be added to the council. We have already moved that the advisory council and the senate should be done away with. We moved that the council and senate should be multi-racial. My point is that we want to give the Xhosa people more chance of having a say in the appointment of the rector of their university.

That point has also been raised before.

Can I put it to you this way, Sir? The amendment which we are moving is an attempt to prevent this proposed university from being merely another Government institution run unilaterally by the white Government of South Africa, by the hon. the Minister and his department. We want to change it from that to a community college which will be run with the goodwill and the assistance and the co-operation of the Xhosa people themselves.

Order! The hon. member should have raised that during the Second-Reading debate.

No, Sir, this applies to the question of the election of a rector.

This has specifically to do with the appointment of a rector and I have been listening to tedious arguments and repetitions all afternoon.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, the argument I am raising is an argument in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. He moves that it should not be the Minister who appoints the rector but that the council should so do it.

That is tedious repetition and there are rules which prohibit it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. He says the reason why he wants to appoint the rector is because he, the Minister, is responsible to Parliament.

That is one reason, yes.

He says that because he cannot go running around to Turf-loop and all the other places, he must appoint the rector because he is responsible to Parliament. Well, implicit in that thought is also the thought that he must have the power to appoint him because he, the Minister, must have the power to control him. Is that right? He must have the power to control the rector, not so? This is implicit in what the Minister said. He said he could not allow someone else to appoint the rector because he is responsible to Parliament and therefore he should appoint him. I suggest that that argument only has validity when, if he appoints someone, he can control that person, in this case the rector of the university. That is the implication, as I see it, of what the Minister said, and if that is not so, then we should like to hear from the Minister what the position in fact is.

Mr. Chairman, no, the hon. member for Durban (North) is not giving a correct representation of the matter. No provision is being made here for control by me over the rector, as the hon. member puts it, neither will such control be exercised in practice. I wish to say to the credit of all the rectors we have had, that such control has never been necessary, because the right persons had been chosen. The rector is chosen by the Minister and then he carries out his duties. He obviously consults with the Minister and the Secretary and the council of the university as often as he wishes. It is a question of the right choice being made, and then the rector, the Department and I see to it that there are the necessary mutual trust and the necessary mutual consultation for getting the work done.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—105: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet. C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs,

N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler. M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Havward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger. J. T.; Langley. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis,

H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Mever, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Noes—30: Basson, J. A. L.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton,

W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the government and executive authority of the University shall be vested in the council, which shall consist of—
   1. (a) the rector;
   2. (b) six persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) two professors of the University chosen by the senate;
   4. (d) two persons chosen by the Transkei Legislative Assembly;
   5. (e) two persons chosen by the Ciskei Territorial Authority;
   6. (f) one person chosen by Rhodes University; and
   7. (g) four persons chosen by the Committee of University Principals.

I should like to read the constitution of the university council as I see it. I regard this as the most important clause in the Bill. The whole Bill centres around it. With regard to my amendment, I am not tied to the exact numbers. The important point is the representation of these bodies. If hon. members on the other side or the hon. the Minister should wish to suggest other bodies, I would be favourably disposed towards them. I think it is possible to extend the council. It is the most important body and, therefore, that is worth considering. Hon. members have been discussing the question whether there could be such a thing as a ‘mixed council”, i.e. whether there should be representatives of the Transkeian Legislature—they might be White, which is most unlikely, of course—and of the Ciskei Territorial Authority. That being the case, I want to refer to the debate of 1959 and to the speech by the Minister responsible for the Fort Hare Bill on that occasion. The University College of Fort Hare had been in existence for 43 years then. This is what the hon. the Minister had to say about the council of those days. I am quoting from Hansard, volume 100, column 4449. He said:

The churches were represented because they had property and hostels there. This was the Minister’s comment on that council. He continued by saying—

The Minister ten years ago, when the university council was established, complained that on the old council there was no representation of the Transkeian authority, which is now the Legislature, and the Ciskeian authority. I am now trying to put that right. I am trying to provide for what the Minister had in mind then. Of course there will be no representation of the churches. I hope that hon. members, when they take part in this debare, will suggest other bodies, and that they will not accept the council the Minister is going to give us, this most important body in the university. We have discussed the council at the Second Reading. We have mentioned it on various occasions during the Committee State. This council will consist of—

1. (a) the rector of the university;
2. (b) not less—I suppose it should be “not fewer”—than eight persons appointed by the State President; and
3. (c) two members of the senate elected by the senate.

