Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity you have afforded me to make the following statement:

After a bomb explosion in East London on 6 August this year and during the subsequent police investigation, in the course of which two members of the Security Branch of the Transkeian police were shot dead and robbed of their official vehicle on Friday, 7 August, by armed ANC terrorists, the South African Police erected roadblocks on all roads in the vicinity of Elliot, Barkly East and Maclear. The terrorists, who had in the interim got rid of the stolen vehicle, arrived at approximately 16h05 on the same day at a blockade near Elliot in a vehicle known to be used by the ANC. The group, consisting of five people, immediately became involved in an exchange of fire with the police.

Two terrorists were shot dead, while the remaining three got away. Two policemen, Sergeant Olivier and Constable Van Straaten, were seriously wounded and taken to the hospital in Bloemfontein, and are now out of danger.

One of the fugitives was arrested a short while later, while the remaining two escaped. Russian weapons and a hand grenade were found in the vehicle which had been seized. The South African Police, assisted by members of the police force of the Transkei and a helicopter unit of the South African Air Force, immediately launched a follow-up operation and a large area, parts of which are covered in dense vegetation and very inhospitable, was combed day and night.

In the early hours of this morning the two fugitives were tracked down on a farm. They immediately opened fire on the police, who returned their fire and shot both of them dead. A terrorist bullet struck Sergeant Grebe of the Aliwal North police station in the head and he was taken by helicopter to hospital in Bloemfontein where he is in a serious condition. This group of five terrorists is also connected with recent acts of sabotage in Durban.

A thorough investigation both inside and outside the Transkei has also led to the arrest of a number of people in connection with offences in terms of security legislation.

Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my arguments concerning the legislation, permit me to convey my thanks in the first instance to the Opposition, for the very responsible approach they have displayed with regard to important and sensitive legislation. Even the hon. member for Bryanston acted responsibly with regard to this particular legislation. [Interjections.]

Is that possible?

I can well remember how, when I first came to this House and in subsequent years—in spite of the place I am now occupying here, it was a mere seven years ago—how debates on manpower were conducted very emotionally in this House and what passionate speeches were made, all to no real good effect. Now that I think of it, I want to point out that if emotion and passion are involved in a matter without the matter bearing fruit, it tends to have a connotation of immorality. [Interjections.] However, I believe that we have all learned a lesson from that and that all of us now realize that when we rely on more meaningful argument as regards sensitive and important matters such as these, we have a far more fruitful debate.

At this point I first wish to refer to another argument or remark by the hon. member for Bryanston—I am sorry he is not present at the moment—who wanted to know from the hon. the Minister why the Government had not accepted the recommendations of the official Opposition long ago and placed them on the Statute Book. In the first place, I want to point out to the hon. member that the legislation has been drafted on the basis of the recommendations of a number of expert commissions which carried out very thorough investigations into labour practice and legislation in South Africa and based their recommendations on that investigation. However, by that I do not imply that none of the recommendations made in the past by the hon. members of the Opposition are not also relevant in this new legislation. In a responsible or balanced democracy, and if one has a responsible Opposition that is in touch with the electorate, it is probably normal that they can act as trail blazers to a large extent. However, I wish to state very clearly that I am speaking about a responsible Opposition. Therefore I am not speaking about the party that at present comprises the official Opposition, but of the previous official Opposition and also only after the irresponsible hon. member for Bryanston was no longer a member of it.

I now wish to turn briefly to the Bill before the House and take pleasure in giving it my support. The legislation under discussion only means that the employment mechanism in South Africa for all workers of all races will now be grouped under one piece of legislation, something which will certainly make the whole process of employment far more meaningful than before. I imagine, too, that employers who employ workers of different races—and there are many of those in South Africa—will find it far easier, more convenient and meaningful to negotiate with one body, that in future there will certainly also be better coordination and far less confusion on the employment front in South Africa. The legislation is also part of the hon. the Prime Minister’s declared policy of rationalization. Within the department, too, there is greater rationalization as regards the structuring of legislation. I believe that this is important. I want to stress what someone else said here yesterday, viz. that this legislation was not drawn up and drafted without due consideration but that it was drafted on the basis of the reports of many expert commissions which, as I have already said, carried out a very thorough investigation into labour practices and legislation in South Africa and made their recommendations accordingly. However, to me this is indicative of a department and a Minister—let me put this clearly—that in a pionering period make use of expert knowledge to determine correct action with regard to a very decisive era which we are now entering, and this is important. In clauses 2 and 3 reference is made to the guidance and placement centres which are to be established. The hon. member for Bryanston agreed with this and said that it was a good idea, but nevertheless objected to the word “category” which appears in the Bill because in his opinion it had a racial connotation. I should like to hear how he attaches a racial connotation to the word “category” which has for generations been a well-worn term in the labour world—not only in South Africa, but in other countries as well—for referring to different classes of worker. Apparently he derives his racial connotation from the explanatory memorandum which speaks of “population groups”.

Accordingly, I just want to say to the official Opposition, of which he is a spokesman, that it is surely only normal and practical that one would have separate services for certain categories of worker, which in some cases may comprise a certain race group, as is being professed here in the explanatory memorandum that says that we are going to try to employ 20 Black graduates with psychology as one of their subjects to do the guidance work. I can assure the hon. member that if a Black man with a rural background, who is still fairly unsophisticated, were to be met at such an institution by a fellow Tswana with the words “Re Thluu tusu ho tula mosebetsi eh monati moena” he would definitely have much more confidence in that body than he might otherwise have had. This is all that it implies. The hon. member for Bryanston, however, must look for a racial connotation because a “population group” is mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It does not even appear in the Bill.

An admirable aspect of the Bill is that its total motive is the creation of a service. That is not all. It will be a free service and a service that is calculated to perform an existing service in a broader, more efficient and more satisfactory manner. This too, I find symptomatic of the department and the Minister that realize that in the decades to come, the labour sphere is going to be one of the most sensitive, vital sectors of the domestic economy, without a doubt.

Another admirable aspect of the legislation is that the utilization of that service is on an entirely voluntary basis. It is probably normal in a country like South Africa which has professed time and again that it believes in a free enterprise system, that something of this nature should be free, because the successes of this specific system have always been achieved and guaranteed in the past by means of an absolutely unforced, or largely unforced exchange and interaction, particularly on a statutory basis, between the worker and the employer on the one hand with the State as a catalyst on the other hand, and in an atmosphere of the greatest possible, but nevertheless responsible, worker mobility. The system is voluntary, as I said, until a workseeker has registered after which—I just want to explain it briefly in spite of the hon. the Minister’s explanation—he is obliged, when he finds a position, to report it to a placement centre. His employer is under the same obligation. Employers are also obliged to register the number of vacancies and the number of workers in their employ. It is probably quite normal that one should have this information in order to exercise control, because without control such a service can definitely not become established and successful. Schools are also obliged to provide certain details, and this is also as old as the system in South Africa is. The hon. member for Bryanston also had something to say about this. He enquired as to what will have to be provided with regard to these scholars. Would their character traits and their private business also be required? This type of detail has been provided for many years already in the form of the so-called Ed Lab cards that we were acquainted with. In the first place, this is required to establish the number of potential work seekers at a specific time and to project this as well as to assist with co-ordinating training with regard to the provision of certain facilities for certain people, as well as the level and standards thereof, which is very necessary in a country like South Africa with its tremendous need for skilled manpower.

Provision has also been made in the Bill for the establishment of private employment bodies, which is something that was already in existence in the past. The hon. member for Bryanston gave his opinion on this matter and said that as far as he was concerned, a co-ordinating council—if I understood him correctly, a sort of super-body—should be established by means of which the functions of employment agencies could be co-ordinated and in this way grant them professional status. I do not have any objection to that idea, but I feel it is not the task of the department to establish something of this kind. It is the responsibility of the employment agencies themselves to create such a body when their numbers justify it. It is important that control can also be exercised now in terms of the Bill over the fees that are levied by these bodies for the services that they provide to employees. In a country like South Africa, with its large numbers of unsophisticated workers who can easily fall prey to persons or bodies who want to exploit them, this provision in particular is very important.

The Bill also aims at exercising extensive control over recruitment work that is carried out for certain undertakings by private employment offices. This too is a very important provision, because if we were to allow unconditional cross or pirate recruitment in South Africa, it would not be in the best interest of the worker or of South Africa as such. We are aware of the fact that as a result of this type of behaviour occurring in the past, there was a very large turn-over, particularly with regard to high level manpower, to such an extent that it caused the disruption of many industries and was largely responsible for an unrealistic level of remuneration being linked to certain categories of employment.

In actual fact, the Bill aims at channelling and placing the existing manpower in South Africa, including that which is yet to be made available, in the best possible way. This is done in the following ways: Any workseeker or worker can come to the placement centre for aptitude tests, vocational guidance and placing. This is particularly important, in the first place, with regard to high-level manpower in South Africa, which must be placed absolutely correctly and meaningfully because they are extremely scarce. However, it is equally important, if not more important, for the large numbers of unsophisticated workers who do in fact require guidance and aptitude tests so that they can be placed in the correct work situations. This will automatically result in the more meaningful placement and utilization of workers, which in turn will give rise to greater productivity. In addition, it will result in greater labour rest, as well as in a smaller labour turnover, which is probably very advantageous to any country. Anyone who has any knowledge of this matter, knows that one of the cost factors with regard to obtaining workers for enterprises is that workers must be conveyed over long distances at the firm’s expense. Then, after six or eight months, and even sooner, they leave their employment and the next man must be transported over the same distance once again. The proposed set-up will limit the mobility or turn-over of workers to a large extent.

There is another important factor. With the limitation of a turnover of workers—because the people are satisfied in their work situation—we will have a higher level of proficiency amongst the workers as a result of more, longer experience. Indeed, it has become history in recent times that the success of those countries that have really made remarkable progress in the industrial sphere, has been based to a large extent on the special ties between the workers and the work situation, the continuity which exists as a result, and the loyalty and skill that accompany this. If we can achieve this in South Africa, we know that it will also very definitely be advantageous for us.

In conclusion, I just want to point out that one finds incorrectly placed workers in any workers corps, and this is a situation that gives rise for concern, because if a worker is incorrectly placed and unhappy and does not have the ability, knowledge or assistance to escape from that situation, it will eventually mean a lifetime of frustration and unhappiness for him, which one definitely does not wish upon anyone. With this service, the idea is in fact to bring about a decrease in the occurrence of this type of case that causes concern, as much as we possibly can. There is a large group of unsophisticated workers in South Africa that we must take into account, because to a large extent they are still rural, and their adaptation to a modern technological, market-directed economy cannot take place without trauma if comprehensive, extensive information, guidance and assistance in connection with placement is not made available to them.

As a result of this legislation, we want there to be greater labour fulfilment and as a result labour peace for workers in South Africa, which in turn will lead to labour peace, stability and productivity. The outcome will be a prosperous, happy community. In a country like South Africa, which is becoming a developed country, we must accept that labour and the fruits of labour may be one of the most important determinants of the socio-economic situation of the people, including the quality of their lives. For this reason I am pleased to support this meaningful Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sasolburg made a very good speech. We agree, of course, with many of the factors mentioned by him. He approached the matter in a very positive way, and for that we also thank him. It seems to me that it is not only hon. members of the official Opposition who are becoming more responsible, but members of the Government as well. There are, of course, certain aspects of this legislation on which we shall certainly differ, but I hope the hon. member for Sasolburg will be patient and listen to the things to which we are going to refer.

†As with the two previous Bills just discussed in this House, my party welcomes the provisions and principles of the Guidance and Placement Bill now before us. The reason for that is quite obvious. There is a very real—in fact desperate—need in South Africa for the type of rationalization of labour that will be made possible by this Bill, in particular. There is absolutely no questioning the fact that the employment and utilization of the manpower and woman-power potential in South Africa has, to a very large extent—for at least 70% of the population—been on a fairly random or haphazard basis, rather than on a planned and reasonably scientific basis. Therefore we have no objection, in principle, to this Bill. We shall certainly be supporting the principle of this Bill, but in the course of the debate we shall be illustrating to hon. members on that side of the House where we differ, and why we differ, with them on certain fundamental aspects which I shall shortly be dealing with. I am sure that not only the employers, employers’ organizations and trade unions, but also certain sectors of our working population, namely the Black workers, are going to welcome the provisions of this Bill.

Let us look at the present situation as it has manifested itself over the past five to ten years. The system employed—that of administration boards or labour bureaux, as they are called—has in most cases been ineffective, costly and, in many instances, totally humiliating when it has come, to registering Black workers and supplying the labour market in South Africa with their services. In that respect we welcome the new initiative and the changes envisaged by the provisions of this Bill. When I refer to the processes as inefficient, I am not talking about the process of registration of workers, but more specifically the effect that this has had on the compatibility between a worker’s potential and the actual job requirement. A cursory examination of figures will indicate that the number of new job-seekers entering the market on an annual basis is in the region of 350 000 workers. If one adds to that a labour turn-over in South Africa of 15% of the economically active population, representing some 1½ million workers, it can be seen that very close to 1¾ million people can potentially benefit from the provisions of this Bill. That indicates the desperate demand for this type of service in the public sector. Of course, we realize that not all those people will be in need of this type of service. We do not know what the percentages will be, but let us hope it will not be 100% of the 1,75 million people who could make use of these provisions. In that case the hon. the Minister’s department will turn into an army of workers to provide this service.

This immediately indicates to us one of the potential restraint areas for the implementation of what is visualized by this Bill, namely the shortage of highly skilled and professional people who will be available to undertake aptitude testing and that type of professional services. The hon. member for Sasolburg spoke about the 20 Black graduates who they visualize will be recruited to assist in this direction. It is well-known that the industrial psychological profession is relatively new in South Africa, and at the moment there are no more than 120 industrial psychologists registered with the professional board and that number includes members of all race groups. Of those 120 registered industrial psychologists who will predominantly have to provide the professional services visualized by the Bill, there are only 20 who are working outside the public sector. By that I mean those industrial psychologists who are working outside universities, research institutions and the like. That, however, is no reason for withholding the Bill. The Bill will provide employment opportunities for professionals which did not exist before.

The system will have teething troubles, and the board which is to be established in terms of the Bill will have its hands full in dealing with the difficulties it will come across, not the least of which is the fact that people will have to be enlightened and educated as to what is available to them and why certain activities are going to take place at the labour bureaux. There is a tremendous amount of hostility and suspicion, predominantly amongst Black workers, when it comes to Administration Boards. I should therefore like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that his department should launch a fairly sophisticated publicity campaign to initiate the introduction of these measures in the labour bureaux. People should understand what it is all about. If they think that one is going to deprive them of their free choice of occupational area, or if they think that one is going to channel them into occupations which they do not want, there will, of course, be massive worker resistance. That resistance will then be fed back to the trade unions, the trade unions will take the grievances to the negotiating table and the whole matter could easily be railroaded by unjustified hostility due to ignorance of what is actually intended by the provision of these services. So I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider, as a top priority, the launching of an information campaign in those quarters where it will be required.

We are generally in agreement with the hon. the Minister as far as most of the provisions of the Bill are concerned. There are, however, certain areas which we feel we can justifiably criticize and perhaps recommend alternative strategies. In the first instance I should like to refer to the provision relating to the registration and deregistration of private employment offices. It must be stated very clearly that there is a genuine need for the continued control of private registering or employment offices. These offices that spring up like Namaqualand daisies in summer after the rain and then vanish when winter comes, do a considerable amount of harm to the labour market in South Africa, despite the fact that a small percentage of them do make a very positive contribution to employees’ job satisfaction and to the improvement of productivity. The majority of them, however, have cashed in—and this is especially so regarding the White workers—on the shortage of skilled workers in South Africa. Many of these organizations have turned into what is colloquially known as “body shops”. All they have done is to reshuffle the pack from time to time and make a handsome profit in the process while contributing very little towards the positive promotion of productivity or employee satisfaction.

We therefore welcome the amended requirements for registration of the private employment office. However, let me also say to the hon. the Minister that in the process of registration we have to be careful lest we overstep the mark and introduce control measures which in fact are going to be found not to be acceptable by the people concerned or not to work in practice. For instance, we should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given any thought to the criteria for the registration of a private employment office. What criteria are going to be used? Is it simply going to be the fact that an individual looks respectable and that he has two eyes, two hands and two feet? Is there going to be an examination of the potential owner’s background to see whether he is qualified to do the job? Are other criteria going to be considered such as his financial resources to do the job properly? Are his offices going to be examined to see that they are respectable and whether that person really knows what it is all about when he opens a private employment office? What sort of criteria does the hon. the Minister visualize will be required for registration? Then, of course, as a corollary to this, what criteria will the hon. the Minister apply in respect of deregistering the proprietor of a private employment office? What is malpractice? What sort of malpractices will be an offence in the eyes of the hon. the Minister? What offences will lead to deregistration? These are very difficult questions to answer because we have an open-ended scale of criteria.

This brings me to the recommendation of the hon. member for Bryanston yesterday in regard to which he and I were in agreement. He acted responsibly yesterday—as we, of course, always do …

We always act responsibly.

I have said that we always act responsibly, Sir, and the hon. member for Bryanston and I found accord in this regard yesterday. I should like to say that the acceptance of a registration/ deregistration scheme is normally in respect of this kind of service best served by self-regulation by the profession or service sector. In other words, we will find in South Africa today that we have an association which purports to represent employment bureaux in the White sector. They have a code of ethics which they have drawn up voluntarily and I know that they have petitioned the hon. the Minister on previous occasions to give them statutory power to control their own members. I am not saying that this would be the best way to do it in this particular case but the hon. the Minister will have to take cognizance of the fact that he is going to have to be consistent and his criteria will have to have face validity if what he proposes is to be accepted by the very people whom he proposes to control here. Let me repeat, however, that we agree that control is absolutely necessary in this field. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given consideration to giving statutory powers to this particular association to which I have just referred, whether he has examined their code of ethics and what their attitude is towards this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like now to move a little further and say to the hon. the Minister that we also experience some considerable difficulty in regard to clause 5 and clause 8 of the Bill. I shall be dealing in detail with these two clauses during the Committee Stage and propose moving amendments in regard to the provisions of these two clauses. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 5—and I am discussing the principle involved here—that the process of registration for an unemployed person or a new workseeker is going to be a voluntary one. That is as it should be. One cannot go and round people up off the street and ask them whether they are employed or unemployed or tell them that they should be employed and then coerce them to register. Obviously, therefore, this has to be a voluntary process.

Sir, we have two categories of workers who are going to register at a guidance and placement centre. The first of these is going to be the man for whom work is found relatively easily and he will then be required to return certain information and documentation to the officer concerned. In other words, once a man has been to a guidance and placement centre and he has been fortunate enough to find employment after he has been processed, he then has certain obligations towards the officer in the guidance and placement centre by way of returning certain information, cards, documentation etc. to him.

The second category is that of the man who is unfortunate enough to be constantly seeking employment. He will also have certain statutory responsibilities towards the officer—he has to report after a certain period of time and he has to undergo a particular process. The problem, however, is this: To make it an offence not to fulfil those obligations is going to turn hundreds of thousands of workseekers into criminals because of a lack of appreciation and understanding of what the process is about. The hon. the Minister is making provision in this Bill for fines of R200 or imprisonment for six months if the workseeker or unemployed person does not fulfil these obligations. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I appreciate his problem that in order to have adequate statistics available, it is necessary to obtain the full co-operation of the workseekers who are going to be assisted by the guidance and placement facilities offered. I should also like, however, to warn the hon. the Minister that he is going to turn hundreds of thousands of workseekers and people who have found employment into criminals purely on a technicality. We shall therefore during the Committee Stage move an amendment to this particular clause to indicate to the hon. the Minister how we believe we can improve the Bill to avoid the problem and to achieve what the hon. the Minister has in mind to obtain the statistics he requires. This provision, like the pass laws, is going to turn hundreds of thousands of people technically into criminals liable to prosecution for reasons beyond their control.

We shall suggest to the hon. the Minister that we work through the employer rather than to leave all the responsibility to the employee. The hon. the Minister should bear in mind that 70% of the economically active population of South Africa is Black and they are people with, at best, only six years’ formal education. They are going to run themselves into prosecution situations for reasons beyond their control.

I should also like to refer to clause 8 which places an obligation on all school principals in areas which have been designated to provide the hon. the Minister’s department with statistics regarding school leavers. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that I think he is making a rod for his own back and he is making an excessive burden to be placed on the backs of school principals. Why is it necessary, as far as the White population is concerned and as far as the Coloured and Indian populations are concerned, for the hon. the Minister to have information on all school leavers when only 10% at best of those particular students are going to require assistance to find suitable employment? In other words, in the White Coloured and Indian schools the hon. the Minister is asking a principal to provide information for 100% of the school leaving population where only 10% is going to require this particular service. Therefore I believe we are going to produce paper work which is not essential to the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. Such paper work is not essential, and will place a heavy responsibility, and time requirement on the principals of the various schools who have to provide this kind of information. There are alternative means for deriving it.

I should like to point out to the House that the hon. the Minister is proposing that any principal of a private school who has not fulfilled these obligations is liable to a fine of some R600 and quite stiff imprisonment, when in fact at least 90% of that information is not necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the Bill and the statistics generated can be generated from alternative sources. This is another provision with which we have a considerable amount of difficulty and in the Committee Stage I shall move certain amendments in this respect.

I now want to turn the attention of the hon. the Minister to two very important factors which are operative in the free-market labour situation in South Africa. In the first instance I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister how he visualizes that he can promote the free mobility of labour—here I am talking particularly about Black labour—in the free-market situation without altering influx control as it is at the moment. We recognize, of course that there is no colour connotation in the Bill, but in practice we have concentrations of people according to race group and that is where they live and seek employment.

When the hon. the Minister establishes these guidance and placement centres, he will find that the centres are going to run into one problem immediately, and that is the discrepancy between what industry is going to demand in types of workers from the centres and the qualitative factors regarding the supply of labour to meet those demands. There is going to be a discrepancy there because of the low literacy rate which I have mentioned to the hon. the Minister earlier.

The hon. the Minister is going to find that, despite the vocational guidance and aptitude services which are going to be provided at the guidance and placement centres, a very large proportion of the supply of labour is not going to be acceptable to industry because of a low educational level. We are going to sit with these large pools of unemployed people at the guidance and placement centres. In those same guidance and placement centres there is going to be a desperate shortage of Black workseekers with a relatively high standard of education which industry will be demanding for itself.

The question now is: What is the hon. the Minister going to do about the mobility of labour between centres? One will find, for instance, an over-supply in the one area and an under-supply in the other, and influx control is going to prevent the hon. the Minister from moving the labour from one area to the other, or more important, allowing the worker to move voluntarily from one area to the other. There is after all no point in making sophisticated guidance and placement techniques available to the population and they immediately let the guillotine chop off the process, and build a barrage around these workers so that they are unable to move freely from one area to another. In that event I think the value of what is visualized in this Bill will trickle away down the slippery slopes of influx control.

Secondly, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that the free market supply of labour cannot be interfered with any longer in South Africa. It is time that we recognized the realities of the situation, and if we are going to promote equal pay for equal responsibility and we visualize that every man, woman and child in South Africa has the right to improve their own lot in South Africa, then we cannot shackle their feet in the same process. I would like to make a considered appeal to the hon. the Minister to advise this House and the population generally what his perception is of the free market supply of labour and what he visualizes can be done to aid this process.

Other than that, we are very satisfied with this Bill. We would like to congratulate his department on this Bill, first of all for initiating this particular Bill and, secondly, because we are fuily aware of the mountains of preparatory work that was put in over the years and that has culminated in this Bill. We hope that the hon. the Minister will accept our criticism in the spirit it is given, and that is advice to him in terms of the experience that many industries have had. We have expressed these criticisms primarily to promote the full potential of the Bill and not as obstructionists, and we hope the hon. the Minister will take due cognizance of that.

Mr. Speaker, in general the hon. member for Durban North is a very responsible member and I think he has proved this again this afternoon. From our side we also wish to express our thanks for the support which he and his party have given this Bill. He pointed out certain problem areas, aspects which are causing him problems, which we shall undoubtedly come back to in the course of the Committee Stage and concerning which the hon. the Minister will also give answers.

