Mr. Speaker, next week we shall occupy ourselves mainly with the matter of disposing of the Railway Budget, but if there is time available between the various stages, precedence will be given to legislation, possibly to Orders of the Day Nos. 4, 8, 9, 11 and 13. These will then be given precedence. However, hon. members must please keep an eye on the Order Paper, for changes may possibly be made.

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of this Bill is designed to adjust the presently applicable method of the determination of rentals and, if I may use the hon. the Minister’s words in the Second Reading, is designed to provide the lessor with a reasonable income on his capital and attempts to satisfy the lessees by containing rentals within reasonable limits. For several hours during the Second Reading debate there was not a word from the hon. the Minister about any planned approach to eliminate the one factor which is vital in determining the adjustments to be made in this clause, i.e. the inadequate supply of housing in relation to the demand. Let me repeat myself by saying that this clause is merely fiddling with definitions and percentages which will satisfy neither the landlord nor the tenant. Effective steps are needed to provide housing so as to eliminate the existing imbalance between supply and demand as far as possible. I readily accept that a good deal has, in fact, been done—and I appreciate what is being done for sub-economic housing—but one must look at the percentages suggested here on the basis that the housing backlog will never be overcome, especially while compulsory removal still hangs over people’s heads in terms of the Group Areas Act. The position is also aggravated when one comes to determine rentals and reasonable returns. Figures given by the hon. member for Sea Point are evidence of a complete and callous disregard of the needs of old-age pensioners. If we adopt clause 1 of this Bill, this juggling with figures and definitions, the inevitable and unavoidable result is going to be—despite what the hon. the Minister suggested in the Second Reading —an excessive burden on tenants. That excessive burden will be caused by the increased percentages which are to be provided—the 8% to 8½% on buildings, the 6% to 8½% on the value of land and the extra on maintenance. When it comes to the basis on which those figures are to be calculated, however, it is not going to be the basis now applying to the 8% and 6% figures. What the hon. the Minister has done in this clause is to eliminate from the Rent Board’s consideration the cost of erection of buildings as a factor in determining the valuation for rental purposes, i.e. the actual cash investment, an important factor. I believe that the term ‘“cost” must refer to the price paid if the purchasing landlord was not the original builder. There is a further aspect which is going to shoot up the valuation on which these percentages are assessed, and that is the introduction of the consideration of replacement costs less depreciation without one word as to the method of determination of what the replacement costs is, especially in relation to buildings which are old and outmoded. The Bill does not give any direction either about the factors that must be taken into account in determining depreciation. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to some facts which his departments should have drawn to his attention. I do not know why attention has not been paid to this. Under the Cape valuation ordinance, in regard to the land, samples are taken in an area of sales. A value is then laid down which is considered to be acceptable to a willing buyer and a willing seller for that particular area. When one comes to buildings, however, the municipal evaluation for tax purposes, and I quote from the ordinance:

Then the ordinance adds specifically—

That is in the ordinance, but there is not a word of that in this legislation. One of the factors to be taken into account in determining the amount upon which the percentages will be calculated will mereley be replacement value less depreciation. The Administrator of the Cape, the last time when we had a valuation—a few years ago—was so concerned about what this burden would be on ratepayers if they were to have the replacement costs, that he ordered an initial deduction of 25% and thereafter the depreciation for obsolescence and age. The hon. the Minister says that the percentages in this clause are not going to put up the rents which will have to be paid by the tenants. Let me give one fact. In determining the value for rent purposes, in taking into account the replacement cost, no regard is had when it comes to the rent-payer, of an initial 25% because of the inflated cost of building. This even goes further because this does not apply to this clause. The full inflated cost of erection will be loaded on the tenant. This clause goes further because not only is that the position, but the other factor, namely the original cost of erection, is eliminated from the consideration of the board. If one has that full inflated cost, one must look at the proposed return about which the hon. the Minister posed to query to me. The hon. Minister asked, and I quote—

It is a fair question and I shall deal with it Investment in property has a built-in benefit factor for the investor, a benefit which is absent in a cash deposit investment, such as a fixed deposit investment for instance. The built-in benefit for the investor in property is a capital appreciation which by and large, throughout the country, is not less than the depreciating value of the purchasing power of the rand. When there is a cash investment on fixed deposit, the investor himself must carry the depreciation in his money value. If he has a fixed deposit for three years, he gets back the same sum of money but of a depreciated value. For that reason such an investor asks for a higher rate of interest from the borrower. This is a perfectly normal matter. The hon. the Minister says here that not only must the tenant give a return which is reasonable on the investment involved, but he must also give a return on an appreciation of the original investment as it appreciates from year to year. Obviously these two figures, the 8½% and the 10%, which the hon. the Minister attempted to compare when it comes to a fixed deposit income rate as opposed to the interest rate on property, is a wrong approach. Obviously, if the income returns on these investments were equal the investor would prefer the property investment to cash investment. The fact that a bondholder who is for instance investing in a bond on immovable property, asks for a higher rate of interest than the rate of interest that he can get on a fixed deposit, is quite legitimate because his money, as a bondholder, is in that property as much as the amount which the owner or the builder himself has invested in the building. He is also entitled to participate in the capital appreciation of that property over a period of time. In other words, if the bondholder were to lend his money at an interest rate of 7% or 7½% and the property is appreciating at a higher figure, the bondholder is losing his share in the benefit accruing to the owner of the property concerned. [Time expired.]

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

Our opposition to paragraph (f) is along the same lines as our opposition to (b) as outlined by the hon. member for Green Point.

During the Second Reading debate we made a case through a number of speakers on this side of the House that the effect of the increased percentages provided for in paragraphs (b) and (f) will inevitably be to bring about extensive increases in rentals for the tenants. The hon. the Minister has said that this is not the case, and I want to discuss with him this statement of his. As far as I am concerned, it cannot be justified. The hon. the Minister has made it clear that the object of increasing the percentages is to give landlords a better return for their investments. If that is so—I think it is quite clear that is the object of increasing the percentages—the landlord is going to get a better return as a result of these amendments to the Act, because from where will he be getting a better return if it is not as a result of increases in rentals? There is no other way in which landlords can get a better return than they are getting at present from their investments other than by getting a greater rental. Inevitably it must follow that these increased percentages will have the effect of extensive increases in rentals to tenants. We are therefore opposed to these amendments because of the increased burden they will place on tenants generally throughout the country. I want to make our position on this side of the House clear.

Justify your own amendment.

I think it is quite obvious, but if the hon. member has any difficulty perhaps he can enter into the debate and explain his difficulties to me and I shall then reply to him. We on this side of the House believe that landlords are entitled to a reasonable return on their investments. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member would stop interrupting me. I have only ten minutes and the hon. member will also be allowed to speak.

I do not know about that. His Whips will most probably keep him out.

Landlords are entitled to reasonable return on their investments, that is if it is decided to maintain this way of subsidizing those tenants who cannot afford the sort of rental that they are required to pay. I believe that the time has come to revise this whole approach to the question of subsidizing of those tenants who require to be assisted with their rentals. We believe on the one hand that we have a capitalist society, a free enterprise society, but on the other hand we continue this practice of requiring certain landlords to subsidize those tenants who cannot afford the rents that they are required to pay. The position is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory for both sides. The tenants are not satisfied with this legislation, the landlords are not satisfied with this legislation and neither side is going to be satisfied with the situation which is being created under this legislation.

In coming back to my point, as long as …

Order! I do not want the hon. member to take that argument too far, because this aspect has already been discussed.

As long as the Rents Act is retained, we accept that landlords are entitled to a reasonable return on their investments, but not if that is going to provide an unreasonable burden on the tenants. Obviously tenants must be prepared to accept reasonable rentals and reasonable increases from time to time in view of the increasing costs of living. Our contention is that these provisions in the Bill will have the effect of placing a totally unreasonably burden on tenants, particularly on those tenants who have fixed incomes, like pensioners and others whose income is not subject to periodical increases as are those of ordinary salary-drawing people. We can therefore not accept or support the amendment which is proposed in paragraph (f).

I have said earlier that the new basis of determining the value of premises for rent purposes in terms of clause 1, now eliminates as one of the factors for consideration the amount invested by the landlord. That is now no longer a matter for consideration as far as the Rent Board is concerned. Secondly, the Rent Board will now have to give consideration to another factor, a factor which can only be inflationary in so far as determination of value is concerned, and that is the rentals of uncontrolled premises in the locality. One wonders if one looks at the luxury finish that the modern flat has against the old controlled flats, how one can ever visualize this criteron doing anything but push up value. In addition to that the hon. the Minister has accepted as a fact that in determining value, the board can have regard to the capital appreciation of the original investment. All this will be taken into consideration of determining the valuation. At the same time the landlord receives back into his pocket all the outgoings involved in the management and running of that business e.g. his rates, his percentage for repairs and he is even allowed to make a profit on electricity, according to this clause, by buying it in bulk and charging the tenant at the domestic rate. When one looks at this inflated value, I would say that 7% on that inflated value is an adequate return for the landlord. It is not a return on his investment. If it was it would be totally inadequate. It is a return on an inflated, arbitrary valuation determined by the Rent Board as a valuation for the letting unit. The factor is not remotely connected with the cost of construction or the market price. The factors being introduced in respect of rentals of the uncontrolled premises are factors which are determined by the total imbalance of supply and demand for residential accommodation. Obviously high and inflated rent in the economy as we have it at the present moment will be the result. That is why I say that 7 % on a value of that nature is an adequate return. It is not a return on an investment, but a return on an arbitrary figure taking into consideration all these inflationary aspects which are now to fall upon the tenant. If the hon. the Minister had retained the present criteria for the determination of the value for a property for rent purposes, I would say to him that I think there was a very good case for accepting 8½% as a present return. However, that is on the present criteria for fixing the valuation and not the criteria which are introduced by this clause. For that reason I move he amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I think the third amendment which the United Party intends moving to clause 1 is patent to everybody. We fail to see why the owner of the building should be entitled to claim a profit on electricity supply. We see this as quite unnecessary. It is going to involve a very small sum of money but despite the hon. the Minister’s explanation in his reply to the Second Reading debate, we still find his arguments unconvincing and we believe this is something which we can usefully get rid of. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I want to speak very briefly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. I have been making a few sums to ascertain what the effects of this 8½% increase will be on the average tenant. Under the old system, on a building valued at R80 000 on land valued at R20 000, the reasonable return, i.e. if the old formula of 6% and 8% was applied, would have been R7 600. If that building is going to be revalued and provided the Rent Board—this, of course, is the big condition—takes into account the scientific valuation principles which are now included in the legislation, then the valuation of the land and the building may easily be determined at R130 000 which is not unreasonable under prevailing price increases of land. This will have the effect that the owner of the building will no longer be entitled to a return of R7 600, but to a return of R11 050, which is an increase of just under 50%. I am aware that this is, shall we say, a worstcase analysis, but I believe we should nevertheless look at this because for any person who has a limited income to be suddenly faced with an increase in rental to the tune of 50% is by any standard a calamitous event. Consequently, I believe that we must try to bring this down to a more reasonable level and accordingly we have proposed the figure of 7% which on that same building would only mean an increase of about 3’3%, which is pretty shattering for many tenants anyway, but at least less shattering than an increase of close on 50%.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear—and I think the hon. the Minister came some way towards admitting it during the course of the Second Reading debate—that this piece of amending legislation is a compromise. Speakers on this side of the House have indicated that it is a compromise which is going to please no one. This arises from the fact that the assessment of the return on an investment and the balancing of that assessment with the amount the tenant is prepared to pay, is based on completely arbitrary criteria. The hon. the Minister keeps asking whether 8½% is a fair return on an investment. Quite clearly. 8½% is not an unfair return on a cash investment, given the circumstances of South Africa today. But this is not what this clause sets out to achieve. I want to show him that this is not so. Secondly, it all flows from the fact that the Government is not prepared to accept responsibility for bridging the gap between what is a fair return for the building owner and what is a reasonable rental for those in the lower and middle income groups, and especially the pensioners.

I want to refer first of all to the arbitrary nature of the basis on which this rental is to be established. First of all, the whole original provision relating to the definition of value has in it a built-in arbitrariness, because there are five criteria, and the board can accept or reject any one of them. There are criteria which may be conflicting and which may be arbitrary, and the Rent Board is not required to pay any greater attention to one than the other. Therefore there is an arbitrary approach towards the determination of what is the basic value. Quite clearly, the changes to paragraphs (a) and (e) of the definition have increased the arbitrariness of this determination, by deleting any reference to the original cost of erection and placing the emphasis both in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) on the cost of replacement, because the municipal valuation provided for in paragraph (b) does take into account the cost of replacement as well. This means that from now onwards the valuation is going to be linked to the rise in building costs. I must point out to the hon. the Minister that the rise in building costs over the last ten years has gone ahead of the rise in the cost of living. In other words, this Government has chosen a basis, an index for increasing rentals which is even ahead of the index of the average rise in the cost of living in the urban areas. The building cost index from 1964 to 1974 rose by 150%, while the cost-of-living index rose by some 113% over the same period. This means that an additional 30% rise in respect of the building cost index will be taken into account. If one takes the 4½ year period from the second quarter of 1970 to the end of 1974, one finds that, in spite of there only being an increase of 3.5% in 1972, the increase in the building cost index over that 4½ year period was 58%. What the Minister is saying is that in future the determination of rentals for rent-controlled flats should be locked into the increase in the cost of building. This is going to have a dramatic effect on rentals, especially for the lower income groups. Secondly, it is going to increase the fluctuation, because whereas in the past, once the cost of the erection of the building had been determined it could not be adjusted, one can now have, at intervals as frequent as the building owner or landlord would like them to be, revisions of the basic cost taking into account juctuations in building costs. So there is a whole new element of uncertainty. Instead of taking into account the basic cost of erection, there will be constant reference to the replacement value in terms of the new paragraph (a) and the existing paragraph (b), which relates to municipal or divisional council valuations. So, on the one hand there is going to be a dramatic increase in rentals; on the other hand the Minister is concerned, as we all are, about providing for a reasonable return to the building owner.

I want to take just one simple illustration of a building which is valued at R600 000, on which the building owner will be allowed a return of 8½%. This gives one a net income of R51 000. This building owner has to take out a bond for two-thirds of the value of the building at 12%, which means that his outgoings in respect of bond interest will amount to R48 000, leaving a balance of a net return on his equity of R200 000 of R2 000 or 1,5%. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he think that 1,5% is a reasonable return to a property owner on his investment? Does he think that 1,5% is reasonable? This imbalance in the supply and demand, in the requirements on the one hand of a tenant who deserves protection and on the other hand the reasonable return which a building owner can expect on his investments, can only be met by the Government, it cannot simply be passed to the landlord. The Government itself has got to accept the responsibility to bridge the gap between these two problem areas. Sir, I want to indicate the immediate effect of these increases without taking any increase in the basic value into account. I want to take the three areas in which increases are being allowed. Presuming a property investment in which the value of the total investment is 50% in the land and 50% in the building. There are many instances in my constituency where in the case of the older buildings the land value is much higher than the building value, but let us assume that the value of the land is 50% and the value of the building 50%. An increase from 6% to 8½% on the value of the land is an increase of 42% in the rental as applied to the land. An increase from 8 to 8½% on the value of the building is an increase of 6,2% on the building, and an increase of ½% in the depreciation allowance is a further 6,2%. This would then give you an increase, taking the land and building together, of 27,2%. Without any revaluation of the land, just taking these figures which the Minister has put before the House, this would automatically result in an increase of 27,2% in the average rental in that kind of property.

But, Sir, one must add to this the fact that the Minister by changing the definition in clause (a) has now virtually directed the Rent Board to give special attention to replacement costs, and in future rentals are going to be geared to the building cost index. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to argue that pensions should be geared to the cost-of-living index? Is he prepared to see that pensions rise commensurately with the cost-of-living index, or is he going to make an arbitrary adjustment from time to time well below the rise in the cost-of-living index? Sir, I want to raise another factor. The effect is going to be to push up the basic value of the land merely be changing the percentage return which one can earn on that land. In the past land has been valued to give a net return of 6%, so the capitalized value of the land has been related to 6%, but from now onwards the capitalized value of the land is going to be related to 8½%. The immediate effect of increasing the return on the land is to increase the value of the land because you can now earn 42% more on your land than you could before and therefore you would be prepared on the free markets to pay 42% more for your land. As the result of these figures, therefore, you are not only going to increase the percentages, but you are going to increase the base of the value on which these percentages are worked out. Mr. Speaker, we will not be in a position to support this clause. We believe that this is a clause of a patchwork nature which will in no way relieve the situation. It is going to push up rentals and it will still not see that the building owner gets a fair return on his investment, and it will also not encourage any further investment in low income group housing in the cities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that before we on this side reply to the arguments of the Opposition in regard to this specific clause, we must be clear on the standpoint of the Opposition in respect of one matter. Do they recognize the principle that replacement value less depreciation is the new norm that must be laid down, or does their argument only concern the percentage allowed in respect of that joint valuation? Does it only concern the 8½% or does it also concern the principle? Because you see, Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Pinetown argue in absolute circles when they try to prove here that there is going to be a substantial increase in rents. The hon. member for Pinetown, for example, makes an arbitrary calculation and increases it from 7½% to 8½% and says that the rest is increase. But surely that is not so. If the hon. member were to take the trouble to read the Bill, he would see that in terms of this legislation, mortgage interest is now being done away with as a factor. After all, one cannot simply make a calculation, as he did, without leaving out the factor of mortgage interest. Earlier on, Sir, I indicated that the hon. member for Green Point had adopted the standpoint that this replacement value less depreciation could now give rise to a substantial increase in the rent value of the premises. He even tries to go so far as to say that this is going to be the only norm by means of which the rent value of premises may be determined, which is most decidedly not the case. But he goes further and tells us, in his Second Reading speech, that the present municipal valuation in the Cape Province is based on replacement value less depreciation. In other words, a formula that he now finds objectionable in this Bill is a formula that he accepts as far as municipal valuation is concerned. Sir, I just want to mention to you a single example in the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point. There is a certain block of flats there. I should appreciate it if the hon. member for Sea Point would listen to this now. The municipal valuation of the land is R114 900, say R115 000, and of the buildings, R369 900, say R370 000, That is the municipal valuation of those premises. In other words, the valuation of those premises is replacement value less depreciation, if the argument of the hon. member for Green Point, that that is the basis of municipal valuation, is correct. Now you ask me what the board’s valuation will be. As against a valuation of R115 000 for the land, the board placed a valuation on those premises that bore relation to the surrounding areas, and valued it at R200 000, in other words, R85 000 higher than the municipal valuation. As far as the buildings were concerned, they valued them at R370 000, which was the same as the municipal valuation. In other words, here the rent was calculated on the basis of a valuation that was R85 000 higher than the municipal valuation. Now with the best will in the world I cannot see how this new norm, when it is applied—assuming that, as the hon. member for Green Point says, the dominant element in that formula will be replacement value less depreciation —it can affect the rents in this instance in any way. The hon. member for Musgrave followed this overall Opposition pattern of objecting to a reasonable rent for the owner. He is not prepared to argue the increase of 2% to 2½% for maintenance separately. I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave, who is a reasonable member, to state specifically with regard to his amendment whether the increase in maintenance expenses, the allowable increase in maintenance expenses, is not a reasonable increase. Sir, we have the problem that in the calculation of a possible rent, hon. members have in all cases accepted this increase of an allowable 2% to 2½% as an increase that is going to occur. After all, it relates to an inspection of those premises that can be made by the Rent Board concerned. The hon. member for Green Point comes along with an amendment that envisages reducing this 8½% to 7%. However, he does not move an amendment in regard to the abolition of mortgage interest. In other words, he wants to leave the lessor in a far poorer position than he had been in before the introduction of this legislation. What is their own verdict concerning this matter of 8½%? I need only refer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Green Point in this regard. He states—

A little further on he states—

Although this is in fact what is envisaged in this clause, the hon. member says that this is not right. He says that the lessor should receive less than he received before this amendment was proposed. That is the double-talk we have here. I have already quoted the hon. member for Walmer, but I want to refer once again to what he said—

Then I also provided the solution.

After all, we cannot continue in his way. Surely we cannot argue a matter by blowing hot and cold. As the hon. member for Boksburg said, we cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The runners have an absolute majority on that side today. In my opinion we must just obtain finality on this principle first, before arguing further. Do hon. members accept this element in the formula for the determining of rent, value, viz. replacement value less depreciation, or do they only object to the percentage that is laid down in that respect?

Before calling on the next speaker, I should just like to point out that we are now dealing with an aspect which was in fact discussed ad nauseam during the Second Reading. I want to be very fair to hon. members and allow them to express their objection to it briefly, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that we are now taking the Committee Stage, in which we discuss the details of the clauses. In all fairness, I shall still allow the hon. the Minister to reply to the arguments that have already been advanced in general, and I want to request hon. members to confine themselves to a Committee Stage discussion.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the hon. member for Tygervallei was not listening. The hon. member for Green Point tried to explain in simple terms that 8½% on an investment was not unreasonable. In this case, however, we are not dealing with 8½% on an investment, but on an arbitrary evaluation. That is the big difference. One may in fact argue in favour of 8½% on an investment. I do not think we would have opposed this, but it is not the investment that counts. Let me put this very clearly.

†In order to put our attitude beyond all doubt, I am going to move as an amendment—

In doing so I answer the hon. member’s question very clearly. This is to omit the new test of replacement value instead of actual cost. Then I put it beyond all question of doubt where we stand. If replacement value is going to be the basis, one cannot argue that one’s return is based on investment. This is the issue, this is the problem, that we are not arguing here on a return on investment, which is what the hon. the Minister and, hon. members opposite are trying to do. They are arguing that this is an investment and for that reason you must have a reasonable return.

That is nonsense.

Eight and a half per cent on an arbitrary value can be 15% and can be as much as 50% on an investment for a person who bought a building years ago and who has retained the ownership. Eight and a half per cent on present valuation can bring him anything up to 25% or 30% or more on his investment.

Like your shares in S.A. Fabrics.

It could well be, but it would not be like the hon. member for Klip River’s land at Umhlatuzana which he and his family bought from the Department of Community Development and which had escalated in value. Therefore the rental which he gets today on the present valuation on ground bought from the Department of Community Development will be worth much more as a return on his investment which he made initially. This is what I am trying to get across to the hon. member. Obviously that hon. member appreciates that land appreciates in value, otherwise he would not have gone in for speculation in buying land. He understands that land goes up in value, and this is the point the hon. member for Green Point was trying to get across so clearly. He said that land and buildings are rising assets and therefore you cannot equate them with money.

The second point I want to make is that we are dealing here entirely with pre-1966 buildings. If those buildings are sold and a person buys it as an investment intending to let it, he pays a value equivalent to the real value of that building. If he is buying it for speculation in order, say, to demolish it and to build a five-star hotel, a shopping complex or some other vast project, he is not interested in the value of that building. What he pays for it has no relationship with its intrinsic value. He is thinking in terms of the huge project, a project of R1 million or R2 million, which he is going to put up on that land. Take a building like Belmont in Durban. It is a very solid old building, but it is to be replaced by a vast complex which will cost some R2 million. Two buildings are in the process of being demolished to make way for project named “Tollman Towers”. In other words, the replacement has no relationship to the value of the buildings. If one is going to determine rentals on the basis of some future project, it is not fair. If a man is prepared to speculate he must take a chance on a speculation. When he buys the building he knows what its income is. Now that we are talking of replacement value, we are going to get a completely distorted pattern.

