I move—

I am introducing this legislation at the special request of my Alma Mater, the University of South Africa, where I obtained a modest M.A. degree in Constitutional Law years ago. There is indeed nothing contentious in this Bill. The fact that a private member is introducing this Bill, can merely be ascribed to our Parliamentary procedure which requires that a private Bill or an amendment thereof must usually be moved by a private member. However, I may inform the House that these amendments are moved with the full knowledge and approval of the Minister of National Education.

The Bill comprises the amendment of four sections of the principal Act, the University of South Africa Act, Act. No. 19 of 1959, as amended by Act No. 13 of 1964 and Act No. 53 of 1967.

Firstly, it is being provided that a chancellor be elected for a period of five instead of ten years. The reason for this is obvious. It is usually a person of advanced age who is honoured with this high office. However, over a period of ten years such a person’s health and/or mental health may deteriorate to such an extent that he may no longer be able to carry out the duties of a chancellor in a proper manner. The risk is a much smaller one if the period of office were five years only.

Secondly, the principal Act provides in section 7 that the “duties” of, inter alia, the rector be defined in the statutes. In the first instance, in the opinion of the council of the University it is undesirable merely to have the duties of one official defined by statute and not those of the other members of staff, but what is particularly important, is that it is so difficult to define duties properly. The council prefers the “functions”, and not the duties, to be prescribed by statute, and in effect this amendment merely envisages the substitution of the word “functions” for the word “duties”. Thirdly, it is being provided in the principal Act that the manner of appointment of additional members of the senate shall be prescribed by the statutes. This provision is considered to be redundant.

Finally, it is being provided in the principal Act that the times of meetings of convocation shall be prescribed. The convocation of the University of South Africa does not form as closely-knit a unit as do the convocations of residential universities, and over the past 50 years nobody has ever insisted on such a meeting. Owing to the provision that in the statutes provision should be made for the times of such meetings, the university would have to convene meetings for which there is no need. Consequently the provision in regard to the times of meetings is being deleted in terms of the proposed amendment.

I trust that hon. members on both sides of the House will consent to this proposed amendment, and I shall furnish additional information or explanations with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, we had an amendment to the University of South Africa Act two years ago, a very thorough amendment, but one realizes that in the special circumstances of the University of South Africa it may be necessary to bring about further amendments bcause it is not a residential university; it is a university having courses conducted by correspondence. We have no objection to any of these clauses. We think we can give the hon. member our full support. There are only one or two small points that I would like to mention about the possibility of the chancellor becoming senile. I do not think that is the real danger although I think it is rather better to provide for a period of five years instead of ten. Whatever the age of the chancellor, I think it is an excellent thing to do that, because it is a great honour for any citizen to become a chancellor of a university. Therefore I think it is an excellent thing that that honour should go round. I think there are many distinguished professional people, university people, who could hold that office. I do not think it is right that one man should hold this office for as long as ten years. We therefore agree to the shorter period of five years.

With regard to clause 3, I think this amendment brings about a real improvement; it gives the Council the right to decide what they are going to do about members coming to the senate.

The final clause deals with Convocation. In the case of the University of South Africa this is a hot potato and it will continue to be so. We have had discussions on Convocation over the last few days in this House, and we would not object to any amendment that the Council wish to bring about to adapt Convocation to their special conditions. We realize they have this difficulty, and since this institution is a university we think they should have autonomy; that is our policy and we will therefore support this provision. We give the Bill our wholehearted support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

(Third Reading)

I move—

I should perhaps have said this in the beginning, but I think it is always advisable to say it at the end: I congratulate the hon. member for having had the honour to pilot this Bill through the Assembly. I think it is better to congratulate him when he has succeeded and not when he is going to attempt to do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In the case of previous Bills we had some difficulty about introducing convocation in the constitution of the universities, and here we have acted on suggestions we have received that there should be a convocation. There are two parts to my amendment. The first is to omit the definitions of “advisory council” and “advisory senate” and the second part is to give an additional definition, to the effect that “convocation” means the convocation of the university referred to in section 12. I will not labour the point, but the Minister knows that we do not like the idea of an advisory council or an advisory senate for this university for the Indians. We have explained it at length in the case of the other Bills and a fortiori in the case of this Bill it is less necessary than for the others. They do not require it at all. We discussed that in the Second Reading. That is the first point.

The second one is in regard to convocation. We think it is essential to have a convocation for this Indian University. There are hundreds of graduates and there will be hundreds more in future. As I pointed out during the Second Reading yesterday, they have more students than the three Bantu colleges put together. Therefore I think it is essential that provision should be made for convocation in this university.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the proposed definition of “convocation” as it seeks to establish a body not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

On a point of order …

I gave that ruling in regard to the previous Bills as well and I am not going to listen to any argument on the point.

Are you not prepared to hear any argument at all?

No; I have given that ruling in regard to more than one Bill.

With respect, may I point out that this argument was not directed to you when you gave your first formal ruling on another Bill and it may be that, having heard the argument, you might give a different ruling.

Then there will not be any consistency in my ruling.

Then is it your ruling that you are not prepared to hear any argument on the subject?

The hon. member may argue it if he wants to, but it is not going to make any difference.

Then is there any point in taking this point of order?

No, there is not. I have given my ruling. I gave consideration to this matter before I gave the previous ruling.

If you are at least prepared to hear argument, even though you are not prepared to take any account of it, I would like to say that the argument I wish to submit to you is that the principle which was accepted at the Second Reading was that there should be created a university for the Indians. In every university in South Africa there is a convocation and my submission is that the addition of a convocation is not in conflict with the principle of a university.

I have given my ruling.

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

I submit that the description of the University of Durban-Westville is misleading, because the university is not in Durban; it is to be established in Westville and the Minister’s amendment to a subsequent clause shows that he realizes that the description in the original Bill is misleading. It is described as Durban-Westville and that is wrong because it is neither in Durban nor in Durban-Westville. The community at Westville, the Mayor of the town and the Council, have passed a resolution asking that this university be described as the University of Westville. The members of the staff and the principal of the university are in favour of its being described as the University of Westville, and many members of the Indian Council are also in favour of it. Therefore, as the university is to be established at Westville, at Reservoir Hill, which is an Indian group area, as the Minister knows, and several million rands will be spent on this university, it being in the course of construction now, I suggest that this is the right time for the Minister to think again on this description of the university and he should accept my amendment, namely that the university be described as the University of Westville.

The hon. member for Pinetown now wants to substitute “Westville” for “Durban-Westville”. We know that the activities of the Indian community are concentrated around Durban and the name of the university relates to the geographic ties it has with that part of the world. How are people elsewhere in the country who are not familiar with Westville but who know Durban, to know where this university is, unless the hon. member proposes that the name “Indian University” be added. This we cannot do, because we did not do so in the case of any of the other university colleges. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is ashamed of the fact that the University for Indians is to be established in Durban? I should like to suggest to the Minister that these words be left as they are.

I think probably, if I reply to the hon. member for Pinetown now, he will understand the position, because there is no intention that this Bill should be altered on the lines suggested by him. I wanted to point out to him that originally this university college was the university college for Indians in Durban. It was recognized throughout South Africa and even other countries who understand the international position and who are interested in South Africa know that Durban particularly is regarded as the hub of commerce for the Indians and as the hub of their educational institutions. Then when it was changed to a university college, it was the university college of Durban. So naturally the association with Durban is a very intimate one as far as the Indian population is concerned, also in regard to their educational institutions. Therefore to describe this as the University of Westville would really not signify what it is intended to signify. This matter was discussed at length with the all Indian Advisory Committee, and that committee was rather in favour of its being called the University of Durban, but it was pointed out to them that to call it the University of Durban would bring it into conflict with the University of Natal, which has a branch at Durban. It is known as the Natal University, Durban, which is almost the same as the University of Durban. So after a long discussion it was agreed that this was the best method of describing this university, namely the University of Durban-Westville.

The hon. member referred to my amendment in clause 2, but that is purely geographical. It is an incorrect statement geographically in clause 2 which I correct in my amendment. But it had nothing to do with the choice of the name, and the hon. member for Koedoespoort is correct. The whole background of that name has been Durban, and the fact that it is being built in Chiltern Hills, which is in the Westville area, makes it necessary to give some recognition to Westville. Therefore I cannot see how there can be any objection to a name which meets all sides of the problem. That is what I put to the hon. member, who was good enough to talk to me about the matter. I put it to him that the basis on which an agreement was reached between the Department and the bodies interested, was that this should be the name.

May I just answer the hon. member for Kensington. He moved, firstly, the deletion of the advisory council and the advisory senate and of course he was ruled out of order in regard to the convocation. But the hon. member for Kensington knows our attitude about the advisory council and about the permissive right to appoint an advisory senate. We stand by that, and there can be no argument about it.

It is not a question of saying “we” now. You are referring to the Bills that have gone through.

I am talking about the Government. I am using the royal “we”, if you like. [Interjection.] Shall I say the Republican “we”? That is the position and it is no good trying to quibble about it. This is how it is going to be. This is basic in the set-up and this is how we intend to do it. The Chairman has ruled the convocation out of order, so I do not need to reply to that.

It is quite clear that the attitude we can expect from this Minister is: I am doing what I want to do and you can talk as much as you like, but I will not change my mind. And when he talks about the royal “we”, I would remind him that kings in the past who spoke that way have had their heads chopped off.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort objected to my proposed change in the name of the university, but might I suggest that probably he would be offended if we called the University of Stellenbosch the University of Stellenbosch-Cape Town, because Stellenbosch is a small place and Cape Town is a big one. The arguments used by the Minister are ludicrous, because it is neither Durban nor is it Westville; Westville is not in Durban but outside it, and the people of Westville are prepared to have it called Westville. Furthermore, there are members of the Indian Advisory Council who have made representations to us asking us that this university be called the University of Westville. The hon. the Minister however, says that he has received the necessary assurances to call this institution the University of Durban-Westville. We have here the extraordinary position where the hon. the Minister says that the council has requested this name, but that representations have been made to us to the contrary. Obviously someone is talking with two voices and I have a suspicion as to who it is.

What did the hon. member say?

I said somebody is talking with two voices and that I have a suspicion as to who it may be.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member that he cannot get away with those remarks with me. I am not talking with two voices. I said that the council itself had this matter before it. The hon. member may have received an isolated representation from a member or members of the council. But I consulted the council and they agreed with the name as it is here. I am not going to be browbeaten by the hon. member or any other hon. member on that side of the House as to what this University should be called. The fact that the hon. member may have had representations from the Westville Borough Council is something that I also appreciate. He showed me the letter, but I have given the hon. member the reasons why this university will be called by that name. I therefore resent his remarks when he said that he knew who is doing a double talk on this matter. He insinuated in his remarks that I was talking in a double way. I am not prepared to stand for this from the hon. member. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the other side laugh, but they cannot get away with this.

It is something which they have been doing for years and they have been caught out at every election because of it. Hon. members can carry on, however, because it is the best propaganda they can do for the Nationalist Party.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is far too sensitive. If I thought that the hon. the Minister is doing double talk in this House, I would say so. I am not afraid of this hon. Minister. All I said was that I suspect that there is a certain amount of talking with two voices. I mean that, but if I thought that the hon. the Minister was doing double talk I would say so to his face.

Would you? I do not believe you would.

Yes, I am not frightened of that hon. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, can the hon. the Minister say “Would you? I do not believe you would.”, when the hon. member has said that he would?

I do not see anything wrong in that.

But he is calling the hon. member a liar, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown made a statement and I understand that when an hon. member makes a statement in this House it must be accepted by the other hon. members in this House. The hon. the Minister has refused to accept the statement of the hon. member for Pinetown.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown made an insinuation about double talk. I am not prepared to let the hon. member get away with that without objecting. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Pinetown has had three opportunities to speak.

The hon. member for Pinetown raised a point of order. That does not count as a speech. On a previous occasion the Chairman ruled that it is only in respect of what an hon. member says in explanation of a speech made in the House that his word must be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the proposal for the name of the University to be changed to the University of Westville, we can accept that whatever name is suggested by the hon. the Opposition, and even the name of the University as it stands in the Bill, can probably be accepted as a compromise. This is not a name which reflects the character of a university for Indians at this stage. Until such time as something of this nature can be done, we should be prepared to accept the compromise. The public knows the entire Westville area as a white residential area of Durban. As such it would be incorrect to give the name of Westville to a university for Indians. It is also known now that one-half of the northern section of Westville is an area for Indians, but this area links up with the area for Indians north of Durban and even with the area for Indians on the North Coast. As this area develops a character and geographic concept of its own, the university might in due course be given another name to comply with the requirements of the hon. member for Pinetown.

Mr. Chairman, in accepting your ruling I should like to delete all the words after “advisory senate” in the amendment standing in my name.

That is what my ruling amounted to.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he cannot simply accept the name “Durban” for this university? This is not a party matter, but one which concerns the name of a university. The hon. the Minister’s Bill is establishing a new university with a long and unattractive name. If he cannot accept the name “Westville”, then why not simply use the name “Durban”? It should be realized that the name of the university appears on badges, stationery, and so forth. Is it necessary for the University to have such a long name?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised a very interesting point. The hon. the Minister wants the university to be called the University of Durban-Westville, but Westville is a white area, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. This area will then be under the control of the white City Council of Westville. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to happen if this area for Indians is removed from Westville and falls under its own area for Indians later? How will the Indian population of this area feel about the matter?

The university can then be given a new name.

The name “Durban” is not suitable for this university, because it will be situated outside the boundaries of Durban, in Westville itself. If the area for Indians is going to be removed from the area of Westville and is going to fall under another area as happened at Verulam, which is an area for Indians, how can the hon. the Minister possibly suggest here that the university be called the University of Durban-Westville, if this whole area is to be given a new name? As an hon. member said, I also feel that this university should be given a different name, such as the university of Southern Natal. I think this may be a more suitable name for this university.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the reason why the university was not called the University of Durban was because representations were made to us stating that the University of Natal had a branch in Durban.

But is it called the University of Durban?

