Mr. Chairman, I move—

Schedule

Amendments to Vote No. 5—“Cooperation and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation in respect of the additional amount, particularly in connection with the additional amount of R5 323 000. We should also like the hon. the Minister to give us further information in connection with the supplementary amounts to be voted in respect of assistance to governments of self-governing national States, and then also in connection with the total amount of R10 929 000.

Mr. Chairman, in his budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that an additional bonus of R30 for Whites, R24 for Coloureds and Asians and R18 for Blacks would be paid out before the end of November 1981. This is therefore a non-recurrent amount of R18 per capita which will be paid out to Black people. The amount for old-age pensions is R3 858 000. This is for Blacks in White South Africa. Then there is also an amount of R13 000 for war veterans, which brings the total up to R3 871 000. For the disabled, for example the blind, the amount is R84 000 and for the physically handicapped, R1 595 000. This brings the total amount to R1 679 000. As regards child care—and this consists mainly of grants to parents—the amount is R56 000. The total amount then stands at R5 606 000. When the amounts of R3 871 000, R1 679 000 and R56 000 are added together, they come to a total of R5 606 000.

The hon. member also wanted to know how the break-down of the amount in regard to the national States. I furnish the details of this break-down with pleasure. For the aged in Lebowa the amount is R1 118 504; for war veterans, R3,438; for the blind, R44 784; for the physically handicapped, R101 124 and grants to parents, R1 350, which brings the amount for Lebowa to R1 269 200. As far as the Ciskei is concerned the amount for the aged is R639 774; for war veterans, R864; for the blind, R10 710; for the physically handicapped, R92 304 and grants to parents, R34 148, which brings the total amount to R777 800.

As far as the other self-governing national States are concerned I shall furnish only the aggregate amounts. If the hon. member requires the particulars I can give her those as well. The total amount for kwaZulu—that is for the aged, war veterans, the blind, the physically handicapped and grants to parents—is R2,514,000. The amount for Qwaqwa is R150 000; for kwaNdebele, R132 800; for Gazankulu, R296 200 and for Kangwane, R183 000. This brings the total amount up to R5 323 000.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 7.—“Finance”:

Mr. Chairman, before I put any questions to the hon. the Minister, I should like to welcome him back from his trip to the USA. As I am sure he is probably still suffering from jet lag I shall treat him very gently during this debate. According to the reports he does not appear to have disgraced us in Washington. On the contrary, the reports have all been very good.

Hear, hear!

Getting on to the Vote now, I should firstly like to deal with the question of the transfer payments of R10 000 000. This is the total amount of transfer payments. I should like to refer in particular to the amount of R1 950 000, which is the amount of further transfers to finance local authorities. Certain questions arise from this. Firstly, why did we vote an amount of R12 million last year, while, when the original estimates were presented this year, we voted nothing? Why do we now have this figure of R1 950 000? What explanation is there for this amount?

Secondly, the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech dealt with an amount of R30 million to be included in the supplementary estimates, being the total amount which would be required in addition as a result of the recommendations of the Croeser Committee. Where is this amount of R30 million spread around in the supplementary estimates? I have been trying to find that amount of R30 million which was going to be in the supplementary estimates, but I have not been successful. It may be that it is hidden in other amounts. So would the hon. the Minister please explain to us where that R30 million is in the supplementary estimates? Will he also explain to us the amount in connection with the transfer payments?

Finally, I should like to ask a question in respect of the provincial authorities. We have heard about the financial plight of the provinces, in particular of the Transvaal. When the Administrator of the Transvaal presented his budget speech it was a terrible tale of travail about the difficulties the Transvaal was experiencing in regard to finances. I cannot see how an amount of R5 544 000 is going to solve those problems. How has this amount been calculated? Why is it this specific amount? Why is it not a bigger amount, and what is being done in order to solve the financial problems of the Transvaal Provincial Administration?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has asked a whole string of questions which actually have nothing to do with this Vote and the amounts referred to above. The amount of R30 million is the total amount estimated for the take-over of ambulance services, as well as for the additional expenses which the State will now have to cover in regard to assessment rates now payable to local authorities. The amounts we have before us, which are being discussed at the moment, amount to a total of only R10 million. The amount of R10 million is the total amount arising from the recommendations of the working group in connection with the Browne report and is concerned with the take-over of ambulance services by the provincial administrations of the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State. When we therefore analyse it, we see that the amount of R8 050 000, which includes the first three amounts mentioned, viz. R5,5 million, R1,6 million and R0,8 million, is intended for payments in terms of the recommendations of the Croeser Committee. Those three amounts are for payments, in terms of the recommendations of the Croeser group which analysed the Browne report, to these three provinces, but since the Cape Province has already taken over part of the ambulance services, there is an amount of R1,95 million outstanding which will be paid over to the administration for the further take-over of ambulance services after negotiations with the Cape Provincial Administration. This is my explanation of how these amounts included under this Vote in this Schedule will be supplemented.

I do not know if this is relevant, but the R5,5 million to which the hon. member referred is not intended to solve the financial problems of the local authorities. I think the hon. member is aware of the fact that there are still four subcommittees which are at present considering additional sources of finance for local authorities in order to either solve or alleviate their financial problems. The recommendations of those four subcommittees in respect of additional sources of finance in order to assist the local authorities have not yet been received, and therefore no provision has been made for this.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his explanation so far, but I still have some difficulties. I appreciate what he has said, namely that the first three amounts represent amounts in respect of ambulance services and that the amount of R1,95 million relates to the Cape Province, even though it does not say so, because it actually says it is for “further transfers to finance local authorities” which has been a separate item in the budget and not related to the provinces. What I actually understand from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech is that even although it says “further transfers to finance local authorities” it does not mean that. It actually means a fiscal transfer to the Cape Provincial Administration, in which case it is under the wrong heading because the budget provides for the Cape Provincial Administration’s expenditure under another heading. This heading “Transfer to local authorities” deals with moneys that are transferred to local authorities direct; it is financial assistance. It is not transferred to the provincial administrations. Therefore this amount of R1,95 million is being voted under the wrong heading. I therefore think that the hon. the Minister will have to reconsider what in fact that is.

The second point I wish to make is that as this amount is purely for ambulance services, it is therefore clear that no relief is actually being given to the provinces themselves in respect of their financial problems. In other words, this is merely to help them out in respect of the assistance they are going to give to the local authorities. Therefore the question where the assistance is to the provinces as opposed to assistance being given purely for ambulance services and which is going to be passed on, is not dealt with at all.

The third point I wish to make arises from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. After he had dealt with the local authorities he said—

I repeat again: I do not see it. If one is going to say that each department is going to pay its own rates for example, then the hon. the Minister has not dealt with all the departments in the estimates. I assumed that the hon. the Minister would do it through the Department of Finance, but we are only dealing in these supplementary estimates with a total of seven Votes. So where is the R30 million that we were promised? It is not being voted and there is something wrong with these supplementary estimates.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not explain it properly or perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. That R1,95 million for the Cape will be dealt with in the same way as the amounts above, and they are all for ambulance services.

But do they go direct to the local authorities?

They will ultimately go to the local authority that will be operating the ambulance services. For the purposes of responsibility and co-ordination they still fall under the provincial administration which delegates its responsibility to the local authorities. The remaining R20 million appears under Vote No. 23.—item 4.

The hon. member can put a question to me about that.

That is the balance of the R30 million.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot debate Vote No. 23 now, but in view of the speech of the hon. the Minister and the assistance that was going to be given in the various categories, it would be wrong to put that R20 million under Community Development. I am therefore saying, firstly, that if the R1,9 million is not going to local authorities but directly to the Cape Provincial Administration, it is under the wrong heading and portion of the budget. Secondly, there has not been adequate provision made for what the local authorities were going to get in their correct categories. Nowhere so far have we been given an answer as to whether any money is going to be made available for the provinces. On the face of it this says “Fiscal transfers—Provincial subsidies”, but in fact it is not provincial subsidies but it is in order to enable the provinces to give it to the local authorities. The reality is therefore that the provinces are as badly off as they were before these supplementary estimates were presented.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 9.—“Internal Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, there is an item under the Vote of R4 800 000 for the “Development towards self-determination—Development towards self-government—contribution to the South African Coloured Persons Council”. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us some explanation of this figure. Quite obviously, we in these benches welcome assistance towards the development of self-determination and self-government for the Coloured community, but to the best of my knowledge there is at the moment no S.A. Coloured Persons Council. So I should like to have some explanation of what this R4 800 000 is going to be spent on.

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R4 800 000 is, as indicated, in respect of the S.A. Coloured Persons Council, and it is used for welfare services. The total additional appropriation of approximately R6,1 million is for the payment of pension bonuses to Coloureds and Indians, as the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in the budget. The former Coloured Persons Representative Council previously undertook that work, but it has since been dissolved, and the South African Coloured Council was then established by means of legislation, but it was discontinued, and as a result this amount still appears under the name of the S.A. Coloured Persons Council. However, it is being used in its entirety for the payment of pension bonuses to Coloureds and Indians.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister explained to us what the appropriated amount will be used for. Arising out of his reply I just want to know whether, in view of the present constitutional position, it is intended to bring the item definitions more up to date in the near future, so that one can see from the definition exactly what an amount is intended for, instead of its having to be presented as a transfer payment to a Coloured Council which was in fact never established.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that there will be a better definition in the next estimate of revenue.

Order! I just want to point out that all hon. members are actually able to discuss now, is the various additional items indicated here and the reasons for the appropriation.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 15.—“Health, Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister about the supplementary amount of approximately R5 million under the main division “Welfare Promotion”. Naturally, we on this side of the House support the idea of welfare promotion which includes care of the aged, the handicapped and children. What worries me a little, though, is the fact that the amount is considerably more than the hon. the Minister initially requested. I therefore just want to ask the hon. the Minister what the money is intended for and how it will be spent.

Mr. Chairman, the amount is classified under “Care of the Aged”, “Care of the Handicapped” and “Child Care”, but in fact it is all intended for bonus payments to the White aged, because there are elderly people in every category of pensioners.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister be more specific about the amount of R820 000 which is set aside for the care of the handicapped? Firstly, what is the amount to be spent on and, secondly, since there is the Year of the Disabled, will it be assisting in the relevant campaign for the aged? Thirdly, will it be assisting in the streamlining of by-laws applicable to the handicapped who suffer from disabilities that normal able-bodied people do not suffer from?

Mr. Chairman, I have just mentioned what the amount is actually for. It relates to bonuses paid out to various categories of White Pensioners. It has nothing to do with the Year of the Disabled or any other such item. That will be dealt with during the appropriate year, which is next year, not this year. This is only for the amount—announced later by the Minister—allocated for bonuses to be paid out to Whites who qualify.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 20.—

Mr. Chairman, under the main division “Agricultural financing”, mention is made of “Relief of Distress” and “Disasters”. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what distress relief is envisaged and to what disasters is he referringto. Under the main division “Industry subsidies and assistance” there is an item “Wheat and wheat products” for which a supplementary amount of R30 million is to be voted. Is this for additional subsidies on bread? Could the hon. the Minister also please explain the amount of R37 million in regard to “Maize and maize products”? Could the hon. the Minister also specifically explain why an import subsidy of almost R½ million has to be paid on lucerne?

Mr. Chairman, in connection with emergency aid there are two amounts, viz. R4,3 million and R21,3 million. This gives a total of R25,6 million which is now being requested. This is a part of the amount appropriated by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech for emergency aid as a result of the unusual disasters during the past few months. Here I am referring to the damage caused by the flood disaster and by the disastrous droughts prevailing in certain parts of the Northern Cape. In general, this is what these funds are needed for.

I should also like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that a supplementary amount of R30 million is being appropriated for “Wheat and Wheat Products”. This was also mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech. This is as a result of the fact that the price of wheat was increased whereas the price of bread remained constant after the recent increase. We are therefore asking for a supplementary amount of R30 million because we shall need an estimated R160 million to subsidize wheat during the financial year.