One can see the contrast. We should have a body representative of all. As I quoted yesterday evening, on the very best authority we had on that commission on separate universities, they were agreed on one matter, namely that one cannot make these universities a success unless the people for whom they are created are represented on the council. I have added quite modestly that there should be two from the Transkei Legislature, a very important body, which the Government has created. If the Government has created that body, surely the Government will give them representation on their own university. Secondly, there should be two representatives from the Ciskei territorial authority. I have not mentioned any other Bantu authority, because the hon. the Minister insists that it must be an ethnic university for the Xhosa. Therefore I have tried to frame my amendment for the creation of a council that will give these people what they deserve and which I think they would like to have. If hon. members have other suggestions to make to get away from what the Minister is providing, namely a straitjacket of which he will keep the key, I should welcome them.

Order! I am afraid I have to rule this amendment out of order, because it means an increase in expenditure. It purports to increase the number of members from 11 to 19. In terms of section 62 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act it is forbidden, unless the hon. member has obtained a special recommendation from the State President.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as the Bill now stands, it states that the Minister may appoint “not less” than eight representatives. He may, in fact, appoint 100.

He may only appoint eight.

Mr. Chairman, you are not prepared to reconsider your ruling?

No.

Then we must go ahead on the lines of the council as proposed by the Minister in the Bill, where he shall appoint not less than eight persons, or at least he shall nominate those whom the State President shall appoint. I think now is the time for me to make the point I was trying to make under the last clause. I am sure hon. members opposite, like us here, have the interests of the Xhosa people at heart. We have tried with our amendments to this Bill to give the Xhosa people some say in what, in the words of the Minister himself, will be their university. I think of a body—perhaps officials of the Minister’s Department will know this body—which calls itself ASSECA, which is the Association for the Educational and Cultural Advancement of the African people. I would have liked to have seen some such body as that at least being consulted with regard to the establishment of this council of this university for the Xhosa people. It is to be a Bantu university and not a South African university. I would certainly have liked to have seen that and I am extremely sorry, Sir, to have received your ruling that we cannot move …

Order! That matter has been disposed of.

I am merely expressing my regret. I want to go further and say that we hoped, and have tried with our amendments, to improve the position and I deprecate the move now by the hon. the Minister in constituting this council in this way, because I had hoped that we would be able to turn these university colleges into proper universities and change them from being simply Government institutions, unilaterally run by the Department and by the Government, into community colleges, colleges which would have served the interests, as the hon. the Minister put it when he discussed clause 2, of the Xhosa people, and colleges which would have gained the goodwill and the co-operation of the Xhosa people whose sons and daughters will be educated at that university. I deprecate the way in which the Minister has constituted this council. I am afraid I cannot accept a council for a Bantu university established in this way.

Order! That point has been made during the Second Reading.

I have finished. I shall vote against this clause.

The hon. the Minister took umbrage when he replied to the Second Reading at the remarks I made in referring to the university as a “creature” of the Minister. Well, if anything proves the point I was trying to make then about the university being a “creature” of the hon. the Minister, then it is surely this clause because the council of the university is the most important executive organ concerned with the running of the internal affairs of the university. Here we have a council with no independence whatever; 8 of the 11 members are appointed by the Minister whilst the two members appointed as representatives of the senate are themselves hardly independent because the senate itself is also appointed by the Minister. So, there is absolutely no freedom of action on the part of this council. Here are the methods by which the Minister can simply control the university. I wonder whether even by the wildest stretch of his imagination the Minister can talk of any form of autonomy for this university. Compared to any other university in the world, I am perfectly sure…. All right, I will give him Greece, but he still has not given us any other example.

I gave you many, but you were not here.

No, not one. The only one the Minister mentioned was Greece. I am talking about reputable universities and not about small State colleges which are dotted all over America and which are known in the States to be inferior colleges; they are not known as great institutions of learning. Their degrees are not recognized by the really big universities elsewhere in the world. If we are talking about turning this university college into a university which will have standing and status everywhere in the world, then this sort of clause is the sort of thing which I think nullifies any such attempt before we even start. Even the two members of the senate, as I say, are themselves not independent people. I want to ask the Minister why it is necessary to pay the members of the council. As far as I know, at any other university it is an honour to serve on the council. You do not pay members to serve on a university council. You pay their expenses because these universities, particularly Fort Hare, Turfloop and Ngoya, are located in fairly inaccessible places and it might be expensive for the members of the council to have to travel to meetings at the university. But other than paying their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses to attend meetings, I cannot see any justification for paying the members of the council. [Interjection.]

Where do you see it in the Bill?

Subsection (8) talks about allowances being paid. Does the Minister only envisage out-of-pocket and travelling expenses, or does he envisage a regular fee or salary being paid to these people? Because if that is what he envisages, I want to point out that at any other university serving on the council is an honour.

