I have exercised the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

When the House adjourned Friday evening, I was speaking on housing loans for officials at a reduced rate of interest. This is a major and welcome concession.

However, there are three matters which arise from this and to which, as I see it, further attention must be paid. I have already spoken about how the man in the private sector is being affected and also about the shortage of building sites.

The third factor is the way in which it affects the Iscor worker. Up to now it has been possible for him to obtain a loan at 5 1/4 per cent. This is also the rate at which interest is calculated where houses are rented, with a few exceptions. These rates of interest have always been lower than those of other bodies and have been one of the attractions for the Iscor worker. Things have now changed. Loans can be obtained elsewhere at 4 per cent, where the official falls into the R3,000 or lower income group. And this is in fact the income group in which the vast majority of the Iscor workers fall. Whereas the Iscor loans were obtainable at 5 1/4 per cent and the interest rate of the loans under discussion has been reduced to 4 per cent, the difference of 1 1/4 per cent on a loan of R9,000 comes to the considerable amount of R9.37 per month. It would now seem to me as though the logical step would be for the Iscor estate and other subsidiaries in Pretoria, Vanderbijlpark and elsewhere to reduce their rate of interest as well. If it has to be in relation to the former position, it ought to be lower than 4 per cent. This would be a major attraction and would consequently mean fewer changes in the labour force of one of our key industries. This would once again prove that the National Party is the true friend of the worker.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to touch upon a matter which deals with our youth.

As Afrikaners we have always had reason to be proud of our young people. This we saw throughout our history, in the days of the Great Trek—here we call to mind the sons and daughters of the Trekkers—in the pioneering days and also in the course of the Second Anglo-Boer War, and here we think of the cubs of the Three Year’s War. Then, just as is the case to-day, the young people were in the forefront and were a source of inspiration and pride to us.

Nevertheless, there are two matters which are really a cause for concern. At a few universities there are misguided people who believe that the mantle of a Danny the Red has fallen on their shoulders and becomes them. We were grateful to hear this morning that the students of the Rand Afrikaans University had expressed their full confidence in our leaders and in our Government. We are also very grateful for the very positive steps the Minister is taking, and I want to assure him that he has the whole country behind him in his efforts to collar these people who want to give free rein to their emotions.

The other case I want to mention, worries me more because it is nearer home. There are a few, actually just a small number of individuals, who are either wilfully or out of frustration or as imitators of an English magazine in Pretoria, publishing their own little rag. In this respect one can really say as they did in the olden days—

They are allegedly opposed to Liberalism and Communism, and then they avail themselves of the very methods employed by these two pernicious schools of thought to disparage everything in which our nation believes, everything which is good and noble and sacred to us, and everything which has made our nation a strong one, including the principles and the leaders of our nation. For what sinister purpose this is being done, they alone will know.

Let the youth fight for their ideals; it prepares them and makes them strong for the future when they eventually have to take over the reins, and it also purifies their spirit. But they should never avail them of these despicable methods. For that reason I want to condemn these publications and methods in the strongest terms possible. They do not serve any good purpose or national cause, but are nothing but destructive, and they are digging a pit for themselves in which, eventually, they will and ought to fall, because these methods of disparagement will definitely still be used against them one day.

We are now approaching the closing stages of this debate, and first I just want to refer briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who devoted his speech mainly to the manpower shortage and to the rate of development. Everyone of us knows, and every economist emphasizes, that the rate of development of South Africa is already very high; that it may already be too high. And to increase this rate of development now, would simply mean that we would greatly increase the economic problems of our country, at the least. Yet the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that as a result of the “population explosion” of the Bantu, the black man, who is increasing twice as rapidly as the white man, it is now essential for us to accelerate and to increase this development, “technically, industrially and economically”. The purpose of that, as he said, is that “more non-Whites would have to be drawn into the skilled and semi-skilled jobs”. If we were now to accede to the wishes of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we would not only be heading even more rapidly for greater economic problems for ourselves, but we would also be heading for political problems. In order to clarify this I want to refer to the words used by no less a person than Sir Alec Douglas-Home, in a message to British financiers in which he impressed upon them that they should assist the “economic expansion of South Africa”. He said—

He then continued, according to the report, by saying—

And then, strangely enough, he appealed to the financiers to assist and to expedite this economic development, this exceptional growth of South Africa, and he did so with this soothing encouragement—

That “patriotic duty” is to see to it that the black man obtains political power here in South Africa, and once that begins the power will, of course, eventually be in his hands exclusively. The report stated that these words were uttered by Sir Alec “as the result of his recent visit to South Africa”. We can deduce for ourselves that during that recent visit he saw many members of the United Party, and perhaps he saw the Leader of the Opposition as well. I do not for a moment want to suggest that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his call for an increase in our economic activities, has the same object in view as Sir Alec Douglas-Home, but the end result of his proposal will be the same.

You know, Sir, after having listened so constantly to the speeches of our friends on the opposite side of the House, I cannot help gaining the impression, and I think this is true of many of us sitting here, that the United Party is chiefly concerned about the black man. It is chiefly concerned about the so-called and imaginary injustices towards the black man. It is not really very much concerned about the white man. This is the conclusion we come to. It gives us the impression that it is not particularly concerned about the white man, who has made South Africa what it is to-day, who has brought South Africa to its present position, who has made it possible for South Africa to be a worthy home for all the races in the country; that it is not concerned about that white man, without whom everything in South Africa must collapse and cannot continue to exist. If the white man were to leave South Africa, it would entail not only misery for the black man, but also chaos. To-day I want to speak as we as Nationalists always speak, with the thoughts which we as Nationalists always have. Our first thought is for the white people of South Africa, that white nation without which nothing in South Africa can continue to exist and without which even white civilization will eventually perish.

In the first place we must look around us at the political situation. With the greatest appreciation we observe the alleviation of the tensions in respect of South Africa at international level, and we hope that that alleviation will be a lasting one. But we must be soberminded. We must prepare ourselves for the possibility that that alleviation may be only temporary and that the tensions against South Africa may in the near future perhaps mount up further and to a very high peak. This is almost inevitable, because the fundamental objection which the world has against us is not the way in which we treat the Bantu, not the fine way in which we treat the other population groups in South Africa; their objection against us is that we are here in South Africa as Whites, that we rule the country as a minority. This is their objection. The outside world insists that the majority must rule. It makes no difference how barbaric, how unqualified the majority are; nor does it make any difference what the consequences will be. The outside world demands that the majority must rule. Is this not in fact precisely what the American Secretary of State, Mr. William Rogers, said the other day? Is this not precisely what Mr. Wilson said at the United Nations in connection with Rhodesia? Is this not the same principle that the U.N., with the support of America, put forward in respect of South-West Africa? Is this not perhaps the same as was put forward, albeit quite shamelessly, by the American advocate Gross, the applicants’ counsel in the International Court case on South-West Africa, when he recently made an appeal to the American Government “to end white rule in South Africa”?

I say that the focal point around which everything revolves in South Africa is the fact that we as white people, the civilized people, the knowledgeable people, the competent people, dare to rule the country as a minority. As long as we rule we must be prepared for the possibility that the tensions against South Africa may build up, and build up higher. We must prepare ourselves for the possibility that as a result of the communist penetration in Tanzania and Zambia these tensions may be increased still further. It is said that in Tanzania and Zambia there are at present at least 1,000 Chinese communist technicians engaged in making a survey for the railway line between the copperfields of Zambia and the coast of Tanzania. As soon as a start is made with that railway line, we should be prepared for communists entering both Tanzania and Zambia in large numbers. And with the increase in the number of communists there, one may be sure that communist propaganda will be greatly intensified. Communist propaganda follows a pattern; this pattern is always to stir up hate. They stir up hate between one tribe and another, between one black man and another, and between the black man and the white man. We already see this in those smouldering terrorist camps near our borders, camps which were openly established and in respect of which it is openly stated that they are aimed against South Africa. In the long run we must expect this propaganda against South Africa to cause the enmity and feelings against us to be greatly intensified. Our Government is aware of these things, and therefore it has all along systematically built up our defences so strongly. In the present Budget, provision is made for those defences to be further strengthened.

Every sensible person knows that when you are in danger, you do not discard your weapons. On the contrary, you grab every weapon you have and you try to improve it. You look after, develop and strengthen it, because if you discard a weapon which you could have used, you are weakening yourself and strengthening your enemies. We as a nation have one great weapon, perhaps the strongest and most powerful weapon we possess, and that is our white nation itself. You can win a war without weapons and without supplies, especially in the case of present-day unconventional warfare, where you obtain weapons and supplies by taking them from your enemies. But you can never win in any struggle without a tough, intrepid and spiritually well-equipped nation.

Now, it is the position in our country to-day that we are spending between R280 million and R300 million on armaments for and the organization of our Defence Force. At the same time there are forces at work in our country which are breaking down and destroying the spiritual powers of resistance of our nation, thereby weakening us. Our white population is our most powerful, our greatest asset. This white population of ours consists of two sections in the main: The English-speaking section on the one hand and the Afrikaans-speaking section on the other. We already have a great deal in common. However, there are still many differences too, matters in which we differ from one another. But, be that as it may, each of our two groups has wonderful qualities, qualities which have enabled them to make splendid and major contributions to the development of our country and to ensuring our survival. If we now want to make the best use of these two large sections of our population, we must understand them properly. We must understand their characteristics, so that we can make the best use of that great potential. Between these two groups there are what I want to call “intermediates”. There are people who have partly the characteristics of the Afrikaner and partly those of the English-speaking section, in varying degrees. But we must admit that on the whole the large mass of the English-speaking people still form a homogeneous group, and so do the Afrikaans-speaking people form a homogeneous group displaying the same characteristics.

I now want to deal for a moment with the Afrikaans-speaking section of this robust population of ours. We Afrikaans-speaking people are still mainly anchored in our church and our religion. We are still mainly Calvinists. We are permeated by that great complex of principles called Calvinism, that code of moral, ethical and religious principles. They form part of our pattern of life. They form part of our being, of our upbringing. We cannot be anything else. In that pattern of life there are a few principles which I want to mention.

The first is the basic principle of Calvinism, i.e. that one must always act in an upright and just manner. We may differ among one another about what is just and upright, but one dare never differ in the implementation, the pursuit and the practical application of what is upright. That is why everyone who knows the Nationalist Afrikaner, this Calvinistic Afrikaner, knows that he need never fear injustice from him. Do we not have a striking example in our very first Nationalists of the Transvaal, the Voortrekkers? Is it not striking that those Voortrekkers trekked into the country but that they never deprived others of even the smallest part of their land or territory, not even when those others were far weaker than they were? This is part of the Calvinistic view of life. It is part of the Calvinistic principle of life.

But there is a second principle which is also of importance here, i.e. that every Calvinist recognizes the diversity of creation. In other words, he recognizes the worth of other groups and other peoples. Because he recognizes this, he must acknowledge their right to be themselves. He must acknowledge their right to their language, culture, way of life, customs, everything which is their own, whether they are a highly civilized people or whether they are a primitive section of the population. This principle is also part of the Calvinistic code of African Nationalism. That is why the English-speaking people need never fear that the Calvinistic Afrikaner or the Nationalist will ever deny the English-speaking people any of their rights. They need never fear that the Calvinist, the Nationalist, will want to deprive the English-speaking people of their rights. They know that the rights of the English-speaking people and those of every other section of the population are as safe in the hands of the Afrikaans-speaking Nationalist, the Calvinistic Nationalist, as in their own hands. [Interjections.] I should like to reply to the hon. member for Transkei’s interjection, but my time is very limited.

The third and great principle in the life of the Nationalist and the Calvinistic Afrikaner is his love of freedom; freedom of the individual and of his people. No one, not even an individual or a government, dare interfere with that freedom. For that the Calvinistic Nationalist has always sacrificed everything; and for that he will never cease to fight in the future against anyone who dares to interfere with those rights.

The fourth characteristic of this Calvinistic Afrikaner is the principle that he subjects himself to authority. He will assert himself strongly against any element which wants to put an end to authority in an unlawful way. He will not hesitate to act and to act strongly. He will not hesitate to use the 90-day provision; he will not hesitate to use the 180-day provision; he will not shrink from house arrest, from curtailing freedom of movement or curtailing freedom of agitation. However, there is always one limit to that. That is that he will not hesitate to maintain authority, as long as that authority over him is just and upright in its actions. Throughout history the Calvinist has always rejected such authority as soon as he became convinced that it has changed into tyranny. This is the guarantee for everyone in South Africa.

This is because the Calvinistic Afrikaner subjects himself to authority in this way; it is because he has those ideals and principles which I have briefly mentioned that the Calvinistic Afrikaner, the Nationalist, makes such a good, such an ideal fighter and such a good soldier for white civilization. That is why he is still in existence here in South Africa, while all around us in the world so many other civilized nations have collapsed; while so many have disappeared from Africa. That is why he will also stand firm when the forces of the future again threaten our civilization and our white population.

Let me now come to the second section of our population, our English-speaking Afrikaners. Our English-speaking Afrikaners have wonderful virtues by which they have rendered tremendous services to South Africa.

However, basically they are not Calvinists; basically they differ from the Nationalist Afrikaners; basically the English-speaking Afrikaner is liberal. I do not want to explain how I see and sum up the English-speaking Afrikaner. I should like one of them to speak here himself, one who was a leader among them and who is to-day still a leading figure. It is none other than …

S. E. D. Brown.

… Calpin, and he testified as follows in his recent work: “At last we have got our country back”. The hon. members opposite can judge for themselves whether he is correct or not. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. members are laughing, they will nevertheless agree with me eventually that he is correct. Calpin states:

I think that none of the members on the other side will say that Mr. Calpin is not absolutely correct in his description of the English-speaking people. This liberalism forms part of the very being of our English-speaking friends. They can no more divorce themselves from that than we can divorce ourselves from our Calvinistic background. That is the reason why our English-speaking people fall victim to the onslaughts of the communists and of the new leftist movements which always use their freedom to destroy freedom. This liberalism is so deeply ingrained in our English-speaking compatriots that they themselves find it difficult to take action against those communistic and leftist movements when those movements make an attack upon them. This is the reason why the English-speaking people have been forced out of Africa. This is perhaps the reason why they are to a large extent being displaced in their own country to-day.

When Mr. Macmillan came to South Africa with his message of liberalism, his aim was specifically to get our English-speaking friends to surrender and to paralyse them. But it was his intention to paralyse us, as the Calvinistic and Nationalist Afrikaners, as well. We as a white nation would have collapsed if our English-speaking friends had had to stand alone, because they did not see their way clear to identifying themselves with the means which Calpin mentioned, i.e. the 90-day provision, the 180-day provision, house arrest and the silencing of the agitators—those measures which were so absolutely and inexorably necessary if we wanted to maintain ourselves and a white civilization in South Africa. The man who displays those qualities of being able to stand as a champion, as the soldier, not only for himself but for the entire white civilization in South Africa, is the man who has been his own salvation throughout the decades, and has in the process saved his English-speaking compatriots and civilization. That man is the carrier of the code of powerful moral, ethical and religious principles, those principles which strengthen one spiritually to withstand the mightiest onslaughts. It is this Afrikaner Nationalist and these Calvinistic principles which have helped to establish civilization so forcefully here in Southern Africa for 300 years. In the struggle which lies ahead for us, perhaps the fiercest and greatest that lies ahead for us, it will once more be the man who is the bearer of these wonderful Calvinistic principles who will fight at the forefront of the struggle for our civilization. But there is a condition attached to this. This condition is that we shall be able to rely on him only as long as he is in fact the bearer of those Calvinistic principles. The moment he forsakes those principles his power will collapse. If it is our earnest intention to safeguard this civilization of the white man, to resist the onslaughts which are going to be made upon us in the future, it is inexorably necessary for us to put an end to these onslaughts, these continual, subtle onslaughts upon our spiritual make-up.