As regards the subsidy on maize I should like to mention that the Government has accepted the policy that the handling and storage costs of maize stored locally and kept for local consumption, are normally paid by the Government. I can also mention that in the main budget R50 million was appropriated for the maize industry, but as a result of the increase in the selling price of maize, a further amount of R37 million is needed, which brings the total appropriation in respect of the maize price subsidy to R87 million. I can also mention that a further subsidy of R14,6 million was granted on the local consumption of maize. This forms part of that amount.

The next point raised by the hon. member was the question of the importation of lucerne seed. As a result of the flood damage in the production areas there was unprecedented damage to our relatively small annual lucerne crop. As the hon. member may know, we normally meet our own lucerne seed requirements. As a result of the flood damage which we experienced, however, it was necessary to import approximately 10 000 bags of lucerne seed. As the overseas price plus the costs of conveyance to this country are much higher than the normal local price, there was a loss of R445 300 on those imports. The Government therefore decided that, in order to ensure that the country will have adequate lucerne seed supplies in the future, the imports must be subsidized to make it possible for producers to purchase seed.

Mr. Chairman, arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply, I should like to know who sold the lucerne seed to the farmers? Through which organization was it done? Was it done through a marketing board or was it done through a private organization? Or was it the co-operatives who sold the seed to the farmers?

Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member I can say that the importation was arranged through the Lucerne Seed Control Board, and that board allocated that lucerne seed locally to various distributors, whether co-operatives or private bodies. The importation as such, however, took place through the Lucerne Board, because if we were to allow everyone to import seed, it would of course be far more difficult to control the subsidy. In the second place, an artificially high demand for lucerne seed could arise in the outside world, where seed is of course in very short supply—and that could push up the prices even further. That is why importation is arranged only through the board.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 23.—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can furnish any further information on the three items appearing in the supplementary estimate. The first is the supplementary amount of R1 450 000 which has to be appropriated for national housing programmes for emergency aid to Whites. I want to know whether this amount has to be used exclusively for emergency aid to Whites, or whether there was not also in some way or other emergency aid for any of the other races.

The second item is the supplementary amount of R2 550 000 which must be appropriated for Community Development Fund Programmes for building and service projects. This supplementary amount is more than 50% higher than the original amount of R4 million in the main estimate for this Vote. I should like to know what this involves and why this amount is so high.

The third item is an item in respect of which only R9 million was to be appropriated in the main estimate, viz. financial assistance to various municipalities. That amount is now being increased by R20 million. Can the hon. the Minister explain to us why that amount has to be increased from R9 million to R29 million?

Mr. Chairman, the information with which I can furnish the hon. member, is that the amount of R1 450 000 is in respect of the erection of 50 rented units and a home for the aged at Laingsburg to replace the facilities which existed there before the flood disaster. The hon. member also asked if there was no similar damage which had to be redressed in respect of non-Whites. There was very little damage to non-White housing, especially at Laingsburg. Beyond Ladismith in Zoar there was a little more damage but that work is covered by the normal funds appropriated for the department. This amount is just for the 50 rented units and a home for the aged.

The full amount of R2 550 000 is intended for Laingsburg as well. Of this amount, R500 000 was for the acquisition of land for the town renewal programme which was launched as a result of the disaster. We had to purchase a number of plots there to launch a new housing project and, as I said, the R500 000 is intended for that. An amount of R600 000 is for a contract for the clearing up of the silt and the rubble left behind by the flood, of which the hon. member is aware. An amount of R1 million is for the establishment of a services infrastructure for which we shall eventually erect 150 dwelling units. That includes the 50 units already mentioned. The other 100 will probably be sale units and the 50 I have already mentioned will be rented units. An amount of R250 000 is also intended for a new shopping centre at Laingsburg and R200 000 for new sports fields. This adds up to the full amount of R2 550 000.

As regards the additional amount of R20 million which the hon. member mentioned, he can ascertain from the hon. member for Yeoville that the hon. the Minister of Finance announced a concession in his budget, i.e. relief in respect of municipal taxes payable on Government buildings in future, on a basis of 80% of the municipal valuation. This amount of R20 million is being provided for the remainder of the current financial year. The entire amount is being provided for that purpose. The hon. member will realize that it is a column 2 amount that I cannot use for any other purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to this amount of R20 million. If the hon. the Minister will look at the speech that the hon. the Minister of Finance made at the time of his budget, he will see that it was not 80% of the municipal valuation but 80% of the assessment rate that was to be paid. I assume that that is correct?

That is correct.

The second point that arises is: How is this amount of R20 million actually going to be paid? As the amount appears in the Supplementary Estimate it appears under the heading of “Subsidies, Financial Assistance, Contributions and Grants-in-aid”. Is this money going to be paid to every local authority that has Government buildings within its area of jurisdiction? Are accounts for assessment rates going to be levied in the same way or will there be an ex gratia payment? What is going to happen here?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that all State-owned buildings except those of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and of the South African Railways fall under the heading “State Auxiliary Services” of my department. As is usual, our department will receive an account in exactly the same way as any ratepayer receives in connection with his property. We shall receive these accounts from the various local authorities and our department will have to pay those accounts for all the State-owned buildings except those of the two departments I mentioned. This is only an estimated amount. Perhaps I should just tell the hon. member that we have not dealt with these matters before, and we estimated this amount at R29 million. We shall eventually have to see what the actual amount is.

Mr. Chairman, that is the very problem to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is why this amount of R20 million is that important. Where are the municipal valuations of the Government’s properties? The whole basis of valuation has been quite different in respect of Government properties than in respect of other people’s properties. Is the machinery actually available to do this and is it not really a question that the department will have to pay ex gratia amounts to the local authorities where they are unable to deal with it in an ordinary rating fashion?

No, Mr. Chairman, every State-owned property in every local authority area has its valuation. This has always been the case, whether we pay the rates on it or not. The department also has a valuation in respect of all the properties we own. We shall therefore not pay just any amount; we want an account which we can evaluate and then the account will be paid. The department will simply have to create the necessary machinery to be able to take this new obligation upon itself.

Mr. Chairman…

Order!

No ex gratia payments will be made. I can assure the hon. member of that.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that the debate which may be held on this matter, is limited to the subjects referred to in the Schedule. Therefore I cannot allow any further and more general discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I am talking about nothing else than the R20 million and I am telling the hon. the Minister that the proper machinery is not available. Let us take an example. The hon. the Minister says he is talking about his valuations, but the valuations that this department has made are irrelevant in respect of the question of assessment rates. My valuation of my property is irrelevant, but because there is a valuation roll, I have the opportunity of objecting to the local authority’s valuation of my property. This is the way in which rates are dealt with. This way, however, does not exist when it comes to Government properties.

I am warning now that unless the hon. the Minister agrees to pay the local authorities on an ex gratia basis, the local authorities are not going to get the money. This is the whole problem. I do not want the hon. the Minister to say next year that the legislation did not exist in order to do it and that he did not have a chance of objecting to the local authorities’ valuation rolls, he did not get the accounts and therefore he did not pay. I want to point out that the local authorities need this money desperately.

Mr. Chairman, I have already said that the department knows what the buildings belonging to the State are worth, for when the local authorities undertake general evaluations in their areas, they also place valuations on State-owned buildings. Every local authority therefore has a valuation of the State-owned buildings in its area. The hon. member should acquaint himself with the situation. We cannot debate it on this occasion, but I can assure the hon. member that we shall not pay out the money on a haphazard basis. We shall only pay it out when we receive a proper account which we can evaluate.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last Tuesday I was asking the House why it was that after 53½ sometimes turbulent years, under the present flag, we have reached the stage where the Government now considers it necessary to protect the flag with legislation. We must look deep into our present South African situation to find answers to this question. If our flag is becoming a target for provocative acts, it is a symptom of fundamental problems in our society, and fundamental problems require fundamental answers. If we want our flag to be an honoured and respected symbol of national unity it will not be sufficient to insert a new penal clause into the Constitution, no matter how draconian that clause may be. If we want our flag to be honoured and respected by all South Africans, White, Brown and Black, we need comprehensive legislation. I say it will be necessary to abolish apartheid. No penal clause can take away the bitterness in the heart of a man who has been denied his birthright. No clause can force pride towards the symbols of a nation from a man who has been robbed of his citizenship. In short, no Parliament can legislate for patriotism. Patriotism can only arise spontaneously from the heart of a man who has a sense of belonging and a sense of having a stake in the State.

With these remarks we want to make it clear that while we support the principle of the Bill in so far as the protection of a flag is an accepted principle in other Western countries, we nevertheless believe that the penalties prescribed in this Bill reflect a clear case of over-kill on the part of the Government. They have inflated the situation out of all proportion to its importance. We say that if the United States of America can pass through the trauma of the Vietnam period, when flag burning assumed almost epidemic proportions, with legislation which provides for a maximum penalty of one year or $1 000, then similar penalties surely are all we need in response to one brief emotional outburst at the time of the Republic Festival. We intend to move amendments accordingly at the Committee Stage.

The next matter I should like to refer to in connection with this Bill is the provision in clause 7 of the Bill which fundamentally changes the meaning of section 114 of the Constitution, which deals with the alteration of provincial boundaries. Section 114 of the Constitution provides that “Parliament shall not alter the boundaries of any province, …”, which is quite clearly a far-reaching prohibition in the Constitution, unless it is petitioned to do so by that province. The proposed amendment brings about a dramatic change in that section. The effect of this amendment is that the only prohibition in the Constitution will be that Parliament cannot alter the boundaries of a province, as between provinces, except on the petition of a province. It opens up a whole field for the Government unilaterally to carve up a province to create Bantustans. That has been the subject of the dispute. That is what all the fuss in the courts has been about. The hon. the Minister has claimed that when the Constitution of the Republic was passed it was not the intention of the legislature to limit the power of Parliament to alter provincial boundaries by the creation of new independent territories, but how can he say that when he knows the matter has been the subject of court cases and knows that the matter has been highly disputed? If it had not been disputed and if this question did not threaten to undermine the Government’s programme of creating new national States, why has he bothered to bring the amendment? I do not want to get into a legal argument on this point.

The main point I wish to make is that whatever the situation might have been at the time of South Africa’s becoming a Republic, this present clause is a replica of the clause which was adopted in the Union Constitution in 1910. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a fundamental contract of union that the territorial integrity of the provinces, which prior to Union had been independent States, should not be interfered with except by petition of the provinces. Bearing in mind that Natal in particular reluctantly joined the Union, I think it is safe to say that the Union would never have come about if it had been foreseen at that time, in 1910, that a future central Government would seek power to ride roughshod over the provinces and would simply take unilateral power to carve up the provinces’ territory to create Bantustans. I submit that if that had been known in 1910, the Union would not have come about.

I am therefore very surprised that the NRP in particular, the Natal Remnant Party, have been so meek and mild about this clause. The hon. member for Umbilo was a member of the Executive Committee of Natal …

Are you voting against this Bill?

We are voting against this clause, very much so. I am surprised that the hon. member for Umbilo, who was on the Executive Committee, said in his speech—

In view of the fact that Natal is the only province …

Because it is a fait accompli.

Of course, you are experts on provincial government, the whole bunch of you!

I have sat on a provincial council, and that hon. member has not. In view of the fact that Natal is the only province which still retains its original territorial integrity, plus East Griqualand, and is the only province controlled by the NRP, which has just fought an election to “keep Natal free”, and since Natal embraces a Zulu nation which is implacably opposed to Bantustan-type independence, I am amazed that the NRP is now so meekly falling in with a proposal which will put Natal at the NP’s mercy on the Bantustan chopping block.

Do you know that you are talking utter rubbish?

I hope that the people of Natal will take note of the fact that the PFP is completely opposed to this measure while the NRP has put up no fight at all.