The only word descriptive of the suspicion which the hon. member for Houghton has raised at the end of her speech now is a word which is unparliamentary. I wish to say that the Bill refers to allowances. We have paid them allowances for travelling and hotel expenses, etc., during all the past years, and that will also be the case in future. There is nothing wrong in that and I do not know what suspicion the hon. member wishes to cast here.

*The hon. member for Houghton once again referred to the council, and because I had spoken here of Government officials serving on the council in Greece, she thought that was the only example I had given. She was probably asleep when I replied to the debate yesterday afternoon. I mentioned a whole number of universities abroad, all of which are larger than the white universities of South Africa and all of which have councils which have been appointed from A to Z, and I am not going to do this Committee the injustice of repeating all that only for the sake of the hon. member for Houghton. There are many examples of councils in the world, the members of which are appointed by governments to a larger extent than is the case as far as this council is concerned.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said he deprecated the constitution of this council. The pattern of the constitution of this council is more or less that which we have had all the time. If you look at the names of the people who are members of the councils—I furnished these names here a few days ago—you will see, Sir, that they are all eminent persons in the academic world and in the public life of South Africa. I do not know what reflection the hon. member wants to cast on those councils, but I think it is very undeserved. The councils which will exist under this Bill are ones which will be able to acquit themselves as efficiently of their task as the councils which existed in the past.

The hon. member for Kensington very piously referred to what my predecessor was supposed to have said in 1959 when he referred to the old council which existed at Fort Hare prior to the take-over of Fort Hare. He said the hon. the Minister had “complained”. I do not think that it is quite correct to call that objection of my predecessor a “complaint”, but just suppose it is, surely in that case the hon. member for Kensington has had the reply to my predecessor’s objection from my predecessor himself, because when he piloted that legislation through Parliament at that time, he did not repeat that pattern of the old council in that legislation. At that time he placed the pattern which we are now continuing on the Statute Book. In other words, it was not a “complaint”, but criticism he expressed in terms of the way of thinking of those people prior to 1959. But it was not a suggestion that we, according to our pattern of administration, should also set about this as they did at that time. We constituted the councils as provided in this Bill and, without that being required by the Act, we drew the necessary people from various bodies. I said this in my reply, and I am now going to repeat in brief that we have people on the council of Fort Hare who come from the Administration of the Transkei and from the Administration of the Ciskei. We also have people on the advisory council of Fort Hare who come from the Government of the Transkei and who come from the ranks of the government authorities of the Ciskei. We have the system of the council and the advisory council and we are making provision, not for representation in the narrow sense of the word, but for the presence of people who have contacts with those Bantu bodies. Since you, Sir, have ruled the amendment out of order, there is no need for me to discuss the matter of membership, except to point out that as far as the constitution of the councils is concerned, we are ensuring that a council will be constituted which will be representative on a wide level of interests and knowledge and experience so as to assist us. As I have said, the fact that the then Minister did not follow the old Fort Hare pattern itself in this Act, proves the invalidity of the request made by the hon. member for Kensington to-day.

I move the amendment standing in my name on page 233, as follows—

The effect of this amendment, if it is accepted—and I understand the Minister has intimated that he will accept this amendment—is that the council shall now have the power to elect its own chairman and that the chairman will not in fact be designated by the State President.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

I now wish to move this amendment. It is similar to the first one, but I hope the Minister will accept it—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the government and executive authority of the University shall be vested in the council, which shall consist of—
   1. (a) the rector;
   2. (b) two persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) one professor of the University chosen by the senate;
   4. (d) one person chosen by the Transkei Legislative Assembly;
   5. (e) one person chosen by the Ciskei Territorial Authority;
   6. (f) one person chosen by Rhodes University; and
   7. (g) one person chosen by the Committee of University Principals.

I think that falls within your boundary of eight members, Sir, so there will be no extra expenditure.

I will consider this amendment when the hon. member has finished.

I am very anxious in establishing this council to ensure that it is representative not only of the Minister’s nominees but also of other interests. I think in due course the Minister may be able to come forward with legislation here to extend this council, but at the present time I think this would be adequate. We would get the same number of members. We would have the eight that I have mentioned; we would have two from the senate and we would have a rector. That would give us ten members. I am making sure that it is going to be right so I have made it one less; I have made it ten. Sir, can there be any objection to nominations of that kind? Surely, hon. members are in favour of having all interests represented? The hon. the Minister tells us that he can tell the Transkei Legislature, “You can send people along to us to advise the council; you can give advice to the council”. Why not put them on the council? They were on the council for 43 years. Why should they not remain on the council? Sir, when I speak about the Ciskei I mean the Ciskei Territorial Authority. I think it would be in order for them to nominate a member from their body. I do not know whether the chairman would accept that.

