Mr. Speaker, I move—

As the Preacher of old said, to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. For this House the time has now come to review, in the light of expert advice obtained by the Government, the basic structure of our tax system. The principal theme of this budget will accordingly be tax reform—reform that naturally becomes necessary from time to time as economic conditions and the needs of the State change.

Although I shall, as usual, begin my Budget speech with a review of the national economy, this review will be shorter than usual in order to give me the opportunity of setting forth the proposed tax changes comprehensively before the House. More complete information is however available in the White Paper that I shall lay before the House.

Mr. Speaker, this year there has been more speculation, I think, than for a very long time about what the hon. the Minister was going to say to-day when he introduced his Budget. Well, after having listened to him one feels that this speculation was quite justified, because he has introduced what is in many ways really a revolutionary budget. He has proposed a completely new system in respect of the major source of our national income. In the last paragraph of his speech he said that he hoped he had by this Budget brought about a more equitable distribution of the burden the taxpayer has to bear for the government of this country. Well, it is not yet quite clear whether his proposals constitute in fact a more equitable distribution of that burden. For us to be able to judge on that we shall have to have time to study his proposals in further detail.

As I have said at the beginning, there has been more speculation about this Budget than there was for a long time. Many hopes and fears have been expressed in many quarters and now, after having heard the Minister’s proposals, the taxpayer knows where he stands, i.e. whether he is worse or better off, depending on what he expected. Of course, those who will benefit by his proposals are no doubt happy, whilst those who found that their fears were ungrounded in that they have been spared to pay another day, would probably be even more pleased than those who have benefited.

On the face of it this would appear to be a rich man’s budget. I say this subject to a more close examination of the Minister’s proposals. I have no doubt that the Minister will be flooded by hearty thanks from his supporters on that side of the House. If possible, I should like to get in first, because I should like to thank the Minister for having, at least to some extent and in certain respects, taken the advice of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister agrees with the view expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when he said in the House of Commons one day that he was not one of those who refused to do the right thing because it was the devil who prompted him. Of course, we on this side of the House are, not personally I hope but certainly politically, anathema to the hon. the Minister. However, I can only say that if he follows the advice of this side of the House more often and to a greater degree he may yet turn out to be a good and sound Minister of Finance. I am sorry I cannot offhand think of a text to strengthen my argument, but he must remember that his time is not unlimited and, consequently, he must not hesitate too long in following the advice which we shall give him in the course of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister’s proposals on this occasion, more than on any other occasion, need very careful study. It is clear that these proposals constitute a very serious attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister to improve and streamline our system of taxation, and we are glad we shall have an opportunity to make a full study of these proposals before expressing any further views. In the circumstances, I should like, with the Minister’s approval, to move—

Agreed to.

Virtually every speaker on this Bill on the Government side has related it to the political policy of separate development, and it is specifically this exaggerated emphasis on the promotion of a political policy which is responsible for the many weaknesses and deficiencies in the Bill. We on this side of the House view the matter from another angle in that we believe that the emphasis here should fall on the interests of the population group concerned. There is nothing wrong with the principle, as we find it here, that a university be established to meet the special needs of a specific population group. However, something of this nature need not be part of a specific political policy. When the legislation for the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University was discussed here two years ago, legislation which we supported, the aim with the establishment of that university was to meet the special needs and desires of the Afrikaans-speaking population of the Witwatersrand. This was done without there being or having been a general doctrinaire policy of separate development in respect of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people in South Africa, and we fully supported that step. In that case, where a university was established to meet the special needs of a particular population group, the point of departure was not a political policy; the point of departure was the best interests of the particular group of people to be served in that particular case. This Bill is concerned with the promotion of the education and the interests of the Coloured community, not with a political doctrine. If the hon. the Minister had seen this matter in this light, I do not think that he would have hesitated for a moment in referring the Bill to a Select Committee for improvement. Mr. Speaker, no one on this side is opposed to progress for the Coloureds in the field of education. On the contrary, it is an objective which deserves encouragement and which we should like to encourage, but we should like to see it done and carried out in the best possible way. However, I must say that after having listened to the debate I am convinced that there is much room for improvement, and this can only be done if time is granted for further consideration and if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee so that evidence can be obtained from the people whom this Bill seeks to serve.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this second reading debate on the Bill, and I therefore do not want to cover the same terrain as has already been covered to great effect by previous speakers on this side. I am merely getting up to refer briefly to two specific matters. The first is the question of a select committee. I must say to the hon. the Minister that I can never understand why this Government is so reluctant to refer a Bill to a select committee for improvement. In many of the best democratic countries all Bills are at some or other stage referred to a parliamentary study committee, which has to hear evidence before the legislation is accepted and passed by their Parliament. I can immediately think of countries such as the United States of America, Belgium, West Germany and many others which may be mentioned. To tell the truth, there are extremely few democratic countries which do not have a comprehensive system of parliamentary committees to which Bills have to be referred in good time so that evidence may be obtained about the wishes of the people whose interests are affected by those Bills. I think that this is how things ought to be in a parliamentary democracy. I believe that, in respect of each important Bill, members of the House of Assembly ought not merely to have the Bill before them, but in addition they ought also to have before them the public evidence of people who are affected and of both those giving evidence for and against it. But what is our procedure? Take this particular Bill. The first step is that the Minister prepares it, in secret as it were, in collaboration with his officials; the second step is that it is submitted here to Parliament, as a surprise, as it were. The third step is that, while there is, in fact, consultation with the Opposition about the time to be allowed for studying the Bill, the Government in the last resort has the power to decide how much time it will afford the Opposition to study the Bill and its consequences. In the last instance the Government also has the power to use its majority to prevent the Bill from being referred to a parliamentary committee for evidence to be obtained and for further consideration. In this case the Government is preventing this Bill from going to a select committee in spite of the fact that the Coloured representatives, elected directly by the Coloured community to represent their interests here, are in favour of a select committee; in spite of the fact that the whole of the Opposition, both the Official Opposition and the smaller Opposition, wants a select committee. I do not believe that this is a satisfactory situation in a democratic system such as ours. A Bill such as this ought, by its very nature, to be referred almost automatically to a parliamentary study committee. In addition to the fact that the nature of the Bill is such that it ought to go to a study committee, we have the fact that the chosen representatives of the Coloureds and the entire Opposition request it, and I must say that if in such circumstances the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to referring the Bill to a study committee, I wonder whether the time has not come for the entire unsatisfactory process of legislation, as we have it, to be revised.

The second reason why I got up is to express my disappointment at what I consider to have been an unfortunate remark which the hon. the Minister made by way of interjection. He will remember that when the hon. member for Kensington asked him if he would not abandon the system of a council plus an advisory council and a senate plus an advisory senate, he replied, “We are not an integration party”. Well, no one would have minded if the hon. the Minister had given or had tried to give an intelligent explanation of why he considered it necessary to retain this system of a council and an advisory council and a senate and an advisory senate, but his reply was without reason. Temperament, not reason, gave rise to the utterance, and I fear that in the process he cast a reflection upon the spirit and the attitude in which the Coloured is helped here by the Whites and by the Government. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are here dealing with a Coloured university. We are here dealing with a university for the Coloured community, not a mixed institution. The Whites who go there as lecturers or as people wanting to assist with the administration of the university, those who are prepared to go, know exactly where they are going, what the working conditions at the university are, who the people are with whom they must work and what the tasks and contacts are which they have there. They know that they are going to find themselves in a Coloured environment where the interests of the Coloureds are going to be dominant. They must teach Coloureds there. Everywhere, in the classroom and on the campus, there is contact between white and coloured and there must be co-operation with the Coloured. I am also certain that the lecturers at that university and the people concerned with the administration have no objection to that, otherwise they would never have gone there; and I want to say that anyone who does in fact have an objection, ought not to be appointed there at all, or ought not to go to such a university. I certainly do not know of a single member of either the existing council or the existing senate who objects to sitting in consultation with Coloureds on the same council, and I repeat that if they had any objection they would be totally unfit for the posts and ought never to have obtained them. The hon. the Minister came along here with his utterance about integration, and I hope that in his reply he will explain to us what he meant by it, but I want to ask him this specifically: If a white lecturer personally helps a Coloured student in his studies, is it integration? If they associate with each other in the way in which there ought to be a good personal relationship between the lecturer and the student at every university, is it integration? I would be glad if the Minister would reply to that. Is mutual consultation between all who are concerned in the interests of the university, integration? I want to say that if that is integration, then the hon. the Minister’s Party is already an integration party. But if it is not integration, why is it suddenly integration if there are a single council and a single senate, which are, after all, merely a continuation of the contact and the consultation which take place on the campus all day long, and must inevitably take place, between the Coloureds whose university it is and the Whites who are helping to develop that university? I say that it is very unfortunate that the Minister has dragged the concept of integration into the matter. This is a Coloured university. The Whites go there as helpers; as people with a mission, almost as missionaries, and I do not think that it befits a White, in going to a Coloured university to help the Coloureds there, to carry with him an attitude of white superiority. I know that the rector is not asking for this double system, neither are the lecturers. I cannot think that there is a single person who can be satisfied with it. We therefore have to accept that it is a provision which does not emanate from there but which is being applied from the top by the Government. I would perhaps be prepared to concede that, in the first days of the university college, when this new university, as it is now going to become, was in its initial stages of development, the Government had to feel its way ahead and that in various respects it had to set to work empirically. But ten years have now passed, and while one is glad that matters have developed to the extent that the Coloureds can to get a full-fledged university, it was a disappointment to see the details and to see that it was necessary for the Minister to retain this provision in the Bill. Can one imagine a more anomalous position: Here one has a university for the Coloureds and there is not a single Coloured either on the council or on the senate; and in terms of the Government’s plans, it does not appear to me as if the position will be changed or improved soon either. I am sorry to say so, but I think that it is a humiliating position for the Coloureds, because it boils down to the fact that, by Government decision, the Whites must take their attitude of superiority with them to a Coloured university, and I do not think that that is the best way to help these people. There is no logic in the matter, because everywhere on the campus there must be association, lecturer and student must help each other, but only on the council and the senate is this not to be the case. On this level the Coloured is told: “The fact that I am white and that you are coloured precludes me from consulting with you.” I say that it is an insult to the Coloureds and certainly a reflection on the attitude of the Whites who are to render assistance. If one uplifts the Coloured in the material field with one hand, but pushes him down with the other hand because one does not want to recognize his worthiness as a human being, one is not really helping and the effect of this will undoubtedly extend much further than South Africa alone. The fact that one has a Coloured university here without a single Coloured person on its council or senate, to such an extent that even a learned academic such as Adam Small is not allowed to sit on the senate of his own Coloured university, because he is a Coloured person, will elicit unfavourable comment from every quarter. My goodness, Sir, this is an academic burlesque, a farcical situation which should not be allowed to continue, and which is already sufficient reason why the Minister should give serious consideration to referring the Bill to a select committee, to see whether it cannot be improved in the interests of the Coloured people.

The introduction of these so-called University Bills, of course, was not entirely unexpected, because as far back as April, 1968, the hon. the Prime Minister made a Press statement to the effect that each of these five non-white university colleges, at an opportune moment, would be what he described as “released”—I ask the hon. the Minister to mark the word “released”—from association with the University of South Africa. This apparently was his and the Nationalist Party’s idea of improving their status. In any event, the Prime Minister in his announcement said that this so-called release from the University of South Africa would be subject to certain defined conditions and that each college would provide for its syllabuses, the training of students, examinations and the awarding of diplomas and degrees. Then he went on to say that for the purpose of maintaining academic standards, co-opted members from other university institutions would be included in the senate and faculty boards of each college. That is referred to in clause 10 of this Bill. He then went on to say that use would be made of external examiners, which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech as well, and that these institutions would then be known formally as universities. The legislation was not unexpected and we were forewarned. Well, here they are, all five of these Bills, and to-day we are dealing with the fourth one relating to the University for the Coloured group, and there is only the university for the Indian group still to be dealt with.

It was interesting—and I want to give the Minister full marks for the admission he made in his Second Reading speech—to note that he said that the prototype, the model, on which this legislation was based in the case of all five of these colleges, and this one in particular. was the Fort Hare Transfer Act of 1959 which, just a decade ago, divorced that instituition from its former academic link with Rhodes University and linked it with Unisa. Now not even that tenuous link is to be retained and the present Bill, as far as we are concerned, represents yet another step towards academic isolation for all practical purposes for the people concerned.

No, that is not correct.

Oh yes, it is quite correct. Do not bluff yourself to the contrary. Here we are dealing with the Coloured people. What do our friends on the Government benches mean when they speak of Coloured education? I want to quote here from the report of the Coloured Education Commission which was appointed by the Cape Provincial Administration and sat between 1953 and 1956 under the chairmanship of the late Professor M. C. Botha. Of course he was no relation of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development; he was far too enlightened for that, but it was a Nationalist commission, appointed by the Nationalists. Professor Botha, who was chairman of this commission, was formerly Secretary for Education for the Union, and this is what he had to say on behalf of this commission in the introductory chapter of its report. I quote paragraph 6—

I emphasize that point, because it seems to me to make it quite clear that the Government at that stage was thinking along slightly different lines from its thinking to-day. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, education for everyone means “education” or the word means nothing at all, and there is no difference at all between the education for any particular racial group.

In this present Bill we find repeated, as in all the others, a pattern of almost total ministerial control, and I do think that on this basis it will not be a university, no matter what pretty name this Government may like to give it. The hon. the Minister made a great point about the maintenance of academic standards and we were very glad to hear this. This is referred to in clause 10 (2) (a) particularly. Now, how does he propose to maintain these academic standards? First of all, by a link with institutions, as we have been told by this Minister, unlike the other Minister before him, who said that the link was to be through co-opted individuals. I think we must get this quite clear. That is what the Minister of Bantu Education had to say in regard to his Bill, although the texts are identical. Now this hon. Minister in his second-reading speech said—

What is wrong with that?

No, I am very glad that the hon. the Minister referred to “enige van die bestaande universiteite”. This is the beginning of my point. Now the clause makes provision specifically for one or more professors in corresponding faculties from other institutions to be appointed to the senate. But if one examines the list of names contained in the present senate of the University College of the Western Cape, as supplied to me by the Minister on 7th March: one finds first of all that all the members of the senate are at present serving on the staff. That is entirely as it should be and we have no quarrel with that.

But other members from elsewhere may now also be appointed, and let me make it quite clear that we are very much concerned on this side of the House to see that when this happens, those persons so co-opted represent a fair cross-section of the academic institutions in the Republic, and that they are individuals from various quarters, and not just from one specific quarter, who are accustomed to working with the Coloured people. We will move to that effect in the Committee Stage. Nonetheless, no matter what the brilliance or the integrity of the co-opted individual may be, the only adequate and proper academic link between one university and another is by means of the Committee of Principals in terms of the Universities Act, in the first place, and between one institution and another institution in the second place.

Now let us take a look at the present council of the College. The hon. the Minister told us in his second-reading speech that the first chairman of the University College Council was Professor Thom—he has just been replaced—the Rector of the University of Stellenbosch. The list of names on the council, with one exception, all reflect Afrikaans-speaking people.

What is wrong with that?

What about the 60:40 ratio?

Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to develop my point. The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Stellenbosch, Professor Du Toit van Zyl, has just been appointed by the Minister as the new chairman of the council. Now I want to know whether the Minister does not find this a little odd in view of the fact that no Coloured medical student was ever acceptable to Stellenbosch University, nor to its medical school at any time in its history, unlike Cape Town University, which gave them all the academic support it could. The Minister knows that after the Extension of University Education Act was passed in 1959—and what an inglorious piece of self-deception by the Nationalist Government that was!—the Minister granted a special dispensation for Coloured students to attend the so-called open universities, particularly in those faculties which were not available to them in these colleges at the time. Only the English language universities opened their doors to such students, and I would like to know what this Government would have done if those universities had refused to do so. Just how many trained Coloured graduates would we have had in the country over the last nine years if the open universities had done what the Afrikaans universities have done and refused to accept them under any circumstances?

Now what do we find in terms of the figures? Nine years after the passing of the Extension of University Education Act in 1959, in 1968, the enrollment at the open universities, that is Cape Town, Natal, Wits and Unisa, which is through correspondence, amounted to 992 students; 131 of them were medical students. And do not forget that the Dean of the Medical Faculty at Stellenbosch has just been made chairman of this council. The total enrollment at the University College of the Western Cape at that time, in 1968, when there were 992 at the open universities, was 669.

I think it is as well to establish that the Afrikaans language universities would not have these students at any price, even on a transitional basis. Yet with one exception, namely the lecturer in English, every senate member of the present University College senate and every member of the council, with the exception of Mr. Justice Banks, is Afrikaans speaking. Now I am not concerned to criticize these people personally. I have no doubt whatever that they are extremely dedicated and able people. That is not the point, but can the Minister please tell us what is wrong academically with those English language universities which have given sanctuary to so many Coloured and Malay students in the past, that they are now totally unrepresented on the staff and the council of the present university college? And I mention this only because I have no doubt at all that this pattern of appointment will continue once this Bill is passed. It is the pattern that is being applied to everything that this Government does in every field and we are getting very tired of it. I want to know whether the Minister will tell me whether English-speaking intellectuals are not equally competent to help maintain academic standards at these institutions? I hope the Minister will give me a straight answer and tell me whether it is his intention to keep them out, and if so, why?