A further point is that, in view of the fact that the Constitution makes provision for petitions to be submitted by provincial councils before a boundary is altered, I would have thought that a petition would have been necessary before this measure was introduced in the House. It is again just an example of a roughshod unilateral action on the part of the Government.

My final point is—and I say this in all humility—that I would have thought that for amendments to the Constitution …

You do not even know what humility means.

… one would seek some form of consensus in the House. There should be a Select Committee of the House to look at amendments to the Constitution and it should not simply have been introduced unilaterally by one side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react to the verbosity of the hon. member for Constantia, except to say that he as a backbencher, has now for the first time adopted a standpoint on the possibility of a Select Committee. The main speaker on the Opposition side is probably the man best qualified to adopt a standpoint in this connection on behalf of the official Opposition, but the hon. member for Green Point who is the traditional main speaker on the Opposition side on internal affairs, did not even refer to the possibility of a Select Committee.

Probably because of his humility.

Perhaps it is because he is as humble as the hon. member for Constantia would like to be. [Interjections.] I cannot escape one important conclusion, which is that the official Opposition endorses a double standpoint in respect of every specific subject. On the one hand they cannot afford to be accused of not having the degree of loyalty towards the country and its symbols which one expects of a loyal Opposition. On the other hand they cannot afford to have radicals accusing them of agreeing with other people when we want to protect those symbols either.

The second observation I want to make is that the official Opposition did not advance a single argument in respect of the legislation before us that the newspapers supporting them did not tell them beforehand to advance here.

To tell the truth, it is common sense.

I should like to analyse this.

The official Opposition says that it supports the principle that we should protect our national symbols. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was kind enough to advise me of an amendment he intends moving which creates a further offence in that it has the effect that if any person prompts any other person to spoil or harm the flag, or even to hold it in contempt, this should also be regarded as an offence. Notwithstanding the fact that this is not necessary, because the Criminal Procedure Act already makes provision for this, it reveals the double standpoints of the PFP. On the one hand we, the Government, are criticized and accused of being the cause of legislation having to be introduced to protect the flag, while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the other hand wants the penal measures for the desecration of the flag to be extended.

Harry’s wing and Helen’s wing.

Now it is Harry’s wing and Helen’s flights. [Interjections.]

I do not intend spending too much of my time on this aspect. All I want to say is that since the Government announced its intention of adopting statutory measures—and I want to emphasize the term “statutory measures”—to protect the South African flag, two standpoints in particular have emerged, standpoints I should like to deal with briefly. The first standpoint is the one which was also propagated here in this House by various hon. members of the PFP. It is that the penal sanction attached to the provision on the desecration of the flag is supposedly excessive. Most people acknowledge that in terms of Roman law it was already an assault on the majestas of a country if its national symbols were desecrated, held in contempt or insulted. In the Roman system a misdemeanour of this nature was also considered to be a serious offence. Surely I need not refer hon. members now to the penalties which applied in cases of transgression of the common law. What I cannot understand, however, is why no mention is made of the seriousness with which this kind of offence was treated in the legal system on which ours is based. An assault on the majestas of the State is one of the most serious offences which exists. Some of the people who are alleged to have desecrated the flag, are being charged under common law.

I should like to point out to the hon. member for Green Point the scientific standpoint which was adopted by the hon. member for Helderkruin in this regard. His standpoint was that the extent of the punishment imposed by the courts, depended on the nature of and the motive for the crime. Why is there consistent concentration on the maximum penalty, while no mention is made of the fact that the court has a discretion—a discretion which has been left untouched—to impose punishments in accordance with the seriousness of an offence? Why is no mention made of the fact that in terms of this measure absolutely nothing is being done to detract from the discretion of the courts even to caution and release people? On the other hand, however, if an assault on the symbols of the State is motivated by and intended as an actual assault on the security of the State, the penalties would of course be far heavier than would otherwise be the case. The entire motivation of his argument by the hon. member for Green Point, in which he was followed by other hon. members on his side, was indirectly that there was in fact fundamental disloyalty among certain population groups of the country to the flag itself and to the State dispensation which applies in this country. That is why in their arguments they are in fact the people who argue apologetically for those people who want to assail the symbols of the country because they do not like the specific State dispensation.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Yeoville says it is not true. He must read the speeches of the hon. members. I do not want to spend any more time on this matter, but that is how the hon. member for Green Point argued. Now I ask once again what I have been asking all along during this session: What do we want to achieve in this country? If we are all agreed that there are certain symbols of the State which must be protected, why do we not ask collectively for the protection of those symbols?

Unequivocally.

Yes, unequivocally and without qualification. If there are things in our society which are wrong—and I am the first to acknowledge that there are things which are wrong—why do we not try collectively to put them right? Why do we not do that? There are institutions in which and methods according to which we can bring about changes and reforms to put right what is wrong.

Put right unilaterally.

The hon. member for Green Point must give me a chance. After all, it was he who said that we should not lend ourselves to emotional outbursts here. Therefore he must just give me a chance and I shall reply to him. Any expert on politics and anyone who has at least taken the trouble to study reform processes, will understand that stability is a prerequisite for reform. When I say this, I do not mean stagnation. I mean stability. Any expert knows that when countries are in a process of transformation—politically as well—the conflict potential that seeks to destabilize the community is greater than usual.

Is that true?

Of course it is true. It is true on the one hand because people cling to privileged positions and on the other hand because peoples’ expectations are so high that they cannot be satisfied. If we then want to continue with such a process of reform, it implies in the first place stronger and further steps to stabilize the community than would otherwise have to be taken. When the Government, as it is now doing, takes steps to ensure that fundamental stability, it should not be interpreted as being nothing but further stronghanded or repressive actions. That must be our answer to those people who are seeking confrontation as a method of change. Now I ask reasonably: What institutions in a community are more emotionally charged than the symbols of a State? And what is more aimed at intensifying conflict than when those symbols are assailed and desecrated? For this reason I want to repeat that there is enough in this country we can differ about and that this matter ought not to be one of the points at issue.

Various hon. members of the Opposition and also the hon. member for Helderkruin referred to the debate at present in progress on changing the flag. In the first place allow me to say at once that the Government has no intention of changing the flag. In the second place I cannot think of a more unfavourable time to launch an agitation for the changing of the flag than at this very juncture when the Government has announced its intention of protecting the present flag. In my opinion such behaviour must necessarily lead to a lower value being attached to the flag we now have. This will destroy the effect of the legislation we are introducing here and will cause people to doubt whether we are really in earnest about wanting to protect our flag. I therefore hope that we shall now see a stop to the agitation to change the flag. In this connection I do not want to say anything further except to point out that the flag of South Africa is probably more distinctive than that of most countries in the world because it is the only flag I know of, that illustrates the course of history of a country. We can try to remove the symbols which caused division in our population in the past, but we cannot eliminate history. History will continue to exist, and perhaps it is as well that we in this country have a flag which is visible proof of the destructive effect which division can cause in a country. I hope that we shall now understand this.

The hon. member for Constantia said it was ironic that we were introducing legislation intended to protect the flag, while we are the party that introduced the Flag Act in 1926. However, I want to point out to him that it is not ironic, but an inevitable result.

A State’s sovereignty and its honour are vested in two symbols. The one is its flag and the other is its Head of State, and I need not tell hon. members that there was a time when the Head of State of our country had a dividing instead of a uniting effect on the national groups sitting here. I need not remind members, either, of the struggle and the form it took to get a Head of State who unites and binds together. In this regard I want to ask only one question: Have we as language groups moved closer together as a result of the acceptance of these symbols, or have we moved further apart?

†I should like to submit that the divisions amongst the White people in this country are no longer divisions on language lines. I say this because I believe that we have succeeded in crossing or transcending political dividing lines, whatever the language that we speak.

*This testifies to the fact that we have made progress along the road of growth and development. That is why I should have liked this House to reach unanimity on this measure. In this debate we had a repetition—especially in the speeches of the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Constantia—of how debates in this House can have a dividing effect on the other population groups living in this country. I should like to discuss this with him, and I want to do it in the spirit of that hon. member’s appeal which he himself made when he took part in the debate. We have not divided the community. It is divided, because the Creator divided it and history also divided it. The fact that the community is divided, however, is probably the greatest opportunity or challenge we have in this country, because we shall have to consider whether in spite of that we can find a method of living in order to use the diversity, caused by the division, as a basis to build the future on. But if we want to do in this House what is expected of us—and we can if we want to—I think we must first find ourselves before we give thought to other people.

†I should like to refer to section 114, which is being amended. I have specifically explained that the existing section 114 was intended to be applied when the boundaries between provinces were changed. In that case a petition from the province or provinces concerned was required.

*The provisions of section 114 are not entrenched provisions, and it remains a fact that a petition is not required even if we want to change our provincial boundaries. However, implicit in section 114 is the moral undertaking which was given that when this should happen a province should submit a petition to Parliament. The reason why an amendment is now being effected, is not to change the substance of the legislation, but to remove any uncertainty which may exist in other people’s minds. That hon. member need not sit there grinning like a hyena. Surely it is a fact that if one wants to debate the legality of steps in Parliament, there will be people—like the hon. member for Constantia—who cannot argue technically on legal matters and therefore cannot come to definite conclusions. That is why there is after all a legal principle that for the sake of certainty one should make doubly sure. The hon. member for Yeoville must please do me the favour of explaining to the hon. member for Constantia what this means. It is important.

I want to conclude by saying that here in this House there are not many opportunities where parties have the opportunity to rise above party divisions. There are not even many opportunities where hon. members are capable of availing themselves of that opportunity. That is why I think it is such a shame that we cannot avail ourselves of this opportunity to prove that it is possible.

I wish to thank those hon. members who support the legislation for their support, for example the hon. member for Namakwaland and the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member for Umbilo was attacked because he did not adopt a Natal standpoint. I think he adopted a purely South African standpoint, and Natal is part of South Africa. I want to congratulate him on doing so. As far as I can remember, that hon. member is the only hon. member in this House who is not a South African citizen by birth, and as such in my opinion he is an example to others of how to support the symbols of your country of adoption. I thank him for that. The hon. member for Turffontein argued emotionally and forcefully about the place which the flag must occupy in our country and in our national life. I also thank the hon. members for Durban Central, Helderkruin and Constantia for their support for this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The South African Citizenship Act, 1949, has been in operation for 31 years now, and the purpose of the Bill at present before this House, is—

1. (a) to make certain concessions to prospective South African citizens;
2. (b) to delete obsolete provisions; and
3. (c) to improve certain legal provisions in order to make the administration of the Act more effective.

A child born out of the wedlock to an alien mother who has no right to permanent abode in the Republic, has no claim to South African citizenship by virtue of birth and has no right to permanent abode in South Africa either. Even if such a child is adopted by South African citizens in terms of the Children’s Act, 1960, he still retains his alien status after adoption, and in this case the same procedure must be followed as that applicable to any alien to obtain a right to reside in the Republic, and subsequently, South African citizenship. In contrast with this section 6(1)(c) of the Act makes provision for the acquisition of South African citizenship by descent by a child born outside South Africa and adopted by South African citizens in terms of the Children’s Act, even if such child does not, at the time of its adoption, have a right to permanent abode in the Republic.

It is felt that a child born outside South Africa and adopted by South African citizens in terms of the Children’s Act is being given preference over a child born out of wedlock in the Republic of a mother who has no right to permanent abode, and who is similarly adopted by South African citizens. For this reason provision is being made in clause 1 for a child born out of wedlock of a mother who has no right to permanent abode in the Republic, to be recognized as a South African citizen upon adoption by South African citizens.