I want to answer the other question of the hon. member for Tygervallei, the question whether the 2½% for maintenance is unreasonable. It would not be unreasonable if it were based on a constant figure but here it is 2½% on a rising figure. It is not 2½% on a fixed cost, and whilst the maintenance may increase, the cash amount of 2½% of the investment would mean that if the building was valued at R100 000, the 2½% cost of maintenance which you are allowed to take will amount to R2 500 in a year. If that value has escalated to R200 000 the 2½% becomes R5 000. I hope these figures are correct because I am not good at mental arithmetic, but the fact is it doubles. If your value doubles, the amount for maintenance doubles, and therefore the percentage remains constant. Your cost of maintenance has gone up on the same basis, but certainly not as fast as the cost of building which is now calculated on replacement value and is now going to be the yardstick. Therefore your maintenance remains the same percentagewise. I asked the hon. the Minister at the Second Reading and I ask him again to look at the question of people who take their 2% which will now be 2½% if our amendment is rejected, but never spend it on the building. Just before the next application for a rent increase they paint the outside of the building and dolly it up for a few rand. When the Rent Board comes to inspect, it is neatly painted. If you check back you will see that every time just before the last inspection by the Rent Board that building was last painted. There are landlords who regularly look after their buildings, but where that maintenance percentage is granted and not spent on the building. I believe it should be forfeited. It should be necessary, when an application for a rent increase is made, for the owner to produce evidence by way of receipts of what he has in fact spent on maintenance over the last five years. If it is found that he has not spent anything like the 2½%, or not anything at all, on maintenance the rentals should be reduced accordingly. In many cases this provision is simply a hidden addition to the return. The 8½% plus this 2½% becomes 11%. To the man who is not maintaining his building this provision is going to give an 11% return and again, 11% based on an arbitrary figure. The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but I can tell him that at least 10 of the buildings in my constituency have had no maintenance other than that which can be done by a handyman over the last five years. The tenants themselves have to look after the internal maintenance of the building, while the outside of the building has not had a coat of paint. The landlords wait until the windows fall out and then they ask for a demolition or a reconstruction permit. It is a fact that many of these buildings do not have maintenance.

Mr. Chairman, once again we have the typical phenomenon of the confusion reigning in the ranks of the Opposition. The hon. member for Durban Point is again thinking back to 1966 when he advocated the abolition of rent control … [Interjections.]

That is untrue … [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member wants paragraph (i) to be omitted.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman is the hon. member for Durban Point entitled to tell the hon. member for Boksburg “that is untrue”?

Mr. Chairman, that was my instinctive reaction, but I withdraw it.

What the hon. member wants, therefore, is that no yardstick whatever be laid down in accordance with which a Rent Board must determine rent. Paragraph (i) incorporates all the factors which have to be taken into account when rent is determined. But what is the position at the moment as regards the existing Act? Rent Boards are not bound to actual costs of construction, nor to municipal valuations. The situation was that Rent Boards determined the value of properties whether on the basis of actual building costs, municipal valuations, sworn valuations or whatever. They tried to determine the value of a property in a certain way and in practice it appears to me that what this amounted to was cost of replacement. This is how the Rent Boards operated and this is how the Boards determined rent, as I understand it. The hon. Opposition now comes along and fails to state on what basis it should be done. Apparently these Boards must not be given a guideline. After all, the Rent Boards are not bound to replacement costs. Surely there are all those other factors which they may take into account. The hon. member for Durban Point now wants to tell us that the capital appreciation is higher every year and that that 8½% is determined in accordance with that. But has the hon. member for Durban Point never heard of compound interest? When a man invests his money at an interest rate of 10% or 12% and the following year he gets interest on interest, what is the difference between property the value of which appreciates and his own capital that appreciates in that way. Hon. members should also take into account the fact that a risk is involved for the lessor, too. How many people do not leave without paying rent? How many times does one not see a block of flats with flats that are standing vacant? This is a risk that is involved. The hon, member refers to the pensioner. Now I want to tell him that I know of a number of pensioners who have invested their money in a small property and then regard that as a pension for the future. When they refer to the high cost of living, and state that it must keep pace with rents, do they want that pensioner, who has invested his money in a property, to receive a higher rental too?

Yes.

Now we come to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. It concerns the electricity bought in bulk and subsequently retailed to the people at the domestic tariff. I wonder now—I do not see the hon. member for Musgrave here; he moved the amendment and then he disappeared …

Pinetown.

Oh, Pinetown. Is it the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown?

The one about electricity is mine.

Can the hon. member for Pinetown tell us—the position is that the electricity is purchased by the owner and that he charges the lessees as he sees fit, or he shares it among them. If he were to sell it at the domestic tariff and hold every lessee responsible for the electricity he consumed, who does he think would be held responsible for the installation of the meters? Surely that would be the lessor’s responsibility? He would have to incur the expense of installing meters. He cannot recover it from the lessees, or does the hon. member want him to recover it from the lessee? It is the lessor’s duty to read those meters. He must also send accounts to the lessees and administer the matter. If a small profit could be made, and I believe it would be minimal, then, in my opinion, he would surely be entitled to it as compensation for his trouble and since, in practice, he might even have to have the meters installed, too.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two points on the clause, in regard to which the hon. member for Sea Point stated our overall attitude. One has got to be careful when one talks about capital appreciation, certainly where buildings under rent control are concerned. It seems to me that it is very doubtful that the figures which people are talking about in terms of annual appreciation on such properties are liable to be achieved. In order to build up the capital value of an asset such as a building, the landlord is going to have to get a sufficient return to maintain and to keep up such a building and indeed to renovate it. Finally, if in this respect he does not get a sufficient return, which we think is quite clear—though there is some improvement in this Bill—then of course other people are not going to wish to buy that property at some future stage and certainly not at the price which will produce the sort of capital appreciation mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point. If one looks at what has been happening with rent-controlled premises over the past five to 10 years, it is extremely unlikely that one will find that they have changed hands in cases where the owner has shown any capital appreciation whatsoever, simply because it is one of the facts of life in so far as rent-controlled premises are concerned that rent control removes the possibility of keeping the building in such a state that the potential for capital appreciation remains open. The practical effect of the rate of return allowed at this point in time is, as I have said, the cause why the more humane and vast majority of landlords simply sell out to the unscrupulous few who are prepared to take the necessary action to step up the return.

I should like to return to paragraph (h) of clause 1 which reads, “by the deletion of the second proviso to the said definition.” The object of this amendment is to remove a system of allowance whereby owners of buildings who had to pay a substantially higher rate of interest on a mortgage bond could include an allowance for such payment in the formula for calculating the rent. There were two conditions which applied to such an allowance. In the first instance it had to be a bona fide loan in the sense that it was from a third party and for a mortgage on the building and secondly, the Financial Institutions Act applied to it. I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact that certainly in Johannesburg a fair number of buildings have been financed on three to five year money. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that interest rates go up and down, but certainly at the present point in time this will cause great difficulty when it comes to refinancing if such an allowance is not allowed, because then we shall be back to the unsatisfactory compromise which the hon. the Minister is trying to solve where the return on the building will be 8% whereas the landlord who has to borrow money will be paying in excess of 12%. It is when one faces this sort of reality that it becomes clear that what the hon. Minister is proposing to do is a compromise or a slight improvement which is going to be of no lasting satisfaction to either of the parties.

Mr. Chairman. I am not going to cover the ground that we covered so well in the Second Reading debate by replying once again to arguments to which I replied during that debate.

The hon. member for Durban Point states that during the Second Reading debate he put a question to me to which I did not reply. I can remember him putting such a question to me, but apparently I overlooked it. My reply to his question is that when a building is neglected, the lessees may apply to the Rent Board for a reduction in rent on those grounds. There would be little point in the lessor applying a little limewash to the building after the application had been made. The Rent Board is able to allow a reduction in rent when buildings are neglected. There are other bodies, too, that may deal with the matter of buildings being neglected and may approach, the person responsible.

Does that depend on the use of the existing 2% or the future 2½%? What is the test—the condition of the building or the expenditure of the allowance on maintenance?

the allowance may now go as high as 2% and the person himself has to satisfy the Rent Board.

He need not spend it?

It can go as high as 2½%; that is the position. He has to satisfy the Rent Board. We may summarize the whole position as follows: If I were to accept the four amendments moved by the hon. gentlemen, I should have no choice but to delete from the Bill the withdrawal of permission for the charging of mortgage interest. That would be the least I should have to do. The hon. member for Green Point falls back on his 7% which is less than the percentage is at present. At present the average is 7½%. Now he is falling back on replacement value. I have indicated ad nauseam that Rent Boards have only made concessions in regard to a reduction in the value of capital. They have already made a concession in respect of the depreciation in the value of money. Now we are coming up with, something which is more stable and which Rent Boards, inter alia, may also take into account. Up to now, Rent Boards have been able to take cognizance of sworn statements and they will probably continue to do so. What can a bona fide sworn statement be other than a statement as to what that building is worth on the market today in the judgment of the appraiser, the man making the sworn statement? What else would it be? This is in the Act and Rent Boards can take it into account at this stage. I am not prepared to argue this point at length. I have already replied to the points raised. All that I can still say is that because it would be a disastrous step, I am not going to throttle people for the sake of the standpoint adopted, for whatever reason, by hon. members opposite. Owners who do not fall under rent control, too, are looking at what is being done in this Bill. I am not going to deter people or drive them away from the industry of the construction of dwelling units and consequently the four amendments are not acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he seeks to ignore the solutions advanced by the Opposition during the Second Reading debate. We are with him when he says that he wants to see the utmost development in respect of flats in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal very briefly with the hon. member for Tygervallei. The hon. member quoted my Second Reading speech out of context. I put the case of the landlord very, very carefully and I put the case of the tenant very carefully. I then suggested a solution which I said would be by way of Government concessions. I want to refer that hon. member to my Second Reading speech—the reference is BB.l—and I want to say that I am surprised at the hon. member for merely using part of my argument to bolster his own case which, I must say, was very weak. This surprises me even more because the hon. member is an experienced hon. member of this House. I am not going to recap what I said during the Second Reading debate because I shall not be allowed to do so. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he estimates will be the average percentage increase in rentals as a result of the increase to 8½% for the years 1975 and 1976 respectively. When replying, the hon. the Minister should take into account the change from cost of erection to replacement value, less depreciation. If the hon. the Minister is unable to indicate the average percentage increase that will occur, will he concede or agree that the increase in rentals in regard to pensioners and people with fixed incomes, will be far greater than he anticipates? What do these people now do for relief? The hon. the Minister will say that he can always amend the legislation next year, but the question arises how these people are to survive in the meantime until next year when they have to pay these increases during this year. Sir, we have made it clear that we believe that the landlords must get an adequate return on their investments, but we have also made it clear that this must not be solely at the expense of the tenants, particularly tenants in the lower income groups. The only equitable way out is for the Government to assist those tenants who are not in a position to help themselves. We suggested to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate what remedies the Government could adopt. I get the impression from what the hon the Minister has said that he is so committed to this clause that he is merely going through, the motions with us here this morning and that he will not allow any substantial changes at all. Because of the definition of replacement value less depreciation, the Minister is virtually giving a blank cheque equating rentals to rising building costs. For the wealthy tenant, Sir, this will not materially change his way of life or his life style, but for the less affluent person it introduces an element of constant uncertainty. For the affluent person this means no security of tenancy whatsoever; that is the logical consequence of this clause, and the Minister is going to have to accept the responsibility in time to come. I predict, Sir, that after this measure has been enacted and this clause becomes law, the Minister is going to have many poor people on his doorstep looking to him for relief and that he will come back to this House next year to grant that relief.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat expressed the fear that the rent that will now be determined, will perhaps be too high for the lessee. But, Sir, if we read all the provisions of this Bill together, then it is very clear that an obligation is being imposed on the Rent Board to determine a reasonable rent, bearing in mind all the circumstances. Indeed, these are the words that are specifically used and in fact the whole tenor of this Bill is to that effect. Sir, taking all the amendments of the Opposition together, we get a very clear picture of what they would like. In the first place they want the interest rate reduced from the proposed 8½% to 7%, which is even less than the present 6% and 8% under the provisions of the existing Act. In other words, they want to insert a provision to the detriment of the lessor. In the second place they agree that mortgage interest should not be allowed, also to the detriment of the lessor. In the third place, where this clause refers to replacement value, they want to come back to the concept of construction costs, again to the detriment of the lessor. In other words, those hon. members are only championing the interests of the lessee, which in itself can be a good plea, but after all, one cannot simply blatantly ignore the lessor. Is he not the man who provides the accommodation; is he not entitled to a reasonable return on his investment? After all, one cannot simply ignore him and drive him out. Sir, the whole standpoint of the Opposition, as is also reflected in their amendments, is that the provisions of this Bill are going to be to the disadvantage of the poor and the widows who are supposedly going to be driven away now. But surely we know that there is no way of differentiating between the rich and the poor living in controlled flats and dwelling units. How many of the hon. members on that side who are championing the cause of the poor here do not live during the parliamentary session, in controlled buildings where the rents are low? Why do these rich people not make way for poor people? There is simply no method of distinguishing between the rich and the poor in a controlled block of flats. Sir, I fear that the Opposition is trying to make political capital out of this Bill. They want to project the image of people who look after the interests of the poor, but in the process they are forgetting about the lessor, the provider of essential accommodation, and in the process they are merely trying to recruit votes in a clever way because there are more lessees than there are lessors. As regards the amendments moved by the Opposition, I want in the first place, to discuss the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave, namely, that paragraph (f) be omitted. Sir, what is the intention behind the increasing of this amount in respect of maintenance to 2½%. Surely there is only one aim, namely to encourage maximum maintenance to the benefit of the lessee who has to live in the building and to the benefit, too, of the lessor who has to see to his own interests. After all one must be reasonable. The lessor must be given the opportunity to do the necessary maintenance work. During the Second Reading, the hon. member for Sea Point voiced fears concerning the fact that this percentage was being increased by 25%, from 2% to 2½%. Earlier this morning he contradicted himself by saying that the index of the rise in building costs over the past ten years from 1964 to 1974 has risen by 150% as against the rise in the cost of living of 113% over the same period. It is for that very reason that the matter of the 2½% has been broached, because the rise in the price index for building costs has been so much greater than the overall price index. This 2% is a provision that dates from 1950. We know that under the existing Act it was calculated at a lower value because building costs had to be taken into account, and probably there is nothing that has risen faster and more today than the cost of these very items, viz. paint, construction material and the cost of wages. Now the important point here is that the Bill specifically states “not exceeding” 2½%. This is the whole key to this amendment, in other words, when one applies to the Rent Board for an increase in rent, on has to furnish clear proof of what one’s maintenance had been over the preceding period of 12 months, and if one’s maintenance was poor, one would only get 1% or 1% and if one was prepared to spend more than the necessary, one could apply for 2%, and if one was very lucky, in exceptional circumstances, where one had taken a great deal of trouble and incurred great expense, one could get a maximum of 2½%. But surely that is now in the discretion of the Rent Board and surely that is a reasonable discretion, that the man who always repairs his place so well should be able to get the maximum rate of 2½%, which, in the nature of the matter, is very low. Sir, the Opposition has not read the provisions of the definition in the Bill properly. They confine themselves to the word “maintenance” and repairs only, but what is stated in the provision in question? It states “in respect of maintenance, repairs and depreciation”. But so far, no one opposite has referred to this word “depreciation”. Now, Sir, perhaps you may say that this argument does not apply. But there is wear and tear in a flat. There is wear and tear of doors and of ceilings and of thresholds and of skirting boards. These are things one cannot replace as they become worn. One can only replace them when they give way entirely. In other words, what we have here is depreciation that occurs gradually and that cannot be measured immediately in terms of money, but which can only be included, eventually, in the determining of the value of the property. And then, too, one must bear in mind that there are certain improvements which an owner, a lessor, has to effect and in respect of which he is unable to claim a deduction for income tax purposes. If he is forced to replace his septic tank system with a proper sewage system, or if, perhaps, he has to tar surfaces which had not been tarred before, then that is specifically listed by the Receiver of Revenue as improvements and not repairs. In other words, in those instances he incurs expenditure to the benefit of the lesse, which he is unable to recover.

In the second place I should like to discuss the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Pinetown, namely that paragraph (g) be omitted. What is the whole intention behind this? The Opposition fears—they have said so in so many words here—that the lessor will be able to obtain additional rent in that he will be able to ask more for the supply of electricity than he would have paid to the municipality concerned.

I did not say that.

What, then, is the intention? Why do you want this omitted? Will you tell me that?

Sir, the point is …

Order! The hon. member may not reply; he may only put a question.

Sir, he put a question to me.

What is the true situation? What we have here is not a situation in which the lessor is seeking additional sources of income. We have two situations here. The one is where the lessor has the choice of requesting the supplier of power to distribute the power directly. The second example is where the lessor may be obliged to receive the power in bulk. I can mention one example. In all the larger blocks of flats that are being built here in the Cape complex and that are being supplied with power by Escom, the lessor is obliged to receive power in bulk. In other words, the power is measured by one meter. He receives his account and he has to settle it. What must the lessor do now? He has to distribute the charge for power consumption. He is then given the opportunity to recover a minor additional amount. However, consider what he has to do in return! He has to read meters every month, send out his accounts, receive the money and then still run the risk of not being able to obtain the money in the case of occupants of flats having left. Then, too, there are the cost of administration, the entries and the time taken. All these things give rise to more problems than benefits. That is what he has to do to comply with the requirements forced on him by a body such as Escom that supplies the power. On the other hand this holds no disadvantages for the lessee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, my heart bleeds for the man who has to sell electricity at a profit and has this tremendous task of bookkeeping, reading the meters and keeping records. I honestly think the hon. member should try and get a job as a meter-reader in a block of flats, because he could certainly do better at that than at trying to understand a simple argument. I am sure he cannot really be as stupid as he sounded when he tried to make out that we were wanting to reduce the income of a landlord to 7% from the present 8%. Despite all the arguments he completely, continuously and deliberately avoided the fact that there is a new formula for calculation. That is the whole issue. The actual cost of erection is eliminated and a replacement value is introduced, a value which is far higher. Cannot the hon. member understand that 7% on a figure of R150 000 is more than 8% on a figure of R100 000? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Tygervallei seems to understand this but his hon. friend from Durbanville does not seem able to understand it. If the value increases, a smaller percentage on an increased value means more money than a higher percentage on a much smaller value. That applies both to one’s return and to the maintenance figure of 2½%.

*Is the hon. member unable to follow this? On a doubled basis, the same percentage will bring in twice the money. If the percentage is decreased on a higher figure, one nevertheless receives more money. The tenant does not pay a percentage; he must pay a certain amount, for example R60 or R100 per month. This is a fixed amount.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2).

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) records its deep appreciation for the thorough work done by the Commission of Enquiry into Universities as embodied in its various reports; and
2. (b) requests the Government to give effect, where possible, to the proposals contained in such reports.

The terms of reference of the Commission of Enquiry cover a broad spectrum, inter alia—

The terms of reference of the commission attest to exceptional insight and attest, too, to the high expectations entertained in respect of the commission’s report. Everyone in South Africa places a high premium on the academic functions of our universities and the interaction of universities and community. We are all aware of the exceptional responsibility that rests on every university.

We on this side of the House should like to convey our thanks to the Government for the appointment of this commission. Furthermore we want to convey our sincere appreciation and thanks to the members of the commission for the very thorough, comprehensive end penetrating investigation that was undertaken.

A lengthy list of the persons and bodies interviewed by the commission is to be found in Annexures A and B. In conjunction with these, the commission made use of innumerable related reports and documents published both within and outside South Africa. The commission acquainted itself with all possible standpoints in regard to all aspects of universities. To my knowledge this report is the bulkiest which has been tabled since I have been in this House. The value of the report, however, does not lie in its length as such, but in the insight it displays, its thoroughness, its comprehensiveness and particularly in its objectivity. It was a radical investigation in depth and the consequences were accepted courageously and were processed. The conclusions reached by the commission were reached solely on the basis of the evidence submitted to it. In my opinion, this report is the most significant report on education published thus far in the Republic of South Africa. It will undoubtedly serve for decades and more as an extremely valuable document for interested persons and researchers into the matter of universities. I do not want to dwell on the members of the commission as such, but I do want to point out that three of the members are principals of universities— two of Afrikaans-language universities and one of an English-language university. The other persons who served on the commission are persons who occupied or still occupy high posts and whose ability and integrity are beyond question. Above all, the chairman was a serving judge of exceptionally high status who compels universal respect in the exercise of this illustrious office. It is a great pity that the report was not unanimous, but that instead the principal of the English-language university found it necessary to bring out a minority report in regard to the main report, and refused to sign the interim report. The commission member in question did not want to identify himself with the recommendations contained in the commission’s main report. He put it, inter alia, as follows: “I cannot associate myself completely with chapters 3 and 4 of the report”. Chapter 3 deals with the university, its nature, its function, its autonomy, academic freedom and so on, while chapter 4 deals with the relationship between the university and the State. In the nature of the matter it was undoubtedly difficult for the principal concerned to endorse a point of view different to that with which he had identified himself for many years. This point of view or outlook is expounded in detail in a brochure that appeared recently, viz. The Open Universities in South Africa and Academic Freedom, 1957-1974. His name appears on the list of the members of the Academic Freedom Committee. This committee existed before the commission was appointed. The principal concerned was already a member of this committee before being appointed to serve on the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. Evidently he already had fixed opinions before the commission heard evidence and formulated findings. I would deduce, therefore, that the principal was, to certain degree, prejudiced against any evidence that did not accord with his way of thinking. For this reason the minority report perhaps loses some of its effect and impact. In passing, one wonders whether it is purely by coincidence that this brochure appeared more or less simultaneously with the main report of the commission.

I should like to confine myself exclusively to the main report and select from it a few aspects which I regard as important. Initially, I want to express a few ideas concerning the high rate of failure among undergraduates. The commission gave a great deal of attention to this matter and suggested measures to combat this phenomenon. Through the years there have often been discussions in this House and this matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister. The high rate of failure at universities, among first-year students in particular, gives rise to concern in the circles and bodies that are concerned with this matter. Here I have in mind the parents, the students, the university and the State. Much of the State’s contribution to a university student is lost and is wasted if the student fails. The average State subsidy per student per annum nowadays amounts to about R1 100 to R1 200, while it costs approximately as much for a parent to keep his child at a university. But apart from the wastage of money, a wastage of the spiritual and intellectual potential of human material also takes place. A great many students fail and leave the university, and in this way valuable potential is lost, whereas it could perhaps still have been developed at another tertiary level. Consequently, it is essential that there should be an easier transition between the university and other institutions at the tertiary education level, for example between the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and the universities. The commission also gave a great deal of attention to this aspect and in another chapter of the report puts forward well-considered recommendations on the subject.