It is no good the Minister telling us that by far the majority of students enrolled at this college and those likely to be enrolled in the future are Afrikaans speaking. As far as the Western Cape is concerned, and the majority of Coloured students will come from there, the figures prove exactly the reverse. The Minister did give some very welcome reassurances in his second-reading speech on this question of language medium. This was the first we had heard of an attempt to accommodate the students. In the past previous Ministers had said something rather different, and we welcome his assurances. But considering that this Government has made more fuss than anyone on the vital necessity for mother tongue instruction to as high a level as possible for all races, I think that the figures may cause him some concern. I am going to give the Minister a few language medium figures for Coloured matriculants in this province particularly.

I was in the Cape Prinvincial Council for just under 10 years and we dealt with this matter right up to the time when I left. It was taken over by this Government in 1963, the year I was elected to this House. I have all the reports of the Superintendent-General of Education for the years prior to the takeover, and I looked through some of these reports the other day. It may interest hon. members to know that the percentage of Std. 10 pupils receiving instruction largely through the medium of Afrikaans in Coloured schools throughout the Cape Province during the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 was as follows. In 1960 it was 44.29 per cent. In other words, the majority were receiving their instruction through the medium of English. In 1961 the figure was 50.1 per cent for std. 10 pupils receiving instruction through the medium of Afrikaans, and these are the potential university students. In 1962 it was 50.64 per cent. Then the Government took over Coloured education in 1963 from the provinces. From the figures I have quoted it is doubtful whether the percentage of Std. 10 pupils in Coloured schools, receiving their education through the medium of Afrikaans, is much above 50 per cent throughout the length and breadth of the Cape Province which is the home of the majority of the Coloured people to-day. We would like a further assurance from the Minister—he is not paving attention now, but I should like him to do so—that, in view of the figures I have given, in future more English-sneaking lecturers will be appointed to the staff of this University, as it is to be called.

They all have to be bilingual.

I am not interested in that; I think the fact that they should be bilingual is first class, but it is the pattern of appointment with which we have a very definite problem. With the whole of the present senate (with one exception) and the whole of the present council (with one exception) Afrikaans speaking, I want to ask the hon. member for Algoa can these bodies be said to be representative of the Coloured students themselves if the language medium is 50-50 English and Afrikaans throughout the province?

To condense it, our charge simply is that there is a lack of balance here which is totally unjustified and, in truth, I think it represents a grave disservice to the Coloured community. Or is the Government afraid of the traditions of the English-language universities? Perhaps the Minister will speak out and be specific about it.

I now want to deal with the Committee of Principals. What a pity it is that all our institutions for higher learning in South Africa, for whatever group of people, cannot be permitted to develop and thrive together on the highest level of scholarship possible to them all under the umbrella of the Universities Act! There is, for instance, no provision in this Bill for the Rector to serve on the Committee of Principals, as set out in section 6 of the 1955 Universities Act. Why not? Will the hon. the Minister please tell us just why not? Section 18 of that Act for instance gives the Committee of Principals the power to frame joint statutes “which shall be common to all universities … and to make provision as to all other matters which are common to the universities”. Why not for these, if they are going to be bona fide universities? The money involved has practically nothing to do with it. The Minister said that as soon as the financial position of the Coloured people improved and they can contribute to the University like the Europeans, they will be permitted to do so. But you have to start somewhere. The financial argument does not impress me in the least. I would say that instead of giving the Minister plenary powers to interfere in every aspect of their affairs, surely it is wiser to let the academic heads themselves, as represented by the Committee of Principals, decide upon these matters? But it would seem that as far as our coloured races are concerned, the Government trusts no one; all it is competent to do is to wield the big stick.

If we get down to brass tacks, we see the trouble is that this is not real university legislation in the recognized sense of the word at all. It is just another aspect of the doctrinaire application of apartheid to the academic world. That is all it means. It would be an absurdity for the Minister to suggest—and I would be interested to see whether he does so—as the Minister of Bantu Education in fact did, that there would in time be a Committee of Principals for these five non-white so-called universities, functioning in fine academic isolation. Was he speaking on behalf of the Coloured people as well? Perhaps the Minister will answer that when he replies. I want to make it quite clear that this type of subterfuge can never compensate under any circumstances for the status and the undoubted administrative and academic value of serving with their European colleagues in the academic field.

Now, the principle of having an Advisory Senate and an Advisory Council has been dealt with by this side already and we reject the whole concept, particularly for the Coloured people. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the Minister’s interjection that “We are not an integration party” seems to me to be entirely irrelevant when you are dealing with the practicalities of university administration. Let us take this matter a little further. Let us consider the old Cape School Board. I sat on the Cape School Board, which controlled all the schools in the Cape Peninsula, for 14 years, and let me tell hon. members that for ten of those years there were three representatives of the Coloured community also on that Board either publicly elected or else appointed by the Administrator. In most cases they were publicly elected by their communities. Although that board was publicly elected, like any other school board in the country, the Administrator had the right to nominate four members. For many years I happened to be a nominated member; subsequently I fought an election to win my seat when I ceased to be an M.P.C. The fact remains that there were three good Nationalists appointed by the Administrator who sat there week after week, month after month, round the same table, together with representatives of the Coloured community, and first-class people they were. They sat round the same table. They were thoroughly responsible. One was a quantity surveyor, another one was an architect, and another one was a businessman.

In reply to my question of the 7th March, the Minister told us about this one man, Mr. Small, who sits all by himself—out of a staff of 109 professors and lecturers—he sits alone and he forms the advisory senate. It is an absolute farce, I agree with what other hon. members have said. Imagine one solitary Coloured lecturer constituting the advisory senate! What it means, of course, is that he is not considered fit to sit around a table on a basis of academic equality with the rest of the academic staff, although he is considered perfectly fit to lecture to the students. I agree with hon. members who have said that this whole thing is an insult to the Coloured people. This type of university caricature is enough to make us the laughing stock of the whole of the Western academic world.

The Minister said by way of interjection during the debate that there would be no mixed council ever and no mixed senate ever. I was very interested to see that the students from Stellenbosch University, the younger generation, do not seem to have quite the hidebound fears of people of the hon. the Minister’s generation. The following report appeared in the Burger on the 15th March of this year, just a few days ago—

U.S. Vergader Dalk Met Wes-Kaapse Kollege … ’n Drieman-kommissie is Donderdagaand op ’n vergadering van die Maties se studenteraad benoem om die moontlikheid en wenslikheid van ’n gesamentlike vergadering van die studenteraad van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch en dié van die Universiteitskollege van Wes-Kaapland te ondersoek. Die lede van die kommissie is mnre. Elwil Beukes …

—I need not tell hon. members where his father is at the moment—

—all three well-known names. The report goes on—

It will be very interesting to see what the Rector of Stellenbosch University does, whether he allows such a joint meeting, especially in view of the fact that he himself was the Chairman of the Council of this University College from its inception until just recently. If he forbids them, what conclusions are we to draw from that?

How absolutely sterile and dreary the ideologies of this Government are. Does the Minister not understand that the academic world as such does not exist only for the purpose of training people in various professions? It deals primarily with the world of ideas, in the field of science and the arts and so on. It depends for its very vitality, for its dynamic, upon dialogue and communication. But under this barren Nationalist administration it would appear there can be no true dialogue—even at the level of the university campus—between people of different colours. I would say the Government is condemning this so-called university from the start to a form of intellectual sterility and death. Where are the bridges; will the hon. the Minister tell us? In all honesty, where are the bridges between our different peoples to exist, if they do not exist at the level of academic life and of scholarship? Or are the bridges—let us lay our cards on the table—once this Government has legislated to compartmentalize us in all fields—to be confined to officialdom on the one hand and master and servant on the other? I must say sometimes the actions of this Government fill me with a deep-seated dread as to where our society is going when dealing with matters of this kind. You see, Sir, knowledge as such knows no boundaries anywhere in the world. I would like to know from the Minister how these institutions are to thrive in their splendid academic isolation. Because, apart from the examiners and the odd professor from outside, they will exist in academic isolation. That is a negation of the existence and the reason for the existence of the academic world as such.

The hon. member for Malmesbury is not here. He said in the course of his speech that there was one very good reason why Coloured people should not serve on a joint council of the university, i.e. because there were not enough qualified Coloured people to do so. Of course, the truth is that this country has lost so many qualified Coloured people since 1963. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister of how many teachers we have lost. Forget about anybody else. These figures are all taken from Hansard. In the five years between 1964 and 1968 roughly 2,000 Coloured teachers resigned in South Africa for good.

Where do you get those figures from?

They are all from Hansard. I can give them to the hon. the Deputy Minister for inspection. I took them from the Minister’s replies to questions. At least a third of those 2,000, if not more, were certainly graduates from one university institution or another.

I have only two more points I wish to make. The first is a plea that this university should have a convocation. Why is there no provision in this Bill for a convocation at this university? Have hon. members ever heard of a true university without a convocation? I want to give the Minister some figures to prove my case as well as the validity of our plea for such a convocation. In 1966 the open universities at Cape Town, Natal, Witwatersrand and the University of South Africa had 799 Coloured students working for degree courses. By 1968 the figures, supplied by the universities themselves and given in this House, adding the medical students, amounted to 992. In 1968, 669 students were enrolled at the University College of the Western Cape. In other words, in 1968 there were 333 more Coloured students at open universities than there were at this University College. However, let us get down to the graduates. At the University College of the Western Cape itself, so the Minister told us in the House in April of last year, 425 were taking degree courses and 14 postgraduate courses. Finally, 13 graduated at the end of 1967 through UNISA, 37 through the University College of the Western Cape and 13 post-graduate diplomas were awarded, making a total of 63. If the number of medical students is added—17 Coloured medical students qualified that same year—a total of 80 is arrived at. If the number of those who qualified annually at the so-called open universities is added, it is safe to say that more than 100 Coloured students have been graduating each year for the last few years either at the open universities or at the University College of the Western Cape.

The hon. Minister, on the 14th May last year, in reply to a question, stated that there were 567 graduated teachers teaching in Coloured schools at the present time. Therefore in the final analysis, 567 teachers who had graduated were already teaching in 1968, a further 100 graduated at the end of 1967, in all courses, giving us a total of just under 700. At a conservative estimate there must certainly be a further 500 Coloured graduates scattered throughout South Africa who qualified prior to the establishment of the University College, or at other institutions prior to 1967. I suggest that a signed-up convocation, properly established like the one set out in the University of Port Elizabeth Act in 1964, of about 1,000 members, is a practical possibility for the Coloured people at this time if this university is to be their Alma Mater. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to think in these terms. It should only be necessary for them to notify the registrar in writing that they wish to become members of this convocation for it to be properly established. We will move an amendment to that effect during the Committee Stage.

For the rest, I am not going into all the ways in which the hon. the Minister proposes to control so many aspects of the affairs of this institution. We disapprove of so many of them. But I would like to mention the conscience clause specifically, because there is no conscience clause included to allow for religious freedom for staff and students in this Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the commencement of my speech has evoked so many groans. I feel a bit like groaning myself; because this, after all, is the fourth time that I am delivering the same speech, more or less. But it is not my fault that the Government decides to come forward with a triplicate of Bills which one has to examine one after the other, all containing mutatis mutandis exactly the same clauses. I am sorry about it, but this is a new Minister and we are dealing now with a Coloured university. One hopes, of course against hope, that his mind is not set in such a rigid way that a little persuasion, a little eloquence, will in no way persuade him to change his mind in certain directions.

[Inaudible.]

I am very glad the hon. member is back here. I miss him when he is not here. His constant interjections from the rear really makes me feel at home. I am always being attacked from the rear by the hon. member. When he is not here I feel there is something missing. Anyway, I am glad he is here.

It is beginning so sound like a gramophone record with the needle stuck in one groove.

I cannot help it. It is father like that.

Can we not regard your speech as read?

If the hon. the Minister will promise and give me his word of honour that he will faithfully read every single word that I said during the Second Reading debate of the University of Fort Hare Bill, we might strike a bargain.

No, I think the oral way will be more acceptable.

I thought so. Well, I shall try and summarize for the hon. the Minister. I shall do my best.

Firstly, I want to say all the objections which I raised when the Bills relating to the universities for the Bantu were discussed, obviously apply here, and in some cases more so. They might apply less in one instance, namely that the University College of the Western Cape is situated in an urban centre. It is situated within easy reach of Cape Town, Bellville and the surrounding suburbs of Cape Town. It is possible that if the University College does not at present admit part-time students, it might consider doing so in order to augment its student body and thereby give the university a much wider scope and an enlarged student body so that there can be at least a greater interchange of ideas between the Coloured students, if not between the Coloured students and the white students of the other universities. I do not know exactly how much liaison there is at the present time between, say, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of Cape Town and the University College of the Western Cape. I do not know how much association the student body is allowed to have with the other two universities. One would hope that this could be encouraged, because at least at university level it would be very important for young people in South Africa to know what their fellow students and fellow citizens of different racial groups are thinking and how they are planning their careers and anticipating their future lives. They are, after all, all going to live in the same multi-racial country, however much the Government hopes to effect some sort of separation.

For the rest, everything I said with regard to the African universities applies to this particular Bill. The fact that the hon. the Minister has not found it possible to have a mixed council, not even for the Coloured university, is to me most extraordinary. I know he said his party was not an integration party. But nevertheless we are dealing now with university education and a council which should be composed of intellectuals and people who have had experience in the academic field. There should not be the slightest objection to Coloured people sitting on the council. I think it an insult for the hon. member for Malmesbury to state that the only reason why there are not Coloured people on the council is because they cannot find enough Coloured people capable of holding such jobs. I think it is an insult.

They could run a council very well.

Well, that is precisely the point I am coming to. The Government considers, as other members have mentioned, that the Coloured people are capable of running their own Representative Council, although I have my reservations about the extent to which this will in fact influence their lives and the things that really matter to them. Nevertheless, the Government has considered that there are certain important portfolios which can be taken over by the Coloured people and run by the Coloured people elected to a representative council, not on a qualified franchise but on a universal franchise, on a one man one vote basis. That of course includes the Coloured women for the first time. Now, if they are capable of doing this in running a council which is going to administer ab initio R50 million and at a later stage presumably more as their responsibilities and the needs of the population expand, it is extraordinary that there are, according to the hon, member for Malmesbury, not even a few Coloured people who are capable now of serving on the council. The fact that it is an advisory council cuts no ice. It is interesting to note that they have 20 nominated councillors and if there are not enough Coloured people capable of running the university council one wonders where the hon. the Minister is going to find 20 nominated members who will be capable of running the Coloured Representative Council. Does this bear out what everybody has suspected, namely that the Government is going to look for its own political nominees rather than people really capable of administering the affairs of the Coloured people? This is what it seems like. If you cannot find enough Coloured people capable of running a university council, how then are the 20 nominated members of the Representative Council to be found? That is of course something which the hon. the Minister must reply to. He should tell us where he intends finding those capable people.

In my opinion there are large numbers of capable Coloured people. After all, the open universities and even the University of the Western Cape over the last few years, have been producing graduates. The open universities have produced hundreds of graduates over the years during which they have been admitting non-white students. Surely, among the professional men, teachers, doctors and lawyers, there must be people quite capable of running a university council. Further, to think that convocation is excluded from the constitution of a Coloured university is something I find extraordinary. The hon. the Minister’s colleague has told us—and I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will tell us that the same applies in this Bill as well—that the exclusion of convocation at this stage does not mean that it will be excluded for all time and that perhaps at a later stage—certainly as far as the Bantu universities are concerned—it might well be considered opportune, and this in fact seems to be the operative word as far as these colleges are concerned, to allow convocation to be included in the constitution. But my contention is that right now there is available a convocation consisting of hundreds and hundreds of Coloured graduates who should be included immediately, ab initio, in the constitution of the University of the Western Cape. The Rand Afrikaans University which was instituted only a year or two ago, already —long before anybody could have graduated —makes provision in its constitution for convocation to play an important part in the running of the university. I therefore cannot see why, in the case of the University of the Western Cape, which has hundreds of graduates available, a ready-made convocation body should not be allowed to share the same privileges that convocations of white universities have in running the affairs of their universities. I think this is an insulting omission. The Coloured people have to put up with heaven knows how many insults in this country, insults as far as the jobs they are allowed to do, insults as far as the areas where they are allowed to live, insults as far as the separate amenities they are allowed to enjoy and insults as far as mixed entertainment is concerned. All these are factors that are day to day hardships and insults which have to be borne submissively, patiently and with the most extraordinary good humour in some cases, and a great deal of resentment in other cases. These are factors which make the Coloured people despair for themselves. A Bill like this will not only not rouse the Coloured people to great heights of enthusiasm but will add to the insults by virtue of the manner in which the council is to be constituted, the fact that they are only considered good enough for an advisory council, the fact that convocation is excluded, coupled with the fact that they will have nothing to do with the real running of the university and all the important executive functions which councils and senates normally have at universities. These will serve as additional insults.