No, it is called the University of Natal. There was a feeling that it would be wrong to have a University of Durban while there would be another university, namely that of the University of Natal, which was also referred to colloquially as the University of Durban. This is the reason why the university was named the University of Durban-Westville.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the fact that Westville is outside the boundary of Durban. Of course I know that it is outside the boundary of Durban. I also know that there have been representations and discussions, not necessarily initiated by the Borough of Westville—they do not have a town council, but a borough council—that Westville might eventually be included in the Durban Municipality. These are factors which have to be considered. The name Durban-Westville was therefore one which was arrived at after considerable discussion and thought. That is why I say that the atmosphere which hon. members are trying to develop over the name of this university is not justified. The hon. member for Mooi River is correct. It might be that we will have to, at some time or another, come to this House with an amendment to change the name of this university. For the present, however, it will be called the University of Durban-Westville. I tried to explain these reasons to the hon. member for Pinetown and I was surprised at his outburst later on about the double talk.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister argues against himself. He says that there is already a University of Natal, Durban, which is commonly referred to as the University of Durban, but now he is creating a University of Durban, because to use his own words he said that colloquially this is going to be known as the University of Durban. Nobody will talk about the University of Durban-Westville, not even the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. If ever I heard nonsense in this House, it was spoken by that hon. member. Why did he not have the courage of his convictions to move an amendment to call this University the University of Reservoir Hills?

Does he not have the courage to buck his own Minister? This is what he should have done, because it is the logical conclusion of his argument. He supports us on this side wholeheartedly on this issue. There is no such thing as Durban-Westville and if the hon. the Minister had taken the trouble to consult with the people, he would know that they feel that Durban and Westville are not the same place. Much as they are bound together in many respects the people feel that it is not the same place. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would tell me whether this Bill was drafted after consultation with the Indian people.

Yes.

If this Bill was drafted after consultation how was this phrase “Westville in Durban” included in clause 2 (2)?

Order! Sub-section (2) of clause 2 is not under discussion now.

I am talking about the name of the university now and merely illustrating my argument. It is evident that this phrase has stemmed from the name of the university or vice versa. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us. But for the hon. the Minister to say that because of the possible confusion between the University of Natal, Durban, and the University for Indians, which is going to be known as the University of Durban in any case, is to argue against himself.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why hon. members opposite are causing this delay over the name of the university. We had the same situation in connection with the white universities. The University of Cape Town, for example, was previously called “The South African College School”, but this name was changed later. The name of the Victoria College was changed to the University of Stellenbosch. The name of the Transvaal University College was changed to the University of Pretoria. If it is proved necessary later, the name of this University of Durban-Westville may be changed, too. I cannot understand why hon. members are insisting at this stage that the name of this university should be changed.

Mr. Chairman, …

I hope the hon. member will adduce new arguments now.

I have a completely new point to argue now, Mr. Chairman. The Victoria College became Stellenbosch University when it became a university. In the case of U.C.T. it used to be a college and then it was named the University of Cape Town when it became a university. It was first S.A.C.S. and then it became U.C.T. They first sang about S.A.C.S. and then they sang about U.C.T. The same thing happened in the case of the University of Pretoria. I remember the T.U.C., Transvaal University College, and when it became a university it became the Pretoria University. Now we are creating a university of this institution and now is the time to change the name. The hon. member there says the name is not important—what’s in a name? That which is called a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet … that is not true. Take the case of decimalization in Australia and New Zealand. They could not decide on a name for their unit; so they gave it the American name. We were more fortunate. The name is exceedingly important and I think hon. members on this side have made constructive suggestions.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that this whole question concerns the unattractiveness of a long name, and I wonder whether he will not consider holding further consultations before this Bill reaches the Other Place. The Easter recess is at hand and it will take quite some time before this measure gets to the Other Place. Cannot the hon. the Minister try to find a shorter name seeing that he is taking this important step? It will be very difficult to change this name once it has become established. There is so much printing involved. It will be very difficult to change the name later once you have accepted it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister was about to get up just now to answer the question what sort of consultation there had been with the Indian people about this particular Bill and especially about the name. I wonder. I am waiting for the Minister to finish reading his note because I want to ask him this question …

I can quite easily follow you and read my note at the same time.

I must say, Sir, I did not think very much of this Minister, but I think much more of him now that he is able to do that.

Order! The hon. member must continue his speech.

What sort of consultation in fact has there been? Is the Minister’s case that all the members of the Indian Council support this name that he proposes, or only some of them? Perhaps he will tell us that, because I think this is an important aspect of this part of the Bill.

I also want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington where he asks for the omission of the definitions of “advisory council” and “advisory senate”. The Minister’s attitude was that “we”—as he explained, the royal “we”, the Government—have have decided that these bodies are to remain in the constitution of this University. If we examine the five Bills dealing with the proposed new universities we see that what has happened is that the Ministers have produced identical Bills, identical constitutions for every one of these five proposed universities. That is what he means, namely that the Government has decided that in fact all non-white universities shall have exactly the same constitution, regardless of the population group that they are to serve. As the hon. member for Kensington so eloquently pointed out during the Second-Reading debate, as far as the Indian population is concerned, there are so many differences between the Bantu in higher education and the services required by and given to …

Order! What has that got to do with the definitions?

It has everything to do with the definitions, Mr. Chairman. My argument is this. The Government has decided, and the Minister said so, that this is the pattern for non-white universities, and I am saying here for Indians it is an entirely different matter. The argument of the Minister is that for all these universities for non-Whites there shall be an advisory council and an advisory senate, and I am saying that so far as the Indians are concerned you cannot apply the same test, for all those excellent reasons given by the hon. member for Kensington during the Second-Reading debate.

We have already in this regard a mixed council amongst the Indians. We will deal with this in greater detail later, but I want to mention this at this stage. The Minister said during the Second-Reading debate that this is the policy of the Government, that there is going to be separation, that we are not going to have these people in the same body. Despite all that, when it comes to the advanced technical education for Indians, which is higher education in terms of the definition of “higher education” in the Act, they have a mixed council, but for this university, also dealing with higher education, they are not going to have a mixed council, they are going to have an advisory council for the Indian people to sit on. What is the policy of the Government? Does it change with Ministers?

I hope the Minister will indicate to us what exactly he meant when he said “we”—the royal “we”—“… have decided that we are going to have this Bill exactly as it stands, that we are going to have the same pattern throughout, and the same policies throughout”. Why is it that he as the Minister responsible for Indian Affairs does not distinguish on their behalf between the treatment given to the Indians and the type of institution provided for the Indians, and that which is provided for the other race groups? They are different and surely the Minister appreciates that. The contribution of the Indian people themselves to higher education is greater per capita, I should think, than the contribution of any other group in the Republic. This is an insult to the Indian people; it is an insult to their contribution to higher learning that when you provide a university for them and say that in respect of the council and the senate they shall not sit on the council but shall only sit in an advisory capacity together, while the white people rule their university, but they sit in a separate body and advise from there.

Will the Minister not confide in us what sort of consultation has he had and why does he—he, the Minister in charge of Indian Affairs—want the Indians to have exactly the same sort of university, the same processes, and the same sort of Bill, as the Bantu and the Coloureds?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Opposition is really making a nuisance of itself this morning. When it comes to giving something a name, there are quite a few considerations which may apply when one wants to give anybody or any institution or whatever it may be a name. One may link the name to the geographical situation, or one may give the name as a result of certain cultural associations, or one may give a name which is linked to a particular person or group of persons, or one may link the name to a particular event, or one may borrow the name from another language or from another cultural group.

Order! The hon. member should really not wander so far from the clause; he should come back to the clause now.

This name we have here, namely the University of Durban-Westville, was derived from the particular geographic situation, the particular environment. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the name was far too long, but, surely, there are other universities which have equally long names. There is the Rand Afrikaans University, the University of Pretoria, and so forth. If we count the letters in the various names, I think we shall find that there the number of letters is more or less the same. I therefore cannot see what the Opposition hopes to gain by having the name changed at this stage. If one accepts this name and if we give this institution the opportunity of developing its history, and if the people to whom this university belongs and who are associated with it now, feel 10 or 20 or 30 years hence that they want to give this institution some particular name or a different name, it will always be possible to do so. It corresponds with what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said in connection with the University of Pretoria.

Order! The hon. member is repeating himself now. There is too much repetition in this discussion.

This is all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member has had three turns already.

But I wish to speak to my own amendment, Sir.

Order! The hon. member has already had three turns to speak on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday when we were dealing with the Second-Reading debate, the hon. the Minister did not answer the question we put to him arising from the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in connection with the advisory council which our amendment now proposes to omit. The advisory council which we want omitted is appointed to advise the all-white council which the Minister has appointed. Our amendment proposes that the advisory council shall be omitted. Yesterday during the Second-Reading debate we asked the Minister whether he would explain to us the relationship between the advisory council and the council itself in order to give us some idea how the change-over which is proposed and which is implicit in the idea of the advisory council, will take place. We want to know how the change-over will take place between the council itself and the advisory council which it is intended, in the Minister’s own words last year, will take over as the ruling council of the university in time. I asked the Minister yesterday to explain to us. I asked him when did he consider it would take place. He immediately got somewhat upset and said I was trying to set the time-table. What I was trying to establish were the steps that would be necessary, and I think when we are dealing with this amendment which proposes to omit the advisory council, the Minister could well take advantage of this opportunity to explain to us how this will take place. Also, does he agree with the statement of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, namely that when the Indian council itself can pay for the running of the university it is the policy of the Government to allow the advisory council to take over from the all-white council which the Minister has appointed? I think we could well clear the air at this stage if the Minister would reply.

I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to sit there in his bench and say nothing at all. I see he has received a note and perhaps he will now give us some reply. We have raised several matters and I think we deserve a reply from the Minister. During the Second-Reading debate he said we could discuss all these during the Committee Stage when we asked him questions. We are now in Committee; so will the Minister tell us what consultations he had in respect of the name, whether …

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

Sir, questions have been asked and we have had no answer. The other answer we want from the Minister is in reply to the question, is he just the tool of someone who makes a decision in relation to all non-white people, or is he the Minister of Indian Affairs? As far as higher education is concerned, does he feel that they should be regarded in exactly the same way and treated in exactly the same way as the Bantu groups …

Order! That point has been made.

It is a question that was asked, Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member must stop repeating. I will have to ask him to resume his seat if he continues in that vein.

What I want to ask the Minister is this: Is he going to reply to this or is he just going to sit there …

Order! The hon. member must see what he does when he sits down.

We have tried this twice, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that we would get a reply from the hon. the Minister, and I think we are entitled to demand a reply.

Order! The hon. member is repeating now what other hon. members have said.

I am stressing the point, Sir. It is important that we should have a reply.

Order! The hon. member cannot force anybody in this Committee to say anything.

No, Sir, but if I could dig him a little bit, the Minister might get up.

Order! The ihon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I said the hon. member must resume his seat if he wants to continue in that vein.

No, Sir, I am not going to continue in that vein at all. I will leave that aspect alone. The hon. member for Kensington has moved that the definitions of “advisory council” and “advisory senate” be omitted. We now have the position that this Government, the Government with the Royal We, has directed that in Natal certain local authorities shall be taken over and run by the Indian community. One such local authority already exists in Verulam. This Government has acknowledged that the Indian community has the degree of responsibility necessary for it to run their own local authorities. In fact, this Government forced the Natal Provincial Council to. accept this principle and to establish these local authorities. Now, in regard to this Bill, the hon. the Minister says that the Indians do not have the degree of responsibility necessary for them to sit on the council and that they do not have the necessary qualifications to sit on the senate of this university.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make this point because I want to draw a comparison.

The hon. member must now abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will be good enough to explain what he has in mind in this regard. The Bill before the House makes no mention of the composition of the advisory council, the council, etc., as far as the different race groups are concerned. The Bill is completely silent in this regard. I have understood from what the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading debate that the intention is that the council will consist of one race and that the advisory council will consist of the other race. I want very briefly to ask the hon. the Minister a question. How is it intended that the change should take place when the advisory council is in a position to take over control of the university? When this change takes place will the control pass from one race to a completely different race?

Order! This has nothing whatever to do with the definitions in this clause.

This matter has bearing on the question of whether the definition of “advisory council” should remain in the Bill or not.

That question is not relevant at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to reply to the questions raised in regard to this clause which deals with the various definitions. I want to make it quite clear that I am not prepared to be led by the nose by the hon. member for Durban (North), as he has tried to do. I know from experience what that hon. member tries to do. I am quite prepared to deal with points raised in regard to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. the Minister has suggested that the House has been led by the nose by the hon. member for Durban (North). Is this not a reflection on the Chair?

The hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Durban (North) was trying to lead him by the nose. He did not say that he was trying to do this to the House. There is, therefore, no reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I think the hon. members opposite are losing their nerve. They are becoming very frivolous. The hon. member for Pinetown has just made a very frivolous remark. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me whether I would reconsider the name of this university. I should like to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this legislation was presented to the all Indian advisory council. I do not at this stage want to deal with the composition of the council. I merely mention this point for the benefit of the hon. member. The whole Bill was conveyed to the council and they discussed the name of the university fully. They decided unanimously that the name of the university should be that which appears in this Bill. I, therefore, regret that I must tell the hon. member that I am not prepared to reconsider the name of this university. I am not prepared to make an amendment to this effect in the Other Place because I would be misleading him if I told him that I was prepared to do this. I have referred to the consultation which took place with the advisory council. I have also dealt with the question of the name of the university. I do not think that there is anything else which I should deal with at this stage.

What about consultation?

I have dealt with the question of consultation with the advisory council. I have already replied to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout …

Was the council unanimous in regard to this matter?

If the hon. member were to listen instead of reading notes while I am speaking he would probably also have heard that I said to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this was a unanimous decision.

The trouble is that I am not as clever as you are. I cannot read and listen at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, that is only too obvious. That is my reply. I have dealt with all the points that were raised in regard to the various amendments. I am not prepared at this stage to discuss when changes in the advisory council as it exists will take place. At this stage I am only prepared to deal with the definitions. I am not prepared to go into any detail in regard to the advisory council or my policy as far as this university is concerned. I shall merely deal with the contents of this clause.

Question put: That the definitions of “advisory council” and “advisory senate” 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 negatived.

Question put: That “Durban-Westville” in lines 33 and 34, 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. A. Hopewell dropped.

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

Clause 2:

I move the following amendment—

I move—

The purpose of this amendment is to widen the scope of the character of this university. Sir, we have argued this point on three other matters, but I feel that there is a particular aspect here which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, in addition to the other arguments which have been advanced by me and other members in previous debates in this House. Sir, we have in Natal a vast number of Coloured people who live in close proximity to Durban or Westville, wherever this university is going to be, and as this clause stands they are precluded from attending this university. The hon. the Minister knows and I know that there is a clause, namely clause 22, which allows the hon. the Minister to admit a Coloured person or for that matter a Bantu person to this university. But I feel that having regard to the nature of these two groups, namely the Coloured and Indian people, this university should not be reserved entirely for the Indian people as this clause purports to do. The main aspect with regard to the Coloured people is the considerable distance from Durban, the seat of this university, to the seat of the university which is to be established for the Coloured people in the Western Province. It would be a hardship on the Coloured people of Natal to compel them to go to the Western Cape for their education by leaving out of this clause a word which really does not mean very much, from the point of view of the Indian people. But from the point of view of the Coloured people and possibly from the point of view of the Bantu people, this could mean an awful lot, and I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment and to widen the scope of this university to include other groups as well, always subject, of course, to clause 21.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) knows full well that he should read clause 2 with clause 22. He was told to do so on several occasions during the other debates in this House. Clause 22 makes provision for exactly what the hon. member is asking in his amendment. That clause very clearly provides—

I think it is very clear that this clause does make provision for what the hon. member is asking in his amendment. I think his amendment is quite unnecessary, as, in fact, were all the other amendments previously moved by him in this connection.