Many reasons are given for the high rate of failure at our universities. I do not intend to dwell on this for very long, except to refer briefly to a few of them.

It is often contended that the academic year at most universities is too short to allow the contents of the curricula to be dealt with thoroughly. In other words, it is maintained that the curriculum is being overloaded. From the report it appears that the academic year at some universities consists of 28 or 29 teaching weeks while there is one university with an academic year of 35 teaching weeks. I made inquiries concerning the length of the academic year at universities as planned for the year 1975. I shall only furnish the number of teaching days at the universities without mentioning the names of universities. The figure varies from 116 teaching days at one university to 164 at another. In between, one gets 133, 138 140 and 146 teaching days. In other words, there is a difference of 48 teaching days between the two universities with the highest and the lowest number of teaching days respectively. The question occurs to one quite involuntarily as to whether this also makes a difference to first-year results. According to reports at my disposal—I do not want to expand on them —this is in fact the case. It is evident from the report that the majority of universities are not really in favour of a general lengthening of the academic year, although they do think that the lengthening of the academic year in regard to first-year students only, would in fact be beneficial. The commission also recommends that the Committee of University Principals should investigate the reorganization of the academic year. The commission recommends that in cases where universities want to retain the usual academic year, serious considerations should be given to the period being extended for the first-year students at least. The commission is convinced that this would facilitate the transition from high school to university and that it would reduce the failure rate. I should like to endorse that standpoint very strongly.

Initiation or assimilation, about which we have heard so much at universities in recent times, and the time that is lost thereby, is also advanced nowadays as the cause of the failure rate. In a recent letter to members of Parliament by Professor E. M. Hamman, the principal of the University of Pretoria, he puts the following question in this regard: Consider how much encroachment on the study time of first-year students is caused by initiation, orientation and related troublesome practices which in some cases occur throughout— please note, “throughout”—the year. I, too, should like to put that question. It may be added that students miss many lectures and much study time owing to the organization of rags, rag processions, carnivals and all that this involves.

I am convinced that the students themselves are, in fact, the major factor contributing to the high failure rate at the universities. There are undoubtedly many students who are not ready for hard work and consequently their studies are neglected; this is also a result of excessive participation in social and other activities. There is sufficient proof that a large number of students who do have the intellectual ability, nevertheless fail owing to an imbalance between study and social activities. In the nature of the matter one does not have much sympathy with such students.

The commission goes on to furnish in its report, in the form of a table, the high failure rate at universities in 1962. This is, of course, somewhat out of date. Whether there has been any improvement in this state of affairs since then, is doubtful. I am convinced that the commission’s report, in which the cause of failure at the universities has been put to our readers so pertinently, has in fact had, and will have, a positive effect on universities. To my knowledge it has never occurred in the past that principals have made use of the occasion of welcoming speeches to warn the new first-year students in such straightforward and frank terms. In the Sunday Times of 23 February this year I read, inter alia, the following under the heading “University duds will get walking orders”—

The names of the three rectors are then mentioned: Sir Richard Luyt, Prof. Bozzoli and Prof. Stock. The report goes on—

The newspaper then comments in the following words—

At the Afrikaans-language universities, too, it is put to new students that they come to university to study. Prof. Hamman mentioned, inter alia, that various methods would be employed at his university to eliminate students who neglect their studies. In a speech he made to his first-year students, he went on to say (translation)—

The commission strongly recommends to universities that procedures be evolved to eliminate students who neglect their work. The commission goes on to recommend forcefully that the universities should have the right to terminate a student’s registration at the end of the first semester on grounds of unsatisfactory academic progress. The commission points out that the Universities Act. 1955 (Act No. 61 of 1955) must be amended accordingly. I have already referred to chapter 3, “The University”. This chapter contains extremely interesting reading matter, particularly in respect of the autonomy of and academic freedom at universities. Through the years, the concepts “autonomy” and “academic freedom” have been discussed repeatedly in this House. Often the concepts “autonomy” and “academic freedom” are mentioned in one breath as if they are twin concepts or synonymous with each other. However, they remain separate concepts. Both have acquired emotional nuances over the past few decades, here and elsewhere. Not on here but throughout the world, people write about and debate on this matter. Even during the Fourth International conference of Universities held in Tokyo in 1969, one of the basic themes of discussion was this very concept of university autonomy. Each country has its own interpretation of the concepts “autonomy” and “academic freedom”, arising out of the history, traditions, social order and body politic of the country in question. Autonomy is bound up with the concept of “administration”. The university as such only has the power, or the right, to administer affairs in its own sphere, within the bounds of its academic function. Autonomy of the university means, merely, self-government of the university, which is a complex organization with its multifarious activities. All these activities must be controlled and administered and as regards such activities the university has the right of self-government, free of interference or regulation from without. The rights of the university are Qualified by the capacity of the university. Each university in South Africa is a comparatively autonomous State-supported corporation established by means of legislation. The university is an autonomous institution which can claim the freedom of its autonomy in order to make itself felt. However, it must realize its autonomy within its capacity as a university. Beyond that capacity it has no power, no rights and no autonomy. The university is definitely not a state within a state. It is only autonomous in its academic work, autonomous to indicate and maintain its own standards, its own spirit, its own direction and so on, but always limited to and in accordance with its academic function. When it exceeds those bounds and that limit, the university claims a freedom it is not entitled to and may possibly clash with the autonomy of the State. If it wants to acquire the autonomy of the State, there must necessarily be friction or conflict. The autonomy of the university cannot be absolutized, because the university derives its autonomy from the State. The commission states its findings with regard to the autonomy of the university in South Africa in the following terms (page 74 of the Report}—

I think that this has been put very clearly by the commission.

To give a concise, short and precise definition of academic freedom is certainly difficult. Academic freedom is interpreted differently from country to country, and from university to university within a specific country. The academic freedom of the student and of the lecturer at a university is derived from the nature and the function of the university. The freedoms are limited to the academic sphere, viz. to the capacity of that university. The academic freedom of the university consists of its ability to regulate, control and organize all the facets of its academic function in its discretion, without regulation by society or the State. Academic freedom is limited to and subject to the autonomy of the university. Surely it cannot be otherwise. Academic freedom cannot go beyond the wide content of the autonomy of the university itself. It is exclusively the English-language universities in South Africa that take the meaning and interpretation of the concepts “autonomy” and “academic freedom” to extremes. The over-emphasizing of the value of autonomy and academic freedom and the charge that freedoms and rights have been restricted, date from the days of the Extension of University Education Act of 1959. It is a known fact that since the passing of the 1959 Act, the English-language universities have given much prominence to this so-called violation of academic freedom. It is also being stated in respect of this legislation that the legislation “is aimed at curbing the freedom of action of the university”. Sir, it is since 1959, too, that certain English universities have held a day of commemoration for academic freedom Those universities have pledged themselves to an affirmation of academic freedom, an affirmation that involves the holding of an annual day of remembrance to commemorate the alleged violation of academic freedom and to renew the universities’ dedication to the struggle. Sir, entrants to universities are immediately acquainted with the affirmation or dedication. In the above-mentioned brochure it is stated, inter alia—

Sir, the finding of the commission is that the dedication of the universities concerned to academic freedom and the over-emphasis of autonomy has a political cast. After consideration of all the evidence concerning academic freedom, the commission comes to the conclusion that the grumbling and the objections neither were nor are directed against the curtailing of academic freedom but, to quote the commission’s words, “essentially (concern) opposition to the political policy of multi-national development and the consequent establishment of non-White universities on an ethnic basis”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina said at the beginning of his speech that the real value of the report lies in its objectivity, and at the same time he said, with reference to Prof. Bozzoli, that he was prejudiced. Sir, when it comes to the philosophical aspects of the report, I want to tell the hon. member that it seems to me as if the majority of the members of this commission were prejudiced and that I question their objectivity. It is obvious that the people who served in this commission definitely had to make great sacrifices to be able to complete their terms of reference; this we appreciate. Terms of reference which comprise 15 specific tasks and which demand a penetrating and thorough investigation could for obvious reasons not be carried out within a year or two. I therefore do not want to criticize the commission too much for the fact that it took five years to complete the report, but what I do want to do is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, according to the information which appears on page 5 of the main report, it would seem that up to June 1972, i.e. for the first three years after he had been appointed, the Chairman was able to devote only a small part of his time to the commission’s affairs, because he was engaged in a completely different investigation. Sir, this is a state of affairs which caused an unnecessary delay. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, since we are dealing with such an urgent matter and since it is quite clear that it will be very difficult for a Chairman to devote his attention to the matter, I hope that we are not going to have a repetition of what has happened here. Something for which I want to express my deepest regret is the considerable delay in the making available to us, as members of the House of Assembly, of the various reports after they had been submitted to the Minister. We have been told that translating problems have caused the main report to be delayed for a year. Sir, something is seriously wrong with the Government if it takes a year to have one report translated, no matter how voluminous such report might be. It seems to me as if political reasons were responsible at various times for the delay in presenting these various reports. With regard to the second interim report dealing with student activities, we have had the excuse that it was held in abeyance until the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations had released its reports. The fact remains that this second interim report was only received by us in February 1975, several months after the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations had released its reports, while it was submitted to the hon. the Minister in September 1972. Sir, here we have to conduct a debate today on the contents and recommendations of a report which is based on quite obsolete particulars and information and other circumstances. It is said to be based on conditions which were supposed to have existed in the late ’sixties, early ’seventies at certain universities, conditions which are purely of historical interests and nothing else today. As far as I am concerned there are definite indications that a political issue was made of the second report, a fact which. I regret and condemn.

In the second leg of his motion the hon. member for Gezina requests the Government to give effect to the proposals contained in the report. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that various universities are at present giving attention to the various recommendations contained in the report and that, according to the information I have, the Committee of University Principals has neither submitted final recommendations to the Minister nor conveyed its views to the Minister. Therefore, in view of the wording of his motion the hon. member for Gezina is placing the hon. the Minister in an invidious position. I believe it will definitely be unwise for the hon. the Minister to indicate in his reply today that he is going to accept certain recommendations or reject them out of hand while he has not yet received the final views of the Committee of University Principals. It would be a severe rebuff for that important committee and it would be in direct conflict with the recommendations of the commission. I quote their recommendation with regard to the Committee of University Principals—

I believe it will be an unforgivable mistake if they are not consulted on this matter as well, particularly so in the light of the findings of this commission. I quote from page 142 of the English text of the main report of the commission—

It would seem to me as if the second leg of the motion of the hon. member for Gezina is definitely presumptuous, and in order to state clearly the standpoint of the United Party in respect of this report I want to move the following amendment—

1. (a) takes cognizance of the contents of the various reports of the Commission of Enquiry into Universities;
2. (b) deplores the fact that there was so long a delay in tabling the various reports after they had been presented to the responsible Minister; and
3. (c) rejects without any reservation those findings and recommendations in the various reports which are in conflict with the principles of university autonomy and academic freedom and which infringe the civil rights of the student population.”.

In any evaluation of the report it is important that we should take thoroughly cognizance of the fact that the only representative of an English-medium university who served on the commission to the very end, i.e. Prof. Bozzoli of the University of the Witwaterstand, was not prepared to sign the second interim report, and that he submitted a minority report particularly because of the inacceptability of the findings and suggestions of the majority as contained in chapters 3 and 4. On an analysis of the report one finds that unanimity was reached when the commission was dealing solely with aspects of education, administration and development—which constitutes 90% of the main report. We on this side of the House have taken thorough cognizance of this fact. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that, if he should give effect to these recommendations after proper consultations have taken place with the Committee of University Principals or with other authorities which may be affected by these recommendations, authorities such as the Provincial Councils, he would receive a great deal of co-operation from us for the establishment of, for example, an Advisory Council on Universities instead of the present Advisory University Committee, which, according to the findings of the commission, is not functioning properly. The same applies to the idea of “junior colleges” the whole Question of the position of universities and other institutions for tertiary education and the relations between universities and professional councils.

†However, I wish to state most emphatically that the hon. the Minister will get no co-operation from the United Party if he should introduce legislation or take any action which we regard as a violation of academic freedom and as an abrogation of existing rights. We will not tolerate any interference in the autonomy of universities and it will be to no avail for the hon. the Minister to use either the findings or recommendations of the commission to justify his actions. This applies, in particular, to the proposed legislation and the threats contained in the second interim report. These recommendations go much further than being a mere attack on university autonomy and academic freedom. They also constitute an unwarranted attack on the basic rights of citizens, a group of citizens in this particular case, i.e. the student population. In the view of the commission it is apparently quite legitimate for a group of young people who are not students “to distribute leaflets and pamphlets which are calculated to promote a particular political aim.” However, the moment this is to be done by a group of students, the action becomes a major crime. How ridiculous!

*We do not endorse the findings of the commission in respect of the concepts of “autonomy” and “academic freedom of universities”. Neither do we endorse the contention that the English-medium universities are “supra national”. We also do not accept the tremendous overreaction displayed against Nusas by the majority report, let alone the naive exoneration of the ASB by the commission. It is clear to me that the commission has become the victim of their own specific life and world philosophy, to such an extent that it was unable to come to the necessary objective conclusions in spite of the penetrating study they have made as far as these aspects are concerned.

†Let me just give one example, i.e. on page 18 of the interim report. It is stated quite correctly:

I underline “Christian National” spelt with capital letters. It is then stated:

This is quite correct. The amazing conclusion is then arrived at, however, that Nusas has the fostering of a specific political aim in mind, while ASB does not. Just imagine! No political connotation is attached to the fostering of Christian National philosophy! Do they really believe that the Christian National philosophy has not been and is not still the lifeblood of the Nationalist Party? Are there any hon. members opposite who can deny this? This is the conclusion of a commission which elsewhere in its report claims that it knows the South African society well. It knows it so well that it can condemn the attitude of the English language universities and their concepts as being based on a fallacy. It has found that Nusas’s principles and policies bring it into conflict with the community, society and the State on almost every conceivable point. It dismisses outright the claim that the difference in outlook and philosophy of life is the reason for the fact that, for example, there has been student unrest at English universities and not at Afrikaans universities. If they really knew their South African society they would have realized that when it comes to the interpretation of concepts such as “university autonomy” and “academic freedom”, there is a difference between the English university and the community of which it forms a part and the Afrikaans university and its community, and furthermore, that this difference is a difference of basic philosophy. It is a philosophical difference. It has nothing to do with undermining the State. Instead of giving due consideration to this it condemns Nusas outright and arrives at a conclusion which depicts the English-language universities as being “supra-nasionaal” and out of line. We reject this conclusion.

In dealing with the nature of the university the commission is quite right when it argues that there should be a harmonious equilibrium between the university and the broader spheres of societal relationship— the latter being the community in which the university is situated—and the State. The commission, however, fails to take into consideration that this harmonious equilibrium has been disturbed in South Africa not by the universities but by the State, and not for academic reasons but for political reasons. [Interjections.] if the commission’s recommendations were to be accepted it would lead to even greater disturbance of this equilibrium. The commission states that the concept of university autonomy and academic freedom cannot be absolutized into single universally valid truths. In order to overcome this problem it then proceeds to absolutize the policy of multinationalism as if it were accepted as a universally valid truth. How absurd! This policy is only something which is accepted within the philosophy of a certain political party, and it is not even accepted by all the members of that party. I think some of the members of that party are very reluctant to accept it when it comes to matters such as sport and the Nico Malan. By doing this …

You should study the document again.

I studied it thoroughly. Having first stated that you cannot absolutize it into a valid truth, the commission then sets out to absolutize the policy of the Government as if that were a valid truth Then there is a certain amount of mileage for the members of the commission. By doing this the commission can then proceed to condemn, for instance, the annual reaffirmation of academic freedom at English-language universities and to reject their concept of academic freedom as being based on a fundamental fallacy. This then, is the charge of the commission. Instead of questioning the wisdom of the English-language universities of re-dedicating themselves to the return of their right, namely to admit students on academic merit instead of on race and colour, the commission missed a wonderful opportunity to restore the harmonious equilibrium between the State and the university by not pointing out to the State that it is the State’s concept of academic freedom which is based on a fundamental fallacy.

Like Prof. Bozzoli I agree that the recommendations when read alone generally appear to be sound. However, read in conjunction with the findings one discovers the great differences and discrepancies. I am aware of the fact that the commission states clearly that academic freedom and university autonomy must be upheld etc., but it all depends on what their concept of that autonomy is. There is no point in coming here, as they do in their recommendations, and elevating that particular concept—which I believe was not reached from an objective point of view—and drawing attention to the insinuation that this concept of theirs is the only true and valid concept. I do not deny the fact that the State must have a say when it comes to the autonomy of universities. We recognize this. It has representation on their councils. I must object, however, when I find that the commission condones unwarrented interference.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude my remarks on the concept of academic freedom and university autonomy by saying that as long as the Government continues to deny the right of universities to admit students on academic merit, we will not have true academic freedom in South Africa; and as long as we have undue interference with the appointment of academic staff, of which we had evidence some few years ago in the case of the University of Cape Town when a non-White lecturer was appointed—so long will there be a question mark about the degree of autonomy which universities enjoy, and, of course. I want to add to this, as long as we find that a commission can condone such action.

I wish to return to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Gezina when he said that the real value of the commission’s report lies in its objectivity. I have already stated that when it comes to philosophical matters, I doubt their objectivity, and that when it comes to political matters, I am quite sure that they definitely are not objective. Their apparent definition of “political activities’’ reminds me very much of the personal experience I had when I was a student at the University of Potchefstroom for Christian Higher Education. [Interjections.] Incidentally, that is where I gained my “lewens- en wêreldbeskouing”, and I would defend the right of the Potchefstroom University to exercise academic freedom according to what they regard as being true academic freedom. But after the 1958 election, when the Nationalist Party gained a great victory, we had a mass meeting of university students, some 1 000 or more, and at this meeting one of the senior students moved a motion congratulating the Nationalist Party on its great victory and in support of the policy of apartheid. It was still known as “apartheid” in those days and not as the policy of separate development. Several speakers participated in this debate and they all spoke about the “wonderwerk wat gebeur het”— the miracle which, had taken place—and how this policy would keep the African in his place, until eventually I moved an amendment condemning the Government’s policy of apartheid. I spoke for two or three minutes and then a point of order was taken by one of the senior students who objected to the fact that I was talking politics. [Interjections.] I must say that the SRC chairman in those days was Mr. Hennie van der Walt, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, and to his everlasting credit I will say that he overruled this objection and said that I was quite entitled to have my say and to give my reasons for being against apartheid. Apparently the majority of the commission members have adherede to the same view of what is politics. As long as you agree with the Government, it is not politics. That is how I can understand their views on the recommendations in regard to the Joint Matriculation Board. I realize, as they did, that there is a need for streamlining, but I disagree when they say that you should just have the Joint Matriculation Board catering for the standards of only the White people in South Africa. I believe that we should have, as we have had it since 1916, a Joint Matriculation Board looking after the standards for all the people of South Africa. In fact, all of us live and compete in the same sphere. But once you discover the line and the attitude of the majority of the members of the commission, you can appreciate their point of view. I discovered this on page 235, and I quote—

Sir. I could use exactly the same phrases and say that every person in South Africa, irrespective of colour and race, should under the special circumstances prevailing here be trained to the utmost of his intellectual capacity. But, of course, the moment I did that I would be accused of participating in politics!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central accused the members of this commission of prejudice. I want to say that if there was ever an example of blind prejudice, then it was the speech of the hon. member itself. Sir, there is another matter I want to lay at the door of that hon. member. When the members of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations were nominated in 1972, it was those hon. members who continually said that members of this hon. House could not be unprejudiced; that they could not do proper work in this connection and that the commission should be a judicial commission. Here was a commission which consisted of prominent academics, with a judge as chairman, and while I do not want to use the word “scandalous”, I think that it is very bad taste to say here that the members of that commission were prejudiced in their views. In my humble opinion the one great asset of this report is the clear exposition which, it contains of the autonomy of the universities and academic freedom. I think that it will be a standard work for many years. I think that the commission did outstanding work in this connection. It gives a very logical exposition of the academic freedom of universities and of the autonomy of universities, and it surprises one that that hon. young member, a product of the University of Potchefstroom, can cling to this holy cow with such blind prejudice. Sir, the views of that hon. member on academic freedom and the autonomy of universities are views which no longer exist anywhere in the world; they are views which date from the British liberalistic period. There is no logic in those views. Sir, we also believe in the academic freedom of universities, but within reasonable limits.

Sir, I want to associate myself with the moves and I want to express great appreciation to the chairman and the members of this commission for their hard work and for the outstanding work which they have produced for us, because I have reason to know that work of this quality and this volume of work cannot be done without great sacrifice and perseverance. I, too, should like to place on record my grateful appreciation for the work of the commission. It is a penetrating piece of work and I believe that it will remain an authoritative, guiding source of reference for many years in respect of universities, not only for the State but also for the universities themselves. Sir, the terms of reference of this commission, as has already been said, cover a wide spectrum in connection with the universities. Some of the aspects were obviously contentious; therefore one can understand that some of the findings of the commission will also be controversial and that everyone will not agree with them; this is obvious. But, Sir, it is none the less a pity that there are individuals and newspapers that attempt to discredit this positive piece of work. The pattern which we get on that side of this House is the normal well-known pattern in connection with reports of this nature when people do not agree with them. Sir, do you know why they do not agree, and why the hon. member and the English-language press and the principals of English-language universities do not agree with it? Early in its report the commission made one finding which is like a red rag to a Jersey bull to those hon. members and their press, and that finding, one which rests on facts and on reality and which is irrefutable, is that the unique characteristic of universities in South Africa is that they have developed within a social order based on the principle of multi-national separate development. That is an objective finding which the commission made; it rests on facts. That is the reason why hon. members disagree with it.

That is wishful thinking.

The English-language Press and the United Party which take them in tow when it suits them, and the English universities have placed themselves with blind prejudice and great obstinacy on the negative road of integration and multi-racialism, and they are removed from the reality of South African Sir, they must come to their senses.

I should like to comment on two aspects of this report, but before I do that, I should like to select a few other recommendations and deal with them briefly. In the first place I want to say that the recommendation that an amount be included each year in the Budget which can be used for scholarships to attract prominent academics from abroad to come to South Africa to do research at South African universities into aspects of national importance, is a very important recommendation. I should like to see that it is implemented as soon as possible, because if we can attract foreign brainpower here to come and do research into matters of national importance, perhaps we shall be able to reap the fruits of this. Another recommendation which I should like to support is that the functions of the Commitee of University Principals be extended and that they should have a central office with a full-time secretariat. I think this is an important recommendation. Another recommendation which I should like to support is that university lecturers receive training in didactics. Perhaps we made a mistake in the past by putting people with the higher academic qualifications in front of a class of students without such lecturers having the least knowledge of methodology or didactics. The commission could not find a definite link between this fact and the high first-year failure rate, but they also state that these two facts cannot be completedly isolated from each other, and that there is possibly a link between them. Therefore I hope that we shall support this recommendation in the future. The recommendation that the Universities Advisory Committee be expanded and converted into an Advisory Council on Universities is a very drastic recommendation. The recommendation involves the appointment of a full-time director and two full-time assistant directors and that this body serve as a sort of adviser to the Minister. I am not completely satisfied that I should support this recommendation. I do not know if it will be right to place such a new hierarchy between the universities on the one hand and the Minister and his department on the other hand. I have my doubts, and I think that this demands proper consideration before it is put into operation.