Section 10(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that an applicant for a certificate of naturalization will as a rule only qualify for such certificate for permanent abode in the Republic after a period of five years, and that he shall be able to read and write one of the official languages to the satisfaction of the Minister. After 20 years’ residence in the Republic the writing test falls away, but the applicant must still be able to read and speak one of the official languages satisfactorily. Artisans and technicians, who constitute the largest group of immigrants to the Republic, are deterred from a writing and reading test primarily because they do not need to be able to read or write either of the official languages in the performance of their daily task and practice in doing so is therefore lacking. Nor can immigrants be expected to learn to read and write a new language at an advanced age. However, such people are as a rule able to speak one or both of the official languages satisfactorily—in contrast to reading and writing them—and are therefore able to communicate satisfactorily with their countrymen. Mr. Speaker, the two official languages are entrenched in the Constitution Act and I want to emphasize that the Government places a very high premium on the ability of South African citizens, as well as prospective South African citizens, to have a command of at least one of the official languages. In addition to language proficiency a prospective citizen’s character, his ability to assimilate to the South African way of life and his willingness to act as a good citizen in South Africa are also aspects which have to be taken into thorough consideration. To maintain the balance between language proficiency and the other necessary requirements with which prospective citizens must comply, provision is therefore being made in clause 2(b) for a readjustment to the requirement for language proficiency with which an applicant for a certificate of naturalization has to comply, so that he need only be able to speak one of the official languages satisfactorily. Arising from the readjustment to the language requirements but in view of the high premium placed on language proficiency, provision is being made in clause 2(c) for the prescribed residential period of five years to be shortened to four years if an applicant is able to speak both official languages satisfactorily—in other words this is a built-in incentive measure to try to promote proficiency in both languages.

Mr. Speaker, section 10(11)bis of the Act provides that a certificate of naturalization shall not be issued to a person if he has not complied with the prescribed conditions within a period of six months from the date of notification of the grant of the certificate. Section 10(11) however provides that a certificate of naturalization shall not be issued to any person over the age of 14 years until that person has, within a period of six months from the date of notification of the grant of the certificate, taken the oath of allegiance. At first glance the said subsections contain identical provisions. However section 10(ll)bis was inserted in the Act for the purpose of requiring new South African citizens to receive their certificates of naturalization at citizenship ceremonies. However, the object of this subsection is inconsistant with section 11(1) which provides that a person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted is a South African citizen by naturalization with effect from the date of issue of the certificate; in other words, the fact that he has already become a citizen is in no way influenced by his taking the oath and attending the ceremony. In practice this means that even if a person neglects or even refuses to attend the naturalization ceremony he still acquired South African citizenship on the date on which a certificate was issued to him, and that the citizenship acquired can only cease if he formally renounces it or the Minister deprives him of it. In order to eliminate this inconsistency, it is being proposed in clause 2(d) that section 10(11)bis be deleted. In view of the fact that no problems are experienced with the attending of naturalization ceremonies by new South African citizens I do not deem it necessary to require them by law to attend such ceremonies. They do so gladly and in this connection the 1820 Settlers’ Association and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie are playing a positive role. I urge hon. members to attend these ceremonies because they are really impressive.

†Section 11A provides, inter alia, that aliens who are not older than 25 years automatically become South African citizens by naturalization on the completion of two years’ permanent residence in the Republic. Anyone who indicates, however, through a declaration made within the qualifying period of two years that he does not wish to become a South African citizen is excluded from the automatic acquisition of South African citizenship in which event he loses his right to permanent residence in the Republic. Section 11A was inserted in the Act in 1978 because of the fact that immigrants liable for military service who enjoy the privilege of permanent residence in the Republic and who meet with all the requirements necessary to apply for naturalization as South African citizens, could evade military service solely by declaring that they do not intend applying for South African citizenship. The said provision was directed at the children of immigrants and not at immigrants themselves.

Employers in South Africa maintain that section 11A has the effect of limiting their ability to recruit suitable qualified technical staff overseas. Artisans and technicians who comprise the largest group of immigrants have already received their training at the age of 21 and some young immigrants have already undergone military service in their own country. In order to bring relief to employers and after the matter had been discussed between representatives of my department and the Departments of Manpower Utilization; Industries, Commerce and Tourism; and the South African Defence Force, it was decided to recommend to Parliament that the age-limit referred to in section 11A(1)(a) be reduced from 25 years to 23 years. With the lowering of the age-limit to 23 years as provided for in clause 3(a) a person who is 21 years and one day old when he enters the country for permanent residence or when permanent residence is granted to him in the Republic, will be excluded from the relevant provision.

In terms of subsection (3)(b) and (c) of section 11A a person who has made a declaration to the effect that he does not wish to become a South African citizen cannot again acquire a permit for permanent residence or South African citizenship. In many cases these stringent measures cause undue hardship more especially in those cases where persons made the declarations with no ulterior motives and only afterwards discovered the far-reaching effect of their conduct. Those people frequently turn to my department for assistance expressing a sincere regret for the decision they have taken. Provision is therefore made in clause 3(b) for a ministerial discretion so that any person who had made a declaration may withdraw that declaration with the consent of the Minister and subject to the conditions determined by the Minister. Provision is also made in clause 3(c) for a person who has lost his right of permanent residence as a result of a declaration made on his behalf when he was still a minor, that he shall be deemed to have been in possession of a permit for permanent residence should be within three months after attaining majority make a declaration that he wishes to become a South African citizen. Consequently, such person shall acquire South African citizenship with effect from the date on which the lastmentioned declaration is registered.

’Section 15(1)(a) of the Act provides that a South African citizen who, whilst outside the Republic, and not being a minor, requires the citizenship of another country by some voluntary and formal act, automatically ceases to be a South African citizen. In contrast to this section 19bis provides that a South African citizen who, within the Republic, acquires the citizenship of another country on application, retains his South African citizenship, unless the Minister deprives him of it by order.

South African citizens who live abroad, approach my department from time to time with a view to being allowed to accept the citizenship of another country without thereby endangering their South African citizenship. The mere fact that such people approach the department beforehand in connection with the retention of their South African citizenship, indicates that they are not indifferent to their South African citizenship and that they do not want to break their ties with South Africa. Some of these people are women who are married to citizens of other countries, who have established themselves abroad and do not automatically through marriage have a claim to the citizenship of their husbands.

I feel that the absoluteness of section 15(1)(a) of the Act should make way for a ministerial discretion. Consequently it is being proposed in clause 4 that a South African citizen who is not a minor and who, whilst he is outside South Africa, acquires the citizenship of another country by some voluntary and formal act, ceases to be a South African citizen unless the Minister directs otherwise.

Section 20 of the Act makes provision for depriving a person who has acquired the citizenship of any Commonwealth country or of the Republic of Ireland by naturalization and who is deprived of that citizenship on certain grounds, of his South African citizenship. Section 21(2) describes the status of a person after he has been deprived of his South African citizenship in terms of section 20. After South Africa left the Commonwealth, sections 20 and 21(2) fell into disuse, and consequently it is being proposed in clauses 6 and 7 that they be repealed. A further provision which has fallen into disuse is contained in section 26, which makes provision for the issuing of certified copies of naturalization and registration certificates, and consequently it is being proposed in clause 8 that it be repealed. If a citizen loses his naturalization or registration certificate, he is provided on request with a certificate confirming his South African citizenship.

In view of the fact that it has been my department’s experience that objections from members of the public to the naturalization of a possible undesirable person are seldom if ever received, it is being proposed in clause 11 that section 29, which requires that a prospective citizen shall cause to be published in the Gazette a notice of his intention to apply for naturalization, be repealed.

In view of the fact that copies of certificates of naturalization are already filed in the applicant’s case file in my department, and on his population register record, there is an adequate record of the issuing of certificates of naturalization. Therefore it is being proposed in clause 13 that section 30(1)(a) and (c), which require that a register be kept of all certificates of registration and naturalization, be deleted. Clause 14 makes provision for the deletion of the provision in terms of which fees payable for the rendering of certain services may be prescribed by regulation. The present prescribed tariffs are unrealistic and result in the fees being levied not even covering the administrative expenses involved. In addition the procedure in respect of financial control entails an additional work-load which places an added burden on the limited available manpower.

Mr. Speaker, in general this Bill brings about an alleviation in respect of various aspects of our legislation on citizenship and the admission of persons into the Republic where previously measures of a very dogmatic nature existed. It is also interesting to note how many of the amendments contained in this Bill, are amendments to legislation which was in fact placed on our Statute Book not all that long ago. While we are of course pleased that a more pragmatic approach has been adopted, it is still interesting to note how practice has proved that a great deal of the criticism voiced at the time of the passing of the original legislation was well-founded. In general alleviation is being brought about and a more pragmatic approach is being adopted to a number of aspects which are dealt with in this Bill.

I am convinced that the amendment in this amending Bill that will meet with the greatest degree of public approval and that has to a certain extent already elicited a great deal of public comment, is the amendment which now makes it possible for a South African citizen to retain his citizenship, at the discretion of the Minister, when he acquires the citizenship or nationality of another country. This amendment undoubtedly brings about a great deal of alleviation in circumstances where in the past many problems arose for South African citizens. It is no secret that South Africans frequently find themselves in a situation where they must accept the citizenship of another country for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with their loyalty and their dedication to South Africa as their fatherland and which are also no reflection on the standard or quality of their dedication and loyalty to South Africa. It is a good thing the hon. the Minister pointed out how frequently South African citizens living abroad, make inquiries about this aspect and how worried they are that they can lose their South African citizenship as a result. For many South Africans it is increasingly difficult to five in certain countries, however temporarily, while they have been issued with South African travel documents. One thinks of professional people, people with technical qualifications, businessmen and building contractors in particular, people in the construction industry, who work for South African construction companies and operate in countries which very few South Africans ever visit and where South African tourists are not allowed. These people and their wives are frequently placed in a very uncomfortable position, not only because they are South African citizens, but also because they must rely on South African travel documents. I am certain that the amendment contained in clause 4 will bring about a great measure of alleviation for these people.

In this connection I also want to say that it is a pity that we did not give this degree of discretion to the Minister in legislation long ago, because there are undoubtedly a number of people who had to sacrifice their citizenship under specific circumstances in the past and particularly during the past few years as a result of the dogmatic nature of the legislation which has existed thus far. I want to express the hope that in due course something can be done to enable the people who have already sacrificed their citizenship and are eager to regain it, to do so. What we are actually saying is that people who have sacrificed their citizenship in circumstances under which they can from now on retain it at the discretion of the Minister, should be able to regain their citizenship under certain circumstances.

There are one or two other clauses in the Bill I should like to comment on. The first is clause 3. Here we have a piece of legislation which was placed on the Statute Book quite recently, i.e. in 1978, and which for the first time made provision for a form of automatic citizenship. Hon. members will remember that this measure was opposed by the official Opposition at the time. We argued, inter alia, that we did not want to see citizenship being cheapened on the one hand and being used as a way of penalizing people on the other. It was apparently aimed primarily at people trying to avoid military service. Again we believed and also said so, that there were other ways of involving these people and ensuring that people who have not undergone military training in their own country, can be required to do so in South Africa. It is a good thing that the hon. the Minister gave this specific reason as to why it was necessary to make this amendment. At present young people who can make a great contribution to industrial activities in South Africa owing to their training potential and who have already undergone their national service in their own country, could in terms of this section as it stands, find themselves in the position of being subject to military service in this country as well. We are pleased that clause 3 limits the use of this section, by reducing the age from 25 years to 23 years and, secondly, alleviates slightly the finality of the declaration made by such a person, who is always a young person, and creates the possibility that such a person may withdraw his declaration and in that way eventually qualify to become a South African citizen.

In this regard I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I should like to know how much time the hon. the Minister, under practical conditions, would give such a person to withdraw such a declaration? In a case in which such a declaration is made by or on behalf of a minor, there is a time limit of three months after the person has attained his majority. In the case of someone who has already attained his majority when the declaration is made, there is no specific provision in this measure, at least not as far as I can see. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to clear up this point for us.