During the past few days this House has dealt with legislation arising out of the Wiehahn and Riekert reports. The importance of an orderly labour dispensation, to ensure that all population groups in South Africa can have a meaningful future, was underlined in these reports. For this reason I believe that the hon. the Minister deserves a special word of thanks for the contribution which he has made in bringing this legislation this far. I think there is general appreciation for the fact that he and his department had an unenviable task to implement the drastic changes proposed in the reports in a revolutionary way. By doing so he caught the enemies of South Africa, who had hoped to attack us in this delicate field, on the wrong foot. What is more, he introduced legislation which any impartial expert in labour legislation would class among the best in the world. I believe that this hon. Minister will long be remembered in history for having made this very positive contribution.

By its reaction to the findings of the Riekert and Wiehahn reports, the Government has committed itself to the effective utilization of our available manpower. For this reason it has also committed itself to the maintenance and expansion of the free enterprise system, which the hon. member for Durban North also mentioned. I think we all recognize that the level of prosperity of the people in South Africa will in future be determined by the successful functioning of this system. A very important aspect of the successful functioning of our labour dispensation is productivity. Productivity in turn is largely determined by one great question, namely whether all workers are really fully utilized in the work situation. Is every worker realizing his potential and are his talents used to the full?

The fact is that investigations have shown that our country’s productivity is being hampered to a great extent by workers constantly changing jobs. The labour turnover is assuming serious proportions and is giving rise to severe losses in manpower which we cannot afford. This type of worker, who wanders from one employer to the next, is frequently driven to it by a lack of job satisfaction in the work they are doing. In an effort to obtain job satisfaction it is sometimes necessary for them to be retrained ab initio, which in turn leads to further losses in expenditure and time. Experience shows that this situation is caused chiefly by inadequate career guidance at schools.

Against this background there can therefore be little doubt that effective career guidance is one of the cornerstones of effective manpower planning. All people are not the same. All people do not have the same talents and aptitudes. This fact is also recognized in the Government’s labour policy. For this reason, in its White Paper on the second part of the Wiehahn Commission’s report, the Government stated unequivocally that the development of manpower implies the continual upgrading to the highest possible level of the working ability of the total work force, with due regard to individual talent and interest and the present and future needs of the South African economy.

From this standpoint of the Government it therefore follows that a scientifically based guidance system is essential to the effective application and implementation of this policy statement. Effective career guidance must therefore be one of our serious endeavours. Young people, too, must be provided with the correct career guidance so that they can make meaningful and realistic career choices which are in accordance with their aptitudes and interests. This fact is irrefutable. If we in South Africa can succeed in placing the right man in the right job we shall bring about a much healthier labour dispensation. Indeed, the Guidance and Placement Bill is aimed at creating a framework for providing career guidance and career information which can lead to these results.

We are living in a time of rapid technological development which is taking place at an increasing rate. These changing circumstances make it essential for workers to adapt themselves constantly. However, for this process to be carried out successfully, career guidance of the kind envisaged by this Bill is of real importance. If for example one considers the entry of Black workers to the Western-orientated industrial and business world one realizes that it is often a traumatic experience for these people. The worker’s lack of knowledge of and resultant uncertainty in the technologically complex occupational sphere leads not only to adjustment problems but also to low productivity. To make good these deficiencies it is necessary for such a worker to be reorientated with regard to the demands the work situation makes of him. Therefore with regard to this situation, too, career guidance is of the utmost importance. The Bill also envisages the career guidance for South Africa’s present and future work force. This is of great importance because although career information plays a decisive role in the final entry to the occupational world, it is already important early in the guidance process. For example, there is the choice of a school, of subjects and of the level of study, all of which have an influence on further training and the choice of a career.

If one considers the career opportunities in our country there would seem to be more than 2 000 alternatives from which to choose, some of which also have many possibilities for specialization. The fact of the matter is therefore that a child or a young person must frequently make a choice without having the least idea of the range of alternatives or the nature of the career itself. It is therefore quite clear that the career guidance for South Africa’s labour force envisaged by this Bill is of the greatest importance and can make a real contribution in the interests of our labour dispensation.

It is probably also true that no individual can handle all facets of career information. In a number of overseas countries, much of this information is organized and distributed by means of computers, a system which entails many advantages. Information distributed by a computer is usually correct and up to date. Everyone receives the same information and the competence of the guidance officer himself is not decisive. It is therefore clear that this Bill can also be a tremendous challenge for us in South Africa in so far as it concerns the future use of computers in the distribution of career information.

As this Guidance and Placement Bill will undoubtedly lead to workers and job seekers being better informed on supply and demand conditions in the labour market so that more well-considered choices can be made, I believe that this step will undoubtedly have an extremely beneficial effect on our labour dispensation and it therefore gives me great pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to react to the members who spoke before me, especially the hon. member for Geduld and the hon. member for Durban North, as well as the hon. member for Sasolburg.

Thus far the debate has really covered the area which has to do with the business world and the industrial world in particular. The one statement made by the hon. member for Sasolburg when he referred to workers who often have to be transported over long distances and who then, as he put it, work for seven or eight months, only to be replaced by another group who will possibly do the same category of work, is a matter on which I, too, want to comment. Although the hon. member did not say so, I assume that he was referring to workers employed in the agricultural sector. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister is also, by means of this legislation, going to make provision for the training or placement of workers who must make a living in the agricultural sector.

It is true—and I want to put this to the hon. the Minister—that we must not think that the skills that are expected, are only required in the industrial world. As agriculture develops and is modernized, the demands made on those workers in terms of technical ability, etc., are rapidly increasing. I should like the hon. the Minister, in his reply this afternoon, to explain to us if these workers can be included in this system and if so, in what way. It is also a fact that a very considerable number of the workers come from the homelands and from those areas which, in theory, are on the road to independence. This would then mean that these centres would have to be established in the homeland itself or outside the homeland in such a way that it could advise all the workers of that area and also place all those workers in an area in employment where they would be able to achieve their maximum potential. I should like the hon. the Minister to give attention to this.

It is also a fact that a high degree of unemployment is not only an indication of the degree to which manpower is unutilized. It also represents a serious social and economic problem. At the moment the indications are that more than half of the Black unemployed have a training of lower than standard 3 or less than five years at school. A number, and a very substantial number, of those people are at present younger than 20 years of age and more than half of the unemployed are under the age of 30 years. Hon. members will therefore agree with me when I say that the social implications of this problem should never be underestimated. That is why this Bill is so important.

However, we must also realize that for the most part it is going to be the younger Black man who will have to make the most use of the centres to be established.

The successful implementation of this measure in practice will to a large extent depend on the attitude with which it is established. The image of the centres among workseekers is almost more important than the details of the legislation itself, because if the centres and the staff attached to them do not enjoy the trust of the prospective workseekers, this Bill is not worth the paper it is written on.

This Bill represents a shift away from the old labour bureaux to a new dispensation. In earlier debates on other legislation regarding manpower the hon. the Minister also talked about a new dispensation, a dispensation in which a positive effort will be made not only to obtain employment for the workseeker, but also to place him in employment where he will be able to actualize himself to the full and achieve his maximum potential.

In terms of clause 4 of the Bill the workseeker will register as a workseeker entirely voluntarily. This means that the workseeker will have to have the confidence —I emphasize “confidence”—that the centre will be able to assist him actively and positively. If he does not have that confidence in the centre, he will not register as a workseeker. He will have to believe that the centre and the staff attached to it are, as it were, on his or her side, even in times of economic recession or stagnation when there is a shortage of employment opportunities. That is the kind of trust the workseeker will have to have in the centre.

I believe that the image I have sketched is in accordance with the ideas and recommendation of Dr. Riekert, who investigated this matter. On page 3 of the White Paper, Dr. Riekert refers to voluntary application and says—

The provision in the Bill is therefore in accordance with the recommendation made by Dr. Riekert.

If we look at the Riekert Report itself, we see that the question of voluntary or compulsory registration is also dealt with at length, and I should like to quote from chapter 4, paragraph 74, where the following is stated—

This view is thus also supported by Dr. Riekert, who made a study of this matter and on whose recommendation, indeed, this Bill was drawn up.

†Therefore it is clear to me that everything possible should be done to make the guidance and placement centres attractive to workseekers and to ensure that workseekers have the fullest confidence in the personnel who will be staffing these centres.

We know, however, that there is a tremendous shortage of trained personnel to run these centres. Other speakers have already referred to this problem. In terms of the explanatory memorandum, provision has been made for the Administration Boards to perform, in some instances all of and in other instances many of, the functions set out in this Bill.

I believe that the hon. the Minister in this particular regard has a problem. The truth is that the Administration Boards do not enjoy the confidence and the trust of workseekers and they do not enjoy the trust and the confidence particularly of young Black workseekers. That is true. Historically the Administration Boards have an image of intolerance and bureaucratic action, and this has hardly endeared them to those people whom they, in terms of this Bill, have to serve and assist. I believe that the hon. the Minister must be made aware of this, since it is part of the legacy which his department is about to inherit.

I think these are problems which are going to make the implementation of this Bill difficult. Furthermore, the Administration Boards are perceived by Black people, particularly young Black people, as being the administrative arm of the Government, under whose rule the Black man has not been allowed to develop his full potential in this country. That is how the Black man perceives the situation, yet these boards are now going to be asked to do the job of actually helping these people. I believe that this is also one of the drawbacks with which the hon. the Minister will have to cope. Against this background I therefore have very severe reservations about the advisability of using the Administration Boards as means for successfully carrying out the functions of this Bill. I know that the hon. the Minister may say that at this stage he has no choice. I know that he may say, too, that there is a shortage of manpower.

*I know the hon. the Minister will perhaps say that we must begin with what we have and develop that further, or the hon. the Minister will perhaps say that he has already made provision for trained personnel to take over these functions at management level, and that we shall be able to overcome problems in this way, but I think it is important that the hon. the Minister, and others who supported the Bill so strongly yesterday and today, be made aware of the problems.

†I say this, not because I am trying to be difficult, but because I would honestly like the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to this very real problem and to explain to this House how he plans to overcome the drawback. Perhaps I am at fault. Perhaps, after having read the explanatory document, I have over-estimated the role that these Administration Boards are going to play, but I believe that the hon. the Minister should take time out to comment on the reservations I have expressed here this afternoon.

There is another aspect that I think needs to be clarified. I am referring to the compulsion on school principals to provide the centres with certain information. This was also referred to by the hon. member for Durban North. I think the points he made were very valid and I agree fully with what he said.

That is the kiss of death.

I believe that we must very seriously guard against the temptation to call for information on school-leavers which may simply clutter up the files with data that might never, in fact, be used. I wonder whether the answer is not simply to call for information from school principals as and when a prospective pupil needs assistance and the centre therefore needs further information on that particular person.

Perhaps the answer to that problem is going to be that the centre needs to build up a source of information on the availability of workseekers, etc. I assume that that may very well be the answer. We know already that the centres are going to be understaffed, certainly as far as skilled and professional men are concerned. If the argument is going to be that these centres are to be a source for the gathering of information, I wonder whether that information should not be gathered in another way or stored somewhere else, because it may well be detrimental to the functioning of these new centres.

There is another point on which I should like to have clarification. Why do we make a distinction between the principals of private and of public schools? In the one case a criminal offence is committed if the principal of a private school does not forward the information, but no provision is made in the case of the principal of a public school. I do not understand this. To me it appears discriminatory, and I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with that as well.

There is a final point I should like to deal with. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister indicated—I understood it from what he had said—that certain centres might be created entirely for separate racial groups. Nowhere in the Bill is provision made for a distinction on the basis of race. Like other hon. members, I too understand that in certain areas, under certain circumstances, because of a predominant group living there, the centre would probably conduct its activities amongst those people only. I would not like to think that this Bill actually makes provision for the perpetuation of a system of racism in the placing of workers or in the situation of guiding workers to a better future. Therefore I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that it is not his intention to create centres which are strictly racially based in terms of those whom they are allowed to assist.

I am telling you now that that is not the case. Therefore you need not argue the matter any further.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg confined himself to discussing agriculture. One can understand this because he is his party’s spokesman on agricultural matters. It is also good to emphasize this aspect. As regards Bantu Administration Boards, about which he seems to have strong feelings, I believe the hon. the Minister will give him a good answer to his questions.

It is appropriate that this Bill should be discussed at this particular juncture, after a great deal has been said and detailed ideas have been exchanged on training and everything that goes with it. It is important that we speak about placement as such at this stage. If we study the Bill before us today it is very clear that it shows how successfully the Government is reviewing labour legislation. The Bill also testifies to a definite and justifiable handling of a radically changing labour set-up in this country. These are changes of which the Government has taken cognizance and which we do not wish to and never can negate. Consequently, when the Government comes forward with legislation of this nature, I think it forms part of a demonstration of solidarity against the forces which deliberately want to use the field of labour to get at our country and more specifically at the Government. When we listen to the ultra-leftist groups and when we are forever being accused of either being too slow in what we are doing or not making progress with legislation of this nature or not going far enough with legislation of this nature or being much too late as regards our plans, we must realize that as far as these people are concerned we can never be in step with them. As long as this Parliament occupies itself with programmes and plans such as these—and the people here and the general public outside must never doubt this—plans to create a socio-economic environment for a total community, not only for certain selected groups but for a total community, which as a result of its prosperity and acceptable standards of living will not easily fall prey to communism, we will have fulfilled our calling. If some people doubt the earnestness with which the Government is doing these things then they are guilty of maliciously disregarding the facts and it is the duty of everyone in this House—Opposition members included—to proclaim and to emphasize the idea of the necessity for labour peace.

As part of this strategy it must be clear that it is the serious intention of the Government to effect radical improvements, in the process of labour utilization, to the provision of employment and to career services—I want to make this very clear—as regards all races. And in addition this also applies to all work categories from high level manpower to the unskilled worker. This policy, which we see as a centralized policy stemming from legislation of this nature and legislation already dealt with as part of a concept of rationalization, is in fact aimed at bringing together what belongs together. If there is one field in which it is important to evaluate the total spectrum for the purpose of constructive recommendations and planning then it is this field. As a matter of fact this is what the Manpower Commission with all its permanent committees is constantly engaged in doing. We could go into ecstacies over the masterly way in which they are doing this work, bearing in mind the monumental task facing them every day. It is therefore no wonder that as a direct result of this work which they are doing, legislation of this nature, which is obvious legislation, is being incorporated in a Bill such as this. This is the meaningful implementation of what we think is in the interests of all workers in this country and this can only happen if the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. If it is worked out on this basis there can be talk of a suitable and applicable placement policy which will be uniform and can be applied with great success. What is also of importance is that for the first time it is now possible, with this unitary idea, to achieve this goal in this centralized way. It will also be possible for employment and career services, which will be provided by the Department of Manpower and will include career guidance, aptitude tests, rehabilitation of the disabled and staff selection, to be co-ordinated and provided in a systematic way. In the meantime it will of course still be necessary for the department to make use of magistrates’ courts and administration boards because the programmes in their entirety cannot be implemented overnight. It is nevertheless the intention that all these services will eventually be supplied by the Department of Manpower.

The enormous sphere of activities and the programme of the permanent committee on employment provision services of the National Manpower Commission entail that a complex labour situation must be taken into consideration. The committee must also bear in mind that there is an imbalance in the labour market. On the one hand there is a real shortage of skilled manpower and on the other hand there is a relatively large degree of unemployment among semi-skilled and unskilled workers. If we can work out a practical and workable system in such a dispensation for the judicious and effective placement of workseekers it will lead to the right man doing the right job in the right place to earn his living. This is what the Government is endeavouring to achieve and this is what we must see in these provisions.

To be able to arrive at reliable conclusions with regard to this labour situation it is obviously necessary to examine the entire question in its totality. In this regard, as is spelt out in the Bill, the establishment of advisory placement boards for specific regions will make it possible to undertake reliable surveys for regions and groups in order to gain a true reflection of the manpower situation for a specific region, and by means of central co-ordination, this correct information can then be used by the Manpower Commission. In this way we can expect correct decisions which are in the national interests.

We in this House need not remind one another that people are flocking in their thousands to industrial development poles. Nor do we have to tell one another that there is such a thing as the depopulation of the rural areas and that this is causing severe problems. But what we should tell one another here is that we must be satisfied with and must share in the fact that we are attempting through this Parliamentary action to establish legislation of this nature with a purpose, which is to bring about an equilibrium in economic activities in a regional context as well.

I believe that the advisory placement boards can play a very important role in this connection, because if one reads the Bill one observes that boards will be constituted in a ! remarkably representative way, bearing in mind that persons and bodies acquainted with the circumstances in their region will be able to participate in devising the plan, and in the submissions which can be made. Through better planning of this nature and by co-ordinating the plans we are helping to create a dispensation in which there will be no unnecessary duplication of services. This is something we shall no doubt all be glad to hear. In addition we do not want a poorly distribution of human resources and we also want to prevent a faulty co-ordination of functions. We should like the final goal of this action leading to the rapid flow of information to the statutory bodies responsible for formulating policy and its immediate implementation on a national level.

Seen in its entirety we are creating instruments which will make it possible for the right man to work in the right job in the service of his country and to his own advantage. A great deal is said and written about the right to work. A great deal is said about the protection of the worker. Frequently a worker asks the question: “Will I still have a job tomorrow?”. He asks: “Will I not be ousted from my job?”. I believe that this afternoon, in discussing legislation of this nature, we are creating instruments which can answer these questions in a positive way. We can give positive answers to the questions which may be asked by white persons and coloured persons. What we are now doing I consider to be one of the most significant and most exciting actions which can be taken and can be applied in practice to ensure every worker, White and non-White, of a job opportunity and to give him a chance to work. Then taxpayers will understand if we ask them to make sacrifices for the sake of economic growth and employment possibilities. But our people must also understand that we cannot allow an uncontrolled flow of people to industrial development poles. If we understand, this we understand what is in the legislation.

In conclusion I wish to say that when we discuss other legislation this afternoon and in the days ahead, legislation which deals with the affairs of the workers, Whites or Coloureds, we must bear in mind that the potential contributor to economic growth, stability and order can in fact also become the person who is unemployed, poverty-stricken, hungry and destitute and a potential inciter if economic growth, the creation of work opportunities and orderly placement do not become realities. Because we are creating instruments so that people can be happy in the labour situation it is a personal pleasure and privilege for me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rustenburg will forgive me if I do not follow the same pattern as he did, because I should like to approach this from a completely different angle. This Bill deals primarily with the guidance and placement of urban workers. This I very much welcome. However, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and hon. members of the House to the fact that there is an equal need for a similar service in the rural areas and for the rural workers. In this direction I should like to point out that there is a distinct need for manpower co-ordination in the agricultural sector. This is a matter of extreme urgency. This has been brought about by the enormous changes that have taken place across a broad spectrum of agriculture in recent years. The tendency of population movement from rural areas to urban areas has indeed highlighted the fact that the labour requirements of agriculture lie not only in higher salaries and improved living and working conditions, but also in providing workers with a greater sense of motivation and responsibility.

It would appear that agriculture generally has lagged behind industry in the field of manpower strategy, with the possible exception of the sugar and the timber industries. The result of this has been that many able, potential and suitable workers that may have stayed in agriculture, adequate working facilities could have been provided for them, have moved to Industry. The statistics reveal that there are now approximately 20% fewer farmers in the country than there were 10 years ago and that the number of workers employed in agriculture has fallen by some 25%. Notwithstanding this trend, it is indeed significant that production in broad terms has increased considerably during the same period. This can be attributed to the great role mechanization is now playing in agriculture. It is equally obvious that mechanization will play an even greater role in the future. So it is of paramount importance that workers, in the agricultural sector particularly, become geared to meet this development.

Mechanization is bringing with it problems which have hitherto been largely irrelevant. These include the initial substantial capital commitment and the necessity for economic and efficient operation. It is in this particular category that the advent of trained and responsible operators becomes so essential in the agricultural industry. Economic fuel consumption is an obligation that rests on the shoulders of every South African, and sound practical knowledge in its utilization affords the best means of obviating wastage of a commodity so vital to us all.

I must point out that mechanical maintenance contributes substantially to the cost of production in agriculture. It is indeed significant that South Africa is included in the list of those countries whose repair expenditure per tractor unit is amongst the highest in the world, a situation that cannot be allowed to continue if the increasing costs of production of farm products are to be restrained. The success of a number of training and educational centres provided by certain sectors of the agricultural industry has already proved that they are a sound investment. Mobile services have helped to facilitate actual training on the farms. At the same time man-hours lost by mechanical problems have been appreciably reduced and minimized.

Agriculture must face the fact that it is confronted with increased competition for labour from such industries as the mining and building industries. The co-ordination of agricultural manpower is a prerequisite in meeting this competition. Hon. members will appreciate that, in the light of the predicted doubling of the South African population by the year 2000, the agricultural sector deserves equal consideration with its industrial counterpart with specific reference to manpower planning, guidance, placement and training. This is imperative if South Africa wishes to remain a net food-producer and an exporter of food based on a viable agricultural economy, and, above all, if South Africa wishes to meet its future food requirements from within.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members on both sides of the House who participated in this debate for their contributions. In particular, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his maiden speech in the House. Since he has entered this debate on the particular subject he chose, we shall be looking forward to further contributions from him in this field and we hope the hon. member will retain his interest in labour matters. I should like to extend our most hearty congratulations to the hon. member and I trust that his contributions in the future will be of great value not only to the House but also to his constituents and to South Africa. Our very best wishes to him.

*Hon. members on the Government side made contributions in which they helped me as well. I thank them most sincerely for the arguments they advanced. These hon. members did not request me to deal with any specific matter in my reply. For that, too, I want to thank them most sincerely.

The greater part of the speeches by hon. members opposite was made up of questions, and I now want to confine myself to replying to the questions which they put. Probably that is the best way to finalize matters in the shortest possible time. I shall begin with the hon. member for Bryanston. Where is the hon. member for Bryanston? I do not see him in the House.

He apologized for his absence.

In any event, the hon. member for Bryanston put two questions which I do feel I should come back to. In the first place he made a statement which was made by other hon. members, too, concerning clause 1 and the word “category”, which appears in the explanatory memorandum as well. I just want to point out that the clause in question was taken over almost word for word from the existing Act. Consequently we have not formulated anything new here. It seems to me that, if we leave the words as they appear in the clause at present, they may become a permanent bone of contention in this House. I now want to refer to the existing wording and say that when we reach the Committee Stage, I shall move that we change the wording in question on page 5 of the Bill.

The second question which the hon. member asked was whether it would not be better for staff organizations which provide guidance and employment services, to establish their own organization and that they be given statutory recognition. Consequently what we have before us now is a proposal relating to this large number of organizations which employ people or refer workseekers to possible employers or who have instructions from employees to look for work for them. There are a large number of these. I want to make it quite clear here and now that I do not quite agree that we should give statutory recognition to these organizations. In fact I have in the past received representations to the effect that these organizations would like to organize themselves into a single body, and that statutory recognition then be accorded that body. I cannot do this. If we were to do so, it would mean that we would be giving statutory recognition to a body which would then in effect have a monopoly. I do not believe that this is fair. I therefore believe that we need not argue the matter any further.

What we shall do, is to be of assistance to those organizations and to help them to provide the service they want to provide. I know that there is another standpoint in South Africa as well. There are those who believe that the State alone must provide an organization to render services of this nature. Indeed, I have also said in public and at congresses of these organizations—in speeches I have delivered to them—that I really believe that they have a service to render and that there is a place for them. But when I say that I believe there is a place for them, this does not mean that we should go too far and select a small group and accord them statutory recognition. I do not believe we should go that far. I think that we should rather assist them and that we should rather be stringent in the demands we make of them.

This, then, brings me to the hon. member for Durban North. He, too, referred to norms and the type of demands we shall make. If the State wants to recognize an organization of this nature it must in the first place demand certain things of it. It must require of the organization that the facilities it offers serve a useful purpose. It must require of it that the type of service it is to render will be provided by capable people. There is no point in our allowing a service to be rendered by people who are not competent to do so. This will mean that there will have to be a good relationship between the State and such organizations so that the State may be satisfied that the service being rendered will be a competent and honest service. That is why I think that if the relationship is sound, and I have no reason to believe that there will not be a sound relationship, then I cannot see why we cannot in future co-operate to provide such a service. That disposes of the questions put by the hon. member for Bryanston.