It is no wonder that Coloured people, and mostly the educated people, have been seeking lives for themselves in other countries. I know that the Government is attempting to stop this by indirect means, and sometimes by very direct means too. That is not the way to make a happy and contented population. To keep people here under duress and then to think that they are going to give of their best is, it am afraid, a pipedream. It is just not going to happen. These people will resent it all the more. And the way in which I believe the Coloured people should be encouraged to stay here especially the educated and professional class, is to be given some hope for the future and more particularly—since this is a factor which always influences people when they are considering emigrating from a country—hope for an improved future for their children. Something should be done at least to offer them some responsibility, to give them a feeling of belonging, to make them feel that the Government considers that they are an adult section of the community and not an adolescent section of the community. My contention is that this Bill in every regard, in the functioning of the university and in the setting up of the councils, the exclusion of convocation, has a hallmark of adolescence for the Coloured people and not the hallmark of adulthood. I really think that the hon. the Minister ought to reconsider many of the clauses of this Bill to try and meet the objections which I believe are very valid objections in this regard.

I have also taken exception in the case of all the previous Bills to the exclusion of the conscience clause. I take exactly the same objection here. I think it is quite wrong. I think too that the absolute exclusion of any white students from the University of the Western Cape is something to be deplored.

Oh no.

Yes, I am sorry. The hon. member says “Oh no”. I do not for one moment agree with any of his basic principles as far as racial policy is concerned. I cannot see why the white students who wish voluntarily to attend …

Why would they wish to go there?

Well, they might wish to. I shall give the hon. member some reasons. They might wish to be better acquainted with their Coloured fellow citizens. There are people who feel that way. They want to know how the other half lives. Let us put it that way. That is one reason. They might be undertaking some sociological study of the Coloured people and they might find it very useful to be studying with their peers who are Coloured.

That is a very superficial argument.

They might just feel like striking a blow for liberalism.

You are a liberalist.

I may be. I do not make any excuses for that. I do not know why hon. members think I am going to faint dead away if they accuse me of being liberal. I consider that as a great compliment. They do not realize that. To be liberal means that one has at least an open mind and not a vacant mind about things-as could perhaps be said of hon. members on the other side of the House. I am not insulted and people can call me a liberal. It is perfectly all right.

I now want to come back to two final points. The one is that if the hon. the Minister really wants to build up this separate Coloured university to any extent at all, he is going to have to start making big changes lower down the scale of education. As he knows—and these are figures that come from the Department—of the 82,730 pupils that started school either in 1967 or 1968—I am not one hunderd per cent sure of the year—students in the matric class numbered only 1,496, which is 0.37 per cent. Now if one takes it over a ten-year period the chances are that these figures will be much the same. Only .4 per cent of the pupils that started their classes ten years previously managed to finish school. Therefore the 1,496 students who reached Std. X, and of course not all of these passed their exams, provide the total source of university material for the hon. the Minister. Here we come back to the old question, namely the need for compulsory education for Coloured people in this country. We need this as far as African children are concerned as well and as hon. members know, I moved a private motion on this score two years ago. I do not differentiate. Because of the small number of Coloured children going to school the hon. the Minister will have to do something about hastening the introduction of compulsory education so that he will at least have a bigger base on which to build his new university.

Finally, the hon. the Minister said that this Bill will put the university on the road towards autonomy.

That is correct.

He is the only Minister who made this modest claim. All the others were telling us that their Bills introduced academic autonomy for these universities. The hon. the Minister makes a more modest claim and he says that the university will be put on the road towards autonomy. I think this is also an over-statement, but not as much of an over-statement as that of his colleagues. I do not think there is autonomy of any real significance in respect of this university, academic or otherwise at this stage. I say this because the hon. the Minister’s hand weighs heavily on every single clause in this Bill. The only real change will be that the university college will now be free from the control of UNISA. It will also be able to set its own exams and award its own degrees. I presume that the university will be able to do this immediately. This is the major change that has been introduced by this Bill and in my opinion it is the one freedom which this university may possibly not be ready to enjoy, because we have not made the searching investigation which was, for instance, made when the other university colleges became universities. When the University College of Natal, for example, was converted into a university proper after many years of existence, a commission of inquiry—quite independent of the Minister’s Department—was appointed. Certain criteria were laid down which were examined by that commission. These criteria were (a) the qualifications of the teaching staff, i.e. their degrees and teaching experience; (b) the achievements in research, i.e. the contribution to knowledge by the staff and by the students; (c) the achievements of students, i.e. the number of graduates and post-graduates and (d) the comprehensiveness and diversification of courses and faculties in the applied sciences as well as in the liberal arts faculties. These were the criteria that were applied by the then Government before deciding to change the University College of Natal into a full university. The report of this commission was published and tabled and everybody knew what they were talking about when they agreed to convert the University College of Natal into a full university. It is my contention that unless we have an equally searching inquiry into the University College of the Western Cape, we are taking a step which might very well be premature. I will therefore vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since this Bill now envisages a major forward step for the university institution here by granting it academic independence, it is quite significant that the combined United Party-Progressive Party Opposition does not welcome such a step forward. It is quite significant that their aim throughout this debate was to belittle, detract from and impute ulterior motives to this step forward towards academic independence.

In many respects this discussion was to my mind a significant one, particularly because it clearly revealed the fundamental difference in the outlook on life between this side of the House and that side—and now I am including the Progressive Party. This discussion has shown me once more what the fundamental point of difference between the National Party idea and the United Party-Progressive Party idea in this country is. The pleas which were put in here for a mixed council and a mixed senate, coupled with their disapproval of the existence of an advisory council and advisory senate which can be established when it is practicable, is an indication to me of the integrationistic character of the United Party. I found it interesting to note that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made it his task to reproach me because I had pointed out that their thinking on this matter was integrationistic. I have been asked for an explanation and I now want to furnish one briefly. I was asked whether it is integration when a white lecturer helps a Coloured student at the university college. What an inane and foolish question! It is an absolutely foolish question …

Why?

For the simple reason which has been mentioned in this House on many occasions but which you apparently cannot take in. Integration in this country means when there is joint managerial responsibility. When the Coloured and the Bantu are represented in this House and make laws here along with us, there is political integration. That is the crux of integration. If the white worker and the non-White worker in a factory were to be represented, according to your pleas, in the same trade union, it would be integration. However, when a Bantu worker works alongside a white worker in a factory, it is solely a case of being present on the basis of numbers. Is the Coloured or Bantu servant working in your house integrated into your society and household? Of course not. Servants are not integrated into any civilized South African household. These servants are merely workers, and for that reason I think it is very naïve of hon. members to ask whether or not it is integration when the white lecturer helps the non-White student. Of course it is not integration, but assistance which has been part and parcel of the actions of the white trustees throughout their existence in this country. To plead here for a mixed council and for a mixed senate is merely to emphasize the integrationistic direction and philosophy of the United Party here. Because they do not want to state this matter so baldly, the United Party, the Progressive Party and the Coloured Representatives who participated in this debate, resorted to quite a number of fallacious arguments, to which I now want to refer. Before doing that, I want to express my appreciation for the contributions of the few members on my side, who participated in this debate and who put their case within the time limit imposed by this House. I appreciate the realism and the sincere interest which they displayed in this connection. I am only sorry that the arrangements which were made for the debate and which I took cognizance of, were such that it was not possible for them to participate to a greater extent in the debate. In any case, the United Party came to light with an amendment. They wanted this measures to be referred to a select committee. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to know why the Government did not refer measures such as this to select committees. He said that this was being done in other democratic countries. Sir, if one refers a matter to a select committee, it means that there is still a lack of clarity in regard to that measure, or that one wants to obtain further particulars, or that one wants to test he implementation of that measure. In other words, if one does that one is not at all certain about one’s facts. That is why one wants to test it. But this is not so in this case. There is absolute clarity in regard to this measure. This measure did not fall out of a clear sky. It is the result of a very prolonged investigation. Two years ago, shortly after I took over this portfolio, the university drew my attention to the fact that they were introducing courses which were not recognized by the University of South Africa. An example of this was educational sociology. This is a very important course, with a view to the training of Coloured social leaders in society. It also resulted in the problem that the University of South Africa was not in a position to draw up the examinations on that subject. At the same time it was brought to my attention that the standard of the university could in fact be compared to that of other universities. I mentioned this matter in my Second Reading speech. After that the consultations began. Consultations were held with the co-ordinating committee of all the non-White universities on which the chairman and the rectors served. Consultations were also held with the Department of Higher Education. There were a series of discussions and negotiations. Draft legislation was produced which was submitted to a special Cabinet Committee. It was referred back time and again for further inquiry and further investigation. I think therefore that this matter has been dealt with thoroughly. It has been dealt with more thoroughly than a select committee would have been able to deal with it. We therefore have before us to-day the result of very thorough consideration. But let me inform the United Party to-day that, as I know them, even if ten select committees had been appointed on a measure such as this, and the principle of the measure were still parallel development, that side of the House would vote against the measure, because they have as much liking for parallel development as the devil has for holy water. That is the way we know them. That is why it would be an absolute waste of time to refer a measure such as this to a select committee. On the contrary, it is expected of us to proceed with this matter.

There is a further aspect which I also want to discuss. In this discussion it struck me that the United Party had so little real interest in this university institution that they had paid very few visits to it in the past. The hon. member for Kensington, who was the main speaker on the United Party side, himself admitted that he had not yet been there. I made inquiries as to how many of the United Party Members of Parliament had visited the university college, which is seven miles from here. Do you know, Sir, that only three of the United Party Members of Parliament have been there. That is what I discovered. If I am wrong I would be glad to be corrected. Only Sir De Villiers Graaff, Mr. Marais Steyn and Dr. Jacobs have visited the place. In nine years’ time three United Party members have visited the place. If I am wrong they must correct me; I do not intend doing anyone an injustice. Not one of the three speakers who participated in the debate on the United Party side, neither the hon. member for Kensington, nor the hon. member for Wynberg, nor the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who all expressed their concern about Coloured Affairs, who pretended here to have knowledge of these things, had taken the trouble to pay a visit to the university college, which is only seven miles from here.

That is your fault; you should have arranged it.

Since that hon. member wants to apportion guilt, I want to invite him and the entire United Party, quite apart from the rest of the House, to pay a visit to this university college. I only hope that they will display the customary good manners of phoning the rector in advance so that he will be prepared to receive them. Let them visit the place, because this university college and the way in which it is being run, will be discussed again in this House. This is not the last time we shall discuss it here. I hope that hon. members of the United Party will then, be able to discuss this matter on the basis of first-hand knowledge and that they will not come forward with all kinds of imaginary objections here. Then they will perhaps see the spirit that is prevailing there. A question was put to me here in regard to the attitude of the Coloureds themselves. I think that if they were to visit the university college they would perhaps find the kind of attitude which I am now going to mention there; I have here in my hand an extract from a report which appeared recently in the Cape Herald on an interview with the student leader of that university. If members of the United Party, who are so interested in the welfare of the Coloureds but who do not want to take the trouble of covering a distance of seven miles to visit the university college, go there, they will perhaps find that the attitude there is as this student leader describes it. I am just going to quote two of his statements as reported in the Herald—

He then goes on to say the following, arising out of the continual reproaches which we have to hear from the other side to the effect that we are influencing the students there by means of a plethora of Afrikaans lecturers or council members—

I think it would do the hon. members of the Opposition the world of good to go and find this out for themselves. Let them also at the same time find out what good work is being done there. Let them go and find out what the functions of that council to which covert references are once again being made to-day by hon. members on the opposite side. Racial feelings has been aroused here by pointing out that there are a supposedly so many Stellenboschers and Afrikaans-speaking people on the council. I want to disappoint the hon. member for Wynberg now; I have no intention of reacting to that incitement of racial feelings by the hon. member, with reference to the English-speaking people who have supposedly not been appointed to the council in sufficient numbers.

But you do not have a reply to it.

This side of the House and I definitely do not lend ourselves to that kind of propaganda. The council of the university college is constituted from people who in the first instance take an intense interest in Coloured Affairs, people who are competent for appointment and people who are available …

And who are nominated by the Minister.

Of course. It is not an easy task finding these people. When I constituted the council the other day, it was quite a difficult business finding these people. People of this calibre do not stand in a kind of unemployment queue waiting to be appointed. These are busy people. A man like Professor Fransie van Zyl whom I got to serve as chairman of this council, is a busy person, and now even he is being treated with scant appreciation here. I wonder whether hon. members realize what a disservice they are doing this institution. They ought to know by this time, from replies to questions, that the next development is going to be, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, the establishment of a medical school at the University of the Western Cape. The land for that has already been acquired adjoining the existing university. That medical school will to a large extent be dependent on the assistance of the Karl Bremer Hospital and of the lecturers of that hospital. At the outset the University of Stellenbosch will to a large extent have to lend a hand, and so, too the University of Cape Town, but owing to the situation of the university and the medical school the lecturers of the Stellenbosch Medical School will have to play a very important role. Now a man like Professor Fransie van Zyl, who is an outstanding medical personality and who must be regarded with the greatest appreciation, and the council, which should also be regarded with the greatest appreciation, are being dragged into the debate in this way. Sir, these people are not serving on this council because they are idle, because they have nothing to do and because they want to play at politics; they are serving on this council because they take an intense interest in the welfare of the Coloureds. These are people of ability and integrity. I am grateful for the services of all who have consented to serve on the council and that I have had the privilege of getting an English-speaking Judge, such as Mr. Justice Banks, to serve on this council. I am grateful that we have been able to make use of his ability and knowledge on the council.

The hon. the Minister says that a medical school is to be established at this university. Will the graduates receive degrees from this university we are discussing now or from the Stellenbosch University?

This is a matter which at the moment is altogether in the embryonic stage. The hon. member, who is a doctor, knows that establishing a medical school is a long process. It may take quite a number of years before that medical school is established, and at that stage when it is established, it will be the task of the authorities to decide on that matter.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s answer, does he imply that he is going to set medical students on the road to medical qualifications or to a medical degree which does not exist perhaps?

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now. That is a very long question.

I am astonished that the hon. member, who is a doctor and who knows the medical code and standards, can ask such a question. Does the hon. member think that in this country any institution of the quality of the medical school will be established which will confer inferior degrees? It is precisely the same kind of mentality we came across nine years ago when we heard here that we were establishing “bush colleges”. There has been no change in the derogatory attitude of that side of the House towards this university, and I absolutely deplore that.

May I ask another question?

No, I am not prepared to answer any further questions if they are of that calibre. This university will in due course establish that medical school, and the hon. member as a reasonable person, with his medical background, ought to know that when that medical school is established at that university its standards will compare with those of other universities, and the question of whether the degrees will be conferred by the University of Cape Town or by the University of Stellenbosch or by the University of the Western Cape is a matter which will have to be decided upon at that stage.

But now we come to another fallacious argument. The hon. member for Kensington asked whether this is going to be the only Coloured University? What about the Transvaal and the Port Elizabeth areas? Sir, if one establishes a university then surely one needs students for that university. If one bears in mind that in 1968 the number of Coloureds who wrote their senior certificate with matriculation exemption totalled only 306 for the entire Republic and if one bears in mind that these 306 must be distributed among all the professions where there is a demand for them, then one can understand that we cannot at this stage already speak of universities in the Transvaal or in Port Elizabeth.

A college?

Even a college must have the necessary number of students with senior certificate and matriculation exemption. Take for example the northern provinces: Transvaal, Natal, Kimberley, Vryburg and those areas. Last year in 1968, they had only 60 pupils who wrote the matriculation or senior certificate examination with matriculation exemption, and in the Port Elizabeth area the total was only 36. Surely it is impossible to begin a college or a university with so few students. In due course, when these universities have their full complement, one can think of something like that. There are at the moment, as I said in my speech, 808 Coloured students at this university, and I take it that the numbers can perhaps increase to a few thousand. There is enough room to make provision for that number, so attention can certainly be given to this matter in due course.

In addition the hon. member for Kensington asked me why this University of the Western Cape Bill is the same as the Bantu University Bills, and other speakers on that side asked why we could not wait before introducing this Bill. I shall come in a moment to the hon. member for Peninsula who referred to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and ask whether we could not wait with this. Sir, this Bill, together with the other Bills, was dealt with on the basis of the 1959 Act. It was the 1959 Act which gave the non-white university colleges the status they still have to-day. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how the Government would have been attacked if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education had come to this House with Bills to grant academic independence to his three Bantu university colleges while the Department of Coloured Affairs sat still and did nothing.

Hon. members would immediately have said: “Look how inferior you deem the Coloureds to be; academic independence is being granted to the Bantu but not to the Coloureds.” Can you see with what an absurdity we would then have had to deal in this debate? Then the question is put here why only one Adam Small is appointed to the university. Sir, if there is one thing I would welcome, it would be that there should be ten or 20 Adam Smalls on the staff of this university, but the fact of the matter is that they are simply not available, and one of the reasons for that has already been furnished by the hon. member for Malmesbury. With this “bush college” propaganda with which the Opposition and its Press unleashed in 1959, they certainly did not encourage the Coloured academics to apply for posts at this college. We have needed all these years to build up the status of this university to what it is to day and to break down the prejudice which was created by the Opposition and its Press.

Did Dr. Van der Ross not apply for a position at the Western Cape University College?