I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration, because at the Durban Medical School we have an example of such a mixture, if I may call it that, working perfectly satisfactorily. When the Durban Medical School was established under the control of the University of Natal, the instructions to the university there were that the Medical School was established primarily for the Bantu. I am not sure, Sir, whether I am pronouncing the word “primarily” correctly or whether the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) pronounced it correctly, but I will look it up.

The one is English and the other is American.

There has always been a preponderance of Bantu at that school. The position is that the Medical Council has slowly increased the number which the Medical School is permitted to accept. There has always been some difficulty about obtaining sufficient Bantu students to fill the available places. The students who are admitted are selected matriculants; they are actually selected personally; there are not enough Bantu students who are suitable for medical training and if there is room for the admission of further students, those places are given to Indian or Coloured students. I taught there for a long time and my experience is that there are one or two Coloureds and at most perhaps four Indians are accepted, as opposed to something like 30 Bantu. This works satisfactorily. The Indians and the Coloureds who are admitted live in Durban and it makes an immense difference to them if they can live in their own homes in and around Durban. They are not wealthy. The choice is left to the University of Natal. It is just red tape to put it any other way. There is no difficulty about it. The University of Natal and the University of Westville, I hope, as ordinary decent people, will carry out the provisions of the Act and the instructions given to them in terms of the Act. This will cut out all the red tape, and it is the simplest thing in the world to leave this to the university officials. I can assure you from my own personal experience, and you can find out from the University of Natal that that is so; there is not the slightest difficulty about first filling up your class with, in this case, Indians and allowing the odd Coloured and the odd Bantu who are in Durban to attend that university. I would like the Minister to give it serious thought, because it is in the interests of all these people.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) says his amendment widens the scope of the clause and therefore of the Bill.

It widens the character.

The hon. member said his purpose was to widen the scope. But the point I want to make is that I am quite satisfied with the scope, which lies in clause 22, and from my point of view I see no justification for any further widening of it. The same point applies to the hon. member for Durban (Central), who talked about the Medical School. Of course the Medical School is not under discussion here, but he said there was no objection to the odd Coloured or the odd Indian at the Bantu Medical School. But clause 22 conveys the same idea. It says that the council can decide that other non-Whites can come in, provided that the Minister gives his consent. So it is really clause 22 the hon. member should discuss and object to. But the whole basis of this matter is that this is an Indian university and there is this clause which to that extent widens the scope of admission to the university. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that that is as wide as we consider necessary. When the hon. member says the effect of his amendment will be to widen the scope, I am satisfied that clause 22 makes it wide enough. Therefore the University will serve persons classified under the Population Registration Act, as members of the Indian group as defined in terms of this Act, and that is sufficient for our purposes.

As the Bill reads at the moment, it says “at Westville in Durban”. Forgetting about the “in Durban” part of it, it says “at Westville”. Now the hon. the Minister has chosen to say “in Westville”. Surely the correct English is to say “at Westville” and not “in Westville”. It is just a matter of correct English. I have not asked the hon. member for Kensington what he thinks about it. The hon. the Minister is the English-speaking member of the Cabinet, and I hope he will consider the point.

I want to support the point made by the hon. member for Durban (North). As was pointed out on the last clause, the possibility arises that this university will be excluded from Westville, so how can it be in Westville?

Could you explain what you mean.

We pointed out to the Minister that the seat of this university is not going to remain within the borough of Westville.

Why not?

Because it is going to become part of the Indian homeland which this Government is going to establish.

[Inaudible.]

With respect, the hon. member for Mooi River never said that at all. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana might have said so. The hon. member for Mooi River, made the very point that this university is not going to be in Westville, but outside it, and therefore I support the point made by the hon. member for Durban (North) that apart from the semantics it would be correct to say “at Westville”.

The hon. member has made the point. He may now continue.

To come back to the reply of the Minister, I think he was wrong to take the advice of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He might have done better if he had considered the reply on his own in regard to the amendment I moved to insert this word “primarily”, which would do away with the need for clause 22. This is the crux of my argument, namely that we do not need clause 22, which unfortunately I cannot argue now but must refer to now.

Order! The hon. member is just repeating his arguments. He made that point in his first speech.

Coming back to this question of “in” or “at”, we all want our enactments in this House to be in as good and perfect language as possible. I am not going to ask the Minister to make any decision now, but I think the Minister should get his Department to look at Fowler’s Modern English Usage, of which there is a comparatively new edition in the Library, only about 18 months old. That could clear up the point, because the members of the Other Place will probably put the same question to the Minister and he should have it investigated. We should use good English.

I do not propose moving my amendment in line 45, because that has already been accepted, nor to move my amendment in line 46 to omit “in Durban”, because in effect the Minister’s amendment looks after that. Therefore I am not moving my amendment.

In regard to the use of “at” or “in”, that was a decision reached by the law advisers who drafted the Bill, and they considered that it should read “in” Westville. They maintained that this covered the matter in every way. Although I may argue with the hon. member for Durban (North), I do not argue with the law advisers, because they are responsible for drafting the Bill. I am prepared to leave the matter in their hands. I think that was the only issue left over. I have explained the position as regards the point raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), and presumably he will raise the matter under a later clause.

I appreciate that the Minister is to some extent in the hands of the law advisers, but the question I raised is really a matter of the proper form of English to be used, and the Minister should not really leave that matter to the law advisers. He is, after all, regarded as being the representative of the English-speaking people in the Cabinet.

No, I am an English-speaking Nationalist.

Then what justification is there for the Minister being in the Cabinet?

Ask the Prime Minister.

This is the seat of the university and the word “at” is the word which should be used to indicate where it is. It is “at” Westville and not “in” Westville. I only ask the Minister to give the assurance that he will look into the matter before it goes to the Other Place.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Indian Affairs put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

* Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

If we create, a university and we cannot even let them deal with their own stores, their books, paper, and pencils, ink, without the approval of the Minister, what does the word “university”. mean? There is the provision that they may receive donations with the approval of the Minister. What has it got to do with the Minister if someone leaves property or money in his will to this university? Why should, he have to approve? Goodness knows what the policy of the Government is in this regard. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us in this regard, but when it comes to Indian advanced technical education, a subject which is regarded as being higher education in terms of the Act, we find that the technical colleges which can be set up there are to have, in terms of section 8, a council which includes one or two persons as the. Minister may from time to time determine, elected by local authorities which according to. any regulation are donors by virtue of donations made by them to the college. Nowhere do you find in that Act that for a donation to be made there should, be the approval of the Minister. In fact, when one looks at section 3 of that Act one finds that it is only in respect of the selling, exchanging or alienating of immovable property that the Minister’s approval is required at all for any of the financial dealings of this institution of higher learning.

The hon. member has already read out his amendment and the words he wants deleted. He is now reading it all over again.

I am now reading out the Indians’ Advanced Technical Education Act (Act No. 12 of 1968). This is impossible. Every time I try to illustrate some argument, some suggestion is made that I am doing something I should not do. I am only developing my argument.

These points were raised many times during the discussions on the other University Bills.

Yes, but not in the discussion on this particular Bill. Whatever I said during the discussion of any other Bill is not relevant here. If the Government chooses to bring five Bills with identical working to this House we will necessarily have to use the same arguments. It is not my fault and I am merely doing my duty as I see it. If you are bored by it, Sir, you can well imagine how difficult it must be for some other people. Here we have an hon. Minister who has never heard these arguments. The difference is that as far as this Minister is concerned and the Indian people are concerned we have these provisions in regard to an institute of higher learning. In the Indians’ Advanced Technical Education Act there is a provision that as far as these Indian technical institutions are concerned, like the M.L. Sultan Technical Institute, for instance, they do not have any control by the Minister in their dealings with finances except—and this is my point—where they exchange or otherwise alienate their immovable property or if they let it for more than one year. Only in these circumstances are they subject to ministerial control. Here we have the case of a university, which is also an institute of higher learning, and which would have, one presumes, a status higher than that of a technical college, where every dealing of that university in respect of financial matters is controlled by the Minister, including the ability to receive donations. As far as the Indian people in Natal are concerned one can find many examples of their generosity in giving money to their institutions. The hon. member for Pinetown will be able to tell this Committee to what extent this goes on.

In the technical college, as far as the Indians are concerned, it is provided that they may in fact do anything they like without any ministerial approval, as is set out in section 3 of the Act I have mentioned. Why does the hon. the Minister want to have the power to determiné whether or not someone should be able to donate money to the university? Surely this is a matter for the council to decide. There may be certain conditions attached, but it is a matter for the university to decide and not for the hon. the Minister. Will the hon. the Minister please explain to us why he wants that particular power?

Mr. Chairman, some people find it difficult to listen and do not want to hear. This is in fact a new Bill, but it is the same hon. member moving the same amendment as he moved previously. As I did on a previous occasion, I should once more like to read out to the hon. member that this same subsection that he wants deleted is contained in the legislation of other universities. The hon. member is looking around unnecessarily now. Section 4 (2) of the Rand Afrikaans University Act contains exactly the same words as the hon. member now moves should be deleted. This subsection reads as follows—

Does the hon. member now want this clause in the Bill under discussion to be deleted while the same clause must remain in respect of the white universities? This is a very far-fetched argument which the hon. member has used. Subsection (4), which the hon. member wants deleted in the last portion of his amendment, provides that the purchase and use of stores and equipment shall be controlled in such manner as the Minister may determine. Surely this is a very reasonable and understandable proposal. The Minister is responsible for the expenditure incurred in connection with the maintenance of the university. The stores of a university do not consist of slates, exercise books and pens, as the hon. member has already put it. I have made investigations regarding the items purchased for this university college in the past three years. R329,000 has been spent on the purchase of these items in the past three years. These articles include, inter alia, microscopes, highly specialized equipment for research purposes, electronic computers, etc. If the Minister has approved the acquisition of these articles in principle, for which provision must be made in the Budget, he then leaves it to the council to determine the use to which they will be put. Since from then onwards the council exercises control over them, I therefore really do not know why the hon. member is moving this amendment at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, if this university is to be a success, we would like to place it on the same basis as the Indian Technical College. I think the hon. the Minister knows that the Indian community in Natal consists of two main groups, namely the Mohammedan and the Hindu. As far as the Mohammedan group is concerned, I want to say that in many cases they do not work as individuals. Many Mohammedan Indian family trusts are established and it is these trusts that give donations. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has ever attended a family trust meeting, but I have on many occasions. In these family trust meetings one generally finds one particular person who has been asked to approach the family trust for donations. A family trust meeting then starts in the evening at 7 o’clock and one will be lucky to get away from there at 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning. If at the end of the meeting they decide to give a donation to this new Indian university and the university says that they cannot accept the donation before having obtained the Minister’s approval and there is another member of the family trust who is pleading for a donation for the Indian Technical College, he will use this fact as an argument. He will say that the college does not need the Minister’s approval for donations and that the technical college should receive the donation. These people set great store on ceremony with donations of this kind. The family trust meets that evening, the next day they get hold of the chairman or a member of the council to arrange for the ceremony to hand over the cheque. The person is garlanded, photographs are taken and although this ceremony will receive no publicity as far as the daily Press is concerned, as far as the Indian families are concerned, it is a great occasion. In this way they satisfy their religious convictions and have then indicated in terms of the Koran that they have given money for educational purposes to these institutions. With this provision we are putting the whole of the Indian community in the position that those who want to give donations to the university do not know where they stand until they have received an answer from Pretoria. On the other hand, if they go to the Indian Technical College the matter can be settled the same day and there is no difficulty whatsoever. I suggest that as far as donations are concerned, the Minister is placing this Indian university at a distinct disadvantage if he should refuse to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members are conjuring up spectres here which they are lustily firing at and which in actual fact do not exist. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday very clearly indicated the difference between the development of this University and the College for Advanced Technical Education. The hon. member pointed out very clearly how the Indian population themselves virtually had financial control in the development of the college and therefore had a greater say in it. The basic fact that no one can deny is that the Minister is financing this university fully. It therefore goes without saying that the Minister should also have a full say as far as the control of the University is concerned. It is surely not true that the Indian community will hesitate to make donations to the Indian university because they now have to obtain the approval of the Minister. As I know the Indian community, they will be much keener to make donations specifically because they may be able to make them directly to the Minister. They like to honour people and they will feel flattered that they must make these donations through the Minister, as it were. That is how we know the Indians. Surely hon. members opposite know that Communist organizations to-day have large amounts of money at their disposal which they would very much like to make available to any institution if they could achieve some purpose thereby. This measure is simply aimed at exercising control over this —and I think that the Indian community also knows this. The Department will then also know what amounts are coming in and what amounts must still be made available. This measure is also for administrative purposes. If one does not know what funds are being made available, one surely cannot know what is still left over.

The hon. member for Durban (North) speaks of books and pencils when dealing with the stores of the University. The stores of a university to-day consist of highly specialized equipment which can cost hundreds of thousands of rands. How on earth do hon. members opposite expect the Minister to exercise financial control over an institution without being able to say what may be purchased? A university may, for example, need a computer. This may cost hundreds of thousands of rands and a council over which there is no control with regard to financial matters could easily make such a decision because they need the equipment. However, they will not know whether the money is available or not. For this reason it is necessary that control be exercised. There is nothing sinister or diabolical contained in this measure. Any university, and also any white university, has the decency to inform the Minister of the position so that he knows about it whenever sales or purchases involving large amounts of money are to be made. This arrangement is nothing extraordinary.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member was not here last night when we replied to the remarks by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He would then not have repeated the inaccuracies, because we made it quite clear to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that most of the money for the M. L. Sultan College does not come from the Indian community. While a big portion of the money comes from the Indian community, the money comes from various commercial concerns, industries, the City Council of Durban and many European friends of the Indians. All these made donations to the M. L. Sultan Trust. This trust has given hundreds of thousands of rand for Indian education in the other Indian territories. Other trusts in Natal also made donations. To suggest that we are opposing this measure because money may come from Communist sources, is ludicrous. Surely there will be Treasury control if the money should come from overseas. If there is no Treasury control then there is something very seriously wrong with the Treasury. I have every confidence in the Treasury of South Africa that it is able to make sure that funds coming from overseas are controlled.