The hon. member for Durban Point, too, put a number of questions to me and I should like to react to them. In the first place he asked whether we could not launch a publicity campaign to inform the workseekers of the situation. Yes, there is of course a great deal to say for the suggestion that all the workseekers of South Africa must be reached so that they can know what to do, for we do, of course, have a very big problem. One of the problems we have is that we establish registration offices, but people do not know about them or are very slack. They do not co-operate. That is why, and I have said this before in this House, many of the statistics we provide in regard to unemployment, and I am now referring to our official figures, are incorrect. The figures we supply to hon. members are the figures relating to the number of people who report that they are unemployed and want to be registered. There are also many others who do not do so, and consequently the actual figure is far higher than the one which we present officially. For this reason there is, of course, a need for greater co-operation by workseekers in this country. We are already doing a great deal. Many of the workseekers are not unskilled; there are also skilled workers who want to be placed in employment. A great deal is being done outside the department by means of the activities we helped to launch by way of “Manpower 2000”. There is a far greater awareness throughout the country today than was the case in the past.

Another thing we are doing is to circulate our various publications. The department itself circulates My Career, which is well-known. A while ago we issued a publication, the Careers Guide, which contains a comprehensive description of all the various professions. 40 000 of them have already been printed and sent to the schools so that everyone may know which careers can be followed. I think hon. members have received a copy of it as well, have they not? In any event, this is what is being done.

I support the hon. member when he says that we must take trouble about this. Whether what we are saying to each other is all we must do, I do not know, but I also agree that we shall have to go out of our way in future to assist all persons and bodies to co-operate, including the persons and bodies that we shall have to involve on a larger scale in this placement effort, the almost 700 bureaux now in existence throughout this country as well as the administration boards.

The hon. member for Durban North went on to ask why, in terms of clause 8, information must be furnished in respect of all pupils. As we put it here, certain information must be furnished by schools. The schools are the easiest places from which to obtain information. But this does not mean that if there are 100 000 pupils at school, we want 100 000 reports. All we are asking for is what we need. Besides that, I want to say that this does not entail additional expense for schools. The information we require is kept up to date in any event. In other words, when we ask for a report it is not necessarily drawn up specially. Consequently it is not a heavy burden or task to provide us with the information, for we are merely asking for a copy of a report which is already available. For the sake of the discussion which was conducted here last night, I want to add that these details go to skilled people, i.e. the staff in the professional services, and are not freely available. Nor is it requested for any purpose whatsoever other than to provide the student with employment. It is, in other words, a service we are rendering. Consequently there need not be any suspicion that we are asking for more information than is necessary, or that people who are not involved, will deal with the matter. The sole purpose is to be of assistance in placement.

I believe that I have now dealt with all the questions to which the hon. member referred.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give his opinion on the problem which arises as a result of influx control and the free market mechanism …

I think one of the hon. members discussed this matter. The department will in future be responsible for the placement effort. But the argument has also been advanced that placement should actually be effected at an earlier stage, i.e. it must begin when people arrive or are brought in. However, this department is charged only with ensuring that people who have to be placed in employment are in fact placed in employment, and this does not apply only to Blacks, but to Whites and all other population groups as well. It is solely a placement function. After all, we cannot take over the functions of the other departments. At the moment the Riekert report on this matter is still under consideration. Finality has not yet been reached on it and the recommendations of the report have not yet been converted into legislation. Accordingly if the hon. member asked for my opinion on that matter, I must reply that my department would prefer not to take over activities which, in our opinion, do not fall into the category of placement.

The hon. member also asked how the national States were being brought into the system of placement centres.

I referred to that.

In that case I shall react to the hon. member for Wynberg. It is true that the national States also take their own independent decisions in this regard and that they, too, establish their own bodies for this purpose. There is a very sound relationship between my department and the national States. In fact, we are at present negotiating with them in order to ensure very sound co-operation in this sphere in future. Consequently there is no reason why there cannot be the very best co-operation in future.

The hon. member also asked why a distinction was being drawn in the Bill between private and public schools. There is a very simple reason for that, viz. that it is easier to co-operate with public schools. One receives the information one requires far more easily from the public school, whereas private schools do not offer the same access as public schools.

The hon. member for Wynberg broached two other matters as well. He referred, inter alia, to administration boards. He said that the Administration Boards were not very popular and would probably struggle to render the necessary services, or the services would not be performed properly. I do not want to pass judgment on that. But we shall co-operate with the Administration Boards, and I think we shall co-operate with them effectively, for the simple reason that it is the type of instrument with which we have to work. In urban areas there are 385 such bureaux and in rural areas, no fewer than 300. Therefore there are approximately 700 of them. Consequently the provision of new staff on such a scale would be an enormous task. In any event we have already discussed this matter with them and have entered into negotiations, and for the purposes of this legislation the Administration Boards will be under the direct control and supervision of the department. They are our agents. Consequently we shall see how they do the work and we shall expect them to do the work as we tell them it should be done. We shall keep an eye on them and we trust that everything will work well. If it does not work, we shall devise another plan. However, as long as there is reason to believe that we shall co-operate with each other to good effect and that the necessary services will be rendered, we shall make use of their services.

As was done repeatedly in this debate, the hon. member again gave the debate a racial connotation by referring time and again to “racial centres” which were to be established in certain places. We have no intention whatsoever of establishing centres which are going to be racial centres, and the sooner we put a stop to this in this House, the better. This is by no means the intention of the legislation, for we know how anything of this kind is misused. That connotation is attached to everything which is done—by people outside this House as well—and it only does harm. We have no intention of establishing centres which are intended solely for Blacks as such. If we establish a centre in a place where there are only Black people it will, of course, principally serve Black people there, but in another place, where there are only Whites, it will most probably serve only Whites. But there could of course also be places where there is a combination of all four of our population groups, and in that case such a centre would serve Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Asians. However, we must refrain from attaching a racial connotation to everything which is done here. If we stop doing that we shall have come a long way and we can do our people a great service. But if we do not do so, we shall get bogged down in arguments which can only do harm.

I want to conclude on this note, for I believe I have replied to all the questions put to me. Consequently I trust that this House will now support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In consequence of the Manpower Training Bill and the proposed amendments contained in the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, both of which have already been passed by the House, it has become necessary to make certain consequential changes to the Wage Act, 1957.

Apart from this, it has also become necessary to amend the Wage Act in a few other respects.

The proposed amendments are not of a substantive nature and consequently I did not deem it necessary to lay an explanatory memorandum on the Table in this regard. Nevertheless, I should like briefly to elucidate certain aspects.

The Act provides that a wage determination does not apply to a person when it comes to matters that are regulated for him by an agreement, notice or award in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. The latter Act, however, also provides for determinations to be made by the industrial court, with regard to differences regarding irregular labour practices, inter alia. In terms of the amendment, wage determinations will not apply when it comes to matters regulated by such determinations either.

In terms of the Wage Act, a wage determination is applicable to an apprentice with regard to any matter that is not regulated for such an apprentice by any provision of the new Manpower Training Act or by a contract of apprenticeship. At the moment, the Wage Act provides that a determination is not applicable to an apprentice in any respect, and the Act is now being amended in order to bring it into line with the relative provision of the Manpower Training Act.

In terms of the Act, allowances may be paid to assessors that assist the Wage Board with an investigation and to witnesses who appear before the board. At the moment, these allowances are prescribed by regulation in terms of the Act, which results in the regulations having to be amended from time to time when increases in the allowances become necessary. In order to eliminate this unnecessary administrative work, it is now simply being provided that the allowances will be determined by the Minister of Manpower, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, from time to time.

In future, when the Wage Board is charged to amend a wage determination, such commission will be able to be withdrawn or amended by the Minister. At the moment, the Minister is not empowered to do so. The amendment brings it into line with powers which the hon. the Minister has in this regard in a case where the Wage Board is charged to make recommendations regarding the establishment of conditions of service in a specific industry.

In conclusion, I want to point out that the maximum fines that a court of law can impose for contravening the law, are being adapted.

I trust that the proposed amendments will enjoy the approval of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the fourth and final Bill dealing with labour and I am sure the hon. the Minister is even more pleased about that than I am. I am sure the hon. the Minister will also be pleased to know that we will be supporting this last Bill, as we have done the others. I am not going to detain the House with a long speech or by repeating everything the hon. the Minister himself has just said. The Bill is a very straightforward and a very necessary one. We have already amended the Wage Act last year and we are now amending it further. Certain definitions had to be amended, flowing from the legislation which we have already passed in the House. There are also provisions concerning the limitation of the determination—which I think is straightforward—and empowering the hon. the Minister to make certain provisions and adjustments. These seem to be reasonable. It is interesting to note the increase in the fines, an indication of the rate of inflation, amongst other things.

Sir, we have no quarrel with this Bill and we will support it in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the official Opposition is supporting this Bill. The proposed amendments that are before the House at the moment, are not far-reaching or substantive in nature. Although the merits of the Wage Act of 1957 are not being looked at now, I hope and trust that that Act will be looked at in depth at a later stage. The Wage Act is a particularly important Act, because when one talks about the Wage Act, it affects the finances of the man in the street. I believe that another look will have to be taken at the Act later, over and above these amendments, which are of a purely administrative nature.

We are also grateful that the hon. the Minister thought fit to make the Wage Act more streamlined at this stage and to bring it into line with two important Bills that were before the House earlier this week, viz. the Manpower Training Bill and the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. I am also of the opinion that these amendments, as I have just said, are of a more administrative nature and are aimed at making the legislation more streamlined, and this will surely mean something in practice. It is when we are concerned with a wage determination in terms of the Wage Act which applies to an apprentice with regard to any matter that is not regulated for such an apprentice by any provision of the new legislation regarding manpower training or by a contract of apprenticeship.

As we know it in practice at the moment, the Wage Act provides that a determination does not apply to apprentices in any respect. The Act is being amended in order to bring it into line with the relevant provisions which have been referred to earlier on with regard to the legislation on manpower training. I say it is important in practice due to the fact that there must be labour rest and labour peace in South Africa, but when we come to apprentices, then we are dealing with people. However, if the people are not productive there may be labour rest and labour peace but productivity is the key and this depends on the young man, the apprentice. Consequently I believe that this amendment will also reap rewards in practice in this respect.

I am also grateful that the hon. the Minister has now also been given the discretion with regard to wage determination issued by the Wage Board. In future, he will be able to withdraw or amend such instructions. The hon. the Minister does not have this power at the moment and I think it is a power that the hon. the Minister should in fact have, in order to ensure that matters flow more smoothly and more quickly.

I want to content myself with these few words and express my gratitude towards the Opposition. I too am pleased to support this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Overvaal, I too have very little to say about this legislation except that we agree with the provisions thereof. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that in consequence of the previous legislation that was discussed and passed here in the House it was, of course, essential that certain provisions in this legislation were amended too. As the hon. member for Pinelands said too, it is one of four legislative measures introduced here that go hand in hand with one another. It is interesting to take note of the fact that “pounds” are still referred to in some laws, the old pound sterling, and that we now have to change this to “rands”.

It is also interesting to note what effect the rate of inflation has had on our legislation. We notice that the £50 which applied previously has now actually become R500. One has to wonder whether it is in fact the differential factor between the pound and the rand that is so large.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to say very briefly to the hon. the Minister that we support this Bill in its entirety and we will have no objection to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the support given by the hon. member for Durban North to this legislation. With regard to matters of this nature we have come to expect the hon. member for Durban North to make a positive contribution.

You will surely permit me to thank hon. members for having made it possible for me to continue in my humble way to contribute towards solutions and ideals for this beautiful country.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation and other legislation with regard to wage determinations covered 470 865 workers up to the end of 1980. If the average family of each of the 470 000 workers consisted of four or five members, then wage determinations affected approximately 2 million people up to the end of 1980.

Wage determination is therefore of the utmost importance to ensure that certain workers are protected. The employer and the employee are both objected to see to it that they make a contribution to peace in the economic field. If a worker’s productivity ensures a continuous increase in the profitability of his industry, it is only fair that the employer should pay such an employee on merit. This would mean that in certain instances workers would earn much more than the prescribed wages. The employer is not the only one who has a responsibility, the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the employee is equally important. If, because of a lack of productivity, workers do not ensure the profitability of the industry, they cannot expect to earn much more than the lowest wages.

Labour peace can be maintained and inflation can to a certain extent be contained if employers and employees co-operate to build up and expand their industry. With the Bills which the hon. the Minister has introduced over the last few days, as well as today, he has caused us to draw up blueprints for the future of all our people. This Bill and others have created stability to ensure that local and overseas investments will take place on a large scale in South Africa. Because of the improvements brought about by this Bill and others, we shall be able to attract labour on a large scale, from other countries as well.

†As many people from overseas and visitors to South Africa seem to be under the wrong impression that there is a restriction on the maximum wage imposed on certain workers, it is important that this wrong impression be corrected by all of us, by the news media and by industry. Every worker’s advancement is dependent upon the fruits of his or her endeavours. There is absolutely no preclusion in law which prevents the owner of an undertaking paying his employees far in excess of the minimum wages laid down.

The Bill makes provision for the payment of assessors, witnesses and other procedures all of which ensure that each matter is thoroughly investigated before a wage determination is made. Thus there is an in-depth investigation into matters of this nature.

However good the intentions behind this Bill are, there will always be people who do not have the best interests of the stability of South Africa at heart and who will use the labour field to stir up trouble.

I want to conclude by saying that ours is a wealthy country. We have gold, diamonds and very many other minerals. Our wealth, however, does not lie in our mining industry; our wealth lies in the quality of all our people. Our people have the ability and the willpower to build this country into a country that need not take second place to any other country.

I support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill. I think we can now take the other stages.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is aimed at establishing a university for Blacks in the White area. The establishment of such a university may justifiably be called a historic event. For the Black population of this country it is a step of special significance for although university facilities do exist in the national States and there is of course the Medical University of Southern Africa, this is an institution that will operate within the White area. The envisaged university is therefore historic in so far as it will be the first university specifically established for Blacks in the White area.

I think it is therefore appropriate that we should first consider briefly the history of university training for Blacks.

*As far back as 1880, Dr. Stewart, the British missionary, drew attention to the need for an institution for Blacks which would provide education of university standard under Christian patronage. In 1903, the British High Commissioner in South Africa appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Sir Godfrey Lagden to inquire into and make recommendations on, among other things, education for Blacks. Largely on the strength of Stewart’s evidence, but also because of the conviction that an overseas university education which had been received by a few Blacks from South Africa constituted an undesirable state of affairs, it was recommended that a central Black college or similar institution be established and financially supported by the various States in Southern Africa in order to afford Black students the opportunity of obtaining a higher education. During the next few years, a few preliminary steps were taken in this direction, and promises of financial support were obtained from various bodies and persons, including a site at Fort Hare, near Alice, as part of a donation by the United Free Church of Scotland.

In 1908, a Select Committee on Native Education of the Cape Parliament declared itself, with one dissenting vote, to be in favour of support for the proposed Black college which would belong to all the States of South Africa. However, this scheme only materialized after Union. In 1914, an agreement was reached between the persons who had rendered financial assistance and other interested bodies with regard to the constitution of the proposed college. The Union Government promised an annual allowance and was to nominate representatives to the Council. Finally, in February 1916, the South African Native College at Fort Hare was opened by the then Prime Minister of the Union.

In 1951, an affiliation arrangement was made between this institution and Rhodes University with a view to academic recognition and the conferring of degrees. The name of this institution was also changed into the University College of Fort Hare. This affiliation lasted until the end of 1959.

1960 ushered in a new era in respect of university training for Blacks. The control and management of the University College of Fort Hare was transferred to the then Minister of Bantu Education at the beginning of 1960. The transfer took place as an essential step in the implementation of the Government’s policy of providing more adequate and efficient university training for Blacks through the establishment of separate university colleges for the various ethnic groups and of removing the restrictions and anomalies which had resulted from the system of so-called “open” universities. Accordingly, the university college was henceforth to concentrate on the education of the Xhosa ethnic group. In 1969, academic autonomy was conferred upon this institution, which is today known as the University of Fort Hare.

Section 2 of the Extention of University Education Act, 1959 (Act 45 of 1959), provided for the establishment of further university colleges for Blacks. In terms of this authority, the University Colleges of Zululand and of the North were established on 1 August 1959. In 1969, separate Acts were passed for these colleges, too, and they are now autonomous universities.

In 1976, after consideration of reports and recommendations of many commissions and committees of inquiry, the Medical University of Southern Africa was established. As the name indicates, this university was established because of the need for additional medical training facilities for Blacks and also for the training of dentists and veterinary surgeons and other auxiliary staff. At the beginning of 1978, the first medical student enrolled at this university.

This may be a good opportunity to mention some statistics concerning the four existing universities for Blacks. In 1980, there was a total number of 1 256 members of staff at the universities, of whom 773 were White and 483 were Black. You will be interested to know that of the 93 academics at the University of Zululand, 70 are Black.

As far as faculties and departments are concerned, the figures for the universities are as follows—

Student enrolment figures for 1980 were as follows—

This is to be compared with the total number of 1 894 in 1960, of whom 1 145 were enrolled at Unisa and 481 at the universities for Blacks.

In the last few years there has been a considerable increase in student numbers. The enrolment for this year is about 20% higher than for 1980. The projected figures for the years 1990 and 2000 also reflect a phenomenal growth to which I shall come back in due course.

With regard to the senior secondary school population in schools controlled by the department there has also been unprecedented growth, as appears from the following statistics—

What is illuminating are the results of the candidates who enrolled for the Std. 10 examination in the Republic of South Africa (November 1980)—

If the results of the independent State are added to these, the total picture for Southern Africa appears as follows—

To these must be added the number of private candidates who wrote subjects successes for Std. 10 examinations during May this year. There were approximately 105 000 of them.

It is anticipated that in 1990, approximately 22 340 Blacks will obtain matriculation exemption and will therefore qualify for university training, in addition to the approximately 44 673 successful senior certificate candidates. In the year 2000, approximately 50 000 will obtain matriculation exemption and about 128 000 will obtain the senior certificate.

Another factor that has to be taken into consideration at this stage is that teachers may also be interested in improving their qualifications. Out of a total of 33 654 teachers in 1980, 5 014 were unqualified. Of this total number, only 448 were graduates.

At the 127 centres for adult education, no fewer than 26 533 persons enrolled for the secondary courses in 1980. Of this number, 7 421 enrolled for course V—i.e. Std. 10.

In the light of these figures, it is our duty to make provision even at this early stage and to make training facilities available which will be able to accommodate this growth, and for that reason the Government has decided to establish a separate university institution for the Blacks in the White area.

Here I also wish to make it clear that it is not only the Government which is convinced of the need for the establishment of separate university facilities for Blacks in the White area. Prof. E. Mphalhlele, professor in African Literature at the African Studies Institute of the University of the Witwatersrand, said at a graduation ceremony of the University of the Witwatersrand on 23 April 1980—

After thorough investigations to determine the need for university training in the Black urban areas, the Government decided, at the recommendation of the Department of Education and Training, to grant its approval for the establishment of a non-residential university institution for Blacks in the White area; for full-time as well as part-time courses, but no correspondence courses, to be offered there; and for the institution also to function on a decentralized basis.

Most of the provisions of the Bill correspond to those of the Acts of the existing universities for Blacks. Consequently it is not deemed necessary to explain all the identical provisions.

Clause 1:

This contains the definitions, which are self-explanatory.

Clause 2: Establishment:

This proposes the establishment of a university which is to be called Vista University.

The concept of “vista” has several meanings, and if hon. members will allow me, I should like to quote a few of them, as we find them in recognized and authoritative sources. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines it as follows—

The New Imperial Reference Dictionary defines “vista” as follows—

The Concise Oxford Dictionary offers the following definition—

With this new proposed university it is the intention to create more generous opportunities and more adequate facilities for the urban Blacks to receive tertiary training within their own residential areas, not only to improve their qualifications, but also to enable them to improve their skills and to broaden their knowledge, and to rise in this way to the cadre of high-level manpower. The establishment of this university should therefore be seen as a positive step in the implementation of the Government’s policy of stimulating manpower development and creating a better trained labour force.

Clause 3: Seat and sphere of activity.

Although it may be argued that Soweto represents the greatest concentration of Blacks in the country, and that their claim may therefore take precedence, we are not concerned here with the need of a single residential area, but rather with the need for university training for the entire Black population. So the proposed university must in the first place make an evaluation of what kind of training is needed and where it should be provided. In the second place, this should be an evaluation which will ensure that effective control can be exercised over standards. Therefore it will not be possible for the university to have a locality-bound character.

Subsection (1):

This provides that the seat of the university shall be near Pretoria and that the university may conduct its activities also at such other places as the council, with the approval of the Minister, may determine. Therefore the university will have no central campus and will carry out its activities at all the places where they are needed and where training can be justified. This implies that the proposed university will be able, for example, to make use of the facilities of the teachers’ training college at Soweto for conducting part-time or even full-time classes there. In this way, training can be provided all over the country, according to need. Where no suitable buildings are available for accommodation, the university may even erect its own buildings.

Subsection (2):

The university is organized to serve all the Black ethnic groups. Notwithstanding this provision, clause 21 provides that persons who are not Blacks may also be admitted, for example, the White lecturers of the university. I shall come back to this.

Clause 4: Status and proprietary capacity.

The university shall be a juristic person. Most of the provisions correspond to those in the acts of the universities for Blacks. Subsection (5) authorizes the university, with the approval of the Minister, to enter into agreements with any other body in connection with the continuation of its activities. It may be necessary, for example, to enter into an agreement with the Department of Education and Training, in connection with a teachers’ training college under its control, for the recognition or examination of certain courses.

Clause 10: Council of the university.

Provision is being made for the universities designated by the Minister—these are the existing universities—each to nominate one member to the council. In this way, persons of high integrity, knowledge and experience can be involved in the management of the university, and fruitful and meaningful co-ordination can be achieved between universities concerning matters of common interest. In addition, the Council for Education and Training and the recognized teachers’ associations designated by the Minister will each nominate one person from amongst its members. Seven persons will be nominated by the State President, and it is also provided that the convocation may elect one member when its membership for the first time reaches one hundred, and two members as soon as the membership exceeds five hundred.

†Clause 13: The convocation.

This clause provides for a convocation of the university comparable to those of the other universities for Blacks. The clause is self-explanatory.

Clause 15(1) and (2): Staff.

These subsections make provision for the establishment at the university and for the appointment, promotion, transfer, secondment and discharge of staff.

Clause 16: Staff additional to establishment.

In the event of the control of an existing university for Blacks being transferred to an independent State, this clause contemplates to provide that this university should act as the secondment agent in that additional posts to the existing establishment of the university may be created.

Subsection (1):

This subsection provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the council, create posts in addition to the posts referred to in clause 15(1), and may appoint after consultation with the council persons in such posts with a view to seconding these appointees to the universities concerned. Provision is also made for the promotion, transfer, secondment or discharge of staff so appointed.

Subsection (2):

This section provides for the conditions of service of persons appointed in posts additional to the establishment.

Clause 17: Transfer of certain persons.

As the Education and Training Act, 1979, only provides for the secondment of staff at the school level, this clause contemplates to provide for secondment of staff to universities in independent States. Where the control over a university institution established to serve the population of a national State, i.e. the Universities of the North, Zululand and Fort Hare, passes to an independent State, persons appointed in a permanent capacity in a post on the establishment of that university may therefore apply in writing to the Minister to be appointed in a post additional to the establishment of the envisaged university, namely Vista. This provision also includes those staff members permanently appointed by the University of Fort Hare and seconded to the University of Transkei.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause is not only to simplify appointment procedures, but also to facilitate the security of tenure of those staff members who have made an invaluable contribution towards the development of the existing universities and the education of the Black peoples. It should be obvious to all concerned that the services of these staff members will still be needed for the foreseeable future. It will therefore be possible for such staff members to continue with their present functions at a university under the control of an independent State without any change in their conditions of service.

Subsection (2):

This subsection regulates that such transfers be effected with the necessary consultation.

Subsection (3):

This subsection provides for the period of secondment.

Subsection (4):

This subsection regulates that the provisions of the Act shall also apply to the seconded persons.

Clause 18: Secondment of staff member.

This clause empowers the university to second a member of its staff, with such member’s consent, for a particular service or for a period of time to the service of any office, department, institution or body, etc. Provision is also made regarding disciplinary measures of seconded persons.

Clause 19: Conditions of service.

Even though the final decision concerning the determination of salary scales, salaries, allowances, privileges and other conditions of service rests with the Minister and the Minister of Finance, the formulation of proposals in this respect should in the first instance be initiated by the council. In effect the salary, salary scales, conditions of service and other privileges are the same for the Universities of the North, Zululand and Fort Hare and all other universities. The power vested in the Minister is, therefore, strictly speaking only a control measure necessitated by the fact that this university is financed fully by the State from funds voted by Parliament.