Clauses 5 and 6 relate to sections of the Act which have fallen into disuse. It is always commendable when legislation which has served its purpose is removed from the Statute Book. I have no further comment to make on the amendments being effected in terms of this Bill. We shall therefore support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, naturally hon. members on this side of the House support the amendments to the Act which the hon. the Minister seeks to effect. I want to point out to the hon. member for Green Point that in the past, whenever I took part in debates on citizenship, we never tried to approach these matters dogmatically—in the bad sense of the word. Everything within the discipline of dogmatics is not always wrong. Every country must be extremely circumspect as regards its legislation on citizenship. It is true that one cannot choose one’s family. Whether they are related to one by blood or marriage, one has to be put up with them. However, when one has to do with immigrants, one is usually very particular as to whom one accepts into one’s community.

The fact is that the hon. the Minister has made certain concessions in this regard. I believe that these concessions are only possible because we have set down strong and stringent basic principles for ourselves in this regard. We have also, of course, learned a great deal in practice.

As far as the language question is concerned, it is true that although we have made a concession as regards people’s knowledge of the reading and writing of a language, it is not the intention that people wishing to obtain South African citizenship should lose sight of the fact that it is still in their own interests to learn to read, speak and write the languages of the specific country well. Because one can see a community or a people as a specific organism, which consists of separate and ordered cells, it is also logical to accept that that body, like any other body, can easily reject foreign organisms. This occurs frequently in communities and in countries. As the host country—if I may use the term—we must not of course be under the mistaken impression that our new citizens must be able to say and think and do everything just the same as we do from the very outset. Actually we must keep an eye on the children who come here with those immigrants, their children who are born here, and their grandchildren. It is a growth process, and we are therefore also thankful that our legislation has made it possible for new citizens to gradually carve out a niche for themselves here and become part of the South African community.

We must also take it that in due course, and as conditions here and elsewhere fluctuate, we shall receive sometimes more and sometimes fewer applications from prospective new South African citizens. Since at the moment, we need young men and women to strengthen our ranks, especially in the technological field, I believe it is sound policy not to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of new immigrants.

We on this side of the House therefore also support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are very happy to support this Bill because it has as its objectives the easing of citizenship in respect of a number of categories of people, and we, quite obviously, believe that this must be for the good of our country. However on this occasion I would like to say a few words on the general question of immigrants and to touch again on the matter that I raised by way of a question earlier in this session. Quite obviously the Government, as the amendments in the Bill indicate, appears to have seen the errors in some of the earlier legislation, particularly the Citizenship Act, 1949, errors which in effect closed off a terrific source of immigrants from Europe. At that time I think we had reached a figure of something of the order of 80 000 immigrants per year who were making themselves available to come to South Africa. Had it not been for the passing of the Citizenship Act, 1949, many of those people would, of course, have been here to this day and, in addition, their children would have been here. I should like to suggest that we probably would have had a million and a half more White people in this country today than is presently the case. That in itself would have been very nice, but what is more important is that we would have had the skills of those people, which would have been of incalculable value to us in South Africa in developing and building up our trade, and also in training other communities in the skills that are needed if we are to get the growth that is absolutely essential for peaceful development in this country.

Another problem that emanated from the 1949 Act was the question of people who came into the country prior to that. Incidentally, as a consequence of my putting the question I have received a number of letters from people from all over the country telling me why they are not South African citizens. They are people who have been here and who are eligible otherwise, but they are not South African citizens. One of the major problems is the fact that they would lose benefits from their home countries, the countries from which they originated, if they were to relinquish their existing passports. For example, some of them qualified for pensions in their countries of origin because at some stage or another they were contributors to a contributory pension fund in that particular country. Therefore they would lose those benefits. This is one of the reasons why people are not taking out South African citizenship. I wonder whether it would not be possible that where a person could clearly show that by relinquishing his original passport he would suffer …

It is not the passport; it is the citizenship.

I am coming to that. Where people lose their citizenship of another country, which by South African law they have to do, some concession could be made. I believe that these people would then very happily become citizens of South Africa. They would like to become citizens, but they are not prepared to take the quite substantial risk of losing a lot of money if they should in fact lose their citizenship elsewhere. Therefore, whilst I am a very firm believer in having undivided loyalty to a country and total commitment, I can accept that there are circumstances where people, with all the goodwill in the world, will not change citizenship. It is a risk they cannot take. As the hon. the Minister is obviously making very serious efforts to correct some of the problems that emanated from the 1949 Act, I would commend to him that he has a look to see whether at some stage in the future he can resolve this particular problem.

I must again refer to the large number of non-South African citizens. In reply to the question I put, it was mentioned that there are 295 200 non-South Africans, plus those who are awaiting citizenship, and recently we have been reading in the newspapers that there has been an enormous upsurge of applications from people who wish to come to South Africa. It seems very clear to me that the policy of the governing party is that these people, if they have the appropriate skills, will be encouraged and assisted, where practical and necessary, to come to South Africa. This, of course, I cannot help but support. After all is said and done, we are ourselves immigrants or descendants of immigrants and therefore we cannot criticize the concept of immigrants coming to South Africa. However, I repeat that it is important that these people should be encouraged to become citizens. One of the things that does worry me, is the impression that the Government for purely political purposes may be discouraging people from becoming citizens.

That is not so.

The hon. the Minister says it is not so, and while I personally am prepared to accept his word, there is the feeling that this is the case. I would be inclined to suggest that positive encouragement must be given to these people because if there is too great an imbalance between non-citizens and citizens it could create a very dangerous situation. At a time of stress and trial one will not be able to rely implicitly on a very large section of the White population. I do not, therefore, believe that it is in South Africa’s interest to have so many non-citizens and every encouragement should therefore be given to these people to become fully-fledged citizens as soon as possible. The question of military service is of course another aspect. If they are South African citizens they will willingly defend what is their own, but if they are not South African citizens one does not have the same authority over them. I believe that in our circumstances, in this peculiar stage in which the world finds itself—and it is not only in South Africa, because all countries seem to be going through a stage of lack of discipline, possible wars and threats of war, etc.—it is vitally important for us to ensure, as far as we practically can, the total loyalty of as many of our population as possible. I am therefore happy to support, this Bill and hope that the hon. the Minister will do what he can in regard to the other points raised.

Mr. Speaker, I rise only to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation. I do not intend to react to the speeches in detail, since we do agree with one another.

In reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Green Point, I just want to point out that there is no particular period within which the Minister has to exercise his discretion. The usual concept of what is a reasonable time is the concept which will apply.

I also thank the hon. member for Rissik for his support.

†I do not intend reacting to all the issues raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, but I wish to point out that the concept of dual citizenship—and this is what this is all about—is not an acceptable concept. The hon. member will realize that if one has such a system, people will, in times of strife, in any event leave because they are still citizens of the country of their birth. We would not want to force citizenship as a matter of principle on immigrants. On the other hand, however, there have been numerous arguments in favour of children of immigrant origin doing their military service, in the sense that if one enjoys the benefits of a country, one should also make a positive contribution towards that country. Citizenship also imposes duties when one is the recipient of certain privileges.

*I agree that there are many immigrants—in fact, I told the hon. member the reason for this when we discussed the matter during the discussion of the Vote—who have not taken South African citizenship for personal and financial reasons. However, I do not think that those people are disloyal to South Africa. It is just that they do not want to forfeit the benefits for which they qualify from their country of origin.

However, if there is any suggestion that the Government is discouraging people from accepting South African citizenship, I just wish to say that that is incorrect. If there is any further suggestion that this is being done for political reasons, that is also incorrect, because most of the people who come to this country, come here because circumstances are better here than in their countries of origin. We have no reason to think that we should not grant them their citizenship for political reasons, for in, practice that is not true. I can therefore reassure hon. members in that regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

By virtue of the provisions of section 84 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, the authority of the provinces over education is restricted to the education of White children. The education of Coloureds and Indians, as well as the education of Blacks, is regulated by legislation which is administered by my department and the Department of Education and Training respectively.

A few years ago the Government, at the request of White private schools, approved the admission to such private schools—and I emphasize the words “private schools”—of non-White pupils, in exceptional circumstances, with special permission from the Administrator of the province concerned. This has up to now been an administrative regulation. It has now become desirable to grant provinces the necessary statutory competence to empower the Administrators concerned to grant such permission in respect of non-White private pupils as well as to be able to exercize proper control over them.

*The proposal, as contained in clause 2 of the Bill before this House at present, is restricted to permission for the admission of non-White pupils to White private schools, and there is no such thing as the admission of non-White pupils to White public, i.e. provincial, schools.

It is also being proposed in the Bill that the Minister shall have the necessary authority to declare a White private school, in the public interest, for example if it were to admit large numbers of pupils from other population groups, as a private school for the education of a population group other than the White group.

†Since the provincial councils are unlikely to meet again during 1981, after this Bill becomes law, it will not be possible for them to pass ordinances to regulate this matter before admissions are considered with a view to the forthcoming school year. The hon. the Minister of National Education has, therefore, in view of discussions he has had with the Administrators in this regard, requested me to announce that notwithstanding the fact that the necessary ordinances may not yet have been passed by the provincial councils, applications for the admission of non-White pupils in 1982 should be submitted to the Directors of Education concerned, by the private schools, in accordance with the present procedure. In this regard parents and pupils must take cognizance of the fact that the admission of pupils without the permission of the Administrator could result in such pupils being disqualified from entering for examinations or from receiving certificates.

*Schedule 2 of the Financial Relations Act, 1976, contains those matters in respect of which the provinces may pass legislation if a matter of this nature were entrusted to a province by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Paragraph 4 of that Schedule specifically provides that the provinces have the power to pass legislation in respect of libraries and library services, whereas, as far as other powers are concerned with regard to which legislation may be passed, reference is made only to the subjects in question, for example museums. The present wording of the paragraph in question has consequently led to a narrow interpretation of the paragraph, with the result that there is uncertainty as to whether the provinces have the necessary power to pass legislation with regard to the introduction of a museum service, for example, although this relates to museums.

It is a recognized rule of the interpretation of the law that if the provinces are empowered to adopt legislation with regard to libraries and museums, for example, this also presupposes the statutory power which is reasonably required to establish, control and administer such institutions. In order to prevent problems in interpretation, it is consequently being proposed in clause 3(a) that reference by made in paragraph 4 only to the various matters with regard to which the provinces may pass legislation. However, because the word “museums” does not have such a wide meaning as to include “open-air museum and site museums”, the latter concepts are specifically being added to the paragraph concerned.

Although war graves are to fall under the control of the National Monuments Board as from 1 April 1982, when the National Monuments Amendment Act, 1981, comes into operation, the provinces are often requested to render services in connection with war graves, for example the cleaning of a site or the affixing of a name-plate, etc. That is why it is being provided in clause 3(b) that the provinces may pass legislation which may regulate the rendering of services in connection with war graves.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has made clear, the major items before us have to do with education. Therefore it is a little surprising to have this legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Nevertheless, I assume from the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech that he has had a number of discussions with the hon. the Minister of National Education concerning this matter of private schools. I am very glad that the hon. Minister concerned is also in the House.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is quite correct when he states that it is only really during the last few years that private schools have asked permission to give entry into their schools to children who are not White. It is also true that the provinces have responded—these responses varied from one province to another—on the basis of exceptional circumstances. In other words, it was not a blanket ruling, and it was not an “Open sesame” for these children. They were only admitted under exceptional circumstances, and each case was looked at before permission was given.

Clearly the time has come—indeed it is overdue—for authorization to be built into legislation. Therefore we have no quarrel with clause 2 which deals with the legislation which empowers a provincial council to make ordinances authorizing the admission of persons who are not White as pupils. We think this is right.

We are not nearly as happy with the additional word of “regulating”. It is true that the hon. the Minister said during his Second Reading speech—

Of course it all depends what the hon. the Minister means by that. Not having the regulations before us and not knowing what the regulations will be, it is difficult to know whether it is going to be a very rigid control or whether it is going to be a very flexible, open approach by the provinces concerned.