So far as the council is concerned, what did all the other universities do? The other universities have their annual accounts and their balance sheets, and a copy of the council’s balance sheet and the auditor’s certificate are sent to the hon. the Minister of National Education. [Interjection.] In that case why does the hon. member not support our amendment then? Because in effect the Minister is advised. Our point is they cannot accept a single donation. The Minister is going in completely the opposite direction to what another Minister did in connection with the Indian Technical College. The Indian Technical College is in an advantageous position. We have an Indian Technical College for Higher Learning and it is in a more advantageous position as far as donations are concerned than this proposed University. It is in a more advantageous position for receiving money from Indian trusts. At a family gathering of a trust they can decide to give a donation to the technical college and the following day give it a cheque, but as far as the University is concerned, as I said in my earlier remarks …

Order! The hon. member is repeating now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member obviously was not listening and I am trying to say what the position is.

Order! I am sorry but I cannot allow repetitions for any reason whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown made a great fuss about the amendment and said that we did not trust them and that we presumed that they wanted to allow money to come in from Communist sources. This provision that money or property may be received “with the approval of the Minister” does not exclude money or property being received. Money can indeed be received. The fact that they moved this amendment indicates that they have no confidence in the Government’s intentions whatsoever. If a donation is made and everything is quite in order, they must surely accept that there will be no obstacles placed in the way. This university is altogether a State undertaking, and surely it is quite normal for the State or the Minister to have some say in respect of the receipt of money while it is a State undertaking. Surely this is a logical state of affairs and I cannot see what the Opposition’s objection can be.

Mr. Chairman, had the hon. member for Umhlatuzana been in the House while the hon. member for Pinetown was speaking he would have known more of what he was speaking about. The point is the following. To suggest that the University would be accepting money from communist countries is a gross reflection on the council of the University itself, a council which is appointed by the Minister. For the hon. member for Algoa to say the Minister must have this control over the council to see that money does not come from communist countries is, I think, irresponsibility of the highest order. The reason why we want to remove the Minister’s control over, donations which are given to the University, is to give the University the status which a university deserves. As we pointed out, the Indian Institute for Higher Technical Education is able to receive donations without let or hindrance from the Minister, and surely to, goodness the whole idea of creating this. university is to create something of the highest standing possible, and this is one of the great distinctions between a university and a technical institute in every country of the world, A university has a higher status, a higher standing in educational circles throughout the world.

Order! The hon. member is repeating now.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am making the point here …

It has been made by other hon. members as well.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the point I am making is that the control of the Minister is the inhibiting factor which the Government is retaining on the future growth of this University, and I want to ask the Minister …

Order! That point has been made in different words by other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister then: Is he prepared to accept donations to this University? If he is prepared to accept donations why is the council he has appointed not entrusted with the acceptance or otherwise of the donation? I think the Minister can at least give us a reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to this point for the simple reason that my control over this aspect does not have a sinister motive, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Algoa. The hon. member for Mooi River said donations cannot be granted except under the control of the Minister. Of, course the clause does not read that way. Subsection (3) reads—

That is not the control of the Minister, it is the approval of the Minister. Let me put it to the hon, member this way. He asked whether the Minister is not going to accept any donations.

I asked: Is the Minister going to accept donations?

Well, of course. May I point out to hon. members, who have been so anxious that I should consult Indians’ bodies, that this clause was also decided upon in consultation with the Indian body. It was done in consultation with them, and I will tell the hon. member why. Because there were donations made or suggested which would have involved the University in annual costs which were quite out of proportion. In view of the fact that the financial burden of running this university is borne by the State, this clause was inserted. The hon. member opposite is scratching his head over it. A substantial donation involving a. piece of land was offered to the University which would have involved the Government in considerable expenditure year after year to carry out the conditions attached to the donation. It was not an unconditional donation. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the Minister to say: “Well, I have to ask Parliament for the moneys required for this University, so I must also have the right to give my approval, or otherwise, if a donation is offered the acceptance of which would involve a lot of expenditure because of the conditions laid down by the donor.” What is so sinister in that? As I say, the matter was discussed with the Indian body. My Department tells me the Indian body suggested whether we should not limit it, to R20,000 or R10,000, and eventually this clause was decided upon.

Which Indian body was consulted?

The Indian University Advisory Council. With regard to immovable property I want to say this. The money is spent by this institution on immovable property.

We have not asked for that.

Your amendment asks to omit the whole of subsection (2), namely “The University shall not without the approval of the Minister let, sell, exchange or otherwise alienate its immovable property ”, etc. Those words are in the clause and the hon, member for Durban (Central) should speak to his colleague who moved the omission of this subsection.

I did not move that.

No, you did not, but the hon. member for Durban (North) did. He asked for the omission of subsection (2), and that is where immovable property comes in. I was going to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that this was the reason why this subsection was inserted, and I am not prepared to accept an amendment to omit it. The hon. member for Koedoespoort indicated it covers a large amount of expenditure. Hon. members opposite may make debating points by referring to text books and slates, and so forth. However, over the past three years the expenditure of this institution averaged over R100,000 per year. The Minister must give his approval to the letting, selling, and so forth, of immovable property. Point two concerns the matter of donations, which I have already dealt with, and point 3 concerns stores. I think the matter of stores has been replied to already and so I have no intention of holding up the Committee on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think in view of what the hon. the Minister has indicated I am quite prepared to withdraw part of my motion. With the leave of the Committee I will withdraw that part of my amendment which proposes to omit subsection (2) of this clause. The Minister has indicated that this resides in fact in other university legislation and in those circumstances I do not want to continue with this part of my amendment. I think the Minister said there was an example where someone left a lot of money subject to certain conditions which would have involved, the State in a great deal of expenditure every year.

I said ground was offered to the institution.

Yes. Surely, Sir, this is a factor that the council can have regard to. After all, I assume the members of the council are all astute businessmen, although I do not know who they are. They are, at any rate, all appointed by the Minister. He gave us an interesting example and perhaps the Minister can give us an indication as to how this is going to arise. I find it difficult to understand how the acceptance of the ground could involve the Government in a lot of expense so as to make a donation of this sort not worthwhile.

The Minister says this control of his does not have a sinister motive, and he said “as the hon. member for Algoa had said”. But as I understood the hon. member for Algoa, he said this was needed to stop money coming from communist countries. The hon. the Minister of Police is sitting here and he can tell us that he has sufficient powers to deal with this sort of thing. Surely we have enough legislation to deal with communism and file suppression of communism. If they thought that money might come from some communist country for some subversive purpose—well, Sir, it is really stretching the limits of one’s imagination as to what could happen. We have enough legislation to deal with this. If a condition attached to the donation is that it should be for the teaching of Marx or Engels … [Interjection.] Well, I do not know, I think those subjects can be looked at abstractly in an academic way, but that is not the point. The point is the Government could stop it from being done. So one wonders just why the Minister wants that control.

The Minister has not indicated to us why this power over stores has to reside in him. Why can the council of the university only deal with its stores in a manner to be determined by the Minister? I trust the Minister will give us an answer to both these points. I think the example of the ground which he could not accept is something we should like to hear more about. As I said, with the leave of the Committee I withdraw that part of my amendment which proposes to delete subsection (2).

First amendment, with leave withdrawn.

I think it might help the Minister if we could explain where we think difficulties may arise with bequests. He can then amend this clause in order to meet what I think will be objections from the part of the donors. Our object from this side is not in any way to hinder bequests. I can well understand the example the hon. the Minister gave us, though I do not understand why he needs this to prevent such things happening. After all, the whole council is appointed by him. Surely, these will be persons of sufficient intelligence and integrity to go to the Minister first whenever they receive a bequest with a condition attached to it which is unreasonable and which they cannot fulfil. Our object was very well put by the hon. member for Pinetown. We want to see the council being empowered to accept any bequest, no matter what conditions are attached thereto. If the Minister were to reword this section so as to make provision for him to agree only to the condition, the council will be free to accept the money, subject then to the Minister’s approval of the conditions. If he does that, the difficulties which we foresee will be obviated.

We do not want to place a donor in the position where, if he wants to give this university an amount of money, he has to be told by the council that they would first have to get the Minister’s approval before accepting his donation. Instead of that, we say, let the council accept the money with the proviso that any conditions which may be attached to the gift shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. From this point of view this clause is very badly worded. As it reads now, the council shall first have to go to the Minister and get his approval before accepting any donation. It is like giving somebody a piece of bread and he says he does not want it without cheese. Well, if he is hungry, he will take the bread only. Therefore, we should like the Minister to word this clause in such a way so as to make it possible for the council to accept any gift straight away and only to make the conditions attached to that gift subject to the approval of the Minister.

While I was listening to the plea of the hon. member for Durban (Central) for the Minister to accept any bequest, the first thought which flashed through my mind was that the Minister apparently wants jam on it. However, on second thoughts I thought the Minister might not want to accept our amendment because there is no provision here for either the university or the council to handle money. If you read clause 3 (1), you will see that the university shall be a body corporate, capable of suing and of being sued and of purchasing and otherwise acquiring, and alienating movable or immovable property. No mention at all is made of money. I wonder whether the difficulty under which the hon. the Minister is labouring does not lie here because if he were to allow this university to accept bequests it could not be allowed to handle the money.

Is money not movable property?

Well, it could be construed as such. In any event, it is certainly very movable once it gets into my pocket. But, in all seriousness, Sir, in view of the circumstances I should like to move—

It is the same one you moved the other day.

Mr. Chairman, do we really have to put up with this parrot cry? Surely, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has been in this House long enough to know the rules. He ought to know that nothing that was said in a previous debate applies to this debate.

Order! The hon. member should deal with his amendment.

This amendment, Sir, is moved in an attempt to help the Minister out of this dilemma.

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber put and negatived.

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

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (i) a convocation.

Order! I regret I cannot allow these amendments because they are similar in substance to amendments negatived on a previous clause.

Mr. Chairman, does your ruling also apply to the first one, i.e. to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”?

No. That is the only amendment the hon. member may move.

Thank you, Sir. This clause says that the rector “shall” also be the vice-chancellor. That gives him the title of rector and vice chancellor. I do not think it is a suitable title. At some universities there are chancellors apart from vice chancellors, for instance at Stellenbosch. My amendment makes it permissive, i.e. a rector “may” also be the vice chancellor. That means that if the chancellor is for any reason not available, the rector can act for him and assume the title of vice chancellor. I think my proposition is better than the one in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Kensington that the substitution of the permissive “may” for “shall” is not in accordance with the other university Bills. In those Bills the word “shall” is used and on that basis I have accepted it as such.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that in cases where you have a rector and a vice chancellor I can understand the hon. the Minister’s point, but I do not think the hon. the Minister follows that in this case one man becomes both rector and vice chancellor. In the case of the amendments which I moved to the Witwatersrand University legislation last year, I asked that the rector be called vice chancellor in order to get away from this difficulty. That was the problem which we had last year. But if the hon. the Minister persists in following the procedure of the Bantu University Colleges Bill, there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get this right with the hon. member for Kensington. Does his amendment refer to clause 4 “the university shall consist of” which he wants to amend so that it shall read “the university may consist of”.

No!

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. the Minister did not mean what he said, because he understood the member for Kensington wrongly.

I asked the hon. member for Kensington a question, because I was not sure whether his amendment also referred to the “shall” in the beginning of clause 4.

No, it only refers to paragraph (b) of clause 4.

Now I get the point.

Mr. Chairman, now that the Minister has found that he misunderstood the hon. member for Kensington, is he not prepared to accept the amendment? If he does not want to accept it, will he please tell us why not.

Mr. Chairman, I was trying to get clarity on exactly which part of the clause the hon. member referred to when he moved his amendment. I started off by asking whether he referred to the introductory words of clause 4.But the hon. member has now made it clear that he has moved the amendment to paragraph (b). But even in this case I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

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

I do this because our attitude throughout the discussion of this Bill has been to give to the council of this university some real, meaningful, power in relation to the control of the university. Here you have the appointment of the rector, one of the key figures, the person who will give this whole university its character by reason of his leadership and his attitude towards his students. It is something of the utmost and intimate concern to the university. We feel that here you have a council appointed by the Minister; persons in whom he places the fullest trust. Then an advisory council is appointed in which the hon. the Minister also places his trust as he has explained to us on many occasions in this debate. These two bodies, we feel, should consist of persons who should be trusted by the hon. the Minister with the appointment of the rector of the university. For that reason I have moved the amendment to this clause which will give the council the right to appoint the rector in the manner prescribed by the statute of the university. This statute will itself be approved by the hon. the Minister. Here you have a succession of actions which are taken from the very first appointments by the Minister to the council and to the advisory council and the approval by the Minister of the statute; a most responsible body and an advisory body being set up to appoint, in our view, the person who will be the most intimately concerned with the character, the direction, the development and the future of the university. We feel that this can be left in the hands of the people whom the Minister is appointing, the people who are to serve on the advisory council and who are representatives of the Indian community, who are most responsible people, and the list of names, which the Minister has not yet read out to us, of the council which is appointed by the Minister. Similarly, in lines 45 and 46 we should provide that “the council may from time to time” without the Minister having the absolute right after consultation with the council, as it is the case throughout the whole succession of Bills. We feel that a council has now been established to the point where it can take responsible decisions for itself. For that reason, I moved the amendment.

I regret I cannot accept the amendment. The position as stated here in subsection (1), i.e. “by the Minister after consultation with the council” and in subsection (2). “the Minister may from time to time after consultation with the council” is to stay. I am not prepared to accept a situation where the council can make decisions either on its own or after consultation with the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister savs that he is not prepared to accept it, but he has not told us why. The hon. member for Mooi River indicated why we wanted this to be inserted. Will the hon. the Minister please indicate to us why he does not want it to be inserted? What is this Government’s policy in this regard? When this same Government provided in 1968 for an institution for higher education in the form of the Indian Advanced Technical Education Act, Act No. 12 of 1968, it there provided that the principal of the college shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, be appointed by the council. If that is the situation with the technical college, surely a fortiori it ought to be the situation in respect of a council of a university. I may say that the councils for the technical colleges which were to be set up under that Act, were not councils appointed entirely by the Minister. They were councils drawn from all fields, including people who make donations. It is, in fact, a mixed council. Here we have a council …

That is integration.