You do not sound very confident.

Oh no, I have confidence but I am awaiting the outcome of the consultation at the Table first. May I continue, Sir? Well, I have made provision for the rector. I think the rector would be a member not only of the council but he should be chairman of the senate. I have also made provision for persons appointed by the State President, and I give him the largest share, which is two.

Two too many.

Then I have made provision for one professor of the university, chosen by the senate. I think that is reasonable seeing that we are restricted to this number; I should like to see it bigger but that cannot be done. Lastly, I have made provision for a person chosen by the Transkei Legislative Assembly. It seems good, plain sailing.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully want to suggest to you that after having already discussed clause 4 (c) and (d) and accepted it as it stands, and in view of the fact that it refers to the constitution of the university as consisting of a council and an advisory council, with the implication, which the Opposition accepted, that the Xhosa will be represented on the advisory council, it seems to me to be out of order if the hon. member were now to come forward with an amendment which wanted to include members of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly on the council of the Fort Hare University.

Are you giving a ruling or making a speech?

Order! I am in the Chair.

I am putting it to you, Sir, that this amendment is out of order in any case.

Order! It is not out of order on those grounds, but I may subsequently find that it is out of order on other grounds.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Kensington who said that the council is the most important body of the university, but the hon. member is definitely not achieving his purpose with this amendment he moved, Sir, here a council has to be constituted for an independent university. On that university council there will have to be people who have financial knowledge; there will have to be people with academic knowledge; there will have to be people with legal knowledge and there will have to be people who know in which direction this Government wants to go with these universities and who themselves want to move in that direction.

Oh!

Yes, of course. It will not help to have recalcitrants and liberalists there who want to introduce integration into this university and who want to break down what is being done here.

What is a liberalist?

Sir, here a council has to be constituted, and who is actually the person at this starting point who knows best what type of person will best be able to serve this university on that council? Hon. members on the opposite side are making one very big mistake, and that is that they think that people whom the hon. the Minister or the State President appoint to that council will have no independence and that they are there to further the interests of this Party or the Minister. Surely this is an insult to a man of the status and integrity of someone who is appointed to a university council. Once he has been appointed there he will serve the interests of that university in accordance with his convictions and he is not there to serve other interests. That is why it is in the interests of this university that the Minister, who has the deepest insight here at the commencement of this new university into the needs of that university, should make the appointment. But, Mr. Chairman, I come now to a very important point which the hon. member for Kensington made, namely that the Legislative Council of the Transkei and the Ciskei should select representatives to serve on the university council. This would be a very dangerous thing to do.

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member why. I am sitting on a university council and I have had experience of the matters which are discussed there. What it amounts to is simply that this council would then of necessity have to adopt resolutions which would clash with the policy of the Government. Sir, the members appointed by the State President are not representatives of this Government or of anybody else; they are appointed by the State President and they form their own opinions there. But if the Transkeian Legislative Assembly had a representative on the university council then he would have to carry out the will of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, and if he had to do that he would simply find himself in a position where he would not know how to decide. He is serving on a council where his convictions might cause him to say, “I must concur with the council in such and such a resolution, but if I do so then I know that I will come into conflict with the Government which I represent here, and that I cannot do.” One cannot have a representative of a government, whether central or provincial, on a university council, because there are conflicting interests and that man will consequently not be able to serve the interests of the university in the first instance. [Interjections.] It cannot be done. But the voice of those people is in fact being heard. Their voice is being heard in the advisory council. They are not sitting there as representatives of the Government, but they are in fact, as the hon. Minister said, of that Government and they can voice the opinion and the line of thought of that Government in the advisory council and through the advisory council to the council and the authorities.

There must be no opposition.

The constitution which the hon. member suggested here is a total impossibility. Why Rhodes University for example? It simply does not work out if the representative of one university has a seat in the council of another university as a representative of that university. If he is nominated by the State President to serve on that council, then he puts the interests of that university first, but if he sits on that council as a representative of Rhodes University then he feels that he must serve the interests of Rhodes University, and then he cannot serve the interests of the university council on which he is sitting.

Mr. Chairman, I really want to sympathize with the hon. member for Kensington. This amendment of his is really something that was cooked up. He had very little time in which to draft it. After you, Sir, ruled his amendment out of order, he quickly cooked up this amendment, and before the water had boiled, he made the coffee, and now we have this kind of brew which he has set forth here. Sir, I have quite a good deal of criticism to express against this motion by the hon. member. In the first instance he is now limiting me to eight persons for that council.