I say this, Sir, because clearly there have been some differences of opinion among various sections within the Government. Certainly, provincial Administrators have taken a different line in terms of granting permission for the admittance of non-White children to White private schools. For example, whilst it has gone rather smoothly in the Cape with virtually no problems whatsoever, this has not been true of the Transvaal. One recalls that in 1979, for example, only four of the 219 applications from Black, Indian and Coloured children for admission to Transvaal private schools were approved by the provincial administration of that province. We will recall that the then Administrator of the Transvaal was Mr. Sybrand van Niekerk who later graced those benches for a very short time and now has gone we do not know where. However, Sir, we are pleased that he is no longer in charge of that province. [Interjections.] I think it is a very good thing that he has moved on to new work.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that subsection (3) of the proposed new section 15A is the heart of this Bill. In this subsection we find an interesting phrase which we find in many pieces of legislation that have been introduced by this Government in recent years. In terms of this subsection—

The words “in the public interest” could on the surface mean just that, and who could take exception to it? If it is in the public interest, then obviously it must be observed. However, who decides what is in the public interest? We have found this phrase occurring in legislation again and again. In the Fund-Raising Amendment Bill which we dealt with only last week we had an example of what could be interpreted as being in the public interest. In that case it really meant in the interests of the NP. That is a very different thing from being in the public interest. I suggest, therefore that “in the public interest” could be a very good thing or it could have very sinister overtones. When we look at the power that is being given to the hon. the Minister of National Education in terms of this subsection, I feel we must ask: Who actually has asked for this? Once the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has had his briefing, I should like him to listen. As the provisions of this subsection stand, the admission of one single Black student—I want to quote the words “have admitted a Black person, a Coloured person or an Indian”—the hon. the Minister of National Education is then empowered to declare such a school a Black school, a Coloured school or an Indian school, as the case may be. On the surface again, so what? It is not a bad thing if private schools wish to open their doors and wish to accept pupils who are not White persons. However, we all know that there is a vast difference among the departments as they exist at the present time. I am suggesting that the education system for Whites as of now is very much superior to the education systems that obtain for Coloureds, for Indians and certainly, for Blacks. Therefore, for a private school to be declared a Black school, even if it accepts only one Black student, could be very disadvantageous for that particular school. If it is suggested for a moment that my interpretation of these systems is incorrect, let me quote Mr. P. S. Meyer, the former Director of Education in the Cape Province, who had this to say—

But these are private schools. We do not determine the system at private schools.

Yes, Sir, I know that. However, if this legislation becomes law, it means that a private White school can be deemed to be a Black school, a Coloured school or an Indian school.

A private Black school.

Yes, Sir, but then that school would no longer fall under the aegis of the hon. the Minister of National Education. Not at all. That school would be transferred to a different department.

I would have thought that because private schools are so interested in education, they would maintain their standard.

Of course, I thought the hon. the Minister would say that. He knows, as well as I do, that there is a tremendous backlog and there is a very grave danger, because of what is happening here, that this provision is brought into the legislation for the one reason alone, and that is to dissuade private schools from admitting Black, Coloured or Indian children into those schools in large numbers, because although it says “a Black” school, is that the reason, is that what is behind it? I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether that is the real underlying purpose about which, of course, it does not say anything in the legislation.

I shall react to that.

If that is the reason, what would happen if a White private school, for example in Port Elizabeth, Newcastle, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria or anywhere else, should enroll Black students and is then declared to be a Black school? Would such a school be in a position to continue to operate in a so-called White area under the present legislation as provided for in the Group Areas Act? Would it in effect mean that if such a school is declared a Black school, or an Indian or Coloured school, it will no longer be able to operate as an educational institution or a school in that particular area? If that is true, then I submit that this is a drastic threat to private schools to toe the line and to take a few token Blacks and hope that that will pacify them and keep them happy, but nowhere should they admit on a non-racial basis the students that they wish to have in their schools.

This is a very, very serious matter. On the one hand we have a situation where we have authorization, which at the moment is not satisfactory—I agree that we need that—and on the other hand we have this qualification of the regulations which we believe could be very serious. Much more sinister and much more grave, however, are the consequences which may well flow from subsection (3) of the proposed section 15A.

It is true that the Minister cannot do just that until he has consulted in terms of subsection (4) which provides—

It then lists the people or the bodies that have to be consulted.

However, once he has consulted and has listened, there is no reason and nothing which can prevent him from acting in terms of subsection (3). He does not have to get anybody’s permission or the consent of anybody.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he or the hon. the Minister of National Education has consulted with the private schools themselves. Has he talked with the Association of Private Schools and, if not, why not because this is going to affect them quite materially? Has he consulted with the Administrators? I assume, from the reference made in the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister, that such consultation has taken place.

With all four.

I am very glad to hear that, but did they all say the same thing? Silence!

But can you never be satisfied when you are told something?

Let me refer to subsection (5) which refers to the provisions of section 3 of the National Education Policy Act, 1967. What does section 3 actually say? It says—

It, therefore, does affect the legislation we are talking about—

I assume that the discussion which has taken place was specifically about whether or not the provincial administrators concerned agreed that this legislation was necessary and that it should be as it is before us and that they all four agreed in the same way.

The other point which I repeat because I think it is important, is whether the private schools themselves have been consulted. I would have thought that in view of the pending report of the De Lange Commission and of the general debate which is taking place in education circles today and the desperate need we have to provide the best possible education for all wherever possible, which necessitates a flexible approach, this Government would do everything it could to encourage private schools rather than to threaten them. It seems to us in the official Opposition that with this legislation the Government is trying to control and to coerce in the area of private schools in the same way as it is trying to control and coerce in almost every other area of life. To dissuade private schools from admitting Black pupils in any appreciable numbers is something that we are not prepared to support. It is a threat when they ought to be encouraged.

I should like to listen very carefully to the reply of the hon. the Minister. I see we now have a third Minister, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I am very glad because I think we need at least three to answer us. We will listen very carefully, but unless we get satisfactory replies to the analysis I have attempted to give—if I could be proved wrong we would be the first to acclaim that and we would be the first to give support to this Bill—we will certainly not support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands started off on a positive note in this sense that he said it was in the interests of everyone that there should be control. Then, however, the hon. member, as we could have expected, immediately started to argue from the ideological, the political point of view of that side of the House in respect of this specific legislation. The hon. member concluded by saying that unless explanations were furnished which were to his liking and which would satisfy him, they would vote against the Second Reading. This is not news to me. Nor do I think it is news to this side of the House. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to say, nor do I think that this side of the House would be frightened to death if he did, that they were for that reason going to vote against the Second Reading. No, I think that we should debate this whole matter from a different angle. I agree with the hon. member that it has become essential for the administrative regulation of the admission of persons of colour to White private schools to be controlled by law. Indeed the most important provision contained in this piece of legislation, if it were to be passed by this House, is that the provinces will be granted the right to entrust or to grant to the administrator in question the control of the admission of persons of colour by way of regulations.

When we come to the number of persons of colour who are being admitted to the private church schools, the hon. member for Pinelands made a great issue of the word “a” being used in the proposed section 15A(3). However, I believe that the hon. member for Pinelands is not really that stupid and that he knows that when reference is made to “a” Black person “a” Coloured person or “an” Indian, this refers to the stage when the balance may be disturbed. What balance am I referring to? It forms the foundation of the philosophy of this side of the House with regard to education—and we have discussed it repeatedly in this House and recently it was explained again by the hon. the Minister of National Education—that there are specific points of departure, the most important of which is that this side of the House believes, as far as White education is concerned, that it should have a Christian character and that, in respect of the other leg, it should have a broad national character, which means that there are to be separate schools for the various population groups on the basis of the universally accepted fact that this is pedagogically in the best interests of the different groups. It is not necessary for us to quote authorities in respect of this matter again. It is, however, a fact and what is more, the Government is committed to that standpoint before the whole nation.

In this regard reference was made to the best interests of the public—I think those are the words which were used. Now the hon. member for Pinelands is saying that this means that it is in the best interests of the NP. That is what he is suggesting. He may have said it in so many words. But what is the factual situation? On whose behalf is that side of the House speaking? On whose behalf is the hon. member for Pinelands speaking? On behalf of how many people is he speaking? Does he want to tell us that “in the best interests” must be in the best interests of the PFP supporters? The factual situation is that the NP represents the largest number of voters in any case. [Interjections.] For that reason the NP can speak of the public interest.

Of the White public of the Transvaal.

Furthermore the hon. member tried to make out here that the so-called educational systems differed. Now he must first tell us what he means by “educational system”. The factual situation is that as a result of historic and social circumstances and for various reasons, the education in the schools for the various ethnic groups will at present not be the same in respect of physical amenities, staff-pupil ratios, the nature of the qualifications of teachers, etc. For the most part, however, the systems remain the same. I said during a previous debate that if we were, in an irresponsible way, to try to play off the various education departments against one another this would not be in the best interests of White, Black, Coloured or Indian education.

Whom are you trying to bluff?

The fact of the matter is that drastic progress has been made, and the hon. member knows this.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must give me a chance to speak. I did not interrupt him. Drastic progress has already been made in the interests of the education of the Black people, which is specifically at issue here. The hon. member for Pinelands is aware of the fact that it is the truly sincere objective of this side of the House ultimately to give the Blacks, too, the very best education facilities.

The Department of Education and Training is endeavouring in many ways to give these people the best. When I now read this in conjunction with educational principles, something which cannot be disputed by anyone—the principle that it is in the best interests of the various population groups to acquire their own education within their own cultural milieu—surely it is necessarily also true that we must continue in this way. In that case I want to emphasize what the hon. the Minister said during his Second Reading speech, viz. that it was indeed true that we were dealing here with private schools only. What is also true is that we are not dealing here with the sudden throwing open of all Government schools. Nor is it in fact concerned with a direct and unqualified throwing open of private schools, as the hon. member for Pinelands rightly pointed out. This is also correct, and consequently I want to put the following question to the hon. member for Pinelands. If the number of White pupils comprises 95% of a White private school, and that percentage were subsequently to drop to 80%, and it were to happen at an even later stage that 60% of the number of pupils of a private church school were to be Black, does the hon. member for Pinelands still want that school to be considered to be a White private church school?

Never.

When I speak of 60%, it is merely a percentage I have simply chosen at random. The fact I want to convey to the hon. member for Pinelands is that if the normal balance were to be disturbed and the school in question were to consist for the most part of pupils of a different colour, it is only logical to me that it must, of course, be possible in that case for such a school to be classified as a private church school for Blacks. It may also be classified as a private church school for Coloureds or Indians, depending on the case.

The hon. member for Pinelands put certain other questions as well, questions to which the hon. the Minister will certainly reply. I am not dealing with them now. What I am doing is to submit to the hon. member for Pinelands that if we wish to be logical, if we wish to be consistent, we must concede that such a school may at a specific stage lose its White or Black character, or whatever the case may be, on the basis of the number of pupils or teachers at the school in question. That is all this Bill is stipulating. That is what it is dealing with.

Yes, go ahead; close them down.

We are not here to implement the Progs’ policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to content myself with these few thoughts. We on this side of the House support this legislation, principally on the basis of the fact that it regulates matters more effectively and eliminates certain deficiencies which existed. In this way matters are now being placed on a firm foundation. For that reason we gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Pinelands, we in the NRP are very happy to support the concept involved in clause 2 of this Bill—in other words, to legalize an already existing situation and to allow provinces to pass legislation in order to control this existing situation. In so far as that specific aspect is concerned, we are quite happy. There are, however, certain points which, we also feel, could be modified or improved. The hon. member for Pinelands also raised the point of a Black or a Coloured or an Indian in this respect. It seems to be a little unreasonable that one could convert a school as a result of the presence of one single individual. If it were a question of an excessive number of pupils of a specific race or colour there would be a sense of reasonableness about it, but for the law to be amended in such a way that as a result of the presence of one person a school could be changed to a school under Black, Coloured or Indian authority, does seem to be unreasonable. On that particular point therefore we also are most unhappy.