Now I come to one of the most important aspects of the commission’s report. That is the college idea, on which I should like to express a few thoughts. The commission complains rightly about the existing rigidity of our universities. If one takes into consideration the progress in the structure of a university from the Middle Ages to today, then one sees that the commission does perhaps have reason to complain that there is rigidity. The commission says unambiguously that the modern university may never be static, otherwise it becomes stagnant. The university must absorb new knowledge timeously and it must even anticipate it, but the university must also be flexible and pliable. Even its physical structure must be pliable so that it can execute its academic function easily. The commission sees the university as a leader in the field of all education; but especially, says the commission, the university has a particular leader’s function to fulfil in the field of tertiary education. In our country education, and consequently the university at large, has a particular calling, viz. to develop every individual to his full potential according to his aptitudes and interests. In this task we cannot afford or tolerate any waste. I think that we all agree with that statement. To achieve this objective, the university must be able to provide a wide spectrum of differentiated training and it must have a special system at its disposal with convenient bridges and crossings. Therefore the commission foresees that the university of the future can take the form of a university with colleges within its own structure, but also surrounded by colleges of various forms, linked to it in a variety of ways. The form of theses colleges is not inflexible, and a great variation is possible. Each college will have its own council and its own academic body, and therefore it will also have to have representation in the senate and the council of the university. The commission is of the opinion that the college idea provides a practical pattern of development along which the university can develop a wider capacity for service to the whole community, and as a result of which it will be able to set its sights ever higher in the service of the community. My own opinion is that this idea is fairly drastic in the light of our present university set-up although the college idea is not completely new; there are similar organizations elsewhere in the world. Nevertheless it is very interesting to me, because it offers dynamic possibilities for development. Should it be accepted, I believe that it could put our universities on an extremely functional and meaningful road. Should these proposals of the commission be implemented to their full consequences, it could lead to all tertiary education and training becoming equal in status in due course. This will prevent one type of educational institution, one type of certificate or degree, having higher status or more snob value than another. Obviously it will lead to all forms of tertiary education coming under the wing of the university in due course. If we carry this college idea to its logical consequences, it actually means that the training of teachers, being tertiary education, will also have to take place under the guidance of the university in due course. The present position is that teachers for secondary schools are trained by universities and teachers for primary schools by colleges and universities. But, in terms of section 1A(3) of the National Education Policy Act, the training of teachers for primary and pre-primary schools must be done by a university and a college in close co-operation with each other, from a date determined by the Minister. After a reasonably broad motivation, the commission finds that section 1A(3) of the National Education Policy Act, is totally incapable of implementation. I must say that in so far as I have had experience of this close co-operation at the University of Port Elizabeth, it has been a success so far. At that university close co-operation takes place. But the commission is of the opinion that it is incapable of implementation and I do net want to argue with them about this. Therefore the commission is of the opinion that all existing training colleges must be associated with the universities, as internal or external colleges, and that the university and its colleges must be responsible in future for the training of all teachers. The college idea, as it affects the training of teachers, obviously does not preclude co-operation between the provinces and the particular universities in the future. However, it must be recognized that the college idea, as it is now being propagated here, may be interpreted as a continuation of the old institute idea, which was accepted roundabout 1967 by many people as the ideal solution for the training of teachers, but which was rejected by others at the same time. At that time it caused a fairly unpleasant fight throughout our country. The outcome at the time was the nomination of the Gericke Commission which submitted a compromise report which gave rise to compromise legislation.

I want to accept that the provinces will not be very pleased about relinquishing their colleges. In all fairness, I can understand their standpoint to a very large extent. I only know the position in the Cape Province, where there are seven training colleges scattered across its vast expanses. Each of these colleges has built up a very long and proud history. Those colleges are held in very high repute in their communities, especially because of the exceptionally high quality work and service which they provide. To forego control over institutions which have been developed over many years with so much pride and singleness of purpose into model institutions for the training of primary teachers in particular, will certainly not be easy. The provincial education departments into whose care the schools in the various provinces are entrusted, have been careful in selecting students and lecturers at their colleges in the past, so as to employ the right people at those colleges. Since doubt exists concerning the religious and cultural values of some universities one can understand that there will be a degree of unwillingness among the provinces to entrust the training of teachers to the universities.

If the report of the commission is accepted and the colleges idea is also accepted, one probably has to accept that it will be possible in due course to find a formula for co-operation between the university and the provincial administration concerned in the training of teachers at a college. Although such a college will be associated with a university, the provincial administration can obviously still play a very important role in the college, also as far as the selection of students and staff is concerned. I believe that the provincial education departments will still be able to exercise influence in the pliable structure of a college. This will contribute to the good characteristics of the present training colleges being carried over into the university as well as into the associated colleges in which teachers will possibly have to be trained. An exchange of staff between the university and its college can take place as well and an exchange of students can take place as well so that all the students will be able to enjoy the advantages of attending a university. At the University of Port Elizabeth we already have the system of universities, which amount to a number of small universities developing around a central campus. By making use of this system, and because the association will be very loose, colleges in the rural areas such as those in Oudtshoorn and Graaff-Reinet can be developed into universettes of full status and such a rural community can consequently gain by accommodating a small university and not merely a college.

However, I do not want to elaborate any further on this matter. I think that it is an interesting idea which certainly requires further investigation, and which justifies consultation between the provincial authorities, the Minister and the universities. It is certainly an idea which can be considered seriously.

In conclusion I come to the second aspect of my speech and this second interim report which deals with the non-academic activities of students. It is this part which had to endure the most cutting criticism from the English-language Press and which has also been described by certain principals of English-language universities as “preposterous, incredible and Draconian”. The mere fact that this report is regarded as an overreaction, even by some of the Afrikaans-language newspapers, shows precisely what effect the reports of the Schlebusch Commission and the good strong medicine which followed them, brought about. Therefore I consider it essential that this report, too, be seen in the right perspective, because it was drafted in the circumstances which prevailed in 1972 when we had large-scale unrest and student demonstrations at the English-language universities. It was a dangerous period for South Africa, and hon. members on that side who sat with us on the Schlebusch Commission, agreed that these people wanted to overthrow the State and the existing order. At that time drastic steps were necessary. This second report was drafted in the light of those circumstances and therefore some of its recommendations are no longer relevant today. However, it is good that the Government has such a report which was drafted by prominent academics with a judge as chairman, so that if those circumstances were to arise again, the Government would be able to step in immediately and administer the right medicine.

I want to say that I do not agree with the report of the commission as regards its recommendation that all politics be removed from the campuses. I cannot see how we can have our young people, the cream of our youth, the best brain power, living in a political vacuum for five years at a university. The very thing the Schlebusch report says is that where Nusas is also active in politics, especially subversive politics, it had a monopoly on the campuses of the English-language universities and it is recommended that other political parties also be allowed there and I should like to agree …

You agree with the United Party.

No, I do not agree with the United Party, I adhere to the Schlebusch Report. I want to conclude by making an appeal today to the English-language universities, their principals and their controlling bodies. We have now had two reports by two prominent groups of people. A group of members of Parliament with the present Speaker as chairman, and a group of prominent academics with a judge as chairman of the other. The findings of these two commissions with respect to the whole spirit and atmosphere prevailing at English-language universities were virtually unanimous and of the same tenor; that they allow themselves to be led by the nose by Nusas with a steel ring welded by that organization.

I think that it is high time that our English-speaking people realize that we no longer live in the 19th century in the period of British liberalism and British imperialism. It is high time that these people should realize, whether they like it or not, that they are living in the second half of the 20th century and that the Republic of South Africa is their fatherland. They must also realize that they have a meaningful role to play in this fatherland. We do not want them to be Nationalists. But where are the young people, the products of those universities, sitting in this House? They are not here. Do you know where they are? They have fled the country or they are banned. The young men who are sitting there are all products of Afrikaans-language universities. As a result of this negative, nihilistic view of life which is nourished at those universities …

What about Bram Fisher?

You come from England, old friend. We only want the English-language universities to play their role in this country. The English culture, character and way of life has an important role to play in South Africa, both now and in the future. Those universities must propagate this way of life and not occupy themselves with subversive activities.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply in detail to the speeches of the hon. members for Algoa and Gezina, but I should just like to say that it is significant that the hon. member for Algoa links the spirit of the second interim report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission with the Schlebusch Commission. I hope that the official Opposition will take note of the way in which this linkup has been made. It is true that in the main report there is much evidence of hard and thorough work by the commission of inquiry, especially on the financial and academic situation of the universities. The main report manifests a concern for the desperate situation in which the universities find themselves financially and it tries to make certain positive suggestions in this regard. If this were all one had to consider, obviously I do not think there would be any objection to supporting the motion of the hon. member for Gezina. This partial evaluation, however, is completely overshadowed by both the tone and the nature of the recommendations of the second interim report. When I reject this motion I do so with the second interim report in mind, as well as Chapters III and IV of the main report read in conjunction with the second interim report, which provides the main conceptual framework in terms of which the eventual recommendations were made. If one keeps Chapters III and IV and the second interim report in mind and one has read both in conjunction with each other, one can come to no other conclusion than that the logic is so tortuous and so obtuse that it is almost incomprehensible in some places. One cannot really find a clear-cut and logical argument. Therefore I must disagree with the hon. member for Algoa and say that there are many contradictions in this report.

That the second interim report is tendentious and contradictory in its analysis, that it is biased in its observations and that, in the last analysis, the recommendations are pernicious to the normal functioning of universities, I have no doubt in my own mind and I hope to prove these accusations as follows. As regards the tendentious and contradictory nature of this report, I want to mention four major contradictions which run right through this report. The first one is that there is a basic logical fallacy in the report where it consistently confuses the legal personality of the university as a corporate entity with any subsection of that particular university. This comes out clearly on pages 70 and 71 of the second interim report where the logic seems to be that the political activism of a Nusas minority equals student activism, equals student politics and equals the university’s involvement in politics. Therefore the university as a legal corporate entity must be penalized. If the same questionable logic were to be applied to Afrikaans and Black universities, I think we would find rather startling results. The second contradiction is where the report with laborious logic which would even make the Dutch philosopher Dooyeweerd who appears to be the philosophical father of this kind of reasoning, blush with embarrassment, tries to distinguish between the different spheres of competence between the State and the university. Having done so and having paid generous homage to the autonomy of both the university and the State, it destroys this very distinction that it has made in its recommendations. There is no more autonomy left if one has to implement the recommendations of this report, especially those in regard to the relationship between the university and the State. In a sense the report then says that the university has to become responsible for public order and public peace and not the State. In terms of its own logic the State is responsible for maintaining public order and peace, but now in terms of these recommendations the university has to take over these functions. Apart from the fact that the report tries to justify this in terms of an abnormal situation—no evidence is provided that there is an abnormal relationship between university and State—this is a gross insult to the Government of the day. What is abnormal? If one looks for any relevant evidence in the report one finds that the report simply falls back on its own distinction between the State on the one hand and the university on the other. Then it destroys this distinction with its own recommendation. That the logic of this report is tendentious, and dangerously so, is manifested in the fact that it consistently equates the State with the Government and the Government with society. This is a very crude but also very effective way of establishing that the only political ideology in a society that is natural, right and reasonable, is the one supported by the governing party of the day. This is a pure and simple case of ideological authoritarianism. There is no other way of looking at this. I can give a quote from the report which spells this out very clearly. On page 23 of the second interim report it is stated—

There we have it, Mr. Speaker: “State”, “government” and “society” are considered one and the same thing. They are consistently used in this way in the analysis throughout the report.

A final and equally dangerous contradiction that I would like to mention is that the report consistently confuses the structure of an organization with the personnel manning it at a particular point in time. This applies to the university as a structure and to the people who work at the university at any particular point in time. The same mistake appears in regard to the analysis of Nusas. This kind of mistake is tantamount to saying that because a man beats his wife we must destroy marriage as an institution. This is ridiculous, but the report consistently uses this kind of logic. These examples of tendentious and contradictory arguments, used in the report in order to justify the recommendations, in no way can give one any confidence in the nature and validity of those recommendations. This lack of confidence is compounded by the biased observations one finds in the report, especially when English and Afrikaans speaking universities are compared. Eventually one cannot help but come to the conclusion that this is mainly an attack on the English speaking universities and particular organizations within those universities. [Interjections.] I would like to prove this. The main thrust of the second interim report is an attack on Nusas. From pages 17 to 19 the report compares Nusas with the ASB. Both have more or less the same structural set-up and both play a role connected with politics. On page 18 it is said that the striking difference of approach between Nusas and the ASB is that Nusas aims at playing an active part in politics, not only on the campus but also in society as a whole. The report goes on to say—

Quite true.

I am coming to that point right now, and the hon. member is also involved. Using the same criteria as the report on what constitutes academic and non-academic activity of student organizations, I claim it is arrant nonsense to say that the ASB does not play an active part in politics, in society as a whole, that it does not support any particular political party and that its papers are simply evidence of study, research and reflection. If the ASB does not play any active part in politics and society, how do we explain the fact that on 8 April 1965 6 000 ASB students marched down Church Street in Pretoria proclaiming their support for apartheid with placards saying, for example: “Geen bont gehore nie?” This led an Afrikaans newspaper to comment: “Die Studerende jeug van Suid-Afrika staan vierkant agter sy leiers en sy tradisionele lewenswyse. Dit is onteenseglik bewys deur die massa-optog van sy studente.” [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, the person who was president of the ASB at the time happens to be the hon. member for Geduld. In a publication to commemorate the 25 years of existence of the ASB, the present member for Rissik, who was president of the ASB in 1961 and 1962, had this to say—

At the 1971 congress of the ASB the theme was “The Place of the Coloureds in South Africa.” When it appeared that the ASB was punting for a Coloured homeland, the Prime Minister, who was guest-speaker, dropped his prepared speech and tried to explain Government Policy on the Coloureds. So concerned was Die Burger dated 5.11.71 about this development that the following editorial was written about the active role the ASB was playing in politics, and I quote:

*The editor went on to say that the ASB was a pressure group and that it was being influenced by lecturers from outside and by older politicians. The editorial is available to everyone. To me this is obvious evidence that the comparison between the ASB and Nusas is a biased one.

I should like to dwell on the whole question of student protest. Evidently this is the crucial difference between the ASB and Nusas. Nusas students evidently protested.

†The whole question of student protest and student action appears to be a very emotional one in South Africa. What are the dry, neutral facts available to us? If we look at the 1972-’73 student unrest in Cape Town, we find that between 1 June 1972 and 21 May 1973 206 people, the vast majority of them students, were arrested for either contravening municipal by-laws or provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Of these 206 people, 45 students acknowledged guilt, admitting that they had contravened municipal by-laws. One stood trial and on appeal had to pay a fine of R20.

Who wrote that speech?

I wrote it myself, man. I have a mind of my own. The State, however, withdrew charges against 160 people who were arrested and the Minister of Police had to pay R10 000 in damages and costs to 12 of these people. By 1974 the Minister of Police announced that R34 250 had been paid out in out-of-court settlements to students.

*Surely, it is clear that one should not become over-emotional about the actions of a few students. However, I want to come to the recommendations themselves.

†What do these recommendations really imply? In chillingly blunt language the report prefaces its specific recommendations by saying (page 78) that:

The prefacing remarks continue:

If this Government accepts this kind of thinking, and implements the recommendations flowing from it, it will simply be a case of the Government forcing the universities to do the dirty work which the Government is not prepared to do. No university English. Afrikaans or Black, can tolerate such interference and still be proud to call itself a university. The report makes these recommendations after implicitly admitting, on page 77, that in terms of existing legislation the Government has blanket powers to cope with any form of public unrest, disorder and subversion, and yet it proceeds to recommend that despite these awesome powers, the structures of the university must be impinged upon in such a way that the universities must act on behalf of the Government in punishing a small minority of students which from time to time displeases the Government. This is hysterical reasoning of the first order. I am persuaded that this second interim report was written in a spirit of panic, exactly as the hon. member for Algoa said. The hon. Minister will be ill-advised to take its recommendations seriously. I wish to plead with him to ignore these recommendations for I am convinced that if he should consider them seriously, the consequences would be disastrous, not only for all the universities in our country, but also for this society.

*When we look at this report, I think it is very important that word “abnormal”, when it is used as a comparison between university and State, should be used with utmost circumspection when we look at truly abnormal circumstances which prevailed in South Africa during the Second World War and during the 1914 rebellion, we find that prominent leaders in our society today, made speeches at that time which would make Nusas seem pale in terms of the overthrow of order and in terms of violent revolution. What action did the Government take at that time? Did it take similar steps? No, should we now go and change the whole structure of universities because there is a group of students who are fired by revolutionary romanticism? Surely this is an absurdity! The chairman of the report never even looked at the situation during the Second World War and the 1914 Rebellion. There we have comparative evidence of the situation in a society when abnormal circumstances prevail. But in this report we have no indication of what “abnormal circumstances” are. Merely minor things said by small groups of Nusas are quoted and as a result of these people are frightened out of their wits, whereas, if they had to be frightened out of their wits in 1914 and in 1939-’45, what were to have become of this society? Therefore I want to say that we need a greater sense of responsibility at this moment than what we find in this second interim report. We dare not destroy the structures of our universities just because there are people who look at a situation with hysterical reasoning.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a tragic occasion today. The hon. member for Rondebosch, who is opposing the motion, and the other hon. member, who introduced an amendment, are letting a golden opportunity slip. They could have availed themselves of the opportunity of conducting a penetrating discussion on a report which was prepared over a number of years. This report has exposed the dangers which threaten our universities and has unhesitatingly stated the case as it should be stated. Even where the State’s contribution is too small, this is mentioned. Criticism is not reserved for one side only, but is freely expressed in all directions. In addition, equal treatment for all universities is advocated, specifically in regard to financial formulas and student fees. What response do we get to this? We simply get negative criticism, criticism which is not constructive in any way.

The hon. member for Rondebosch referred in passing to Dooyeweerd. He did not say whether he understood Dooyeweerd or whether he agreed with him. He suggested that this report was really doing away with the spheres of life advocated by Dooyeweerd and pointed out here. Prof. Bozzoli did not differ as far as the financial recommendations were concerned. He singled out chapters III and IV in his minority report, but he supported the financial recommendations. These, however, are in fact based on the various spheres of life, on the functions of the State and the functions of the university. The hon. member should read the report again. It is quite clear that in taking his stand on university autonomy, the hon. member is in fact recognizing the spheres of life in which the university moves. How can he say now that he does not accept it? After all, he is taking his stand on it!

No, I am not taking my stand on it.

Now the hon. member says that it is inviolable. The family is also a sphere of life: the father, the mother and the child. One enjoys a reasonable degree of freedom in one’s dealings with one’s child, but if he were to murder another man, the State would interfere in that sphere of life. The same applies to universities. I should like to know the view of that hon. member and of the hon. member for Berea regarding the stage at which the State may interfere. [Interjections.]

Order! There is really no need for hon. members to try and help the hon. member for Bloemfontein West while he is debating.

I am asking those hon. members at what stage interference in a university should be allowed. Do they mean to suggest that the autonomy is such that a student—whether he belongs to a minority or to a majority group—may do as he likes on a campus? Do they mean to tell me then that there is interference every time? Where does one draw the line? In other words. Sir, this second interim report has discussed the climate, it has discussed the sterility of political conditions on certain university campuses and has related this to Nusas, amongst other factors. This commission has come to the conclusion that this is the method it recommends for combating that situation. The hon. member for Potchefstroom, the hon. the Deputy Minister in front of me, was a member of a commission which has reported, and in that report we have found the climate and the idiom in which Nusas operates. However, the method we have decided on for combating this is different. Sir, the hon. member for Durban Central therefore agrees with the hon. member for Rondebosch that the report should be rejected in its entirety, but as far as the facts of the situation are concerned, he and his caucus have come to the same conclusions in regard to Nusas. How on earth can he come along now and reject the report in its entirety? Why does he not tell us that he accepts the climate and the idiom which the commission has found to exist in respect of Nusas, but that they disagree with the method, as was said by the hon. member for Algoa? The hon. member for Algoa said that he did not agree with the idea of banning politics from campuses, and I do not agree with it either. In fact, Sir, I was instrumental in getting political parties allowed on the campus of the University of the Orange Free State. I believe that our young people should grow up in the responsible climate of parliamentary politics and that is the difference; that side propagates and stands for the development of politics outside the parliamentary structure, and they are inspired by motives which will cause this Parliament to disappear. This is what they advocate and this is the real difference, and the hon. member for Rondebosch cannot deny it.

Of course I deny it.

Sir, it is a pleasure to me to support this motion which has been introduced, specifically because we have been given a penetrating discussion of the financial conditions at our universities. To begin with, I want to point out at once that drastic changes have already been made as a result of the interim report which was published in 1969. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central creates the impression that there have been no changes and that this report was futile. But what are the facts? The interim report pointed out to us that the State’s contribution was smaller than it should be, and as a result of that report, which was not tabled, that contribution was increased from 64% to 73% of the income of the universities. The situation in other countries was also examined. The percentage which is at present being contributed to university expenditure in respect of teaching costs, the salaries of lecturers, etc., amounts to 74,4% of a university’s income. For this reason I want to allege that this interim report, although it was first published as far back as 1969 and has only now been tabled, has had a beneficial effect on our universities, so much so that all the universities have grown tremendously since 1969. But hon. members on that side of the House pay no heed to this tremendous growth at our universities. Our universities have blossomed. It has been possible for them to plan for the future. It has been possible, on the one hand, to judge in advance what the duties of the State would be, and it has been possible, on the other hand, to make provision for the rapid growth in student numbers which was to be experienced during that period. In spite of this the commission said that in respect of teaching costs, an ad hoc situation would apply up to 1972. For the future they advocate a more efficient formula. The formula they advocate in respect of teaching costs calls a number of principles to mind.