Yes, it is integration, but we shall deal with that later. It is integration there, but you cannot have integration here with a body of a higher status. Now, here we have a body which will be appointed entirely by the Minister, and he will not even let them appoint the rector! However, this is allowed in the case of the technical colleges, which are institutions of higher learning in terms of the Act. Now, here are two completely conflicting policies. They may be explicable by a change of Minister, but I do not think so. I think the hon. the Minister owes this Committee an explanation. We do not want to hear from him blandly that he is not going to accept it. We should like to know why he is not prepared to accept it.

I am afraid I cannot understand the Minister’s statement that he is simply not prepared to accept any amendment.

He is not prepared.

We have already in the course of the Second Reading debate made the point that we are dealing here with an Indian community who, surely to goodness, are capable of giving advice as an advisory council appointed by the Minister. The Minister yesterday read out with great pride the names of the members of the advisory council which he had appointed and he asked us one by one whether we accepted that these names were the names of people in the Indian community who could be trusted to give reliable. accurate and completely responsible advice. Sir, what is happening here is happening to the Indian community as a result of decisions taken in respect of every other racial group in South Africa; they are being bound in a strait-jacket which is being imposed upon them because this Minister will not take any kind of decision other than that which has been taken in respect of the other racial groups. I regard this as being grossly unfair to the Indian community because by accepting this amendment the Minister would be surrendering nothing of his real control over the university.

Do you want the advisory council to nominate the principal?

The amendment is on the Order Paper.

The amendment states that “the council shall appoint. If I can take the hon. member outside later on, then perhaps I can explain to him what that means. The amendment states that “the council shall appoint …”, and we did not think it necessary to say “in consultation with the advisory council”, because that is what the advisory council is there for; they are there to advise the council. [Interjections.] Yes, perhaps they are not; perhaps the Minister will tell us whether in fact this would be a proper function of the advisory council. The Minister will agree that the Indian community has acted most responsibly throughout the years in relation to the education of the Indian people, and here you have a form forced upon them. I would like the Minister just to explain to us in what way, by accepting our amendment, he would be relaxing his control over the university which it is the intention of his Department to control? To say that he is not prepared to accept the amendment is evading the issue, because what we are intending here is that the council which he appoints is going to take a decision which is going to affect the whole future of the university. I think this is a most important point and I do ask the Minister to give us some reason rather than merely setting his face against the whole suggestion made by us.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister cannot merely lie back there and ignore this Committee. A very important point has been raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member has pointed out that the previous Minister of Indian Affairs took a different attitude with regard to the appointment of the principal, and he has asked why there has been a change in the policy of this Government.

The “verkramptes” took over from the “verligtes”.

Why has there been a change? What is the difference …

Order! The hon. member is now repeating what was said by the hon. member sitting behind him and what the hon. member for Durban (North) has asked the Minister.

Why does he not reply?

May I make this one repetition: Will the Minister please get up and tell the Committee what his reason is for refusing the amendment?

Sir. I do not want to disappoint those hon. members. The hon. member for Transkei says “the Minister cannot lie back”. Let me remind the hon. member that we are dealing with clause 7 now, and the Minister could not have been lying back if we have made such slow progress with this Bill up to clause 7.

Answer the question.

The general impression which the hon. member for Transkei has tried to create is quite wrong. He is quite wrong when he says that the Government has changed its attitude. This clause stands as the Government has drawn it up for this university …

That is a profound statement.

… and it is going to remain that way. I want to say to hon. members opposite that they can change this clause; they can amend it when they are in power on this side of the House, but until that happens, hon. members opposite must know that just as they have the democratic right to state their case, so the Government also has the democratic right to decide how it will run this university and it intends exercising that right. Hon. members may protest and they are fighting like tigers, but on this side of the House this is how we are going to develop these universities, the same as we developed Meadowlands against the opposition of the United Party and as we will develop other things in this country. They can go on making their speeches. I am quite happy to stay here for another week.

The statement of the hon. the Minister is most disappointing. His suggestion is tantamount to saying that we must go home until the next general election and that we can make no contribution to government because the Government has made up its mind. In the Second Reading I emphasized the fact that last year the Department of Indian Affairs established a tradition for higher education for Indians.

But that is wrong.

They put through the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act. That stated the policy for the Indians and the Minister’s predecessor confirmed it. That was my statement at the Second Reading and I gave chapter and verse; I quoted the debate. But in his reply to the Second Reading debate the Minister took avoiding action; he never replied to my point that we have created a tradition of Indian higher education. Now we come to the details of what I said in the Second Reading, and this is one of the points of detail. It is not a question of what the Government has decided for the Indians and the Bantu. What I want him to tell us now is this: He is departing from the policy of this Government and of the Department of Indian Affairs in regard to higher education. Will he tell us, why? That is all I want to know. What motivates this? The Minister has not replied to my Second Reading argument of yesterday.

Will he tell us now why he has departed from the policy of his predecessor?

The Minister said it was our democratic right to wait until after the next general election when we will have the right to change this clause. This of course shows great optimism on the part of the Minister, but in point of fact the Minister is not showing contempt of us, but he is showing contempt of the Indian community and of his own council.

And he is revealing himself.

He refuses to get up and tell us the reasons why he is not prepared to entrust the appointment of a rector to the bodies he himself is creating.

Order! The hon. member must stop repeating. He has said that over and over again.

Then may I ask the Minister to explain the position?

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned for lunch I was replying to the hon. member for Kensington on the matter he had raised. He talked about the previous Act. I should like to point out to him that that Act provides for the establishment of colleges for advanced technical education for Indians, for control, administration and regulations at such colleges and for matters incidental thereto. This Bill is to provide for a university, a university described in this Bill. Therefore, these are the conditions of the charter of this university. I am not going to get myself involved. (Interjections.] Of course not. I realize that the whole object of hon. members on that side of the House is to delay as much as they can and to argue on clauses for the sake of arguing. They are not prepared to argue on the point. This is the clause as it appears in the Bill. This Bill provides for a university and on that we are basing our council. That is all I have to reply.

Is that your answer?

That is my answer.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot quite follow the reasoning of the hon. the Minister. I want to draw his attention to the fact that whilst he differentiates between a university and an advanced technical institution, the law makes no difference in so far as we in this House are concerned. I wish to refer him to the Educational Services Act (Act No. 41 of 1967) which gives the definition of “higher education” in section 44, as follows—

Order! What has that to do with clause 7 of this Bill?

The hon. the Minister stated that there were two separate matters which we were considering and trying to compare. The one was advanced technical education and the other one was university education. I am just drawing the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that so far as we in this House and in this country are concerned, they are both types of higher education. I was referring to that section of the Act. I continue—

1. (a) education provided at a university or university college established by or under any law;
2. (b) education provided at a college as defined in the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967;

We are talking about the same matter.

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat; I just want to give a ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, I understood you to say you are now going to give a ruling.

I have said I want to give a ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, may we know on what you are going to give a ruling?

That is exactly what the hon. member will know when I have finished.

Mr. Chairman, before you give your ruling, may I point out that you might be influenced by argument on the subject.

The hon. member does not know what it is about. So he cannot have an argument on the matter.

But, Sir, I do not want to have an argument on the matter.

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat.

On a point of order, Sir.

No. Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat! The Bill need not reflect what is stated in other Acts. If the hon. member reads the long title of the Bill, he will see that it grants “recognition as a university to the university college established at Durban under the Extension of University Education Act”. It does not say that it changes the conditions under which that university college existed. It simply says that it grants recognition as a university to that university college. So, it is no use bringing in what is stated about other universities in this country or any other country.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to your ruling, members are using as an illustration and are stating quite categorically that a body which does not have the status of a university has recognition which is not being given to the university in this Bill. Surely, on an occasion like this, they are quite competent to use that argument.

I have given my ruling.

Well, I think you are protecting the Minister, that’s all.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! What is the hon. member’s point or order?

My point of order is: Have you given your ruling, Sir, or are you prepared to hear any argument?

My ruling is that the clauses of this Bill need not correspond to clauses in Acts dealing with other universities.

With great respect, Sir, that is not the point that has been raised. Might one have the Speaker’s ruling on this subject?

The hon. member may address me on a point of order if he wants to.

May I move, Sir, that we have the Speaker’s ruling on this subject? He may want to hear our arguments before he gives his ruling.

Order! I am putting the clause now.

I move, Sir: That the Speaker be called in to give a ruling on this point.

The Chairman’s ruling is final on this issue.

Must we understand that you, as Chairman, are refusing to allow us to call the Speaker in?

Yes, on this particular issue, Hon. members cannot call the Speaker in on an issue like this.

Without hearing our argument?

Yes. I said the hon. member could address me on a point of order.

Sir, might one have your reasons for refusing this? May I address you, Sir?

On what?

Hon. members who have spoken, have spoken about the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act. They have referred to the situation that exists under that Act so far as the council is concerned and so far as the choosing of the rector by the council is concerned. They used that as an example, merely to illustrate their argument. The amendment we have moved is to the effect that the rector should be appointed by the council and not by the Minister. As an illustration of the argument in favour of the proposition that the council, and not the Minister, should elect the chairman, there has been reference to the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act of 1968.

I have no objection to that. The hon. member for Green Point quoted from quite another Act.

This is the very Act the hon. member for Green Point was referring to to illustrate his argument in support of the amendment by the hon. member for Mooi River. That is all he was doing. My submission to you is that he is quite entitled to refer to that Act, to any other clause of this Bill, the laws of Hammurabi or anything he likes, in order to illustrate the argument he wants to put forward in order to persuade this Committee, not the hon. Minister, that the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River ought to be accepted by this Committee. It is not the choice of the Minister; it is the choice of this Committee.

The amendment by the hon. member for Mooi River is in order. I did not rule that out of order. But the hon. member cannot quote sections of the Higher Education Act as a definition for what a university really is, because every university has its own constitution.

On a point or order, Sir, the Minister said there was a distinction, and we were answering the Minister. The hon. member for Green Point was answering the Minister by quoting an Act passed by this Parliament. So, there is no distinction.

Oh yes, there is.

He still says there is. Now let the hon. member for Green Point develop his argument to show that there is no distinction.

Then he can argue that.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member for Green Point may continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying before the digression, so far as the Financial Relations and the Constitution Acts are concerned in South Africa, under the umbrella of higher education both university education, with which we are dealing, and the colleges defined in the Advanced Technical Education Act resort. I was going to address the Minister on the following points. He feels that a university council should not have the powers in terms of the amendment by the hon. member for Mooi River. We have suggested to him that it is quite reasonable that the university council should have that authority, because that authority is given to an institution which, in the opinion of the Minister, is a lesser institution. That institution already has that power. A council of an advanced technical institution elects the rector of that institution. I cannot understand why I must come back to the hon. the Minister and to ask why that power should be denied to the council of a university, particularly when it is a university for the Indian people, who, in the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday evening, are the most advanced of our non-white peoples in this country. They are at the present moment, so far as a lower form of education is concerned, sitting on a mixed white and Indian council. That mixed council has these powers.

I wonder why the hon. the Minister cannot accept that a purely one-race council for the university, which will be appointed by him, cannot have those powers which he is prepared to give to an integrated council at a lower level of education. [Time expired.]

Is the Minister not going to reply?

No, he is not.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister …

Order! I put the clause.

I want to address you on this clause, Sir.

The hon. member asked the Minister whether he was not going to reply. He said “No”. The hon. member did not say he wanted to address the Committee on the clause.

Sir, the Minister interjected just now that there was a difference. He was about to stand up when you told him to give place to the member for Green Point. Surely, the hon. the Minister can get up now and tell us what the difference is, why he refuses to accept that there is a similarity between these two institutions. He cannot just sit there. He was prepared to get up just now. Has he found that he made a mistake, that he was wrong as to what he was going to say? Or has he been told not to say anything? Why does the hon. the Minister not get up, address us and tell us what the difference is between the two institutions?

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the hon. Minister is quite unable to answer what has been said. It is quite obvious that he does not know what is in the Bill or what was in that Act.

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

Yes, I am coming back. I suggest that the hon. the Minister needs some time in order to study the provisions of this clause, the implications of the amendment and the arguments advanced. I therefore move—

I do this so that the hon. the Minister can have some time to consult his officials and give us some reply.

The Committee divided:

Tellers A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: M. J. de la R. Venter and J. H. Visse.

Motion accordingly negatived.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

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

Question affirmed and the first amendment dropped.

Remaining amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

Mr. P. A. MOORE; Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the government and executive authority of the University shall be vested in the council, which shall consist of—
   1. (a) the rector;
   2. (b) four persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) one person elected by convocation;
   4. (d) two professors of the University chosen by the senate;
   5. (e) two persons chosen by the South African Indian Council established in terms of the South African Indian Council Act, 1968 (Act No. 31 of 1968); and
   6. (f) one person chosen by the University of Natal.

It will be noted that we have tried to stay within the limit of 11 members. But before going further, will you give an indication, Mr. Chairman, whether you are going to rule paragraph (e) out of order?

Yes, it is out of order.

In that case, I shall have to move the revised amendment, as follows—

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) four persons appointed by the State President;
   3. (c) two professors of the University chosen by the senate;
   4. (d) two persons chosen by the South African Indian Council established in terms of the South African Indian Council Act, 1968 (Act No. 31 of 1968); and
   5. (e) one person chosen by the University of Natal.

As I have said, this is the best we can do within the limit of a membership of 11. We have drawn our inspiration for this from the council of the college for advanced technical education established last year. I gave the constitution of that council in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. It includes representatives of boroughs, of towns, that are interested and are donors, of individual donors and of ex-students. The constitution of this council therefore rests on a broad basis.

Now, Sir, the hon. the Minister has adhered to the council which has been held to be good enough for the Bantu colleges. The council is, in fact, nominated by him in other words, it is his own council, it has been said that the council, as we want it, makes provision for Whites or Indians, that Whites or Indians will have the right to sit on the council, as in the case of the council of the college for higher technical education. The hon. the Minister, when discussing the previous clause, said to us that that might be all right for the higher technical college but that the Government was no going to accept anything like that for a university. But, Sir, the reverse is true. Where you have mixed councils, it will be in the higher echelons, not in the lower echelons. We plead for a mixed council in the higher echelons, in the universities, like there is one for the higher technical college. If you are going to agree to one such council for the higher technical college, then the more so you must agree to one for the university. There is no possible objection to it. I want to say that when we dealt with higher technical education of the Indians, the hon. the Minister said that he would have from 15 to 30 members, on one condition, and that is that the majority was to be nominated by him. We accepted that at this stage of development, for the simple reason that he would be providing the money. Therefore, Sir, I wish to move this amendment with the confidence that the hon. the Minister will realize that the attitude he took up on the last clause cannot be maintained and that he, therefore, will accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Kensington in the amendment which he has moved here. This is consistent with the attitude we have taken up all along. Our attitude is to establish a university with a council, and here we come to a sticky part of this Bill. Here we have a council which is to he constituted to undertake the government of this university. The proposal of the hon. member for Kensington seeks to bring about a situation where the South African Indian Council can nominate two persons on to the council of this university.