The hon. member for Pinelands also put the question about whether a school, if changed to a Black, Coloured or Indian school, could operate in terms of the Group Areas Act. That can of course be done in terms of permits. I do think, however, that that is merely en passant.

I should like to come back to the practical realities of the situation, however. In Natal I had quite a bit to do with the situation.

I am quite prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that one can make a quorum …

Thank you. However, to come back to the practical realities. When it comes to non-Whites of one category or another attending private schools, we in Natal from experience found that there were not really a great number who made application to attend private schools and in fact attended private schools. There were those who wanted to, and we believe, in terms of our own political philosophy, that in so far as private schools are concerned they themselves should have the right to choose what sort of pupil categories they have. It should be a question of the local people having the local option. This is the general philosophy of we people in these benches. However, as I say, the position was that there were not a great number who applied for entry to private schools and, if I recollect correctly, there were quite a considerable number who went to private schools in the first instance but found the situation rather tough and did not particularly like it. They therefore did not stay there for very long and sought other means of being educated. The point I am trying to make is that there is no reason that I can honestly see why private schools could not have been given a freer hand altogether in this regard. I think it must be borne in mind that all parents whose children attend private schools are not raving liberals. Parents whose children attend private schools have a variety of attitudes. Certain of these private schools might have had a tendency to overdo the admittance of excessive numbers of non-Whites, they may in fact as a consequence have suffered some difficulty in the enrolment of White pupils. I do not think that any school is going to be deliberately unreasonable in this regard, and that is why I believe that it could have been left to the private schools, because most of them are not too keen to destroy themselves, especially those with a long tradition and history. I think very few of them would have gone to excessive numbers in their schools.

We support this legislation in concept because it is an improvement of the present situation. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to answer me one question, because it is not clear from the Bill what the situation is. At the present moment the provinces, where they have permitted schools to have non-White pupils, do not make a subsidy in respect of those non-White pupils.

They are not allowed to do so in terms of the Act.

That is right. They do not do it. However, in terms of this Bill will they now be permitted to do so …

Yes.

Thank you. I just wanted to be sure on that.

Mr. Speaker, I think the major objection of the hon. member for Umbilo was met by the hon. the Minister’s indication that he was in fact prepared to replace the singular by the plural in the proposed subsection (3) of clause 2. For that reason I am not going to elaborate on it further. Nevertheless I do think that in this regard, too, one should just point out a kind of dual morality which is emerging here, in the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands in particular and to a lesser extent in the argument of the hon. member for Umbilo. On the one hand these hon. members are strongly opposed to the implication that a damper is now being placed on the flow of Black, Coloured or Indian pupils to White private schools. They find it unfortunate to see in this amending Bill a restriction of this nature. On the other hand, however, these hon. members get very worried when it becomes apparent that a school which admits White pupils could now suddenly be declared a Black school. It does seem to me as though deep down they are suffering from a bad case of the Black Peril syndrome.

We on this side of the House support the amending Bill because in our opinion it is fully in accordance with the policy of separate schools for the various population groups. I believe that one should also point out that this specific policy is certainly not as abnormal as the official Opposition and overseas critics contend. In this respect I just want to quote what a well-known Negro leader had to say about this matter. Earl Douglas writes as follows—

I believe that this Bill is in all respects in accordance with the Government’s policy of separate schools for the various population groups and that this policy is not abnormal, but in actual fact normal. That is why we on this side of the House support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the political parties breathing down his neck in his constituency, I can understand why the hon. member for Randfontein has to adopt a certain line. However, I find it astounding that he says that this amendment is in line with Government policy of separate schools for the different racial groups. If that is so, how can he explain that this whole Bill is related to multiracial schools? This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with separate schools for the different population groups.

We on this side of the House will certainly be prepared to move an amendment changing “a Black”, “a Coloured” and “an Indian” into the plural, but in spite of that we will still oppose the Bill because we do not accept that even that qualification will make it acceptable.

I think the hon. member for Virginia misunderstood the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands said that we welcomed the fact that in terms of the proposed section 15A(1) provision for the authorization of admission of pupils who are not White to White private schools is now made. He did not say that control and regulation in regard to those schools would be desirable. However, I do not think that the hon. member for Virginia intended deliberately to misquote the hon. member for Pinelands.

I just thought that he was more clever than he actually is.

I found the remarks made by the hon. member for Virginia very interesting. He spoke about White-character and Black-character schools, as if the only parameters that education could have were racial connotations, i.e. a Black or White school or Black or White education, etc. Is it not possible for a school to have a Christian, Jewish or Roman Catholic character, depending on the group that is supervising the education at such a school? [Interjections.] I think that the hon. member would do well to heed some of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in recent months where he has time and again drawn attention to the fact that in his view the struggle that we face in South Africa relates to defending Christian principles, etc., as opposed to talking of White principles and White civilization.

You have no idea what that is all about.

As a former science student, I am very interested in the concept of white and black mathematics and other racial educational concepts … [Interjections.]

One man, one vote.

It is really amusing that in any debate with the NP one always hears some hon. member on that side call out “one man, one vote”, like the Pavlovian dog that reacted when the bell rang. An hon. member shouts “one man, one vote” in the hope that that would unnerve the PFP speaker.

The hon. member for Virginia says it is only logical that if 60% of the pupils of a school are Black, the school should be regarded as a Black school and not a White school, even though 40% of the pupils are White. Perhaps one of those hon. members on that side of the House, or more specifically the hon. the Minister, could tell us what happens in the case of schools that do not have more than 50% of the pupils coming from a specific group. For example, what about a school in which 25% of the pupils are Whites, 25% of the pupils are Coloureds, 25% are Blacks and 25% are Indians?

Put them under Community Development.

What kind of character will that school have? [Interjections.] To suggest therefore that education as such has a racial character is to make a mockery of the concept of education.

Hear, hear!

I do not think you should discuss education.

I think the hon. member for Pinelands was very kind in his Second Reading speech.

As always.

I say this because in my view this part of the Bill, the proposed new section 15A(3), is in fact nothing more than straightforward intimidation of the private schools in this country.

Yes.

I do not believe that it is merely a case—as the hon. member for Virginia would have us believe—of the apartheid ideologues demanding ideological neatness and having everything rounded off in the right way. I believe that this is straightforward intimidation and nothing less.

It needs to be seen against the broader context of what has been going on in this country for many years now, i.e. the denial of the recognition of the cultural rights of English-speaking South Africans. It is an on-going process.

Oh come on, now you are talking nonsense.

There was a survey published last week showing that 85% of English-speaking people were in favour of open universities. One only has to look, too, at the English service of the SABC or the censorship of English literature. In these spheres the story is the same as that in the case of the schools. We are dealing with cultural imperialism, and it has been confirmed today by the hon. member for Virginia. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Virginia told us that what is happening here is not happening because it is something the English cultural group in this country wants, or because it is something that the Black cultural group—if there is such a thing—in this country wants, but in effect because it is what NP ideology demands. I call that imperialism. It does not affect me personally, because my children are not involved, but when it comes to interfering with the educational systems of churches and religious communities, with the cultural aspects that are involved, I believe that there is also an element of religious imperialism involved, if not religious persecution of those religions in that respect.

Milner’s grandson.

Private schools in our country have played a valuable role. Within the English cultural group, at least, they provide a freedom of choice in education because they provide a variety of avenues, with varying degrees of religious and other differences. They also provide for a great saving to the State. In the Cape Province alone private schools save the State something like R10 million per year, which the State would have to pay if those schools were to be entirely dependent on the State for their income. Most important of all, however, is the fact that they are preparing the ground for the future in this country, because anybody who believes that in a multiracial society, such as ours, one can have indefinite peace and security without a multiracial school system, is living in a fool’s paradise.

Hear, hear!

Yes, like you.

One must ask oneself what the NP’s problem is. What are the actual problems those hon. members have with these private schools? What problems have been generated by such private schools admitting Black pupils? Let me tell hon. members what the problem is. The problem is that the multiracial schools are working. That is the problem.

Where?

Yes, they are working. [Interjections.] All over the Cape, for example, they are working. The hon. member for Rissik asked “Where?”. We are not, however, now in his constituency where they seem to cancel sports matches when one child happens to be the wrong colour. He can come to many schools in the Cape Peninsula or go to many other parts of the Cape Province and see where it is working, where the numbers of applicants of all races for those schools have been increasing and not decreasing. There are, of course, adjustments when there are changes at any school, but the systems are working, and the parents of the White children as well as the parents of the Black children are happy about it.

Do you believe in integration?

The other problem is that under this system, at least as it is operating in the Cape, the White parents can choose and the Black parents can choose, and that, of course, goes against the grain for any person who has an authoritarian orientation. The idea of people actually being able to choose what they want upsets them no end. [Interjections.]

Do you believe in integration?

The hon. member could not have been in the Cape Town Gardens Constituency during the last election, otherwise he would have known that I said then, as I shall say time and again, that I not only believe that it is a right. I also believe that schools should be open to all children in a neighbourhood, which means that one will then have multiracial schools. I believe it is not only a right and desirable, but I believe that in due course it will be essential in South Africa. I believe that where schools have been publicly provided in a neighbourhood, all children living in that neighbourhood should be admitted, only with normal academic qualifications as the yardstick. [Interjections.]

Do they want to bus the children out of their neighbourhood?

The last session of the provincial council that I was involved in before coming here was in February this year, and at that stage it was known that I was to be a candidate in Cape Town Gardens, which was held by the NP at that time. During a speech in the provincial council I was asked whether schools in the Gardens area, such as Jan van Riebeek, Cape Town High and others, should be open to all pupils in the neighbourhood, and I unequivocally said “Yes”. Hon. members on the other side then said: “You will lose your deposit! You are finished!” I told them what they could do with their deposit. My words were repeated in a leaflet distributed to all the voters in Cape Town Gardens, and I am pleased to say that despite that during the last election our party doubled its support in that constituency.

“Swart gevaar”.

Yes, it was straightforward “Swart gevaar”, but it backfired because the vast majority of the people, and I think large numbers who are still Nationalists, recognized the need for adaptation in that area. We are, however, talking about private schools and their right as private schools to choose what they want to do.

The hon. member for Virginia referred to the phrase used by the hon. the Minister, namely “if he deems it necessary in the public interest”. The hon. member of course made a Freudian slip, because he tried to equate people with White voters. That is, of course, how the country is run. It is run in the interests of the NP, and the NP is run in the interests of maintaining unity and power, which means getting the support of White voters.

Who do you represent?

The national or public interest stretches a great deal further than the interests of Nationalist White voters.

Whom do you represent?

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay is in pain, he must leave the Chamber, and if he wants to ask a question, he must stand up and ask it.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens please tell me whether he represents any other voters but White voters?

I obviously represent only White voters because it is so in terms of the law.

Why don’t you speak on their behalf then?

What I am saying, however, is that I do not equate public interest with the people who support the PFP or with White voters at large. The White voters in South Africa happen to constitute something like 16% of the population, and the public interest of South Africa does not consist only of the interests of 40% of the White population who vote for the NP. [Interjections.] We are talking of fewer than 10% of the population.

You are a minority candidate. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay really has doubts with regard to what people who do not happen to have the privilege of an effective vote in this country feel about this matter, he could give them a chance. I should like to know of reputable Coloured, Indian or Black leaders, representative ones, who do not believe, in the context of the private schools which we are discussing, that there should be freedom of choice. If the hon. the Minister can produce those people, those educationists, those real political leaders, and not some puppets, I would be interested to meet them.

Of course, they will always be puppets as far as you are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at this legislation one asks oneself what the need for it is, other than to try to intimidate private schools. I want to suggest that the only need for this legislation and the only reason why we have it before us today, is that the governing party in this country today is trying to satisfy the insatiable appetites of the verkramptes in its midst who form a very large section of it. The Government is doing this despite the harm it will cause in private schools, despite the harm it will cause in education in South Africa, and despite the harm it will cause to good race relations in this country.