The first principle which comes to mind here is that we must do away with the subsidized course as the criterion, according to which the university is subsidized. In its place they suggest the student as a numeric unit. It is quite clear what this would lead to. The moment we have the student as a numeric unit, instead of being dependent on the subsidized course as such, universities will no longer be able to load their degrees with courses just for the sake of the subsidy they get, i.e. on the basis of the number of students who follow subsidized courses. The student will then be counted as a unit. I want to dwell on this for a moment and point out that the commission proposes that an undergraduate student should count as one unit, honours students as two units and students studying for master’s degrees and doctorates as three units. But there is a time restriction attached to this principle and that time restriction will ensure that those students do not stay at university any longer than they need to. In this way it is being proposed that the State contribution for undergraduate students should continue for two years more than the minimum period in respect of three-year or four-year courses, and for three years more in the case of longer courses. Honours students are counted for only one year for the purposes of State contributions. The meaning of this is very clear, and that is that it will no longer be possible for “loafers”, with respect and in quotation marks, to stay on at universities for while the State’s contribution may eventually vary between 75% and 85% according to this formula, it means that if the university allows such students on the campus, students it has to support, its subsidy for them will eventually be withdrawn; it will not receive a State contribution for them and this will mean that it will have to support them from student fees. Which student’s fees? Those of the students who do their work. Then you will see, Sir, that the students themselves will interfere and see to it that those loafers are removed from their campuses. For that reason I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any prospect of this very interesting recommendation being accepted. I understand that it is subject to changes. Some of its elements or components may be altered, but the principle is very important, for this will remain unalterable and, as I have said, it will have that very important advantage. I may add in parentheses that we have already heard of university principals admonishing their students to pass their examinations.

Sir, this brings me to capital financing, which is also a very important facet of university financing. Another result of the interim report is that 85% of capital expenditure is being redeemed in so far as interest and redemption is subsidized.

Sir, I want to come to the point at once by telling you that the principle which, was particularly important here was that the commission accepted that the State is responsible for preparing its citizens for the future. The principle was accepted that society should contribute to university financing by means of taxes. The principle that was kept in mind here was that future generations would also enjoy the advantages of a well-planned university with sufficient capital and of the people who would be trained by it. For that reason the premise is that the State should render generous assistance in this regard, and for that reason this commission says that for the present, capital expenditure should remain the way it was, but that in future buildings and land should be financed by the State in their entirety. It goes on to say, in respect of the existing debt and loans, that these should be redeemed from a fund to be established by means of a contribution of R50 a student. This fund will also help them to defray future capital expenditure which is not State-supported. This, too, appears to me to be a very interesting idea. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is able at this stage to let us in on his thinking in this regard, but I should very much like to see this idea being developed, precisely because it would ensure stability.

I also want to refer to the possibility of universities being subsidized by means of Government securities issued by the State. Something of this nature should be possible, especially if the universities were to invest their surplus funds in Government securities. At the moment they are investing their surplus funds in pension funds and insurance companies. If they were to invest them in Government securities, they might pay a much lower interest rate than six months ago, for example, when a loan had to be negotiated at the maximum interest rate of 12%. They would then be able to obtain a lower interest rate on a competitive market from time to time.

There remains only the question of the financing of residences. The commission was very honest about this. It said that it did not have sufficient information at its disposal and recommended that the financing and nature of residences should form the subject of another thorough investigation. I believe that it would be a good thing for the financing of residences to be thoroughly investigated, for this is where the bottle-necks in the future development of our universities will probably occur.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems which one has with this motion is that so far the speakers on the Government side have certainly not indicated which recommendations of both the second interim report and the main report they actually support and to which ones they object. So far we have only had an indication that in respect of the operation of political parties on campuses there are at least two members on the Nationalist Party side who are not in favour of that. The mover of the motion presumably is, because he asked for the whole of the recommendations, where possible, to be implemented.

Where do you read that?

Therefore, already it is clear that there is a slight difference of opinion. What we are entitled to know before this debate is finished is which of the recommendations contained in these two reports the Government is prepared to accept and which in fact it rejects. I think this is the very least one can ask for in a debate of this nature. The time that is available to debate a report of this magnitude—the main report comprises 528 pages and the second interim one 90 pages— makes of course our task an extremely difficult one.

The game was in fact given away by the hon. member for Algoa because he quoted what is the most important finding of the whole report, viz. that unique characteristic of university existence in South Africa is that they have settled into shape in the social order based upon the principle of multi-national separate development. What the hon. member for Algoa and members on the other side will not accept, is that the concept of multi-national separate development is rejected by at least 40% of the White population and by the bulk of the Black population of South Africa. This is a fact they must accept. The decisions which were made to have separate universities in South Africa, the decisions in terms of which Black, Coloured and Indian people, except for very limited exceptions, are excluded from White universities were decisions to which 40% of the White population in South Africa were not a party. They oppose that concept while people at the English universities make it quite clear that they do not agree that that is the correct approach to university life in South Africa. That is really the reason why there is this attack on the English-speaking universities, and not only by hon. members on the other side. There is a thread which runs through this report and which characterizes English-speaking universities as though they were not part of South Africa and are trying to go their own particular way. I want to say here today that as far as the English-speaking universities of South Africa are concerned, they have rendered a service to South Africa. They have projected an image of freedom of speech, they have projected an image of being dedicated to academic freedom and university autonomy and they have projected an image of a high standard of academic teaching and research. All of these things have brought credit to South Africa as a whole. I do not derogate from what Afrikaans universities have done in many fields, but they are not the ones continually under attack. It is the English-speaking universities that are persistently under attack. In this regard I want to refer to the remarks concerning Prof. Bozzoli. It was alleged that he had preconceived views and that the publication of a document on open universities was not coincidental. In his regrettable ignorance, that hon. member is unaware of the fact that that is in fact a re-issue of a publication which was issued many, many years ago. In fact. Prof. Bozzoli did not decide the date of publication of that document. It is quite clear that this is once again an attempt to smear a man whom I think should be held in high esteem in South Africa. I believe that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand is an outstanding academic, an outstanding university administrator and a man who stands for freedom of speech and freedom generally in South Africa. The attempt to smear him in this fashion is an act which I think is reprehensible in the extreme.

I would like now to deal with some of the matters arising from the second interim report. Surely a student and a lecturer should be regarded as a citizen in exactly the same way as any other citizen? Surely he should be entitled to equality of treatment? I want to quote in this regard from page 83 of the Second Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Universities. I want to quote this so that there can be no misunderstanding about the point I am making. I want to quote the last paragraph of section 23.3. It reads as follows—

What about the number of demonstrations held and pamphlets distributed by people who are not students? Why should students be treated differently? Why should they not be trated the same as everybody else? There should be no more provisions in respect of one section of a community than there are in respect of any other section of that community. In our respectful view, what should happen is that the relationship between students and their lecturers and universities should be governed by the normal rules of contract and it should be left to the university to decide upon the contents of that contract. Their relationship with the State should be governed by the normal laws of the land that apply to other citizens. I venture to suggest that if we look at the picture of student behaviour in South Africa over the years, particularly over the years during which the Nationalist Party has been in power, we will find that if we compare the behaviour of the students in South. Africa—and here I refer particularly to the students from English-speaking universities because their behaviour has been singled out—it compares very well with the behaviour of students in overseas countries. In fact, they have in many cases acted in a responsible manner.

There is another issue I want to raise, viz. the question of extra-parliamentary opposition. On page 73 of the second interim report of the commission, the following statement is made—

With great respect, the mere fact that there is action which is extra-parliamentary does not mean that that action is unconstitutional or unlawful. There are many demonstrations and expressions of opinion by newspapers and individuals. There are all sorts of organizations that are entitled to express their views on important matters in South Africa and, provided that their actions are not unlawful, there is no reason why those actions should be prohibited; in fact, those actions should be allowed. We talk about the political party issue. We suddenly find here now that the Nationalist Party is concerned that political parties should not be banned from campuses. How can you stop people who have a particular political point of view, which is a legitimate point of view, from expressing it merely because they do not belong to a recognized political party? They are entitled to do so as long as their actions are lawful and as long as they do not act in an improper way. There is no limit to the examples one could give, if only one had time, to show that the ASB has expressed political views and that it has participated in actions which cannot be excluded if this type of thing is to become law.

There is one last matter which I want to deal with. Reference is made to the system of communication between the students and the university authorities. I venture to say that the SRC system which exists in South Africa is, when compared with other countries, as good as most and in fact better than most.

Lastly there is the threat of the withdrawal of financial support. I believe that to use State subvention as a means for the State to impose its policy goes utterly and fundamentally against university autonomy and the right of people to be educated at universities. It is an undue threat with which one cannot agree.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the two hon. members who served on the Schlebusch Commission and who have participated in this debate. I want to say that one regrets their attitude and their half-hearted attempts to deal with the recommendations of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission which are directly opposed to the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission. One can understand their position, because they are now faced with a motion from a colleague and they are not in the fortunate position in which you, Mr. Speaker, have been placed, which is, if I may use the words of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, a “supra party political position” where you are therefore not able to be called upon to deal directly with the issue which is before us. What we have before us today is evidence that when this Government, in dealing with the problems with which we are faced—we dealt with them on the Schlebusch Commission—finds that certain things do not fit into their pattern of indoctrination and their policy in the university sphere and elsewhere, they are prepared to do a double somersault and to run away from the recommendations they made previously. The members of the Schlebusch Commission should be prepared to stand up and say unequivocally today that they reject the motion of the hon. member for Gezina, who wants the acceptance of recommendations aimed at curbing the political activities of students, recommendations which are directly in conflict with the report they have signed. Let me go further in the time that is available to me. This commission of inquiry, the report of which we are discussing this afternoon, claims to believe in university autonomy and academic freedom and it says so in its report. Then it proceeds to say that that freedom and academic autonomy should not only be determined within the laws applicable to all citizens for the maintenance of law and order, but must also conform to the servile acceptance of the political philosophies of the Nationalist Government. That is their attitude towards academic freedom and university autonomy. Let me go on further. The commission obviously states on one page that it firmly subscribes to the right of protest of any individual as well as the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association, but it immediately goes on to prohibit student participation even in pamphlet campaigns and in what it calls political demonstrations which might not be in keeping with what the Government would like to see. They say that these activities should not only be punishable by fines on the universities, but that they could be passed on to the students by the university authorities.

The commission finds that SRCs become the tools of Nusas. The evidence which we had was completely to the contrary. I need only give one quote which appears in the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission where Prof. Dugard made the following significant remark:

Let me quote an extract from his evidence—

Now the commission finds that the SRCs are contaminated by Nusas and that, therefore, Nusas must be banned as an organization. Let me just refer briefly to what was said on this matter by the Schlebusch Commission which had become the Le Grange Commission by the time this report came in. Let me refer, first of all, to the position in regard to student activity outside of purely party political activities. We found no reason, for instance, to complain against students who, motivated and within the law, turn their attention towards matters such as inadequate wages and certain other aspects of industry in South Africa. We have no objection to that. In fact, as members of the commission we said that it was the duty of the Government to see to such matters and that there would then be no need for this type of protest to draw attention to this country. We did not find that that was something that should not be done. What we did say was that, when such occasions were utilized to foment strikes or disturbances, they were proceeding beyond the legitimate activities of students participating in politics. We went further to say quite categorically that not only should political activities be permitted on the campuses but that it was highly desirable that that should be so. I quote from page 515 of the report:

We felt it was desirable that students should not be isolated from the actual politics of the country by not allowing party political activities on the campuses.

With regard to the question of the banning of Nusas, I just want to conclude by quoting our findings. The hon. member for Algoa suggested that the second interim report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission was produced in the heat of the moment, but in fact that report was dated almost contemporaneously with the second report of the Schlebusch Commission. What did we say in that report? I quote (p. 31, para 23):

Two hon. members who were members of the commission spoke this afternoon and it appears that they have changed their political attitudes in that they were not prepared to condemn outright the suggestions contained in this second interim report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission that Nusas should be banned from the campuses. I know the hon. the Minister will do what is required in the time he has at his disposal. No doubt he will keep talking until the time for the debate has elapsed so that he can thereby save the Minister of Indian Affairs who is not here, the Deputy Minister of the Interior and the hon. members for Algoa, Pretoria Central, Schweizer-Reneke, Cradock and Bloemfontein West the embarrassment of having to vote against the motion of the hon. member for Gezina.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will probably not expect me, in the 20 minutes that remain for me to reply to this debate, to deal with every argument that has been raised. That would be simply impossible. The hon. member who moved the motion, the hon. member for Gezina, described the report of the commission as the most significant educational report which to his knowledge had ever been submitted to this House. I want to agree with him that it is indeed an extremely important report. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member was certainly not exaggerating. I want to thank him for having moved this motion and for having motivated it in the way he did. I have already expressed my thanks in writing to the chairman and members of this commission and to those who co-operated with it, but I am glad to have this opportunity of doing so in this House as well today. I think that thanks are due to this commission, not only from me as the responsible Minister and from the hon. member for Gezina as the person who moved this motion, but from all of us in this House. I must say that I deplore the fact that the hon. member for Durban Central, who introduced the amendment, did not express any appreciation for the commission’s work. The closest approach to appreciation was what was said by the hon. member for Rondebosch in respect of the financial investigation which took place. Sir, we are dealing here with a really comprehensive report. The hon. members who took part in the debate explained how much time had been spent on it. In the report itself we find particulars of the modus operandi. Every single person who approaches this matter in an objective frame of mind must be impressed by the gigantic task performed by this commission and kept up over a period of almost five years. For this reason I expect us all to have appreciation for the work done by this commission. That does not mean that I expect us all to agree with everything that report contains.

This brings me to the second part of the motion, where the Government is requested to give effect, where possible, to this report. It seems to me that all the Opposition speakers simply ignored that “where possible”. The hon. member for Yeoville, who left after he had made his little speech, insisted that before we adjourned today I should say what the Government was going to do about this bulky report. I want to ask him in his absence whether he expects the Government to take the decisions on its own. In other words, I take it that he is opposed to any consultation with the universities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have no hesitation in accepting this motion. The Government will continue to give attention to it and to do what it considers to be necessary and in the interests of our universities. I now want to reply to the question: Where do we stand in regard to this report? Sir, I want to tell you that only one single chapter of this report has been dealt with, and it was dealt with after the Government had given all the universities every opportunity to comment on it and after consultations had been held with their financial officials. Only the recommendation concerning the new formula for subsidizing has been dealt with. The Government has accepted it, and that is really my reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. That formula for subsidizing has been accepted and has even been improved upon in certain respects, as far as the figures are concerned. I do not have time to go into the details, but in the light of inflation and circumstances which have arisen, the Government has made certain adjustments to the figures in the favour of the universities. I think this will be proved by the money we are going to appropriate in the Budget.

It is the easiest thing in the world, of course, for a speaker to take his cue mainly from the English-language newspapers, which attacked this report on the grounds of chapters III and IV and on the grounds of the minority report, to study those few chapters, and then to talk about them in this House. But, Sir, if one considers this report objectively, one will see that the next step which should be taken is to consider the recommendation that the University Advisory Committee be converted into an Advisory Council on Universities with new functions, with new powers, and with more facilities available to it. That is the starting-point. It is mentioned over and over again in the report that that body is to be consulted in connection with these matters. We are dealing with this at the moment. If we make sufficient progress, we may amend the Act even during this session to submit the new constitution of the Advisory Council on Universities to Parliament. Until we have done that, we cannot give effect to any other aspect of this report. In the meantime, however, the universities could do a very great deal themselves if they were to take this report to heart and to examine themselves to see where improvements can be made. The hon. member for Algoa, for example, argues that lecturers should be trained in didactics. This is not something we want to force on the universities, but I think that the universities should nevertheless give serious attention to this idea. If we really want to combat the failure rate, this is one of the aspects we could most certainly consider.

There is one other aspect to which the universities could give serious consideration in the meantime, and I want to lay great emphasis on this, namely the increasing tendency for university councils to abdicate their duties and powers, often to the senate and often to student bodies. I want to make it very clear that the university council is the responsible body as far as the administration of the university is concerned. It must ensure that it does not abdicate its powers by making all kinds of concessions, whether justified or not. We shall have to go into this matter.

Now, what is the basis of the criticism we have heard here today? If we state it in simple terms, without going into detail, it is quite clear that the criticism is based on the minority report of Professor Bozzoli. What is really the phrase to which all this criticism refers? Professor Bozzoli wrote the following in his minority report—

I repeat—

and I absolutely deny that this was a finding of the commission. I want to ask the hon. members who spoke on this to do their homework better. I say that this is not a finding of the commission. It is a description by the commission of the factual situation as it has existed in South Africa in recent years. There is no question of a finding to this effect. I want to read out a paragraph to you, for I think that this is a gross misrepresentation of what was said by the commission in this regard. I think, too, that the hon. members who adopted that standpoint have slighted the judge and his commissioners in doing so. I want to read to you what the judge himself said during a radio interview in connection with this commission’s report. He said on 3 November 1974—

Sir, I think that these hon. members really owe this honourable commission an apology. This was the basis of the biased and negative criticism which has been expressed here on the work of this commission.

Sir, the second point of criticism was based on the charge that certain parts of the commission’s report interfered with the academic freedom and the autonomy of our universities. I want to say that that charge is completely unfounded. Sir, the commission in fact recommended that the autonomy and the academic freedom of the universities should be watched over, and it recommended that the universities should reflect on those concepts, because they are concepts on which people may differ. In fact, no court in the Western world has yet given an acceptable description of academic freedom. The commission clearly says: “You should go home and reflect on these concepts.” In actual fact not only the commission, but some of our universities accept that no pressure is being brought to bear on the universities to move in this direction. Sir, I want to show you the pressure that is brought to bear on a man who has the courage to approach this report objectively. I quote from the Sunday Times of 24 November 1974, in which an attack is made on Prof. Stock’s comment on this report—

Sir, do you know what the heading of this article is?

Professor Stock is out of step.

That is their standpoint. I see that the hon. member for Rondebosch is looking at his voters on the gallery. I noticed that he was talking for the gallery in many respects. This man was not speaking for the gallery when he used the words I have quoted.

Sir, wh,at is the crux of this criticism? The hon. Opposition’s interpretation of autonomy and academic freedom is simply based on their opposition to separate universities. We had that here repeatedly. Some of my colleagues also referred to it. The hon. member for Yeoville said in a previous debate that every university should have the right to admit whom it likes, to appoint whom it likes, to teach what it likes, the way it likes. This is a very narrow concept of university autonomy and academic freedom. But while this is the point at issue, I want to emphasize here and to make it quite clear on behalf of the Government that as long as the National Party is in power in South Africa, there will be separate universities, not because we want to discriminate on a racial basis, but because for many people in South Africa the separate universities have opened doors which used to be closed to them. These much-vaunted open universities of which we have heard, which have also published this booklet to which the hon. member for Gezina referred, did admit a number of non-White students before the 1959 Act, but it was nothing but what I have described before in this House as window-dressing. Of course they did make a contribution with the people they trained, but the Bantu, the Coloured people and the Indians never really came into their own on the university level. It is this Government which has created that possibility by means of separate universities. For that reason I say that these universities which are grouped together in this way had better keep their academic freedom lectures and have a day of mourning for this matter once a year. As long as the National Party is in power in South Africa, we shall have separate universities and we shall enable everyone to develop his abilities to the full on university level.

I now come to the second interim report. Sir, you will remember what the circumstances were in 1972. That was the time when there was fairly widespread student unrest in South Africa. We had debates on those matters in this House during that time, during February and May 1972, and on both those occasions I made the Government’s standpoint and mine quite clear. I said that the Government’s standpoint was that it expected every university to set its own house in order. The hon. members will remember that I said that. And I said that they should remember that if they were not prepared to do so, if they were too spineless or did not have the courage to do so, they should not expect the Government to watch with folded arms while things went wrong at our universities and in the country as well. In that atmosphere I requested the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, on behalf of the Government, to publish an interim report on student activism. That report is this second interim report which was published in September 1972. About the same time, during the same session of the House of Assembly, the hon. the Prime Minister proposed here that a Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations be appointed, and the Schlebusch Commission, as it was later called, commenced its activities. When it appeared that the work of these two commissions had to a large extent overlapped, the Government took no decision on that second interim report, and you will remember that any steps which were subsequently taken arose from the report of the Schlebusch Commission. In the first place there was the restriction of the eight Nusas leaders and in the second place an Act was placed on the Statute Book, the Affected Organizations Act. Nusas was declared an affected organization and its sources of finance abroad were consequently cut off. Sir, this is where we stand at the moment. No decision has been taken on anything in this report, except for the first point in connection with the formula for subsidizing. I have said that we expect the universities to set their own house in order. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Gezina, referred to speeches made by certain principals of English language universities, speeches made before first-year students. I want to tell you that I welcomed this. I have a cutting here from a speech which, was made by the principal of the University of Cape Town, in which he said, amongst other things—

He went on in that vein. I say that I welcome this, and if the universities were to put into effect what they are saying here— for I want to say quite honestly, Sir, that this is the first time I have seen such outspoken standpoints so widely expressed by principals of the English language universities …

You have obviously never listened.

I want to tell that hon. member who is being so loud that I know of a student who is very active in student politics, who has been at university for eight years and has only passed nine courses. If those universities are serious about this, why did they not get rid of that kind of student long ago?

I suppose he was the captain of the rugby team.

I know of several other students, strings of them, who are still doing first-year courses but are making no progress. I want to say, Sir, that I welcome this proposed action.

I come now to the question of withholding the subsidy, and I want to tell the hon. members who spoke about this that it is not a phenomenon which is confined to South Africa where so-called authoritarian action is taken. In America, at the time of the student riots there, they thought along the same lines. There was a Gallup opinion poll in this regard. I am not referring now to a Pegasus opinion poll. A Gallup opinion poll was conducted, according to which 84% of the public demanded that the subsidy to universities be reduced. You know what my standpoint was. I stated it in 1972, namely that by withholding the subsidy, one would be punishing the guilty as well as the innocent, and that one should therefore think twice about the matter.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) the desirability of greater co-operation between the countries of Africa south of the Sahara in the political, economic and social spheres; and
2. (b) the necessity that the Republic should play a more significant role in giving practical and controlled assistance to emergent nations.

I believe that this motion is one of the few non-controversial motions which will be brought before this House this year, for I am convinced that not a single member of this House is indifferent to the two points contained in the motion. Consequently I want, at the outset, to make it very clear that I have great appreciation for the steps which have been taken, and which still are being taken, by the authorities and by private bodies, to bring about greater co-operation between South Africa and other African countries and to render assistance to other States in Africa. I am also aware that the Government is involved in a considerable number of matters which fall into this category, but in respect of which it is not deemed advisable to make public announcements or invite public discussion. As responsible South Africans it is our duty to recognize the delicacy of the situation, and not to attempt to embarrass the Government.

At the outset I want to associate myself with, the ideas expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech in the Senate, last year on 23 October, when he stated, inter alia the following (Senate Hansard, 1974. vol. II, col. 3336)—

The hon. the Prime Minister continued in this vein and went on to say that South Africa harboured no aggressive intentions against any country in Africa, but wanted to extend the hand of friendship and assistance. At the end of his speech, he added the following—

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime all of us have taken cognizance with appreciation of the role which the hon. the Prime Minister has played, and still is playing, to bring about a measure of relaxation of tension in die Southern African situation and to place relations between the Republic and certain other countries in Africa on a sound basis. We are aware that this is an extremely difficult task, and all we can do is hope that his efforts in this regard will be crowned with an increasing measure of success.