That is the Chairman’s ruling.

The hon. member is now misinterpreting the Chairman’s ruling. They are interpreting the Chairman’s words incorrectly.

I am interested in what the Chairman said.

The hon. member does not want to give me a chance to speak; it seems to me he should go back to finishing school. Sir, the amendment now restricts me to a small council with which one can do very little. These people are important people and one must after all assume that they will not be able to attend all the meetings. That is my first point of criticism. The hon. member for Kensington must listen now. He is doing what naughty schoolboys do at the back of the class; they fool around with the girls there instead of listening to the school master.

It is certainly more interesting.

My second point of criticism is this: The hon. member is now giving me a council which is possibly going to be split into two groups of four. I shall tell you what I mean when I say that it is possibly going to be split into two groups of four. There are four persons in that council who normally, because they are appointed by me, will understand how the Minister and how the Department sees things, but then there would now be four persons who are external appointments; let us assume they are, according to the hon. member’s proposal, representatives of the Transkei, the Ciskei, Rhodes and the Committee of University Principals. These are external persons. In other words, the situation may arise that these people are equally divided. We will then have to make provision in the statutes for a deciding vote, and the deciding vote will naturally have to be given to the chairman. The chairman may perhaps be one of the four external persons, and then the council would not be adopting resolutions according to policy.

In other words, you are tying them down.

How do you know that?

The hon. member is asking me the most stupid questions imaginable, i.e. how do I know that? I am mentioning this as an example of a possible development. It may happen.

But you want to tie them down.

I do not want to tie any council down or restrict them to certain things, but I maintain that one must have people on the council who know what the pattern of administration for these universities for the Bantu is according to law. No, Sir, I think it is a stupid and rash motion. But I still want to level even further criticism at it.

That is not as bad as the Bill.

You say that it is not as bad, but you do admit that it is bad.

*I want to congratulate the hon. member on that.

Now the hon. member is saying that I should appoint one person from Rhodes University. Why should I do that?

There is an old tradition shared by Rhodes and Fort Hare, which goes back 43 years.

“The old school tie”. But there are also other universities with traditions. Why should we only draw on one source of tradition? If the name of one university has to be mentioned here, other universities which are larger and older than Rhodes can ask me why their names are not included in the Bill as well.

You do not understand very well.

No, I understand only too well. I understand a great deal more than I shall admit to understanding. That is the point. Now the hon. member is saying that the fourth member should be a person elected by the Committee of University Principals. Why should it be them? Normally the Committee of University Principals has nothing to do with Bantu universities. The rectors of the Bantu universities, as we heard yesterday, are not members of that committee. The principals of the Bantu universities have their own co-ordinating committee, which they can establish. Why should we now have such a person appointed? But Sir, what do we learn in practice? We learn in practice that those people who are principals of our White universities are persons whom we try to include as much as possible in those councils. They are appointed on the grounds of their academic merit, and not as a result of the fact that they are appointed by a body. As soon as one accepts the principle that you have to request certain bodies to appoint representatives, there would be many bodies which would then ask: “Why not us”? Perhaps the Public Bodies Association of the Eastern Cape will also ask: “Why not us?” What must I then tell them? No, we must cook up these things more thoroughly. What the hon. member is proposing, is coffee made with lukewarm water.

Let us consider something else. Let us now for example consider the existing council of Fort Hare. The other day I mentioned the names of the members serving on it. At present the council consists of fourteen persons. Of those fourteen persons seven are professors of other universities in South Africa. Two of them are rectors of other universities in South Africa. They are serving on the council. There are seven professors together with the two professors of Fort Hare itself, who came from their senate, and who are serving on the council. I think that the council of Fort Hare, as it exists at present, with its fine academic character acquired as a result of the qualifications of the persons serving on it, is a much better council than it would be if the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington is accepted. That is why I say that it would be an extremely ill-advised, retrogressive step which the hon. member for Kensington suggested.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister does not seem to understand the meaning of representation. He is comparing my proposal that certain people should be nominated by these bodies with his proposal of a nominated number. But in terms of the Minister’s proposal they all represent him. That is the point. We do not wish to have a council that is nominated by the Minister. As I have already said, we want to give them the semblance of a university, some idea of the beginning of autonomy. In terms of the Minister’s proposal, there is not even the beginning of autonomy.

What does the hon. the Minister say about Rhodes? For over 40 years Rhodes College, as it was then, and Fort Hare were very closely associated.

We have a representative from Rhodes there, but he serves in his own capacity.

Rhodes and Fort Hare were very closely associated and, therefore, it is obvious that this liaison should be preserved. Rhodes and Fort Hare are not far from each other.