Clause 20: Registration as student.

Subsection (1) is a normal stipulation.

Subsection (2):

This subsection contains a very significant stipulation in that the university may also register persons who do not possess the normal university entrance qualifications, i.e. the matriculation certificate, for instance in the event where special short and sandwich courses are conducted in consultation with organized commerce and industry. Where the need arises, such courses may be conducted on a more generous basis for the upgrading, in specialized fields, of the skills or knowledge of persons needed to progress to certain ranks or positions. In other words, it is the intention that the courses of the university should be geared to the specific needs of the community it serves and could, therefore, even differ from township to township.

Clause 21: Admission as students of persons other than Blacks.

As this university is established to provide education for Blacks it is deemed necessary to include this clause so that other persons than Blacks can also register as students.

For the information of hon. members I wish to mention that the following number of persons who are not Blacks have been enrolled at the existing universities with my approval: Medunsa 52; the North 17; Zulu-land 6; and Fort Hare 26, making a total of 101. This stipulation must be seen to a certain extent as a protective measure of those universities serving other population groups. It should be taken into consideration that the envisaged university will be fully financed by the State and that fees will be considerably less than those of other universities in the area. This may give rise to the problem that other persons who are not Blacks may wish to attend this university in increasing numbers. Whatever the case may be, the responsibility rests with the council to make recommendations to the Minister regarding the admission of whomever they wish to admit.

Clause 26: Faculties.

Provision is made that the university may institute those faculties which the council may determine on the recommendation of the senate and with the approval of the Minister.

Clause 38 contains the short title.

*Because this Bill is a new departure in the provision of university training facilities for Blacks and I am aware of the fact that there may be different approaches to this matter, I intend to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading for investigation and report.

I trust that all the hon. members will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister at the end of his speech expressed the hope that he would receive the full support of all hon. members of this House. I did, however, notice that he had a smile on his face when he said that, and it is just as well.

In describing the legislation towards the establishment of such a university, the hon. the Minister at the beginning of his speech described it as a historic event. I want to describe it as a backward step. I believe that it could only be termed mind-boggling that the hon. the Minister should introduce a Bill that makes provision for the establishment of a new university restricted to Black students.

It is Jaap’s Bill.

This is 1981, not 1881, but I am quite sure the hon. the Minister has not realized that, for this legislation is in total variance to the spirit of the new labour reforms which the House has been debating all week. Time and time again the point was made that education and training are inseparably bound together. More and more South Africans are coming to realize that if we want to build a stable and effective work force we have to have an adequate, sure and sound foundation. I believe that this Bill directly contradicts such understanding. It is furthermore also contradictory to the new thinking amongst many foremost educationalists and other professionals in South Africa. In fact, it goes back—and that is why I have called it a “backward step”—on this Government’s own moves last year when provision was made for students other than Coloureds, for example, to attend the University of the Western Cape, and for Black students, irrespective of which group they belonged to, to attend universities which, up to that time, had been confined to accepting students of a single race group, for example Ngoya only for the Zulus. When the legislation was first introduced, one person after another urged hon. members on that side of the House to reconsider and not to separate people into compartments. Slowly but surely those hon. members have come to realize that this sort of thing should not happen, and accordingly last year we saw the Government take a step forward, but now we have a step backward. It is not only the English-speaking universities that are now admitting post-graduate students of all races. This is also being done by the Rand Afrikaans University, the University of Potchef stroom and the University of Stellenbosch, to mention only a few. They have in recent years, with the permission of the Government, opened their doors to post-graduate Black students. The movement of the tide is irreversible. We have also heard more enlightened noises from a variety of sources —at times from the most unexpected of sources—indicating that universities should be allowed to open their doors to all students, provided they have the necessary entrance qualifications, and of course universities should be allowed to do just that. It is quite unbelievable that this hon. Minister should have the gall to suggest—in fact to move—that we spend money and effort to set up a new segregated institution in South Africa.

Prof. Maré wants it.

Have we not learnt from over-capitalization on universities such as the University of Port Elizabeth? Only recently it was disclosed that that university was in serious trouble because it simply did not have enough students. It is also true that a university like Rhodes University in Grahamstown could increase its student intake considerably without further major capital expenditure. Has the hon. the Minister forgotten the Van Wyk De Vries Commission’s report which pointed out the overlapping, the wastage, the empty classrooms, the difficulties of obtaining staff and the overall difficulty of maintaining certain universities without an additional student intake or a further financial commitment?

Only yesterday we had the budget, which was described by someone as a “siege budget”. We simply do not have any money or resources to waste, and yet this hon. Minister today asks for the support of this House for the establishment of a new university which is to be only for Black students. Not only is over-capitalization a problem, but it is a recorded fact that many universities are finding it extremely difficult to find suitable staff, not only at the higher levels, but also at the junior levels. It is therefore wasteful in the extreme to make provision for yet another university which is to be confined to Blacks alone. If the hon. the Minister were able to produce convincing arguments for the need for additional university placement for Blacks, I would accept that, but why on earth can they not be admitted to the existing institutions? Even if it should be demonstrated that the existing universities will not be able to cope with the intake—and I am even prepared to listen to that argument—why on earth should there not be a new university which from its inception is open to all? Why don’t we learn? How many times must we be reminded that the policy of the Government in so far as it is limiting and separating is going to do a grave disservice to the unity we all want in South Africa? One finds it difficult to find words to describe this backward step. Only last week we were informed that the report of the De Lange Commission was in the hands of the hon. the Minister of National Education, and I assume it will be looked at by the Cabinet, if this has not already happened. The report is a far-reaching one, if we are to go by the comments that have been made. To bring this Bill to the House today is to jump the gun. The Government is simply disregarding the fact that a special high-powered commission has spent a great deal of time and effort to look at future developments. That fact has simply been disregarded and before the report has even been tabled, this piece of legislation is being brought before the House.

It is deliberate.

It may well be. What if the commission recommends that universities should be allowed to admit students of all race groups? What is the hon. the Minister going to do then?

Ignore it.

Is he going to ride rough-shod over it and say: “Well, that is too bad. We have gone ahead and we are going to continue, no matter what.” Are we to say that the top university and educational experts who have applied their minds to this and have tried to give a projection into the future were all wrong? Must they always bow to an ideology called “apartheid”? That is ridiculous. What if the commission makes such a recommendation? What would the hon. the Minister do? Would he agree with that?

Did you read the report?

Has that hon. member read it?

No, I did not.

Why does the hon. member not wait for it, then?

You are speculating about something which you have not seen yet.

That is exactly the point. The hon. member is making it for me. Why is the Government jumping the gun here? Let us wait for the report. We are quite prepared to wait for the report. Then we can deal with the legislation. It makes no sense to bring the legislation before the House now. It is premature in the extreme. This Bill is premature, it jumps the gun.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that this Bill will be going to a Select Committee after Second Reading. I want to put it on record that it is a matter for deep regret that the hon. the Minister turned down my request yesterday to send this Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that the principle of a Bill is accepted at Second Reading. If it is accepted, the only changes which can be made by a Select Committee are changes concerning matters of detail. The hon. the Minister knows that, and that is why he refused my request. The principle of this Bill is that a university should be established near Pretoria and shall serve every person who is Black. Once this principle has been accepted by the House, there is nothing any Select Committee can do to change it. We can spend hours and days on it, but each time we return to the principle, we will be told—and quite rightly so—that the principle has been accepted and cannot be discussed. The committee will only be allowed to discuss matters such as who should be on the council, who should be the rector, who should do this or that, should the hon. the Minister be allowed to have so much power, and so on. We all know that.

Are you going to boycott the Select Committee too?

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about and should therefore keep quiet. He knows nothing whatsoever about education; he himself should in fact be educated. [Interjections.]

It is clear to me that the Government’s right hand—“right hand” is deliberately chosen—does not know what the left hand is doing. The apartheid machine is on course, moving full speed ahead and is apparently unable to adjust or take cognizance of the new thinking which is emerging from several of the commissions that the Government itself has appointed. Surely the least the hon. the Minister could have done, would have been to wait for the recommendations of the De Lange Commission, or, if he was not prepared to do that, at least to submit the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. Our attitude would then have been very different. We could then have accepted the fact that members on that side of the House and members on this side of the House would together have been able to discuss not only the details but also the principle and then come back to this House with a very much improved Bill.

What is the motivation behind this Bill? Is it an attempt to pre-empt the new thinking and so entrench apartheid? Is this a lastditch stand by that hon. Minister and his Department? Will it in fact attract many Black students who are presently enrolled at places like Unisa? Will it in fact become a kind of Black Unisa and will this Government thereby make it more difficult for Black students to enrol at that university? Is this perhaps an attempt to reduce the number of Black students at so-called White universities? Will it become more difficult for Black students to obtain permits to study at universities to which they have already been admitted because certain courses are not available at existing Black universities? What is really behind this legislation? It seems as though the Department has plans to set up a Vista University, i.e., its own chain of township colleges for Blacks only. It is clear to me at least, Sir, that the Department is not going to give up its monopoly of Black education without a fight. However, I want to say to the hon. the Minister and I am prepared to forecast that he is going to lose. He is going to lose.

That is what you are hoping for.

He may win this battle today, Sir, but he is going to lose the fight in the end. I tell you, Sir, the day will come when universities in South Africa will be open to students of all race groups. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite can fight against it, the hon. member for Rissik, the old verkrampte, can fight against it, two or three of them can stand together but I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs—and he knows this as well as I do—that this is going to happen. I hope that he wins the fight because then I shall know where he stands. Of course it is going to happen. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Education and Training: Why do you not give in now? Why do you not save a whole lot of duplication and a whole lot of money and a whole lot of effort? You are going to come around to that way of thinking and, if you do not, you will be shunted aside and others will take your place. Mr. Speaker, it is as clear as daylight that if we are really going to take this Vista seriously and if we are going to look ahead then I want to say that this university that we are discussing now and universities throughout South Africa will be open to all students of all races sooner than we think.

Wishful thinking!

It is not wishful thinking. This is a fact. I want to ask the hon. member who has just made that interjection whether he would fight against it. [Interjections.] You would? You are going to lose! [Interjections.] I tell him now he is going to lose. [Interjections.] Why should it be wishful thinking, Sir?

When I think of the effort and energy that has gone into the labour legislation that we have been discussing and the long hours of debate that have taken place in this House and then find that the first Bill to follow those pieces of legislation is this one, then I just do not know what is happening to the Government. I just do not understand it. We have discussed the question of manpower. This recognizes the fact that if we want to maintain an economic growth rate, if we wish to be able to develop our country and all its resources then we simply have to understand that we are an integrated economy and that our labour force is integrated. If we want to have a united labour force, a trained labour force then we simply have to have the best possible education. The hon. the Minister knows that.

That is what I am going to do with this university.

If it is necessary to have another university in South Africa, if it can be demonstrated that with all the other capitalization that is taking place we still need another university, I shall go along with the hon. the Minister but then for heaven’s sake let us have a university that is based on educational foundations.

It will be based on educational foundations.

It cannot, because once one limits it to one particular group, one is stuck in that group. The hon. the Minister quoted a number of people in his introductory speech, but if he takes counsel with Black teachers, Black professors in education …

Even Snyman.

Yes, if he takes a look at Mr. Justice Snyman’s report and if he takes a sample of Black students in Soweto—this was recently done by a sociologist at Wits—what will be the outcome? 82% of those interviewed said that they would want to study at existing universities which are open to all. This is very important: Those who were interviewed at the time of the survey and expressed a desire to study at a separate Black institution, were those who supported Black consciousness, those who decided that they were going to find their own way without the Whites in South Africa. They are the ones who are pushing hard for division. This hon. Minister and his department are encouraging them. I would urge him, even at this late stage, to change his mind and refer the Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

No.

Well, that is too bad. I thought it was worth a try.

Which survey was that?

If the hon. member wants to see it, I shall show it to him privately.

I understand that there was an interdepartmental report. Why was it not made available to this side of the House before this debate so that we can understand? We are quite prepared to learn. I appreciate that the inter-departmental report may well be made available to those who serve on the Select Committee. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether it will be made available?

Yes.

So it is going to be made available.

Are you going to serve on that Select Committee? [Interjections.]

Here we are discussing the principle of a Bill which is vital and important. It flows from an interdepartmental report, but we are not given sight of that report. We may only see it after we have all agreed with the Bill and then we can tidy it up in a Select Committee. It does not make sense; it plays fast and loose with the parliamentary system. I think we are trying to do our very best with every piece of legislation, and I am sorry that we have not been given sight of that report.

I believe that for those Blacks who have said that they wish to go ahead with this, and perhaps even ask for this, it is a question of half a loaf is better than none. I repeat that the majority of Black educationists, Black political leaders and Black secondary school students are committed to open universities, but once again they have been given Hobson’s choice. [Interjections.]

The Bill calls for the university to be established near Pretoria, in the province of the Transvaal. We are given no indication as to where this might be. I would suggest that it is probably going to be in Bronkhorst spruit.

What is wrong with Rissik?

Well, if the hon. member for Rissik wants the university to be established there, fine. He must make his claim. I want it to be at Church Square, but perhaps it will not be there. Probably, in view of the decentralization programme, it will be in Bronkhorstspruit.

The Government is prepared to stumble blindly on its segretated course. Why on earth could it not be near or in the biggest Black city in South Africa, viz. Soweto? The hon. the Minister referred to this in his introductory speech, but I am reminded of the words of another hon. Minister who in 1976 during a debate on the Medical University legislation gave his reasons why it was to be erected at Ga-Rankuwa. I quote from Hansard, 3 May 1976, col. 5910—

Is this still the attitude of the Government? Is that one of the reasons?

I will reply to you.

I hope the hon. the Minister will. Is that why it must be near Pretoria?

Is Soweto not near Pretoria?

It is near, but there is an enormous distance between Pretoria and Soweto. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is incredible folly to proceed with this legislation. We are as committed as anyone else to provide maximum opportunities for university training for Black and White. However, we are totally opposed to the establishment of yet another racially segregated institution. I believe that when you have one Minister this week saying that we will take all reference to race out of our Statute Book and the first Minister that follows him introduces yet another racial reference and category into our Statute Books, it is a backward step. It is not looking ahead as a Vista would; it is looking backwards and is constantly being held back by the traditions and the prejudices of the past.

Because the hon. the Minister has refused to have this Bill referred to a select committee before Second Reading, I wish to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that the hon. member for Pine-lands is so blinded by his own political philosophy …

No, by that of the hon. the Minister of Manpower.

The hon. member is so blinded by his own political philosophy that it is clear that he did not study this Bill in depth and failed to see the many positive ideas incorporated in it in respect of Black education. I am sorry to have to say this about the hon. member but I really believe that he did not study the principle of this Bill because he is hamstrung by his own philosophy, the philosophy of that side of this House, that there must be integrated school and university education. The hon. member said: “This is 1981, not 1881.” However, he will agree with me that there are some things which have remained true for centuries. The hon. member is a former minister of religion and as such he will agree with me there are eternal truths which we all recognize. This is also true in respect of specific matters regarding education, regarding the culture of a nation, regarding that which belongs to a nation. There are also principles that will always be valid. If this hon. member and others on that side of this House do not see this they will obviously differ from us.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Just a minute, give me a chance. The hon. member may do so with the greatest of pleasure later on. It is undoubtedly true that this Government has committed itself to linking education and training in all spheres to the culture and the norms of a specific nation. It is not only this side of this House which says so. The hon. member for Pinelands quoted various people and then he generalized by saying that most Black scholars and students would prefer to attend an integrated school or an open university. However, I can quote educationists throughout the world who are adamant that one cannot separate education from culture. This is not only so at school level. May I remind the hon. member—he knows about this—of the debate in Addis Ababa in the ’sixties. On that occasion a Unesco report appeared stating that at all stages of education, from the pre-primary level to the tertiary level …

Are you supporting the UN again?

The hon. member must not bring up that argument again. It has been ridden to death. He advanced the same argument last year. In the report it was stated that it would stay like that throughout.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that most of the Black people prefer this. As far back as a year or two ago the Committee of Ten held a conference in Soweto in which they discussed the education and culture of the Blacks in the ’eighties. The hon. member knows as well as I do—but he is keeping quiet about this today—that that committee submitted a report to the conference in which they said that one cannot separate education from culture and that it would be to the detriment of the Black people if it should ever happen that they no longer have their own schools. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the erstwhile rector of the University of the North, Prof. Kgware, said that it would be treason against the Blacks if they were to be placed in integrated schools. Now I know the hon. member will adopt the standpoint that schools must be distinguished to some extent from university training and postgraduate training. I know that there is a definite difference and I shall return to it.

The hon. member also spoke about the over-capitalizing of universities. I would like to tell him that this does not apply to the principle and the point of departure of the Vista University we are at present discussing. It is already the idea that we shall only have an administrative seat near Pretoria and that the university activities at the disposal of the Black people will be distributed throughout the country. I shall return to this later. That argument advanced by the hon. member therefore does not hold water at all.

The hon. member also asked where we would find sufficient lecturers. However, if we are eventually to establish an additional open university to meet the requirements of all the Black people, we shall need lecturers for that university too. If the hon. member had perused this Bill, however, he would have seen that by the distribution of university activities to various places there is an opportunity to use lecturers from other universities, technikons, etc. with the necessary training to do that work. The problem in respect of lecturers has therefore already been obviated in the principle, the composition and the meaning of the Vista University.

It can still be an open university.

Why must it be an open university?

Why not?

Because our point of departure is that it is not in the best interests of all the different population groups to do this.

I shall go further. The hon. member had a great deal to say about the HSRC report. He said: “You jumped the gun.” Then the hon. member went further and asked the hon. the Minister if he would allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. I want to relate these two arguments. If the Bill is referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, will the hon. member be satisfied?

No, but then we shall at least get an opportunity …

Now I do not understand the hon. member at all. He will not be satisfied if it is referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, nor will he be satisfied if it is referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading.

We would have supported it if it had gone to …

In the meanwhile he tells us we are jumping the gun as regards the report of the HSRC. I want to put it to the hon. member that I have not examined the report and that I do not believe the hon. member has examined it either. The hon. member for Pinelands spent about five minutes setting up straw dolls and then knocking them over again. Say for argument’s sake that the HSRC report indicates that there must be integrated universities? This is the question he asks and which he then uses as a premise for his argument. As he himself made clear at the end of his speech, what his greatest objection amounts to, in the meanwhile, is that if this legislation is not referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading then the Second Reading must only take place in six months’ time. This is the most extreme form of objection.

I do not agree with the hon. member when he refers to the HSRC report and then says to us that we are supposedly “jumping the gun”, while in the meantime he alleges that his greatest objection to the Bill lies in the fact that it was not referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading.

We are prepared to wait for that report. Why are you not prepared to wait for it too?

No, we shall carry on with the legislation. We shall carry on with the work which must be done. [Interjections.]

I now wish to come back to the Bill. In the course of my speech I shall again react to what the hon. member for Pinelands had to say. It is true, and we all agree, that “training” is the key word nowadays. It is also true that tremendous developments are taking place in our country and that as a result of these tremendous developments, there is an acute shortage of trained people, especially at top level. This is true, and there is practically no field in which there is not a shortage of trained manpower. It has been clear for some time, and as a matter of fact has been generally accepted for some time, that we need the services of all workers, irrespective of their nationalities. I therefore do not know why the hon. member for Pinelands has now again seen fit to introduce the colour connotation without any hesitation and to lend a political colour to this extremely important piece of legislation. The existing shortage of labour, the existing need for workers at all levels, does not only exist at the level of semi-skilled and skilled workers. It also exists for top level manpower. Industrial training is being given the necessary attention. As a matter of fact we realized this yesterday when the legislation on manpower training was dealt with in this House.

However, we have now reached the position of having made adequate provision for White education. From the pre-primary level right through to the tertiary level, as well as the technical level, adequate provision has been made for White education. One need only consider the technikons, etc.

However, it is equally true—and I am prepared to acknowledge this—that there is still a backlog in the field of Black education. There is no doubt about that. However, this backlog is not due to nothing being done. As a matter of fact, a great deal is being done at the moment about the existing backlog in the field of Black education. I refer hon. members to the hon. the Minister of Finance’s budget speech yesterday, in which he indicated that there has been an increase of 39,6% in the field of secondary Black education, while the field of Black tertiary education in general showed an increase of 35,3%. This backlog is also the result of the increasing number of Black students and Black pupils. That backlog has already developed due to what has been done during the past few years by this Government. In that way the Government also aroused the interest of the Black people and all Black people are now being afforded the opportunity to study at a higher level.

As I have already said, the Government has committed itself to establishing separate institutions for the various population groups. The hon. the Minister has also indicated this. This system has already been put into effect, particularly since 1960. However, there is a particular need for Black universities for the large numbers of Black people in the White area. There can be no doubt of this. Because the Government is on its toes it realizes what shortages exist and it also realizes what a need there is for a university for Black people in the White area.

A tremendous need would have been met by establishing a university at every one of the growth points in White areas where thousands of Black people are working. The figures which the hon. the Minister quoted speak for themselves. I shall merely repeat the figures of approximately 50 000 Black matriculants by the year 2000 and more than 128 000 with a senior certificate. Provision must be made for these people. Add to this the thousands of Black workers who wish to and must undergo part-time university training. It is to meet just this great need that the idea and concept of the Vista University arose. It is simply not practical to erect a separate university at each one of the growth points. Why do I say this? I say this on the basis of the tremendous expense involved in the erection of a university. Nowadays a residence for 400 students costs about R2 million. In addition, there is the fact that the erection of separate universities will mean that the student numbers at existing Black universities will be adversely affected. This Bill already seeks to accommodate the present rapidly increasing Black labour force as quickly as possible by creating study possibilities at various places at the same time. Hon. members must recognize that in terms of the provisions of this Bill it is possible to establish university activities across a wide spectrum rapidly and without delay throughout the country.

By way of the proposed Vista University we are accepting the challenge and we want to solve the problem in this manner. I would say there is a very strong resemblence between this university’s activities and those of the existing University of South Africa, Unisa, which operates on its work in the same way. There will be an administrative seat, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, near Pretoria …

Where is “near Pretoria”?

… with university activities at such other places as the council of the university may decide with the approval of the Minister. Now the hon. member for Pinelands asks: Where is “near Pretoria”, and why Pretoria? The point which the hon. member for Pinelands does not understand—it appears in the Bill—is that on the recommendation of the council and with the approval of the Minister, it will be determined where these university activities must take place. It therefore does not make much difference where the administrative seat of the university is. When, therefore, in the opinion of this side of the House, it is better for administrative reasons to have the seat near Pretoria, then that is of minor importance, because the activities of the university will be taken to where the Black people need them most. Therefore meeting their requirements is what we are aiming at. The hon. member for Pinelands, however, refers to the aspect of the seat of the university as if this is the most important part of the Bill.

The private sector must be involved. For this reason this Bill provides in clause 4(5)—

I think that that side of this House, too, will agree that it is important that we involve the private sector. If we do this with industrial training, it also applies in respect of university training for Black people. I feel that we shall achieve great success with this because there will be a number of people in the private sector who will be prepared to co-operate in this regard.

In terms of clause 10 the council of the university therefore has the very important function of determining, in collaboration with, for example, the industries, the mines, the School of Business Leadership etc., what the training requirements are. It is true that training and courses to be offered must keep pace with labour requirements and it is only the bodies I have referred to that will be able to assist in determining where the greatest needs lie, in other words whether it is in respect of the training of teachers, the humanities, the natural sciences, or whatever.

Existing building complexes, for example training centres in Soweto, the State centres for the education of adults and other buildings in various areas can be used for university activities, and this is the advantage of this type of university. In this way we can deal with the financial problem and introduce university activities more rapidly and over a broader spectrum to where the most pressing needs are being experienced.

Employers can use the Vista University to train their employees and can also help by offering buildings and equipment. The standard of the courses is ensured by the presence on the senate of professors from other universities in every faculty offered by Vista. I think it is also important to prevent the idea that this is an institution for university training but that the standard is inferior to that for Whites, Coloureds, etc., from recurring. Clause 11(2) ensures that the standard will be comparable with that of other universities.

Staff from nearby universities can be used on a part-time basis by Vista—an argument which I have already raised. Provision is made for this in clause 18 of the Bill. Vista can however also offer employment to lecturers at present lecturing at Black universities who, after the possible take-over of these universities by the independent Black States, request a transfer. I think it is important that we also offer this opportunity to people who have given many years of excellent service at the existing Black universities.