The question of inter-territorial co-operation with and the rendering of assistance to African countries should of course be seen against the broader background of the world-wide division into rich and poor nations, into technologically developed and underdeveloped peoples, a division which to a considerable extent—not in an absolute sense but unfortunately—also coincides with the division into Whites and non-Whites. That most, of the countries of Africa fall into the category of poor, underdeveloped and indigent peoples is of course general knowledge. A further factor in this regard is the fact that the underdeveloped countries of the world are involved in the ideological struggle between the free Western World and the communist dictatorships. Obviously we in South Africa also bear the responsibility of contributing as much as we are capable of, or are allowed to contribute, in this regard. Of course there is a direct correlation between our contribution in this regard and the extent to which we are isolated, particularly on the African continent. As we know the earlier picture was more positive, as is apparent from the role which we played in the CSA and the CCTA and also, previously, in some of the agencies of the U.N. I do not at this stage wish to deal with the causes of the estrangement between the Republic and most of the countries of Africa, except to emphasize that South Africa will only be able to play its role on this continent satisfactorily if it is possible for a new relationship to develop between us and those other African States. In my speech today I want at a later stage, to concentrate primarily on the question of whether there are any possible new initiatives which South Africa could take in this regard both on an official as well as on a non-official level. For the sake of perspective it is perhaps essential to refer briefly to the measure of co-operation which already exists between South Africa and the other countries in Africa, and to the extent to which we are already rendering assistance. From the nature of the case I cannot go into this matter in full details, but I am in fact doing this to demonstrate that we on this side of the House are thoroughly aware of the fact that co-operation and assistance does exist.

On various occasions we have in fact been informed in regard to this matter by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as by other hon. Ministers. Only the day before yesterday an hon. Minister informed this House of the assistance the S.A. Railways is rendering to Mozambique in respect of their railways and harbours. As far as diplomatic liaison is concerned, we have official relations with Malawi and Rhodes’a, while direct channels of communication also exist with the BLS countries—particularly with Lesotho and Swaziland. We also know that liaison on the non-public level also exists between our Government and certain other governments. This appears inter alia from the recent visit of the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of the Government to Zambia and Liberia, and from the visits of persons from some African countries to South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs informed us last year for example that in the year ending 31 July 1974 there had been 24 Heads of State or Ministers from Africa who had had contact with the South African Government, and that there had been official liaison with 12 countries. In addition there had been 144 visitors from Africa to the Republic who had been involved in official discussions, while ten African countries had been visited by members of the South African Government. Apart from that, 145 South African officials had visited other African countries. This is quite an impressive picture.

We are of course aware of the customs and other financial and monetary agreements and measures between the Republic and the BLS countries, and of the fact that financial assistance, mostly in the form of aid in respect of particular projects, is being rendered. With aid in respect of particular projects I mean, for example, the loan to Malawi for the construction of Lilongwe and the technical co-operation in respect of the Ruacana scheme in the Kunene as well as the Cabora Bassa scheme. These schemes were only possible because South Africa extended its co-operation in respect of such schemes, and indicated its willingness to take large quantities of the power generated. Obviously this applies in respect of the development of the Oxbow scheme and the scheme in Swaziland. We can accept that South Africa rendered financial assistance in the form of loans to other African countries as well. I think it is generally accepted that sound assistance should usually not to take the form of direct donation, but that it should rather be given by way of loans in respect of an approved project. It is a known fact that many African countries feel sensitive in regard to the acceptance of direct financial assistance, even if it is by way of a loan, and that they prefer to accept assistance in an indirect manner.

It is also a known fact that in spite of the absence of contact on a diplomatic level, South Africa frequently renders assistance of a technological nature to other African countries. I do not want to go into details, but we are aware of the role which our officials and scientists are playing in this regard. We are aware of the considerable and mutual dependence in respect of the use of railways, harbours, telephone communications—both within as well as outside South Africa—and of our marketing machinery as embodied in the South African Wool Board, the Citrus Exchange, and so on. We are also aware of the efforts to promote tourism on a regional basis and of the growing trade traffic, the result of which is that the Republic could achieve a favourable balance of payments position. In addition to that we know that South Africa is playing an important role in that it is providing relatively large numbers of labourers from Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland and fewer from Botswana, Malawi and Rhodesia, with employment. We are familiar with the latest developments. We are also aware of the part private South African financial and business institutions are playing in the economic development of some of the African countries. However, it is clear that what we have done so far, or were allowed to do, actually falls far short of what is required if we bear in mind the requirements and the need of Africa, as well as the necessity for penetrating and wideranging action if South Africa, particularly its White population, wishes to develop a sound relationship with the rest of Africa. Obviously South Africa’s resources and its ability to render aid are not unlimited. For that reason great expectations and obligations also rest on us in respect of the supply of services to our own non-White groups and in the development of homelands. South Africa is today, owing inter alia to the high gold price, is a better position to provide such assistance than many other Western countries which might, as a result inter alia of the high oil price, have to cope with balance of payments problems, increasing unemployment and economic recession. One could also readily concede that in some cases it is easier and more fruitful to think in terms of bilateral agreements instead of regional approaches. However, I believe that there are strong economic and geo-political considerations as to why we should for the most part give serious considerations to a regional approach in respect of the countries to the south of the sixth parallel, i.e. South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia, Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, Kongo-Kinshasha, Gabon, the Malagasy Republic and Mauritius. If we exclude South Africa and Rhodesia from this group, the economy of countries in this region—as is in fact the case in most African countries—is characterized by all those typical elements of underdevelopment which are well-known to us and which we need not go into here.

These factors entail that most African countries find themselves in a vicious circle of growing populations and dwindling per capita incomes. This affords South Africa a unique opportunity to make a contribution to their economic development. Apart from that it is absolutely essential that there should be a drastic change in the general political relations between South Africa and the rest of Africa. Neither South Africa, nor Africa, nor the Western world can afford any longer the continued isolation of South Africa and the relative hostility between South Africa and the rest of the continent, or at least most of it. The ghastly implications of growing confrontation and conflict make it imperative that priority ought to be given to the improvement of these relations. Obviously, as has in fact already happened in particular cases during the past few months, the initiative for changing the situation should proceed from both South Africa as well as other countries in Africa. That this is not easy to achieve, goes without saying. Unfortunately there is a certain percentage of our population in South Africa who will not easily accept a proper understanding with the rest of Black Africa, inter alia because they do not see their way clear to the essential changes which we will have to effect internally as prerequisite to and inevitable result of such an understanding. There are also African countries which, owing to a diversity of reasons, will fight any attempt at a viable settlement and constructive co-operation between South Africa and other Black States tooth and nail, as we have already seen on various occasions. The type of estrangement which —so it would seem—has developed in the relations between South Africa on the one hand and Botswana and Lesotho on the other, will have to be avoided as far as possible. In this regard I could quote the words of Pres. Seretse Khama. On 28 March 1970 he said—

It is not important whether his analysis of South Africa’s policy is correct. What is in fact important is that most Black States in Africa see South Africa in this light.

It is because of these considerations that I should like to state the following ideas for consideration here as possible initiatives which we could take. In the first place it seems to me as though South Africa should through the mutual exchange of diplomats normalize its diplomatic relations with those Black States that are prepared to do so, as quickly as possible. I am thinking in particular of Lesotho and Swaziland, but there may, indeed, be others as well. There is no more effective way than this of maintaining diplomatic contact.

In the second place I believe that South Africa ought to make a larger portion of its national income available for assistance to Africa. A considerably larger amount than the present ought to be paid annually into the fund in question. Even if that amount should not be used in the relevant year, it ought to be placed in reserve so that that amount may be large enough when substantive assistance is desired, or ought to be rendered. This should also be done so that the hands of the Government may be free as far as the application of that amount is concerned.

How large should that amount be?

In the third place I want to say that it is extremely doubtful whether effective economic cooperation could be established among the countries of Southern Africa I have mentioned above without the creation of some or other permanent institution which will make positive efforts to achieve greater cooperation. It seems to me it is essential than an official multi-national body he established which, for example, could take the form of an economic commission for Southern Africa, as proposed by Prof. Sadie, or the form of a secretariat similar to the European Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—as suggested on a previous occasion by the present Minister of Finance. This body will occupy itself with the development of the necessary infrastructures, the planning of the necessary rail and road links, the utilization of the existing technical and technological knowledge, the supply of power and water, the centralized marketing of produce, assistance to industrial projects, and—in the case of regional drought or other disasters —a comprehensive telecommunication system, the establishment of the necessary research and development machinery, the necessary monetary and other financial arrangements, etc.

In the fourth place private bodies will have a major role to play in the development of the underdeveloped areas in Africa. It seems to me that in this regard it is essential that a special body, a non-official institute or body, be established which could advise prospective industrialists in regard to investments and development possibilities, as is the case in various Western countries. I am thinking here more specifically of the machinery which was developed in this regard in West Germany.

In the fifth place it also appears to me to be essential that an increasing reciprocal flow of persons, particularly of opinion-formers and leaders, should take place between South Africa and the Black States of Africa. Just as a USSALEP exists which occupies itself on a non-official level with the exchange of leaders between South Africa and the USA, the time has arrived for a similar non-official body to be created to promote this reciprocal exchanges and visits between us and other African countries.

In the sixth place it appears to me of special importance that scientists should be made available and that the exchange of academic leaders should take place. I have indicated that this has already happened to a certain extent. In this regard I just want to point out that South Africa has much to learn from development projects and the problems of other Black countries. I am thinking for example of the construction of Lilongwe, the capital of Malawi, and of Gaberones in Botswana, in view of the fact that we will have to develop seats of government in some of our homelands during the next few years. One thinks of some of the integrated development projects which have been tackled in Malawi, the activities of the Swaziland Credit and Savings Bank and the Botswana National Development Bank in regard to the extension of credit to Bantu farmers and to the experiments with the establishment of co-operatives in Botswana.

In the seventh place it seems to me as though official and non-official contact in the sphere of the Press and communications could similarly play its major role in the achievement of better understanding and cooperation. Possibly the South African Press organizations should take steps to promote the exchange of journalists, and perhaps the establishment of an institution in South Africa similar to the American School for Journalism, for the training of journalists from Africa, would be a fruitful idea. The possible exchange of radio and television programmes could well be investigated too.

It seems to me, as an eighth point, to be essential that we should make provision for the admission of students from the Black States of Africa to our South African universities and other institutions, for example Onderstepoort and our agricultural colleges, particularly on a post-graduate level and in specialized fields. The new course in Islamic and Eastern culture which is being offered by the University of Durban-Westville might very well be attractive to students from Africa. However, it seems to me from the nature of the case as though students from Africa will under these circumstances want to come in particular to some of our White universities and not to the others. The necessary provision will therefore have to be made for this.

In the ninth place it appears to me to be advisable that a special institute for development studies, such as the one which exists in West Germany, should be established somewhere in which courses in specific development aspects and problems are constantly offered, and in which experts, officials, academics, teachers, businessmen and others could regularly be convened. Under the circumstances it would probably be better if such an institute could be established in a Black African State.

As a tenth point I want to state the importance and the extent of the movement of labour to South Africa and the necessity of our thinking in this regard of the creation of a multi-national secretariat or directorate. This matter has frequently been mooted from this side of the House.

South Africans and the other inhabitants of Africa will only fully understand one another when free contact and association between them takes place on a scale which is large enough to give rise to the conviction that we accept one another as people and that we do not regard one another as enemies. The best way of achieving this is when it becomes just as easy and just as customary for South Africans to visit other countries in Africa as it is for us today to visit England or the Continent of Europe, and vice versa of course. We already see that relatively large numbers of White South Africans are going to Lesotho and Swaziland without any resultant threat to the identity or survival of the Whites. The reciprocal throwing open of our various countries to tourists could be a tremendous factor in the establishment of sound human relations, and as a contribution to the economy of these developing African countries.

Mr. Sneaker, the motion which I have presented here may appear to be one of great idealism. However I believe that it is practicable. But al! of us sitting here know that this can only be brought to fruition when the Black people of Africa know that other Blacks in Africa haye the same freedoms and opportunities as White South Africans and that when they, those Blacks from Africa, visit South Africa, they will receive the same treatment and the same rights and privileges as is the case when you and I visit countries in Western Europe.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale has done in his motion here today what he was actually asked to do by rhe hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when the hon. the Minister suggested at the end of his speech on the first day of the no-confidence debate that the time had come for a motion to be introduced here which would give all hon. members an opportunity to exchange thoughts on the most fruitful way to achieve co-operation in Southern Africa. For that reason not only we on this side of the House, but all hon. members and all persons in South Africa, I believe, fully agree with the hon. member that a spirit of cooperation should be promoted at all times between us and other Africa, countries. But I just want to say for the sake of the record that I do not think it would be quite correct merely to ask in such a motion for more active steps to be taken to promote the concept of co-operation. I think that in such a motion due cognizance should be taken of what has already been done by the Government, specifically by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and also by the hon. the Prime Minister in recent years. I think that all South Africa will agree with me when I say that they have noted with appreciation the developments which have taken place in Africa in recent times. I think one may take it that these visible signs of co-operation and of detente in Africa can only be the result of work which has been done behind the scenes over a period of years. On behalf of this side of the House, therefore, I wish to move an amendment today to the motion moved by the hon. member for Edenvale, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, the concept of co-opration in Africa is not a new one. It is actually a concept which has been a part of our country’s history and of the history of all African nations. For the sake of convenience I want to refer to three phases in the history of Africa during this century and to the thread of co-operation we can trace through these phases. The first period ended round about the middle of the century, in the year 1950. Before that period, most African countries had been colonies of European countries, and any co-operation which existed in Africa had often been hampered by the fact that specific objects were pursued by different, frequently opposing European countries, with the result that before the year 1950, when most parts of Africa were still colonies of European powers, the climate in Africa was not really conducive to fruitful co-operation. But it remains a fact that in spite of this development, in spite of this situation which we had here, there was always a spirit of co-operation on the part of South Africa, which had then been independent for many years. In this way we had had a transport agreement with Lourenco Marques since the previous century, we had had a customs agreement with the former protectorates since the year 1910 and we had cooperated with African countries for many decades, particularly in the agricultural technical field. This is evidenced by the fact that in the period before the Second World War there was consular and other representation between South Africa and countries such as Egypt, Kenya and the Belgian Congo. I want to allege, therefore, that up to the year 1950, as a result of the special history of Africa, the time was not ripe for fruitful co-operation here in Africa.

During the next quarter of a century, the period between 1950 and 1975, as more and more African nations achieved independence and the climate became more favourable for co-operation between independent nations with a common destiny, cooperation did in fact become possible between peoples in this country and also between other African states and ourselves. But the fact remains that new countries often have to learn certain hard lessons in life, especially young countries which are enjoying their first taste of political freedom and which are able for the first time to decide their own destiny and their future. These countries often indulge in daydreams, and it takes quite a while for the leaders of such nations to realize that they have to come back to earth in the end. In this climate, during this period from 1950 to 1975, during this third quarter of a century, the climate was still not really favourable for fruitful co-operation in Africa. A period of greater realism had to come about before the climate would really be ripe for fruitful co-operation to commence. It is also true that certain meetings were held, particularly at the instigation of countries to the north of Africa, and that the younger African countries, those to the south and to the west, joined in condemning South Africa and its aims in Africa. Under the pressure of these nations, particularly of nations to the north of Africa, a decision was taken at a conference of emergent African states in the year 1960 to boycott South Africa entirely. In this way the channels for co-operation and communication between South Africa and other African countries were clogged, if not completely severed.

But as I have said, this period, too, had to pass, and as other countries had to learn from bitter experience that the economy does not allow itself to be dictated to by people with political ends in view, and as countries such as Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland showed, after they had become independent, that in spite of the pressure from Africa they were prepared, not only to continue the co-operation which already existed with South Africa, but even to strengthen it, the climate further to the north of Africa gradually improved and as far back as 1967, diplomatic relations could be entered into with Malawi. From the trade figures, too, it is clear that South Africa has not been completely cut off from Africa during this third quarter of a century, for even in 1974 South Africa’s trade with the rest of Africa accounted for 9,4% of its total foreign trade, representing an amount of R695 million.

But now, in this historical year, 1975, we are entering upon the last quarter of our century. Just as in world politics there has been a gradual move away from confrontation between the great powers of the world to a climate of consultation between the competitive groups in the world, we have likewise seen the beginnings of a new realism in Africa. To a large extent this new realism is the result of the economic lessons to which I have referred and which all leaders of states have to learn sooner or later, namely that complete economic independence is quite impossible in this world and, secondly that economic development is only possible where there is true co-operation. Just as an old continent such as Europe had to learn that in the end, for the sake of the prosperity of all its people, it had to forget the conflict of the past and establish the European Economic Union is a spirit of co-operation, and just as there have recently been signs of a new realism in the middle East and attempts are now being made to create from the ashes of wars a new work-table around which nations which have long been at war with one another may gather to co-operate for the sake of the prosperity of all their people, we have likewise seen the birth of a new realism in Africa on account of these economic lessons which have showed the necessity for co-operation.

However, there is also a third factor which I believe we should not lose sight of, and this is that last year South Africa had its first opportunity to show what its true aims in Africa are. Whereas the accusation used to be made, particularly at the instigation of countries in the northern cart of this continent, that South Africa had aggressive designs on its neighbours, that it had expansionist tendencies, South Africa has now for the first time had the opportunity of demonstrating in practice what its true aims are. When Portugal decided to withdraw from Mozambique and Angola, South Africa was able to expose that hollow propaganda for what it really was, nothing but malicious allegations. Now that this lesson has been demonstrated in practice for all the world to see, I do not believe that this propaganda will easily succeed in Africa again. For that reason I may say that I believe that this third factor is a very strong factor which will promote a new climate for co-operation in Africa.

Now that this new climate exists, now that the first visible signs have appeared that countries which used to stand in fierece opposition to South Africa in the world are prepared to meet South African leaders for discussions, I think the time has come for us to consider what should really be a sound basis for co-operation in Africa. In this regard I just want to touch upon a few points.

In the first place I believe that South Africa’s policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of neighbouring states and of other nations is the only true basis for permanent friendship and co-operation. In the second place I believe that there should be a constant endeavour to avoid a new power struggle between world ideologies in Southern Africa. I think that this should not be our aim only, but that it should be shared by all countries in Southern Africa. We should endeavour to prevent any foreign ideologies from entering this subcontinent, so that the struggle which has been and is still being waged in other parts of the world will not turn Southern Africa into a battlefield for foreign ideologies, and so that people will always be able to communicate and exchange thoughts freely. I believe that there is also a third foundation upon which co-operation must rest if it is to be permanent. We have seen what the results can be if countries which have monopolies on certain primary products use those monopolies to blackmail consumer countries in the world. We have seen that leaders of the West have even had to mention the possibility of resorting to violence to restore such a situation to normality. For that reason, Mr. Chairman. I think that those natural resources with which Southern Africa is endowed, resources which may one day be of decisive importance to the future of humanity, should be one of the foundations of co-operation and that these resources should not be used as a means of blackmailing the consumer of the world, but that South Africa should only market its products on a competitive basis, as in the past. This must be the basis of development in Southern Africa. I believe that if we accept these foundations we shall be able to create a fruitful basis and a permanent foundation for co-operation in Southern Africa.

Now the question arises: What can South Africa’s role in Southern Africa be? I believe that South Africa cannot be wished away by any leader in Africa. Even if countries wanted to ignore South Africa, its mere presence, the mere fact that this country with its tremendous production machine belongs to this part of the world, would make it impossible to ignore it in the long run. For that reason I think that countries in Southern Africa will have to recognize that we have an important part to play in this sub-continent. In the first place I want to point out that as the Bantu peoples achieve independence, a group of countries will come into being which will co-operate very closely in the economic sphere. This co-operation will be the basis of their independence and will also be the bond which will ensure the closet association between these countries and South Africa in the future. In the same way as this will happen as the Government’s policy of separate development and liberation of the Bantu peoples develops, South Africa has already proved that it can cooperate very closely with its neighbouring states. The existing customs agreement between South Africa on the one hand and Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland on the other is the closest bond of cooperation to be found in the free world today.

A further fact is that there is no other industrial country in the whole world which could take over South Africa’s role, particularly in regard to certain spheres of development in Southern Africa. The hon. member for Edenvale has already referred to this, but I just want to touch on it again. World tourism which is almost the largest single industry in the world today, is dependent on visitors having an opportunity to visit not only isolated countries, but world regions. By joining with other countries to create Sartoc, South Africa has already demonstrated that it is indispensable to its neighbours in Southern Africa if regional tourism in South Africa is to be developed into a major source of income. In regard to Sarccus as well, and the fact that it has existed for so many years and that there is the closest co-operation with six other countries in this regard, as well as the fact that it has been so clearly demonstrated in practice that South Africa, as a part of this region, has an equal stake in developing the soil and all the assets it contains, I believe that this particular role could not be taken over by any other industrial country or any other developed country in the world.

Transport, communication, coastal shipping and other means of communication would become practically impossible if South Africa were excluded from the bloc of countries in Southern Africa. The hon. the Minister has pointed out, too, that big hydro-electric schemes such as the Cabora-Bassa and the Kunene projects would simply not be possible, or would only be possible at a much higher cost to those nations, if South Africa were not prepared to buy power from those countries. Eight per cent of South Africa’s total power consumption will be provided by the Cabora Bassa scheme. This will eventually enable no fewer than 800 000 Bantu farmers to be settled in the Zambezi valley, a population almost as large as that of present-day Mozambique. As far as this is concerned, too, South Africa is the only country in the world which is in a position to buy this power, thereby making these great schemes possible. I want to point out, too, that the great multi-national groups of the world would not be so interested in moving in and promoting the development of isolated countries in Africa if they did not have the assurance that we were a substantial group of nations on terms of peaceful co-operation. South Africa included. Only this climate of co-operation between the countries, and the fact that South Africa with its level of development is already a part of this world, make it possible for the great multi-national groups to accept their vocation in this sub-continent and to contribute their share to the development of all our neighbouring states.

There is a group consisting of 13 independent countries south of the equator. At the moment this group of countries has a population of 110 million people. Within a few decades the figure will be 200 million or more. We have a group of countries here whose gross national product amounts to only about R30 000 million at the moment, but within a few decades, if they continue to develop normally, they will have a national product which may be very close on R70 000 million. I think that the foundations will then be there for closer co-operation, as was requested today by the hon. member for Edenvale. However, before that fruitful co-operation can come about and before the practical steps proposed by the hon. member for Edenvale and other hon. members can be put into practice, a climate of co-operation must first be created. For that reason I think we should be grateful today for having a Government, a Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Prime Minister who have set themselves the ideal of ensuring that a spirit of co-operation is created and promoted in Southern Africa and that this Government adopts peaceful co-existence as one of its principal aims. I think that not only we on this side of the house, but all hon. members and all South Africa would want to wish them every success in this great task.

Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by my hon. friend is designed to elicit as much support and encouragement and as many ideas as might be relevant in support of co-operation between this country and the other countries of Africa. It is not intended to be a hostile motion or a motion of censure and therefore I find it disappointing that the hon. member for Vasco has found it necessary to move an amendment, particularly because his amendment concentrates on thanking the Government, praising the Government and offering further support to the Government. This makes it less easy to proceed in the way in which we intended this to go. Nevertheless, we accept his general good intentions and we realize that there is a certain approach to these matters outside of the House which perhaps obliges hon. members opposite to take this particular kind of view. But I shall try to show in the course of my speech that a great deal can be done and should be done which does not depend solely on the efforts of the Government. I believe that those who have the task of carrying out this particular job of developing co-operation in Africa, would be the first to agree that there is a great contribution that can be made by the private sector to those efforts which the Government is already making.