He may have applied, but may I just say this: With any appointment the nature of the vacancy must be taken into account, and secondly it must be taken into account whether there are other people who are more competent and better qualified to fill the vacancy. I do not have Dr. Van der Ross’s application here in front of me, but as far as Dr. Van der Ross is concerned, I just want to say that it was I as Minister who saw to it that he was appointed to the position he holds at present. There he is doing astoundingly good work for education and I expect that he will still be of great benefit there. It is therefore not a question of any feeling against Dr. Van der Ross. We must take the specific circumstances into account; we must take into account the qualifications of the various persons and the requirements of the moment. I am looking forward to the day when more Coloured lecturers will be appointed.

Can the hon. Minister tell us whether Adam Small will receive a professorship, or when he will receive one?

Sir, I cannot term that question anything else but a cheap political question. These people are appointed by the council and now I am being asked when Adam Small will receive a professorship! Can you imagine a cheaper political move? I therefore do not consider it necessary to reply.

Mr. Speaker, mention was made here of the few members of staff who are Coloured persons.! have already said that I would welcome it if another ten or more Adam Smalls became available, but let me say this to the United Party, to them who excel by not visiting this institution in order to acquire firsthand knowledge of how the Coloured persons there feel about this matter: The Coloured leaders themselves insist that the people who are appointed to teach their sons and daughters must have suitable qualifications. They will be the first people to protest to the Government and to the Council, which has to make the appointment, if we went and appointed people simply on the grounds of the fact that they are Coloured persons. Sir, I repeat what I previously said in a debate here. Personally, I am very eager to see more Coloured teachers and principals appointed as inspectors of schools in the Republic. I am continually asking my Department to concentrate on appointing as many Coloured persons as possible as subject inspectors and ordinary inspectors. The progress being made with those appointments is by no means appreciable. On the contrary I find it disappointing and the only reason is because the Coloured persons available are not sufficiently well qualified for those posts of inspectors. After all, I cannot simply come forward with an ideology or a dogma and in that way want to reduce the standard. That would be idiocy. In the same way we cannot lower the standards of this university college. If we had done that then we would have had no moral right to come to this House to-day and to ask that this college be granted academic independence. The only basis on which we can justify this academic independence is the fact that its standards can be compared with those of other universities.

Reference has been made to the Coloured persons who are at present attending open universities, and this has been given out to be something terrible. The hon. member for Wynberg was also upset about the numbers attending those universities. But is it not the standpoint which this Government has adopted since 1959, to say that we will not deprive a Coloured student of the right and the privilege to receive the training he wants if he cannot be given that training at the University College of the Western Cape. It has been our standpoint throughout that if he wants to follow courses such as engineering or architecture or therapy and these courses were not offered at the university college we gave him the right to attend the open universities. That was our standpoint and it still stands, and now I just want to say that we will continue in this way until such time as the university college can introduce those courses. I mentioned in my second-reading speech, and I am not going to repeat this, what courses had already been introduced. We introduced a large number, but we cannot, after all, introduce all the courses at such a college overnight. That is why I think it ought in fact to be appreciated that this Government is still prepared to grant the right to those Coloured students, who want to follow courses for which the university college of the Western Cape does not make provision, to do so at another university.

But now it is being asked why they cannot go to Stellenbosch or to Potchefstroom or to Pretoria. But in the past the Coloured and the Bantu never went to Stellenbosch or Potchefstroom or Pretoria. In 1959 we simply accepted the tradition and the status quo as it then was, and we did not then, for the first time, send Coloured students to institutions to which they had never gone before. Surely that would have been unreasonable and unrealistic.

But now I come to the hon. member for Peninsula who advocated inter alia that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council should be given the right, firstly, to express an opinion on this measure, and secondly, that it should in fact have control of and a say in the matter. In addition and the hon. member for Karoo also asked to what extent we had consulted the Coloured leaders in this connection. Firstly, as regards to what extent we consulted them: This advisory council, in regard to which so many covered references were made from the Opposition side, does not consist of men of straw. This advisory university council consists of acknowledged Coloured leaders, and I want to mention their names. Mr. Dollie is the chairman and there is Dr. Arendse, a doctor, Dr. Beets, a minister, Dr. Dietrich, a doctor, Mr. Golding, the head of a high school, Mr. Sonn, the chairman of the Education Council, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tom Swartz and Mr. Filander. These are acknowledged Coloured leaders in the country. The hon. members want to know whether we had consulted Coloured leaders. Yes, we consulted them. They were consulted after this measure had gone through the previous steps to which I referred, such as the consideration by the co-ordinating committee of university principals, and the discussions with the various other educational bodies. Then this Coloured Persons’ Advisory Council, on which these leaders of the Coloured community are serving, were consulted in regard to this matter. That is why I deplore the insinauation that we had supposedly ignored the Coloured leaders and bypassed them completely in this regard.

Would the hon. the Minister agree that one of the most important functions of the Coloured Representative Council as set forth in section 20 of the Act appointing them is, on request, to advise the Government and to make recommendations to the Government in regard to all matters affecting, inter alia, the educational interests of the Coloured population of the Republic? Why could this council not do that?

I was still on the beginning of my reply. I was still dealing with the advisory council, and had not yet come to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. It is true that the legislation states that these educational matters will be submitted to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Those educational matters have not been stipulated in order to indicate precisely what this includes. When one thinks of it, and this is the practical consideration as to why the University cannot at this stage be given into the care and the control of this Council, one must try to understand the tremendous task which this representative council, which is going to be established towards the end of this year is going to have. Then this council is going to deal with an administration which it has never dreamt of before, i.e. the administration of R60 million in a number of fields. It will be such a colossal task for this council that it would be quite unreasonable to transfer the task of the control of this university to it at this stage. When one thinks that there already are at present 500,000 Coloured children at school who are now going to become the responsibility of this Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, you can realize what great demands this is going to make on the managerial ability of these Coloured leaders. And to burden them at this stage—I cannot use another word—with the responsibility of this University College, is unreasonable, because this university must be governed on a level to which they can always look up, and not in such a way that they will feel that as a result of the transfer they have been burdened so heavily that they cannot manage it properly. This is one of the matters which I have had to emphasize at every meeting of Coloureds during the past two years. When Coloureds tell me, in regard to this transfer of administration, that they are afraid that they are not equal to it, I have had to give them the assurance on every occasion that we as Whites and as a Government will not leave them on their own until such time as we are convinced that they can stand on their own two feet. And this is precisely what we will do in regard to this college. When the time comes and we find that it can stand on its own feet, then they will most certainly be consulted and then one will be able to establish a new pattern. But those things still lie ahead, and to do so at this stage would be totally unfair and in fact no acknowledged Coloured leader is asking for it. It is only the Opposition who are occupying their time here with imaginary arguments and who are asking for it here.

I now want to conclude by saying that this measure is an important step forward on the road of the Coloured people’s development towards their own maturity. It is an important measure. It does not include autonomy. I said that in my introductory speech. But this measure sets this university on the road to that autonomy. This measure accords that university that independent recognition and gives it that status which I think it has fully earned in the nine years. That is why I believe that this step which aims to give this university its academic independence at this stage, is a logical and justified step. I am not trying to argue away the fact that there is no convocation at this stage, that the rector and the council will not have full control over appointments and that it cannot in this respect be compared with the administrative rights of other universities. I am not trying to conceal it. It is so. It does not have the same administrative rights, but with this legislation it is receiving something which it has never had before. It is being granted academic independence which it has earned and to which it is entitled, and it is a development which will allow it in future to take that place in the lives of the Coloureds which will make them even more proud of it and which will enable the Coloureds to take their place in South Africa with even greater pride and strength.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, when I first read this Bill I thought this was the clause which was going to give to this University the status which we hoped it would have, bearing in mind the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister last year when he said it had been decided to increase the status of the non-white university colleges because the Government was satisfied they had shown they could exercise that degree of responsibility which was exercised by the white universities. We find subsection (1) says that “As from the fixed date the university college shall be a university …”. So far so good, and we were very pleased to read this. The subsection concludes with the words, “… to be known as the University of Zululand”. I am sure nobody would have any objection to that name. Subsection (2) says that “The seat of the University shall be at Ngoya in the district of Mtunzini in the province of Natal”. I am sure nobody would have any argument with that either. I know there are many people who feel that a university such as the one which will evolve at Ngoya should be sited nearer to the largest concentration of the people to be served by that university, and therefore many people would argue that this institution should perhaps have been sited a bit closer to Durban or Pietermaritzburg, preferably somewhere in the Camperdown area, between the two. But I have no argument with this subsection at all; I accept the fact that it is at Ngoya and I think it is a very good situation. I have been there, I have seen it, and I am sure nobody really has any grouse with what is going on there. But unfortunately the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister spoilt things when it came to subsection (3), which states that, “The University shall serve the Zulu and Swazi national units referred to in section 2 (1) of the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act …”. I do not like this and I want to ask the Minister if he will give us the reason why this subsection was phrased in such a manner. At this stage I move the following amendment standing in my name—

The subsection will then read, “The University shall primarily serve the Zulu and Swazi national units …”. I deplore this division of the Bantu people into so-called national units. Let me hasten to say, before any hon. member opposite jumps on this and misconstrues what I am saying, that I am sure the Zulu people are very proud of the fact that they are Zulus. In fact, so often we refer to them as the “proud” Zulu. They are extremely proud of that fact, but I know too that they do not wish to be separated, to be segregated from the other Bantu people of this country.

Why then do they go back to Zululand every time?

But they have to go home. Why does the hon. member go to his home?

Because I love my home and I want to be at my home.

The Zulu will also go back to Zululand because he loves his home and because he wants to go home to his home. We agree Zululand is his home; this is what he loves and this is where he wants to be. But must we really limit the attendance at this university to the Zulu people? I know there is a clause later on in terms of which the Minister or the Deputy Minister takes the power to allow the first admission of any member of some other national unit. I know that. I submit this clause is unnecessary if my amendment to insert the word “primarily” in subsection (3) of this clause were to be accepted. Then there would be no necessity to limit the admission to this institution to persons of the Zulu ethnic group.

Sir, as I have said, the Zulus do not want to be limited to this university. In exactly the same way they do not want their friends amongst the Xhosas, the Pondos, the Fingos, the Bapedis, the Tswanas and the Basuto to be precluded from attending their university. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments which have been expressed before in this House, namely that it is desirable that a university should develop a character. In the case of Fort Hare, it should develop a Xhosa character. In this case, the University of Zululand should develop a character which is akin to the Zulu people. But will the attendance of a few other people really affect that character? I fail to see that the attendance even of some Coloureds or Indians at this university would have any effect on that character. This Bill does not preclude their attendance. In fact, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister told us during the Second Reading debate on this measure that there are 14 Malawians at the University College at Ngoya at present. Is that correct?

No, I was speaking about the University College of the North.

I beg your pardon, Sir, but I feel that my point is valid whether the 14 Malawians are at the University College of the North or at the University College of Zululand.

Order! The hon. member has repeated that point so often that the Deputy Minister should understand it by now.

Not under this clause, Sir. We are all getting used to this, Sir, but we are waiting for a reply. Anyway, I notice that the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is sitting here, has not yet tired of it. We still have a long way to go with him. I should like to hear the Deputy Minister’s reply to this point. He has been smiling at me almost as though he may accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to accept the hon. member’s amendment, but I think that the amendment is not necessary at all. It is not necessary because clause 22 makes the necessary provision for the Minister to admit other Bantu there. What is the real position in respect of the University of Zululand? The real position is that two Tonga students, seven Sotho students and three Venda students are studying there at the moment. We are keen to retain the character of this University as a university for the Zulu nation. I can assure you, Sir, that very serious consideration was given to whether this very word “primarily” should have been inserted. In the notes which were given to me by the Department, and which refer to this clause, the word “primarily” was inserted. But when the legal advisers were looking at the Bill, they said that because of technical reasons it was quite unnecessary to insert this word in clause 2(3). Whether or not that word is inserted, it will, because of the provisions of clause 22, make no difference to this Bill. That is why the word has been omitted and that is why I do not see my way clear to inserting this word now. I want to content myself by saying to the hon. member that the practical effect will remain the same. Other Bantu students are being admitted there. We are satisfied that the character of this university as a Zulu university is being maintained. We shall not be unreasonable if other Bantu students want to study there. If the need arises for them to study there, we shall not be as imprudent as to refuse them permission to do so. The figures I have already mentioned, prove my point of view. The position in respect of the University of the North is the same. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Tongas will in that case be included there as Zulus? In other words, are the inhabitants of Tongaland—a part of Zululand, where the women in particular refuse to speak Zulu—now regarded as part of the Zulu national unit or not?

The answer is simply that those who are Zulu-speaking are, from the nature of the case, accepted as such. But this really has no bearing on the matter.

But what about those who are not Zulu-speaking?

But they may also attend that university, subject to the approval of the Minister, as provided in clause 22. The whole discussion on this matter is unnecessary and abortive. I can give you the absolute assurance that this is the case.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot argue with the law advisers. When it comes to a decision of theirs to the effect that they cannot accept the insertion of this word in this clause, I cannot argue with them. I understand the position of the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I should like to appeal to him to consider this matter in the light of the proposition I put to him just now. If my amendment to this clause were accepted, clause 22 would not be necessary. I am sure that our real objection has become apparent. Our real objection is to clause 22.

Order! I think that is beside the point. The hon. member may discuss this question when we come to clause 22.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I shall raise this argument under clause 22.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I think I should have told you at the beginning of this Committee Stage that we do not wish to prolong the discussions unnecessarily. We shall curtail the discussions as far as possible. But there are certain clauses which we regard as fundamental. One of them we have just dealt with. The other clauses which we regard as fundamental, are clause 4, clause 8 and clause 22. We think that these clauses are most important. The principles relating to this university are contained in those clauses. My amendment to clause 4 is to omit paragraphs (d) and (f). I shall deal with paragraph (f) first. The university shall consist of the usual elements, and in terms of paragraph (f), also of an advisory senate, if an advisory senate is established under section 11. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Education told us at an earlier stage that they had never been able to appoint anybody as a member of an advisory senate. Therefore it is non-existent in practice. Therefore we should like to ask why this provision is included in the Bill. Why does the Minister have such a thing as an advisory senate? They have several professors and lecturers but not one of them has ever qualified to serve on an advisory senate. In reply to a question, the department informs us that not one of them has ever qualified. Therefore I should like to suggest that this provision be omitted.

My other point relates to paragraph (d), which provides for an advisory council. I have expressed what I think about the advisory council. The argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister, on behalf of his Department, is that no Zulu may sit on the council. That is their argument. We say that it should be possible for one of these people to sit on the council. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us that he had excellent men on the advisory council. Why can one of these men not serve on the council? That was our point. Therefore we want to move this amendment, because we feel that both those elements are unnecessary. I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Kensington for not wanting to cover the entire field again as far as these matters are concerned. If the United Party wants to do so, I shall be quite prepared to do my share, but I really think that it is unnecessary to cover the entire field once again. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Kensington for not wanting to do so. Consequently I am not going to give a very lengthy and full reply either.

I refer hon. members to my second-reading speech on this matter in which I mentioned a whole series of reasons why we on this side of the House are of the opinion that it is absolutely essential to have an advisory council consisting of Bantu. For those reasons, as far as this matter is concerned, the principles held by the United Party and the National Party are diametrically opposed to each other. We maintain that there should be a white council which should be constituted as it is to be constituted. In addition there should be an advisory council consisting of Bantu members (paragraph (d)) and an advisory senate (paragraph (f)). Now the hon. member for Kensington wants to omit paragraphs (d) and (f). Unfortunately that is not acceptable to us. Hon. members on the opposite side will not convince us, and I am sure that I shall not be able to convince them either. If hon. members are satisfied with this, I shall leave the matter at that. If they want me to repeat the reasons why we do not see our way clear to omit paragraph (d) as well as paragraph (f), which is permissive, I shall furnish those reasons to them again.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister could at least give us some idea of the sort of people that he is anticipating will be appointed to the advisory council. Is he going to use tribal chiefs who, after all, do not know very much about university education, or is it his intention to try and find some graduates, professional men, businessmen and others among the Zulu people who ought to serve on the council of their own university, at least in an advisory capacity? I should be interested to know, because I think that in the past the tendency has been to make up the advisory council largely out of tribal chiefs.

He could have done it if he wanted to.

But he has done it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is going to have a chance any minute from now. Just wait until after dinner. My point is that I might be wrong, and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will not hesitate to tell me. He never waits to tell me how wrong I am about most matters. Can he tell me whether the advisory council of the University College of Zululand consists largely of tribal chiefs, or did he have people who are more urbanized or academically inclined, people who are more conversant with the running of a modern university? I would be interested to know. I know one is not competent to move an amendment at this stage, but I would like to express my regret that a convocation has been excluded from this clause altogether.