Mr. Speaker, I have always had the greatest respect for the person of the hon. member for Ermelo. That is why I should, at this stage, also prefer not to indulge in any disparaging remarks about this hon. gentleman. However, I must say that it was a profound disappointment to me that an hon. member with such a good reputation and such a good background could make the speech he made here this afternoon. Just look at his simplistic view of the English-speaking section of the South African nation. According to him they are an incorrigibly liberalistic group. [Interjections.] This is a simplistic view. To him Calvinism is quite irreconcilable with that. Anybody who knows anything about Calvinism, also knows that at the time when Calvinism itself originated it was attacked for being liberalistic. If this irreconcilable conflict between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking groups does allegedly exist, the question is, what is wrong with the National Party’s attempt at creating national unity? It is disappointing to see that a man such as that hon. member has made no progress whatsoever in his thinking in the politics of South Africa. Although it is very easy for me to do so, it stands to reason that I cannot react to his whole speech now. I want to deal with the Budget as well. But let us just look at a few of the statements the hon. member made. Firstly, he said that we on this side were only concerned about the black man, whereas his Party was concerned about the white man.

That is true.

It is easy to say that, but it is untrue. What we on this side are concerned about, is the question of justice. This is the point at issue as far as we are concerned. We are concerned about the position of the white man, even more so than hon. members on that side are, for the simple reason that we know that, unless the white man in South Africa is fair towards the other race groups, he has no future in this country. Therefore, when we make a plea for the black man or the brown man, it should be seen as a plea that the power which we as the white rulers in South Africa have exclusively in our hands be used in such a manner that the non-Whites may look upon us as friends and allies and not as enemies. It is no use the hon. member holding up to us here the terrorism on our borders. It is no use bringing up here the hostility which is mounting up against us abroad. Of course, it is true that this hostility is mounting up. In fact, far from improving, our position abroad is deteriorating. What the hon. member for Ermelo and the Government should tell us, is what they are going to do locally to ensure that, when dangers arise on our borders on a large scale, the black man and the brown man will look upon the white man as a friend and an ally and will not turn against him. That is what we want from the Government, and when that hon. member can rise in this House and tell us what the Government is doing towards making the non-Whites the friends of the white man, I shall say that it is a Party which looks after the interests of the white man. He came forward with the same old story that the whole outside world only had one thing in mind, namely to squash the white man in South Africa.

That is true.

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. After all, hon. members on that side are not the only members who are familiar with countries abroad; here on this side we also have a few members who are familiar with them. I myself have never met a statesman or a responsible politician in the outside world—I am not referring to the lot of communists—who wants to see the end of the white man in South Africa. This is a very easy method of stirring up feelings. The world, Mr. Speaker, is a world of diversity. South Africa’s problems are not unique. When we appeared before the World Court, our own advocate mentioned 50 countries which had the same problems South Africa had. That was our strongest argument, i.e. that there were 50 other countries which had the same problems we had. The world is a world of diversity. All over the world there are differences as regards languages, religions, cultures, colours, and they are being accepted as such; but all over the world people try to govern in such a way that the one man does not exist at the expense of the other. I have never met anybody in the outside world who was not in favour of the survival of the white man in South Africa; nobody is against that.

Is the hon. member insinuating that the white man here exists at the expense of the Coloured groups in South Africa?

I am not insinuating anything. I shall reply to the hon. the Prime Minister’s question, but the sentence I want to furnish, is this: The point is not the survival of the white man, but he has to ensure his survival in such a way that he does not deprive the others of the right to exist. Sir, let us be reasonable.

Whom are we depriving of the right to exist?

If one says to a person, “Because you are a Coloured you may not do certain work and develop yourself,” does that not amount to depriving such a person of a right to exist? Look at the speech the hon. the Minister of Planning made here in the course of the Budget debate. He allegedly spoke on behalf of the white man, and he must expect what he said here to be used in the outside world. He said that if the Leader of the Opposition meant that it should also be possible for the non-Whites to do highly skilled work in South Africa, he would say, on behalf of the white man and the National Party, that he was against it. [Interjections.] The Coloureds have no area of their own. Sir, I could mention scores of examples here …

Would the hon. member admit that it is inherent in the policy of his Party to discriminate against other colour groups in South Africa?

I would admit it, most certainly, but let me say this to the hon. the Minister: We are trying our best to break away from it. When one takes over a government, one inherits certain circumstances which cannot be changed overnight. But the difference is that that Government is making a virtue out of discrimination. At least, we admit that this is something from which we should try to break away. That is the difference. We are not the only people who say this. It astonishes me that the Minister should ask me such a question if what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is propagating abroad is that it is the object of his Government to do away with discrimination. [Interjections.] We do not deny that there is discrimination in South Africa, and if we were to take over to-morrow, we would have to contend with the problem of discrimination. [Interjections.] But we are not going to make a virtue and a holy cow and an ideology out of discrimination. That is the difference.

The hon. member for Ermelo had a great deal to say about the justice Calvinism requires, but can he honestly and truly say that justice is being done to the Coloureds? They do not have a homeland of their own, but what is done in the case of the Coloureds? They are given a separate “little parliament”, which from the nature of the case is nothing but, or cannot be anything but, a forum for discussion. It can never become a parliament in the true sense of the word. It cannot impose any taxes whatsoever. It has no autonomy. In actual fact, in that respect it does not have the power of a divisional council. I think it is tragic that a party such as this one, which was born out of the struggle against imperialism in South Africa, should now call the Afrikaner to a new kind of imperialism, this time against the Coloureds. The Coloureds must remain subservient and subject to the imperium for ever; they can never become part of it. I think this is a tragic shift. I want to know what morality there is on the part of a party which went from strength to strength in its struggle against imperialism, and now we have the shift from the old British imperialism towards the Afrikaner to Afrikaner imperialism towards the Coloureds.

Tell us what your policy is.

We shall deal with that again. We shall still thrash out this whole matter. We shall have to speak to the Prime Minister as well. [Interjections.] I cannot go on replying to all the points raised by the hon. ex-Minister, but let me say that it was a disappointment to hear a speech of this nature from him.

The Budget debate of the past week showed once again that the task of analysing and criticising measures taken by the Government fell almost exclusively on the shoulders of less than a quarter of the members of this Parliament, i.e. the Opposition. One finds that in the British Parliament, from which we have taken over certain practices, members of Parliament differentiate between two aspects.

They differentiate between the political policy and the principles they support on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the administration of the Government. That is why one finds that a Government member in the British Parliament feels as free to criticize Government measures as do members of the Opposition; and I think that this is the right approach. But what do we find here in this House? Here we find that the majority of the members on that side are apparently of the opinion that the only function which a Government member has, is to take stock of the Opposition, its past, its present and its reputed policy, as if we were the party that was in power. There are a few exceptions.

There was the hon. member for Waterkloof whose plea was that the purchase tax should rather be levied at the selling point so that one might eliminate the pyramidal growth of prices. We had the hon. member for Sunnyside who would rather have had a capital gains tax. We had the hon. member for Humandsdorp who wanted to do away with divisional council rates and taxes and wanted there to be a uniform burden on all the taxpayers in the provinces. And there was a speech which made a favourable impression, i.e. that of the hon. member for Windhoek, who made his maiden speech here to which I should like to refer for a few moments. I just want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him on what he said and the way in which he put it. It stands to reason that we on this side will not always agree with his political views, nor will he with ours, but I think I can give him the assurance that the House will always grant recognition to his extensive and profound knowledge of the affairs of South-West.

I want to pause for a moment at the position of South-West Africa, since the hon. member made a plea here to the effect that there were special circumstances in South-West Africa which did not apply here and special problems which were different from what was the case in the Republic. I am sure that what the hon. member would have liked to have added, was to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister—an appeal which, however, he could not make openly—namely that South-West Africa should as a result be treated differently as well. It is a pity that that speech could not have been made here a few weeks ago, for at that time we had a very serious debate here on the position of South-West. We on this side adopted the attitude that we must differentiate between unity and uniformity and that in the political sphere South-West had already reached political unity with the Republic years ago; it has in fact been granted as many as 10 representatives in the two Houses of Parliament. For all practical purposes South-West has become part of the sovereignty of South Africa; it could, therefore, not attain a greater measure of political unity than it already has. But in addition to that unity it was privileged, owing to its special problems, which the hon. member for Windhoek outlined, in that it was granted a special measure of administrative and taxation autonomy which enabled it to deal with its special problems at first hand and on the spot, without delay and in accordance with its own needs. This was a privilege which the Republic was quite willing to grant and allow South-West.

But what did we subsequently find here? Every hon. member for South-West Africa rose and made a plea not for unity, because the territory already had that, but for uniformity and for doing away with the privileges the territory was enjoying. The Government encouraged them and the Government issued a White Paper in which it gave South-West an undertaking in two places. Firstly, the Government said that it was extremely desirable that any rearrangement should cause the population of South-West as little disruption as possible and should not impose additional burdens on the taxpayers of the territory. The same undertaking was confirmed in the White Paper in another place. I should be glad to hear from the hon. the Minister of Finance what his attitude is in regard to this position; and perhaps the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who launched the legislation through this House, should also tell us what view he takes of this undertaking now, in the light of the Budget as it was presented.

I can see the difficulty the hon. the Minister of Finance has. If he gives better treatment to one section of the taxpayers in his care than he does to another section, then he is going to have trouble on his hands, and if he does not do so in the case of the South-West taxpayers, then he also has trouble on his hands. I can tell the hon. the Minister that his own side will level the accusation that the Government displays a lack of loyalty. The official mouthpiece of the Government in South-West has already done so in almost as many words, and this is what it says (translation)—

I do not think there is any need for me to quote what was written about that in the Opposition newspapers. They prove that in some cases certain groups of taxpayers in South-West are now paying up to R100 more than people in the Republic who fall into the same group. I shall leave the matter at that in the hope that the hon. the Minister will give us clarity in regard to this situation. As for the rest we shall simply have to leave it to the South-West members to manoeuvre themselves out of this position.

The Budget speech which the hon. the Minister made on 24th March, is undoubtedly one of the most interesting speeches I have heard for a long time. I must admit that my first impression was a very favourable one. The hon. the Minister removed the tax bulge. Our own attitude was that this was an unfair bulge. In the light of the fact that the Government has regularly been over-taxing the country by millions, we have always felt that this was an unnecessary tax bulge which could be removed. He made a concession in regard to the earnings of married women. Our attitude is that something is better than nothing, but we nevertheless feel that the Government should tax men and women who were married out of community of property separately.

In addition the hon. the Minister held out the prospect that provincial taxation would be eliminated in due course and incorporated in the general income tax. That is a welcome development. To-day one often hears the concept “one-stop bank” mentioned. The plea I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that he should become a “one-stop tax collector”. I hope he will consider the possibility that in due course even radio tax, such as radio licences, and perhaps even motor car tax on the basis of the weight of the car, may be included in a one-stop tax assessment, so that waste and duplication may be eliminated and economizing may be promoted in South Africa.

Of course, the biggest disappointment we had in the Budget, was the following: I do not know whether we listened inattentively, nor do I in any way want to create the impression that the hon. the Minister deliberately gave us the wrong impression, but most of us were firmly under the impression that the purchase tax would only be in respect of non-essential goods. It was on this basis that we accepted the idea of a purchase tax. But what do we find now? After all, the hon. the Minister should be aware of the fact that over the past year or two a whole new class of rich people has come into existence in South Africa. A new plutocracy has come into existence all of a sudden. People who had nothing or very little, have become millionaires and semi-millionaires through the Stock Exchange. There are thousands of them. I should like to know how many people do in actual fact give Hollard Street in Johannesburg as their business address to-day. I do not mean this in a figurative sense, because I personally know of many young men who have given up their normal jobs and are studying stock lists virtually day and night in order to examine what they call buying signals and in this way to make thousands of rands on the Stock Exchange. I do not criticize this. There is nothing wrong with a man using his talents or his intelligence to enrich himself in an honest manner. My point is that the gap between the rich and the poor in South Africa has grown into a colossal one. I want to go so far as to say that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened dangerously in our country, owing to the circumstances I mentioned. I am not blaming the hon. the Minister. In fact, the entire country would have been much more prosperous if we did not have the politics of the Government. But in the present circumstances, whereas there is such a colossal gap between the richest and the poorest at present, there is something which the hon. the Minister should try to avoid like the plague. He must not allow that gap to widen by imposing additional burdens on the poor and the average. This is exactly what he is going to do this year. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, but, surely, the Minister cannot tell us that articles such as soap, matches, umbrellas, tableware, spoons and forks, electric bulbs, motor cars and combs are not essential articles. Even motor cars. There is such a thing as a luxury motor car, and nobody would have minded if the hon. the Minister had levied a tax on luxury motor cars. But the prices of motor cars are high as they are, and now the Minister levies another tax of R100 on a motor car which costs R2,000 to-day. That will be the basic assessment, i.e. without the increases which will be added before it reaches the retailer. I must say that we did not expect this from the hon. the Minister. He is the person who in former years was in charge of a major Reddingsdaad organization in South Africa. At that time his plea was that mothers should not be forced through economic circumstances to go to work outside their homes. Well, what does the position look like to-day? There are income groups in which there are few women who are not forced through economic circumstances to go to work outside their homes. As matters are today, 300,000 South Africans land in court every year for non-payment of debts. One is keen to see what the figures would be in the future as a result of this new tax. Less than five months ago the Minister still appeared before the nation in his old attire. That was when he opened the Fiat factory at Rosslyn. Let us listen to what he had to say on that occasion. “A motor car for every family should be our own aim.” The following report appeared in Die Burger of 22.11.’68 (translation)—

That is what he said only five months ago. To-day we have, instead of a kindly King Henry, a King Midas before us. What is the reason why the Minister does not tax luxury motor cars only? Let the people who want to drive in such black ships, such as those which are parked here in Parliament Street, pay for them. Why should the man in the street be taxed as heavily as is the rich man with his limousine?

This Budget has already been given many names—a champagne budget, a rich man’s budget, and so forth. In the olden days we had the Hoggenheimer figure in our politics. I can well imagine what a cartoonist such as Boonzaier would have done with this Budget if it had been presented by a United Party government. He would have presented it like this: Hoggenheimer with the broadest smile possible and two cigars in his mouth. For, there is no doubt about it, here we have a Budget which bears the stamp of Hoggenheimer. The weaker are being swamped with taxes in order that the stronger may be accommodated.

I know that when we level criticism at budgets, the Minister wants to know from us, by way of a fair counter-question, what other means he should employ in order to obtain funds for the State. What are our proposals? This is a fair counter-question and as far as this Budget is concerned, the hon. member for Constantia has furnished a satisfactory reply. Without a doubt he has proposed the most constructive amendment I can remember in my time in this House. As far as the longer term is concerned, the answer is as clear. I say that the time has come for the Government to review its apartheid programme, to see where waste, futilities, duplication of services and white elephants may be eliminated. The way a certain Government newspaper put it recently was that apartheid was struggling unnecessarily under superfluous burdens, burdens which it ought to discharge. For a young country such as we are, we are at any rate living too far back in the past. The time at my disposal will not allow me to mention more than one or two examples. Just look at the excessive urge to legislate on the part of the Government, while knowing that every new law entails new staff, new offices and new expenditure for the country. Look at the excessive Pretorianism in South Africa. Even the most insignificant matter has to be referred to Pretoria to-day. I think it is outrageous for us to have a situation where a member of the Cabinet has to decide whether a non-White may attend a white sports meeting or whether a white person may appear before a nonwhite audience. These are things which cost time and money.

But the Minister has, after all, delegated all those powers.