For what reason?

Are you not a great believer in tradition?

The hon. member does not seem to know about the association between Rhodes and Fort Hare? What the hon. the Minister wants to do is to keep on nominating his friends. I want them to be representative of these bodies. What is the hon. the Minister’s objection to the Committee of Principals? I suppose the Committee of University Principals is the highest intellectual body in South Africa.

They know a lot more about university matters than the Minister, do they not?

These people are in a different category. I am speaking of the professional men of our universities. I am asking that the Committee of Principals, for which provision is made in the 1955 Act, should nominate one person. If they nominate a man, I shall have complete confidence in him. I shall have more confidence in him than in the nominees of the Minister. I have no objection to the Minister making nominations. He should, however, not be the only person to nominate. These nominees should be representative of other bodies as well. That is my point. An hon. member on the other side spoke about the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei, and he said that if they nominated a man, it would be to promote their interests. That is not necessarily so. I am simply asking that they should have the authority to nominate a man, not a man to represent them only, but a man who will serve on this council in whom they can have confidence. If they nominate one of their own people, so much the better. That is what I should like them to do. They might not do that, but they should have the option. I am sorry that we cannot have a body of between 15 and 20 men, which would be a well-balanced body. Had the hon. the Minister acceded to our request to refer this matter to a select committee, we could have helped him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoa performed here somewhat earlier, but I think the crux of what he said was that it would be extremely dangerous to give such bodies as the Transkeian Legislative Assembly or the Ciskei Territorial Authority representation on the council.

When did I say that it would be dangerous?

I am talking about the hon. member for Algoa, not the Minister. The hon. member for Algoa said that it would be dangerous to allow representatives of such bodies to serve on the council. It was quite obvious that the crux of what the hon. member said was that he did not want to see any contrary voices on the council. All he wanted to see there were “jabroers”, those who would follow the policy of the Government of the day. This has also become apparent from what the hon. the Minister said. When he criticized the constitution of the council, as proposed by the hon. member for Kensington, he said that it could happen that there would be four pro-Government members and four doubtfuls. He said that the four doubtfuls could be those nominated by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, the Ciskei Territorial Authority, by Rhodes University and by the Committee of Principals. He went on to say that it could happen that decisions could be taken which would be against Government policy. This could happen because one of the eight members would have to be appointed chairman. This chairman could be one of the doubtfuls. He would have to have a casting vote to decide matters. Decisions could, therefore, be taken which were against Government policy. This is the crux of the whole matter. This is the reason for the constitution of the council as it appears in the Bill.

Order! The hon. member made all those points in the first of his three speeches on this clause.

I did not say so, Sir.

In effect the hon. member said the same things.

Not on this clause, Sir. I might have said it in connection with other clauses, but not this one.

Our intention in moving this amendment is that we want an unfettered opinion expressed in this council and that we want a good cross section of the opinions of people who are particularly concerned. The hon. the Minister ended by saying that he was happy with the constitution of the council as it stands to-day and that this is what he would like to see. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really has so little faith in these bodies, namely the Transkeian Legislative Assembly and the Ciskeian Territorial Authority, that he thinks they will not appoint as responsible people as we have on the council to-day? How does he know that they will not perhaps appoint the very people that are in the council to-day? The hon. member for Cradock is a member of that council. Does the hon. the Minister have such little faith in the support of this Government by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, that he thinks they will not appoint somebody who is pro-Government? Does he think that the Transkeian Government will appoint somebody who is anti-Government? Are all the claims that we have heard of the Transkeian Government supporting apartheid figments of somebody’s imagination? Does the hon. the Minister not accept this? In conclusion I want to say that as far as the hon. the Minister’s reference to the fact that the Committee of University Principals is not mentioned or has no function in regard to this university, I would like to refer him to clause 43 (3). The Committee of University Principals does have a function in regard to this university and I support the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what people he has in mind to appoint to this council. Does he propose to appoint the same people that he appointed before or does he propose to appoint people of a different variety, of different interests and from different institutions? Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether you are in a position to give a ruling as to whether the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington is in order.

Yes, I am allowing the second amendment.