The aim of provisions contained in the Statutes of the other Black and also some White universities, also applies here, namely to ensure dedicated and successful study by students. Looking at clause 20(2)(3)(4) and (5) one finds that these contain very important provisions which indeed make it possible to keep students at the university to study. This is certainly the primary need, the most important reason why a university is put at their disposal.

Clause 21 lays down that the council may admit a person who is not Black as a student with the written consent of the Minister. The hon. member for Pinelands had a great deal to say about this too. He contended that this was a backward step and pointed out that last year certain amendments were made which pointed to progress in respect of the opportunities now offered to people of colour to gain access to a specific university for study purposes. For that reason, the hon. member contends, this is a backward step. This is however not true and the hon. member knows it. He will probably not go so far as to argue with me. When a White who is giving good service training Black students at the University of the North, for example, wishes to study further in a specific field, that member will surely not begrudge him the right to carry on studying in that specific field at the same university. Or will he say that the lecturer, in spite of an acute shortage of lecturers, must take leave to attend some White university? No, surely this cannot happen. The same argument applies here. This does not mean that this university is now open so that all groups can enrol at will. This can only happen with the approval of the Minister and on the recommendation of the council.

You are now on very dangerous ground.

No, I am not on dangerous ground. The hon. member can argue about this later or ask his colleagues to answer his questions.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

Yes, the hon. member may.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated earlier that education must be based on culture and said that if one departed from that one would be in trouble. If an English-speaking student attends an Afrikaans-language university, does he thereby lose his culture?

How can that hon. member argue about this matter from that point of view? [Interjections.] He knows as well as I do that many years ago when we introduced schools for Christian National education, we started Afrikaans schools on the basis of the principle of preservation of culture. This is still the case today and he knows it as well as I do.

We are talking about universities now.

Very well, we are talking about universities. My initial argument was that one cannot differentiate between a school and a university when it is a matter of what is not negotiable in education. Those principles apply throughout, from the pre-primary to the tertiary level. For the same reason we say that integration is not in the best interests of the country, because it is to the disadvantage of all the groups concerned. The hon. member knows that the same idea is applied in America.

Speak about South Africa. Answer the question.

Because they found that the so-called “meltingpot” idea was a failure there, today they are concentrating again on separate cultural groups. This is the standpoint we have adopted as our point of departure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia must forgive me if I do not reply directly to the argument he advanced. However, in the course of my speech, I shall refer to and elaborate on the underlying thoughts in his speech.

†We found the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech quite a novel one. We found it very interesting indeed. There was a lot of historical fact in the speech which proved to be quite interesting and which may, in fact, serve as an example to other hon. Ministers to come to the House with slightly more interesting rather than dull Second Reading speeches. As I have said, I think the hon. the Minister’s approach was quite a novel one.

What the hon. the Minister put before us today was quite a novel approach to university education, the concept being one of a university which has a head office established somewhere, with the educational process actually decentralized to the four corners of South Africa. As I have said, that is certainly a very novel approach to university education, and if one shares the facilities, as was indicated by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia, possibly there could also be a very considerable cost saving involved. The invitation to industry to participate in the utilization of the facilities will also probably lead to a reduction in costs and a greater utilization of facilities, and of course that is a very important aspect in view of today’s very expensive infrastructure development.

We have studied, very carefully, the demographics of student life in South Africa. A colleague of mine, who will be speaking in this debate very shortly, also had a very good look at these figures, and we have discovered some very interesting population statistics which have a direct bearing on university education. We found, for instance, that 1978 was the very first year in which a decline in the White student population began to occur, though not in all 12 universities simultaneously. The aggregate number of White students increased very marginally between 1978 and 1979, but it was nevertheless the first year in which we began to find a decline in at least six of the 12 White universities in South Africa. To put that into perspective, however, let me say that the 1979 White university student population was, in round figures, 118 000. We can anticipate that we have now reached the top of the graph, because the two-year military service cycle is now already built into the 1979 figure, so we can now expect White university student attendance to start to decline. To the question about whether we therefore require more exclusively White universities, the answer must therefore obviously be “no”. There will not be enough students for White universities to fill an additional university. There may therefore be a case for the concept of decentralization which the hon. the Minister has with Vista University. It is, however, a fact that, unless something goes seriously wrong with the attitudes of people in South Africa, the White student population is going to decline. The general growth rate for the Black population in South Africa is 2,89 in comparison with a growth rate of 0,82 for the Whites. Projections indicate that by the time we reach parity between student population and general population in the Black population of South Africa, in other words by the time it reaches the same ratio of students to population which we have in the White population of South Africa, we shall have to cater for 500 000 university students. Based on today’s figures, we shall have to have approximately 60 Black universities catering for Black students in South Africa. We fully recognize the need for additional university facilities for all population groups.

Before I come to the conclusion which we have drawn regarding this Bill, I should like to come, first of all, to the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Pinelands. I think the attitude of the PFP has resulted in another situation where the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. To move an amendment stating that the Bill be read “this day six months”, is the strongest form of objection which one can have to legislation. It means that one will have nothing to do with it at all. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether it was really the intention of the PFP to have nothing to do with the provision of further university facilities in South Africa. Obviously not. [Interjections.]

Tell us what you are going to do.

I will tell the hon. member. Because I understand that that is not the PFP’s intention, to move an amendment that the Bill be read “this day six months”, indicating a total disassociation from the concept of a new university, is a total over-reaction and will not serve any purpose …

Are you still on the fence, Ron?

… except to frustrate the provision of further university facilities in South Africa. Unfortunately we will not be able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands despite the fact that there is much in his argument which we do support.

I should now like to come to the hon. member for Virginia. We agree with him that cultural affiliation or cultural identification is one of the strongest human needs in the world. Very few other needs are greater than the need for cultural affiliation and group identity. That is why we in the NRP have the kind of policy that we do have. I am, however, sure that the hon. member for Virginia will appreciate the fact that the acculturation of a child has been completed by the age of 16 or 17. He is then a fully formed cultural individual and understands the conscious and subconscious variables in a culture. By the age of 16, on average, he is wedded to, subscribes to and will be loyal to the norms of his society. After that it will be very difficult for him to change his value system.

One hears about and has seen processes called brainwashing. We heard about it particularly in relation to the Vietnam war and the Korean war, where in order to get a man to change sides and to change philosophy, to change his allegiance to a value system, that man had to be brainwashed at very great cost and intense care to try to get the old values out of him. And then after he had returned to his home country, after three to six months of re-orientation the effect of the brainwashing in most cases vanished. I think the hon. member for Virginia will recognize that by the time an individual reaches the age of 16 the acculturation process is completed. Therefore my party does not believe it is necessary to have ethnic facilities at a tertiary level. The focus of attention and the objective of tertiary education at technikons and universities are to impart skills, knowledge and understanding. That is what a university is for, and that is what tertiary education is for. It will perpetuate a value system; it does not inculcate a value system and therefore does not detract from the value system of any individual.

If we take the hon. member’s argument to its logical conclusion we then have a concept of life which is a funnel—that one must consistently isolate oneself more and more from the rest of the world. One then starts off at the wide end of the funnel and ends up at the narrow end of the funnel if there is to be any merit in the hon. member’s argument. The interchange of technical information between the United States of America and South Africa or the United States of America and England or France or Germany or Holland or Finland or Australia or Taiwan is a process which benefits both parties. The student exchange programme is there to learn more about the other man’s culture and not to detract from one’s own, to develop a greater understanding. That is why we have student exchange programmes. These programmes certainly do not perform a brainwashing operation on those people. On the contrary, these programmes enhance their outlook on life. Such students become more valuable to their own society because they are able to understand other societies and their norms. Therefore, we totally reject the concept expressed by the hon. member for Virginia supported by the hon. the Minister that at tertiary level one has to stick to cultural identities. It does not work that way, Sir, unless one wishes to end up at the narrow end of the funnel. In fact, there is no consistency in the argument of the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia. There is actually total inconsistency because when it suits them they differentiate between Xhosa and Ciskeian and Venda. However, when it does not suit them then they say that a Black university is suitable for those cultures but not for Whites, Coloureds or Indians. I want to ask the hon. member for Virginia why this is so. Why is it that he is prepared to allow an abrogation of culture between the Ciskeians, the Zulus and the Xhosas but not in respect of the Whites and the other groups? If he has the fear as far as the White culture is concerned that it will be contaminated because of its association at tertiary level with other groups, what about the Xhosas, the Zulus and the Vendas who are going to be served by the same university? I think the hon. member’s argument in this regard will be that because it is going to be decentralized it will serve predominantly members of one culture group. I think that that will be his argument—that they are not going to mix. It is going to be one university with a multitude of ethnic extensions. I think that may possibly be his argument.

However, let me tell the hon. member for Virginia that this is hardly likely to happen because the area that this university will have to serve, if it becomes established, is the massive metropolitan area of Soweto. There is no question about it. Why should rural areas take precedence over an area such as Soweto? It is true that in Soweto there is a mixture of two value system subscribers—those who support democracy and private free enterprise and those who subscribe to their traditional homeland system. However, the people who are educated to a sufficient level to enable them to attend university are the ones who are predominantly the subscribers to democracy and private free enterprise. They have in fact been acculturated to the Western system and away from the traditional tribal system. Those are the people predominantly who will go to university and at that level—and here I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands—the cultural difference contact factor makes no difference at all.

Now, Sir, I want to come to the gravamen of the argument of the NRP and that is that we are definitely to be found for the development and construction of additional universities in South Africa. That is absolutely essential. However, our attitude is also that tertiary education entrance should not be governed by the colour of a man’s skin but by academic qualifications and that each university has to decide for itself by means of a process of local option which race groups it wishes to admit. Therefore, Sir, although we support the concept of an additional university and, in particular, a university like this with the attractive features of decentralization, cost saving by sharing and so forth—we like it; we like that very much indeed—we cannot and will not accept that a university must be ethnic and prescribed. That is something for the university authorities themselves to decide. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia—and I shall be moving an amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill in a moment—that if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to wait for the De Lange report to be tabled then I think they are making a very serious mistake. This was also said by the hon. member for Pinelands. I think the hon. the Minister will tell us that he has not seen that report. However, his expectations of that report must surely be contrary to what is set out in this Bill, otherwise we have not moved forward. I certainly cannot see any research paper or any report emanating from well-informed people being supportive of a system which is in fact archaic. I cannot see that at all and therefore our expectation is that whatever report is forthcoming from the report of the HSRC it is going to recommend that tertiary education should be open to all race groups because it is academic qualifications that count in this particular case and not race. Obviously, however, the hon. the Minister has anticipated this difficulty and he has therefore in his own Second Reading speech indicated that the matter will be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading. This is because the hon. the Minister has anticipated this problem. However, Sir, we cannot accept that either because, as the hon. member for Pinelands has indicated, the principle of a separate Black university will then have been accepted and all one will be able to discuss will be the details involved in the structure of that university. We are quite happy with much of this detail; there is no problem in that regard except in regard to the reference to Blacks. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that if he will be prepared to accept the deletion of clause 3(2) reading—

I shall not move the amendment I intend moving. As I anticipate that the hon. the Minister will not be prepared to accept the deletion, I move, for the reasons mentioned, the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North quoted interesting statistical data concerning Black education. We do not wish to differ with him in this regard, because they are data which one can use.

He also contends that a child’s development is complete by the time he is 16 to 18 years old. Here, too, we agree with him. The child is then culture-bound and culture-orientated. For this reason it is still important that this student undergoes his further training and education within the cultural milieu and that his subsequent training will also take place in such surroundings or milieu.

The Bill recognizes the principle of academic training to the highest level for all population groups in their own unique national education system. The official Opposition, through the hon. member for Pinelands, emphasizes that there are various universities available here which can be used for this purpose. They feel that the existing White universities should be used. White facilities must be opened up and made available, not only physical amenities and facilities, but at the same time class accommodation as well.

Is the official Opposition certain that this is what the Blacks want?

Ask them.

Are they certain that they are not advocating something which the Blacks themselves reject? Because they are radicals, they proclaim only the views of the radicals in the Black education system. There are many Blacks, educationists and other leaders in cultural and other fields, who recognize the unique principles of national diversity and seek to put them into effect in education and training.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training and the department concerned have identified a need here after in-depth study and investigation of tertiary education for Blacks. It is quite obvious that this need will increase in the future. If one looks at the increase in the number of Black matriculants, one sees that last year there were 212 000 matriculants in White areas as against 180 000 in 1979. It is therefore only logical and obvious that there must be an increasing need for tertiary and especially university training for Blacks. This need will increase steadily.

Now, it is a fact that universities arise out of the need of a community. Once such a needs survey has been carried out and a need has been identified, then such a university is established with the aid of donations by that community. The community then helps the university out of its financial difficulties. In this case, however, we have identified a need which involves seven metropolitan areas where Blacks are living in White areas. The solution would perhaps be to establish a university in each of these areas or, even better—indeed, the ideal—to create adequate facilities in the national States.

The hon. member for Pinelands has asked what the motive is behind this legislation, and he referred to the labour legislation recently dealt with in this House. Here a different and identifiable problem has been raised, namely university training for working Blacks in White South Africa. Reference is made here to Blacks who work during the day and who quite possibly want to study after hours. They want to improve their qualifications after work in a class situation—repeat, a class situation and not by means of correspondence. For this reason this Bill gives its council an almost blank cheque to be able to meet these requirements. The existing facilities, such as physical amenities, can be successfully used after hours to create the class situation where lectures can be offered.

It is however of importance to note that the planned university will not take over the functions of Unisa, as the hon. member for Pinelands contends.

The need for contact education has certainly been identified and the planned university is the result.

I think a further need has also been identified here, namely that the employer will want to make use of the opportunity to let his Black employees become academically better qualified. Skilled and professional labour is becoming steadily more urgent and necessary. It is a requirement for economic growth in South Africa. On this occasion I should therefore like to make an urgent appeal to employers who are already to a great extent dependent on specialized Black labour, to make use of this opportunity to give their workers the chance to become better qualified academically. The envisaged university lends itself to this. Organized trade and industry can play an important role by making available bursaries, grants, etc., and also by assisting in the physical establishment of amenities for this university and the satellite campuses. They can also help their workers by encouraging them to attend this university. I am certain that the aforesaid organizations will see their way clear to giving assistance in this connection.

For this reason we on this side of this House are pleased to support this university and wish it everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the first portion of the speech by the hon. member for Gezina with a great deal of dejection.

Why was that?

If the hon. the Minister will give me a chance, I shall tell him why. To speak about a so-called Black university in a so-called White territory, a university that will be open to all Blacks, and then to speak about cultural ties and cultural orientation, makes no sense. The hon. member’s spoke about national ties. What concept of a nation is he using? Then on other occasions we hear that the Zulus are a separate nation. The Sotho’s are a separate nation and the Tswanas are a separate nation, but this university is not like the University of Zululand, the University of the North, which could justifiably be described as having an ethnic basis. Let us please be honest with one another and not use this type of false argument for which there really are no grounds. In the same way the hon. member for Gezina spoke about an educational system peculiar to the Blacks. Does the hon. member want to tell me that in the case of the University of Fort Hare and the University of the North, there is any question of a university system that is peculiar to the Blacks? What rubbish that is. I am sorry that I have to say so, but it is absolute rubbish. Does anyone want to tell me that the type of university training that is offered at the Black universities, is Black-orientated and is evidence of an educational system that is peculiar to the Blacks? Certainly not, Mr. Speaker!

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Virginia said. He let the cat out of the bag with regard to three points. Unless I did not follow what the hon. the Minister was saying very well, it related to points of view that the hon. the Minister did not emphasize. The hon. member for Gezina said that the need was identified in six or seven metropolitan areas. I wonder how I can reconcile this with what the hon. the Minister said, viz. that he wants to establish the university for the very purpose of identifying the need. Now who is correct? Does the hon. member for Gezina have information that should have been made available to the House but was not, if it is true that the need has already been identified, as the hon. member said?

Are you so stupid? It concerns the numbers of Blacks.

It has been identified.

In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister said—

Now I do not know what is happening anymore.

Secondly, the hon. member for Gezina said that the aim of the university is to provide evening classes.

That can be done too.

Is the hon. the Minister now saying that that can happen?

Yes. It will happen too.

All I want to say, is that the hon. member for Gezina said that this is the aim of this university. [Interjections.] I did not misunderstand him. If this is the aim of this university, I want the hon. member for Durban North to take note of it, because he based his argument that a need for separate universities does exist, on a conventional type of university, if I understood him correctly. [Interjections.] It was alleged here that this institution was intended for after hours training of young people who are employed. However, this is something totally different.

In the third place, and in this context, it was also said that employers would then be able to make use of these facilities for after hours study in order to enable their workers to equip themselves better academically. Well, whether we can still talk about a university in the ordinary sense of the word in that case, I am not so sure. I simply cannot identify myself with this. [Interjections.]

You did not read the Bill.

I read the Bill very carefully. The hon. member must please not make that ridiculous remark to me. The hon. member for Virginia devoted the first portion of his speech to the so-called national basis of universities. I have already replied to that. However, I just want to add that in all honesty he cannot speak on the one hand about a national basis, about the need for exclusive institutions, and then, when it suits him, to say that we have already opened the universities and that Whites are already studying at Black universities. Then what becomes of the entire concept of an exclusive national basis? We cannot say all these things in the same breath. It is ridiculous. I cannot understand why hon. members are alleging that if a student is registered at whatever university, it constitutes a threat to his identity and to his culture. I simply cannot understand this. We simply have to look at the university of Stellenbosch. At that university at least 12% of the students at the moment are English-speaking. Should I now assume that those English-speaking students are forfeiting their cultural ties by attending the University of Stellenbosch? Similarly, there are also Afrikaans-speaking students at the University of Cape Town and at the University of the Witwatersrand. I must say that I have much more faith and confidence in their adherence to their culture than to believe that attending those universities would mean a threat to their cultural ties.

Nic, you are coming along nicely. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I …

Just look what has happened to you in such company, Nic.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I actually wasted the time of the House by reacting to some of these statements. [Interjections.] I now want to devote myself to the Bill. [Interjections.] In all honesty and with all the seriousness at my disposal, I say that I must support this motion by the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.] This is not a decision that I took lightly. In the nature of things, it was not easy. After all, we know that to move that a Bill be read for the Second Time in six months’ time only, is probably the most extreme form of rejection thereof.

Therefore, you do not agree, not so?

I do not think the hon. the Minister will hold it against me if I say that in the various situations in which he and I have been directly involved during the discussion of Bills here in the House, it has never yet happened that he and I were able to agree with one another and that he was prepared to concede arguments to me. It happened again today. We asked him to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister refused. Of course, he is entitled to refuse. Naturally, I can speak on behalf of myself only, but I must say in all honesty that I am quite convinced that the hon. the Minister is so obsessed with his concepts that he is in fact not prepared to listen to reason. I hope I am not doing him a disservice by saying this.

No, you can go ahead and say so. [Interjections.]

It is the truth. [Interjections.]

I must at least say that we have made progress in one sphere, for which I should probably be very grateful. It was not so long ago that the Blacks in the so-called White areas were referred to in this very House as “temporary sojourners”. They were labelled as being temporarily permanent, people who should not actually be here. That entire argument for the establishment of Black universities in the homelands, and all the other things that were done too, were carried out in the name of the policy that insists that we do not have an established Black urban population.

If we have now come so far that at this stage we are prepared to establish a Black university in the so-called White areas, then we have surely made a little progress in that sphere. I express my gratitude for this. It is happening in fits and starts to be sure, and one has to push and push and push and push before there is any movement, but I say thank you very much for the little movement that one has now and again. [Interjections.]

The only justification that the hon. the Minister gave for this Bill, is that a need exists for a new university due to the anticipated increase in the numbers of Black students. I cannot differ with him on that.

That is the principle.

Just wait a moment.

I am not going to disagree with the hon. the Minister that a large increase in Black students who need university training must be expected. As the hon. the Minister knows, the Committee of Heads of Universities said the following in a newsletter in June 1979—it is a fairly long quotation, but nevertheless I want to place one thing in perspective in connection with what the hon. the Minister said—

This is a levelling off.

That is correct.

Yes, that is correct. The newsletter goes on to say—

As I have already said, the details that the hon. the Minister gave are completely correct in that respect and I have no quarrel with them.

That’s good.

In connection with what I have said, the first question is, whether this way which is now being pointed out, is the right way of providing for that need—and this is what it is all about, viz. to make provision for the need for university training for Blacks. I have not seen the report of the De Lange Commission, but I find it unthinkable that this commission would not have given attention to the total level of tertiary, including university education for all groups in South Africa. Therefore, before I can accept any proposal now, whether it is with regard to the university training of Whites, Blacks or whoever, it is essential that we should first know what the findings, the facts, recommendations and viewpoints are that come to the fore in that report.

[Inaudible.]

You are afraid of the report.

Although my colleague has already referred to it, I want to quote what appears on page 208 of the annual report of the Department of Education and Training—

The hon. the Minister who is sitting there—

That is correct.

How can anyone who is trying to adopt an analytical, intellectual, responsible approach to this subject, be expected to support this legislation? In the light of the fact that my colleagues and I did not have access to that historical report, how can we be expected to grant our approval to a Bill that is now creating a new university? After all, it does not make sense. Surely we are not children and I do not want to be treated like a child either. If I, as a person who is trying to give thought to these questions, am asked whether I can grant my approval to a Bill of this nature, while I know that there are two fundamental reports that deal with the same subject and that I have been denied access to those reports, I feel that I am indeed being treated as a child. What is more: The House is also being treated like a child. I am sorry, but I cannot come to any other conclusion.

Apologize.

However, I want to come back to this Bill. I am not going to deal with details because they are not at issue at this stage. The first question that I want to ask, is: If it is not going to be a residential university—the hon. the Minister has stated this clearly—who determined this? What are the considerations that led to the decision that it will not be a residential university? I want to put the question again.

I shall furnish the reply.

It is no use for the hon. the Minister to tell me that he will furnish me with a reply, because he has not furnished me with a reply here. [Interjections.] I ask once again: Who established those needs?

Surely I cannot speak while you are speaking.

Who said that there is no need for a residential university in Soweto, for instance?

I shall tell you. You will still hear it.

The hon. the Minister should have told us earlier. What I actually want to ask, is: On what basis was this decision taken? That is what I do not know. If the aim is that education will in fact be provided by means of satellite campuses, I ask once again: In that case is it necessary to create a separate university for that purpose? The hon. the Minister knows just as well as I do that the University of Zululand, for instance, weighed up the possibilities of establishing a satellite campus in Durban.

They did not only weigh up the possibilities; they have already established it there.

Then I just want to ask: How am I to know whether the other existing universities would not also be prepared to provide facilities by means of satellite campuses? How am I to know that the University of Potchefstroom would not be prepared to create a satellite campus somewhere in the Western Transvaal?

It is because you are blind.

No, wait a moment. On what basis must I accept that the University of the Witwatersrand or the University of Pretoria would not be prepared to create a satellite campus? [Interjections.] I have not been supplied with any good reason why this need for university training for Blacks can be satisfied in this way only. We are faced with the question: Do we need a separate university at this stage? In order to establish this, we must have an answer to the question: What is the power of absorption of the existing university institutions? In other words, can they take more students or can they not? In this respect I am thinking not only of physical facilities, but also of the laboratory and other facilities that must exist. I honestly do not know what the answers are.

Then we must also look at the situation against the background of the facts that were mentioned a short while ago, i.e. the decreasing number of White students. However, I want to go further. This must also be considered against the background of the role and function of the universities during the next few years. We must look at it in view of the aspects that we have been debating here over the past few days. In view of the growing technological and other needs of the country it is an entirely different question whether the universities will be able to produce the same type of student that they have produced thus far. In other words, to what extent are our technical institutions going to keep students away from the existing universities? Time will have to tell us that. I should like to refer to what the hon. the Minister of Manpower said here when he expressed himself on this very point. He said that even university functions would be of a different nature under the new dispensation, in view of the economic growth of our country. Is this true or is it not? Are our existing university facilities and teaching staff being utilized to the full?

Some of them enter politics.

Some of them are utilized to the full, and some are not. That hon. member knows that as well as I do. All I want to allege here, is that there are facilities that can be used at the existing university institutions that are not being utilized to the full. [Interjections.]