Even so, officials still have to attend to them. Sometimes it takes from two to three weeks to arrive at a decision. Local bodies and sports bodies are treated like children and are not considered to be mature enough to make their own arrangements without the Government creating a crisis. I could mention scores of examples of this. I have already referred to the position of the Coloured population earlier on. Thousands of rands are being spent to-day on creating a mock parliament for them. In addition to that the present Department of Coloured Affairs is now being split into two Departments. In future there will be two Departments instead of one. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third-Reading stage of this Bill, a Bill where a Minister has taken it on himself to form a university for the Indian people of Natal, to cobble it, if I may put it that way, on exactly the same last as that used for the universities for the other racial groups. We on this side have again and again made the point that the Minister is making a grave and serious mistake in adopting word for word and comma for comma the Bill which has been drafted also for the other racial groups, irrespective of the degree of education and of the progress which each one has made and the contribution each one is making to their own education processes. By doing this, the Minister was short-sighted.

Consequently, throughout this debate we have tried to put forward amendments which would create a situation better suited to the needs of the Indian community as it exists today, but we have come up against a blank wall as far as the Minister is concerned. We have been unable to call forth a change of heart. We have been told that this is what the Department has put up; that this is the plan for the Indian community. What is more, we have had nothing from the Minister to give the Indian community any indication of what the future holds for them.

Sir, when we now come to the Third Reading of this Bill, we have to consider what the Minister has created. What he has created is a university which is in effect an extension of his own Department. What has happened is that he has created a council which will run the affairs of the university, but which will be under the day-to-day control of the Department. The Minister’s power will in this case obviously be delegated to the Secretary, and through the Secretary to various officials charged with the affairs of the university. The Minister will not deny that the council is bound hand and foot and head and tongue by the Department. What is in fact going to happen is that the council, which consists of white people appointed by reason of their familiarity with such matters or their ability to cope with the demands of running a university, will be at the Minister’s beck and call. They will have to answer to him for every decision they make. In many cases they will be incapable of making any decision at all, without the hon. the Minister’s permission. This position, which is bad enough, will be compounded, because, in terms of the Bill, an advisory council is appointed, which will consist of Indians. The whole purpose of the advisory council is that they will learn from the council how to run a university. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the only thing they can learn from the council under the present terms of the Bill is how to say “ja baas”. That is about all that can happen, because they will have to consult with the council, somehow or other. They are going to have to learn from the council how to run a university, but the council itself, in terms of the Bill which we have before us to-day, is not entrusted with the running of the university as such, except in regard to the most pedestrian matters. All the most important decisions are taken by the Department, and the Department will in effect be responsible for the really important decisions that are taken by the council in the running of this university. I am quite certain that the hon. the Minister will not attempt to controvert that statement.

There are large questions which have been left open in this matter. The hon. the Minister, when he replied to some of the questions put to him during the Committee Stage, said in passing that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents him from appointing an Indian senate. I wonder whether he will tell us whether he intends doing so. All he is going to have now is a white senate and an Indian advisory senate. In regard to the future of this unversity, the intention is to allow the Indians to take over the university, if and when they become fitted to run a university. At no stage at all during the whole of this debate has the Minister set any kind of guide line by which the Indian people can fashion their participation in the running of this university. We have no idea whatever of what the Minister will regard as being fitting evidence of the fact that they have learnt enough from their association with the council that he has appointed.

How are the Indian community, who are going to accept this university and who are, I believe, going to show a tremendous interest in it, going to know that they are working in the right direction? How are they going to know that they are even getting warm when it comes to the question of the taking over of the running of this university? Obviously a community such as the Indians will be desperately interested in acquiring full control of their own university, because this is a prestige symbol, if ever there was one.

The only suggestion we had throughout the whole of this debate was from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who said that the Indian community can take over the control of their university when they can pay for it. On two occasions I have asked the hon. the Minister whether that is his opinion and whether that is the policy of the Department. If it is, will he tell us how the Indian community are going to acquire the financial resources to pay for the running of this university? Will it be through their council, or will it be by means of taxation that they are going to raise sufficient money for this purpose? Will those powers then at a later stage be extended to the council? This Minister is the Minister of Indian Affairs. He is responsible to the Cabinet, bur surely to goodness it is his responsibility to indicate to the Indian community what their future is going to be, and in what direction it lies? Surely he must indicate to them what they must aim at and what they must achieve. This whole Bill is one gigantic question mark as to what the future of this university is going to be, how that future is going to be determined, and what the relationship between the council and the advisory council is going to be when it comes to the question of when the one is going to take over from the other.

What we have had from the hon. the Minister is what might in other circles be called a diplomatic silence, but I feel that in this particular case it is not a diplomatic silence at all. It is something which is to be deplored, and I feel that the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, could quite well let us have some idea as to how he thinks these things are going to develop and how he feels that the Indian community must act and must shape their path and their course in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if I might just for a moment speak in a lighter vein: This, is, of course, an academic subject, and it is a matter of a university which will obviously have a faculty of English literature. We on our side would like to suggest to the Minister and the Department that they should make compulsory a study of the poetry of Robert Browning. We have found something which we felt was very appropriate to this particular Bill; it is under the heading of “Dramatic Romances”, and it says—

It goes on to say—

That is how we feel on this side—

We felt when things were getting a bit hot during the Committee Stage of the debate—

We felt that this was a matter which the hon. the Minister was perhaps getting a little upset about. To go a little bit further, Sir, it occurred to me that the ghost of Mr. Shastri may well be extremely interested in the development which is taking place here at this particular time, that great man who had the cause of Indian education so much at heart. If he were with us to-day, he might well say—

Sir, this is something which the hon. the Minister might quite well suggest to his Department should be made compulsory reading.

Sir, we on this side want to say that we will oppose the Third Reading of this measure because it fails to indicate to the Indian community what they can expect of the hon. the Minister; it has given them a form of university education without any of the real substantive powers that make a university as such. We feel that this is something on which the Minister could quite well have given way; that he could quite well have formed it in another fashion; that he could quite well have placed his trust in the Indian people, and for that reason we shall oppose the Third Reading or this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage we have listened to numerous words from the hon. the Opposition on this series of Bills. Most of their objections dealt mainly with the machinery and the methods to be applied in order to implement what actually is the two main provisions contained in these Bills. These are the elevation of the institutions to university status and the granting of university and academic autonomy to these institutions. We were sorry to learn through the mouth of the hon. member for Mooi River that the Opposition was going to vote also against the Third Reading of this Bill. We expected to hear more concrete arguments being advanced even at this late stage of the debate why the Opposition was not in favour of this measure. I shall go into this more deeply, but first I want to make a few remarks about what was said by the hon. member for Mooi River. This Bill had been taken virtually word for word from the old Act of the University College and corresponded virtually word for word to the Acts on the Bantu Universities. The Opposition must realize that this Bill is before this House in its present form after very thorough consultation with the council as well as the advisory council of the university college. Sir, the hon. member is pulling a sour face—I should really say more sour than usual—but the fact of the matter is that the Indians prefer this Bill in this form with all the implications it has, and when I say this, I ask the hon. member please to take my word for this. The idea took root in Natal that because this university was an Indian university, the people would not necessarily be dependent on state funds to keep the university going; that the Indians themselves were in a position already to pay for their own university training. This specific point was taken up with the Indian advisory council and their reply was that they were not ready as yet to provide their own finances.

The hon. member for Mooi River also spoke of a “ja baas” relationship. To me this does not sound very true or very sincere; nor does it sound to me as though the hon. member knows the Indians very well, because on that level I surely do not know the Indians as “ja baas” people. The advisory council of the university college for Indians takes an active interest in everything done at their university. At the same time they take great pride in it. But even the Indian advisory council has never asked to become the council and to take over the university at this early stage. In any event, I do not want to rely solely on the question of finance as a factor which will determine when this university can be taken over by the Indians themselves, because to me the academic maturity attained by this university is of much more importance than the financial aspect. I ask the hon. member for Mooi River to come to the realization that out of a total establishment of 141 there are only 27 Indian staff members at the present time. This still is a very small percentage and this percentage of Indian staff members is still working under the guidance of the white staff members.

We are sorry that the Opposition is again adopting this attitude also at the Third Reading of this Bill. Sir, let us discuss the matter more fundamentally. What we are dealing with here is the fundamental difference in principle between the National Party on the one hand and the United Party on the other hand. We still believe—and we shall not deviate from this standpoint—that open universities must lead to and move in the direction of integration, and this we do not want. Not only do we believe this to be anthropologically and pedagogically wrong, but we also believe that it is not in the best interests of the education of these people. The United Party is in fact still clinging to the view so clearly expressed in 1959 when Nusas said, “We state as a principle the abolition of the colour bar in education”. The country should know that this is the real objection of the Opposition to this specific Bill. As a matter of fact, this attitude with regard to the removal of the colour bar in education was recently repeated in this House by the hon. member for Houghton, and along with her, by none other than the hon. member for Durban (Central). On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition maintained that they had no objection to the establishment of separate universities for non-Whites, provided that there was a demand for such universities. [Interjection.] But the hon. member for Durban (Central) says that he does have objection to that. This is the very point I am trying to make. Now we are entitled to ask whether 1,701 students are not sufficient proof of a demand which exists for this type of education to be given? If the hon. member for Mooi River wants to speak as a sensible educationist, we have to accept him as such. I do not know what special knowledge he has of teaching and of education, but I want to accept his bona fides. I did not gain the impression before that he specifically had any fundamental objection to this Bill. This simply concerns minor and less important matters. But then we are entitled to ask: If he and the hon. member for Kensington speak with the same voice, and we notice that they do not have fundamental objections in principle to the Bill, we ask on whose behalf he is speaking? Is he speaking on behalf of the entire United Party or is he also speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Houghton, and then again, along with her, on behalf of the hon. member for Durban (Central)?

Nonsense!

I do not even know whether the hon. member can distinguish between what is nonsense and what is not. Is he speaking on behalf of the Japie Bassons or on behalf of the John Wileys in his party? You know, Sir, there is quite a difference between those two. Is he speaking on behalf of Mr. Douglas Mitchell or on behalf of Mr. Mike Mitchell? There is a world of difference between those two. I should very much like to know this. I think it is important for us to know these things. I should not like to accuse the wrong people when I speak outside this House about the attitude adopted by the Opposition in regard to this Bill. I want to suggest that there are people on the opposite side of this House who support this Bill practically 100 per cent, and I do not have any doubt when I say this, but there are also people opposite who hold the same views in respect of this Bill as the Progressive Party does. Surely we are entitled to say therefore that the Official Opposition does not speak with one voice as far as this matter is concerned.

The question is still being asked why the Indians cannot receive higher education along with the Whites in the same institution. I am going to quote what Dr. Louis Bosman said at one time, and he used to be a United Party Member of Parliament for Gardens as well as a member of the Executive Committee of the Council of the University of Cape Town. He made this statement (translation)—

But the hon. member for Durban (North) also wanted to hold forth on the so-called difference in education in the white and in these non-white institutions. He spoke of the “difference in education”. I do not know whether he meant “teaching”. He asked whether there was any difference. I do not know whether he distinguished between teaching and education, nor could I deduce that from his use of words in this particular case. But I want to put it very clearly that education as a phenomenon is universal, just as knowledge and truth are universal. I can give him the assurance that education is being put into practice and cultivated at the non-white institutions just as at any other institution in the world. Knowledge is being disseminated and absorbed in the same way, just as one would always work with people in their different circumstances. The truth, as universal reality phenomenon, also remains valid for all times, therefore also at these institutions. To ask therefore whether there now is or in future will be any difference in education at these institutions, is a foolish question. I should have liked the hon. member for Mooi River to have elaborated more on these aspects of the matter. We believe that teaching and education can best be brought to the student at these ethnically classified institutions as a continuation of precisely the ethnically classified school education as it is at present being applied throughout our country and as it was applied in years past and not only under the policy of the government of our party. Surely these hon. members would not deny the need of differentiated education. If man, every person, as unique being may lay a claim to differentiated education, how much more valid is this truth also in respect of different races? I take one example. Is the intellect or intelligence of the American Negroes the same as that of the white Americans? Is the intelligence of our non-Whites in South Africa the same as that of the Whites in this country? We may quote even more striking examples when we quote comparisons between Eastern nations and Western nations.

You must understand me very well, Sir, I am not maintaining—repeat, not maintaining —that their intelligences differ in that the one is higher and the other lower. Therefore I am not making a quantitative difference when I speak of the difference in intelligence. I do want to make a qualitative difference. I want to contend that the intelligences are not necessarily higher or lower, but merely different. This is an anthropological fact which surely cannot be denied, and to me the essence of the existence and the continued existence also of this institution with which we are dealing to-day is rooted in that. I am making a qualitative difference based on the situational and the relational as the basis for the differences amongst people. The phenomenon of education as a primeval phenomenon peculiar to man as a spiritual and existential being is rooted precisely in a knowledge of human nature and is therefore an anthropological-phenomenological-pedagogical phenomenon which we only come across amongst people, as psycho-physical and spiritual beings. Now, the situation and the relation of each person in respect of education do not only differ from person to person, but also from nation to nation. Hence the positive foundation of ethnic institutions such as these as unitary as opposed to pluralistic institutions.

I proceed. The Indian college has already distinguished itself because of, in the first place, the peaceful relations which have always prevailed on the campus, and, in the second place, because economic conditions have not caused friction amongst students. As members of the same nation, poor and rich can tolerate one another on the campus, in spite of economic class distinctions. In the third place, social considerations in respect of language, culture and way of life can be and have been adapted by them at this institution without any difficulties. In the fourth place one can only praise the very successful lecturer-student relations existing at the Indian University College.

I should like to refer to clause 32 of the Bill which makes provision for institutes. One notices that in the application of this clause, particularly in a city like Durban, which is a multi-racial city, and in which this idea of institutes can be extended further, it can be made possible for different faculties and departments to join forces and to launch research projects. I do not know whether this is the original intention of this clause, but it most definitely is a possibility which can be developed in future. In this connection I must mention the fine work which is already being done and which will continue to be done in future, especially under the new dispensation, by the extra-mural classes arranged in the city by this Indian University College.

The United Party must tell us now whether they are opposed to this Bill merely for the sake of the debate or whether they are opposed to the University for Indians. I think we are entitled to ask them this and that we are entitled to receive a reply in this connection. Would they have liked, if this were in their power, to do away with this university, or are they simply yelping for the sake of the outside world and the hostile Press? This is a major factor and one which is possibly going to be brought to the forefront again this week. Or are they perhaps inspiring undermining activities from outside once again? I can give the Opposition the assurance that as far as these non-White university institutions are concerned, very little undermining has ever come from inside. Undermining has always been carried in from outside by people who sneak on to the campuses even at night to cause trouble under the cloak of student organizations. Even religion has been dragged in in order to bring about undermining on the campuses. I want to ask the Opposition to-day whether their objections to this Bill are not again simply aimed at bringing about this type of undermining from outside. Is their opposition to this measure intended to help the Indians? What do the Indians themselves say about the attitude adopted by the United Party in respect of this Bill? Does the United Party perhaps in fact agree with the Progressive Party and the Suzmans of that Party where the issue is the protests we apparently have to expect later this week according to newspaper announcements? These protests are to commemorate the decennial establishment of these separate institutions for non-Whites. I am now asking the Opposition whether they support this or whether they are opposed to it. I may ask this question because some of their members do in fact agree with the Progressive Party about these matters. I want the Opposition to speak plainly. I do not believe there is a middle course in this regard. Let us get to the heart of the matter. It either is the promotion of the best interests of the Indian students by passing and promoting this Bill or it is cheap politicking, the object of which is not quite clear to us. The speaker who is going to follow me has every right to tell me this. It is either the best interests of the Indian student or it is cheap politicking. I want to ask the Opposition to speak clearly on this matter please and not to blow hot and cold.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, has demonstrated one thing to this House, something which I did not believe was possible, namely that there is one speaker who can bore the House for half an hour even more than the hon. the Minister himself. To let that hon. member carry on as he has done is something which should not have been inflicted on other hon. members in this House.