We have been attacked by hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana amongst others, who said that this was a means whereby we sought to introduce integration. I want to know how this can come about where you have a university for Indians established in an Indian area under the control of the Minister for Indian Affairs? Here we wish to have white people to act as the guiding agents, because the whole trend of the thoughts of the Minister, of members on the other side, and of members on this side, is that the white people of this country have to act as the guides, as the guardian, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana puts it, of the Indian community as this university develops to full university status.

Our contention is that this can only be done by as close a contact as possible between the groups concerned. Here we seek to bring it about. Moreover, this is the form chosen by the Minister and the Department themselves. They have decided that there shall be an Indian university; we accept that. They have decided that there shall be a council to run the university; we accept that, but we feel that here where there is a council it shall be with the majority in the hands of the white people who are the guiding agents and that the Indian community must learn from their contacts with the Whites. Surely, Sir, this cannot be called integration, and surely the hon. member for Algoa and other members on the other side who allege that we are integrationists at this level, are talking the utmost nonsense, because here an opportunity is being created to do exactly and precisely the thing on which the Department has set its heart, and that is to allow the white man as the guiding factor to operate at the level of university education to bring the Indian community along to the point where they will be able to accept full responsibility for this university.

Sir, that is the intention of the hon. member for Kensington in introducing this motion, and I believe that hon. members opposite who say that the fact that we are introducing this amendment is evidence of a desire on the part of the United Party for integration, are talking irresponsibly, because they are not accepting the fact that the white man has to lead and to guide in the closest possible consultation, which this amendment of ours makes possible.

I shall return once again to this point which we discussed in the Second Reading debate. The fundamental difference between the United Party and the National Party is that the United Party aims at an integrated authority, and they proved once again by moving this amendment.

Order! I do not want hon. members to advance further political theories about what these things mean.

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing nothing but the amendment and the object of the amendment. The National Party accepts that close consultation has to take place, and there has always been such consultation between the white population group and every non-white population group in this country. But with this amendment the United Party once again seeks to establish an integrated authority for this University. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the technical high school established last year …

Why? Is that not higher education?

… as that technical college had existed before and had a council on which Whites as well as non-Whites served. This University also existed before, but had a traditional council as well as a traditional advisory council. Traditionally the council consists solely of members of the white population group and the advisory council solely of members of the Indian population group, and the only thing that is happening with this change-over to full university academic status is that past tradition in this specific university is being retained as it was in the past, and for this reason we on this side are not prepared to establish a new mixed body of authority.

Sir, this is a very interesting approach by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, because in 1968, when we debated the Indian Advanced Technical Education Act, which deals with an institution of higher learning as this university is, the statement made by the then Minister of Indian Affairs differed somewhat from the statement made here to-day by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member says that the difference between that Act and this Bill is that this university has a tradition, a three-year tradition! This is what can happen when hon. members on that side speak about things like this: “This tradition will begin next week, or whenever the Bill is passed”. This is really what the hon. member is saying.

A stupid argument.

Well, it is not a stupid argument; it is not an argument.

The University was established in 1961.

If the hon. member insists, then we will garnish it with the word “stupid” as well. Sir, what in fact was said by the former Minister in respect of higher education in the technical field? This is higher education in another field. Sir, the hon. member for Kensington read this out during the Second Reading debate and I think one is entitled to remind the hon. the Minister of this once again so that he can once again reply to this, because he did not reply at the Second Reading. This is what the hon. member for Kensington said—

He nodded assent.

It is the case says the hon. member for Kensington, because the hon. the Minister nodded his head. Sir, there is much more to this. The deliberate policy of the Minister was that this should be a council of Indians and Whites sitting together, a mixed council. In fact, this is what the hon. member for Kensington said in the Committee Stage on clause 8 (col. 1123, vol. 22)—

The then Minister of Indian Affairs replied: “Yes. Of course, they must be donors”. The hon. member for Kensington went on to say—

Whites and Indians.

Having said that, I presume the hon. the Minister will approve of the ordinary people co-opted by the Council under 8 (1) (g)? Is that the intention?

Yes.

Sir, this was the policy in 1968, last year. This was the policy of the Government in respect of the council of an institution of higher learning for the Indians, so far as technical education was concerned. Now suddenly this is completely repudiated. What has happened, Sir? This hon. Minister says that the Government —he referred to the Royal “we”—has decided that there should be a pattern as far as all non-white universities are concerned; that they are going to start a tradition of non-white universities as soon as the Other Place assents to these Bills. Sir, there it is in Hansard, and this was not a hundred years ago. One is entitled to change one’s mind, but is one entitled to change one’s mind about higher education from one year to the next? This is not a case of changing their minds. The provisions of the Advanced Technical Education Act of last year still remain the law, and in terms of that Act you have a mixed council, not consisting of people who are elected to it but appointed by the Minister. He says that he is going to appoint members of both race groups, Indians and Whites, to this council. Sir, what is the policy of the Government? It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to follow, as he said, the course of the flood of Bills that we have had to deal with different people. This was recognized last year. Sir, surely, in principle there is nothing wrong with the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington. I wonder whether the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will indicate what he feels about the principle instead of talking about traditions that are going to exist some time in the future. The argument that was addressed to us from that side of the House, when it was moved before that we should have a council which was representative of the various interests involved, including the people themselves for whom the university was to be established, was this: “The difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that we believe in separation and that you believe in integration”.

Which is true.

I thought someone would say that, Sir. It is not true in respect of the Government because although they provide in the Statute that there are going to be two councils, in fact they find that they can only operate by getting together and having a discussion together in one chamber, so that is not integration! Here we have the example of the Government, in respect of another sphere of higher education, technical education, not only providing for a mixed council …

Order! The hon. member has said that over and over again.

Sir, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister. During the Second Reading debate when he was about to answer a question why it was that there was this difference in approach in higher education on the technical side and at university level, Mr. Speaker said that that was a matter that could be discussed in the Committee Stage.

No, that was not Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Mr. Speaker said that it was not relevant.

I do not think he did, Sir.

I was in the House when he gave that ruling.

I was speaking; I should know.

In any event, I am sure that if he did say that, he probably said that it was not relevant. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain this. Here we are dealing with two institutions. He cannot advance the argument that this is against policy. This is the whole point; this is really what we have been talking about; this is what the hon. member for Kensington introduced right at the beginning of the Second Reading debate when he said, “This Bill is something quite different from all the Bantu Bills that we have been dealing with”, and then he listed all the differences between the approach that you should have to the Indian population and the approach that you could have towards the Bantu population. He indicated in his Second Reading speech how different the situation was in this case. [Time expired.]

Sir, when we discussed this clause earlier in relation to a similar institution, the then hon. Deputy Minister was under the impression that it was written into clause 8 that the council should consist of white persons. He subsequently realized that it was not written into the Bill as such. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will indicate to us what the position is. It is not written into the Bill in clause 8 that persons other than white persons should not be appointed to the council. Is it the policy of the hon. the Minister that this council shall consist of Whites only? I ask that, Sir, because one has some difficulty in foreseeing how the progressive development of this university to a full autonomous state will take place. If the council is to remain fixed as a council of white persons only, with an advisory council of non-Whites, then when the time comes for the Indians themselves to take over control, is it to be a case of the eight or ten ladies and gentlemen who form the council and who are White, walking out of one door of the council chamber while the other eight walk in because the two must not meet inside the council chamber? Is that what we have to envisage at the handing over of authority? Or, alternatively—and I hope the Minister will be frank with us; I am sure he will—is it not purposely left out of this Bill, because the Minister realizes that if he was restricted to white, persons for all time then the progression of handing over control to the Indians could never be carried out effectively, and that, therefore, it must be left open, because whether it is now or in a few years’ time, there will have to be a gradual sitting together of the Whites and the Indians on this council, in the transition period of handing over control. I know the Minister is in a difficult position. He is a member of a party which says that if you sup at the same table or consult at the same table, you are integrating. [Interjections.] But we have had that all along. We cannot sit and consult in the same council except if one is in the council and the other is in the advisory council and then only through a grid. That is the difficulty I believe the Minister is in. Will he tell us? Is it purposely not stated here that they shall be White, because the Minister knows that the transition will bring about a time when Whites and Indians must sit together; and if he does not accept that, will he explain to us how that transition is going to take place, except, as I say, that literally and metaphorically the white councillors will walk out by one door and the Indian councillors will walk in by the other door to take their seats?

I want to reply immediately to the hon. member for Green Point. He, on behalf of his party, assumes that the only way that the council of the university can be constituted is on the basis of a mixed council.

At some stage or other.

That is his contention. The hon. member for Mooi River said that they were consistent, and of course that is where they have been consistent.

And that is where you were inconsistent.

I am talking to you now. The basis is that they have consistently said that you must have mixed councils for all the universities, whether it was Bantu or Coloureds; there had to be a mixed council of Whites and non-Whites. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Durban (North) is a most garrulous member. Not only does he talk, but he always interrupts when someone else is talking. The hon, member for Green Point wanted to know where the difference was; did I just not declare that they should be White because in due course I was going to make it a mixed council? That is, of course, where we consistently think differently from the hon. members opposite. We are going to have, and we have established, without any statement directing us in the actual Bill, that we will have a white council, and when it comes to the advisory council it does not say that it must be an Indian advisory council. It could have been a mixed advisory council. But we have consistently nominated an Indian advisory council. The intention of the Government, which has been stated, is that with regard to this university, it will in due course hand the council over to an all-Indian council and the process will take place at a pace which the Government will decide, but it will not be on the basis of a mixed council. That is where we differ. I am not going into all the ideology of integration. All I would say to the hon. members is that I think they protest too much, because right throughout they have been trying to break down this line of thought.

I do not want to run away from the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point. He spoke about higher technical education and the situation there. I looked through the Act to see whether it referred to higher technical education, and although every hon. member referred to higher technical education I found that the Act itself refers to advanced technical education. But I was ruled out of order when I wanted to say that I am handling a matter here which is described in the Bill. I am not prepared to meander all over policy matters. I am telling you the exact position as far as this Bill is concerned about the university council, the advisory council and the senate. That is what the position is. After all, I realize that in a Bill of this nature arguments can be used which were made on a previous Bill, but this is a new Bill and I know the whole situation.

I would say to the hon. member for Kensington that he will appreciate that under (e), because the S.A. Indian Council is all-Indian, it would be Indians who would be put on the council chosen by the Indian Council. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kensington indicated that there would be Indians on the council.

I said “chosen by the Indians”.

Yes. I would also say in regard to (f) that here it stipulates one person to be chosen by the University of Natal. It makes it obligatory, in fact. My department has spoken to them and they say that on the university council there is a professor of the University of Natal. He may not necessarily be chosen by the University of Natal but he is from the University of Natal and I will obviously bear this point in mind when any re-appointment to the council occurs. I must say to the hon. member for Kensington that I do not feel that I have learned anything from the arguments that I should definitely have to choose one person from the University of Natal. In regard to the four persons appointed by the State President, the only difference, of course, is that this Bill says eight and I abide by it.

The object of this Committee. I am sure, is to try to improve this Bill. That is why we debate it and I think the Minister should give us credit for that being our intention, and that being so, he should not start off, as he obviously did today when he came into this Committee, by deciding that in all circumstances he was going to say “no”. He apparently is much nearer to the communists than we are, because Molotoy was famous for the fact that he always said “No” in the Security Council of U.N. He was known as “Molotoy No”, and I would hate the Minister of Indian Affairs to get that same nickname. He should at least give us credit for trying to improve the Bill. I want to suggest that if he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, particularly that part dealing with the two people chosen by the S.A. Indian Council, could he not accept the two white persons chosen by the S.A. Indian Council? Because the S.A. Indian Council has a knowledge of which white persons—and I do not count myself amongst them particularly—are interested in and know the wants and the wishes of the Indian people. What is more, these two white persons would necessarily consult with the S.A. Indian Council about any particular resolution which they feel should be known to the S.A. Indian Council. This will serve as a further link between the Minister, who, obviously, is going to control the council and the S.A. Indian Council without him having to contaminate his fingers by coming into contact with these people. I put that to him for his consideration.

Sir, you have been concerned this afternoon about the time taken up by the Committee in this debate. I would respectfully suggest that if the hon. the Minister dealt with the arguments raised by this side of the House and answered the points raised by us, it would be unnecessary for speaker after speaker to get up to ask him the same thing. The point made by this side of the House to the Minister and the question put to him is this: If in terms of the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act, his side of the House, the Nationalists, were prepared to appoint not only Whites to the council but Indians also, why is it that in terms of the present Bill before the House his Government is not prepared to appoint Indians to the council?

That point has been made.

I accept that the point has been made, but it is not been answered by the Minister, and I want to ask him pertinently what is the difference, in Nationalist thinking, between the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act in terms of which Indians are appointed to the council and this Bill before the House, the University of Durban-Westville Bill? What is the difference in thinking on the Nationalist side? [Interjections.] This is important. Does the Minister suggest that there are no Indians qualified and suitable to be appointed to the council of the university of Durban-Westville?

Rubbish!

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has just said “rubbish”. Does this mean that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana concedes that there are many Indians who are capable of being appointed to the council? I am waiting for his answer, Sir.

That is a very stupid argument.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Middelland. I am talking to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and I am waiting for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to reply.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am addressing the hon. member through you, Sir. I now await, through you, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s reply.

Zip.

You will get it in due course.

All right, Sir, let us put it this way: I hope that with the words “in due course” the hon. member means that he will give his reply in respect of this clause, and that he will not give us his reply next year or the year after. I expect the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—through you, Sir—to get up during the debate on this clause and tell us whether it is his contention that there are not in Durban or in Natal Indians sufficiently qualified and equipped to be appointed to the council of this new university. That is the first answer I expect from him. I also expect an answer from the hon. the Minister. I see that the hon. the Minister is very busy reading the Bill. Perhaps he could pay some attention to what I am saying, and answer this question.

I now put the question.