Establishing a university is not cheap, and in view of the financial resources at our disposal, we must also think ten times before we dare to do this type of thing. In view of the facts that have come to light thus far, I can only say that it is a rash decision. In the budget that was introduced yesterday, a sum of R307 million was made available for the White universities, and a total sum of R68 million for the Black universities, apart from the additional sum of almost R19½ million for the training college at Ga-Rankua. The University of the Western Cape is requesting a further R12 million and the University of Durban-Westville R16 million. Medunsa, with its very limited numbers, has already cost us quite a few million rands at this stage. I am the last person to support anything that does not make proper provision for university training in South Africa. However, if there is a possibility that there is a capacity that is not being utilized, why should additional funds be used? Would it not be better to use that money to assist our existing university institutions to expand their facilities in order to be able to make provision for the increasing needs of Black students?

In conclusion, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pinelands said. We hear every day from the Government that it is serious about eliminating discrimination. Time and again over the past few days, the hon. the Minister of Manpower has deleted any reference to race or colour from his legislation.

This is not discrimination.

The hon. the Minister will forgive me if I say that this is one of my problems, viz. that we can speak endlessly about what is discrimination and what is differentiation. If it is stated in legislation that “an institution”—it does not matter what it is—“is intended for Whites only …”.

Then one is discriminating against the Whites.

That is differentiation.

Oh, I am sorry. Not one of our predominantly White universities has such a provision in its statutes. They had to ask permission from the hon. the Minister later on when they wanted to admit Black students. This has not been the case over all the years.

You are becoming confused now.

The hon. Whip knows as well as I do that there have been no racial provisions over all the years. He must not tell me that this is not discrimination.

Here we have seen the two faces of the Government. With regard to labour, we have been saying for the past few days that we must move away from the concept of exclusive trade unions intended for one race only. Now we come to the sphere of university training and the same principle is being applied here once again. I find it shocking that this type of legislation is still being brought to the House at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier and other speakers on this side of the House who preceded him covered the subject very well. I should like to come back to what I consider to be the real issue which has been very well dealt with in the debates on the labour legislation. We on this side of the House concern ourselves with the facts of South Africa. The demographic projections which have been put before us over the past few days concentrated our thoughts on the sort of South Africa we will have to plan for, and on the sort of situations in which we find ourselves with regard to the provision of sufficient skilled people to maintain our growth rate and to prevent tremendous unemployment. It would seem to me that, with that sort of scenario which has been sketched for us, the sort of scenario where one has Soweto which is just …

Mr. Speaker, just before the supper adjournment, I was describing the direction in which the NRP believe that South Africa must move and the picture of South Africa into which this Vista University—and I say this advisedly—will have to fit because demographic projections envisage a situation in the future over which we shall have very little control. I was on the point of saying that whereas Soweto has arrived at the position where it numbers about 1 million people, if we consider the sort of urbanization situation we are faced with in our country and we take it seriously, then we have to look at a position of something like 20 Soweto’s by the turn of the century. If we are in fact to make the progress required and if we are to be realistic about being able to meet the challenges presented to us, which have already been discussed in terms of the manpower legislation, we have to face the fact that two and a half million Brown and Black South Africans are going to face this challenge with us and they have to be motivated and fully understand the challenge in regard to what it means for our future. They are going to have to have the same sort of outlook as we do and their ideas will have to be compatible with ours as regards the future. If we are talking in real terms of that sort of leadership which will represent a very high proportion of the leadership at the turn of the century that we are now discussing, then they cannot possibly be directed at all other than by a mutual understanding which will have to be achieved by contact and communication among people who are going to be educated into the new technology and the new outlook in regard to our type of society. I should like to put it to you, Sir, that the sort of situation that can be brought about by an insistence that this university should be exclusively a Black university is one that is extremely unfair to the young South Africans of this country who are going to have to face these situations. In the main, Sir, with one or two exceptions in this House, it is not those hon. members who are sitting here who are going to have to deal with that situation in the future; it is the young, up and coming South Africans who are steadily losing total contact with and understanding for one another who are going to have to face this situation, and it is this understanding that is going to be so vital in approaching the sort of problem that is going to arise in the future. It is on that basis that I say that the NRP’s approach that universities should have full autonomy is the only approach that can possibly be followed by this House in considering the future of this country.

There is also the question of freedom of association that was so eloquently discussed a day or two ago by the hon. member for Randburg. A policy of freedom of association is the only way and the basis of the manner in which we must approach this problem. It is on this basis that I want to say that the idea that this Vista University should have any other basis than freedom of association is totally foreign to the sort of South Africa that we have been discussing in this House for the best part of a week. I do not wish to belabour this point. More eloquent speakers than I have already made very strong points in this regard. We find ourselves in a position where the Government is in the enviable situation of creating a first, a new concept, a deal with a new future, with new considerations in respect of training in regard to the challenges that South Africa has to meet.

This new concept of a university which is in the Republic and not in the homelands or the independent States, creates a totally new situation in which they can really grasp the opportunity with both hands and make it something totally new. They can accept that the sort of discussion we have been having this afternoon, is real. In fact, it leads to a real approach to this novel concept of the Vista University. I go further in saying that the fact that we in this House are asked to accept in principle the legislation before us and then to debate it in committee is really not a very sensible way of going about things at all. In fact, if full consideration is to be given to this most important legislation, and it is to do the job for which it is being sculptured, then the amendment that was put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Durban North is the only way to approach this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, there are a few answers we should like to have so as to make some kind of sense out of our arguments and debate. The question I should like to ask the hon. members of the PFP is whether they are of the opinion that as a result of the growing number of matriculants there is a need … I am asking those two gentlemen a question and I should like to have their attention.

Where are the gentlemen? They are not interested. [Interjections.]

The question I am asking those two gentlemen is whether they are of the opinion that in the light of the growing number of Black matriculants there is a need for additional university facilities?

Yes.

The need exists. Arising out of that, do they think that that need can be met or satisfied by the existing facilities at universities?

Yes, of course.

In other words, this entire demand, which arises out of the growing number of matriculants who will demand university training, can be met or provided for by existing facilities at existing universities? [Interjections.] In any case, we now have the acknowledgment of the hon. members of the PFP, the official Opposition, that there is a need for additional university training for the Black people.

Yes, that is so.

The NRP also recognizes this. This is the point at issue—whether there is a need for additional university training. The question is simply how we are to meet the growing demand for university training for the Black people. [Interjections.] The answer of the hon. members of the official Opposition is apparently that the existing universities should be opened and that this will solve the entire problem and we then do not need another university. The same also applies to the hon. members of the NRP, except that according to them we must build a new university which will be open.

If we are agreed on this we have arrived at the point where we can answer a few of the questions put to us by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, who asked us with so many fine gestures: Who decided that it will be a non-residential university? The answer is twofold. In the first place, sound common sense. In the light of the growing number of matriculants there will be a need for a university.

“Will be”?

And is. The hon. member is of course prepared to leave this matter to be considered six months hence. We say we must do so now. The hon. member asked, waving his arms, why it will be a non-residential university. It is because the Government is levelheaded, realistic and practical enough to know that there is a need among the Black communities throughout the country for university training, but that those people do not have the means to attend a residential university far from their immediate vicinity.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Wait a moment. The hon. member has conducted this House for long enough. He must give me a chance now. [Interjections.] The seat of administration will be in Pretoria, but not the university as such. It is a non-residential university which can have campuses throughout the country. Only the administrative seat is in Pretoria. Surely this is quite clear. It is therefore not a residential university, and the reason for this is that as a result of the needs of the prospective students, provision will have to be made for them to have university facilities as close as possible to the area where they reside. This is why it must be non-residential.

Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry but I am not prepared to answer any questions. I have already said …

He must say “excuse me”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to answer any questions.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I had the choice of becoming either a member of the PFP or a monkey, and after what I have heard here it seems to me I made the right decision when I decided rather to be a monkey. [Interjections.]

The next question is why the existing universities do not establish satellite campuses. Will the hon. member approve of the University of Pretoria establishing a satellite campus in Soweto, mainly for the students of Soweto? Would the hon. member approve of that?

What objection could there be to that?

No, I am asking the hon. member Prof. Olivier, the hon. member who asked the original question. Would he approve of it?

If that is what they want, yes.

Oh, the hon. member would approve of it.

Yes, if that is what they want.

Who is “they”?

If the university wants it and the students are there, why not?

That is how you could save Afrikaans, man.

Oh? Thank you very, very much. I am satisfied. Now I want to ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier another question. He contended that some of the existing amenities at universities are underutilized at the moment. Is he of the opinion that those amenities which are now underutilized will be adequate to meet the requirements, or the growing requirements, of all these Black students?

Answer my question first. Once you have answered my question then I will answer your questions too. [Interjections.]

Oh no. [Interjections.] No, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I did make the right choice after all when I chose to be what I am. [Interjections.]

I should now like to state—to return to the Bill before this House—that this legislation bears wonderful testimony to the seriousness with which this Government approaches the question of education and training and the education of the Black people in South Africa. On the other hand, it is not surprising that the Opposition parties oppose this legislation. It is traditional for the Opposition parties to oppose all legislation concerning education and training of Black people in this House. They have been doing it since 1948. [Interjections.] This persistent opposition to the measures by which the questions regarding the education of Black people are to be regulated and extended, compels one to repeat what has already been said in this House: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

The NP has a proud record with regard to legislation concerning education, training and teaching of Black people. The NP has a proud record in this connection. Just think of the various Acts on the Statute-Book which have been put there by this Government and this party.

The oxwagon party.

In the interests of … Mr. Speaker, I am again convinced—when I listen to the hon. member for Pinelands—that I chose correctly when I chose to be an ape. [Interjections.] In the first place we call to mind the Black Education Act, in the early ’fifties. Remember the tremendous opposition there was to this legislation. However, what happened? Despite the fact that the Opposition so strenuously opposed that legislation, the Black people accepted it with gratitude because by way of that legislation, Black education was released from its previous status of a mere appendage of White education, and it was accorded its own character and colour, which was not only accepted with heartfelt gratitude by the Black people but also by the congress of Black educationists in Addis Abeba, where South Africa’s Black Education Act was spoken of with great appreciation.

The Government did not only make provision for ordinary school education at primary and high school level. The Government ensured that there would not be a vacuum, in so far as the legislation on separate universities followed. The need was perceived and identified, and subsequently satisfied. Then followed the legislation on the training of Black people as doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons. Then came the legislation on technikons for Black people and then the labour legislation we have just dealt with which provides for the training of Black people. Now we have this Bill in terms of which tertiary education is brought to the doorstep of every Black man and woman in South Africa, whatever his or her qualifications. I repeat this because it is important: This university will bring tertiary education to the doorstep of every Black man and woman, whatever his or her qualifications. In other words, this university will be an open university, not in the sense of being open to all races …

Oh no!

… but open in the sense that it will be open to anyone whether he has a matric exemption or not, as long as he is Black. I should like to know what the reaction of that member and that party would be if these facilities were to be given to the Whites and not the Blacks.

Why both? Why not all four?

I repeat, the university will be open to such an extent that if, for example, a commercial firm were to request a specific branch at that university to arrange a course in business management for its Black people, this could be done. In other words, we are giving the Black people something which the Whites do not have. It is strange that those people who have so much to say about discrimination do not now maintain that we are discriminating against the Whites.

There has been talk here about so-called open universities, and it has been said that the existing universities must meet the requirements of the Black people. Let us take a practical example. A university has for example vacancies for 1 000 new students. Applications are awaited. For the 1 000 vacancies which the university has, there are, say, 600 applications from Whites and 900 applications from Blacks. There are 1 000 vacancies and there are 1 500 applications. Now I would like to know how the hon. members on that side would handle this situation. Will the applications be considered on merit? I am waiting for an answer. Any hon. member of the Opposition can tell me. Will those applications be considered on merit?

We say yes.

The NRP says yes. Thank you. What does the PFP say?

It is not important.

No, wait a minute, it is very important. It is easy to say that it is not important, but in practice it is. We cannot merely philosophise about matters here. I ask those hon. members: Will they consider those applications on merit?

I will answer your question when you answer my question.

Oh no, that is silly of you.

I take it that the hon. members are not prepared to answer such a question on this matter which is of such cardinal importance, because then they will compromise themselves. They are people who do not seriously mean what they say.

Let us consider the situation. There are 1 000 vacancies for which 600 Whites and 900 Blacks apply. Let us now consider the applications on merit. Suppose that on merit we select 400 of the 600 Whites and 600 of the 900 Blacks. What now? Will those 900 Blacks be satisfied that 300 of them were turned away while only 200 Whites were turned away?

But that is not on merit.

That could arise out of selection according to merit. [Interjections.] I repeat my question:

Will the 900 Black people be satisfied that 300 of them did not gain access to the university while only 200 Whites were turned away? We know what will happen in practice. For the sake of racial peace all we can do is to take half the number of Blacks and half the Whites.

That is NP policy.

That is Hendrik’s policy: One sheep, one horse!

Oh no, it is not NP policy. NP policy is to establish a university for Blacks only and therefore we do not have that problem.

Our policy is based on merit and merit alone.

And how will the Opposition handle this merit?

How will they explain it?

The majority will be satisfied. [Interjections.]

They cannot do so because they know that the majority will not be satisfied.

The majority of them will be going to university.

It is clear that there is in fact consensus as regards the fact that there is a need for additional university training for Black people. By way of this legislation, the NP makes provision for that need by introducing a non-residential university by means of which we bring university facilities to the doorstep of every Black man and woman. The other two parties adopt the standpoint that this university should be open, but they cannot answer the basic questions resulting from the practical application of their standpoint, nor will they be able to answer them unless they are willing to bring about terrible confrontation, unpleasantness and racial friction [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to the hon. member for Kimberley North, I should like to raise a few points in regard to the arguments regarding ethnicity in universities. I have listened with great interest to the arguments across the floor during this debate. As far as I am concerned I see no reason whatsoever for ethnicity in tertiary education. I think this point has been argued very well by my colleagues and also by the hon. member for Durban North. [Interjections.]

I shall now return to the hon. member for Kimberley North. In the first place I am very glad that he has chosen to be a monkey rather than a member of the PFP. Quite frankly, we would not want him in the PFP. [Interjections.]

I want to make it very clear that we oppose this Bill because of the way in which it was presented to us. We would have preferred to see it going to a Select Committee first. We oppose it because of the way in which the hon. the Minister presented the Bill …

Are you not going to boycott the Select Committee?

I should like to make another few points very clear to the hon. member for Kimberley North. Firstly, we have no quarrel whatsoever with the concept of another university. This is purely a technical matter.

Then you must change your amendment.

We can sit down and look at the numbers, and I am quite convinced that, in fact, we do need another university. It is a good idea to utilize the existing facilities in the universities that we have. There is nothing wrong with the concept at all. We also accept that this university, by virtue of the location of its campuses, will in fact mainly serve Black students. We accept, too, that it may be necessary to design different curricula to fit in with the requirements of the students. We have no real quarrel with that whatsoever.

Are you going to lower the standards?

The only quarrel we have is with the fact that this university is to be established along racial lines and only makes provision for Black students.

We do not deny the concept of enthnicity at all. All we are saying is that ethnicity should not be established or enforced in terms of statutes or laws. We believe that people should be free to choose.

I now want to turn to two points and I should like hon. members on the other side of the House to listen very carefully.

But we cannot hear you.

That hon. member, if he kept quiet, would hear me. The real danger of the legislation before us today is that in the educational system we have more potential for conflict in our country than in any other system or sphere whatsoever. Any decent sociologist could tell one this. We have already seen this happening in our schools and in Soweto. [Interjections.] The reason for this is very basically that the educational system slots people into jobs. It grades people. That might be a very brutal way of looking at it, but that is exactly what happens. It rewards success and gives people who fail a lesser status and lesser jobs. That is why there is so much conflict inherent in this situation. People who are graded by this system must, in fact, be sure that the system is fair, because if people fail, or do not live up to expectations, they do not blame the system. They normally blame themselves. We only have to think of White education as an example. The fellow who does not make the grade, the chap who does not pass matric, does not blame the system, because he basically believes the system to be fair. I do not want to get bogged down in arguments about whether the Black-White educational system in this country is fair or not. It is only necessary for people to see this system as not being fair for them, if they do not make the grade, to blame the system and not themselves, and that is where the potential for conflict lies.

I should also like to raise another point which I believe is vitally important. I am referring to the so-called informal curriculum that we have in education. I mention “informal curriculum” in contrast to the “formal curriculum” which includes the learning of geography, history, mathematics or whatever. The informal curriculum relates to the interaction with one’s fellow students and one’s teachers. It is by this informal curriculum that we learn to set our standards, slot into our society and learn about the norms that such a society has. The people going through our educational system are all entering into the same economic system. We are working shoulder to shoulder. One only has to walk down any street to see this. In every business, every shop or garage, there are people working shoulder to shoulder in the same economic system. However, we want them to pass through different educational systems in order to fit into the same economic system. This simply does not make sense. We should, in fact, be teaching people to get to know one another, to understand one another and to fit into the economic system that we have, but instead we are providing separate facilities for them and hence increasing polarization and the potential for conflict. If everybody after he had been educated could go his own separate way, it would probably be okay. We do not, however, go our own separate ways, but end up in the same economic system. We saw how some Bills introduced by the hon. the Minister of Manpower last week were passed by the House, Bills which we on this side of the House supported. These Bills emphasize throughout that we are all part of the same economic system; we work together in our jobs, but here we want to provide a different educational system. We go into jobs to work and we go to universities to work. It simply defies logic. I cannot understand what the difference is between working in a job with someone and studying with someone at a university. It defies any logic whatsoever. Is there anybody on that side of the House who can explain to me the difference between working with someone at a university and working with someone in a job? It has been emphasized repeatedly that we will be working together in jobs and we will be together more and more. But here we want to separate the different groups on the educational level where we should, in fact, be taking the opportunity to get to know and to understand other people and learn what their aspirations are. That is why we reject the Bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been the second or third occasion on which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has spoken in this House, and I feel I want to say in reply to his speech this evening what King David said with reference to Absalom: “Deal gently with the young man.” I think that if the hon. member had a somewhat better understanding of what ethnic diversity really means and of the functioning of national organisms, of how these are constituted from various facets, of how national organisms can coalesce, and which coalesce more readily, of what facets are far more sensitive, and when he has a greater understanding of the problems we are faced with in South Africa, there is in my opinion a possibility that we will over the years be able to guide the hon. member to new perceptions, and that he will then quite probably spend the second half of his life in the NP. I want to leave the hon. member at that now; in any case, I enjoyed listening to him.

I would prefer to come back to the two bench-fellows, viz. the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I listened to both hon. members with the same …

Respect.

… respect and attention. However, I want to say in a more serious vein that if I have to judge from the emotion which was aroused in me while I was listening to the two hon. members, I have a far greater understanding of the hon. member for Pinelands. At least he does not know the way; he does not know the circumstances in South Africa. He has not yet come to terms with the strife and the problems of national organisms and of people in a struggle for existence. I have an understanding of these matters, and that is why I can listen to him and the hon. member for Houghton and others for a very long time. I can listen to them and understand very well what they are saying, like a person doing missionary work who has to devote a lot of time, sometimes years, to the process of convincing a person. Sometimes it takes generations. Perhaps we will one day be able to get through to the grandchildren of the hon. member for Pinelands.

I am a missionary.

But I come now to the hon. member Prof. Olivier, a man who once knew the way.

He is a lost Afrikaner!

That hon. member, who went astray, ought to have a better understanding of the problems of Southern Africa. He ought to have a greater understanding of his own people.

I think I am a better Afrikaner than you are.

The hon. member can be derisive if he wishes. To me it is not a mystical concept, as it has recently become for certain academics. It is a reality. If one has become an integral part of the history of a specific nation, one ought to have a better understanding of it. In his initial approach the hon. member Prof. Olivier experienced the problem, or so I believe, that in principle he was not opposed to the creation of separate educational facilities for Black people. If we go back to the ’fifties, the days when the hon. member was still on the right road, we find that it was the hon. member who with great expertize established many of the basic principles of these matters. But somehow or other—and one would have to analyse this psychologically—he went astray. One should try to establish how it happened.

The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member Prof. Olivier both say they are opposed to this legislation in principle. If I had to summarize the principle now I would say that the principle of this legislation lies in the following: The establishment of a university which must provide tertiary training on university level for those members of the various Black nations who are present within the White area. That is in my opinion the principle at issue here, the principle that one is providing education on the tertiary level. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Pinelands who wishes, as I do—and I am saying this with great modesty and humility—to render a service …

As one theologist to another. [Interjections.]

In view of the atmosphere which that hon. member in particular, together with his party, is creating not only within South Africa but outside South Africa as well, I cannot understand how they can be opposed in principle to our providing Black people with education.

Nonsense!

But of course. They are opposed to the principle of this legislation. The principle of this legislation is to provide the Black people within the White area with education on the tertiary level. Surely that is what it is concerned with. They can come back in the end and say that they do not agree with the essence and nature of the NP’s view on universities. Hon. members referred in passing to the Van Wyk Commission’s report. The hon. member would do well to read the first two chapters of that particular report again and then he will understand what the essence and nature of a university really is. What we are discussing is a colossal matter. The university was conceived in the history of specific countries and circumstances and although there are certain things which will correspond, there are also certain basic things which will differ. If I may refer to the Old Testament, the hon. member will know what can happen to a person if he builds a Tower of Babel. I think the hon. member wishes to build a Tower of Babel in South Africa. He wants to do this in every facet of our pattern of living. These things just do not work that way. All I am saying is that the PFP is, in principle, opposed to the principle of this legislation, and I do not blame them for doing so. I think that they will have to rid themselves of a certain kind of pontifical attitude which they are displaying in the outside world and in this country as well. The NP are the people who are constantly being accused by thinkers such as those hon. members, and by politicians such as they and their kindred spirits in the rest of the world, that we in fact want to deprive the people of Africa of the best of the cultural world of Europe, of Western civilization. This is something which could also cause a great deal of tension in South Africa.

During the discussion of this legislation there were frequent references to the labour legislation in this country. I think the NP is faced with a difficult situation. There is legislation which it wishes to place on the Statute Book with great skill and expertise. This does not mean the abolition of ethnic diversity, but in that legislation one nevertheless wishes to lay down the principles in terms of which one not only has sound relations, but in terms of which one looks after the workers of this country but in which one does not merely abandon the other realities, social or communal. The hon. member for Pinelands said that this was a backward step. How can a man with intelligence say, in view of the history of the NP in respect of tertiary education for Black people as well, that this is a backward step when facilities are being created for providing an even increasing number of people with tertiary education? It just does not make sense. Surely the hon. member is an intelligent man. He has academic qualifications. Why does a person say these things without grounds for his statements, and without wishing to create further tension in South Africa?

Oh, please!

The hon. member is shaking his head now. I can hear it from where I am standing. But he must bear in mind that he is beginning to create a specific symbol in South Africa. The name “Boraine” and the position which he occupies, is beginning to represent a specific symbol. With this kind of terminology the hon. member is doing our good intentions an injustice. I shall return in a moment to the historical background in respect of education for Black people. The hon. member just does not like the mould in which our good intentions are being cast. He reminds me of the father who removed his child’s clothes and sent him out into the cold simply because he did not like the child’s colour scheme. Because he does not like our concept of a university and the way in which we want to constitute a university, the Black people must be deprived of tertiary education. I think that is wrong.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier asked a number of questions. I think the hon. member found himself in a rather difficult situation today. He understands ethnicity far better than many other members of this House. He also knows the basic principles which the NP laid down and I think he had problems in his heart or his caucus or somewhere, with the hon. member for Pine-lands.

No.

If the hon. member did not have problems with the hon. member for Pinelands, he is even deeper into the wilderness than I thought. He asked a question which the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to far better than I. He asked: Who told the hon. the Minister that he should come forward with this legislation? Who gave him the strength, insight or the wisdom to do so? Surely the hon. member knows how a government works. The hon. the Minister is the political head of a department. The officials in his department work with Black people as well. I want to tell the hon. member that there is a better relationship between the officials of that department and the Government and the Black parents and their children than hon. members on that side of the House imagine. After the Soweto problems a few years ago I paid a visit to Soweto myself and on one occasion, during a dinner, I sat next to one of the Black people. He was the principal of a school. After we had discussed all kinds of things, after I had told him who the Van der Merwes were, and I had heard who he was, I told him: “You are a school principal …

They are not the same kind of Van der Merwes as the hon. member for Green Point, are they?