Order! I think the hon. member is now being very personal. The hon. member for Zululand has as much right to express his opinions as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District).

I agree wholeheartedly, Sir. That hon. member has the right to express his opinion. I was referring merely to the manner in which he expressed it.

You must learn a few manners.

Who are you to talk about manners?

Order!

I think it is better that that comment be left uncommented upon. The hon. member for Zululand asked whether we want to see this university come to nothing. He also made the statement that all that has been said by hon. members on this side of the House had been said only for overseas consumption. He knew that those statements were wrong when he made them. He also knew the answer to the question when he asked it. Members on this side of the House have spoken throughout this debate with the utmost responsibility. Criticism which has been levelled from this side of the House has been constructive, and not merely destructive. I resent the inference of the hon. member when he inferred that hon. members on this side of the House were not acting in what we consider to be the best interests of the Indian people themselves. That was the only factor which motivated this side of the House. We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Ermelo and also from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about the attitude of English-speaking South Africans and I want to say that I associate myself wholeheartedly with what was said by both those hon. members. We are motivated by a sense of fair play. There are no votes for me in fighting here for better opportunities for the Indian people. They have no vote, but they also have no representation in this House. It is up to us, the members of the Opposition, to represent their opinions and to try to protect their rights, because nothing is done by hon. members on that side of the House. It is for this reason that, once again, we will vote against this Bill at the Third Reading.

The hon. member for Zululand asked us to accept his word and that of the hon. the Minister when they said that they had consulted the council and the senate of the university college before this Bill was drafted and presented to Parliament. We accept their word and we know that this was done. We accept their bona fides, but the hon. member for Zululand must not say that this Bill is, therefore, accepted by the Indian people. I deny any contention that is based on this fact. This council and senate are not elected or appointed by the Indian people themselves. This council is appointed by the hon. the Minister. It is his council, and not that of the Indian people, which has accepted this measure. If the hon. member for Zululand was not referring to the council of the university college —it was not clear to which council he was referring—and he was perhaps referring to the Indian Advisory Council, I want to say again that that is also a body which does not necessarily represent the views of the Indian people in South Africa. This is also a council that is appointed by the hon. the Minister and it is not a sine qua non that their acceptance of this Bill means acceptance by the Indian people. I want to throw back to the hon. member for Zululand the question he threw at us, namely what do the Indians themselves say? The hon. member asked this question, but he did not provide an answer. He did not prove in this House that the Indian people accept this Bill as it is drafted.

You know that I am not in the habit of answering may own questions.

Do the Indian people accept this Bill? Has the hon. member any proof of this? He gave no proof of that whatsoever. What he did, was to pose a question.

Did I not refer to the financial relationship …

To which financial relations did he refer? Sir, it is not good enough for the hon. member to come with this. So, let us get on to something else which he said. He took exception to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mooi River, saying that all we are going to teach the Indian people, the advisory council and the advisory senate, was to say “Ja, baas”. The hon. member saw in that a denigration of the Indian people by the hon. member. But this the hon. member for Mooi River never did. Let me ask the hon. member; if these two bodies are going to sit separately, how are they going to assist to teach the Indian people and help them to advance? The hon. member, having been a teacher himself, will know what I mean when I say that example is better than precept. We say, and we have said all along, let these people come together—the Indian people and the white leaders. Unfortunately, Sir, it is to be deplored that this is not to take place because of the Bill as it stands to-day.

The hon. member also raised the question of academic maturity. With that I shall deal a little later. Towards the end of his speech the hon. member uttered certain very big words. He spoke about the anthropological and pedagogical development of the Indian people. As far as I am concerned, this Bill is merely another manifestation of this Government’s preoccupation with the policy of separate non-development—separation in all spheres, including education, and non-development for the non-White groups, particularly in the educational sphere. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is unfortunately not here, because I should like to read to the House what he said in the Second Reading debate on this Bill. In column 3387 of Hansard he said—

Why, Sir? Why do we need that? Let me pose that question to the hon. member in the same way as he posed his question to us. Why do we need this separation? We find it expressed in clauses 2 and 22 that this university is to be for the Indian people only. Therefore, only the Indian people will have free admission to this university. Any other person shall first have to obtain the Minister’s permission. I am not, of course, referring to Whites. We accept clause 21.

You do? Well, the hon. member for Durban (Central) does not.

I accept clause 21. As a matter of fact, we have not opposed this clause at any stage. There is, therefore, no need for the hon. member for Zululand or for the hon. Minister to come and say that we plead for integration. The hon. member for Zululand tried to do that when he tried to tie us to the policy of Nusas, which wants no colour bar in education. The hon. member on our side who is to follow me will have something more to say on this aspect and on our attitude generally towards these non-White universities. Let me, for my part, tell the hon. the Minister that if he had come with a Bill which made this a real university he would have had all the support he needed from this side of the House. He would then not have had the opposition which he has had. As I was saying, the only people who, in terms of the Bill, will have free admission to this university, are the Indian people themselves. This is to be deplored. In Natal we have a vast population of Coloured people and we have an even greater population of Bantu. The greatest concentration of these groups exists in the Durban-Pietermaritzburg complex where this university is situated. But because of the inflexible decision of the Cabinet to establish separate universities for each group, members of the other non-White groups in the Durban-Pietermaritzburg complex will now be compelled to suffer the added inconvenience and extra expense of having to go to some other centre to get their higher education.

This question of separation is carried further in the council and in the senate where, on the Minister’s own admission during this debate, they will all be White, and they will all be appointed by the Minister. The advisory senate and council will consist of non-Whites, primarily Indians I assume.

Then we come to the question of non-development. In terms of this Bill the Indian people are going to have no say whatsoever in the running and functioning of their own university. I know the Minister has referred to the advisory senate and the advisory council, but what powers will those bodies have? Their names imply they will be merely advisory, and then they will only be consulted on such matters as are referred to them by the Minister through this council that he himself will elect.

We also deplore the fact that there is no provision in this Bill for a convocation. There are many thousands of Indian graduates in South Africa who would welcome the opportunity of taking part in the education of their own people, who would welcome the opportunity of being able to do something constructive for their own university. They are being debarred now because of the inflexibility of the Cabinet. I am not going to blame the Minister for this because I know he is tied by a Cabinet decision. But I do regret he was not able to take the advice of hon. members on this side when they said to him, “Do not tie yourself to the other non-White universities”. The Indian people are a group on their own and they should have been considered as such and treated as such. The Indian people cannot even donate money to their university, the university for the education of their people, without the prior permission of the hon. the Minister.

These are some of the reasons why we have opposed this Bill through all stages and why we will vote against it again at this the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that during the Faster recess the Opposition would have arrived at a better insight and would support this Bill at the Third Reading, but this was unfortunately an apparently futile expectation.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) claimed that the criticism against the Bill was constructive. I would say that it would actually have been strange to receive constructive criticism from this hon. member while he was in the process of making scornful remarks about the hon. member for Zululand’s speech. The hon. member also made another claim here. The hon. member said—if I understand him correctly—that the reason why the Opposition was taking up the cudgels for the Indians here was because here they have no representation. [Interjections.] I may have understood the hon. member wrongly, but this is the conclusion I drew from his words, i.e. that that was the reason why the United Party had to take up the cudgels for the Indians here. I want to ask the hon. member when the Indians have ever asked the Opposition, or asked him, for that matter, to take up the cudgels for them here, especially in connection with this legislation? When have the Indians ever asked the Opposition to discuss this legislation here on their behalf?

The hon. member referred to clause 21 and I am very glad that he made such a frank admission in respect of it. In the course of my Second-Reading speech I asked the Opposition to say where they stood in connection with clause 21, and now I have received the reply. I am very glad about that. I am glad that progress has been made by the Opposition, because it was the hon. member for Orange Grove who, in 1959, when the Extension of University Education Bill was being discussed here, pleaded for the admission of white students to the University College for Indian students that was then still to be established. I do not have the time now to quote it chapter and verse, but he nevertheless pleaded for that. I am truly glad that the Opposition has now gained other insights, especially in these days when there is so much talk about university autonomy and freedoms, etc.

The hon. member for Mooi River said, inter alia, “The only thing they can learn is to say ‘Ja, baas’ ”. This was with reference to the Indians. But surely this is untrue, surely this is completely untrue. In the course of my speech I shall indicate where Indians, except on the advisory council and the advisory senate, will, according to this measure, be afforded the opportunity of having a joint say in respect of educational matters. If hon. members opposite would listen carefully and be a little more patient with their interjections, they would find out in a moment.

The policy of the establishment of universities in individual national contexts has unquestionably begun to prove itself in respect of the University College for Indians. We on this side of the House pointed out that when the Government decided to establish the University College for Indians in 1960 or 1961, that decision was not exactly welcomed with open arms. We pointed out that during those days that institution had to take its first indecisive steps in a hostile atmosphere. That atmosphere was loaded with prejudice, criticism, antipathy, hostility and mistrust. Those first students actually reported to the university college in a state of uncertainty and confusion. However, in due course the institution began to inspire a great deal of confidence, affection, respect and admiration, and this may be ascribed to a dutiful rector and a very hard-working staff. It is also attributable to the fact that the State and the administrative staff of the Department set, as its point of departure, the ideal of giving only the best to that institution as far as staff and facilities were concerned. The acceptance of this Indian nationally orientated university by the Indian students and the community followed, and in due course the prejudice therefore disappeared. The initially prevalent attitude changed into one of pride in the College and the realization took root that the College was there to serve the Indian community in all respects. The realization took root that the University College had been created to serve the community, to educate the Indian youth academically and otherwise, so that in due course they could hold their own in the Indian community. The realization also took root that the State’s intentions were sincere in respect of the Indian population group. Like a tremendous flood-wave that realization engulfs the petty opposition which may still exist.

It is indeed true that criticism does still exist. And that there is perhaps still a lack of interest. Thus, inter alia, it is claimed that the Indians are still being discouraged from studying because posts ostensibly do not exist for Indians with high qualifications and experience. This is a purely political argument. As the process of separate development progresses further, the demand for trained Indians increases all the more. Neither will they displace the Whites on the labour market, because they give vocational guidance and service, and they are destined to give it to their own people. No one realizes this better than the Indians who have already assumed leadership in the Indian community. In the November issue of last year’s monthly magazine, Fiat Lux, published by the Department of Indian Affairs, reference is made to a speech which the chairman of the advisory council of the Indian University College held. In that magazine the following appeared—

Since its inception, since the first conferment of degrees in 1963, that university college has made tremendous progress. I have here a long list of statistics which I do not want to bother the House with, to indicate what tremendous progress has been made in respect of academic achievements and the obtaining of degrees. These academic achievements of the Indian University College over the past years were good and they are constantly improving, as the statistics also indicate. Everything points to the fact that under the new dispensation the academic achievements will at least be maintained. It is hoped and expected that they will even improve in due course. Then one asks—and I associate myself with what the hon. member for Zululand said here—why the Opposition is kicking up such a tremendous fuss, in many cases with extremely ill-founded arguments, especially about this new dispensation in connection with the academic autonomy which is being given to the Indian University College. All these arguments about the advisory council, which will, of course, consist only of Indians, about the inferior role it is to fulfil, about the fact that it will only consist of Whites and about the inferior role which the advisory senate is to fulfil, do not hold water. They actually fall flat if one sees them against the background of future additional development of this Indian University. But if we really subject these arguments of the Opposition to the test of reality, the demands of the times and the tests of level-headed thinking, they lose all their apparent force.

But let us in conclusion test them against the feelings and the viewpoints of those directly affected. In the first place the staff are affected. The staff of the university concerned, both white and Indian, welcome the legislation. The hon. member who spoke before me must please tell me whether he can repudiate my statement. Why do they welcome it? Because it affords them greater academic scope and independence. In the second place the Indian advisory council of the university college does not oppose it. On the contrary, after they had discussed it very thoroughly they accepted it. I once more ask the hon. member to repudiate this statement I am making. Sir, he remains silent. Thirdly, as far as I have heard, the Indian community are also happy about this legislation. They are happy about the rapid progress and about the confidence which the State places in this university college by allowing this increase status to take place at this moment. I now ask once more, is this correct? If the hon. member does not have information to the contrary, he must accept my statement. But the United Party is actually opposed to the dispensation which the State wants to grant to this university college, or by its policy statements, at least wants to delay it. The additional progress and facilities which the Government, as guardian, wants to afford the Indians, at the highest academic level, i.e. the tertiary level, are being opposed by the Opposition. They did the same thing by opposing another excellent measure which was passed in 1965. It was the measure providing for the transfer of primary and secondary education for Indian children to the Department of Indian Affairs. As we know, good progress is at present being made and there is a tremendous amount of development in respect of education as such.

The amendment which the Opposition moved in the Second Reading debate, i.e. to refer the measure to a Select Committee, and the debate in the Committee Stage which lasted for days, is merely proof to me of their delaying tactics and of how they begrudge this advanced community that which could prove of very great and positive value to them in the academic sphere. The Indian community has definitely taken cognizance of this attitude of the Opposition in its rejection of the sincere aims of this legislation.

I promised the hon. member for Mooi River that I would very briefly explain where the Indians were in fact going to obtain a greater say in connection with this legislation and its implementation. In addition to the fact that the Indians will have seats on the advisory council and the advisory senate, although hon. members regard them as secondary councils, they are being brought into the picture as regards study and educational matters. If the hon. member were to study that legislation well, he would especially find three provisions which I want to emphasize here. According to subsection (7) of clause 10 the senate can appoint anyone as an assessor member of a committee of the senate. Such a person may participate in all the proceedings of the meeting but shall not have the right to vote. I believe and accept, as the hon. member probably does as well, that assessor members will to a large extent be Indians. In addition, the council and the senate may, in terms of subsection (1) of clause 12, appoint joint committees of the council and senate for such purposes as the council may determine. Indians may also be involved in such committees. According to subsection (7) of clause 8 the council may appoint committees consisting of members of the council as well as other persons. The council may transfer its functions and certain powers to such a committee. I want to put it to him that under those circumstances, since they are academic in nature, Indians will also probably be appointed.

I merely want to state that responsible Indians do not want further rights or responsibilities transferred at this moment to the Indian population in respect of the University, because they cannot accept it. They are not yet qualified to extend it further. It is a fact that responsible Indians are at this stage very satisfied with the Bill as it stands because they themselves still feel unqualified to take over control and greatly appreciate guidance.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has with great difficulty and a long introduction shown three small points—it must have taken him a long time to find them—which in his opinion are approaching integration. Those were three small points at which the Indians and the Whites might, not certainly, be permitted to meet in order to discuss and settle matters regarding the university. The hon. member must have a most limited and, I would almost say, dependent idea of the standing of a university if at the end of a debate like this he has struggled to find three minor points on which the Indian and the White man may perhaps meet on a comparatively equal footing.

I have been sitting for 20 years on the council of a university.

I am sorry, but it does not show.