The reply is that we are trying to constitute this advisory council on the basis of the principles of a modern university. I may tell the hon. member that in view of the fact that we adopt the attitude that we should not like to have bodies represented on these councils because of practical problems which will arise from that, and I shall come back to this matter when the hon. member moves his amendment to clause 8, we go out of our way to make the councils as representative as possible of interest groups amongst he Bantu. This is a very wise principle. The hon. member will concede this to me. In this way various interest groups, such as inspectors of Bantu education, Bantu businessmen and Bantu chiefs or headmen, have representation on this advisory council of the University of Zululand as well as on the other advisory councils. I should like to read the names of the members of the advisory council of the University of Zululand to the hon. member.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this matter falls under clause 9 and not under this clause. I thought the hon. member only wanted to ask a question. Clauses 9 and 11 provide for the constitution of the advisory council and the advisory senate. This matter should be discussed under those clauses.

I shall furnish the names to the hon. member when those clauses come up for discussion.

Mr. Chairman, Edmund Burke tells us that “compromise is the real art of government”. We should not try to be subtle disputants, but happy people working together. I suggest to him that he should omit paragraph (f). That deals with the advisory senate which they have never been able to constitute. He wants to include a body that he has found no need for. The Deputy Minister’s boss is shaking his head, saying “moenie”. Will he be prepared to omit paragraph (f)?

On a point of order, Sir, on the question of whether the Deputy Minister may proceed to give us the names and examples of the type of person who are going to constitute the advisory council, I should like to point out that our amendment purports to delete the provision that is being made for these two bodies. Therefore, how they are going to be constituted surely is of importance in discussing this clause and deciding whether they should be deleted or not.

The hon. member for Houghton asked only for particulars as to how it was going to be constituted. She did not refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington.

I know, Sir, but the amendment is under discussion.

What difference will it make if you get the information now or later on?

The Leader of the House is asking what the difference is whether we get it now or later. The Committee might agree with the hon. member for Kensington that this advisory council is not necessary after listening to the discussion; because we are going to vote on this matter. Therefore we should discuss it now.

Clause 9 stipulates how the advisory council is to be constituted. That can be amended when we come to clause 9.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I have given my ruling. As far as I can remember, during the discussion of my previous Bill we also discussed the constitution of the councils under clauses 9 and 11, respectively.

Are you not prepared to hear any argument on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?

What is the hon. member’s argument?

That is what I want to submit, Sir. We are talking about the constitution of the university. It is basic at this point. If this clause goes through without being deleted and in clause 9 a change is made in this regard, after hearing the discussion, we will find that the university will be constituted with an advisory council and an advisory senate. In my submission this is the time it should be discussed. The motion which is before the Committee does not only include the clause, but also a proposal that paragraphs (d) and (f) should be omitted. The hon. the Minister was about to tell us the sort of people who will comprise these bodies, which is relevant.

Order! I have given my ruling. Whether there should be an advisory council or not, can be discussed now, but the constitution of the advisory council must be discussed under clauses 9 and 11.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Deputy Minister indicate how the advisory council is going to communicate with the council, and how the advisory senate is going to communicate with the senate? Presumably they are there in an advisory capacity. Therefore, they have to advise someone. Presumably, the advisory council has to advise the council, and the advisory senate is to advise the senate. How is this advice to be given? I am interested in the means of communication. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister envisage that there will be some dialogue between them, or does he envisage that everything will have to be reduced to writing and that any communication between them will have to be in writing. This is what I should like to know. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could indicate that. Then we can perhaps continue the discussion thereafter.

Mr. Chairman, the answer is that the rectof is a member ex officio of both the advisory council and the advisory senate, when the advisory senate is functioning. Before giving a full reply to the first question of the hon. member, I just want to say that we realize that we have not been able as yet to constitute an advisory senate because of the fact that a sufficient number of Bantu professors and lecturers have not been available up to now. For this reason the constitution of the advisory senate is permissive in terms of clause 11. As far as our views are concerned, this does not detract from the principle of constituting an advisory senate, and there are very good reasons for this being so, reasons which I do not want to repeat as I do not want to cover the same grounds again. But we should like there to be an advisory senate so as to afford Bantu professors and others the opportunity of being able to have consultations with the council and other bodies.

Now I come to the question which the hon. member put in connection with the matter of consultation between the advisory council and the council of the university. The rector has a

Col. 3299:

Line 48: For “my”, read “the”.

seat in the advisory council. The means of consultation are that the advisory council is welcome to advise the council in respect of any matter on which the council would like to have advice of the advisory council and on any matter in respect of which the advisory council wishes to give its advice to the council. The rector is present as the necessary liaison officer, in the first place, to acquaint himself of the views and ideas of the advisory council on any matter in question. These are the means of consultation. I hope this answers the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister talked about consultation, but, surely, one cannot have consultation in the form he mentioned. This is not consultation. Here we have a body which is set up as an advisory committee comprised of people who will be Zulus. The rector sits as the chairman and there is consultation with him. That is in order. But there is not necessarily consultation with the council or the senate. The hon. the Deputy Minister conceded in his reply that the only way in which there can be this consultation is for some members or one member of the white council to sit in on the black council.

I did not.

That is the conclusion which I came to when listening to your argument. When I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister what the medium of communication between the advisory council and the council would be, whether it would be done by writing or by consultation, the answer of the hon. the Deputy Minister was that it would be done through the rector.

It is not through the rector only. He can bring with him professors and other people connected with the university, depending on the subject under discussion.

Oh, I see. So there is to be no limit to the number of people he can bring along to the black advisory council? Is that right?

There is excellent consultation in this way. Furthermore, there may also be written consultation.

If I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, the rector will then be able to bring along with him as many white people as he wants?

In practice it would not be a large number of people. Why should it be?

The point is that the Deputy Minister concedes that he can bring a number of white people to the black council. That is being done in practice already; what then is all this nonsense about? What is all this nonsense of two separate councils and ne’er the twain shall meet? Why is some recognition not given to the present excellent practice? If one is going to have consultation one cannot have it only in writing. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would concede that.

It does not happen in writing only.

I agree that it does not happen only in writing. It happens in fact that white people from the white council go to the black council and talk to them. Common sense, the practice of the matter, dictates that that should happen, because it is the only proper means of consultation. That is what we are asking for. We say, in fact, by this amendment that there is no point in having it otherwise. We should have all these people together.

That is where the difference between us comes in.

There is no difference. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the difference is that he wants a white council and a black council. Then in the next breath he concedes that in practice the advisory council and white people all get together and talk together.

He did not say that.

That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just indicated that, in fact, integration takes place in the state of consultation, and quite rightly so. You cannot have any consultation in a body of this sort except on that basis. That is why I have asked the hon. the Minister the question in the first place. You cannot have, this he has conceded, consultation only in writing and therefore you must meet. For goodness’ sake, let us throw away this pretence, this nonsense, these words which he has used. Let us then put into the wording of this Bill the practice and the common sense which to-day is the position at this university and at all other universities. That is all the amendment says and the hon. the Minister has now conceded, in fact, the wisdom of amending the Bill to this effect.

Mr. Chairman, I am again taking part in this discussion in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. When we discussed a similar amendment on the University of Fort Hare Bill, I moved an amendment with three sections on the same clause. The first section, I agree, was not of very great importance and I was quite prepared to withdraw it. The third one was ruled out of order, because no provision had been made in the definitions for “convocation”. I was anxious to see a convocation. We discussed the second section; we voted on it and then we divided on the clause. In other words we did this in the University of Fort Hare Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North). In doing that I should like to elicit from the hon. the Deputy Minister what exactly he said in regard to consultation. Will these two bodies, in fact, meet together?

No.

The hon. Deputy Minister says no. That is a thing which we did not quite understand before.

Why don’t you read the Bill?

Mr. Chairman, apparently this hon. member has moved over there in order to advise the hon. the Deputy Minister. Well, I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister can do better than being advised by that hon. member. There is nothing anywhere in this Bill which indicates that these two bodies will sit separately, nor together. There is no provision in this Bill which says that these two bodies can either sit together or separately. This is why we are inquiring from the hon. the Deputy Minister what the true position is. What is, in fact, the true position? What is the nature of the consultation he has referred to? From what he said I was left with the distinct impression that these two bodies would meet together.

Nonsense.

Well, if it is nonsense, can the hon. the Deputy Minister then tell us exactly what form this consultation will take? [Interjections.] But I did not understand him. The way he spoke …

We cannot help it if you cannot understand.

Mr. Chairman, there are times when a noise is being created when it is not easy to hear. Then, again, things are put in a way in which they ought not to be put. Hence hon. members do misunderstand sometimes. As a matter of fact, I recollect occasions when the hon. Leader of the House himself misunderstood things which had been said. In any event, am I then to take it that these bodies are not to meet together? Am I to take it that delegations from these bodies will meet together? How otherwise is this consultation to be conducted? How exactly will it take place? Paragraph (f) reads: “an advisory senate (if an advisory senate is established under section 11)”. We shall come to clause 11 in time, but could the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us at this stage whether it is contemplated to establish an advisory senate now or whether this would be left for some later date?

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, there is a saying that “many an argument is sound, merely sound”. I think the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (North) and of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) on this specific matter of the council and the advisory council is, as far as this side is concerned, “merely sound”, especially after my explanation. I want to make it very clear that the system of a council with an advisory council, which has been in operation at these three Bantu universities for many years, is functioning splendidly in practice. The mutual co-operation which exists is of the very best. The hon. members want to know from me what form of consultation takes place between the Bantu advisory council and the council of the university. I told them that the rector was present at the discussions of the advisory council. If a request is received, as happens in practice, from the advisory council in regard to a matter of which the professors have expert knowledge, and if the advisory council is desirous of having their expert advice, the rector and those professors meet together to hear those discussions.

Is that not integration?

No. Hon. members should realize that the rector is serving on the advisory council in an ex officio capacity. Therefore he does not have a vote. If the rector and a professor or professors are, because of their expert knowledge, brought to that advisory council to hear the discussions and to advise the council on behalf of the advisory council of any decision taken, or if any request should come from the council to the advisory council in regard to any matter, those professors do not have any vote either and consequently no authority on the advisory council. This is the important point which should not be overlooked in this regard, and therefore I am afraid that we will not get any further with the discussion of this matter.

Suffice it to say that this system is working extremely well in practice. Along these lines we are giving the Bantu on the advisory council the opportunity of gaining excellent experience. They welcome this, and they are qualifying for greater things ahead.

Finally, because I want to deal with these matters in brief so as not to take up too much time of the Committee, I want to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), i.e. whether we are going to establish an advisory senate and when we are going to do so. The reply to the first part of the question is very clear. This Bill would not have made the establishment of an advisory senate permissive in terms of clause 11 if it was not our desire and intention to establish such an advisory senate. It was said here by the hon. the Minister that as soon as we were of the opinion that the time was ripe and as soon as we were of the opinion that the establishment of an advisory senate would work well in practice, we would do so and that this merely depended on one factor, i.e. whether the number of Bantu professors and lecturers at this university would make it worthwhile to establish an advisory senate. In order to obviate any further discussion on this question of the advisory senate, I want to point out that also as far as this matter is concerned, the necessary consultation has taken place with the Bantu professors at these universities as well as with the rector and the council and other bodies or committees that wished to be consulted in this matter. We are realistic in connection with these matters. We are practical in connection with these matters and the best proof for this is to be found in the fact that this system is working very well, splendidly, in practice to the satisfaction of all concerned.

I want to take the hon. the Deputy Minister back to what he said before the suspension of business. What he said before the suspension of business on this clause was that it was quite clear that there was nothing much to be said about it except that on this side of the House we stood for integration and that on that side of the House they stood for separation.

Quite correct.

My hon. friends over there confirm this. The hon. the Deputy Minister has had an hour and a half in which to think about what he is going to say.

He did not think all the time.

No, it is quite obvious that he did not think all the time, because now he produces the argument that, although they are all mixed up in this advisory council and the rector can go there with as many professors as he likes—and in practice he does—that is not integration because they do not actually have the vote. Really, Sir, should we not define our terms; these are just words that are being used. Here is an advisory council, the function and the purpose of which is to advise the council.

A semantic riddle.

Yes, a semantic riddle, as my hon. Leader says. The advisory council is to advise the council. I asked the Deputy Minister what the medium of communication was going to be for this advice; whether it was going to be entirely in writing or whether there was going to be some verbal communication. The hon. the Deputy Minister says “Yes, they are going to go over there; you can have white people from the council, the rector and other professors, who are going to go to this council and talk to the council, but they are not going to have the vote and therefore it is not integration.” Sir, in the end this body has a function to perform and it is an advisory function; it has to take part in the process of consultation, and surely you cannot properly consult with anyone unless you talk to the person or body concerned. It is not integration if you all sit in the same room and talk together? [Interjections.] Well, what is the difference?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause. The hon. member is now discussing integration.

No, Sir, I am answering the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister which was that what this clause was all about was integration on the one hand and separation on the other. That is all I am doing.

The hon. member has been saying that repeatedly.

The amendment that has been moved is to remove the advisory council and the advisory senate because—and the Deputy Minister has made our case for us—if in practice the council and the advisory council, the senate and the advisory senate meet together, which is the only way in which they can properly consult, then why bother to have an advisory council and an advisory senate?

The council and the advisory council do not meet together.

The white parts go and meet the black parts to talk together, but that is separation because the white people in that body do not have the vote! Sir, if the Deputy Minister really believes what he said and that was that one day he hoped that this would be an all black council and that there would be no need for an advisory council, then surely if we are going to progress to that stage, the people need guidance and that guidance can only be provided by the white people sitting with those black people and educating them and guiding them. Surely, this is a university we are dealing with. It is going to be called a university and it is only Bantu, mainly, in this case, for Zulus. But they are not allowed in their own university to sit with those people who had control of the affairs and the destiny of that university. Really, where do we go from here? The Deputy Minister says he is being realistic, but he has demonstrated to us that the reality of the matter is in fact that they have to get together and discuss matters with one another. Sir, you have to have a dialogue at a university. If you do not have a dialogue, there is no university; and the place you should have this dialogue, if you are training these people to hand over to them in the end, is in that place at the university which controls its destiny.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell the Committee, since he has just stated that this system of an advisory council has worked exceptionally well up to now, what sort of things the council of the university consults the Advisory Council about. I should like to have a few examples of the sort of thing that the major executive organ of the university, which is the council, decides it is necessary to call in the advisory council about. We have heard a lot of generalization about this clause, and I am glad the Minister has told me that under a later clause he will tell me who the advisory council consists of, and I think he ought to tell me what occupations they follow. But right now, since it is out of order for the Minister to give us details as to the personnel of the council, I would like him to give me some examples, and to give the Committee some examples, of the sort of thing the advisory council is consulted about.

At any university where the council has the interests of the institution at heart we find that this happens in practice and the advisory council does in fact have the interests of this university at heart. Matters on which they give advice, for example, concern bursaries, the admission of students, the discipline which ought to be exercised at the university, or which is to be stepped up or otherwise. In this way there is a variety of matters affecting the interests of the university on which that advisory council may express an opinion. As a matter of fact, there are no restrictions on the advisory council in respect of the matters on which it may express an opinion. I have now mentioned various examples here. The council of the university may ask the advisory council for its opinion on any subject on which the council would like to have the opinion of that body. At the moment I do not have a list here of all those matters, but from my reply you can deduce that there is a large variety of matters. As a matter of fact, the advisory council may give its opinion on any matter affecting the interests of the university. And to this I want to add straight away that the opinion of the advisory council receives proper consideration from the council and that that opinion is duly taken into account by the council, and if the council finds that such advice is sound, it is implemented. For that reason this is working very well in practice, and this is the position as the council adopts the attitude that the advisory council must be consulted and that should feel that it is fulfilling a useful function. And we are going out of our way, like the council, to enable the advisory council to fulfil this useful function, because, as I have already said, we should like to enable the Bantu along these lines on the advisory council to gain all the necessary experience imaginable of the interests of a specific university. This is the reply to the question.

But how do they communicate?

Just before the hon. member entered the Chamber I dealt with the matter for minutes …

Order! This is mere repetition now. I put the question.

Question put: That paragraphs (d) and (f) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I want to record my objection to this clause and I want to give the reasons therefor. The reason “is that in no other university constitution that I know of, other than the constitutions of the two other African universities-to-be which we have discussed over the last few days, does a clause like this appear under which the rector of a university is “appointed by the Minister after consultation with the council.” I think there is one university among the white universities where the rector is appointed by the council with the approval of the Minister, and that is the University of Port Elizabeth, but in the case of the other white universities it is not so. I see no reason why, if these universities are meant to have the same status as the white universities, and Minister after Minister—and one Deputy Minister—have assured us of this, there should be this differentiation.

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

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name—

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) five persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) two professors of the University chosen by the senate;
   4. (d) two persons chosen by the Council of the Royal House of the Zulus; and
   5. (e) one person chosen by the University of Natal.

We have tried at various stages as these Bills have gone through the House to obtain a council which will have some semblance of a university council, but we have never got any further with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and the Deputy Minister. Having the same old council with eight nominated, two from the senate, and the rector, means that the Minister has a nominated council. We have tried very hard to suggest a council which would be acceptable to the Deputy Minister. We have tried very hard. My amendment will give the Minister a majority of the members on the council, and I think that ought to satisfy him. I suggest it should consist of the rector, five persons appointed by the State President, two professors of the University chosen by the senate, two persons chosen by the Council of the Royal House of the Zulus.