No, they are not that kind of Van der Merwes. The Van der Merwes have their black sheep as well. I then said to the school principal: You are here in Soweto and all these things have happened here. Now tell me, leaving aside the arson and stone throwing, what is your speciality? What do you like doing? What would your choice be if you had to choose a class for yourself? I do not wish to mention his specific ethnic group, but he then told me—and I found this very interesting—that the class which he would choose for himself would be the class in which he could teach the children of his school to speak his specific Bantu language without blemish. What we are dealing with here is what the hon. member of the NRP mentioned, i.e. acculturation, detribilization, westernization, urbanization and all those phenomena. The point I wish to make is that the faculty of comprehension of the Black people and their ability to process realities does not form any part of the range of knowledge of the Opposition.

The hon. member also referred to the question of discrimination. From my knowledge of the history of my people I know that it was our aim, ever since the founding of the NP, to escape from discrimination. It is an integral part of our policy to get away from discrimination.

Oh, please, Daan.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member and I should not discuss the sentiments, values and ideals of our common nation. The hon. member ought to be just as much a part of it as I am. It is stated in our 12-point plan—and I agree with it wholeheartedly—that we want a dispensation and a society in Southern Africa in which people are able to preserve their identity, are able to respect one another and are able to have all the good things the New Testament talks about. Now the hon. member is saying that we are discriminating again in this Bill. I think that the real discrimination, which hurts, cannot be laid at our door but at the door of hon. members opposite. The fact of the matter is that we who supposedly have such a poor record wish to provide the Black people with education.

Now, having given a little attention to those two hon. members opposite, I wish to return to my speech. Let us focuss the light of history on this Bill. In the ’fifties most of us were young enough still to remember how the NP then laid the foundation of our concept of development and growth in Southern Africa.

That was the old NP.

That was the NP of which I was a member and of which I am still a member today. I am referring to the basic principles which were then laid down. I want to remind hon. members of the Opposition—perhaps I should be more careful now with the old UP, but the hon. member for Houghton was also sitting opposite—of the atmosphere which they created 20 to 25 years ago when the NP, taking one small step at a time, and out of nothing, began to establish an educational system for the Black people. Today it is very easy to say: “You could have done more; there could have been more of this, more of that.” It is very easy for one to blame one’s predecessors who are no longer here today for certain things. But they had to work under different circumstances. If one has to grapple with problems, one frequently feels like joining the PFP in simply criticizing the past, or of asking Jan van Riebeeck: “Jan, why did you not build a university when you arrived here?” Or perhaps one could ask Bartholomew Dias: “Why did you not establish a University of Lisbon here?”

What we must understand better in South Africa is that two worlds have converged here. I want to state categorically today that, in spite of all the weaknesses of the White people, wherever the White man is being withdrawn in Africa, greater problems are being experienced than there were in the time when they were still there. Here in South Africa if one takes away the sovereignty of the White man over himself or the goodwill which exists on this side of the House, people will see a different kind of settlement here in 200 or 300 years time than the one which we started here 300 years ago.

What did hon. members of the Opposition say in the past? The universities which we established at the time for the Black people were disparaged in the most atrocious language, not only in this House, but outside as well. The hon. members ridiculed and derided them. They cast suspicion on those institutions. However, what does the record state? Let me say in passing that the hon. the Minister made a wonderful introductory speech today. At the time we said that we wished to establish a broad foundation, such as that of a pyramid, a foundation on which we would accept ethnicity and recognize language and culture. We realized that certain values of a European educational system were being grafted onto the local system and that it would have to grow and that it could consequently not take root overnight. Education for Black people has perhaps not grown in the way you or I or the Black people themselves would have wanted it to, but in any event it has grown phenomenally. It grew to such an extent that universities which the hon. members opposite opposed at the time and in regard to which they said that they could never be true universities because they were not mixed, exist here in Southern Africa today as an ornament of which we on this side of the House are proud. I concede that new problems have emerged. As an idealist, I may perhaps have wanted greater separation, or greater consolidation. There are the aspiration which we had in our younger years, but certain things have simply not worked out that way in practice. We find ourselves with a large number of Black people who are living within the White area. That is why I say that we must, sui generis, seek a solution to the problem so that we can provide these people with tertiary education. But then we must do it with the best will in the world. Do hon. members know why the NP is succeeding, in spite of a poisonous world, which is opposed to it? Do hon. members know why the NP is succeeding? It is because our bona fides are above suspicion. I believe that. People could perhaps look at our small group of Whites here in South Africa today and think that we do not have any chance at all of surviving. Even then I still believe that we shall survive, because our bona fides are above suspicion, not only in regard to our own people, but also in regard to people of colour. That is why I believe—and I wish to state it categorically here—that if the good Lord spares us, we shall see, 10 or 20 years from now, the success of the tiny seed which is being planted here today.

I also wish to make another statement here tonight. Throughout Africa the so-called colonists have now gone, they have disappeared. Africa has remained, and the people of this continent carried on in their own fashion.

There are still a few colonists who remained behind in Pretoria.

I now wish to refer hon. members to a certain book, a copy of which I have with me here. The book was written by a certain Asavia Bandira.

It sounds quite interesting.

Yes, particularly if the authoress is perhaps unmarried. [Interjections.] The title of the book is The African University in Development. Well now, one should not of course merely quote from a book which suits your purpose.

That is correct. Of course you never do it yourself, do you Daan?

Naturally one ought to read the book in its entirety in order to gain a certain perspective concerning it. Nevertheless it is interesting that, towards the end of the work, which was written by a Black senior lecturer, who has been associated with two universities, the following is stated—

This is only a single sentence. Before I make my next statement, I first wish to read out another quotation. These are the words of a certain Dr. Thomas Alambo, Vice Chancellor of the University of Ibadan.

That is where Boraine received his doctorate.

In 1975 he said the following—

Allow me to rephrase this in everyday language. The White liberals—if I may call them that, and still continue to accept their bona fides—simply tried to transplant a system which was unique to them holus-bolus onto the Black man. That is just not how things grow. The hon. member for Parktown is not present in the House at the moment. After all, he is a man who performs heart transplants. In the case of cultures, national organisms, if we wish to call them that—it works in exactly the same way. A person can try to implant something, but the circumstances within those national organisms must be such that they make the implants viable so that what has been implanted can grow. That is why we observe in Africa today a return to certain things, actually a return to those basic things from which their patterns of living grew and took shape. That is why people today can see that what they left behind here, was not entirely acceptable to the people of Africa. The native inhabitants of this continent wished to give a distinctive content to these things. This applies not only in Africa which is Black, but throughout the entire diversity which we encounter in Africa. I wish to quote further from what this learned gentleman had to say—

I could not have stated it better myself. What the PFP will bequeath to South Africa is the alienation of people, which manifests an emptiness, a meaninglessness and a nothingness.

Therefore I can say to the hon. the Minister this evening that I believe it was wise of him to move the second reading of this Bill. The NP adopted a fundamental standpoint on this matter. I have no problems with that. It is true to our party’s basic principles and to our views of Southern Africa. After this, I think, a Select Committee, with all the outside skills we are able to muster, ought to scrutinize the Bill thoroughly. Hon. members of the Opposition have been harping incessantly on the reports of the commissions which have already sat. Those reports will quite probably be submitted to the Select Committee in question. Perhaps I shall agree with some of the recommendations myself; the NP will definitely do so. With other recommendations we may perhaps disagree. The fact that they are available to the Select Committee is what is important. The NP will set to work on this particular development in regard to universities as well, even if it is contrary to the desires and wishes and standpoints of the official Opposition. We shall succeed in this because fundamentally it is properly grounded and because there is goodwill on the part of the Government. That is why this, too, will be crowned with success.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik has presumed to make a lot of statements about culture, cultural awareness, national consciousness, etc. He also said that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South could not understand very much about those things. I must say he would find it difficult to understand them, of course, because he is married to the granddaughter of the adjutant to President Steyn. So he would not have any idea of what these things mean in a modem South Africa. [Interjections.] Just like all the hon. members on the other side, all of us on this side of the House also function in an ethnic context. We also function in an ethnic context, but we do not use it as a crutch. If the Afrikaner needed it long ago, perhaps, the young Afrikaners of today no longer need it. We are standing on our own feet. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Rissik says that the PFP would leave a South Africa which would be bereft of its culture. [Interjections.]

Be quiet over there at the back!

I challenge the hon. members opposite: let us go down to the river and see who is best at declaiming patriotic verse. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to continue his speech.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that assistance.

If the principle of the legislation which is now before the House had been that there are not enough study facilities for Black people, we would not have voted against it, of course. Hon. members must realize that. If the principle had been that satellite campuses are a good thing, we could also have supported it, but as I am now being told by hon. members on that side of the House, the real principle is that our universities must have an ethnic basis. This is the principle of the legislation, but that principle is not quite consistently applied. In this connection, too, I must therefore oppose the legislation, for at that university, Swazis, Pedis, Sothos and everyone else will be thrown together, and at the so-called White universities the English, Portuguese, favoured Chinese, etc., are thrown together. So the principle is not consistently applied. The only principle which in fact consistently applied is the principle of racism. This is pure racism.

Who wrote your speech?

Who made your speech consistently nonsensical? [Interjections.]

That side of the House only insists on ethnicity up to the point when they hand over the product, only up to the point when the students who have completed their training are handed over to the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He knows that no matter how hard we try to keep White and Black boys separate, they are bound to meet one day, in the work situation. There they will do their best for South Africa over the next 40 years. Let us compare this Bill with legislation considered over the past few days. The previous legislation provided that Whites and people of colour could serve as apprentices behind the same work bench, as welders and electricians, for example. This legislation, on the other hand, provides that the various races may not be trained together as engineers, doctors or advocates. [Interjections.]

Not a word out of them! [Interjections.]

We must train people to enter a technological era. Technology takes no account of ethnicity. As an engineer, I would not know how to do my job as an Afrikaner engineer. I have no such formulae. [Interjections.] I may hum Sarie Marais while designing a sewerage system, but in the end the toilet will not know who has just pulled the chain.

Finally, satellite campuses are a very good idea, but I still say that the marginal cost involved in training a student would definitely be lower if the training could be provided at established campuses. Then lectures would not be so thinly scattered either.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greytown, who has just resumed his seat, is a young member and consequently I shall not accompany him to the river to recite a verse to him.

He does not tell Van der Merwe stories.

Nor do I want to. The hon. member admitted in certain respects that it was a sound Bill and that we have sound intentions. He said satellite campuses were a good idea; he had no objection to them. But the hon. member let the cat out of the bag. The hon. member for Pinelands said that this was the ideology of the NP, whereas the hon. member for Greytown said that it was the PFP’s ideology which they were propagating.

Oh please!

Of course this is true. After all, the Opposition is propagating its ideology and we are propagating ours. We make no secret of this. We are not ashamed of our ideology as they are of theirs. [Interjections.] The young hon. member said that university education and satellite campuses were a good thing, but that they should not be confined to one ethnic group in one institution. That is their ideology—university education should not be confined to one ethnic group in one institution. [Interjections.]

Recently a brief report appeared in The Rand Daily Mail in which Prof. Bozzoli ostensibly said the following—

He said this with reference to a report of the Institute for Race Relations in which it was stated that in order to integrate education institutions in South Africa one should not start with the primary schools, for there one would run into trouble. One should start at the highest institutions, at the universities. This is exactly what the Opposition wants to do. Their ideology is integration, but they are ashamed to admit it. [Interjections.] If I were to introduce a Bill today in which it was provided that White universities were to be thrown open in order to train Blacks, would the Opposition have supported it? If I had suggested throwing open the Vista University, they would probably have supported it as well.

Yes.

But they now say that I must not introduce this Bill and that I should first wait for the De Lange Commission report. They would have supported it if it had been in accordance with their ideology. But if the De Lange Commission had stated that there should be a university such as Vista for the Blacks, what would they have done?

We would not necessarily have …

The fact is that they are hiding behind the De Lange Commission because they are hoping that it will assist them ideologically. [Interjections.]

No.

They say that I must not come forward with my legislation now, but that I must wait for the commission’s findings.

Are you afraid of that report?

I am not afraid. Why should I be afraid? [Interjections.]

Well, then, refer it to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

My predecessor appointed a committee … [Interjections.] … and it was not an interdepartmental committee as that hon. member maintains. It was a committee of experts, and I can mention their names. One cannot find greater experts in the sphere of universities in South Africa than the members of this committee. Their report was submitted to the department and hon. members themselves know that reports of that nature are neither tabled nor distributed.

Why not?

There is a limited number of copies of that report, but I shall give hon. members of the Select Committee the report for perusal. The committee commenced under the chairmanship of the present Minister of National Education who was then the principal of RAU. After he became Administrator-General, Prof. Retief, the principal of Medunsa, was appointed as chairman. Please note, a principal of a university. Another member was Dr. R. Cingo, chairman of the Council for Education and Training, an expert in the field of education. Then there was also Prof. P. S. Dreyer, head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Pretoria. There was also Prof. Dr. D. J. du Plessis, principal of the University of the Witwatersrand—please note, another principal of a university. There was also Dr. A. B. Fourie, Director General, Department of Education and Training, and Prof. W. M. Kgware, principal of the University of the North. Then there was in addition Prof. Dr. E. J. Marais, principal, University of Port Elizabeth and Prof. Dr. G. Marais, Director, School for Business Leadership, University of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, he is now a member of this House. Then there was also Mr. H. Nabe, student dean, University of Fort Hare; Mr. Nienaber, Director of Planning (Technical and Universities), Department of Education and Training; Prof. Dr. Nkabinde, principal, University of Zululand; Mr. L. M. Taunyene, member of the Council for Education and Training, school principal and chairman of a teachers’ association, and Prof. Tjaart van der Walt, principal of the University of Potchefstroom. Can hon. members opposite constitute a committee for me in the sphere of universities with greater experts than these? It is simply impossible. They cannot constitute a committee for me with greater experts than these people are. The hon. members of the Select Committee are going to be given this report for perusal. But I want to refer to a few matters in that report, for they will supply the answers to most of the questions which those hon. members asked and the reservations which they expressed. The one point which is stated on at least four occasions in the report and which is of absolutely cardinal importance, is the fact that the vast majority of the Black witnesses were overwhelmingly in favour of a Black university, and in general Black universities for themselves.

What do you say now, Helen?

They did not comment favourably on integrated universities, but asked for Black facilities. It is being mentioned that there was indirect evidence—there was no one who said directly that he or she did not wish to have a Black university—that there were also people who would prefer to go to White universities. But they were in the minority. The vast majority requested a Black university or universities for Black people. [Interjections.]

†I said the overwhelming majority of the witnesses were in favour of separate universities.

[Inaudible.]

That is so.

*Furthermore it was said that at undergraduate level it was desirable for the student to receive university training within his own community and that it was easier to move outwards to other universities at postgraduate level. The committee went on to say that it was in favour of the substitution of voluntary differentiation for compulsory segregation. Accordingly they would have liked to have seen a situation in which there was separate universities where people attended those universities voluntarily. [Interjections.] Surely it is not wrong to argue in this way. Hon. members will agree with me that since Black universities are subsidized more heavily by the State since the class fees at those universities are lower, it is essential to introduce a restricting factor. This is precisely what we wish to do with this Bill. A restricting factor is being introduced in that Whites will not be admitted to that university unrestrictedly. The university is being established for Black people because it has to be more inexpensive, for that is essential. The committee also recommended that a central training institution with decentralized facilities be established for the PWV area. Similar institutions were to be established in the rest of South Africa as well. Consequently the committee also came forward with the idea of separate facilities and satellite campuses. We are making provision for this here, for the whole of South Africa, in amended form. But the committee went further. I was asked what the reasons were for the recommendations which they made. The committee said that the reasons for the recommendation of decentralized facilities was that teachers had a tremendous need to take courses on a part-time basis so that they could improve their academic qualifications. This is a very great need among teachers. The teachers want to obtain degrees on a part-time basis because they are already teaching. A further reason advanced for the recommendation was the evidence of Blacks in favour of Black universities. There you have two of the reasons that were mentioned.

The committee also identified other needs. There is a great need for part-time facilities. I have already mentioned the teachers. The committee pointed out that the educational centres for adults were training an enormous number of people and that there were more than 100 000 candidates who wrote the matric exam in June this year. Those people have a need to study further, but on a part-time basis. The primary need is that of part-time study, as in the case of a person who works and wants to study at night. Furthermore there is a great need for personal contact education. The question was put to me whether this university is going to take over Unisa’s task. This is not going to happen. This university is not going to offer correspondence courses and is consequently not going to compete with Unisa or with any other university. The university is going to offer personal contact education where there is a need for it and where the people are. In addition it is said that the problems of most of the students could be alleviated by local tertiary facilities, and the priorities are the following: Firstly, the great need for graduate teachers; secondly, people who become qualified tradesmen and, thirdly, people with a technikon training. They say these are the priorities, and this Bill makes provision for those priorities.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

I put this question to the hon. the Minister during my Second Reading speech and wish to put it to him again. Why was this report not made available to us before this debate so that we too could participate sensibly in the discussion and not just the Minister?

Why is it a secret report?

No, Sir, it is not a secret report.

It is a secret report.

Sir, I shall tell you what the trouble is with that hon. member. His party speaks of open universities, but he is just as dense as the hon. member Prof. Olivier, who spoke about open universities the whole evening.

In regard to the question put by the hon. member for Pinelands in connection with the report, I want to tell him that departmental reports of this nature are not made available.

Some are.

There was no need for me to appoint a Select Committee, but by doing so, by appointing a Select Committee, hon. members opposite now have an opportunity to study this report otherwise they would never have had that opportunity. I am now giving those hon. members the opportunity to examine this report but I cannot give them the report and the evidence. Surely one does not supply evidence to a committee before the committee exists. The first step is, after all, to appoint the committee and then one submits the evidence. Or do they want me to become like the PFP? Must I walk back to front? [Interjections.]

On the basis of a committee of experts which identified the need, we are coming to this House to place legislation on the Statute Book to make it possible to establish this university. Once the council of the university has been appointed, it must appoint staff. Then that council must go further and determine the specific needs. It must ascertain which facilities are available. We know that there are educational facilities in all parts of this country. There is a fine teachers’ training college in Soweto which can be used for this purpose. This university can enable students who are being trained by that college during the day to take degree courses which are not possible at present. During the evenings that university in Soweto can enable the teachers there to obtain degrees on a part-time basis. In other words as far as buildings are concerned, it is going to cost us little or nothing. Surely this is a saving, and the hon. member for Durban North perceived this. But the members of the PFP are dense and they failed to perceive this, and that is why I say that they should stop referring to open universities. They must open up their own minds a little. The hon. member himself told me that there was a reserve capacity at existing institutions. We are going to make use of the staff of existing institutions, and not only such staff, we are also going to make use of people who are engaged in private enterprise in that area. Surely we can take an engineer and ask him: Do you not want to come and teach mathematics this evening? What is wrong with that? Surely we can ask a pharmacist: Do you not want to come and teach chemistry in the evenings? Surely there is nothing wrong with that. We can use well-qualified people. In other words, although there is a shortage of academics in South Africa, there is also a tremendous need among Black people to be trained. In order to do this we must make optimum use of our manpower and funds to establish the maximum facilities to achieve the best results. It is precisely in this way that it is going to be done. I also want to say to those hon. members opposite that I cannot understand why the hon. member Prof. Olivier is so dense. Do you know what he told this House? He told us that this R60 million which is going to be spent on Black universities this year, should rather have been spent on White universities.

Oh, please, I said nothing of the kind.

Yes, Sir, the hon. member did say that. He said that we should not make this money available to Vista, the university for Black people, but to White universities instead. The hon. member for Pinelands also told us that we should not proceed with this project. He has now become the person who says that the Black people must be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the White man’s table. [Interjections.] When the numbers of White students begin to level off we must use the Blacks to augment them. Then we must use the Blacks to augment those numbers because these universities function on the formula basis. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban-North told this House that at a certain stage in future there was going to be half a million students. Do hon. members want to tell me that they think that those half million students can be accommodated at White universities? Surely this is ridiculous. They cannot.

I want to go further and point out one more aspect. Hon. members on that side of the House say that there should be freedom of association. If they do not want to open a Black university and want to force this half a million people to attend White universities, where are they going to have the right of free association to go to a Black university, and where are the White going to have the right of free association to attend a White university? Something of that nature will not exist. [Interjections.] This is an ideological difference between this side and that side of the House. If the hon. members want to be courageous enough, they must stand up and say: “We are integrationists; we do not want separate schools and universities and we are working towards that goal.”

Quite right.

That hon. member is honest. We are not ashamed of our ideology. In politics it simply works this way. Political parties have different ideologies. In the end the ideology which does not take reality into account, which cannot stand the test of time and which is without scientific foundation, dies. The one which is right, triumphs.

I see that happening right in front of me.

In Iran the Shah had a 25-year development program in mind. His objective was to make Iran one of the great powers of the world within 25 years. The sphere in which he started, where he tried to bring about the most development, was the sphere of education. He initiated a fantastic education programme. He had satellites launched into space. He had television sets installed in people’s homes. He recruited the best educationists from America and they prescribed and broadcast programmes. Within a few years he brought down the illiteracy rate of the people from 80% to 50%. It was a phenomenal programme. With such a programme one could have expected that there would be no revolution and that the people would be satisfied. But in spite of that the revolution came.

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member. This is important. Why, under these circumstances, a revolution?

They were without political rights!

I shall come to that in a moment. Prof. Nadvi, head of the Department of Islamic Studies at the University of Durban-Westville is of the opinion that—

Consequently, there were too many foreign influences in education! What did the people of Iran do? When their feeling of security was undermined—they had the best scientists, but they were foreigners—they grasped at something concrete. They grasped at the Ayatollah, who is a spiritual leader and who had to bring them something concrete. They then became revolutionaries. [Interjections.] The National Party believes in separate educational channels for the various people because this is the foundation of stability.

But you are not consistant.

This is the foundation of stability. But hon. members on that side of this House are not interested in stability in South Africa. [Interjections.] They do not mind stability being undermined. They are not interested in its maintenance. We are not in favour of giving the Blacks only the crumbs which have fallen from the White man’s table and of using them only when we require their numbers. We are prepared to offer institutions which have full status, so that they can develop.

Brown bread as well!

Yes, brown bread as well! It does not matter. After all, it is a little cheaper. The hon. member for Pine-lands said that this Bill was at variance with the labour legislation. I maintain that this is not the case.

But it is true.

It is not true.

It is. [Interjections.]

Labour legislation makes provision for the creation of employment opportunities and possibilities for people. This legislation makes provision for their training to utilize those opportunities possible. In the White Paper of the Department of the hon. the Minister of Manpower which hon. members on that side of the House had before them, they would have seen, if only they had not wanted to read it in such a subjective and prejudiced way, but had opened their other eye as well, that it was stated there—

The hon. member Prof. Olivier says that I do not want to listen to his arguments. The fact of the matter is that they are the same arguments he advanced last year and the year before as well. I was unable to concede that they were correct then, for the same reasons that I cannot do so this year. The arguments are the same. He then said that one university could not make provision for all the different population groups. I want to say, as I have done before, that Rome was not built in a day. Surely we in South Africa did not start with ten universities for the various population groups. Surely there was no university for every nation in Africa at the beginning of this century. As I said in my introductory speech, a start was made with only one university, i.e. the University of Fort Hare. That was for the whole of Southern Africa. Subsequently we got another two, and where do we stand now? From the University of Fort Hare Transkei began with its own university; from the University of the North Bophuthatswana began to establish its university, and the University of the North is now engaged in establishing a branch in QwaQwa and in Venda as well, the embryo of a future university.

The hon. member told me that what I was proposing would come to nothing. I want to say that the day will arrive when every one of these nations will have its own university. Even now there are almost seven of them that have their own university or the embryo of a university. We are short of only three. Then the policy of the NP and what it stands for will have followed its course to the end.

The Vista University is also a start. This university will be in the hands of Black people. They will plan and develop it. There is a need for university training in Port Elizabeth, but who are the people who live there? A total of 85% of the people are from the Ciskei. Consequently the university facilities which are going to be established there will have a Ciskei-Xhosa character. I can assure the hon. member of that. We shall not be able to stop it. It is the law of nature that it will be so. We must leave everything to them. They will sort it out themselves.

We want to have this Bill placed on the Statute Book with the purpose of making available to the Black people the best opportunities and education of the highest quality in order to create opportunities for them so as to develop their potential to the maximum.