With regard to the hon. the Minister I can understand that his colleagues in the Cabinet, particularly those who are in charge of Bantu universities, feel that such universities must have guiding strings and a certain degree of official control apart from the control of the university authorities themselves. One must remember that the education which the hon. Ministers are giving to these people is in order to civilize them; to improve their civilization; to make the life they lead of a higher standard. However, here the hon. the Minister is dealing with a civilized people. They do not need the guiding strings of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. They can guide themselves. They have guided themselves from a very low standard of living, which they had when they first came to this country, to an extremely high standard of living. They also have a high standard of community feeling. It is a distinguishing characteristic of the Indian people that they have a community feeling and that on the whole, those who become wealthy share their wealth with the community as a whole. The hon. the Minister said that he was hurt because I was personal towards him during the Second Reading Debate in saying I regarded the Indians as being unfortunate in that they have come under his personal control. I would have been delighted to withdraw that remark; I would have been pleased indeed if I could have withdrawn that remark at the end of this debate. However, unfortunately these people are still unfortunate. I want to explain to the hon. the Minister why they are unfortunate. They are unfortunate, because while he knew little about them when the hon. the Minister took over this portfolio, he does not know any more now. Had he studied these people; had he given them the attention which his post requires him to give them, he would have realized that he was not dealing with an uncivilized group. He would have realized that he was neither dealing with an aggressive group nor with a people who are un-South African. He would have learned quite easily, as those of us who live in Natal have realized, that here he has a people who are co-operative, who are law-abiding and who are only too willing to join other communities in a national effort. Instead of that, these people, whose ancestors invented writing and language at the time when the Western world understood only the roar of threat, the pantings of fatigue, the moans of pain and the wails of grief, these people who spoke and wrote thousands of years ago, are to be treated like naughty children or if not naughty children, at least children with the possibility of being naughty and irresponsible. Here is a group of people who will make this university a success, because as I say, they are a co-operative people. They will make the best of a bad job, but they cannot make it a university in the international sense, in the thoughts of the people outside this country. The Minister has seen to it that their degrees will receive no recognition but that of degrees of a low standard. The key point of this Bill is that he has taken away from them the possibility of obtaining, outside that of the medical school, a degree in the true sense of the word. He has taken away the blanket cover which they had from the University of South Africa. That is the greatest blow he has dealt to the Indian people, because it will be known that this university is under a dictatorship. Nothing can be done, because every member of the staff, every ounce of salt which is purchased, every lecture which is delivered and every student who is accepted must receive the stamp of permission of the hon. the Minister. What sort of autonomy is this? I really cannot understand how the hon. member for Koedoespoort who, as he has said, has served on the council of a university for 20 years, can talk of autonomy in the same breath as this university. This university has no standing and never will have any standing as a university. I am sorry that we have to say that this university will never gain acceptance outside this country. As I have said, the Indians will make it a success, they will benefit by it because they are a people who are prepared to make the best of anything they can get, but the best they can get is a degree which has no value outside this country.

I should like to add a word to what the hon. member has said at this final stage of the passage of the Indian University Bill. I should like to deal first with the hon. member for Zululand who, I am sorry, is not here now. Although he is a man of academic experience, he does not seem to understand the question of the autonomy of universities and the position of these university colleges that we have had. I should like to enlighten him as far as I can. I was a member of the commission that sat ten years ago—a select committee which became a commission. Today the young people at our universities and the members of their staffs remember what happened ten years ago, and I should like to refresh the memory of hon. members here. We had a Bill before us to establish separate university institutions, but the Bill said that we should have universities for Whites only, universities for Coloureds only, universities for Africans only and for Indians only. We fought the Bill on these grounds; we said that we stood for the autonomy of the universities. If a university wished to admit Whites and Coloureds or Africans, they should have the right to do so. We said that that was fundamental; we said that the university should have that right. We fought for that at every stage. Mr. Speaker, you will remember what happened; we lost that fight. We said: “We do not mind how many university colleges you establish; you can establish university colleges for Africans, for Coloureds and for Indians but leave the universities that you have to enjoy their own autonomy and to admit whom they wish.” We did not oppose the establishment of separate university colleges. Now we come to the second stage. After the Bill had passed its Second Reading, it was referred to a select committee. What should our attitude have been? Should we have said that we disagree with that principle and that we refuse to cooperate or should we have said what we did say: We will co-operate in this select committee after the Second Reading and try to draft a better Bill? That is the Parliamentary procedure that I shall refer to later. Having lost on the question of principle, we tried to get a better Bill. We sat as a select committee and then as a commission. I have the report of the commission here. I think because of the misunderstanding that some hon. members have shown here to-day l should show what the points of difference were ten years ago. There were nine points that we formulated: (1) We rejected a council and an advisory council. We wanted one; we did not want an advisory council. (2) We rejected a senate and an advisory senate. (3) We said that the council should be a body corporate. That was finally agreed to. (4) We said that the council was to have representatives on it other than those recommended and nominated by the Minister. (5) We rejected exclusive ethnic divisions. We said that if the Fort Hare College of those days wished to admit Indians or Coloureds in addition to Africans, they should have the right to do so. (6) We rejected the idea that the finance for the Bantu university colleges should come from the Bantu Education Account. That account was established for primary and secondary education. (7) We said that instead of associating these colleges with the University of South Africa, they should be associated with existing universities—Fort Hare with Rhodes, the College of the North with Pretoria and the Witwatersrand and so on. (8) We said: Postpone the closing of the open universities; allow them to admit non-Whites for ten years, for the transition period, and we also said that the Minister for these colleges should be the Minister of Education. We said: Postpone proclamation of the Act for ten years, and here we are today after ten years and the Government still have not established separate colleges. There are over 100 Coloureds at the University of Cape Town today. In other words, what we said ten years ago holds good today. What the young people are protesting about at the universities today is not the establishment of these colleges; they are protesting because their universities—the Witwatersrand, Cape Town, Rhodes and Natal—lost their autonomy. I hope that is quite clear. I have been very anxious to make this clear so that the hon. member for Zululand will understand the position. If people say, as he did, that the United Party is in favour of mixed universities they are wrong. The United Party has never said anything of the kind. What the United Party has said is that we stand for university autonomy. Let us take the two universities here, Cape Town and Stellenbosch. Stellenbosch, in the exercise of its authority, says “We do not want non-Whites,” and we say that Stellenbosch should have the right to say that. We do not want any law to say to Stellenbosch, “You must admit Coloureds.” Cape Town University today admits Coloured students—I do not know about Africans—at the request of the Minister. We say that they should have the right to do so, and they do it. I may say that in doing so they save the face of the Minister because the Government has not been able to provide separate facilities after ten years.

Sir, I think that the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill missed a very valuable opportunity. He followed slavishly what had been done by the Minister of Bantu Education and his Deputy. They had prepared Bills which were suitable for the Bantu and the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs followed them. He should not have done that. His Bill was in a completely different category. This university college for Indians was in a position to be organized quite differently from, for example, the University College of Zululand, and the Minister should not have followed his colleagues in the Cabinet. He should have ignored them and drawn up his own Bill, but he did not do so. Sir, the numbers of students at the University of Westville/Durban, are sufficient to justify the creation of a university. There is no question about that; the necessary numbers are there. The next important thing, I thought, was that last year the Minister’s own Department of Indian Affairs established a tradition of a council of Whites and non-Whites. The Indian Affairs Department in establishing the Higher Technical Education College in Natal said that they must have a mixed council, because they said that if you have donors, the donors must be represented and the donors can be Indians or they can be Whites. The Department of Indian Affairs therefore made provision for a mixed council. Here we are dealing with a much superior institution, a university, and they do not follow the same principle! I think that is a mistake.

It is quite illogical.

To-day we do not have Whites and Indians on the council of this university. The members are all nominated by the Minister and he nominates Whites only. I think that is a mistake. I think the Minister should have departed from that. Now we come to this question of the senate. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will introduce an amendment to make it possible for a non-White professor to sit in the senate. I think that is essential. If he does not do that, then a Professor is being humiliated in his own college before his own students. I think that should be rectified as soon as possible. What is the next step? What is the Minister going to do in the future? Is he going to give this college an opportunity to establish a university controlled by themselves with a measure of autonomy? I think that is the next stage. Sir, when I talk about a university, I mean a university on the model of White universities. The hon. the Minister of National Education is introducing a Bill in which he does not recognize these new universities as real universities. He excludes them. They are not in the same category as other universities.

Sir, there is one other point that I should like to mention. During the course of the debate the Minister enunciated a new principle of parliamentary government. He said that the party that he represented in this House was the Government. They, as the Government, introduce legislation and they will force that legislation through the House regardless of the attitude of the Opposition. Sir, this is a very serious statement to make because it strikes at the whole basis of democratic parliamentary government. The Opposition is here to participate in the government of the country; that is what we are here for. The hon. the Minister said “You must wait until the next election, and if you, the Opposition, win at the next election, then you can introduce your legislation.”

And he will say nothing then!

Sir, if that principle is established, if hon. members on the other side accept that principle, it means that we will not have any parliamentary government here, that when we sit together in a select committee we will not be able to influence legislation; when we debate measures in this House we cannot influence legislation. What is the next step? The next step will be to control elections. And the final step will be the step that we saw in Germany, to establish a one-party State, because you will not need an Opposition.

The Minister of Community Development said so long ago.

In other words, they come back to the one-party state and they advocate totalitarianism. I think it is a most serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. the Minister should bring that to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. If that is the policy of the party that he represents, if that is the policy of the Prime Minister’s Government, I think we should have a declaration to that effect in this House. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon. member for Ermelo would have included the hon. the Minister as one of the “Engelse liberaliste”. Sir, I think this is a very serious matter. I am very sorry that we have had to conclude this Third Reading debate on this note. I think the Minister missed an excellent opportunity, as I said in the beginning. He could have given us a University Bill that the Indian people would have been proud of. They could have been able to participate in the running of their own university. We will vote against this Bill.

I feel I should, first of all, just answer the last point raised by the hon. member for Kensington. I appreciate that the hon. member for Kensington is a very serious-minded member and I always listen with attention to what he has to say, but this time he comes here and accuses me of all sorts of amazing things. He says I am bringing a new principle of parliamentary government into this House, the principle that the Opposition no longer participates in Parliament. But we have heard them for weeks! He says they have no influence, and he says we are moving towards a totalitarian system and a Nazi system. Really, I think that is quite pathetic. What it amounts to is that they want to rule the country, and they want to do so with 40 seats. They put amendments which we were not prepared to accept. They wanted a mixed council. But that is against the principle of this legislation. But they wanted it and they proposed amendments to that effect, and when we rejected the amendments they say that we are dictators. [Interjections.] I want to put this to hon. members. This old claptrap of totalitarianism I thought would have been dead in this House by 1969, but it still comes out. The hon. member for Durban (Central) did not refer to me as an inadequate Minister, or say that he felt sorry for the Indians, but he said that I was worse than Molotov; I would not accept amendments. But what amazed me about the hon. member for Durban (Central) who was so courageous this afternoon, was that when it came to clause 21 of the Bill he disappeared from the House, whereas previously on the Fort Hare Bill he voted against the principle that that university should be for non-Whites only. Now it is not morality or any principle; now it is just a matter of political convenience on the part of the hon. member. With all his big talk I wonder why he did not refer to this particular clause in regard to which he was so courageous when he stood there alone behind the hon. member for Houghton. But this time he kept very quiet.

Now let me get back to the original matters which were raised. The hon. member for Mooi River criticized my attitude to the Indian community as a whole. He said that I turned my back on them and I was like a stone wall in my attitude towards the Indian community.

To our amendments.

He said I was opposed to the amendments which were moved by hon. members opposite, proposed by them by virtue of their great interest in the Indian community. He said I treated them with a certain amount of contempt because I produced the same sort of Bill which was introduced in regard to the Bantu. He said I should not have brought in the same type of Bill as was introduced for the Bantu universities. He said my diplomatic silence to the Opposition was to be deplored. Let me just analyze the position. I admit that I listened for many days to the hon. members opposite, not only in the Second Reading but also in the Committee Stage, and I accepted certain thoughts that they produced and I made amendments where I thought it was necessary to do so. But I was not prepared to accept amendments on matters of principle; so I turned them down, and I did not care whether the Opposition liked it or not or whether they shouted to high heaven. This is how we on this side of the House intend this Bill to go through. I might also say that I am not even going to reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, because I am not going to be treated by that hon. member in the way he treated me personally. But are they really concerned about the Indian community? I think they are only trying to create suspicion in regard to this university. This department had discussions with the Indian Advisory Council. We went into the whole of the legislation with an all-Indian body, but the hon. members are trying to indicate that this is inadequate and unsatisfactory and that the whole attitude of this Government is really to ignore the Indian community, and it is not so. But of course those hon. members have been taking this line for so long that they have become used to it. But they are not making any headway. To-day their so-called influence that they had in the past is waning with the Indian community. I have spoken to the Indian Council and from those discussions has come some constructive work. But I do not find much constructive effort on the part of the Opposition in this House. All the aspects of this matter were discussed with the Indians. But the hon. member says we should not have coupled this legislation with the other legislation for the Bantu. But it was explained to them that this is their charter. This is not their time-table. The whole time-table of development is not tied to one bit of legislation; it is tied to a charter. This Indian university legislation can be amended. It can be implemented much faster than that for the other universities, depending on what the Government considers is in the interest of the Indians and to the best advantage of the country as a whole, and we will do that.

Are you prepared to say how you see that happening?

I am quite prapared to say it. But one thing that will not happen is that we will have a mixed council as hon. members opposite want, and I would say that in a few years’ time those hon. members will support us in having an all-Indian council. But now we prefer this system.

Will the Minister explain why he is in favour of having Whites and Indians on the council for higher technical education, as against an all-White council for the University which has higher status?

Because this was the pattern which this Government applied to all the non-White universities. Eventually there will be all non-White control. We feel that this is the best way of doing it. Hon. members opposite prefer a system in which you mix them together in a council and they say the White members are then able to advise the non-White members far better. But we disagree fundamentally. [Interjections.] Hon. members know our views in regard to this university and I want to read something to hon. members to show how essential it is because there has been an attempt to suggest that this should not be an Indian university to which the Indians should be admitted freely and the other non-Whites should only be admitted with the consent of the Minister. But our view is that it should be known as and operate as an Indian university, and it will not have a mixed council. Eventually the idea is that it will have an all-Indian council. But I want to read out something to show hon. members how ticklish the whole racial pattern is. This is a report I took from the Sunday Express of March 30th. It does not have a direct bearing on the council, but it refers to the unfortunate development in what is called the “open” universities. And this comes from Durban. The heading is “Non-Whites Jeer at White Students” and the report says—

That is the crux of the whole matter.

It continues—

The view of this Government is that there should eventually be separate non-White universities and that the Indian University should have complete freedom to have its dances and its sport and that it should not be mixed sport. That is the object of this Bill and it is no good hon. members telling me, because I tell them this and they disagree, that I am being a dictator. It is the way in which the Government is going to develop these universities, and the proof of the success of this Indian University, as the hon. member for Kensington admitted, is the number of students who have already registered at the University, and the proof of the bona fides of the Government is the fact that it is spending a large amount of money in developing this Indian University at Chiltern Hills. These are facts and that is why we on this side of the House say this is the pattern we are following. When I say that the Opposition can change that pattern when they move over to the Government benches, that is a fact too. But they cannot expect this side of the House to accept amendments which will fundamentally change the pattern we on this side want. When we point this out to them, it is no good the hon. member for Kensington complaining that this is a complete revolution in parliamentary procedure and that the matter should be reported to the Prime Minister. Is that the position, or is the correct position as I have described it? [Interjection.] In a democratic country the Government governs and it has to take the consequences of its actions. If the people do not want it to be returned to power because its actions are wrong, they will kick it out. Hon. members opposite are already picking their shadow Cabinet; so they must be very optimistic. Then why all this diatribe about us acting undemocratically? I now want to deal with the Second Reading amendment of the hon. member for Kensington. In the Press world, when there is doubt whether something could be libellous, there is a saying “when in doubt leave out”. The Opposition, however, say “when you are in difficulties ask for a select committee”. That is all hon. members on the other side did during the Second Reading debate. The hon. member for Houghton supported them in this regard and the reason she gave was that it was a complete rejection as far as she was concerned. She therefore voted in favour of the appointment of a select committee. There it was: The constructive suggestion for the appointment of a select committee! Would the hon. member for Houghton, who completely rejected the principles of this Bill have supported the hon. members on that side of the House if their request for a select committee was a constructive request? Of course not. The hon. member for Kensington moved an amendment providing for a new university council which would also include nominees from the South African Indian Council.