Order!

Order! Who is trying to be Chairman here?

I shouted “Order!” Sir, because I cannot hear the hon. member speak for all the noise going on on the other side.

The hon. member should appeal to the Chair and not call for order himself. I should be glad if hon. members would talk a little more softly. The hon. member may continue.

As I was saying, five persons appointed …

Order!

Order! Will the hon. member please stop calling for order?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear the hon. member speak for all the noise from the other side.

Order! If the hon. member does not want to listen to the Chair, I will have to ask him to leave the Chamber. The hon. member may continue.

Finally, the council will consist of one person chosen by the University of Natal. I do not want to labour this. It is an effort to give the Minister the same number of members and at the same time to make it representative.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to what was said by the hon. member for Kensington, may I just move the following amendment to this clause—

I want to reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kensington and I want to point out to you, Sir, what the United Party is in fact doing now. I can discuss this at length and in detail, and if I wanted to do so, I could honestly give the United Party a severe lashing for what they are doing here. Sir, do you know what the hon. member is doing now? He suggests that the council should consist of the rector—so far so good—five persons appointed by the State President—the Bill provides for eight members—and two professors of the University elected by the senate —this is all very well, too—but it does not end there, and I want hon. members to take note of the sly move the United Party wants to make here. The hon. member then suggests that two persons be elected by the Council of the Royal House of the Zulus. I now want to ask the hon. member: Who are the members of the Council of the Royal House of the Zulus? Surely they are Zulus; surely they are Bantu persons: surely they are not Whites. We are not dealing here with the advisory council; that is dealt with in clause 9. We are now dealing with clause 8, which has to do with the nomination of the council of the University. Our attitude is that this shall be a council consisting of white persons and that is why the United Party has been attacking us all along. But the hon. member asks for two persons to be elected by the Council of the Royal House of the Zulus: this is how his amendment is worded. Surely this is quite unacceptable to us, because then we would have a mixed council. [Interjections.]

Order!

If I were to accept this, I would immediately have to accept the semi-integration attitude of the United Party as well and I would have to do away with the advisory council of this University at the same time. What is the purpose of having an advisory council if the Royal House is to be granted representation here? Surely it cannot be represented in any other way than by Zulu persons?

Why cannot they be represented there?

Order!

I shall come to that presently. If I treat the hon. member unfairly, he can get up and say so.

No, you are not treating me unfairly.

Order! Hon. members cannot stand there talking.

Finally, the amendment moved by the hon. member contains paragraph (e), which reads “one person chosen by the University of Natal”. We say quite emphatically that it would create many problems for us if we granted university bodies representation on these councils. We appoint people of the University of Natal who are able to do the same kind of work by virtue of the fact that they serve on the council. If we were to concede that the University of Natal should have a representative on this council, why should we then leave out Fort Hare, Port Elizabeth and Pretoria? This creates practical problems for us. This council is appointed on the basis of the academic and professional qualifications of these people. This allows the Minister much more scope for appointing somebody from the University of Natal who has the necessary qualifications. The Minister can do so without specifically granting representation to the University of Natal and incurring the wrath of the other universities. This is therefore quite unnecessary. We do not want to be unsympathetic. It is not a case of our not wanting to accept sound, acceptable suggestions made by the United Party. We have accepted some of their amendments, because we regard them as constructive and necessary.

In conclusion, I want to say something more, and I hope the Chairman will not call me to order, because this matter really concerns the advisory council. Before mentioning it, however, I just want to point out that Prof. C. J. M. Nienaber of the University of Natal is serving on the council of the University College of Zululand. Prof. Nienaber is a much appreciated and respected member of this council. I also want to point out that the rectors of two of the largest white universities in the country are serving on the council of the University College of the North, for example. Why should representation on the council be granted to the University of Pretoria when the rector of this University is already serving on the council? Why should representation on this council be granted to the University of Potchefstroom when the rector of this University is already serving on the council? Why should representation be granted to the University of Natal when Prof. Nienaber is already serving on the council? Why should we unnecessarily incur the wrath of the other universities? I therefore say that this is unnecessary.

I accept that the hon. member means it very well. This is not the occasion to make political capital out of the situation, but I can tell hon. members opposite that hon. members on this side of the House will without any doubt go to the electorate with the Hansard reports dealing with the clauses of these Bills. They will most definitely tell the electorate what happened here. [Interjections.] That hon. member gets very annoyed when one says they stand for integration.

Which clause are you dealing with now?

I am speaking on clause 8. [Interjections.] The hon. Leader of the Opposition, who wants to give the United Party a better image, cannot take the hon. member for Houghton to task, but he will have to take those three musketeers to task.

You have never seen a musket in your life. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, in paragraph (d) of his amendment the hon. member for Kensington proposes that two persons be chosen by the council of the Royal House of the Zulus. However, I want to tell the hon. member that the Royal House is, in fact, represented on the advisory council. There is in fact a member of the Royal House of Zululand serving on the advisory council. That is why I say that we are people with a practical and realistic approach. I wish I could have said the same of that side of the House. Those hon. members are so few in numbers for the very reason that the same cannot be said of them. This person, Mr. E. N. Zulu, is the chairman of that advisory council. He is a member of the Royal House and he is the chairman of the advisory council. His Zulu name is umNtwana wakwaZulu Ernest Ndesheni Zulu. That hon. member is laughing now, but all he has in mind is that this University should have an integrated council. Apart from that he does not seem to me to be much interested in this matter. Those hon. members will suffer politically at the next election as a result of the attitude they are adopting now. When one translates the name I mentioned, it means “Prince of the Zulus”. He is a representative of the Royal House, and he is the chairman of the advisory council of the University of Zululand. Why should we accept the amendment moved by that hon. member? I am sorry, therefore, but I cannot accept his amendment at all.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has the effrontery to ask: “Who is the Royal House of the Zulus?” He is the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and he asks in Parliament: “Who is the Royal House of the Zulus?”

I did not say so. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am quite prepared to sit down, with your leave, and let the Deputy Minister explain himself in regard to his question about the Royal House of the Zulus.

I have never spoken a derogatory word about the Zulu House.

I did not say that it was derogatory. I said that you asked who it was? The Deputy Minister asked who the Royal House of the Zulus was, for the purposes of this amendment which we have before us. The Deputy Minister does not know anything about it. Who is there who is better able to choose two members of the council than the Royal House of the Zulus? The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he does not want to talk politics. But the whole of his speech, from beginning to end, was nothing but politics. He talks about “inmenging”. He talks about the association of members on the council and the senate. What is the position of a white lecturer who has black students? What about the hon. member for Zululand, who was one of the lecturers at the Ngoya University? Does he not sit in the same classroom as black students and lecture to them? Is that not “inmenging”? Is that not integration? He sits there with them day after day. What is the difference between sitting on the council or in the senate and sitting with black students all day long? Of course the Deputy Minister is reflecting on the Royal House of the Zulus. If he knew anything about Zulu customs and their way of life, and if he knew anything about the civil code which they were given by Chaka, which is to-day still the civil code of the Zulu people, he would know who the Royal House of the Zulus was. He would know that that is the one authority that can be respected by the whole of the Zulu nation, three million of them. If there is any authority at all, including the Deputy Minister, and the Government, who have more right to nominate two members to this council than the Royal House has, I should like to know who it is. This is alleged to be a Zulu University. It is there for the Zulus, and surely the Zulu authorities are entitled to elect two of the members of the council. It is shame on the Deputy Minister that he should ask a question like that in Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly did not expect the hon. member to adopt the attitude he did. He is much older than I, and I should like to respect his age, but he makes it difficult for me to do so. But it is a good thing that he rose to speak here, because he could not have made the difference between the National Party Government and the United Party more clear than he did a moment ago in regard to this clause. But I shall come to that later and I shall reply to him exhaustively. The charge he levels at me is, in the first place, that I know nothing about the Zulus and, secondly, that I said something derogatory of the Zulu House here to-night. I deny that most strongly. The other day in this House I told that hon. member that I had done my field-work in Zululand for nine months. I knew the former Zulu King, Ciprian kaDinizulu, very well and intimately personally. I had a high regard for him. I told the hon. member that I had a very interesting and significant conversation with Ciprian a week before his death when he visited Pretoria for the purpose of accepting a territorial authority for the Zulu nation from the Government. The hon. member has now levelled a charge at me, but I want to ask him whether he has done field-work in Zululand for nine months. I want to ask him whether he has lived among the Zulus for nine months. Who is the hon. member to tell me that I know nothing about it. I wrote a thesis and the information contained therein was based on Zululand. I am a trained anthropologist, and I take the strongest exception to the fact that that hon. member, who is my senior, looks down upon my youth and tries to run me down as though I know nothing about these matters. I do not profess to know more than he does, but I think the people outside can judge for themselves as to what difference there is between his actions and mine as far as expert knowledge goes. They can judge for themselves as far as our contributions are concerned. But. Sir, I take this even more amiss of the hon. member because I furnished the particulars I have furnished now, to the House during the Second Reading debate on the University of Zululand Bill. The hon. member now comes along and levels this charge at me. But I know why the hon. member is doing it. I have said in this House that I have a soft spot for the Zulus because I came to know them very well. Now the hon. member wants to hurt me personally. Surely, to advance arguments of that kind is not becoming to an older person such as he, who has been sitting in this House for longer than I have. The “argument against the man" is the poorest argument imaginable one can use. One only advances an argument like that when one has no other argument to advance for putting one’s case, as I shall show presently.

I now want to put the other side of this matter and I really want to get into that hon. member’s hair. There is one thing one must not say to the United Party to-day. If one says it, they get annoyed. Those of them who get most annoyed, are the old “marchers” of the United Party, like the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member is imagining that he must “march” again. I want to tell him that if he wants to “march” he has picked himself the wrong person, namely myself, to “march” against on Bantu affairs. [Interjections.]

Order!

But let us get a little nearer home. People say that a politician is somebody who more or less spends his time between “running for office” and “running for cover”. But that hon. member will “run for cover” as he has never run before in his life. On the last occasion on which he marched he should already have run for all he was worth. But let me come back to the clause. This little episode we have had now, clearly shows the difference between the National Party Government and the United Party. What is the position? The National Party Government says it stands for apartheid. The United Party says what it stands for, but the people outside cannot quite understand it. However, we shall leave the matter there. The attitude adopted by the National Party Government in respect of the council and the advisory council of the University of Zululand is that there should be an advisory council which will consist of Bantu persons and that there should be a white council which must consist of Whites who are experts. This we say is separate development and apartheid.

It is not integration.

Of course it is not integration, because these are two separate bodies. I now say that, during the discussion of all these Bills on Bantu Universities, the hon. member for Kensington has revealed himself as someone who is in favour of at least semi-integration. By adopting that attitude he has irrevocably committed the United Party to it once more. What does the hon. member do now? Here we have a council in respect of which it is proposed in the Bill that it shall consist of the rector of the university, who is a white person, eight persons appointed by the State President and who are also white persons, and two members who are also white persons and who will be chosen by the senate. This is how the Bill reads.

Where does it say so in the Bill?

It says so in clause 8. I was reading it to you from the Bill.

Where does it say in the Bill that they shall be Whites?

But we all know that the council of the university will consist of Whites. [Interjections.]

Order!

I can quote you the names.

Where does it say so in the Bill?

I have just read it to you. [Interjections.]

Order!

Not one of the university councils of this Government consists of persons other than white persons. This applies to the University Colleges for both the Coloureds and the Indians. Everybody knows it and the whole country knows it. You must not try to be facetious now.

Where does it say so in the Bill?

I have just read it to you. If you are able to read, read clause 9. You will see that clause 9 makes provision for the advisory council and that the advisory council will consist of Bantu persons. Hon. members must not try to run away now.

We are not trying to run away at all.

Of course you are trying to run away. Even a child will be able to understand when I tell him that none of the councils of the universities consists of persons other than white persons. I have just read to hon. members how that council is to be constituted and how it has been constituted for the past eight years. The hon. member for Kensington now comes along—and when I pointed it out, the hon. member for South Coast got annoyed—and says that we should appoint two members of the Royal House of Zululand on this council, which consists of Whites.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

Order! We are dealing with the Committee Stage now. The hon. member may speak when the hon. the Deputy Minister has finished speaking.

I repeat, and I am not saying this in a derogatory way towards the Zulus and the Royal House of the Zulus, but I say, to confirm the attitude of this side of the House, that if one agrees to two members of the Royal House of Zululand being nominated on this white council, there is no doubt that Zulus will be nominated on this council. Surely, if this is the attitude of the United Party, they are in favour of integration, as against our attitude, which is that there must be a separate white council and a separate advisory council. Then that hon. member must not get annoyed. He should then go and explain to the electorate why they are, in fact, in favour of integration, as has actually been proved in this House with these Bills. We shall tell the voters what their attitude is. And do you know, Sir, why the hon. member for South Coast gets annoyed? He gets annoyed because when one really hits the mark, when one places one’s finger on the tender spot, that is when the biggest howl is emitted. That is what we saw and heard a moment ago.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Deputy Minister would quieten down, settle down, take it easy and read the Bill I think we might have some debate about the subject on which we are presently engaged, namely clause 8. [Interjections.]

Hon. members at the back of the House must cease this incessant talking that is going on. It is spoiling the entire debate.

The hon. the Deputy Minister did not just confess his ignorance. He went further. When he was asked where in the Bill does it say that the council shall be White and the advisory council Black he said that it was in the Bill and that he read it to the House. He said that twice. This hon. Deputy Minister is in charge of this Bill. I ask him and I ask any other hon. gentleman in this House to read this and to tell me where it says that the advisory council is going to be Black it says that the council is going to be White. It is not there. Is that not the fact of the matter?

I will reply to that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says he is going to reply now. The hon. the Deputy Minister already said to this Committee that it was in the Bill. He then picked up the Bill and said that he was reading from the Bill. But it is not there. Let us deal with the facts as we have them. Let us not have all this talk about all these things the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned. Something he described as “halfintegrasie”. What does it mean? What is “half-integrasie”? One wonders just what the hon. the Deputy Minister is talking about. I do not think he knows that himself. He said that they believed in separation and that the one council was Black and the other White. It does not say so in the Bill. But he has to appoint them. He should, therefore, be able to tell us who in fact he is going to appoint. In the next breath he said that parts of the one would come together with parts of the other.

And that is not integration.

And there it is. But that is not integration. If the words “half-integrasie” can be applied to anything, surely it can be applied to what the hon. the Minister has described as the practice in these matters. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has settled down now and has control over himself, perhaps he will answer the question that was asked by the hon. member for South Coast, namely: if you have a university for the Zulu nation who better is there to nominate people to the council of that university than the Zulus. That question he has not answered. Why will he not accept that part of the amendment? They play no part in this whatsoever. Not even to the advisory council can they appoint people, the advisory council which the hon. the Deputy Minister says is to be entirely Black.

But even there they are not appointed. It is not provided for. [Interjections.] Does the Royal House of the Zulus have the right to appoint people to that council? The answer of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the hon. member for South Coast was, “Oh no, that cannot be done, because then we will have a mixed council”. That is the only answer he gave. The hon. member for South Coast pointed out that this was the one authority the whole Zulu nation accepted and respected more than any other authority. Why are they not taken into account?

Order! The hon. member must stop repeating now.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister, now that he appears to be a little more calm, answer that question?

I have no objection if that hon. member keeps on acting as though he has the ace of trumps up his sleeve. But I do object if he acts as though the Almighty Himself put it up his sleeve. He speaks as though he has all the knowledge in the world in regard to this matter. I explained to him clearly a while ago that I am not implying—now he must get this quite clear—that it is only the (d) Section of the hon. member for Kensington’s amendment, which deals with the Zulu Royal House, that is unacceptable to us. I say that the (e) Section, namely “one person chosen by the University of Natal”, is also unacceptable to us. The hon. member should not act as though I only said that the one was unacceptable. I gave a lengthy account of why the (e) Section was also unacceptable to us. It will cause us difficulties if only one university is represented and not the others. Five national groups are catered for at the University of the North. If we accept the principle, for example, to give the Transkeian Government, as a government, representation on that council or the Zulu Royal House as a royal house, then surely we must also give representation to all the other tribes of the north, otherwise they will be justified in making accusations against us.

When we come to that clause we will show you.

Yes, we are coming to it presently. Therefore we cannot accept it, for purely practical reasons. After all, I do not think this Government is represented on the council of a white university. It is not necessary. Members of the Government serve on each of these councils. And now I want to make my point.

This is a Zulu university, not a white university.