I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House who participated in this debate most sincerely for their well-thought-out and positive contributions and the replies they have given to the questions of hon. members opposite. Moreover, I want to thank those hon. members opposite who participated for their contributions, even though in my opinion they were not always educationally correct. However, their contributions afforded us the opportunity of stating this wonderful cause in which we are engaged.

I want to conclude with a reference to the hon. member for Pinelands. I think he said something which the Black people in South Africa and throughout Africa must consider to be an absolute insult. He said that the Vista University could not function on pedagogical grounds. Why did he say this? Simply because it was Black?

No.

For what reasons is it unable to function on pedagogical grounds? Does the hon. member want to tell me that the University of Zululand is not functioning on pedagogical grounds? Does he want to tell me that the University of the North is not functioning on pedagogical grounds? [Interjections.] They are functioning on purely educational grounds. For what reason cannot the Vista University also function on educational grounds and principles?

A university must be based on educational grounds rather than on ethnicity.

Why is the Vista University not based on “educational principles”?

Because a true education is open to all. [Interjections.]

What the hon. member is saying is that not one of the universities in Africa are based on true educational principles. Let me take the matter further and ask the hon. member whether he realizes that the great universities of the world, for example Oxford …

I know; I was there myself.

Those universities also have a quota system. They do not admit an unlimited number of foreigners to their universities. Those universities were established by the particular Governments, and in fact for a specific population group, for their own people. They do not admit people from the outside world without any restrictions. Because the universities in question were established with the money of the particular country and for the people of that country, they do have restrictions. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands also maintained that this was a backward step since a provision was inserted into the Act last year which enabled the University of the Western Cape to accept people other than Coloureds as students and also enabled the University of Zululand to do the same in regard to the Black people. I want to make it clear that the Bill we are dealing with now is in no way different from legislation pertaining to the University of the Western Cape and the University of Zululand. This legislation is precisely the same. Of course the hon. member for Pinelands did not read it.

Of course I read it.

The hon. member did not read it. It is exactly the same.

But you are limiting it.

Yes, but universities elsewhere are doing the same. Oxford is doing the same thing. I want to make one thing clear. There is one concept with which hon. members are making a grave mistake. There are open universities in the world as well. But they are not open in that sense of the word. They are open in the sense that they set no requirements for admission. They even admit people who have only std. 6, or who are not even at school. Every person can go and enroll there. In that sense they are open universities. But they are not open universities in the sense that an endless number of people flock to them and crowd the students of that particular country out of that university altogether. There is no university which is open to that extent. No university is that open.

In the sense of qualifications for admission, the Vista University is also an open university. Provision is being made for people to be able to take a degree course, people who may obtain admission if they have a matriculation exemption certificate. But the Vista University can also accept students who do not have a matric certificate. If, for example, the Small Business Corporation were to approach the Vista University with the request that it requires people who have to be trained to manage business enterprises, that university may accept students who do not have a matriculation exemption. It may offer them a course, may train them in the management of a business enterprise and issue them with the appropriate certificates. Surely this is service to the community. Moreover it is in this respect that hon. members opposite are failing.

The hon. member for Durban North failed in this respect as well when he maintained that if a person were now to go to another university, his culture would go under in terms of the NP’s standpoint. This is not the case. We believe that a university has a distinctive character. Each university serves its own particular community. The needs of the community in turn cause the university to develop in a specific direction. That interaction between a community and its university must be there. Then one has excellent education. This is an educational principle throughout the world, and is what the NP stands for. We want to give the Black people top-notch education and not crumbs, as the hon. member for Pinelands is proposing to give them.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In his statement on 6 February 1980 the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned, inter alia, that the Commission for Administration, in the organizational rationalization process, would initiate an investigation into the functional relationship between the Public Service and semi-State institutions with a view to the elimination of duplication and overlapping and the promotion of efficiency. Subsequently my predecessor requested the Commission for Administration to institute an investigation into the possible incorporation of the National Road Safety Council into the Department of Transport, and this investigation has since been finalized.

By virtue of the existing functions of the NRSC, as set out in section 6 of Act 9 of 1972, it is essential that an institution should exists which initiates, co-ordinates and evaluates research programmes on behalf of the council to enable it to advise the Minister of Transport Affairs on how to counteract road accidents on a co-ordinated basis. This institution should also, in accordance with the resolutions of the council, propagate road safety on a national basis by means of the mass communications media, courses and symposiums, or in any other way which the council sees fit to do so.

In the opinion of several committees of inquiry, as well as that of the existing council, the successful counteracting of roads accidents is to be sought in liaison, guidance, training and co-operation applied in a coordinated, uniform way, rather than in the mere implementation of the law. This task cannot be achieved in isolation on the various tiers of government. For example it is unthinkable that each provincial administration or local authority should individually attempt to promote road safety by means of the mass communications media. Consequently it is important that the task be entrusted to a central governmental institution.

The NRSC was established by the Government in terms of law and the councils forms a typical governmental function. By virtue of the Government’s involvement in road safety and the nature of the revenue of the council, and in view of the fact that the service is non-profit making, the promotion of road safety in South Africa must be classified as a purely Government service. In view of this, no motivation can be adduced as to why the executive machinery of the NRSC should not form part of the Public Service.

The functions of the NRSC not only extend over all population groups in the country, but over the years international liaison has been achieved, which led to the exchange of useful information and knowledge in connection with the counteracting of the road accident problem. Although no problems are foreseen if the executive machinery of the council forms part of the Public Service, it is important, with a view to the public image of the council, that its neutrality, or that of any similar body which could be created in future to promote road safety, should be preserved.

In deference to the two aspects which have just been mentioned, it follows that the National Road Safety Council as such will have to function outside the Public Service in order to retain its independence. The incorporation of the executive machinery of the council into the Public Service does not, however, detract in any way from this principle and in fact deserves strong support, particularly in view of the rationalization of the semi-State institutions and the fact that the executive functions of the council can be accommodated in the Public Service without any problems. These functions are closely related to the functions of the Department of Transport. Consequently that incorporation of the executive machinery of the NRSC into this department is being advocated.

Through the organizational incorporation of the executive machinery of the NRSC into the Department of Transport, a considerable saving of approximately R70 000 per annum will be brought about in respect of salaries in that administrative auxiliary services can be rendered to the NRSC by existing components within the Department of Transport without expanding the latter’s establishment. The organizational incorporation of the executive functions of the NRSC into the Department of Transport is in accordance with the general rationalization of the Government sector, as set out in the White Paper tabled during May 1980. Through such a step it is possible to do away with one of the multiplicity of Government institutions which, although rendering a purely governmental service, exist autonomously outside the Public Service.

The Department of Transport is at present engaged, in consultation with various interested bodies, in investigating the establishment of a transport advisory council. In considering the function of the envisaged advisory council, the existing functions of the NRSC will have to be taken into consideration for the sake of efficient coordination, and this could possibly lead to a restructuring of the NRSC. Provisionally, however, it appears to be essential that the NRSC, as constituted in terms of section 3 of the National Road Safety Act, 1972, should remain unchanged.

The incorporation of the staff of the NRSC into the Public Service has been thoroughly investigated by consulting the staff of the council itself, as well as the Commission for Administration and the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions. These talks culminated in the drafting of clause 7, which makes provision for this incorporation. Clauses 1 to 6, the preceding clauses, contain consequential amendments, as well as one or two improvements in procedure, for example those in connection of the delegations of the powers of the council.

†The second principle for which this Bill makes provision is contained in clause 9. Only a limited number of policemen are stationed at our official border posts. They perform duties on behalf of other departments as well and these other duties have become so time-consuming that the S.A. Police is not in a position to fulfil its primary objective, viz. protecting the safety of the Republic. The Police therefore requested the NRSC to relieve it of its duty to collect the 75c levy on behalf of the NRSC and which is attached to third party insurance. The collection of this levy is undertaken by the police at 36 of the 41 border posts. Since the NRSC does not have the staff to perform this duty and since the revenue received in this respect only amounts to 0,5% of the expected income of the NRSC for the 1981-’82 financial year, it was decided to amend Act No. 9 of 1972 accordingly and to abolish the levy on motor vehicles registered outside the Republic and entering our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced is, of course, a non-controversial one in the sense that it is designed to facilitate and improve the operation of the National Road Safety Council. The Bill does, however, deal with a subject of considerable importance to the public of South Africa, a public that makes extensive use of our roads and which is acutely oriented to the use and ownership of motor vehicles. One of the features of life in South Africa is the use made of our roads, the desire of the public to be mobile and the ease with which people are frequently prepared to travel what in many other countries would be considered very great distances indeed.

Before I comment on the specific provisions of the Bill and discuss some of the details, it is appropriate to consider the background to the whole question of road safety in South Africa. While it is correct to note that we are a nation of enthusiastic road users, both for pleasure and business purposes, that very fact produces concomitant problems, not the least of which is how to best ensure the maximum degree of safety on our roads. At this stage it might be appropriate to pay tribute to those who have been involved in the efforts through the years to educate the public with regard to the need for observing safety measures on our roads. The existing legislation, as well as the National Road Safety Council, has played a notable part in this regard in the years gone by. It is, of course, a never-ending problem and there can be no relaxation in the efforts to bring the dangers to the notice of road users. There is, of course, no absolute solution to the problem. Figures in South Africa would indicate that as far as road accidents are concerned, notwithstanding the attempts made to educate road users and minimize dangers, the problem is always a very real one. Last year, for example, we are told that there were more than 300 000 collisions on our roads, the highest figure ever in our history. The estimated cost of traffic accidents during that year to the South African economy was given as more than R1 billion. It is, therefore, a real and ever-present problem. Naturally, these figures are high because there is an increase in traffic, particularly in good economic times. Therefore the incidence of traffic accidents is likely to increase. According to figures given by the council, there was one motor vehicle for every 21 people in South Africa in 1950; by 1979 that ratio had increased to one vehicle for every six people in South Africa. With a population of approximately 25 million people, there were 3 880 000 registered motor vehicles in South Africa in 1979. If one compares that figure with previous figures, one can see the enormous increase in the number of motor vehicles on our roads. Naturally, therefore, there will be a greater incidence of traffic accidents. Therefore the need for road safety measures is underlined and the operation and effectiveness of existing legislation in this regard needs to be reviewed continually, as we are doing in the House this evening.

As the hon. the Minister has told us, the Bill is primarily concerned with the personnel of the National Road Safety Council and forms part of the Government’s whole rationalization programme. It does have the effect of bringing this personnel into the public service as part of the Department of Transport Affairs as the hon. the Minister has indicated. However, the Bill does not—and I am pleased to see it; the hon. the Minister has dealt with it—interfere with the quasi-independent status of the Road Safety Council itself. I hope it will continue to be the government’s intention to ensure that this semi-independent status of the council is not interfered with. I think that there is merit in a body of this nature with its particular functions not becoming simply another mouthpiece of the Government or of a department of State. At the present time, the council is fairly representative although, of course, the State does have a major say in its composition. Three of the 12 members of this council are the Director-General of Transport, the Director-General of Justice and the Commissioner of Police or their nominees, four are nominated by the Minister—I also think that certain guidelines are laid down in regard to the sort of people he should nominate—and the remaining members are representatives of the provincial executives of the various provinces. As I say, I hope that this character of the council will not be interfered with. Perhaps it can be improved and be made even more representative of people outside the Department of Transport Affairs. The measure therefore does offer to the personnel of the National Road Safety Council incorporation into the public service and presumably this will be of advantage to the people concerned, although I note from the report of the council itself that there has been a very low staff turn-over of council employees, certainly during the past year. The present staff establishment would seem to be 48 posts at head office and 111 posts at the various regional and branch offices. It is presumably these posts that are being dealt with in the rationalization which is the object of this legislation. I trust that with the rationalization in so far as staff is concerned we will not lose sight of the present shortcomings of the road safety campaign in South Africa that have been highlighted by the council itself, particularly the shortage of funds. I hope that in his attempt to save funds which the hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech, this will not be at the expense of the very valuable work which the Road Safety Council does in South Africa. For example, the last report of the council contained the following—

The report goes on to say—

These words speak of urgency and I hope that the hon. the Minister and the Department of Transport Affairs will take cognizance of them. I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister in this regard when he replies to the debate.

This brings me to clause 9 of the Bill to which the hon. the Minister has referred, the provisions in connection with the levy imposed upon motorists who enter the Republic—the levy in so far as the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act is concerned. The hon. the Minister has indicated that largely for technical reasons and because of the problems of the S.A. Police this levy is to be lost as part of the revenue of the Road Safety Council. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will be able to do so but I hope he can give us some indication of what this will entail. The levy is 75c per motor vehicle and it will be interesting to have some indication of what the loss will entail to the Road Safety Council because it has been part of their revenue in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation, therefore, where the Bill is going to facilitate the work of the Road Safety Council. I hope it will not result in diminishing the effectiveness of road safety campaigns and I hope, therefore, that the passage of this Bill will be to the advantage of road safety in South Africa. We on this side of the House are obviously going to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Berea, since he and his party support the proposed amendment. He expressed a few reservations about the autonomous independence of the National Road Safety Board, but I believe that the hon. the Minister will give him the necessary assurance in this regard. I also want to associate myself with the gratitude and appreciation that he expressed towards the staff of the National Safety Board for the contribution that they are making towards ensuring road safety.

It is true that these days road safety is something that everyone should be serious and concerned about, because road accidents are the leaking tap that is left open to the detriment of the economy of our country and of its manpower. It is a tap that is dripping every day and draining those resources. Over and above the indescribable suffering, misery and sorrow that road accidents cause, there are also the tremendous economic losses that have already been referred to. Furthermore, it also exerts unnecessary pressure on our health services such as medical staff and hospitals. Due to the increase in the volume of traffic on our roads as a result of the favourable economic conditions prevailing in the country, this is a trend that will make it necessary to be even more careful in the future.

The 1980 annual report of the National Road Safety Board indicates that deaths on our roads in 1980 increased by an alarming 1 535 cases in comparison with those in 1979 and that they have reached the figure of 7 572. The number of accidents on our roads, i.e. deaths and injuries, has increased from 71 186 in 1979 to 88 791 in 1980, which represents an increase of 24,7% and this is in spite of the fact that registered vehicles on our roads have not increased by more than 3%. Therefore, the fact remains that deaths and injuries as a result of road accidents are creating a tremendous problem for us. With its shortage of manpower, the Republic of South Africa, cannot really afford these losses, because it is unfortunately true that a person who is involved in a road accident, is usually a person who could have been put to productive use in the labour market. In this way we are, of course, losing a great deal in manpower and man hours.

I want to associate myself with the great appreciation that was expressed for the tremendous task which the National Road Safety Board carried out in the sphere of research, training and guidance in order to be able to combat this state of affairs. It has already been proved that the application of these methods for preventing road accidents, produces better results than the mere strict application of legislation. Unfortunately, it is also true than in this country we generally look at the traffic officer as a threat and a danger to ourselves as road users rather than seeing him as the protector of life and property which must be watched over on the roads.

The legislation also puts the rationalization of the National Road Safety Board into effect because the Board is now being amalgamated with the Public Service under the Department of Transport. Thus officials can be made available to the board and in this way some of these problems can be solved because we will have a better coordination and evaluation of duties. It will also influence the cost aspect, because it will bring about a saving of R70 000 per annum in salaries. We can relate this to the provisions of clause 9 which aims at eliminating the third party insurance of 75c per vehicle entering our country that registered abroad. This will mean a loss of 0,5% in the revenue of the National Road Safety Board. In the 1981-’82 financial year this loss will amount to approximately R20 000. In contrast to this, there is a saving of R70 000 in salaries alone. Therefore, once again we see that over and above the simplification of the matter, there is a financial advantage too.

The board’s staff is being amalgamated with the Public Service without forfeiting any benefits or rights that have been protected. This is also being welcomed by the NRSB as well as by the Department of Transport.

With these few words I want to express the hope and confidence that with a greater contribution towards and a greater support of manpower for the NRSB, road accidents, to which each one of us must give a great deal of attention, will drop in future in spite of the increase of vehicles on our roads that accompany the economic benefits and growth in this country. I also want to give my wholehearted support to the repeal of the provision with regard to the 75c in order to simplify the task of our Police Force too. I am pleased to support this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaufort West dwelt at some length on the effects road accidents have on our economy and also on the human tragedy which often results from these accidents. I think it was probably opportune for one of the hon. members taking part in this debate to dwell on this. In so doing, the hon. member has made a valuable contribution to the debate.

The hon. member for Berea, in his contribution, stressed the importance of road safety, especially in view of the ever-increasing number of vehicles and consequent number of accidents. When one looks at the growth of our population and of our economy, it is clear that one can expect an ever-increasing number of vehicles on our roads, and I am sure that as a result of this these problems are going to escalate. For these reasons we of the NRP agree that there is a great need for educational programmes to educate the public with regard to the hazards of the road. I believe this should be inculcated in our children at a very early age. I also believe a research programme should be undertaken by an organization such as the council into ways and means of reducing the occurrence of road accidents. Nevertheless, one wonders at times whether one can be other than a bit cynical about these things when one realizes what just the reduction of speed limits did to lessen the incidence of road accidents in recent times. When speed restrictions were imposed because of the fuel shortage, the number of accidents dropped considerably.

I am not going to dwell any further on that aspect, nor am I going to dwell at any length on the details of the Bill itself, because this has already been discussed by the hon. the Minister, and also at some length by the hon. member for Berea. What I do want to discuss, however, is the question of what is in fact going to happen as a result of this legislation. I wonder whether hon. members have really thought about it. What is happening now in terms of this legislation is that a council which was set up some nine years ago, a supposedly quasi Government council—by that I mean that it was not going to be staffed by civil servants, but that it was going to be a council divorced from the Public Service, employing its own staff to carry on research work and publicity campaigns—will in future have its actual administration and other functions carried out by public servants.

About time too.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga says it is about time. I think we could ponder over that. We could comment on that and also ask why it is about time. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that this was the result of the hon. the Prime Minister’s rationalization programme. If this is the case, one must then imagine what is going to happen in the future. Are other quasi government boards or councils—if this logic is to follow suit—going to be taken over by the various Government departments? Is this the sort of rationalization which the hon. the Minister envisages? He is shaking his head now.

One cannot put the Meat Board, for instance, under Government control.

Why not? I want to know why it has been necessary for the hon. the Minister now to come to the House and to say that because of rationalization an independent quasi government council is now going to be taken under the wing of the Department of Transport Affairs. Is the reason why this is going to happen possibly because in recent times the council has not lived up to its original expectations? Is this possibly the reason?

Yes, I bet it is.

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the debate that took place in this House in 1972, when the then spokesman on Transport Affairs of the old United Party, the then official Opposition, said …

You are quoting a dead man. [Interjections.]

He was not dead then.

In reply to a question I put to him …

Who are you quoting, George? Tell the hon. member for Roodeplaat who you are quoting. He says it is a dead man.

I am actually quoting Mr. Marais Steyn, who was then chief spokesman on Transport Affairs of the official Opposition. I quote what he said then (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 1691)—

I should also like to remind the hon. the Minister that at that time there was quite some argument in the debate. That was the Second Reading debate on the original National Road Safety Bill, which was introduced here by the then Deputy Minister of Transport. The argument went over the question of whether the then Minister of Transport had really thought this thing through. There were some objections from the official Opposition to the way the council was being set up. Now, nine years later, we find that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to dispense with an independent council and to put this council and all its staff under the administration of public servants. I must agree, however, that the council itself, is not going to consist of public servants. Nevertheless, the staff and the activities of the council are going to be administered by public servants. Could it possibly be that, owing to recent incidents, on which I am not going to dwell at great length, this has actually damaged the image of the council and the work it was trying to do? In other words, I am not just prepared to accept, as the hon. member for Berea has, that this is the result of rationalization and that it is going to end up in an improvement in the work of the council.

I should just like to say that I believe that the council has not done its job correctly, that there have been some faults there and that possibly the hon. the Minister has seen fit to put it under his Department of Transport Affairs where he can keep a closer watch on it. I do think that this debate does give one an opportunity to question the effectiveness of the council. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to tell us whether he is really satisfied in his own mind, when one considers the amount of money that is spent by the council, that the council is being as truly effective as it can be. Surely if one talks about rationalization and about trying to cut down inflation, every Government department, and every quasi-Govemment department must be examined with a view to cutting out inefficiencies and making every project as effective as possible so that our country’s public service can become lean and fit and not be a drag on the entire economy. In this respect there are certain things that bother me. Some time ago I believe the council approached the NIPR and the Human Sciences Research Council to do some research work for the Road Safety Council in regard to the training of truck drivers, the selection of truck drivers etc., and I have heard that this offer was withdrawn because of problems. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he feels that the administration of this council has been as effective as it could have been and whether he is going to be able to ensure that in the future it is going to be more effective.

The other question that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he has consulted the provinces and the various motoring organizations about this proposed change to take over the staff of the council by the public service, because I believe that he should have and I sincerely hope that he did consult these people. After all, we now find that the Road Safety Council’s entire activities are going to become part of a Government department.

There is also another problem that I have. We have heard so much about the shortage of public servants. At present, there are some 17 000 vacancies. Here we have a rationalization programme that is supposed to improve things. It is supposed to make the entire public service more efficient, but here we find that this rationalization programme is actually adding people to the public service. I put these questions to the hon. the Minister because I believe that the real reason for this legislation is that there have been problems in the administration of the council’s work. If one reads the earlier debates, some of these …

Give us an example.

The hon. member wants me to give an example but I am running out of time, so perhaps the hon. the Minister will see fit to inform the hon. member about some of the problems. In the light of these problems I think that it is possibly correct that the hon. the Minister should see that these activities are taken over by the Department of Transport Affairs. It is for these reasons and because of the good work that we know the department does in other fields that we shall be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation towards those who have elected me to this House. I also want to thank them for the confidence that they have placed in me and for the opportunity that they have offered me of taking a seat in this House, here where history is written and the future of our country is determined to a large extent. I am aware of my own shortcomings, but I shall continually strive to draw wisdom from the Source of all wisdom in order to enable me to attempt to make a contribution here.

It is a great honour for me to deliver my maiden speech here tonight, but I, the youngest member in this House, have a problem. I am in the unenviable position of having my voters sitting here together with me—because it is the hon. members here who have elected me—and I sometimes wonder how I should address them. Should I address them as “hon. members” or as “dear voters”?

I do not have a predecessor to thank, but I do want to tell my representative, the hon. member for Randburg, that I am breathing down his neck, figuratively at least since he is sitting in front of me; he must bear this in mind.

While I am here, I shall try to make a constructive contribution towards the business of the House.

Apropos the Bill that is on the table at the moment, we must take note of the fact that the death rate in 1979-80 increased by 25%, and in my opinion it will be a good thing of the National Road Safety Board participates in the greater dispensation within the rationalized Department of Transport, directly under the Minister of Transport Affairs. When we think of transport, I experience a great problem. When we think of transport as an integral part of the domestic economy, it becomes very clear that transport has played an integral role in the history of the civilization of the world. The discovery of the wheel can be considered in the first place as the start of great developments. However, it also set the process of civilization in motion, both literally and figuratively. That is why not only the population of South Africa, but the population of the entire world, expects a great deal from transport, because the standard of living depends largely upon transport. The reason for this is that in the first place, transport as the servant of the domestic economy makes a large contribution towards the prosperity of a country, since prosperity is chiefly determined by the mobility in a country. The best example of this is that when one calculates a mobility index and compares it to the level of economic development of a country, it clearly indicates that there is direct relation between the mobility of a country on the one hand and the level of development on the other. If one places the figures in such a mobility index on a scale of 100 and France represents 100, the mobility index of South Africa in relation to its socio-economic development is 78; that of Botswana 7; of Swaziland, 8 and of Lesotho 3½. From that we can see very clearly that transport as the servant of the domestic economy, is directly related to the level of socio-economic development.

It is very clear that production, distribution and consumption in the world, particularly in South Africa too, would not have been able to take place at the present rate if it were not for a well developed system of transport. At this stage mobility is very important as a stimulus in the domestic economy in order to bring about socioeconomic development. Without the infrastructure that is essential for providing transport services, it is impossible to increase the level of development or to enable it to act as a stimulus. In a country like South Africa it is essential that the expansion of the infrastructure should be continued. It has happened in the past that people in certain countries in the world, particularly in the developing countries, thought that investment in the transport infrastructure and the provision of transport services as the servant of the domestic economy, were enough to guarantee development.