Why do you not answer the question?

I am answering. The hon. member for South Coast is an old politician and I know he feels that his party is not doing so well … [Interjections].

I am not going to be put off by the hon. member. He did not even speak in this debate. During the Committee Stage the hon. member for Kensington made himself quite clear. He wanted a mixed council and he proposed his amendment in a form that would make it a mixed council. I do not blame the hon. member for that, because it is his point of view. He expressed the point of view of hon. members on that side.

It is the policy of your department.

The hon. member is trying to say that it is the policy of my department. The policy of my department and of this Government as regards the separate universities is on the basis I have described. It is no good the hon. member drawing out from the heavens some other principles. The policy of the Government in regard to this has been declared time and again. I want to congratulate the hon. member on his amendment as regards the senate, a small amendment which seemed so innocuous that a Minister of my unintelligence could easily have fallen for it. The hon. member proposed the substitution for the word “such” of the word “the”. I am now referring to the hon. member’s amendment to clause 10 (1) (c). The whole purpose of this was because “such professors” has quite a different significance to “the professors”. There are certain Indian professors.

Why should they not sit in the senate?

That is against the policy of this side of the House. We say they should sit on an advisory senate. Eventually this university will have an all-Indian senate and an all-Indian council.

Why?

Because it is the policy of this Government. The reason is because this Government is going to have these universities controlled by the non-Whites and not by mixed councils.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? From what the hon. the Minister said previously I gather that the council consisting of Whites will eventually be replaced by an all-Indian council or senate. Can the Minister perhaps elaborate on how he understands this process will take place?

No, I am not going to elaborate other than to tell the hon. member that the whole intention with the establishment of an all-Indian advisory council is to take the place of the council that is operating at the present moment. It is not going to be a mixed council in which gradually the Whites will be thrown out and be replaced by Indians. It is not going to be like that. This Bill provides for the establishment of an all-White council and an all-Indian advisory council.

Will an all-Indian council take over at some stage?

When the Government considers that the time is ripe, and after discussions with the various bodies, this is the pattern that will be followed. [Interjections].

Order! Hon. members must give the Minister an opportunity of replying to this debate.

I know that when I have finished hon. members will again complain that they have not received a proper reply …

Hear, hear!

… because it is the usual pattern followed by the United Party. I now want to deal with another aspect. The hon. member for Mooi River talked about this advisory council. He said something which I thought was an unfortunate reference, namely that all members of this advisory council are only there to say “ja baas”. Did the hon. member use the words “ja baas”?

I said the members of the advisory council can only learn how to say “ja baas”.

The hon. member is already trying to run away from that which he tried to imply.

He said so.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said. The hon. member for Gardens says “He said so”, but he was not even in the House at the time.

He said so now.

The hon. member said that the trouble with the advisory council was that all its members could say was “ja baas”. This is a great reflection on the all-Indian advisory council. I am now going to read out the names of the members of this all-Indian advisory council. They have not been elected, but have been appointed by the Minister. I want to read out their names, as I did on a previous occasion with the members of the Indian Council. The first is Mr. Rajab, B.A., who is the chairman. He is a prominent businessman and a director of companies. He is a cultural leader in Natal, an expert on oriental art and Islamic culture and a member of the executive committee of the South African Indian Council. I wonder why the hon. member should consider that a man like that is only going to say “ja baas”.

On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has quoted me wrongly. I said that as a result of the binding by the Minister, the advisory council will only be able to learn from the council how to say “ja baas”. Those were the words I used and to which the hon. the Minister referred.

I am quite prepared to accept the explanation of the hon. member, but I still make the point that his reference to “ja baas” was unfortunate. The whole implication was that members of this council will be appointed by the Minister and that they will only listen to what the Minister told them to decide.

The next member of this council is Mr. Bodasing, Chairman of the Natal Indian Cane Growers’ Association; then there are Mr. Desai, who is an industrialist, prominent in various Indian organizations; Dr. Ismail, a medical practitioner; Mr. Joosub, a director of companies, Pretoria, and Chairman of the South African Indian Council. So I can go on. These are Indian men of quality and from my point of view I resent the remarks and the insinuations of the hon. member.

How can you resent what I did not say?

The hon. member cannot get away from the fact that he indicated that the only basis on which these people can operate, is on a “ja baas”-basis. He can talk himself out of it as much as he likes, but I did not use the words “ja baas”. The hon. member did, and however he tries to explain it away, he cannot do so.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I do think that the personal remarks coming from that side of the House are most objectionable. I really do. On previous occasions I have complained and I think the personal remarks made by hon. members towards a Minister are most unparliamentary, and I would bring this to the notice of the hon. member for Kensington, who tries to maintain Parliamentary procedure.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

No. The Chair cannot always hear the undignified remarks from that side of the House.

You are squealing.

Order!

No, I am not squealing. I know hon. members opposite so well that they cut no ice with me whatsoever—no ice whatsoever [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add one final word, and that is that I am convinced that this Indian University is going to develop from strength to strength, as it has already done, and that it will be a credit to the Indian community. It will be run on the basis of collaboration and discussion between the Government and the Indian people. It will not be conducted on the basis of exploitation by the Opposition. It will not be deterred by all their nasty comments and all their attempts to belittle the good work this Government is doing.

Motion put and the House divided:

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

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the Second Reading debate I went briefly into the various uses to which the sea off our coast and the sea-shore were being put, and I referred in particular to the multiplicity of regulations which were being made by various local authorities under the Sea-shore Act. The Bill itself, as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, gives local authorities the power to differentiate between different kinds of users of the sea-shore and the sea adjacent to the coast. As he said, it gives them the power, for example, to discriminate between members of maritime clubs and non-members; it gives them also the power to discriminate between different kinds of boats used on the sea, for example, power boats and yachts, and one can easily imagine a considerable conflict of interests can arise between such users. I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, regarding the differentiation between different users of the sea areas, the fact that there is no uniformity of regulations governing the inland waters, and I want him to deal with that matter at some appropriate time. Secondly, the Act permits the Minister to let the sea-shore for certain specified purposes, for example, for the erection of beach facilities, beach huts, pavilions, quays and landing stages. It also provides for the removal of certain marine matter, for example, seaweed and sand, and for the delegation of powers to Government officers for the purpose of enforcing regulations.

The reason why I have decided to speak at this stage of the Bill is simply to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are a number of amendments to the Sea-shore Act, and that there are a great number of regulations made by local authorities under the terms of the Sea-shore Act. I should like to suggest to him that the time has come for a consolidated Act to be brought before Parliament. I commend that to him. I think particularly of the need for consolidation of the law governing the seashore, the sea adjacent to the coasts, the bed of the sea and the territorial sea. I have raised such matters as the width of the territorial sea under the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs. I believe that the time has now come for a consolidation of all regulations governing the sea-shore and the sea adjacent to our coasts. I would commend this to the Minister for his consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the inland waters I must tell the hon. member for Simonstown that this Act applies to the seashore only, and not to inland waters. I think his idea that the law relating to the sea-shore should be consolidated is something to which we can give attention. That would be a positive step. I thank him for that suggestion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, at the Second Reading stage of this Bill the hon. member for Newton Park indicated that we on this side of the House accepted the principle, but we felt that the objects set out in this clause, the new section 4, were objects which were proper for the guidance, powers and privileges of a body such as the National Parks Board of Trustees, and so on. I do not say anything against that. But dealing with the English side of the Bill, I must say that I hope that the Minister before the Third Reading will get somebody to have a look at it. I frankly do not like the misuse of the English language as it is set out here; particularly when I look at the use of the word “object”, as used in the sentence “The object of the constitution of a park is the establishment …” Then it goes on “preservation and study therein of wild animal, marine and plant life”. I do not like the terms “wild animal” and “plant life”. Those are not good terms for our legislation.

This appears in the existing Act. I do not think we can discuss it at this stage. We can merely discuss the amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, fair enough. But when all is said and done, it is all qualified now by the word “establishment”. This is the new word that has been brought in. It shows that the object is the “establishment”, etc. Then the following new lines are inserted, namely “or objects relating to the said life or the first mentioned objects or to events in or the history of the park”. That has to be related to the establishment of the park. I am sorry, but the wording that is used by importing the existing wording in the Act after the word “establishment” and before the words that are underlined in lines 11, 12 and 13, wrecks the grammar of that clause completely by the mere introduction of the “establishment”. So long as the object was the “preservation and study therein of wild animal”, etc., it was quite all right. But when once one brings in the question of the word “establishment”, the matter takes on a different flavour altogether. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister who is piloting this Bill, will really take an opportunity between now and the Third Reading to have a good look at it and see whether he would not like the language changed to bring it more into line with the accepted rules of the English grammar.

Mr. Speaker, I think I can agree with the hon. member for South Coast in this respect. The drafters of the Bill had the erection of a statue in mind. That is why they introduced the word “establishment”. The word “establishment” is used in respect of a statue. But they forget that “wild animal and marine life”, etc., are mentioned in the same breath. We shall go into the matter and then I shall give a further explanation at the Third Reading stage.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we have certain amendments on the Order Paper which will bring about, if carried, the deletion of some of the bodies provided for in this Bill, and that the definitions in the clause would thereby be affected, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

In subsection (1) certain powers are granted to the University of the Western Cape, powers which one would normally expect and which are peculiar to an independent institution. Moreover, it is quite clear that this institution is capable in law of suing and being sued in a lawsuit. As I have said, this is something peculiar to an independent institution. Normally this provision is included in other university legislation as well. Immediately following subsection (1) there are certain subsections which gives evidence of a lack of confidence in those people whose duty it will be to run an institution such as this. Moreover, it is also clear that the hon. the Minister is interfering quite openly in this regard. There is no obvious reason for this interference, unless the hon. the Minister is able to give one during the Committee Stage of this Bill. When an institution such as this is placed on the road to higher status, it should also be entrusted with additional responsibility. For this additional responsibility greater confidence should be placed in the council and the senate which are going to excercise control over this institution. However, by including this provision in this clause, the hon. the Minister gives this institution to understand that it will always be a university college and that it is merely the name or description of the institution which is going to be changed. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of clause 2, the one which has just been approved, the University College of the Western Cape will become the University of the Western Cape as from a particular date. We do not think the hon. the Minister will do this overnight, for example, from the moment this Bill is approved at the Third Reading. One can expect this to take quite some time before this institution will really be a university in the true sense of the word. I therefore think the hon. the Minister should accept this amendment of ours. Let us, for example, observe subsection (3) of this Bill. In terms of this subsection the institution may not accept any donation without the approval of the hon. the Minister. I find this provision in terms of which the institution may not receive any donation without the approval of the hon. the Minister, quite preposterous. Personally, I think this will have a detrimental effect on the development of this institution. Why should the acceptance of a donation of this nature, when it is made, be subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister? The Coloured people are on a much higher stage of development than any other non-white race group in South Africa. Moreover, I think the Coloured people are among those who are most experienced when it comes to the University College of the Western Cape. Quite a great deal more can be entrusted to both the council and the senate of the institution than can be entrusted to any other institution for any other population group which is not a white population group. Therefore I do not think a provision such as the one contained in subsection (3), for example, would be to the advantage of this institution. Moreover, this undoubtedly makes it very difficult for any donor who wants to make a contribution or bequeath money to this institution in some form or other, whether in a will or otherwise. This immediately places the University of the Western Cape in a less favourable position vis-à-vis any other institution. I think the prospective donor will be hesitant to make a donation of this nature when he knows about a provision such as this, because he knows the donation is subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister. I cannot see how anybody wanting to make a donation will make it to the detriment of the institution or that he will lay down conditions which the senate and the council of this institution are not prepared to accept. If a donor were to make a donation the conditions of which are not acceptable to the council or the senate, it could be left to them to decide, but why expect that the Minister himself should give his approval when a donation of this nature is made? Subsection (4) of clause 3—we propose that it be deleted—inter alia, lays down—

Here an explicit lack of confidence is displayed once more in the possibility that this university might be in good hands. I do not know of any similar provision which applies to one single white university to which autonomous powers have been granted and in the council of which we have placed our trust. I do not know of one similar provision at any of the white universities. I am satisfied that one may quite rightly and confidently leave these powers in the hands of the authorities of the institution concerned. I do not think they will do anything which will be to the detriment of that institution. Neither can I imagine that they will purchase their stores and equipment in an extravagant way, thereby exceeding the limits of the funds which this institution has at its disposal. Why choose this way to disturb the sound order and the sound working of this university by prescribing ministerial approval?

The hon. the Minister places the institution on the road towards higher status, but the provisions contained in this clause do not amount to a higher status. It simply means that the university will be curbed even further, that the hon. the Minister will either approve or disapprove while the authorities who should really have that responsibility should not have this power. During the Second Reading debate hon. members on the opposite side of the House took pride in saying that it was essential for the University to have this higher status. If this higher status is essential, let us display sufficient confidence in those authorities in this clause by amending it in the way we on this side of the House proposed in this amendment. I trust that the hon. the Minister will accept it in that way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park said that this provision was not one you would expect to apply to an independent institution such as the University of the Western Cape. I just want to tell the hon. member that this institution cannot be completely independent and that this institution therefore is not completely independent. The institution will not be independent financially. It was said here—and this is so—that the State contributes more than 70 per cent towards the cost of the universities. If need be, this may be considerably more in the case of the non-white universities. In other words, financially this institution will be dependent on the Government. The hon. member said there was a lack of confidence in the institution in its infantile stage. This is the second mistake he made, because what about the Rand Afrikaans University? I do not find it necessary to advance arguments of this nature again, because mention has already been made of this before. It was said that section 4 (2) of the Rand Afrikaans University Act lays down that the university shall not let, exchange or otherwise alienate any immovable property or grant to any person any real right in or servitude on its property without the approval of the Minister. Does this also amount to a lack of confidence? No, financial control and accountability is absolutely essential. For that reason such control is essential, particularly in the initial stages when an institution such as this has not found its feet yet. Interference is justified in this case. After all, the old saying goes: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. Even though one would not like to apply this in its entirety on universities, it is, in any case, quite necessary to apply it in this case at first. The imposition of responsibility is something which takes place gradually. Also, the entire idea of higher educational institutions is a process in which responsibility, from the college to the university, is obtained gradually. In the case of the universities of the non-white population groups we should not act too hastily in giving those people full responsibility, because they do not have the finances. But even if this is of minor importance, they still do not have the academicians and the people who are willing to accept this responsibility. In view of this, I do not want to discuss this at length, but I want to come to the conclusion that this is no reason why we should now give powers to institutions such as that of the Western Cape or to any of those universities which remains to be established and leave them entirely to themselves, as it were, while we are not prepared to give these powers to an institution such as the Rand Afrikaans University which, surely, is entitled to handle their own affairs in their own way to an even greater extent. This process of granting responsibility gradually, is embodied in the whole of the policy of apartheid, in the relationship as it exists at present and this is also how the Government view these matters. This was stated as long ago as 1959. I do not think hon. members should be concerned that we are not engaged in a process of gradually granting more and more responsibilities to these people as they become increasingly able to bear them.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Gordonia I do not know whether he really knew what he was talking about when he referred to a gradual assumption of responsibility. The university is quoted here and the university is defined in clause 4 as consisting of the council, the advisory council, the senate and a whole lot of people appointed by the hon. the Minister. So with respect to the hon. member I really do not think he knew what he was talking about. What I find so strange about this particular clause is that in clause 3 (1) the university as a corporate body has the power to do a great many things. The university through the council and the senate, consisting of all the people whom the Minister himself appoints, has power to sue in a court of law and to take all sorts of far-reaching actions on its behalf. This can be done in very extensive and responsible fields. We are quite happy about that. Clause 3 (1) is in fact identical with the same section in the University of Port Elizabeth’s statute which was the last one passed in this House. But when it comes to the Minister’s approval having to be given for receiving donations—I do not intend repeating the arguments used by this side in regard to these universities—we disapprove of this proviso completely. I find it so strange that this Bill should have been drafted on precisely the same lines as the Fort Hare Transfer Bill of 1959.