I think the hon. the Minister must appreciate that this university must be built up, as we all hope it will be. into an institution which will be independent in the real proper sense of that term as far as universities are concerned. I hope that he rejects what the hon. member for Mayfair said, namely that this university will never be independent until such time as the Transkei or the Ciskei or both become independent; otherwise we are wasting our time talking about it. At the moment the members of the council of the University College of Fort Hare are the following—

They all have something in common. These names are, as it were, eiusdem generis. I honestly want to ask the hon. the Minister if the next council will also only consist of Afrikaans-speaking people? Is he going to tell me that he cannot find English-speaking people to sit on that council? I say this very seriously, because we have had an example of this to-day when the hon. the Minister of Labour admitted that he was in fact contravening the provisions of our Constitution so far as language was concerned. When one looks

Col. 2810:

After line 55, insert “Clause 9:”.

at the answer to question 25 to-day one will see that the hon. the Minister of Labour admits he is contravening the provisions of our Constitution so far as the use of English and Afrikaans is concerned. He is prepared to admit it here in this House and he did admit it. Now we have something like this and I seriously ask the hon. the Minister, seeing that we see this sort of thing happening, whether in fact he will give some sort of undertaking to restore a balance of sorts, whether it be a balance of 60 to 40 as the hon. the Minister of Labour has got, although his actions are ultra vires. But is this hon. Minister prepared to change the position? This is not just a figment of my imagination, because when one goes to the University College of Zululand and looks at the members of their council one sees that the names are the following—

Is this going to be the pattern? I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to us what his attitude is going to be in appointing this council.

Mr. Chairman, the question put by the hon. member for Durban (North) is quite a fair one, except for the objectionable insinuations it contains. It surprises me that a member of a party which dismissed a deputy mayor a few weeks ago for not being able to speak Afrikaans, now objects to Afrikaners serving on a council. The reply to the question put by the hon. member is that I am not bound by those names or by any specifications regarding a balance between Afrikaans and English speaking persons. The people we shall approach to serve on those councils will be people who are competent in terms of the various requirements which are laid down and who are either Afrikaans or English speaking.

Amendment proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided.

During division:

Order! Hon. members must please face the Chair.

Result of division:

Ayes—94. Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster,

L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—28: Basson, J. A. L.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst, A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

I do not intend to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I merely wish to indicate that in view of the remarks which have been made on this side of the House in which we have indicated our disfavour of the suggestion that there should be an advisory council, it is the intention to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, …

I am not going to allow any discussion on the clause. This is a clause containing a principle. If the hon. member wants to deal with a principle, I must point out it has been done by the previous speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the principle in clause 9.

The principle involved in the clause has in effect been approved by the Committee approving clause 4.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. I wish to move—

To those members who have their Bills before them the effect of this amendment will be quite obvious. To those who do not have their Bills before them, the effect of this amendment will be the same as that accepted by the hon. the Minister in the previous clause, where he accepted an amendment that the council shall elect one of its members as chairman. What I am asking for is for the hon. the Minister to accept that the members of the advisory council are responsible people. He must accept that they are responsible enough to be given the opportunity of electing their own chairman. I have with me a list of the present members of the advisory council of the University College of Fort Hare. The few names which I do know are those of very responsible people.

Cut it short, I shall say “yes”!

Thank you, I accept the undertaking by the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, can I pray a little indulgence from the hon. the Minister? [Interjections.]

Order!

Was it really necessary to include subsection (5) which says that a member of the advisory council shall vacate his office under certain conditions? As I have said, we accept these people as being responsible people. I am sure the hon. the Minister will accept that, but was it really necessary to put this in, considering the fact that these are responsible people? I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comments on this question.

Mr. Chairman I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member, because it really follows on the other amendment which I have accepted in the other clause. In regard to subsection (5), which was incorporated in the regulations up to now, I fear I cannot change the position as proposed here.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

I think my amendment improves the clause. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) says “such professors and senior lecturers of the University as the council may from time to time designate for the purpose.” I do not think we should accept that; I do not think the council should say who will sit in the senate. I think professional men in the senate are very jealous of their privileges and their dignity, and I think my proposal is a much better one. All the professors will sit in the senate in terms of my amendment. As regard the lecturers, I have no objection to the council saying which of the lecturers should be there, but the professors should sit there. Every other university makes that provision.

Mr. Chairman, I fear I cannot accept the moving of the word “such” to where the hon. member would like to see it. I want to say clearly that if we accept his amendment it will imply that professors who should be members of the advisory senate will become members of the general senate, and, as we all know, that is against the spirit of this Bill, which we have already accepted also in the Committee Stage now.