Mr. Chairman, I have not quite finished. That is the first question I should like either the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to answer. If their answer is they do take up the attitude that there are no Indians sufficiently qualified to be on this Council, I expect that their answer will be transmitted to the South African Indian Council. But, Sir, I am told that that will not be their answer. If that is not their answer, will they please tell this House, in words of one syllable, without any wriggling, and without any equivocation, what the difference is between the council under the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act, in terms of which this Nationalist Government last year was prepared to appoint Indians to the council I have mentioned, and the council for which provision is made under this Bill. Now, in 1969, a year after the passing of the Act I have mentioned, the Government says that not a single Indian is to be appointed to the council. Now I shall sit down. I hope to have a reply from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, or preferably from the hon. the Minister.

Order! It is the prerogative of the Chair to decide who shall speak next.

I was speaking through you, Sir.

I appeal to hon. members not to keep repeating the same questions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, asked me a question. I shall tell him what the reply to it is. This side of the House does not adopt the attitude that there are no Indians who are qualified to serve on such a council. But do we adopt the attitude that this university was established through the initiative of the Whites in South Africa in terms of the policy of providing separate university institutions for Whites as well as non-Whites in this country. Because this university was established by the Whites, as a result of White initiative, and is being financed by White initiative, the authoritative body will be staffed by Whites. We accept that there are Indians who are in fact competent and qualified to exercise similar authority.

Order! The hon. member is repeating himself now.

What is the difference between the Indians’ Advanced Technical Education Act and this Bill?

We adopt the attitude that this university has nothing to do with the technical college which was established by law last year. That technical high school was simply an extension of an already established Indian higher education institution, which was established through the initiative of the Indians themselves, and not through the initiative of the Whites. That technical college is financed for the most part by the Indians. It is administered for the most part by the Indians. It was then simply placed on another basis by means of legislation. In that case the same controlling body was retained. This new university is also an extension of an organization which had already been established and which has been in existence since 1961. That institution had a purely White council. The same basis is being proceeded on now. That is the fundamental difference. It does not mean that we do not accept the competency of the Indians.

We do accept it. Nor does it mean that no consultation takes place, or that, when consultation does take place, that consultation cannot take place in one room. It does in fact do so. Consultation does not take place only by means of correspondence or a telephone. It means, however, that the authoritative body at this stage will be in the hands of the Whites. The advisory body will be controlled by the Indians. But at one stage or other, as I said yesterday, it will be possible to effect a transfer. It will then be possible for the authoritative body to become a non-White body. Perhaps there can then, as an interim measure, be an advisory body, consisting of Whites. But it is not necessary that there should be a mixed authoritative body in the interim, during the transitional stage. That is the difference between our points of view.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to take the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana a little further. It is a question which I raised with the hon. the Minister last night. It has not yet been answered. The hon. the Minister stated, again during the Committee Stage, that the change-over would be made on the basis of the whole council and the whole of the advisory council. The council would become the government of the university, and the advisory council would be taken over in an advisory capacity. When the change-over takes place at the time which is fixed by the Government, whenever that may be, the Indian body will become the government of the university. The white body will then remain in an advisory capacity, or it will fall away altogether. But we now come back to the point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The whole distinction he drew between the Indians’ Advanced Education Act and this Bill was that the Indians, to a very large extent, paid for the M.L. Sultan College themselves. What it boils down to is that, if one has enough cash, integration is all right. That is what it boils down to, and nothing else. That is the only distinction which can be drawn between the one case and the other.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana went further last night. He said that when the Indian council is in a position to pay for the expenses of the university, it will be ready to take over full control of the university. I asked the hon. the Minister then, and I ask him now, and I also ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: Is the Indian council going to become a tax raising body to put it in a position to pay for the cost of this university?

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

It is not in the Bill, but the hon. member and the Minister have stated that a change-over will take place at some stage in the future. There has been no indication whatsoever in this regard. The reason why we are moving this amendment is because we wish the leadership to be given by the Whites in the body of the council itself. The Minister has stated that there will be a change-over at some time in the future. I think it is a fair and just question to ask, in this academic atmosphere in which we debate these matters, whether the hon. the Minister will tell us that what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said last night is in fact correct. He said that the time of the changeover from the one to the other would depend upon payment by the Indian council.

Mr. Chairman, I do feel that the hon. member for Durban (Central) should be a little more guarded in his personal remarks. Referring to me, and the attitude I had adopted in saying “no”, the hon. member said that I was just behaving like a communist. He said that, if I go on like this, I shall become known as a Molotoy Minister in this House. This sort of reference is quite uncalled for. Even under all the trying circumstances of the last few weeks, I have not tried to say that the Opposition is obstructing in the same way as the communists do, in organizations all over the world.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but the hon. member made that allegation against me. I want to know what the reason for that was.

Why must the hon. member follow this pattern, a pattern he has followed apparently all the time in his political life. He has always made these unpleasant comparisons. He said I must give them credit for trying to help improving the Bill. I have listened to the Committee Stage debates on four other bills, dealing with the same point. I have listened because I was determined to make myself conversant with the argument that the Opposition used. From the point of view of discussion. I am afraid that I have gained the impression that the whole atmosphere is not constructive, but obstructive. I tell hon. members that they must not be so pious. [Interjections]. I want to come back to the hon. member for Musgrave. Do hon. members know what he said? He said, “If only the Minister had answered, we would not have had all this time wasted.”

Of course!

I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave, and he must listen, that before this debate started I had been told they were going to roast me in this debate.

By whom?

By the United Party. Now the hon. member comes forward with his pious statement, “If only the Minister had handled the debate differently, it would have gone through.”

Who told you that?

That is my business, but I am prepared to swear that it was said to me by a United Party member.

How can you know something that has no substance?

That may be. It is really a clever argument.

I hope hon. members will stop being so personal.

These are actual facts.

Mr. Chairman. may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? What is the difference between the Indian Technical.

I am still coming to that point. I thought the question was in regard to the matter I had raised. The hon. member cannot interrupt me in the middle of a speech and ask a question on matters. I am still coming to.

Are you still coming to my question?

I am coming to it. I will reply as I think I should, not as the hon. member for Musgrave thinks I should.

Now we come to this university council. I quite understand the point the hon. members on that side of the House have raised with regard to the fact that it should be a mixed council. However, I say quite definitely that the Government has. decided that it shall not be a mixed council, although the Bill does not stipulate it. The. Government has nominated the council itself as an all-white council and it has appointed the members of the advisory council as an all-Indian council. Whereas the hon. member for Mooi River said that in due course they can get the experience and gain the leadership in the mixed council, our view is that through an advisory council they can gain experience, because the policy of the Government is that the Indian advisory council will eventually form the council of this university. He asked me whether this had anything to do with a special taxation on the Indians. It is not a matter that, appears in the Bill. It is not a matter that, I think, has ever entered the minds of any members of this Committee. [Interjections]. No, I know when it was raised. It was with regard to the M. L. Sultan College. But I am talking about the situation as it is in this Bill. Let us be quite clear about the facts. I tried to explain these facts to the hon. member. The hon. member for Musgrave said that I do not answer the questions. I have been sitting here and answering every question that could be answered, until the matter got quite out of hand. I am prepared to carry on. I am prepared to consider points. I wish to say to the hon. member for Kensington, I listened to every point he raised. I disagreed with probably all of them, but, at least, I knew that the hon. member had made a study of it. He was not standing on his feet just to use those 10 minutes. He was trying to put the point of view he had. That is the difference between my approach and that of a lot of hon. members on that side of the House. It is not due to the fact that I am unwilling to answer questions. I am willing to answer questions. It is due to the fact that the whole objective is not constructive.

Are you going to answer my question?

Now I shall sit down and the hon. member can put his question.

The question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is, what is the difference between the council under the Indian Advanced Technical Education Act, in terms of which the Nationalist Government appoints Indians to the council, and the council under the University of Durban-Westville Bill, in terms of which the Nationalist Government refuses to appoint any Indians?

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to put. the position as I see it, logically. The hon. member for Durban (North) quoted from a debate in Hansard that took place in 1968. The pattern for, the university education we had in mind for the non-white races in this country took shape in 1959. So, it is not a matter of “that was in 1968; this is 1969”, and that we made a big change. The pattern we laid out was that the non-white universities would eventually be essentially non-white, with non-white councils. That is how we intend to do it. We are not going to have mixed councils.

But you have a council consisting of Indians and Whites.

Of course we have.

What difference does that make to this clause?

What difference does it make to the University Bill. That is something that is there, which has been going for a long time. But the plan for the universities for the separate groups, if you want to call them that way, was established in 1959, long before 1968. That is the situation. Of course, I do not expect hon members to agree with us, but that is the pattern we have laid down. If they want to argue on the point and raise it during the discussion of every clause in some form or other, they can do so. But we differ. That is the difference between our two parties.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and A. Hopewell.

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

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Indian Affairs put and agreed to.

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

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the hon. the Minister’s amendment. We have dealt ad nauseam without reply with our objection to there being an advisory council at the University and I stand up merely to indicate that we are opposed to it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

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

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (c) the professors of the University and such lecturers of the University as the council may from time to time designate.

It is very simple and is clearly stated. Paragraph (c) of clause 10 (1) says—“such professors and senior lecturers of the University as the council may from time to time designate for the purpose …” and I propose it should read—“the professors of the University and such lecturers of the University as the council may from time to time designate …”. In other word, the professors will take their seats in the senate without the council having to designate them. I propose that all professors shall sit in the senate, and, in addition, such lecturers as the council may from time to time designate. That is my first amendment. I come now to my second amendment.

If this is adopted, paragraph (b) of clause 10 (2) will then start off as follows—“Such persons shall be so appointed by the council after consultation with the other university institution concerned …”. In other words, we do hot say there should be consultation with the Minister. It is not necessary to have the Minister come into this at all.

I shall now read paragraph (b) and we say it should be—

I think it is perfectly clear we do not want the Minister to come into this at all, and I am sure he has no desire to do that. After all, he appoints every member of the council; two of them come from the senate, of course, but it is all within his gift.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is on the Order Paper and I went into it with my department but I regret I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. The clause must remain as it is, and the stipulation that they should be senior lecturers and not lecturers must remain, too. As regards his proposal that “such professors” should read “the professors”, I regret I cannot accept that either.

Are there professors who cannot sit in the senate? This is a revolutionary suggestion.

I think there is one professor who is an Indian …

Ah!

But that is consistent with the line we have always taken. The hon. member may say “ah”, but we say this senate is to be a White senate. If the paragraph read “the professors” then I would have to appoint a certain professor who is not White, and that would not be in conformity with Government policy but it would be in conformity with United Party policy. Clause 10 (1) (c) must remain as follows:

If I accepted the amendment the same old story would crop up, and I have no intention of repeating it.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of the “same old story”. In any university professors sit in the senate. I should like the Minister to come forward frankly and say to us that this clause should read not “such professors” but “White professors”. But never on any occasion do they come out and say they stand for White professors, for an all-White council, because they are afraid the world will know it. I say to the Minister: Be frank, come forward and say it, and then we know where we are.

Mr. Chairman, we can under this clause appoint an Indian senate. That is the point. Our policy is not to appoint a mixed senate, and that is where we differ. On this principle there is a difference of views between the two parties. Hon. members opposite may move amendments to have the effect I have indicated. but they will make no impression on this side of the House. We are going to have this institution run in the way we consider it should be run, not the way hon. members opposite want it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister told us it would be possible in terms of the Bill to appoint an Indian senate. Will the Minister tell us whether the advisory senate will then be a White senate, or do they simply fall away when the senate becomes an Indian senate?

Mr. Chairman, it is optional. It is a matter that we can decide. We may not have a White advisory senate at all. We do not have an Indian advisory senate at the moment, and we may not have a White advisory senate either. We will handle the matter step by step as we go along.

What is your attitude to my second amendment?

The second amendment also follows the same pattern, namely hon. members opposite consider the Minister should not be consulted. We say the Minister must be consulted and that is why I regret I cannot accept this amendment either.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

Sir, there is an amendment in my name on the Order Paper to insert a new clause 11 but in view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling and in view of the fact that we can get no sense out of the Minister, I will not move the amendment, because it seems to me that it will serve no purpose.

Why are you being deliberately offensive? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I want him to answer the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw his remark that he can get no sense out of the hon. the Minister.

On a point of order …

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw those words?

Withdraw which words?

That the hon. member cannot get any sense out of the hon. the Minister.

Sir, that is very difficult for me to do it.

Then I must ask the hon. member to leave the Chamber.

Whereupon Mr. M. L. Mitchell withdrew from the Chamber.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

I move the amendment printed in my name—

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

This amendment merely seeks to reverse the order. The clause, as printed, reads that the establishment at the university shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the council. My amendment merely seeks to change the order so that the establishment shall be determined by the council after consultation with the Minister. I feel that this is surely something which the Minister can accept; that the council shall be charged with something which is part and parcel of the organization, of the day-to-day administration of the university. When a university is established the council is charged with the running of it; the council is the body in control of the day-to-day running of the university, and it must surely be within the power of the council to be responsible for the establishment at the university without the Minister taking this power unto himself and then consulting with the council. I can see no objection whatsoever to this. I know that this has been the pattern which has been followed in all the other Bills, but here is a concrete example where the power of the Minister, in my submission, is misplaced, because the establishment at the university is not a matter of policy; it is something which is related to the physical running of the university and I feel that the Minister can, without any loss of face, accept this amendment. I move it in that spirit.

The proviso reads—

I move the omission of this proviso in the same spirit.

I have studied the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River, and I do not think the matter is as simple as he considers. For one thing I would point out to him that the major portion of the budget of the university is the staff establishment item. In view of the fact that I myself have to be responsible for the staff establishment and the financing thereof, I think it is quite right that I should be accountable to this House as far as the establishment is concerned and as far as the cost of the university is concerned. Sir, I always understood that hon. members were very anxious that they should be allowed to hold the Minister responsible, so I do not know why the hon. member now raises difficulties and why he wants to reverse the procedure. He wants the clause to provide that the establishment at the university shall be determined by the council after consultation with the Minister. We say that it must be determined by the Minister after consultation with the council. That is how we feel it should be done. With regard to his amendment to omit the proviso, all I can say is that this proviso must remain as it is; this is the basis on which we intend to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. The proviso is part and parcel of our thinking of this matter.

I do not think the hon. the Minister quite understands that if he were prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member he would still have the power that he wishes to have, because if the council were to create new posts without his approval, it would be the easiest thing in the world for him to say: “I am not prepared to finance those posts”. That happens in the case of white universities. They may not create a new faculty without the consent of the Minister; we all know that. Our best universities are in that position. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister wishes to labour this point. He has this power without stating it in the Act. It is as simple as that.