There may have been some justification for using this legislation as the prototype for the so-called Bantu universities. I agree entirely with my colleagues, who argued that it should not have been the prototype for the Indian University Bill. I find that this is the strangest aspect of the whole thing; that the provisions of this Bill are in fact identical with the provisions of all the other Bills. Surely, the stage of development of these different groups of our population is something that the authorities must take into consideration in drafting their legislation. May I say, Sir, that when it comes to the question of controlling the supply of equipment and stores under subsections (4) (a) and (b), the deletion of which we have moved, surely the hon. the Minister must know that Coloured principals to-day in charge of secondary and high schools have more responsibility and in fact far greater rights in this regard than are going to be given to the council of this university or to the university as a Whole, in terms of this Bill? Although the members of the Council are all going to be Europeans. With the exception of the members of the advisory senate and the advisory council, the Minister himself is ultimately responsible for approving these appointments. I find it most peculiar that in this instance the control of stores and equipment needed for the running of the university, should not be left to the people who presumably are going to act responsibly, or else they would not be appointed by the hon. the Minister in the first place. I do not wish to say any more, Sir, except that I would like the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the fact that a secondary school principal has greater powers of control over stores that he orders for his establishment while in fact the council of Europeans appointed by the Minister at this university is not going to have as much control over stores.

Both the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Wynberg proceeded from the assumption and complained that this University of the Western Cape was being treated too much on the same basis as the universities for Bantu in the provisions of the law, and then the argument was advanced that the stage of development of the Coloured people was much higher than that of the Bantu and that the restrictions imposed on the Bantu universities should not be imposed on the Coloured university. But hon. members make the error in their reasoning by not treating the Coloured people as a separate group, but immediately to enforce and demand for them the same privileges and rights as that of the white universities. It is typical of the Opposition to advance the argument that the Coloured people should be treated as a separate group, but then they always do so in terms of the requirements laid down for white universities. After all, it is evident both from the Bill as a whole and from the clause concerned that the Government and the Minister, in this situation are very definitely and very thoroughly taking into account the circumstances of the Coloured population and the stage of development they have reached, which is not yet the same as that of the Whites. Consequently, we cannot treat the Coloured university on the same basis as white universities in this case.

We have to view this provision and the others on which amendments were moved, against the background of what the objects of this measure are. It is the object of this measure to grant academic independence, not to grant autonomy; this is what lies at the root of this provision. I admitted in my Second Reading speech that we were not granting autonomy in terms of this measure. This is not so and we do not intend misleading the Coloureds or anybody else, but that this is a great move forward in the development of the university, is as clear as a pikestaff. Something which also concerns this matter is the fact that the State provides virtually all the finances of this university. All its current expenses are borne by us. All in all it amounts to the State contributing almost all the finances and because this is so and because we have to account to this Parliament for the way in which public funds are spent, it is the duty of the Government to see to it that it has means at its disposal and that it should adopt measures to enable it to exercise control over these financial aspects.

Why should there be control over donations then?

While this university has only reached this stage of development, we have to see to it that no donations are made to this university with ulterior political motives. We are aware of the fact that donations with ulterior motives were made in the past, and when people make donations with political motives it is the duty of the Government, through its Minister, to take the necessary steps, but if no ulterior motives are attached to donations, there is no reason why donations may not be made to the university. But until such time as we are convinced that this method is not going to be abused the Government will retain these powers.

Reference was also made to subclause (2). The hon. member for Gordonia has replied to this clause in a proper manner and I do not find it necessary to repeat what he said. The Opposition also wants subclause (4) to be deleted. This power may be delegated either to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs or to an official or to the council itself in terms of other powers provided for in this measure. In practice instructions will be framed to exercise sound control over the stores and equipment.

The hon. member for Wynberg expressed her regret that this measure was framed on the basis of the Fort Hare measure. This is so; we said so in no uncertain terms. This measure arises out of the 1959 Act and as such this is a major step forward. The fact that this measure bears a resemblance with the Fort Hare measure does not serve to disqualify this measure, but at the same time it is no guarantee that university measures will all be the same in future. We are beginning a new deal for these universities where each one of them is now getting its own statute. Rather than coming to this House with one umbrella measure covering all these university colleges, we felt that each university college should be given its own statute, not only to give the university college a feeling of pride but also to make possible its development within that statute. The university institutions of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians will probably not develop at the same rate. The rate of development of these universities will depend on the various population groups, and as the universities develop this House will be asked in future to amend the law and it may be that the Bantu Universities Act and this Act may not be amended at the same time. This will be determined in future by the people attached to these institutions themselves. This is a challenge to them and I do not doubt that the Coloureds will accept this challenge to show what this institution can do on its way to autonomy.

I was very interested in the hon. the Minister’s reply and I hope not unduly encouraged by what he had to say. Can we justifiably gather from what he has said that the time may well come when this university, according to the rate at which it progresses and establishes itself and builds up a good tradition, will have a statute of its own just as other universities in the country have their own statutes?

Yes, certainly. The object of our policy of parallel development—and I am confining my remarks specifically to this university—is that this university should become an absolutely independent and autonomous university; it is our ambition and our aim that the staff of this university will ultimately consist of Coloureds only; it is our ambition that the rector of this university will be a Coloured in course of time; it is our ambition that the council of this university will consist of Coloureds in time to come. How long it will take to achieve this, depends on the Coloured people and not on the Government. I want to say again what I have been saying to Coloured deputations all along and as I said to them last week again, namely that we as Whites will not forsake them before they are able to stand on their own feet. I am giving that assurance again now as far as this development is concerned. It is the aim that they should ultimately provide all the staff for these universities and take them over, but until then the control provided for in this measure is absolutely essential.

I rise just to deal with the statement which has been made by the hon. member for Gordonia and referred to by the hon. the Minister, i.e. that a provision similar to subclause (2) appears in the Act of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit. Sir, that is quite correct; the wording is identical, but I think the point that has to be borne in mind is that in the case of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, the council which is vested with the power to govern and control the university, is not an appointed council; it is elected and the members are nominated by various outside bodies. In that instance the argument that the Government must retain control can be justified because it has no power over the appointment of the council itself.

That is a technical difference.

I think it should be recorded that there is this difference. In this particular instance the council is, of course, nominated by the Government. The Government has that power of control over the proposed Coloured university in that the members of its council are nominated by the Government, as against an elected, independent council in the case of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit. I appreciate that it will make no difference to the reply which the hon. the Minister has given. He has expressed his views with regard to control but I thought that for the sake of the record it should be stated clearly that the two are not identical because of the method of constitution of the councils.

I admit that difference, but I submit that it is only a technical difference.

The hon. the Minister said that the goal which they hoped to attain with this Bill was a greater degree of academic independence and not autonomy for the university. Sir, I accept that. He went on to say that their object was the gradual development of the Coloured people. He mentioned just now that this would lead ultimately to their taking over the university when they are ready for it. Sir, this raises certain questions which I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to clarify. First of all, can he tell us how he hopes this change will gradually take place? We have at the moment a white council and a Coloured Advisory council, a white senate and we hope ultimately a Coloured Advisory senate. As I see it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the advisory council and the advisory senate will ultimately disappear and we will have a Coloured council and a Coloured senate. How does he anticipate this will take place?

Order! What has that to do with clause 3?

This is the point which the hon. the Minister made, Sir. If you would prefer me to deal with it under clause 4, I am prepared to do it then.

It has nothing to do with clause 3 as far as I can see.

This deals with the question of control, but I am prepared to deal with it under clause 4, if you prefer me to do so.

The hon. member can deal with it under clause 4.

There is just one other question that I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of the control of the university under this clause. He says that these various universities—Fort Hare, Zululand, the North, Durban (Westville) and this one—will develop at a different rate; he concedes that point. He says that amendments will be made to their statutes according to the development of each particular university. In saying that, does he imply that at this stage all the Bantu groups, the Indians and the Coloureds have reached the same stage of development?

It is interesting that the United Party wants this clause deleted. After all, this is the normal position. Somebody has to accept responsibility. While the State is responsible for all the finances, it has to carry the responsibility, even as far as the universities are concerned. The State cannot simply dish out its money. The State is responsible to the taxpayers. As it is, this Government and this Minister are also responsible for the Coloureds, who are taxpayers along with the Whites in the same way as, for example, at schools for Whites. This is the normal position in all the ordinances and in all legislation. In terms of the ordinances the Administrator is responsible for the property of the State. Somebody has to accept the responsibility. From the nature of the case the Minister will not accept all these responsibilities himself. There are certain powers he delegates to the officials. But somebody has to accept the responsibility and I think it is extremely irresponsible for the Opposition to have suggested this. They do not come forward with an alternative. They do not say who should be responsible. [Interjections.] It was said during the Second Reading—and the Minister has said so too—that one would have liked these people to accept the responsibility, but such people were not available. The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about confidence; we are supposed to display a spirit of noconfidence in the Coloureds. But who placed more confidence in the Coloureds—this side of the House or that side? After all, they were also in power for a number of years and under their regime a Coloured person never had the opportunity of becoming an inspector or be appointed to a high position in the Public Service.

They merely took advantage of his vote.

Yes, he was merely used as a political football. But what this Government did, was to show its confidence in the Coloured population by appointing Coloureds in high positions.

Order! The hon. member should come back to the clause. It has nothing to do with the matter he is discussing now.

The present Coloured leaders, except a few individuals, did not raise any objections to either this legislation or this clause. On the contrary, the present Coloured Council accepts this legislation. They are grateful that the Minister and the Government accept this responsibility on their behalf, and who are the people who object? It is the United Party. But the United Party does not speak on behalf of the Coloured leaders here. Which Coloured leaders have asked the United Party to speak on his behalf? I have not come across one single prominent Coloured leader who has objected either to the Minister having to accept responsibility or to this legislation. On the contrary, I heard them ask: Please do not forsake us; accept the responsibility on our behalf until such time as we will be able to take over the responsibility ourselves. As the Minister said, we on this side of the House hope it will not be long before the Coloured people are in a position to take over such responsibility.

I just want to raise one or two points in reply to the hon. member for Malmesbury. He spoke about the tremendous progress made by the Coloured people, so much so that some of them are even school inspectors to-day. I accept that the Coloured people have made tremendous progress but if they had made such progress, why cannot they take over responsibility for the administration of this University? And in the same breath the hon. member asks where the people must come from, the people that are required? But the same question may be asked: where is the Minister going to get the people? But all I know, is that clause 4 contains a definition of whom this University will consist of, and all hon. members on this side ask, is: Let the University itself be responsible for the purchasing of the stores and let them be responsible to decide whether they may accept a donation or a bequest. The Minister wants that power, and the hon. member for Malmesbury also wants to know where those people must come from. Here are the people who can do all those things, and the power which is given to these people is, in any case, so insignificant that I think the Minister may quite rightly give it to them. If the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment, it will give those people greater confidence and they will learn more quickly how to run an institution of this nature in a proper manner. I hope the hon. the Minister will view the matter in that light.

I just want to reply to one question put to me by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He asked me whether all these non-white universities were on one and the same level because we were creating the same pattern for them. No, we do not regard them to be on the same level. We are merely offering them the course along which they can develop according to their own abilities, and their level will be determined by this development in future.

First amendment put and negatived.

Remaining amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

Order! I cannot allow the last part of the amendment on the Order Paper, dealing with the convocation.

Then perhaps you can enlighten me, Sir. The Preambles to all the University Acts that exist in the country read—and let us take the one dealing with the University of Port Elizabeth as follows—“to establish a university … and to provide for the administration and control of the affairs of that university, for the regulation of its activities and for matters incidental thereto”. That is relevant to the whole principle of the establishment of a university. Surely the creation of a university is involved.

Order! I have given my ruling on four previous Bills in regard to this issue and I am not going to allow the matter to be argued again. I am unable to accept the amendment in connection with the convocation as it seeks to establish a body not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

The rest of the amendment concerns the advisory senate and the advisory council. I need hardly say that as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, for all practical, administrative and academic purposes, these advisory bodies have no real value, as we see it, particularly in view of the composition of the advisory senate. I cannot help drawing the Minister’s attention to the following by means of comparison. He refuses to have sitting on these bodies Whites and Coloureds, however well qualified, at the same time, but the Minister knows very well that under this Administration for many years Coloured representatives and white representatives sat together on the old Cape School Board, and under this Administration that still happens on other bodies including the local authorities. Surely there must be a great deal of day-by-day co-operation within the Department of Coloured Affairs itself. I refer to the process of handing over a large section of the Department which we have recently been told about, to the Coloured people themselves. Can the Minister tell us that the white senior officials are not going to sit round a table and thrash out their difficulties with these Coloured people? Of course that must be (the case. In regard to this advisory council and the senate, it is very curious that our friends in the Nationalist Party apparently have no difficulty in meeting these people at various levels in the Defence Force or in the Police Force, where Coloureds are being trained, and in regard to so many aspects of their lives where they are in the process of training. I cannot understand for the life of me why in this instance Coloured academic people, who would not be appointed to academic posts unless they were competent to do the work, cannot be allowed to cooperate on the senate. Why cannot they and white lecturers work on the same body for academic purposes? It absolutely defeats me, and I do not know whether the Minister can really adduce any adequate argument in defence of his proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with the question of the councils and advisory councils and their constitution. The clause of course, is silent as to whether the councils or the advisory council should consist of one or other race group, or whether they should be mixed or entirely of one race group. We accept, and I take it that it is correct, that it is the intention that the council and the senate should in each instance consist of white persons and that the advisory council and the advisory senate shall consist of Coloured persons. I want to project into the future the approach which the hon. the Minister has so far as this university is concerned. It is that it will develop, improve in status and, one can anticipate, will become a Coloured-controlled university in the years to come. There is a period of change from what it is now, that is to say, completely white-controlled as far as the executive powers are concerned, to complete Coloured-control. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not agree with me that there must come a time in the course of transition when the white and Coloured persons must sit together on either the council or the senate. I appreciate it that that is not prohibited by this clause as it is. There is nothing in this Bill before us to prohibit that. However, I, for the life of me, cannot see how that transfer can take place without an intermediate period of co-operation and sitting together on these bodies. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would perhaps indicate to us how he visualizes this transition taking place which he hopes and we all hope will take place within the reasonably near future when the Coloureds will have control over their own university. I would appreciate it and I ask it, because it is a problem in my own mind.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should spend some time on dealing with this amendment moved by us. The amendment seeks to do away with the advisory senate and the advisory council. This matter was discussed during the Second Reading. At that time the hon. the Minister gave, in advance, his point of view in connection with this matter. As it were, he revealed in advance that he would not accept such an amendment. The explanation which the hon. the Minister gave in his speech as well as across the floor of the House was that that would amount to “integration”. His reply amounted to his being able to see that Whites and Coloureds could work together, sit together and study together. They could mix socially at the university, they could mix academically and they could mix culturally. He could see them mixing in virtually any capacity, except in an executive capacity. In terms of his definition this was therefore inadmissible, as this alone constituted integration.