But the principle remains the same. I say, Sir, that the chairman of the advisory council of the University of Zululand is Mr. E. N. Zulu. He is a prince of the Zulu Royal House. Hon. members should get this clear. We do not want to give the Zulu Royal House representation, for the reasons I have mentioned. These are practical, sound, valid reasons. But just as there are members of the Transkeian Government on the council of the University of Fort Hare, and just as, on the advisory council of the University of the North, there are chiefs from the various national groups served by the university, but without those groups having representation as national groups, so the Zulu Royal House has been granted full recognition through the chairman, Mr. E. N. Zulu. By his presence, we believe, we have done enough to grant the Zulu Royal House the necessary recognition that we should like to grant them. Surely this is the answer to that. I cannot see why this aspect should be debated any further.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with the second question posed to him by the hon. member for Durban (North), but he has omitted to deal with the first one; probably owing to oversight. Sir, I attempted to put a question to him and you asked me rather to put it separately by way of a speech. The Deputy Minister indicated that the members of the council of the university must be White and that it was contained in the Bill that it should be so. He said that he had read it to us twice. So I ask the Deputy Minister please to assist me. I have attempted to read it. I have not found it. Would he please quote to me the line in the Bill which he said that he had read to us and which indicates that the members of the council must be White. If the hon. the Deputy Minister was mistaken, we will understand that it is merely a policy matter. But he did say that he had read it twice. Could I ask him to please enlighten me on that matter?

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Just now he launched an attack on the hon. member for South Coast.

But he launched one on me.

No, Sir. With respect, I submit that the hon. member for South Coast did not launch an attack on the hon. the Deputy Minister. He merely asked him what he meant by a certain statement which he had made.

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

Very well, Sir. We have moved an amendment that two persons on the council should be chosen by the Council of the Royal House of the Zulus. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made claims with regard to his achievements as a scholar and with regard to the thesis he wrote as a result of a study of the Zulu people. He maintained that he had a knowledge of and a love for the Zulu people. But he has rejected categorically our plea that the Zulu people should be represented on the council of their university.

Order! The hon. member must please stop repeating that point. Everybody has made it.

I want to put it this way then. The hon. the Deputy Minister a little earlier, in purporting to read from the Bill the provisions of clause 8, read that “hulle blankes sal wees”.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

I agree with you, Sir, that it has been made. But I want to lead on from there, and say that the hon. the Deputy Minister has alleged that we stand for integration. We do not stand for integration. This point has been made already.

That point has also been made.

I agree, Sir. It has been made over and over again. But let me say something with regard to the council.

Order! There is a rule against repetition. I do not know whether the hon. member knows the rules.

The hon. the Deputy Minister launched an attack on me. He dealt with this question of integration, having said that the Bill provided for white members of the council. We have asked him to prove that. He must not launch an attack on me.

Order! After the hon. member had made that point and the Deputy Minister had made his point, two other hon. members made the point that is being made now.

We want an answer. We want the Deputy Minister to show us where in the Bill it is indicated that those members must be White. He has run away; he will not answer. He gave us no answer.

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) may continue.

To come back to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, he referred to my friend, the hon. member for South Coast, as “the old marcher”. He said that he would soon be running for cover. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he knows what I mean by that, “viga”! If he has spent any time amongst the Zulus, he will know what I mean by that. He has not only launched a deliberate attack on the hon. member for South Coast, but he has denigrated the Zulu Royal House, which we maintain should be represented on the council of their university.

Order! The hon. member must stop repeating arguments which have already been advanced.

Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely difficult under these circumstances …

Order! I think in that case the hon. member should resume his seat.

With permission, Sir, there is another point that I wish to make. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to the question as to whether or not the University of Natal was competent to elect a member to the council of this university. Sir, I resent such an implication from the Deputy Minister. He suggested that the University of Natal was not competent to elect such a person to the council …

He did not say that.

The hon. the Leader of the House must not come into this.

I have been listening and you are merely obstructing. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Zululand was refused permission by your Whip to speak.

With respect, Sir, it is the hon. the Leader of the House who is now obstructing the proceedings. Perhaps he can tell us about this clause—whether it means White or non-White.

You are wasting time now. [Interjections.]

No, the Deputy Minister is wasting time.

There is an agreement with the Whips that you will curtail discussion and you are deliberately not doing so. If that is all an agreement is worth, then I might as well not have wasted my time in discussing the matter with your Whips. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now going to put the question. The hon. member must resume his seat.

With your permission, Sir, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will be good enough to answer the question which I put to him?

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

I should very much like to reply to the matter which has just been raised by hon. members. I read that particular clause from the Bill to them. Hon. members are quite correct; it does not say in the Bill.

Oh!

Allow me to complete my sentence. The Bill does not say that the council must consist of Whites and clause 9 does not say that the advisory council must consist of Bantu. The big difference between that and this side of the House, is this, ….

You mean, we can read and you cannot.

Order!

Hon. members on that side refuse to listen now because they know that I am going to hit them hard and they do not want to give me a chance to speak.

Order!

It is quite correct that it is not in the Bill, but it is a matter of policy. According to the policy of this side of the House, it is and will be a white council, and there is no council but a white council at any of these universities, and in terms of our policy the advisory councils at all these universities are Bantu councils or Coloured councils or Indian councils. That is precisely the difference between that side and this side. Why, then, do hon. members on that side not stand up and move an amendment? The electorate knows what the policy of this side of the House is. It hurts hon. members on that side when we say that what they stand for, is at least semi-integration. If hon. members on that side object to the fact that provision is not made in the clause that the Council must be White and that provision is not made in clause 9 that the advisory council must be a Bantu council, then I want to ask them why they do not get up and move that the word “White” be inserted in clause 8? No, they do the opposite.

You can apologize to me at any time you like.

And to the Committee later.

The hon. the Deputy Minister claims that he has appointed someone from the University of Natal. He then goes on to say: “How are they competent to judge?” He speaks of Prof. Nienaber, of whom most of us have never heard, and I happen to be a member of a faculty of the University of Natal. The University of Natal teaches a great number of Blacks and teaches them well. Those Blacks probably have the highest standard of education in their race groups. Why cannot the University of Natal, which has the pick of the matriculants amongst the whole Bantu nation, be allowed to elect a member of their faculty or a member of their staff to serve on this advisory council? I think it is a strange presumption and a great presumption and an inexcusable presumption on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister that they are not competent to select such a person.

Sir, I stand up to express my appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting my amendment to subsection (2) of this clause …

Which he moved himself.

Sir, I cannot let this pass. I cannot allow the hon member for Durban (Central) to bring this Committee under the impression that I said anything to the detriment of the University of Natal, because this is not true. I deny it categorically. If that hon. member had attended the previous debates on this matter, he would have known that the very same matter cropped up here in regard to Fort Hare and that our point of view was exactly the same. Our point of view is also exactly the same as regards the University of Pretoria, the University of Potchefstroom, the University of Stellenbosch, etc. We do not give official representation on that body to any university, and I take it amiss of the hon. member that he created the impression here that I have said something to the detriment of the University of Natal, and I take it amiss of the hon. member for South Coast that he created the impression here that I said something to the detriment of the Royal House of the Zulus.

You are missing the point again.

Question put: That subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore dropped.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education put and agreed to.

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

Clause 9:

I move the following amendment—

It gives me great pleasure this evening to be able to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting an amendment proposed by this side of the House. I thanked the Minister when he accepted it and I merely want to pass that courtesy on to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to thank him for giving these people the opportunity of showing that they do have the responsibility to be able to elect their own people.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

The proviso reads “Provided that the first admission of any such person shall be subject to the approval of the Minister”. We have argued this clause before and I do not want to repeat evidence which has been presented before, but I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister, in addition to what has been said before, further evidence in an endeavour to persuade him in this case to accept our amendment to delete this proviso. The Registrar of the University College of Zululand, in a publication, namely an addendum to the Natal Mercury, published last year, made a statement with regard to this university and told us of the tremendous advances which had been made. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his introduction mentioned that R2.5 million had been spent on the provision of facilities, buildings, etc. at this university. The Registrar last year said—

The figure for Zulu students in Natal schools stood, at the end of 1968, at 429,500. Of those, only 4 per cent, or a little over R1,600, were in Stds. 7, 8, 9 and 10, which means that at most we can get 400 Zulu matriculated students per annum to enroll at this university. Now, with a provision such as this, which really precludes the admission of students of other Bantu groups to this university, how does the Government hope by 1971 to get 3,000 students at this university?

I call also as another witness the Rector of this University College, Prof. J. A. Maree. He is reported in the Daily News of 22nd January, 1969, as saying that in fact there is a shortage of graduates in all fields. There is a shortage at the moment of Zulu graduates to enter the various faculties of this university.

Order! What has this to do with this clause?

The point I want to make is: Why should this university not be thrown open to all Bantu people and all non-Whites for that matter, because in a moment I want to make a point about the Coloured people in Natal. Why should the university not be open to all of them, and why should it only be at the instance of the Minister that they should be allowed admission to it? To continue, we also have the position in Natal that there are thousands of Coloured people.

Order! The hon. member is going too far. He cannot move an amendment to bring in people not contemplated by the Bill to be at this university.

I am sorry, Sir, I do not follow.

The hon. member is now arguing that all kinds of people should be admitted to the university, people whom the Bill does not contemplate should be students at this university.

With respect, the Bill does not preclude anyone from being a student, provided under clause 22 he first gets the permission of the Minister, except Whites. The only persons precluded are Whites.

The clause says that he must belong to a Bantu national unit, and the hon. member is now arguing about Coloureds.

With respect, it refers to any person who does not belong to the Bantu national unit referred to in section 2 (3), which are the Zulu and the Swazi national units.

He must get the Minister’s approval if he is not a Bantu.

That is the point I am making. If he is not a Zulu or a Swazi he must get the Minister’s approval, but a White is excluded in terms of clause 21.

The Minister’s approval is only required for a first entry.

Obviously. My amendment deals with this very point, and seeks to remove the proviso that the Minister must first give his approval before anybody other than a Zulu or a Swazi can gain admission to this university. That is the deletion of the proviso.

Dealing with the Coloureds, there are thousands of Coloureds in Natal, and in terms of other legislation which is before this House a university is to be established for them in the Western Province. This is 1,000 miles away from their home, and I want to put it this way. I feel it is an insult to any educated person, whether that person be White, Coloured, Bantu or Indian, and by “educated person” I mean one who has attended the matriculation exemption standard; it is an insult to that person to say that if he wants to go any further in a university other than a White university which the Minister says he shall go to, he shall first get the permission of the Minister. This is why I am asking the Deputy Minister, as a reasonable person and one who has gone through a university, who knows what the attitude is and who knows the Zulu—I accept that—to reconsider the decision which has been taken. I feel that he should not be bound by the decision which was taken in a previous matter which was before this House. That matter should be completely divorced from his mind and he should bring his mind fairly and squarely to bear on the matter which is before him now, and that is the University of Zululand. I want to put it to him this way: By limiting admission to the University of Zululand to Zulus only, he is similarly limiting the chances of Zulus to go to any other university which they may choose to attend.

The position is that not one of these three Bantu universities, Fort Hare, Zululand and the North, have only Zulus at the Zululand University or only Xhosas at Fort Hare, and only the five national groups in the North at that university. We have repeatedly mentioned the numbers and also how at each of those universities Bantu of other national groups and even from as far as Uganda, are studying. Therefore the hon. member must understand that it is incorrect to create the impression, as he has just done, that this University of Zululand is only for Zulus. I mentioned the numbers to him earlier this evening and I am not going to do so again. Our standpoint is that we should like that university to have a Zulu character, because the Zulus want that; and consequently it is reasonable that there should be this proviso in clause 22, i.e. that for the first admission the proviso must be there for practical reasons, because we want to ensure that that character is not unduly impaired. Therefore it only applies to the first admission. [Interjections.] During the Committee Stage of the Fort Hare Bill the Minister explained very clearly that because of the set-up of the Minister’s office and of the Department, the Minister may possibly have information at his disposal which the Council does not have; and then there is, in addition, the question of the provision of the various faculties and other facilities. For that reason and that reason alone we have this proviso that at the first admission a Bantu who is not a Zulu must obtain the necessary permission of the Minister. We have said that it rests with the council of the University to administer that matter, and the council will naturally advise the Minister, or vice versa if the Minister has information at his disposal in respect of a specific case. We gave you the assurance that it would be applied very realistically and that we have the fullest confidence that the council will not preclude students who could fruitfully study there. We mentioned the example of an agricultural faculty. Supposing there is an agricultural faculty at the University of Zululand, but not at Fort Hare, or at the University of the North, and a Bantu student from anywhere in the Republic applies to study at the University of Zululand because there is an agricultural faculty there. That student will then not be refused unless there are other reasons why he should be. There is also a pharmacy faculty at the University of the North, while there is no such faculty at the other universities. We gave the assurance that, other factors being equal, a Bantu from anywhere in the Republic will not be refused permission to study pharmacy at Turfloop, because at the University of Zululand and Fort Hare there are no pharmacy faculties as yet. Therefore I furnished the number here to indicate that there are quite a few students other than Zulus studying at the University of Zululand, quite a few students other than Xhosas studying at Fort Hare and quite a few students other than members of the five national groups studying at the University of the North. We also mentioned the example of a law faculty. If there is a law faculty at Fort Hare, but none at the University of the North or the University of Zululand, and a Bantu student from anywhere in the Republic applies to study at Fort Hare because there is a law faculty, we shall not refuse that admission unless there are other normal objections precluding such an admission.

So the Minister becomes an admitting clerk.

While we should like to accept an amendment from that side, as we have proved by having accepted certain amendments, especially now that the debate has reached calmer waters, this proviso is here, because we want to preserve the character of this university, and I would appreciate it if hon. members would accept it in the good spirit in which I am proposing it.

Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Minister has made a point of saying that Bantu from other tribes in other parts of South Africa who cannot attend their own universities, because the courses they wish to follow are not available there, may, for example attend the university at Ngoya, which may have such faculties. He said that they would be admitted for the first time with the Minister’s approval. Of course, the first registration is the crucial one. After that, having been once admitted, they will presumably be permitted to finish their course. There is no difficulty after that. The Minister quite rightly refers to the character of the Zulu people which will in the future be imprinted on that university. There is a point which I want to bring to the Minister’s attention, and this is one reason why we do not like this proviso. That is that the geographical area of Zululand is not inhabited by Zulus only. What is called Zululand on the map includes no less than 5,000 square miles on the Lowveld, to the East of the Uvongo, which is not inhabited by Zulus. It is inhabited by a people called the Tongas, who are in many respects by tradition and as a result of their history very hostile to Zulu influence. These people should, because of their geographical proximity to the Ngoya University, surely have the right to attend that university. The Ngomezulu tribe to the east of the mountains and on the mountains themselves, are not Zulus. The whole of the tribe, of whom Sambane was the chief at the time when Dingaan was murdered, are not Zulus. All those people are, however, geographically close to the Ngoya University. These are people who would, if they are to be given an opportunity of attending a university which is within reasonable reach, normally attend the Ngoya University. The question is not whether the faculties they want are at that university or at some other university like Turfloop or Fort Hare, but whether they can in fact attend the university which is closest to them, and which is, geographically speaking in the area which is called Zululand. That is the point I want to put to the Minister because I feel that it will be a very important deprivation to a very large group of people if any artificial hindrance is to be placed in their way as a result of the proviso to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain this point. I thought I had explained it earlier when the hon. member for Durban (Point) interjected. The point is that these Tonga people are accepted, for the purposes of this Act, and for school linguistic purposes, as Zulus, because the language they use at school is Zulu …

It is not.

It is. These people are accepted, for the purposes of this Act, as being Zulus. I am assured by my officials that they do not need permission for their first registration at this university of Zululand, because they are Zulu-speaking at school. It is accepted as such. I can assure the hon. member that they do not need permission to enter the Zululand University for the first time.

Ministerial permission will then not be required for the people from Tongaland, the Ngomezulu people and the folk on the eastern side of the mountain to enter the university? Their entrance to the university will be a right?

I have said so.

They will be treated as though they were a part of the Zulu people?

Yes.

The Act does not say so.

I said so, and I have made it quite clear that I did say so. It is a question of practice. The hon. member can accept my assurance.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the beginning of this Committee Stage that we do not wish to delay the proceedings, but there are three or four clauses which we think are important. We should like to register our objection to those clauses in discussion.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman …

You are like a zombi.

Notwithstanding the rude remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister …

He flattered you when he said you were like a zombi.

Sir, the Minister who has been sterilized in Community Development should remain there and leave us to talk about things which only we know something about, with all due respect to hon. members. The hon. member for Kensington has implied that we will not hold up the House. I do, however, want to make one point on this clause in particular. This is the clause which denigrates completely once and for all the arguments which were raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister and by the Minister of Bantu Administration, when he was discussing the Fort Hare Bill, in regard to the question of people who shall be served by the university. I am speaking of this question of ethnic groupings. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. It reads as follows:

When the University of Fort Hare Bill and the University of Zululand Bill were under discussion, we heard the Minister argue that it is imperative for the university to take on the character of a particular group of Bantu people. But what do we find in this case? We find that this university has to take on the character of the North Sotho, the South Sotho, the Tsonga, the Tswana and the Venda national units. So, how does a university take on the character of five different groups? Make no mistake, they are different. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that point.

What about the University of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland?

What about it?

Does that university not have a character of its own?