I have only one other little point which I want to deal with in connection with the generally valuable contribution by the hon. member for Vasco. I refer to the timescale of history which he dealt with at the outset of his speech. It is not correct, merely to put the record right, that there was a period up to 1950 in the history of this country when in fact co-operation with Africa did not work well and was only developed to a ver/ limited degree and when we had very moderate representation in other parts of Africa; nor is it correct that after 1950 and to 1975, as he put it, we have experienced a great developing era of progress in the field of technical co-operation. This, I am sorry to say, is not how history tells the story. Perhaps there was not wide representation up to 1950, but nevertheless there was, as he acknowledged, representation in a number of African places such as the Congo, in Egypt, in East Africa and so forth. Technical co-operation did in fact flourish right up to 1960 and a few years beyond. It was during the period of colonialism, when the colonial occupation of Africa was still in vigorous sway, that we in South Africa learnt to develop with many other states in Africa a common approach to common problems. I could say a great deal more about this subject, but the history of the case is in fact that up to 1960 there was a steady movement towards closer cooperation over the wide range of fields. Such organizations as Sarccus, the committee to which the hon. member for Vasco referred, were in fact born in this period, as were many of the other organizations which still exist today. Closer co-operation in respect of red locusts, the quelea, water hyacinth, etc., was born in that period. During the period 1960 to 1975 we have in fact had a relative set-back in our relations. This again is not a subject for blame; it was the direct consequence of the decolonization of Africa and the various difficulties which arose out of that situation. We believe that from 1975 onwards, shall we say from 1975 to the year 2000, we should seek to enter a period in which we could experience a great surge forward in our relations with Africa. This is why we introduced this motion; this is the subject we want to discuss. We do not wish to belabour the Government or to criticize it for its shortcomings in the past. We accept that what could reasonably be done, has been done. Instead, we want to talk about the future and our prospects for the future and in this way make some small contribution to the progress we all hope to achieve.

When we speak of the period 1975 to 2000, we are speaking of a period which promises to be of very special importance in the history of South Africa. The fact is that even today, in 1975, South Africa has already reached a position in the world in terms of energy production, the gross national product or use what criterion you will, which places South Africa within the first 20 nations of the world. I believe that because of various circumstances which we have already dealt with in other debates, circumstances which have a good deal to do with recession in the Western World, with population growth in this country and also the enormous economic progress upon which we are launched, South Africa will in the next 25 years move from amongst the first 20 nations in the world to amongst the first 10. This is not just an empty hope; but something which looks like a realistic prospect. This kind of power, this kind of strength, this kind of wealth, imposes enormous responsibilities. In the case of South Africa, it is going to impose these responsibilities in the first place in respect of this continent and more particularly the region in which we live. This is what our motion is about. We believe that South Africa is now developing the means, the opportunity and the inducement to become the catalyst of the whole of this region of the world. We believe for many reasons that South Africa will be drawn and sucked into the kind of vacuum which exists in this kind of world and will, in spite of herself, be compelled to fill this and to play the role for which history appears to have destined her. It is quire obvious that our major role is going to be in the region which in previous debates we have referred to as Capricorn. The word “Capricorn” does not describe a particular United Party policy, but is merely a convenient and graphic word to describe an area which lies roughly 1 000 miles north and 1 000 miles south of the Tropic of Capricorn, which runs through the Northern Transvaal. It describes almost precisely the area which we have under reference and which we are talking about today. But we talk about more than Capricorn as well, because we have already found that in our relations with Capricorn Africa there is a certain inhibiting factor, a certain restraint or brake on our progress which arises from the hostility of certain African states to the north of the Capricorn area. The Black members of the Capricorn area are also in fact members of the United Nations, they are members of the Organization of Africa Unity, of the Economic Commission for Africa and so forth. In these places they have associations with countries well to the north of Capricorn Africa who are hostile to us for various reasons and whose friendship and, at the very least, neutrality, we badly need. If we do not succeed in obtaining the goodwill of the countries to the north of Capricorn Africa of the countries up to the Sahara and even beyond, if they constantly interfere, inhibit and constantly create hostility, then we will not easily succeed even within our own Capricorn region. Before I go on. I want to say right away that we recognize with pleasure and with respect what the Government has in fact done, particularly in the technical field. We believe that over the years a great deal has been done to try to create an era and a framework of technical co-operation, and that within the very considerable limitations imposed by the situation in Africa, by the hostilities, by the difficulties, by the adverse conditions in Africa, by and large quite reasonable and substantial progress has been made. I want to refer most particularly to a reply which was given by the hon. the Minister in the House the other day in which he stated that South Africa had made a very generous and considerable contribution to Unicef in connection with relief to the drought-stricken areas of Africa. This is the kind of gesture which I believe South Africa can afford in such special circumstances. It is the kind of gesture which is worthy of our position in Africa and it is the kind of gesture which gives us the dignity and prestige that we need in Africa. I congratulate the hon. the Minister on this gesture and I think it was a very well chosen thing to do.

Having said all this, there is obviously a great deal more that needs to be done. The Government has certainly been active in promoting détente and this is also something which we have applauded. We believe that the soil nevertheless remains barren. The soil of Africa had proved barren to many nations before we had any purpose to extend our interests or our area of co-operation within it. It has frustrated many colonizing nations. Our role is not a colonizing one and we hope that we will not be frustrated in our own purpose. Nevertheless I believe that we have a great deal more to do in order to achieve the things which we have in mind. There is a great deal which I had hoped to touch on, but I see that my time is beginning to run out.

In the no-confidence debate we referred to a number of initiatives which we believed might be helpful. We referred to such things as a revival of an African transport organization, something which has, while proceeding along technical and practical channels, lain fallow as a major concept, as a major initiative in Africa. We believe that this is something which could be developed with great advantage, particularly in view of the upsurge in the economy of South Africa and the increased part it will play in the greater economy of Africa. We should take these initiatives and not wait for the Chinese or other people to come and do this under our noses.

We have spoken of a migrant labour convention, not merely in the sense of bilateral arrangements to handle workers who shuffle back and forth between countries, but as a far greater concept in which there will be a recognition of the importance of migratory labour in Southern Africa and a guarantee of the status of migrant workers throughout our area, whereever they go to work, so that they will be protected and respected. This should apply to Whites as well as Blacks because there is a reciprocal flow—White men go to do their tasks in other countries, they go to live in other countries where they work under Black majority governments, just as Black men come from other countries to live under a White Government in South Africa. Such a reciprocal arrangement would offer hope and a wider prospect for much greater development, for much, greater cohesion and for much greater safety and security in our interracial relations in the whole of this area.

We have dealt with an industrial development agency. My colleague from Edenvale also referred to it and I shall, therefore, not pursue this particular subject. We have spoken of an energy planning council. Here, in a world which we all know is becoming poverty-stricken in regard to energy, South Africa, with its coal and uranium resources and with the enormous hydro-electric potential that lies to the north of us, can in fact become a major supplier of energy, not merely in the form of electricity, but in the form of energy which can be converted to other purposes and which can increase the value of a great many raw materials and supply them to the rest of the world. Energy is going to be a key feature in the economy of the world and South Africa is one of the few countries which has these enormous reserves of fuel and enormous reserves of hydro-electric potential. This is something into which one should look. These schemes can really only be productive in Africa if they are looked at on a large scale, such as the way in which the Cabora Bassa project was approached. There are enormous prospects for further development along these lines.

South Africa should take the initiative. If we do not, there is nobody else in Africa who will be in a position to do so, and we certainly do not look forward to yet another intervention from another Eastern power doing these things under our noses.

I have, in brief, only two further proposals to make. The first is that I believe that, while the Government has a very definite role to play in the development of these forms of co-operation, the full potential of private enterprise in South Africa has hardly begun to be used. There are, of course, investments to the north of us by private corporations and there are, of course, great mining enterprises. These things have proved to be of enormous importance. There are examples in Mozambique and in other countries where South African private enterprise has moved in, where it has developed and where it has been an enormous asset to us, not only diplomatically, not only economically, not only commercially, but in the spread of our prestige and influence in general. Sir, it used to be said that trade followed the flag. The reverse is true today. Trade no longer follows the flag; it is the flag which follows trade. When I speak of the flag, I obviously speak of it not in the old territorial or colonial sense; I speak of it in the sense of the extension of our prestige, of our willing co-operation and our closer relations with other countries. I believe, Sir, that private enterprise can do a great deal and that the Government should in fact give more attention to promoting and assisting and encouraging the spread of our banks, our insurance companies, our industries, our commerce, into our neighbouring African countries and further afield. In this way we shall not only enhance our influence in these countries, we shall not only introduce a stabilizing element into these countries, an interdependence with these countries, but we shall in fact build-up the very kind of trade and commerce that we wish to establish in this continent.

Lastly, Sir—I am told that my time is up—I want to make a plea for the more effective development of our relations particularly with the French speaking States of Africa. I know that a good deal has been done. I have to some extent been aware of what has been going on for some time but, Sir, I believe that while our approach can more directly and more easily be made to the English-speaking African States, there is in the French-speaking African States an even greater potential for close co-operation. The French-speaking African States—and I am speaking now not only of their Governments but of their populations—have in the past years been less conditioned against South Africa. There is a greater readiness to accept South Africa on a rational basis instead of a prejudiced basis. A great deal of the anti-South African propaganda in Africa has run mainly through the English-speaking African States. One finds repeatedly, when one vists the French-speaking African Sates, that hey are far less conscious of certain aspects of South African policy, or certain accusations against South African policy, than is the case in the English-speaking African States. I believe that this French language barrier is something which must be removed. We must get closer to these States. We might, I think, take advantage of the fact that there seems to be a more realistic and a more practical approach to South Africa in the French-speaking States and, through their intervention, even in the Organization for African Unity. It is perhaps those very French-speaking States which can act as the catalyst for us to overcome the hostility and the inhibitions which exist. My time has expired, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I have no fault to find with the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale. It is in accordance with the Africa policy of this Government, and to some extent it is also in accordance with what the Government has already done in practice. Consequently, if this motion is intended to support the Government without saying so, then I want to thank the hon. member very much for having moved it. The hon. member for Edenvale and, in fact, the hon. member for Von Brandis as well, intimated approval in their speeches for what the Government had attempted to do in this regard. The subject of the motion is co-operation, as is the subject of the amendment of the hon. member for Vasco. That is the point at issue in Africa at the moment. The hon. member for Edenvale mentioned 12 points in this connection, and except for the fact —I am saying this with respect—that he may have put the cart before the horse in certain respects there is no fault to find with the 12 points mentioned by him. Of course, some of the points mentioned by him are already being implemented. There are the Africa Institute and the Institute for International Affairs which already cover a field he wants to have covered in one of his points. There is the financial aid which is already being rendered by the Government. Financial aid is not rendered by the Government of South Africa beyond the limits of its own means. There used to be co-operation in fields in respect of which the hon. member advocated co-operation, and that co-operation was not terminated by the will of the Government. It came to an end as a result of other factors. Sir, I believe that many of the proposals made by the hon. member for Edenvale in his 12 points, will be realized as a matter of course once attention has first been given to certain other aspects. Co-operation as such does not come about on its own and it does not come about overnight. For lasting and successful interstate co-operation, there are certain prerequisites. I just want to mention the four which I regard as being the most important.

The first one is that there should be mutual trust, i.e., the parties must be free from suspicion, mistrust and fear for each other. Secondly, the co-operation should come about voluntarily and from inner conviction. Thirdly, the equality of the parties must be recognized at all times. Fourthly, there must be a positive meaningfulness in the whole idea of co-operation.

As far as the first point I mentioned is concerned—the question of mutual trust— I think we may say in this Chamber that of all the continents and of all the races, the history of Africa surely is the most flagrant. Apart from the territories north of the Sahara that had their great moments in early history, Africa has been the source of supplies since the earliest times for those parts of the world situated close to it. It was a source of slaves for Arabia, Europe and America. It was a source of raw materials, minerals and precious stones for virtually the whole world. It has been a source of wild animals from which the circusses and zoological gardens of the world have been stocked, also with human material, since the times of the Pharaohs and the Caesars. Africa with its wide open spaces, its climate, its nature and its wildlife has also been the hunting grounds and the recreation grounds of the wealthy and the mighty of the world. We in South Africa know this too. Our ancestors experienced this themselves and we are able to testify to this. I am not saying this in a spirit of accusing or condemning those who were responsible for this. Today this forms a part of history, and at the time when this was done, it was accepted as such. But if we want to understand Africa, for the sake of gaining an understanding of the complexities of Africa, we should tell one another these things. If we remember these aspects of the history of Africa, we have arrived at the underlying cause of the present problem the West and the White powers are experiencing in Africa. Because, and we might as well say this here to one another, all Whites, no matter from what country they come and what language they speak, are mistrusted and doubted to a greater or lesser extent, in Africa from the Cape to Cairo.

The reverse is also true.

No, I do not think the reverse is as true, unless the hon. member means that it is only from Cairo to the Cape, because then I shall agree with him.

Sir, much of the co-operation existing in Africa at present, is forced by necessity. This is not the sort of co-operation South Africa seeks. Since the National Party came into power, suspicion and hatred against South Africa have been sown and South Africa has been pointed out as a malefactor and an arch-enemy of the Blacks in Africa. The Black children in Africa learned this at school and today they occupy positions of authority. And let us say this to each other in this debate quite openly, and in the spirit of this debate: Part of the calumination of this Government came from South Africa itself, ad nauseam. If the Opposition means well with their motion—I accept that they mean well— they, as well as the Press supporting them, should begin at their own door if they want to make a contribution to co-operation. Then they and their Press should start now to break down the mountains of prejudice and hatred between South Africa and the rest of the world which have been built up through calumniation. They will also have to tell the world that falsehoods have been told against the South African Government, that the National Party Government is not racialistic, that it does not suppress the Plack people of South Africa, that it has not committed genocide in certain areas under its control, but that it is, in fact making a serious and honest attempt to establish a just pattern of relations for all South African’s people. From their knowledge of the history of the politics of South Africa they know where to begin with this contribution they are able to make.

Fortunately, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister we have, we have not been waiting until to day to do the preparatory work and the spade work for the co-operation which has come about in Africa. Fortunately we ourselves have a history of a struggle for freedom against foreign domination and colonialism from which we could learn to understand the reasoning of Africa. Fortunately we are able to say to Africa and to our neighbours in all honesty today that the dreams of Gen. J. C. Smuts and Cecil John Rhodes of a British confederation of African States has never been ours, that we have never thought in terms of a great African dominion stretching unbroken throughout Africa. Fortunately we are able to say, without fear of contradiction, that we on this side of the House have never thought in terms of Gen. Smuts’ concept of a united British Africa.

It would have been a free country.

We have never had the colonialistic mentality which Gen. Smuts revealed in his great British Africa idea.

This Government started breaking down the mountains of prejudice itself. It did so through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister who extended a hand of friendship to Africa, who offered to conclude a non-aggression pact with any African country, who offered co-operation with whoever was prepared to co-operate with us, who established a fund from which aid can be given to African countries and who have in fact already started co-operating with certain African states in practice.

There is a second requirement for cooperation I have mentioned, viz. that the co-operation should be brought about voluntarily and from inner conviction. Countless times we have been witnesses, also in Africa, of what seemingly was forced co-operation. I think the most important lesson to be learned from forced co-operation, is that it is terminated as soon as one of the parties can afford to do so. I leave it at that; it speaks for itself.

The third requirement for co-operation is that the basis for co-operation should contain the recognition of the absolute equality of the parties, equal in the sense of State to State, of leader to leader, of man to man. It does not matter whether the one is rich or poor, whether the other is strong or weak in the military field, whether the one is numerically strong or small, but at the conference table mutual respect and understanding for each other’s political autonomy must be predominant. The feeling that arises that the one is always giving and the other is always receiving, should be guarded against. Accusations from Africa have been made against powers that they are condescending, patronizing, towards African states in their negotiations. Fortunately we have not yet heard this reproach against South Africa. I believe we may assure the states of Africa that they need not expect or fear this attitude from South Africa. On the contrary, I have experienced it myself and have heard on countless occasions that South Africans are amongst those who get on best and most easily with delegates of Black African states at international conferences.

There is a fourth requirement I have mentioned, and that is that the co-operation which is sought should be meaningful. One can elaborate on this at length. To me, the most important meaning in co-operation lies in this; it must be in the mutual interest and to the mutual benefit of the parties. It should not be a Societas Leonina, in other words, a partnership with the lion in which the lion eventually devours the partnership as well as the partners. I also do not believe that we should necessarily limit our co-operation to Africa south of the Sahara. If co-operation with other African states has meaning, I believe we should co-operate with them as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that if we were to succeed in satisfying these four prerequisites to prepare the field for co-operation, namely by eliminating fear and suspicion, by ensuring that co-operation may take place voluntarily, by ensuring that it is meaningful and takes place on a basis of equality, then that which has to follow on this, as well as that advocated by the hon. member for Edenvale, will actually come about very soon by itself.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Edevale, as any right-minded person would do, but I should like to introduce a slightly new dimension into this debate by stressing the very real, very important and very close relationship which there is and ought to be between internal policies and external policies, between our internal situation and our hopes and our aspirations in Africa. I do not believe it is realistic to try to separate or isolate these two. If we do, then I believe that a debate like this will degenerate into something very pretty but very theoretical. I believe we have to bring it down to earth. Mr. Speaker, the House knows that this party has made dialogue with the Black people of South Africa and the Black people of Africa beyond our borders a top priority, the reasons for this are self-evident, but I mention it in this context because I believe that dialogue is an essential prelude to the kind of co-operation and the kind of assistance which is envisaged in the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale. I believe it is an essential prerequisite. You have to establish this kind of relationship. We need at the outset to evolve and to have in our mind some clear strategy for Africa. This country has got to identify itself with Africa unmistakably and unequivocally. We have got to try to understand its many moods. We have got to try to understand and sympathize with the aspirations of its peoples. We must in other words, I believe, be seen to be of Africa. We have to keep on seeking common ground with Africa wherever and whenever we can. It is a tragic fact that in the 1960s and the 1970s South Africa was sadly isolated in this continent, to the detriment of everybody concerned. It was to our detriment and to the detriment of the rest of Africa, and it is something that we have got to remedy.

Secondly, Sir, I believe that we have to make our position clear on what I call the unresolved problems of Africa, notably those of Rhodesia and South West Africa. Until these are out of the way, I do not believe that we shall be able to establish the kind of rapport with the rest of Africa which is so essential to the kind of cooperation envisaged.

Finally, and this is really what I want to emphasize, I believe that we have to look to our internal policies because in the final analysis the degree of success or lack of it which, we are going to experience in finding common ground with the people of Africa, will depend on the nature of our internal policies and the degree of success with which we implement them. In the words used by the hon. member for Sea Point on another occasion, a new era of communication and understanding with the African states requires nothing more or less than the changes of policy that are essential, within South Africa if we want to enjoy the goodwill, co-operation and loyalty of Black and Brown citizens of our country.

I should like to mention very briefly a few areas in which I sincerely believe there has to be change if we hope to make any real progress in co-operating with the rest of Africa and in helping the emergent people in Africa. I do not believe that we can talk in isolation of the kind of co-operation which the hon. member for Edenvale has in mind. This is something which has to be related. Let us take the relationship of this country with the communist world. We abhor their policies and therefore there is almost a total lack of communication between us. We must create such a situation in this country that the rest of Africa will not regard us in the same light as we regard the totalitarian states. What do we have to do? I believe we have to make certain basic adjustments in our attitude if we want to achieve this, not because of pressure from outside but for an entirely different reason. We want to make these changes because we believe they will be fair to our own people and will establish the kind of basis on which we shall be able to find common ground with the rest of the peoples of Africa. To begin with, let us get rid of that final relic of the colonial era—we are always being told that we were the first people to kick over the traces of colonialism—the whole conception of White “baasskap” and what animates it. The hon. member for Waterkloof has already talked of the progress that has been made in this direction. I believe there has indeed been progress, but that it has to go infinitely further for, unless we can rid ourselves of that spirit in our thinking, our behaviour and actions, we shall not be able to identify ourselves with Africa, and we shall remain isolated, we shall remain outcasts. Surely we want to avoid that!

Secondly, we have to get rid of discrimination based on race and colour. How many months ago was it that Ambassador Botha gave the world the solemn assurance that this country is moving away from discrimination? He said it could not happen overnight, but has enough happened in this period? Have we done enough to convince our own people and the other peoples of Africa that we are in fact doing something? This is a matter of extreme urgency. At a meeting in Stellenbosch last week I heard a front-bench member of the party opposite saying that there is no such thing as discrimination here. I do not know what he means; I do not know what he is talking about. I do not think that he was speaking for the party, but he is one of the voices in that party. We have seen recently the rather pathetic egg-dance that was performed over the Nico Malan theatre and we know that the kind of thing that was said in connection with it does nobody the slightest good.

Thirdly, we have to get down to something essential, and that is the sharing of political power. How can we convince the rest of Africa that we are in earnest about this if we, the whites, cling to the exclusive exercise of political power? The Government’s formula, whatever it may do for the homelands, is totally unconvincing as far as the urban Africans, the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned. In this regard it remains for us to prove our bona fides. We must prove to the rest of Africa, to our own people and, above all, to ourselves that we seriously mean to share political power and that we want to give these other people a meaningful say in the decision-making processes.

In this way one can go on cataloguing what needs to be done. These things must be done not because outsiders demand it or expect it of us. Basically we know that it is the right thing to do as far as our own people are concerned and that, in addition, it is the only effective way in which we will be able to establish that common ground for co-operating with Africa and, where necessary, helping it—which is surely an objective that everyone in this country desires. Just as little, I believe, as the hon. the Prime Minister’s efforts at détente can achieve the success they richly deserve, just as little is it likely that South Africa will be able to play a significant role in giving what the hon. member for Edenvale called practical and controlled assistance to emergent nations or in co-operating in the political and economic spheres, unless, as I say, we succeed in radically restructuring South African society by making some of the practical changes I have proposed. Only if we do that will we be able to establish our bona fides with the rest of Africa and create a platform on which we can base the kind of co-operation which this motion envisages. It is for that reason that I support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale is still a young member in terms of years in this House …

But he is an old fox.

… but in the short time in which he has been here, he has made many meaningful contributions to the debates of this House. This afternoon we had another meaningful contribution. I do not want to cover the same field that the hon. members for Edenvale and Von Brandis covered here. So in the short time at my disposal I want to limit myself to one aspect of the motion, viz. that part which deals with social co-operation.