The hon. the Minister is extremely fond of the word foolish (“sotlik”). If he were to go through his Hansard he would see that he very often applied that word to the arguments of others. I want to avoid that, however, because I want us rather to make an attempt to view this matter in a serious light. I must say, however, that that is the kind of word I would have used if I had wanted to react in the same way as the hon. the Minister did. I prefer to say that the hon. the Minister’s view of this matter is completely wrong. There is no such thing as a kind of integration which the hon. the Minister can describe with one word and say that that alone constitutes integration. There are different kinds of integration. There is in fact executive integration, but also work integration. When people work together, that constitutes work integration. Then there is social integration. There can also be cultural and academic integration, as in fact there is here. There is biological integration, there is residential integration. There is a whole number of forms of integration. For the hon. the Minister to single out only one, i.e. people mixing on an executive level, and to say that that alone was integration, does not hold water and is not an intelligent argument. What does our amendment embrace? We do not like to use the word integration in relation to people, because the Government has unfortunately given it an unfavourable connotation. That is why it is a pity that the hon. the Minister used that word at all in connection with this Bill when the Whites are bent on helping the Coloureds to make progress. We view this matter in a practical light. We are and remain what we are. One remains an Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking person, one remains a White person or a Coloured person. Where one is living with others in the same country and is sharing the country with others, however, there are certain levels on which there will have to be co-operation and mutual consultation without sacrificing personality or identity. Here we have a Coloured university. As regards this university it is a foregone conclusion that Whites and Coloureds co-operate on many levels.

Order! The hon. member should really not make another Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, if you can tell me in what respect this is a Second Reading speech I shall accept it.

The hon. member is covering a very wide field in his speech. All these arguments were used during a previous debate.

We are now discussing the question of co-operation on the council and senate. I am keeping to the same point, surely, and I am not elaborating on other points. If you would point out to me exactly where I am at fault, I shall obviously accept your ruling.

The hon. member must simply come back to the clause.

I have never deviated from it. There is co-operation between Whites and Coloureds in the academic sphere at this university, there is co-operation between Whites and Coloureds, in the cultural sphere. There is also co-operation in the general operation of the university. Surely it cannot be otherwise. If not, the university cannot make any progress. Surely there must be co-operation and consultation in connection with libraries and organization. Everywhere on the campus there is going to be co-operation and consultation between Coloureds and Whites. It cannot be otherwise. Seeing that we already have work integration, academic integration and cultural integration at the university, what then is the real reason why these people may not sit together in order to work out the general welfare of the university? We are not speaking of integration. On the contrary, we are speaking of co-operation. What this amendment seeks to achieve is that there should be co-operation in the highest body between all who are concerned in the welfare and the future of the university. After all, this is a Coloured University for Coloureds. They have competent people and I think they are entitled to serve on the highest executive body of their university. I do not think there is any logic in the standpoint of the hon. the Minister. As far as we ourselves are concerned, I hope the hon. the Minister will not advance the argument once again that this constitutes integration. To us this constitutes co-operation. Such co-operation is nothing new. The hon. the Minister cannot say in any way that this is a matter of principle as far as he is concerned. In all churches, including our own church, the Dutch Reformed Church, the white minister sits with Coloureds on the church council of a Coloured congregation. Consequently there is “executive integration”. Such “executive integration” also exists in the Synod. If this is wrong in principle, then I ask myself how can one be a member of a church which accepts this? The hon. the Minister calls it integration. We call it cooperation. The hon. the Minister cannot, however, accept it as the policy of a political party. Is the one then so much more important than the other?

Not in the case of a university.

Yes, the hon. the Minister cannot accept it in the case of the university either. Nevertheless he and I and all of us sitting here, who are members of the Dutch Reformed Church, are prepared to accept it in the case of the Church. For this reason I think there is no logic at all in the standpoint of the hon. the Minister. Therefore we suggest in all seriousness that there should only be a senate and a council on which all persons who are competent, Coloureds and Whites, would be able to serve.

Mr. Chairman, I promise the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I shall not use that word again for the moment. However, I do not see my way clear either to reply to this “Race Institute” speech of his as I am a practical person. Because I am a practical person, I shall state my attitude to the point. We are opposed to this one senate and one council only because of one fundamental difference in principle. We do not believe in people sitting together in this way on such a mixed council. This is a fundamental difference between us and the Opposition. The Opposition has this mentality of integration, and it should give full vent to it and try to obtain the support of voters in that regard. However, we simply do not believe in that function of bodies sitting and deciding together.

We can pray together.

It is absolutely outrageous to describe the presence of the people at social or whatever occasions of contact as integration. Then both I as Minister and my officials must surely commit integration with the Coloureds every week because we hold discussions with Coloured delegations every week. When I and my officials sit with them around the big table then surely that is not integration.

What is it then?

If I had not promised to avoid the use of that word I would have liked to use it. That surely is not integration. When I, in my capacity as Minister, with my officials conduct official discussions with those people it is not an occasion where they are deciding with me, as Minister, on how things are to be done. It is an occasion where I, as Minister, listen to their representations and where I can reason with them, where I can give them explanations, but it is not a matter of deciding together about how money is to be spent on this University. That is the basic difference which the hon. member apparently cannot or will not grasp. That is why we have to accept that this is a fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House as far as our views are concerned. We do not believe that we can serve this country in the field of good racial relations with this system of Whites and non-Whites governing together. This is the basic difference. Now the question also is whether this advisory council has any practical value. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House would very much like to belittle the functions of this council. It is to be deplored that this is the case, because this advisory council of the University of the Western Cape has done particularly useful work during the years of its existence. I am going to give you a few examples of the useful work which has been done by them. In 1960, immediately after the constitution of the advisory council, they had the opportunity to join the council and the administration in devising and planning the whole complex of buildings which now exists. They also contributed their ideas on that fine complex of buildings. They had a share in the introduction of new courses such as Law, Commerce, Administration, and so forth. They felt the need for that amongst their own people and they discussed the matter. It was laid before the council and has been embodied in the steps which have since been taken. They advocated classes to be held after hours and they made out such a strong case for such classes that they have since been introduced. At the moment there are already 130 students who attend classes held after hours. This actually is something which resulted from this advisory council’s awareness of a need which existed. They granted assistance in connection with providing students with board and lodging; a very important and necessary task which they are continuing. They started the development fund and they play a particularly active role in this regard. In connection with all these matters they were fully consulted and informed, and their opinions were embodied in this legislation. But to maintain that this body is useless, is surely not the right thing to do; in fact it really is a blot on the zeal of and the sacrifices made by these council members.

No, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment of the Opposition because basically it advocates integration.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister in reply to other hon. members, but I should like to ask him why he gave no reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg in respect of the rector, who is also the vice-chancellor of the University. The hon. member for Wynberg moved that “shall” be omitted and that “may” be substituted.

But the hon. member did not even plead for that.

She may not have pleaded for that, but she did move the amendment. I want to argue that this amendment is a very good one, for the simple reason that under the original clause the vicechancellorship is limited to the rector. There are many universities in South Africa which accept the position that the rector shall also be the vice-chancellor, but then there are also many universities which prefer the vice-chancellor not necessarily to be the rector. If the hon. the Minister accepts the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, the rector can still be the vice-chancellor, but under the present clause he is obliged to be the vice-chancellor as well. I can foresee the possibility that in future the university will want somebody else as vice-chancellor. The University of Stellenbosch is an excellent example in this connection. There the rector is not the vice-chancellor. The vice-chancellor is somebody else, and in that case he is fulfilling an additional duty and function from which that establishment is deriving great benefit. I do not recommend that this clause should provide for something similar, but I do recommend that the hon. the Minister should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member, because it would leave the door open in the event of subsequent changes. If the clause remains as it is, he is obliged to make the rector the vice-chancellor.

Order! The hon. member is repeating himself a great deal now.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, and which has now been supported by the hon. member for Newton Park. I have heard no plea from that side, but the essence of the matter is that this provision, as it stands here, provides that the rector shall be the vice-chancellor. This provision is in full agreement with the position at the Rand Afrikaans University and the University of Port Elizabeth. If it is good for them, it should also be good for the University of the Western Cape. But apart from the fact that it is good for them, it is the best for the University of the Western Cape at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about the so-called mixed councils and the mixed senates. I do not want to anticipate the discussion of clause 9, but I just want to quote from one subsection. Subsection (7) of clause 9 illustrates the point I wish to make. It reads:

In other words, there it makes provision for a mixed body. I cannot see what all the argument that we cannot accept a mixed body for a council or a senate is about.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with the clause which describes the constitution of the university. It reads:

1. (a) a chancellor;
2. (b) a rector, who shall also be the vice-chancellor of the University;
3. (c) a council;
4. (d) an advisory council;
5. (e) a senate;
6. (f) an advisory senate (if an advisory senate is established under section 11);
7. (g) the professors, lecturers and students of the University; and
8. (h) a registrar and the other staff of the University.

I also want to quote section 5 of the Rand Afrikaans University Act, which describes the constitution of that university. This university is the latest university which was established by an Act of this House. It reads:

1. (a) a chancellor;
2. (b) an officer who shall be styled the principal of the University and shall also be the vice-chancellor of the University;
3. (c) a council;
4. (d) a senate;
5. (e) a convocation;
6. (f) the professors, lecturers and students; and
7. (g) the administrative and library staff of the University.

Now, what are the differences? The differences here are that with the University of the Western Cape we have an advisory council and an advisory senate added and with the Rand Afrikaans University we have a convocation for which there is no provision in this clause. It appears that the Minister has made no provision at all for a convocation at this university. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if it is his intention that graduates of this university should continue to associate themselves with this university in any way at all. Is it his intention that they should retain a link with their Alma Mater? Is it his intention that there should be …

Order! The hon. member is now arguing for a convocation, for which no provision is made.

Mr. Chairman, I am arguing on the constitution of this university.

The hon. member is arguing on a convocation. I have ruled that out of order.

With submission, Sir, I accept your ruling that we could not bring an amendment to add a convocation …

Why then does the hon. member argue?

But, Sir, is it now your ruling that we cannot discuss a convocation?

The hon. member may not discuss it either.

Not under this clause or not at all?

Not at all.

Not at all at any stage in this Bill?

It could have been discussed in the Second Reading debate and again in the Third Reading debate, but not under any clause in this Bill.

With submission, Sir, it was discussed under the Second Reading debate. There the whole question …

This is not the Second Reading.

Can I put it this way. I will not refer to a convocation at all, but I want to ask the Minister whether he wishes graduates of this University to give to the University the benefit of their experience at the University and afterwards.

The answer is a positive “yes”.

Will the Minister then tell us how he intends this should take place? How does he intend to give encouragement to graduates of this University, to give them an opportunity to take part in the running of their own university?

I want to come to another aspect. The Minister in his reply just now said he is a practical person and I accept that, but he came with rather an illogical argument. He said the basic difference between this side of the House and that side is that they do not believe in integrated meetings, but he went on to say there will be times when he will meet with Coloured people, with the representatives of the Coloured people. These are integrated meetings. In a previous debate we had the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education telling us how this consultation was going to take place when he said that certain members of the council will sit with and consult with members of the advisory council. Similarly on other occasions certain members of the advisory council will sit and consult with members of the council. Is that not an integrated meeting? We had the late Dr. Verwoerd and we have had the hon. the Prime Minister saying that the meeting together of people of the different racial groups at the highest level is not integration. I will accept that. But this is the highest level of education in this country, and surely we can have a getting together at this high level without the whole of the social structure of South Africa crashing around our ears. Surely the fact of 15 or 20 persons of each group getting together in the interests of education, in the interests of the highest level of education of the Coloured people is not going to break down the social structure of South Africa. I do not want to see this traditional structure of ours being broken down any more than the hon. the Minister does. But he says he is a practical man, so let us be practical about it. Will he tell us how he intends that his council and his advisory council will consult without getting together?

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, particularly in that in his argument he makes use of concepts which are usually applied by Nationalists. He is skillful enough to give a United Party flavour to the concepts we use, and by so doing he creates a kind of confusion when we want to clarify the fundamental differences between the National Party’s point of view in regard to the essence, the constitution and the ideals of a university and that of the United Party. He toyed with various concepts here this afternoon and ranged far and wide. I want to say this to him, Sir, if you will permit me. In respect of tertiary education as well—and also as far as it affects the Coloured population—the National Party has never suggested that there would not be contact or discussion or what ever you want to call it between the Coloured population group and the National Party at a particular stage or at certain times, in regard to whatever facet it may be. However, the difference in approach is the following. We see the establishment of a university for that community in the light of the fact that in respect of the Coloured people too, as in respect of the other non-white communities, the Whites stands in the relationship of guardian to the community in respect of which it maintains the guardianship. In that sense we accept responsibility in respect of that community as well. Consequently, when we come with an innovation such as a university for that community, it will be sui generis. It will have a particular character. As a rule we define a university as a community consisting of students and lecturers, established in order to undertake the threefold task of education, instruction and training, assisted by a management which governs and controls, as well as an administrative staff.

When we look at the constitution in clause 4, we see that it makes sufficient provision for the phenomenon that the white man will act as guardian here and that he, in his own particular ways, will indeed come into a contact situation with the Coloured community. We see in paragraph (g) that the university shall consist of “the professors, lecturers and students of the University”. In other words, there will be a great deal of contact between the Coloureds and the Whites; I am referring now to the white professors and the white lecturers. But in the case of any contact situation one can analyse the situation and say various things. One may say that the contact, the meeting may take place with a certain ideal in mind. The meeting may take place with a particular idea in mind. The meeting may have a particular result. The meeting may have certain causes. There may also be particular arrangements for the meeting between two different communities or race groups. The National Party’s approach in this clause as regards contact with the Coloured people is that it must not be laid down in principle in such a way that it can develop into organic unity with the Coloured community. This is in contrast with the view of the United Party, which wants to see this contact as the beginning of a growth towards organic unity between the Coloured and the white community.

Therefore it is correct that the hon. the Minister said that where we are dealing here with a council and a senate, it is in principle our view that when one forms a controlling body from different groups, one is accepting in principle that that contact could lead to greater organic unity. That is the basic fundamental difference between the view of the National Party and the view of the United Party.

Mr. Chairman, my real reason for rising is to thank the hon. the Minister for once. Before doing so, I just want to reply to the hon. member for Rissik. The trouble with the hon. members on the other side is the fact that they are applying a double standard. They regard one kind of contact as being integration and another kind as not being integration. We on this side reject that. We feel that when we use a word, it should have the same meaning in all situations.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for at least having provided this measure of clarity. What the Minister really wanted to say, was this. He is satisfied with all kinds of contact. He and his officials may sit with the Coloureds, but the relationship must always be one of master and servant. [Interjections.] He did not say it in so many words, but that is what he really meant.

That is an absolutely malicious inference.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “malicious”.

I withdraw it and I say it is an untrue allegation, Sir.

Well, Sir, that is my opinion, and I am entitled to express my opinion. I want to thank the hon. the Minister, but I also want to say to him that there is a fundamental difference between his side and our side. The difference is very clear and we are very grateful to know that we are on a different side. We think the time has come that a white man can, without losing his identity or self-respect, discuss with a Coloured person, in his own right, the mutual interests of both. There is a clear difference, and the fact that the hon. the Minister emphasized it to-day, is to be welcomed and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for doing so.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that with this amendment the United Party has thrown off its disguise. They can no longer try to tell anyone that they are not an integration party. Of what weapon are they trying to deprive us now? They want to abolish the advisory senate and the advisory council. That is the only place of training for the Coloured population where they can come into their own one day so that they will be capable of serving themselves. If we were to discard these two bodies, there would be no other means by which we could bring forward the human resources of the Coloured population in order to give them experience to be able to serve their own people in time to come. This is our only weapon. The United Party wants us to delete this. That would amount to integration. They want a joint council where the Coloured people will never have the opportunity of gaining experience so that in time to come they may perform the task that lies in store for them. Then we would be back where we were in the past. As the Minister said, as long as we are in power, we will never establish a joint council.

Question put: That the word “shall”, in line 22, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Question affirmed and first amendment dropped.

Remaining amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.