Mr. Chairman, every professional witness and every academic person said that if a man is a professor he should sit in the senate. It does not matter what his colour is. I think it is a shocking thing to say to a professor at a university, “You may not sit in the senate, but a lecturer can be sent there.” That is the position; he can be sent there by the council. I cannot understand how professional men stand for such an indignity.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just said that to accept the idea of a senate which is composed presumably of White members and non-White members is against the spirit of this Bill. It may be against the spirit of the Bill but it certainly is not against the wording of the Bill. There is no mention of race at all in this Bill Perhaps it is one of its saving graces that in the dim and distant future when we may have a reasonable government at the helm—and I doubt whether I shall live to see that happy day—then the very fact that there is no mention of race in this Bill may make it possible to have a senate which has among its numbers, and in fact probably is entirely composed of, as it should be, African members. Any normal university has a senate which after all is responsible for all the interna of university education, the setting out of courses, the syllabuses; everything is decided by the senate. It is the most important body concerned with actual academic functions. It consists of every professor or, if the head of the department is not a professor, then the head of the department. Also lecturers, of course, have representation on that senate. But this clause does not allow anything of that nature. I for the life of me do not see how the Minister can reconcile the type of senate that exists at other universities in South Africa with what is proposed here in clause 10. We keep on talking about creating a South African “pattern” of university. Does the Minister never conceive the possibility of an African professor at Fort Hare ever having sufficient experience or knowledge or talent to sit on the senate of the University of Fort Hare? Is the senate, the governing body that concerns itself with all the important academic details of university life forever to consist of members of the White race only? It that the spirit in which the Minister is construing this Bill? I must vote against this clause. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington will certainly improve it, but if this is the spirit of this clause then I must say nothing in the world can make it acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot share the pessimism of the hon. member for Houghton with regard to a change of government and a better government soon, and I am sure there are other hon. members who agree with me that that day is not so far off. I just want to put one question to the hon. the Minister. He referred to professors who should be members of the advisory senate. Could he explain to which professors he referred and how he will divide his professors up into those who should be members of the senate and those who should be members of the advisory senate?

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause Eleven put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the staff of the university and it provides what the establishment shall be. This clause is very fine; the first part of it is most acceptable, but like so many other things connected with this hon. the Minister and this Government it flatters but to deceive, because we find that in the tail it has a sting.

A stink?

No, not a stink, a sting—with a “g” at the end.

Why must you be so explicit?

Because some hon. member here asked whether I had said “stink”. I do not normally use that type of word, especially not in this House. I am talking about the proviso to clause 14 (2), which reads as follows—

This proviso is absolutely and completely abhorrent to us on this side. There is also the question about the establishment. Subsection (1) of the clause at the moment reads: “The establishment at the University shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the Council.” We have gone through this matter of the council and the Minister is having his way. He now appoints his council, all the members will be pro his policy, he will have control of that council in that he will determine who will be appointed by the council. For that reason I move the following amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for Durban (North)—

1. (1) The establishment at the University shall be determined by the council after consultation with the Minister.
2. ; and to omit the proviso to subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. I think the hon. member is the one person who ought to have known after our discussion here this afternoon what attitude I adopt in regard to the deletion of subsection (1). The retention of those words is in complete agreement with all the other provisions we have already decided to retain here this afternoon. If these words were to be deleted, that would not in any way be in keeping with the role which the Minister is to play at this university. As far as the deletion of the proviso to subsection (2) is concerned, I just want to say the following. Even though the hon. member now calls it abhorrent I want to say that the provision must be retained for the very reason that it is not abhorrent. This provision is the one guarantee which the Minister has that he will be in a position to act as he must be able to do. He must be in a position to see to it that, where possible, Bantu professors and Bantu lecturers, or other members of the staff, will be appointed at the university. This provision is really in the interests of the Bantu, the people for whom so many pious pleas were delivered here this afternoon. I regret that I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, before reacting further to the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder if he would indicate to this Committee which posts he has in mind.

None.

The wording of this provision is peculiar. It deals only with administrative staff “in such posts as the Minister may determine.” Only in those posts must his approval be obtained. Perhaps it would assist the Committee in considering this Bill if he gave us some indication which posts he contemplates he will control.

Mr. Chairman, I have already given the reply to this question. I do not specify a number of posts and I do not intend doing what the hon. member for Houghton pretended was my intention, namely to say that a history post or a sociological post is one which I have to decide on. If a post is advertised and Bantu persons qualify for that post, I can then say to the council, if it does not want to appoint one of the Bantu applicants, that I think the Bantu applicant should be considered. It is an open authority which I shall have and I do not want to specify posts in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, we come back to that same argument: The hon. the Minister appoints the council, the council are his own nominees; he appoints eight and the rector is also appointed by him. Having done that, surely he has some confidence in his own nominees, his own appointments? We say the establishment of the university shall be determined by the council after consultation with the Minister. Then the Minister can simply say, “Well, if you are going to add these extra posts I can ensure that we are not prepared to finance them,” because the finance will come through subsidies from the Government. Surely the Minister has all the control he requires? Why not accept the amendment?

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Business interrupted to report progress. House Resumed;

Progress reported.