Before I come to that I just want to point out a problem which faces us in a debate such as this. In the field of co-operation between South Africa and the rest of Africa, we have a lack of information as to precisely where we stand in respect of co-operation and contact with and assistance to countries in Africa south of the Sahara. The reason for this is that the most important information about this matter is kept behind an official curtain of silence. The result is that Parliament is not always able to judge properly the Government’s actions, or lack of actions, in the field of assistance to Africa. We on this side understand the background to the matter. We know that over a period of years we have landed ourselves in a situation in which we experienced hostility from the rest of Africa towards South Africa, chiefly as a result of the internal racial policy followed here.

Nonsense.

As a result of that, many countries in the world, especially the Black countries, refused to establish normal relations with South Africa or to maintain them. Fortunately we have now arrived at a stage where the Government is set on a road of change or, rather, where it has convinced large parts of the world that drastic changes are coming in South Africa. Consequently there are more countries in Africa now than there were before which are prepared to make contact with us and even to request and to receive assistance from us, but all of this is done in a very circumspect way and on condition that the matter will not be given loud publicity. We on this side understand the situation and have no desire to embarrass any country in Africa. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows that we have never exercised pressure on him to furnish information when he was of the opinion that it was not in the best interests of those concerned to do so. In any case, we like the principle that the least publicity possible be given to the assistance which we give to other people. Nevertheless we believe that Parliament should somehow be consulted in this matter. Therefore we are a little critical of the hon. the Minister and his department in two respects in this connection. We think that they are too reticent as far as information to Parliament is concerned. There is an excess of reticence and this has almost become a characteristic of the department. There is always a danger that such an attitude may be used as a means to avoid criticism. We need only look at a country such as the United States of America. As a leading major power it has more difficult issues and more delicate international situations to deal with than we shall ever have. Nevertheless one finds that the President of the United States submits a comprehensive and reasoned exposition of his whole foreign policy to Congress from time to time. I have here, for example, ex-President Nixon’s 1973 report on foreign affairs which he submitted to his Congress. It is a voluminous report of over 200 pages. The report is there for the whole world to see. Here we have nothing of that sort. What is more, the hon. the Minister refuses to create parliamentary machinery through which members of Parliament can be consulted on a more or less confidential basis and through which the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs can be subjected to constructive criticism. I want to say once again that we do not regard this as a reasonable attitude towards Parliament as an institution. Nor does it show much confidence in the parliamentary system. There are members on this side, and I am one of them—I am talking about ordinary members and not about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is in a special position and who has never, to my knowledge, betrayed any confidence—who, for example, know where the hon. the Prime Minister was on his recent visits in Africa.

You did not always know that.

No, but I have had that information at my disposal for some time. Nor was it very difficult to obtain it, but, as members of Parliament, we who sit on this side of the House do not make use of that information in the special circumstances which prevail and because it has been requested that the matter remains confidential. We wait for the Prime Minister to make the facts public himself, as he did in respect of his recent visit to Monrovia. I simply mention the fact that there are members who have information which they do not use themselves. I mention this aspect to prove that there may be greater confidence in Parliament, especially on the part of the hon. the Minister and his department, in respect of matters which affect Africa.

I began by making the statement that Parliament did not have sufficient information to make it possible for it to form a conclusive judgment on the Government’s programme of assistance to the countries in Africa or on the extent of the progress being made with relations between us and the countries of Africa.

There is one aspect of the hon. member for Edenvale’s motion about which we do not have to do any guessing. You will see that the motion asks, inter alia, for greater co-operation between the rest of Africa and us in the social sphere. The late President Pompidou of France once said: “To be sure, it is not enough merely to meet someone. You still have to understand them”. Long distance political contact between leaders of States is good and it is necessary, and that is what is happening now. What the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs have done in recent times in this connection, will, I believe, undoubtedly have good consequences for South Africa in the long run, even if they do not fully succeed in achieving their objective as they would like to do.

Trade, the buying and selling of products between countries, also helps to ensure good relations between States. But without a mutual understanding of each other and without a broad social understanding between the people of the countries, it will be very difficult for the leaders of those countries to establish meaningful and enduring ties of friendship with each other. I want to explain what I mean by that with reference to an example. In communist states and other dictator states, where the state has full control over the mass communication media, it is the practice, when the leaders consider it to be in the interests of their countries to establish friendly relations with an old enemy, that the first thing they do is to try to influence the people in their own countries. The communication media are used to cultivate a new attitude towards the country concerned among the people in that country. This makes it easier for the leader to do his work on a higher level. Therefore this means that together with the attempts at leadership level, there is social influencing of the attitude of the masses in that country.

There is the interesting case of China and the United States of America. For years their doors were completely closed to each other; there was absolutely no contact between the two countries. When the leaders eventually decided to bring about a change in this relationship, America first sent a hand-picked table-tennis team to China. This broke the ice and created interest among the people in the country for better relations. This in turn made the road easier for the leaders to follow it up and to come together.

I am afraid that we in South Africa still completely underestimate the importance of this sort of action, especially in our attempts to normalize our relations with countries in Africa. Successful political relations are closely connected with social contacts and mutual social understanding. I am afraid—and I must say it—that our biggest problem in respect of better relations with the countries of Africa, will not be at leadership level, but among the people of the countries concerned also among our people, our White people. In fact, with the states of mind and attitudes of our people the problem is perhaps bigger than it is among the people in the rest of Africa. In the first place—and this is something which one must face squarely— there are the negative thinking which has existed for years in our country on the political level in connection with the Black man, negative thinking which has been created among people about the Black man. It has led to most Whites in South Africa seeing the Black man as a person with whom one cannot or must not associate normally.

The hon. member for Waterkloof said that the Opposition must make a contribution with its Press. I do not make what he meant by that; the Opposition does not have a Press at its beck and call, a Press it can tell to do this or that. I do not even think that that side of the House has a Press at its beck and call. Our Press is independent and even the organs of the National Party are independent of the Government. Nevertheless, the hon. member must not ask what contribution the Opposition can make. Of course we are pleased to make a contribution. The question is: What contribution is the Government making in the social sphere? I want to mention an example. At the moment we are being visited in South Africa by a very important Nigerian, Mr. Gbolabo Ogunsanwo, the editor of the largest weekend paper in Nigeria, a country of 80 million people. There are members sitting on this side and on that side of the House who talked to him and who held long discussions with him. He is a well-read and a well-travelled man and is also extremely intelligent. There is virtually no leader in Africa he has not yet met. He was regarded as so important here that the hon. the Prime Minister granted him a long interview, as did the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and also the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. A few days ago he left Cape Town on his way to the Transkei to meet Chief Kaiser Matanzima. What happened to him at East London? He was sent out of the dining room at the airport of East London because he is Black. Can you imagine what sort of image this event will take in his reports as a writer who sends reports back to the country with the largest population in Africa? I mention this point simply to illustrate something and this is that unless we correct the attitudes of our people and the Government begins with its own institutions, unless we can create a situation on the level of everyday contact so that a man’s dignity will not be injured because he is Black, unless we can normalize the everyday relations between people of the different countries in Africa, there is little chance that the relations between our countries can be normalized.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask whether he will be able to give us the assurance that this sort of harm which is done to South Africa through lack of action on the part of the Government, will cease. The hon. the Prime Minister often uses the argument—he advances this argument to Black states as well, I think on his recent journey as well—that other African states have normal relations with communist countries, although they differ violently with their internal policies, but with South Africa they do not want this because they differ with our internal policies. I must say that at the first glance this seems a fair standpoint and that it seems as if those who act in this way are guilty of maintaining double standards. The Black man of Africa—and I have often asked this question; I asked it again now of the Black visitors who were here—will tell you that if you want to understand the standpoint of the Black man in this matter, you must first put yourself in his place. Then you will understand his answer. He says that they are not interested in our system of government, whether we have a dictatorship or a military or a capitalistic form of government. They have dictatorships in Africa, something which one finds everywhere in the world. That does not concern them. What makes us in South Africa an exception in their eyes, is that a political and social system exists here which impairs the human dignity of the coloured person, simply because he is coloured. The Black and Coloured countries, according to their own standpoint, cannot remain indifferent to this.

Therefore I have to state once again that if we cannot bring about better understanding and normal contact between the people of our different countries in Africa in the social sphere, then the chances of our really being able to bring about normalization of relations between us and the countries of Africa, seem to me to be very slender.

I want to go further and say that if we want to achieve better co-operation with these countries of Africa, we will also have to set about causing a better understanding to take root among our people about what Africa really is. Among most of our people in South Africa—I am sorry to say —there is a profound ignorance about the rest of Africa, as well as a deeply-rooted misconceptions, and this is going to be one of the greatest obstacles to overcome if we want better relations. What is vaguely called Africa and its people arouses in the average South African the image of a mass of backwardness and mismanagement and corruption and of a condition of chaos and carnage prevailing almost everywhere. One only has to listen to the political talks on the radio to understand how our people are being influenced in that direction. Sir, we shall have to realize that if we are going to allow this negative image of Africa to continue to exist among our people, then the leaders at the highest level will not get much grass root support in their efforts to establish really sound and normal relations with the countries of Africa.

Therefore I believe that if our Government is really in earnest about establishing better relations, then it must launch a much more extensive programme than mere political contact with leaders at the highest level. In brief it is this: It will have to take the people of our country with it in its attempts to establish better relations. It will have to use the communication media over which it has control to establish a more balanced image of the rest of Africa among our people. Like all countries in the world, African countries have their less favourable side as well, but there is no more poverty in African countries than there is in Asia. There are no more dictatorships in Africa than there are in South America and Eastern Europe, there is no more corruption in Africa than there is in most Western countries, even here in our country.

We shall also have to encourage more human contact between us and other countries in Africa. It is extremely important that there be mutual contact to bring about better understanding. I had a question to the Department of Information on the Order Paper earlier in the session about the number of guests we received from abroad in the year 1974, there were altogether 164, inter alia, 28 from the U.S.A., 22 from Germany, 22 from the Netherlands, nine from Belgium, seven from Israel, but not a single one from our neighbour states or from other countries in Africa. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, how many foreign Black students studied at South African Universities last year. The answer was 27, but all of them were at Black universities, except for one at the University of Natal and one at the University of Potchefstroom. Now, if we cannot even make the effort to bring our White students at our English and Afrikaans universities into contact with students from the rest of Africa so that there can be better understanding at that level, how are we going to achieve success in the sphere of better understanding between us and the rest of Africa? And then, of course, there is the cardinal requirement, and that is that everywhere in Africa the Blackman has reached a position where he feels personally free and where his human dignity is recognized and it is hopeless to expect that sound relations can be created between us and the rest of Africa if discrimination against the Black man is continued here. Therefore I think that a more extensive programme than mere contact between leaders is necessary if we are really in earnest about having better relations with the rest of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of the motion before this House is nothing new. On the contrary. It is a theme which has already been dealt with frequently in this House, and one which I myself have already discussed frequently. Approximately a month ago I dwelt on it fully during the no-confidence debate, and I therefore do not want to make myself guilty of repetition this afternoon.

I am glad that I have had the opportunity of listening to this debate. I found it particularly pleasant to listen to the visions for the future of some of the hon. members on both sides of the House. I cannot find fault with the motion, nor can I find fault with the amendment which was moved. In addition I think that the hon. member for Von Brandis would agree with me that the motion and the amendment are not at variance with each other. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment—the ideas, the appraisals which are stated therein—and I agree with the objectives put forward and advocated in the motion. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of this House for the appreciation conveyed to me and in particular to the hon. the Prime Minister for the very important work he has done and guidance he has given in this regard. I also want to thank hon. members for the words of appreciation to my department.

I personally welcome this debate, for foreign affairs are not frequently discussed in this House. I also welcome the fact that most speakers on the opposite side have apparently decided to turn over a new leaf, that they have decided that the time has arrived to be positive and constructive in regard to our foreign relations.

We are always positive and constructive.

In the past debates on foreign affairs in this House have frequently degenerated into debates on petty apartheid, something for which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has a great predilection and something which he very nearly dragged into his speech again today.

We on this side welcome new ideas. We welcome criticism, provided it is objective and constructive. My department and I also welcome it, because we are thoroughly aware that we do not have a monopoly of wisdom and that it would not be possible for us to achieve as much as we have already achieved if we were not able to rely on the support of our colleagues in virtually all the other Government departments as well. I have here a short résumé of the activities of our other Government departments in Africa, and you will be surprised to hear that it consists of no fewer than seven pages. South African Government departments are active in Africa in virtually every sphere. I need not furnish the details in this regard. Then, in addition, there is still a great variety of Government bodies, such as the C.S.I.R., the Bureau of Standards, the Industrial Development Corporation, the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, the Institute for Medical Research and numerous other bodies which, are doing valuable work in regard to Africa.

However, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not also refer with appreciation to the valuable work which is being done by the private sector. I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis that the private sector has a very important task in this regard. Fortunately a great deal is already being done. Obvious examples are the health services which are being rendered by the Rembrandt organization in the case of Lesotho, and by the Anglo-American group in Swaziland. I could also remind hon. members that the National Development and Management Foundation arranged a course some time ago which was attended by Government representatives and businessmen from various African states. It was a conference dealing with managerial techniques and was of great value to these people. On behalf of South Africa I want to thank all these persons and bodies, and the large number whom I cannot mention now, for the important work they are doing in this regard. They know, or ought to know, that my door and the doors of my department are always open to them. Consequently they make use of this opportunity. They consult us; they co-operate with us. Only last week I had a very useful talk with the president and the director of the Federated Chambers of Commerce. This is not exceptional at all. Ladies and gentleman … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. On a Friday afternoon prior to political meetings one has to hold over the week-end, this is a natural mistake to make!

I could mention many examples of what action we are taking, but I do not want to take up the time of this House. I want to refer to only one or two examples. In particular I want to refer to the case of Lilongwe in Malawi because this illustrates how the South African Government handles applications for assistance from beyond our borders. What did we do when such a request was made by the Government of Malawi? We did not rush in at once and offer to be responsible for the entire scheme. We did not do that because we did not want to run the risk of helping to create a white elephant in Malawi. We instructed our experts, the then planning adviser to the Prime Minister with his staff, to institute an investigation in that regard. They made a thorough study in loco and reported to the Government that the possibility existed there of creating an important growth point in the central province of Malawi. So we decided to help. But we did not offer to undertake the entire scheme. We selected certain key aspects of that project, after consultation with Malawi, and concentrated on them in the hope and confidence that the interest of other Governments and other bodies would be aroused in this way and that they would also participate in the development of the capital. That is precisely what happened, and the consequences are that this capital has developed splendidly, that it is today the seat of the Malawian Government, that the diplomatic corps has also moved to Lilongwe and what is more, that a growth point has been created there which is stimulating development in the entire central province.

Nossi-Bé in Madagascar was a scheme which also offered great possibilities because it was the intention that the State and the private sector would tackle it together. As a result of factors beyond our control we could not proceed there. But you know, Sir, nothing is impossible in Africa and such a scheme could perhaps revive one day, or there could perhaps be co-operation in another sphere. There are still various other schemes which are under consideration, or in which we are engaged, and there are, too, the confidential schemes to which the hon. members referred. I really hope that the time will soon arrive when it will no longer be necessary for us on this side of the House to perform many of these transactions on a confidential basis. No one is more desirous than I that the House of Assembly should be informed of our activities in Africa. I shall appreciate it when that day arrives, and I hope that this will happen in the not too distant future.

Today a great deal is being said about détente. Détente is the fashion today, a good fashion, and not one of us likes being out of fashion. The same applies to me, and for that reason I should also like to say a few words about détente in this debate. I want to give hon. members the assurance this evening that the Government is according the highest priority to the promotion of détente through dialogue. It is the object of the Government to try to eliminate confrontation and problems which make co-operation difficult or impossible, for hon. members will agree with me that where tension exists, co-operation is difficult, and where hostility exists, co-operation is quite impossible. What it amounts to in practice is that however attractive and beneficial a specific project may be to all the parties, that project is stillborn if the climate is not right and if the goodwill and the willingness to co-operate is not present on both sides. This was pointed out in a very excellent manner by the hon. member for Waterkloof. In this regard I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Edenvale said. Specifically I want to issue a warning and say that true friendship cannot be bought. Friendship that has been bought means nothing and is of short duration. It is not something of a permanent nature. What is more, friendship that has been bought is out of keeping with our national character and is also out of keeping with the nature of the peoples in Africa with whom we should like to co-operate. We are all proud peoples and set great store by our honour. For that reason it is the basic endeavour of this Government—I cannot emphasize this sufficiently—to seek and to bring about peace and friendship. If this could happen, the rest, also the matters mentioned by the hon. introducer of the motion, will follow far more easily.

Fortunately it is a fact that we are not the only ones in Africa, nor in the world, who desire peace in Africa. We are not the only ones who are prepared, and who are working positively, to achieve this. We are encountering that willingness and that desire almost everywhere in Africa, wherever we make contacts. This applies in the first place to our three Black neighbours and to Malawi, with whom we have been maintaining fruitful, friendly relations for a long time. It applies to those African leaders who, together with us, are trying to make it possible for the leaders of the Whites and the non-Whites in Rhodesia to convene around a conference table, to tackle their problems together and, together, find a satisfactory solution to them. That willingness exists on their part. The same also applies to the esteemed President Tolbert of Liberia and those other statesmen who discuss these matters with us on a confidential basis. Those of us who had the privilege of accompanying the hon. the Prime Minister to Liberia were all impressed by the earnestness, the determination, the idealism with which President Tolbert and his Ministers approach the problems of Africa, and by their determination and their belief that the problems of Africa must and can be solved in a peaceful manner.

Although progress is being made in the direction of detente, difficult obstacles still await us, obstacles which we still have to overcome. I do not want to elaborate on that now—it is late on a Friday afternoon. However, I want to state unequivocally here that there will be setbacks from time to time. However, we should not flinch from or be discouraged by this. We must accept that the graph will occassionally go down, but we must also realize that the trend is an upward one. This is encouraging. It is in fact surprising, for we are dealing with a situation and with problems which have developed over many years. The arrest last Tuesday of the Rev. Sithole, one of the ANC leaders in Rhodesia, may be such a setback. Together with President Tolbert, and together with all others who are seeking peaceful solutions to the problems of Africa, we are now awaiting the outcome of the judicial inquiry which has already been announced by Mr. Smith. We realize that Mr. Smith and his Government have difficult problems, but we sincerely hope that they will overcome those problems and that it will yet be possible for them to have a criminal trial take place.

When will it take place?

It is being said that the judicial inquiry will take place within 14 days, but I cannot confirm that. It is a pity that a situation has arisen in Rhodesia which has led to the arrest of one of the Black leaders two days before the announced talks with Mr. Smith’s Government were to have commenced. As a result of those events, the talks have been called off by the ANC. Mr. Smith has informed us of the circumstances which forced him to take this step. He assured us that he has irrefutable evidence, and was compelled to take action to protect the lives of other ANC leaders and that, seen from his point of view, he did not by so doing wish to impede détente, but wished to advance it. All of us who have an interest in it are in the meantime giving this entire matter our urgent attention. We shall continue our efforts to try to eliminate obstacles, and hope and trust that any setbacks, of whatever nature they may be, will only be temporary. I do not want to say anything further about this, for it is necessary for all of us who have to discuss critical matters such as these, to weigh our words. One of the problems in Rhodesia was in fact that Mr. Sithole, and others as well, clouded the issues by constantly making statements. I want to reiterate that South Africa will leave no stone unturned to try to help eliminate obstacles in the way of détente. We shall persist in our efforts because we realize what will happen if confrontation and violence are allowed to escalate. We realize that if an armed conflict should take place, no one will emerge victorious from the struggle. The consequences of such an event would be disastrous, not only for one party, but for everyone involved, including those who so readily invoke confrontation when the course which matters are taking is not to their liking. But surely confrontation and conflict are no solution to problems. Allow me to say here today with all the conviction at my disposal: Those who are responsible for the outbreak of large-scale violence in Southern Africa, will be guilty of an act of despair such as that of Samson of old. It is something which must be avoided at all costs. That is our first task. That is the challenge facing us and the other leaders in Africa today. It will be of no avail to rush precipitately into all spheres now. It would at this stage be foolish to act in such a manner. Such action could hold more disadvantages than advantages. I accept, too, that hon. members on the opposite side do not support or advocate such conduct. This does not mean that we should now sit back with our arms folded because the climate is not yet right or because détente has not yet succeeded. It does not mean that we need no longer continue to put our heads together and give thought to the problems, as we are trying to do here today. This is what my department and I, as well as other Government departments, are constantly doing. Our actions should be of such a nature that we are not caught unprepared if détente should succeed and we have to operate in a wider sphere in future than has been the case up to now.

There is not very much more time left, and I shall therefore not dwell fully on all the speeches which were made. However, I agree with the hon. member for Edenvale and with most of the other speakers who emphasized that South Africa has a very important role to play in Africa. I agree with the hon. member that we ought to be doing far more. The initiatives mentioned by the introducer of the motion were interesting. Several of them are already being applied in an amended form and others are under consideration, but owing to the status of certain of our neighbouring states, and also owing to the disposition of some of them, the time for some of the hon. member’s proposals is not yet ripe.

The hon. member for Von Brandis advocated a transport organization for Southern Africa. To him I have to give the same reply. Such an organization could be established with great advantage provided we could persuade these states to join. I hope that something of this nature will in fact be possible in future. I also agree with what the hon. member said concerning the duty resting on private initiative. I may say that we had a good example of cooperation between a Government body and private initiative in the case of the development of the mineral resources of Botswana. I am thinking here of the IDC and private companies which made it possible for Botswana to exploit its rich mineral resources.

The hon. member advocated that we should not neglect the French-speaking states of Africa. I can give him the assurance that my department and I, and the Government, agree with him. I can also assure him that they are not being neglected. I wish I could take the hon. member into my confidence in this regard.

The hon. member for Parktown made the statement, which is of course true, that our relations with Africa are to a very large extent interdependent on our internal policy. I do not want to debate this point with the hon. member. In any case there is insufficient time to do so. What I can in fact tell him, is that we on this side of the House have every confidence in our policy. We are determined to apply that policy consistently throughout. We believe that we are able to enter into and maintain friendly relations with Africa precisely as a result of our policy. This would not have been the case if the party of that hon. member had been in power. His party’s policy is not acceptable to Africa. All he need do is consider what is happening north of the Limpopo and what the reaction is to a similar policy which is being applied there.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout complained bitterly about my being so secretive. I am obliged to be so. He compared our position with that of the powerful United States of America, where full reports are given on foreign relations. Our position cannot be compared to that of America’s. Our position is not yet normal. We are hard at work, and I think we are going to succeed, in normalizing South Africa’s position. I think this could happen sooner than the hon. member perhaps imagines. Then we shall keep the hon. member informed in all respects and take him into our confidence in all respects.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated the object of this motion was to afford us the opportunity of reflecting, in a responsible manner, on what is probably the most important aspect of our policy. I want to convey my appreciation to the members of this House on this side and on the opposite side for the way in which this debate has been conducted, for the spirit of constructiveness and responsibility which was displayed. In addition I also want to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for having taken us into his confidence in regard to the latest developments in Rhodesia. This is already along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Under these circumstances I should like to withdraw my motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.