No, it is not as simple as that, because it means that if the council makes a decision and consults me, I have to go against the decision of the council. I would rather have the power to determine the establishment after consultation with the council. I do not think this is such a terrible power to have. I think that is the proper way in which to conduct things.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

In terms of paragraph (b) a female member of the staff of the university can be discharged on account of her marriage. Sir, just by chance I was looking through a list of new books which have come into the library of Parliament. Amongst them there is a book which is a translation and which is titled: “Wat is Vroue Werklik Werd?”

We all know.

This book is in our library and I would advise hon. members on the other side to read it. There is a little footnote here which says—

I am beginning to wonder whether this is not perhaps the attitude which is being taken up here in regard to the female establishment at the university when a member of the staff who is a female can be discharged on account of her marriage. This matter has been argued here, by other Ministers in dealing with other Bills, and the point was made by other Ministers that this is purely permissive because the wording is that a female member of the staff “may” be discharged, but the permissive part is entirely in the hands of the Minister. The female member of the staff has no discretion in this matter at all. She is positively liable to be discharged for having undertaken the simple act of marriage.

It is not a simple act.

No, it is not a simple act; it is an extremely complicated act. I agree with the hon. member for Koedoespoort, and in many cases it may be an ill-advised act for a woman who is qualified well enough to be a member of the staff of the university to get married, but I fail absolutely and utterly to see the reason for this provision in the Bill that because a woman marries she should ipso facto be liable to be discharged. Surely to goodness it can be left to the discretion of a woman, who has attained the educational standard which enables her to become a member of the staff of the. university, whether it is the library staff or the teaching staff or the administrative staff, to decide for herself whether or not she is going to leave the university. It is not necessary for the Minister to have this absolute power over the future of such a person. I feel that there are enough disabilities under which women suffer in our modern society without adding another disability, particularly in the case of persons who are engaged in a particularly important function in our national life. I have heard nothing from any hon. member or any. hon. Minister in the debates on the other Bills to. justify the provisions of paragraph (b), I would be grateful if the Minister could tell, us just why he needs this power, and why he cannot leave it to the good sense of a woman who gets married while ill the employment of the university to resign the position that she holds, as people do in normal commercial occupations. There are girls working in offices throughout the length and breadth of the country who get married; some of them leave immediately after their marriage and some continue to work. In fact in our modern society the fact that a young wife works enables the couple to maintain the standard of living to which the two were accustomed before their marriage. I feel that this is an unnecessary provision and I move that this paragraph be deleted. Para, (e) says that if the discharge of a member of the staff who has been appointed permanently will in the opinion of the council facilitate improvements in the organization of the university by means of which greater economy and efficiency will be effected, such a person can be discharged. I fail to see that there is any real justification for a provision of this nature. I admit that here the council has a discretion in the matter, but I feel that the position of the members of the staff will be strengthened if these two paragraphs are deleted.

I want, firstly, to reply to the second point raised by the hon. member. This is a matter which has been found necessary and advisable to insert because such cases have occurred. A case was mentioned to me where certain arrangements were made for developing playground facilities at the university and when they were established the job was redundant and the council decided to get rid of the person. So there is nothing sinister about this clause.

Then I want to deal with the position of married women. This matter was discussed with the Indian Advisory Council. It is not as simple as the hon. member thinks. We already have the problem with school education where an Indian woman teacher married the inspector and it caused any amount of trouble because the argument was used by other teachers that this woman was getting special treatment from the inspector who was her husband. These are the practical points that crop up. The hon. member talks as if the whole thing is so easy, but at the university the same sort of thing could apply. But it is a purely permissive clause, and if there are no problems naturally. such a person can continue in employment. But if there are problems they must be decided at council level, and where the Minister has a sort of prerogative they will come to the Minister. That is all that the effect of this clause is. It has nothing to do with the general employment of married women. This provision is there just to deal with a position which might be an embarrassment to the university.

Firstly I do not like the word “dismissed” in line 3. Later, in line 10, in the English version, they use the word “discharged”, which I think is much more suitable. In the Afrikaans text they use the same term for both, “ontslaan” en “ontslag”. I think the word “discharge” is a better word.

Now I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River. The explanation the Minister has given in the case of a married woman is not because the woman became married but because she married an inspector. That was the objection he had. Therefore he should not make a general rule of this kind, that she can be dismissed if she commits the offence of getting married. The whole modern world is opposed to that. People do not do that nowadays. I am not objecting to the Minister making certain regulations to deal with the difficulties he has. The council would approve of such regulations, but it is certainly wrong to say in the law that a woman can be dismissed on account of her marriage.

Now we come to paragraph (e). We say here that a man can be discharged if it will give greater economy. Of course it always gives greater economy if you dismiss a person, because then it costs less to run the university. I think it is most unfortunately stated here. I think the hon. member for Mooi River has moved an excellent amendment here and I suggest that it be accepted.

I do not agree that the amendment to omit paragraph (e) is so good and I am therefore not prepared to accept it. In regard to what the hon. member said about the words “dismissed” and “discharged”, all I can say is that I will go into the matter. I appreciate the point he raised and if there is no complication of a legal nature after I have had discussions with the law advisers I will be glad to consider changing the word. I just want to point out that there is not much difference between discharging and dismissing a person, but I will go into the matter.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. Clause 22:

I move the following amendment—

The clause will then read: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) of section 2 but subject to the provisions of section 21, the council may approve the admission of any qualified person as a student of the university”. All the words thereafter will be deleted including the proviso that the first admission of any such person shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. We have the position now in clause 22 that persons of the Indian group are entitled, in terms of the earlier clauses of the Bill, to be admitted to this university. The intention was, when we moved earlier that the word “primarily” should be inserted, to open up the scope of the admissions to this university. We wish to allow other persons to be admitted to the university, such as Coloureds or Bantu, who qualify as the council shall decide.

I am afraid I am unable to accept this amendment as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill to a class of persons not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

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

Clause 23:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I think the amendment standing in my name requires some amendment itself. It should be subject to the provisions of the new clause to follow section 31.

The hon. member should rather move that the clause stand over.

Should I then move that the clause stand over until the proposed new clause to follow Clause 32 has been considered?

What does clause 31 refer to?

It is the conscience clause dealing with religious freedom at the university.

I can tell the hon. member now that I am ruling it out of order.

Then I withdraw the amendment.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 26:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The Minister in charge of another Bill said that this was a subject on which he. had to consult with the Minister of Finance in that it might possibly deal with bursaries and subsidies, etc., to university students, but I feel that this is a matter where the council might well be trusted to take cognizance of these matters. We have laboured the point over and over again and I do not think there is much point in attempting to argue it again with the Minister. The point was made that the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Finance, but surely the council can make decisions in consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs, and the Minister must know to what lengths the Minister of Finance is prepared to go to meet him and his Department. I can see no objection to having the power of the Minister limited and to allowing the council to set the fees payable by students.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. This procedure of the Minister acting in consultation with the Minister of Finance applies in all matters where the Treasury is concerned and it forms part and parcel of a whole list of Acts that have been passed with the approval of the Opposition. I see no reason for this amendment.

It is not a general rule. Universities do not have to get the permission of the Minister in order to decide on their fees. The white universities do not do that. It is not a practice established in South Africa at all. The obvious thing is to leave that to the council. Should a university ask fees that are much too high, there is always provision made for an appeal to the Minister who can discuss the matter with the council. I think the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River brings the position into line with general practice in South Africa. I do not see why the Minister should insist on this rigid control when it is completely unnecessary.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 31:

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will insert a conscience clause in the Bill which is now before us. This Bill will extend the powers of the university college so as to make it a full university. I cannot visualize any kind of university institution in which the religious freedom of the members of the staff is not protected.

Order! I have already told the hon. member that I am unable to put the proposed new clause to the Committee as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand that to move a conscience clause is to introduce a new principle in a university?

In the Bill. That was my ruling.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is not at all necessary for me to go into details as far as the importance of artificial insemination for the building up of healthy and highly productive dairy herds in our country is concerned. The Amendment Bill which is now being submitted to the hon. House is, for the most part, merely intended to rectify certain administrative matters.

Clause 1:

Provision is being made for the control of bulls which have up to now been used for the collection of semen. What is being envisaged for the most part here is deep-frozen semen, because increasing use is being made of this practice. Because there is greater scope for the use of deep-frozen semen, which can be stored for long periods of time, than semen which is collected and utilized almost immediately afterwards, it is of great importance that such bulls, which sometimes change hands repeatedly should be selected and that the Registrar of the Artificial Insemination Act should deem the use of such bulls to be suitable. The use of poor bulls or bulls which have been contaminated by a certain disease which can cause great damage, will be restricted by means of this control. In addition clause 1 provides that persons in the full-time employ of an owner can apply insemination, which is something essential in practice.

Clause 2:

A reconstitution of the Artificial Insemination Board has become necessary because it was felt that the members of the present Board are not representative of the entire animal husbandry and dairy industry. So, for example, there are two representatives of the milk producers as well as two representatives of producers who apply artificial insemination, which fundamentally do not differ much. Nevertheless duplication has to a certain extent taken place, while the artificial insemination cooperatives, which are in practice and which render the services, are not represented. In this way the South African Stud Book Association, specifically, and the South African Society of Animal Production, whose aim is the improvement of the animal husbandry industry, did not have specific representation in terms of the Act. The number of council members, i.e. 16, remains unchanged.

Clause 3:

A longer period of office, of two to three years, appears to be desirable for council members in order to effect better continuity.

Clause 4:

An amendment according to a request from the Board so that it could function to better effect has resulted in the amendment of clause 4. The amendment contained in the Bill bears the stamp of approval of the Artificial Insemination Board and the South African Agricultural Union.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister who moved these proposed amendments that we on this side of the House have no objection to them. I can also inform the hon. member that we have also submitted his legislation to leading persons in the stock-breeding industry. They have no objection to this Amendment Bill either. Consequently we support the amendments to the Act which have been submitted here by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are only one or two important amendments in this Bill. The first is in connection with the fact that farmers today leave artificial insemination to their employees in any case. This amendment in fact legalizes the present practice. We have no objection to this.

It is in no way necessary that we should emphasize the importance of artificial insemination in this House, since everyone who is concerned in the agricultural industry is in fact thoroughly aware of the important influence of artificial insemination on the improvement of livestock. Consequently, if the farmers themselves are asking for such changes, we are not prepared to raise any objection to them. In any case, this Bill does not result in any changes of principle.

There is also a change in respect of the constitution of the Artificial Insemination Board, a change which is welcomed by the bodies concerned. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant task to state that we support the hon. the Minister’s amendments in this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, before the Secretary reads the next Order of the Day, may I, by way of a personal explanation, say that my attention has been drawn to a remark I made in a previous debate, which can be construed as a reflection on the Chair As I have respect for the position of the Chair, I should like to withdraw the remarks which were then made.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The National Parks Act, 1962, grants specific powers to the National Parks Board of Trustees in regard to the control and management of national parks in the Republic and the maintenance thereof, and that in order to achieve the aims as defined in section 4 of the Act, for which purpose also the Board is able to spend its revenue.

The object of a national park is described as follows in the Act—

Hon. members are aware of the recent controversy which has been raging in regard to the proposed Kruger statue in the Kruger National Park, and that it has been suggested, inter alia, that the erection of the statue in a national park would be outside the ambit of the powers of the National Parks Board of Trustees in terms of the Act in question, and that the Board was exceeding its powers by receiving donations for the erection of such a statue.

It appears from various legal opinions obtained by the Board that the legal experts are not agreed on this matter. Of great importance, however, is the standpoint of the Controller and Auditor-General, who supports the opinion that the Board does not have the power to erect monuments and that the Act does not make provision for the receiving and spending of money by the Board for the erection of the envisaged statue, and that any action in this connection will not be covered by the Act.

Apart from the fact that it is general knowledge that the Board has in fact received donations in the present connection, it is also a fact that in the past a statue of Stevenson-Hamilton was erected in the Kruger National Park; that is apart from the library which bears the latter’s name, as well as other memorial tablets, museums, etc. Under the circumstances it is clear therefore that it is necessary to effect a suitable amendment to the Act in order to give legal effect to the actions of this Board which it has performed in all good faith, as well as to make provision for future actions in the present connection.

The Bill before you has as its purpose therefore the expansion of the object of a national park as defined in section 4 by adding the function of establishment. This comprises wider powers to the Parks Board in not only being able to establish and maintain a park, but also to introduce into that park what belongs there. The provision has a general purport and is in fact intended to state beyond any doubt that the Parks Board is, inter alia, able to establish an object which relates to a contingency or the history of a park. The fact that this legislation is being piloted through must, however, not be interpreted as meaning that the Government supports a specific form of honouring any person in a specific national park.

Mr. Speaker, the most important part of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech was the last part. Consequently I want to confine my remarks in respect of this Bill to that aspect as well. I am actually deputizing now for the hon. member for South Coast, who would have supported this legislation, in question with great pleasure, as he put it. However, I want to say that we on this side of the House can find no objection to the fact that the Parks Board should have the right, for example, to honour in a fitting way a person who had a great deal to do with the establishment of such a park. But I find it strange that something like this was not spotted in the past, during earlier amendments of the Act. In any case, the amendment proposed here is of importance.

The point I would like to make is the same as that made by the Deputy Minister in the last part of his speech. It is that we should not deduce from this amendment Bill that the Government agrees with a specific way of doing honour to a person. I think that, since we are now discussing this Bill, it is also necessary to address a word of warning to the Parks Board, which is now being granted this power. They must foe very careful in regard to the way in which they honour a person who had something to do with the establishment of a specific park. They must foe extremely careful when it comes to the way in which such a person is honoured. We do not want to unleash a reaction among the public, which can subsequently to a large extent make what is almost a farce of a matter in the Press, etc. This happened, for example, when it was envisaged to carve out a statue of President Paul Kruger’s bust in the Kruger National Park. One does not want anything like this. In other words, the National Parks Board must in this respect act with the greatest circumspection and care. Consequently it will always be necessary, before something like this is done, to consult the public in the right way and as far as possible. The United Party has no objection to homage being paid, in a fitting way, to national leaders and founders of such parks. Consequently we support the principle contained in this Bill. We also support the fact that the Bill will be with retrospective effect, to 1965, so that legal effect will be given to what the Board has already done.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the hon. member for Newton Park the assurance that great care is being taken in this respect. It is precisely for that reason that the Parks Board decided, as a result of the controversy which was raging, to delay the entire matter for nine months in order to test public opinion. I am highly appreciative of the fact that the Opposition are adopting this attitude and that they are not opposed to this statutory amendment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Police, has informed me that his Second Reading speech will take about twenty minutes. I have given the undertaking that the House would adjourn at 5 p.m. I therefore move—

Agreed to.