Has anybody ever said that it has to have a character of its own? Nobody has said it has to. This is the policy of that hon. member’s side of the House. Their policy is that it should have a character of its own. We are not saying that it should have a character of its own. We are saying that it should have a South African Bantu character. That is our attitude. That is why I move this amendment. I feel that if this amendment is accepted, the intention of the hon. the Minister can be carried out, but without the acceptance of this amendment and the insertion of the word “primarily”, particularly in this case, the Minister cannot achieve what he is aiming for.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment, for the same reasons which have been given at length during the past week and more. I want to point out, however, that the Tswana, the North Sotho and the South Sotho people are very closely related, as that hon. member will know. He will also know that the Venda and the Shangaan groups are, by themselves, too small to merit separate universities. That is certainly the case at this stage. I have said before that we are practical and realistic people. For those practical reasons it is not possible to accept the insertion of the word “primarily” in this clause. We find that in practice this University of the North functions extremely well. It caters very well for these five groups. With that, I hope the hon. member will be satisfied.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, which reads as follows:

I have moved the same amendment on a previous occasion this evening, when we were discussing the University of Zululand Bill. My reasons for moving this amendment are the same. I do not know whether it is necessary to repeat them. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us not so much about the advisory council, because we have discussed that at great length, but rather why they persist in having an advisory senate. Provision for this advisory senate is made in this clause. I was told in reply to a question that the department had never found anybody who could sit in the advisory senate. It seems to me to be quite absurd to include such a provision in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the hon. member that this matter has been discussed very thoroughly. As far as the advisory senate is concerned, I just want to repeat what has been said on previous occasions in previous debates. In the first place the provision in respect of the advisory senate is phrased permissively in this Bill. We believe the advisory senate will have proper functions to perform when there are sufficient Bantu teaching staff to be able to constitute such an advisory senate. I said earlier this evening that we hoped that would be soon. The establishment of a properly and practically functioning body just depends on how soon Bantu teaching staff will become available. We should like to have it this way. Our information is that the Bantu at these universities welcome this. They would like to have it. I honestly cannot think of any reason why this provision should be omitted from this Bill, particularly since this provision is phrased permissively and not mandatory. If we find in future that an advisory senate is not necessary, that will be sufficient reason not to make use of it. But if we find that there is a practical need for it, and we do not have the necessary legislative authority to establish one, we will have to come back to the House. Why should that be necessary? I know I will not convince the hon. member for Kensington, but I hope that, with this explanation, he will at least be satisfied that this is really our considered point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I have only one request to make. I do not wish to pursue this argument. My request is that an advisory senate should never be established. I ask this because of what has happened at the University College of the Western Cape, where I think the situation to-day is shocking. We have referred to this matter in discussing the Western Cape Bill. Let us rather never establish an advisory senate in that way, where members of staff are humiliated when they are told: “You cannot sit in the senate. You can only sit in the advisory senate.”

Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the hon. member’s request is noted and we will certainly take a very good and hard look at the position, and decide on what would be best in the given circumstances.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I am moving this amendment to assist the hon. the Deputy Minister, because when we were discussing the Zululand Bill in Committee he asked how we could apply our views to a college such as the College of the North. Here we are applying them, even with the restricted number of eleven. This is how we propose to constitute the council. I therefore move the following amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

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) three persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) one professor of the University chosen by the senate;
   4. (d) four persons of whom the Tswana Territorial Authority, the Leboa Territorial Authority, the Venda Territorial Authority and the Shangaan Territorial Authority shall each choose one;
   5. (e) one person chosen by the University of Pretoria; and
   6. (f) one person chosen by the University of the Witwatersrand.

We say the University of Pretoria and the University of the Witwatersrand, because that was the original proposal when the university colleges were established, namely that they should work in close liaison with established universities. In the case of the College of the North they should come under the wing of the Pretoria and Witwatersrand Universities combined, in the case of Ngoya, under Natal and in the case of the College of the Western Cape, for example, under Stellenbosch and the University of Cape Town. That is why I have included these two. It shows that it can be done even with a number of eleven. I think the number of eleven is much too small and we would have been able to do this very much better if we could for example have had fifteen. That is our proposal.

Mr. Chairman, before moving my amendment, and with the permission of the hon. member for Kensington, I do not again want to raise the argument as to why we are not giving the various territorial authorities or national groups direct representation, and why we are not having the universities represented as such there. I think we have made our point of view in this connection very clear. In his amendment the hon. member mentions the Universities of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand. The Rand Afrikaans University is not mentioned, neither is the Potchefstroom University. The latter could also claim to appear there, as the Rector of this University has been a highly respected member of this council for many years. In the first place we have no objections in principle to that. But it is impractical and we maintain that it would create problems for us if we should grant the hon. member for Kensington’s request. In the same way it would create problems for us if we would have to give representation there to each of these four territorial authorities as such. But again I want to assure the hon. member that several persons from the white universities are serving on the council. So, for example, Prof. C. H. Rautenbach, who is the rector of the University of Pretoria, is serving on and is in fact chairman of the University of the North.

I know all that.

So the hon. member knows it. I therefore say that we do not consider it necessary in this case. I do not know whether the hon. member has the names of the members of the advisory council of the University of the North.

Yes, I have those names.

Then the hon. member will know that the Hurutshe tribe does not have representation there as a tribe. However, a highly respected chief of the Hurutshe tribe is serving on that advisory council. There is a tribal chief of the Venda tribe on that council. The Tlokwa tribe also has a member on that council. I therefore want to say frankly that we cannot accept that amendment, and with this I want to content myself, and I hope the hon. member is satisfied with it. I now move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has seen fit to move an amendment identical with the one I had placed on the Order Paper. I am sure that it is not only this side of the House which will appreciate the fact that this has been accepted and that the council thus at least has some power of its own.

Question put: That subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore dropped.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, may I just place on record our appreciation of the good sense of the hon. the Deputy Minister in accepting our amendment, because this amendment he has now moved is similar to an amendment which we moved at an earlier stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I do not think there is any necessity for arguing this matter, except to repeat what I said earlier, that this Bill makes a mockery of the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to keeping the various national units pure. Here we have five national units and, therefore, I wonder how the Deputy Minister can justify his attitude in this case with five national units defined in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the last Bill a similar amendment was moved and the hon. the Deputy Minister gave certain assurances in regard to a group of people who are not Zulus but who live in the geographical area of Zululand. In the case of this university college we have a number of groups. We accept it that the North and South Sotho people are very much akin. Then there are still the Tswana, Venda and Shangaan groups. For the purpose of this particular clause you will realize that it is necessary for the prospective student to be able to prove his right of entry into a university. He should be able to prove his right in order to avoid the difficulty of having to get the consent of the Minister. I do not know exactly what the difficulties may be in respect of one of the Bantu tribes which for some reason is not able to prove that it belongs to one of the five groups referred to in the Bill. In fact, I do not know how one goes about in practice in order to get the consent of the Minister. In the past the Deputy Minister said that the people who would be admitted to, for example, this university, which is doing very well, would be those who are living in a different tribal area and who, did not have one of the faculties at their home university whereas the University of the North, representing these five tribes, offers it. As I have said, I do not know what these difficulties are, but they might be real and very practical difficulties. I do not know whether the Government is relying on another Bill which incidentally, is before the House at the present time, but not to-night, to be able to show the racial or tribal affiliations for the purpose of proof. This is an important matter for a Bantu person who wishes not to go to this university only because it is the only university in which the particular faculty is situated but who, for whatever reason there may be, wishes to go there for his university education. Now, other things being equal, it is perfectly clear from this clause that it is the intention of the Minister that that particular Native shall not have the right to enter that university. Somewhere, somehow he has got to make a case. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain to us what is the case which has to be made. The big difficulty is that we sit in this House. When the Minister gave us the assurance just now in regard to the University of Zululand, I accepted that. But, who knows about it? When I think of those tens of thousands of Tongas in Tongaland, I have to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, what do they know of the assurances he has given us here? How is this made known, how are the Tonga people, those who are potential students and who will be coming to these universities, to know that the hon. the Deputy Minister has given the hon. member for South Coast the assurance that they can attend the University of Zululand? Because they cannot even speak the Zulu language; it is abhorrent to the women, who will not use it, while the children only use it at school. Furthermore, they have not a drop of Zulu blood in them and they are traditionally and by long history hostile towards the Zulus.

I am afraid the hon. member is speaking on the wrong Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your permitting me to continue and to give an example, because it was a simple one and it was an easy one to indicate. Now in the case of the five groups we have here, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must know that there are to-day very little completely pure blooded Bantu in the tribal areas. Intermixture by relations might go further than the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is now shaking his head, thinks. He must be careful when we come to the other Bill, because he will find that a pure blooded unit or a tribe to-day is very restricted indeed.

Now, Sir, the man who says that he is of a certain tribe, whereas there is an indication that he might not belong to that group, how does he go about? What proof does he produce? How does he go to the Minister? How does he know that he can go to the Minister in terms of the proviso to the clause, whereby he has to get the permission of the Minister to attend that particular university? How is it going to be brought to the attention of the rank and file of the Bantu people in that area from which the students will be drawn? I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to kindly give us a practical exposition.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to reply to the hon. member for South Coast, and I should like to give him that assurance again. In the first place, with your leave, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that, as regards the Tongas, the position in respect of the University of Zululand is made known to them at the schools. Therefore they need not labour under any misunderstanding.

In the second place, as regards this University of the North, I want to make it very clear that these five national groups, i.e. the Tswana, the North-Sotho, the South-Sotho, the Venda and the Shangaan, in terms of the Act need not obtain the permission of the Minister for admission to that university. In the case of each of these five groups, as in the case of other national groups in the country, the Bantu pupils at the schools are acquainted with the position in respect of the universities. I now want the hon. member to understand clearly that those five groups need not obtain the Minister’s approval.

Then the hon. member asked me what criteria these five groups would have to comply with. I again want to stress that a member of any of these five groups need not obtain the Minister’s prior approval in order to obtain admission to the University. Two criteria are laid down. The first is that the language medium for the student who wants to go to the university is the language medium in which he passed his school-leaving or matriculation certificate examination. This is a very simple and a very important criterion. The second criterion which is applied, is simply his reference book. These are then the two criteria. As far as I know, and it would have been brought to my notice if it had not been the case, this works excellently in practice. We have no problems in connection with this matter. I think I have replied very fully to the important questions asked by the hon. member for South Coast. Suffice it to say that the hon. members on the other side must not think that we on this side of the House and the Department are trying to make it as difficult as possible for the Bantu to gain admission to this university. We are going out of our way, and the officers of the Department are going out of their way, to make it easy for these people. We are trying to help them to solve their problems so that they can receive the necessary university education.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to waste the time of the Committee but I do want to put two particular questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In his reply to the hon. member for South Coast he mentioned that there would be two tests. The first test was: What language was the medium of instruction in which that applicant obtained his matriculation certificate? Did I understand correctly?

Yes.

Yesterday during the debate the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education told us that the medium of instruction at these institutions was either English or Afrikaans, and so I am now a, little confused as to what the Deputy Minister means when he maintains that a test will be the medium of instruction in which the applicant received his matriculation certificate. [Interjections.] Perhaps that hon. member could answer for the Deputy Minister.

The other question I want to put to the Deputy Minister is this. He has explained to us carefully the situation where one faculty exists in one of the three universities, and he mentioned the Faculty of Agriculture at Fort Hare. He said a Zulu or a Venda or a Shangaan would be allowed quite freely with the Minister’s approval to go to Fort Hare to study in that faculty. But what is going to happen if there is a similar faculty at all three universities and a Zulu, for instance, wants to obtain his degree at the University of the North, although there is a similar faculty at the University of Zululand—and also at Fort Hare? I am thinking of a case, for instance, where a Zulu father had obtained his degree at the University of the North and he wishes his son to follow in his footsteps and obtain his degree at the same university, what is the attitude of the Minister going to be?

Mr. Chairman, in such a case the matter will be considered on its merits. If there is a faculty at the University of Zululand and there is no special reason why he should be admitted to Turfloop or Fort Hare, then, since he is living near the University of Zululand or in Zululand, I cannot see how he will be admitted to another institution. In practice this sort of case does not really occur.

It is going to happen, it is going to come.

Then that case must be considered on its merits. The hon. member is actually arguing against his own amendment which he moved a moment ago. We are in fact giving the Minister the right to approve the first admission and to ensure a certain measure of control in this respect. This is the reply to that. It is a very fair reply if I say that such a case will be considered on its merits. As I say, the Minister is entitled to use his power.

As regards the other question of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), I just want to say the following. It is very easy to determine the ethnical group of a Bantu. It is done by means of the two factors I mentioned, namely the reference book and the language medium. What the hon. member and that hon. member said by way of interjection, i.e. that the language medium at the Bantu high schools is either Afrikaans or English, is quite true. But surely the hon. member will know that each Bantu student takes a Bantu language as a subject, and that will certainly be his mother tongue. Now the hon. member will probably ask me how I know that the language the student is taking as a subject is his mother tongue, and why I am taking this as a criterion? I can only tell him that there are two other additional factors. In probably 95 per cent of the cases the Bantu language the Bantu student is taking as one of his six subjects for matric will probably be his mother tongue. That is a criterion. I repeat that we are not using it quite arbitrarily. There will be a balance between the two criteria.

Then there is still the following point. The teachers and the university councils who must decide in these cases do not encounter all the many problems suggested by the hon. members, and for the following reason. The Bantu student who has had a Bantu language as a subject for matric, must of course have gone through primary school as well, and there his medium of instruction was his mother tongue. At primary school therefore he must in any case have had his mother tongue as medium of instruction. Then one simply asks him, “What was your medium of instruction at primary school?” and then, of course, one knows. In practice every Bantu knows what he actually is and we do not experience any problems in connection with these matters. I think with this I have answered the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) questions.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, I must say it is gratifying to remember what a fine reception the Minister of Indian Affairs always gets in this House. I should like to say, too, to the hon. member for Kensington that though we will no doubt have a tussle over this legislation, I do admire his tenacity and the physical effort he has made regarding all the Bills of a similar nature which we have had before this House over the last number of days.

The University College for Indians in Durban, later named the University College, Durban, was established in 1960 under the Extension of University Education Act of 1959. To-day, eight years after the University College enrolled its first students in 1961, this Bill is introduced to grant the University College, Durban, recognition as a University to serve the Indian population of this country and, consequently, for the establishment of the University of Durban-Westville with its own Charter under the conditions laid down in this Bill.

When the Act of 1959 was debated in this House, the Government stated its intention of developing the university colleges established under that Act to autonomy—not, and I stress “not”, in the sense of unbridled licence but on the basis of eventually becoming responsible and worthy universities which could stand on their own feet. This Bill, providing for certain academic responsibility for the University College, Durban, at this stage, is a step in that direction. It remains the policy of this Government to see that the University of Durban-Westville should eventually become an institution which administratively is worthy and responsible and also able to stand on its own feet. When therefore, under this Bill, the general expression that the University of Durban-Westville will become academically autonomous, is used, it means that the University in the academic sense is untying certain, but not all, of the apron strings which bound it before. Now the institution will be released from its academic dependence on the University of South Africa; provide for its own syllabuses in all courses; conduct its own examinations; introduce new courses for degrees, diplomas and certificates; and award its own degrees and diplomas. This means that the Government is prepared to grant to the University of Durban-Westville …

Is it in Westville in Durban or in Durban in Westville?

No, Durban-Westville, that is the name—we can argue that in the committee stage. As I was saying, the Government is prepared to grant to the University of Durban-Westville the fairly extensive right to have charge, through its own organs, as established in terms of this Bill, of those matters pertaining to aspects of its academic programme.

At present, under sections 20 and 21 of the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, all degree courses offered at the University College are those of the University of South Africa, which also controls the examinations in all stages. These courses are—B.A., B.A. (Fine Arts), B.A. (Social Science), B.A. (Theology), B.Admin., B.Bibl. (Library Science), B.Com., B.Com. (Law), B.Com. (Administration), B.Com. (Statistics), B.Com. (Accounting), B.Ed., B.Iuris, B.Sc. (Hygiene), B.Sc. (Pharmacy) and Honours, Masters and Doctors degrees in all the above mentioned degree courses. In addition, the University of South Africa also controls the syllabuses and examinations for the University Education Diploma and the Attorneys Admission Certificate.

Through the years, however, there developed a need for the introduction of courses not offered by the University of South Africa. Such courses were thereupon, under section 22 of the 1959 Act, instituted with Ministerial approval by the University College which itself determined their curricula, conducted examinations and awarded diplomas and certificates. Courses so instituted and conducted solely by the University College, Durban, now comprise the following—Diplomas in Librarianship, Social Science, Commerce, Fine Arts, Public Administration, Theology, Teacher Training and Certificates in Remedial Education, Hindi, and Theological Studies. The standard maintained by the University College in the course which it controls on its own, is high, and I have no doubt that the experience gained in conducting these courses will stand the staff of the university in good stead when they have to conduct and control all courses at the university. I am statisfied that the University of Durban-Westville will maintain the academic standard which is at present guaranteed by the control exercised by the University of South Africa over syllabuses and examinations.

It is syllabi.

I thought about that but then I found they referred to syllabuses. [Interactions].

Order!

Nevertheless, I also wish to point out that the appointment to the senate of the University, of persons from faculties at other universities, as is envisaged in the Bill, will be a further safeguard that academic standards will be maintained. Furthermore, the fact that the Bill provides for the appointment of external examiners and moderators will also ensure that the academic standards at the University will be maintained when it now becomes academically independent of those controls previously exercised by the University of South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.