Mr. Speaker, one finds it difficult to understand hon. members on the other side. It is quite amazing. When the hon. member for Pinelands spoke this afternoon, I presumed that he was still the main speaker for that party on education matters. When he spoke, the hon. member said that they reserved their right to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and that it would depend on the replies given to their questions.

And we got them.

No, I am replying to the debate. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands used to be a man of the cloth.

What does that have to do with it?

Simply that I want to accept the truth of what the hon. member said. [Interjections.]

But you are not the Minister of National Education.

I am the Minister in charge of the Bill.

But the Minister of National Education is the chief spokesman on education matters. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now, Sir, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, a back bencher, who wanted to pay his deposit by means of a credit card, comes along here and, notwithstanding the attitude of the main speaker on that side, announces that that party is going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, irrespective of any answers they may receive. If I understand the rules of this House correctly and if I understand the conventions that apply in this House correctly, the person in charge of the Bill is supposed to give the answers to the questions posed by hon. members of the opposition party. We all know of those rules, but I wish to go further. I wish to refer to the audacity of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He has said that we are guilty of cultural imperialism.

Hear, hear!

I should like to remind the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens of the real meaning of cultural imperialism. The hon. member need not go very far back in history to find out who in fact the cultural imperialists were.

You are making the same mistake.

The hon. member need not go further than his own party. He must ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North how people suffered because of cultural imperialism. He must ask that hon. member how my language was suppressed in this country. And by whom? By British imperialism! Then the hon. member has the audacity to accuse this side of the House of cultural imperialism!

Are you trying to get your revenge?

Order!

Let me take it further, Sir. The private schools to which the hon. member refers are mostly English-medium church schools, but what did Bishop Clayton say? He said that the private schools of his church should be unreservedly British.

But he was wrong.

If they should be unreservedly British—I am glad to hear that hon. member’s remark that he was wrong.

Why did they advertise overseas for a headmaster? [Interjections.]

All I want to say is that I do not believe that the hon. member and the hon. member sitting next to him and who calls himself an “Anglikaner”, have any right whatsoever to talk in this House or anywhere else about cultural imperialism.

They have the same right as you have.

I should like to come to the hon. member for Pinelands. He raised many issues to which I should like to reply. Let me say immediately that the fact that I am handling this Bill is not sinister.

I did not say it.

I am not suggesting that the hon. member said it. The hon. member will, however, understand that the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for the provinces. This is the only explanation why I am handling this Bill. I hope he will accept it.

I accept it.

What is the position in terms of the existing section 15 of the Act? Section 15 lays down the various matters on which the provinces are entitled to spend money out of their funds. In terms of the Act the provinces are not entitled to spend money on the education of other children than White children. In practice it occurred that notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, the Administrators allowed the admission of pupils of colour to private White schools and to legalize the situation …

But they did not subsidize such pupils.

The hon. member should allow me the opportunity to proceed.

By voting against the Bill the PFP is now denying them the right to do it.

Of course not, not at all!

The hon. member for Pinelands should not now argue with the hon. member for Durban North; I am now replying to his questions. [Interjections.]

The fact is that because it is recognized that there are circumstances where the admission of children of colour to private schools might be advisable, we are now proposing to amend the Act to entitle the provinces to spend money on the education of those children who are attending such schools.

This is a principle for which the PFP has been fighting for years.

In other words, if the hon. member for Pinelands opposes the principle of the Bill—remember this is the principle of the Bill—he then, in fact, is saying that Parliament should not allow the provinces to spend money on the education of those children of colour who attend private schools.

But they are excluded.

Of course they are excluded. The mere fact that we have the Bill in front of us is an acknowledgement that they are excluded; we now want them to be included. Therefore, if the hon. member votes against the Bill, he is in fact voting against the provinces being allowed to spend money on the education of those children.

*The hon. members must tell me how I am to understand their logic. I am discussing the principle and not numbers. Legislation is before us in terms of which we seek to authorize the provinces to spend money on the education of children other than White children.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a propagandist for integrated education, but at the same time he states that they are going to oppose this legislation. Now he has the arrogance to attack the logic of the hon. member for Randfontein, while in fact he should be speaking to the hon. member for Pinelands and himself.

If he spoke to himself he would only confuse himself.

Do you know why? He does not want to know the facts.

*I do not apologize for the standpoint of the Government.

What is that standpoint?

I intend to expound it now. The standpoint of the Government is that there ought to be separate schools for each community. The standpoint of the Government with regard to the education of children is that that education has a cultural component, because we do not merely provide children with factual knowledge.

What are the facts? The Government’s policy with regard to education is based on the fundamental and inalienable principle that every population group in the country should undergo training in its own schools. Once again the hon. members opposite may differ with us in this regard, but that is our standpoint. Secondly, because this is our standpoint, it cannot be permitted that large numbers of children from one population group attend the schools of another population group on an uncontrolled basis. This would prejudice our standpoint. Thirdly, this does not prevent the children of non-White diplomats, to give the hon. member an example, and children to whom special circumstances apply on humanitarian and other grounds, from being permitted to attend these schools on a judicious, coordinated and—and I do not apologize for this, either—controlled basis.

Why can the children of Black diplomats not go to Black schools?

I want to say to that hon. member that they would not even take him in a Black school. [Interjections.]

That is why I went to Tukkies.

The fact is that in terms of the constitution, the responsibility for White education at the primary and secondary levels rests with the provincial authorities. The Government does not have the right to take over that function in terms of section 114.

I now want to ask a question. There was a time when the provinces were also responsible for Brown and Indian education. I had hoped this would not be necessary, but I now want to ask hon. members whether they investigated the state of affairs when those provinces were responsible for the education of Brown and Indian children. The hon. member for Umbilo will not reproach me if I ask him to ask the Indians of Natal to draw the comparison themselves.

I want to sum up. Phenomenal progress has been made with the education of children of colour since this was taken over by State education departments from provincial education departments. The fact is—and I do not say this in a spirit of reproach—that the inequality in education facilities was never greater than when the provincial authorities were responsible for the primary and secondary education of those population groups, and there is no one who denies that.

†Now the hon. member says that the educational systems are in fact inferior.

Of course they are.

Of course they are not inferior.

You have just implied it yourself.

At the moment I am discussing the system, in contrast with substantive and physical qualities. If the hon. member does not understand that, then I cannot give him the intelligence to understand it. [Interjections.] After all, there have been statements as to why there are inequalities in education. For how long were the spiritual forefathers of the hon. members opposite in charge of the education of all the children in the country, in comparison with the period during which this Government has been in charge of it? I contend that at no time has greater progress been made in regard to the physical and substantive aspects of education than under this Government. I control a large education department, and I am one of those who say that there is indeed inequality in the facilities. I admit that. Secondly, I say that we must strive to reach the point at which there is no difference in the education of children as regards the substantive quality and the physical facilities available.

At the moment it is not like that.

Of course not. However, I say that the hon. member is mistaken when he says that one educational system is inferior to another. I say that there are certain limitations, which have nothing to do with the system, but which relate to the ability of the teaching profession.

But the end product is affected by that.

Well, why does that hon. member not plead with his people to become teachers as I do with mine?

I did so this very year.

Well, then that must have been a lone voice in the wilderness, but it is going to take five years to bear fruit. Why did he not do it before?

I did it years ago.

If, then, we are going to argue about this I want to put a question to the hon. member. I thought that when we wanted to improve the position, we in this House would all agree. However, it seems to me that that cannot be. Is it not a fact that as a percentage of the population, far more people from my language group than from his are in the educational profession?

Yes, I know that.

Then when are we going to have any recognition of that, for a change? Then the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens maintains that we are imperialists, whereas we are even educating his children. We are educating the children of the hon. members opposite.

That is not true.

It is, Sir.

The hon. member asked me whether there had been discussions. There were discussions, in the first place with the Administrators. Those discussions took place, and towards the end of last year an agreement was entered into with them in regard to the admission of pupils and the conditions in terms of which this could be done. Accordingly, the legislation before us seeks to confirm the arrangements made with the Administrators in regard to the admission of such children. Secondly, it envisages the regulation of the expenditure of provincial funds in respect of children who may be admitted under the proposal we are dealing with at present. Therefore, when we improve a system I say that we ought at least have everyone’s support.

Look at clause 3 first.

The hon. member also asked me whether there had been discussions with the private school organization. My colleague the hon. the Minister of National Education assures me that discussions were held with the private school organization and with the Roman Catholic Church separately.

[Inaudible.]

I am talking about the admission of children and not about the Bill itself. I am talking about the question of regulating the admission of children to private schools.

I should like to come to the hon. member for Umbilo. I believe that of the hon. members opposite he is probably the one who has had the most experience with private schools, because he has served on the Executive Committee of Natal and in that province there are such children in private schools. Thus he can speak with authority. That does not imply, however, that I am necessarily always in agreement with what he says. I should like to suggest to him that although I do agree with him that the numbers are not great, I do not agree with him that all people are as reasonable as he thinks they are. I do not want to mention any names now, but there have been concerted efforts in favour of allowing children to attend schools not in the interests of those children, but merely to object to the system and to disprove a philosophy that obtains. In this respect the hon. member and I must disagree again. But let me put it to hon. members opposite that the policy of this Government is the one that should prevail because that is the policy that has in fact been supported during elections.

By a minority; by less than 10% of the population.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting statement the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has made now. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member says less than 10% of the population. Now I want to ask him what kind of morality he subscribes to, in taking his seat in this House.

Yes, one might well ask. [Interjections.]

What kind of morality does the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens subscribe to when in the first place, he says that only 10% of the population put him in this House and, in the second place, he puts it in the form of a reproach? I should have thought that a man of principle would not have allowed himself to be used by such a system. I should have thought that a man of principle would not have taken part in such a system. [Interjections.] But, Sir, that is the kind of concept of morality one has to deal with here.

Tell that to … [Interjections.]

No, I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central should tell that to his colleagues. [Interjections.] There is not a single issue on which hon. members of the official Opposition do not speak in two voices.

*In conclusion, I want to ask hon. members of the official Opposition who started private schools in this country. I am not talking about multiracial private schools now. I want to know who started preserving the culture of people by way of private schools. I am not reproaching hon. members opposite in this regard. I just want to know who did it. I will not permit hon. members of the NP to be accused of things which the predecessors of the two Opposition parties in this country did.

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

No, I am speaking now. There is still a great deal of time left. The hon. member can even put questions to me during the Third Reading.

All I want to say is that there is not a single group that has done more for the education of children than the NP.

That is utter nonsense.

For the children of the hon. member for Houghton as well.

Of course, even though they are in America now. [Interjections.]

If the children of the hon. member for Houghton are not in the country, I can understand why they are fleeing. They are fleeing from their mother. [Interjections.]

†I agree with the point the hon. member made in connection with a Black, a Coloured and an Indian and in reply I indicated that I would be prepared to accept an amendment. If the hon. member so wishes, I shall introduce that amendment personally.

The hon. member also referred to clause 4. Of course, the Minister takes the final decision in this regard, after consultation with the Administrators and other authorities. I have a note here written by my hon. colleague who sat in my bench while I went out for a moment, in which he says: “The hon. member for Pinelands has made no further contribution.” [Interjections.] Has the hon. member a question to put to me?

Mr. Speaker, the question which I do not think the hon. the Minister has answered entirely or satisfactorily is whether the private schools, as an association or separately, were aware of and agreed with the terms not only of authorization and regularization, but also of clause 2(3).

I have already explained to the hon. member that the provisions of the Bill were not discussed, but that the principle of admission was discussed. In that respect I have, I believe, replied to the question put to me by the hon. member.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The President’s Council was established in 1980 when the Republic of South Africa Fifth Amendment Act, 1980 (Act 101 of 1980), was piloted through Parliament. This was a historic event, because for the first time in our constitutional development since 1910, statutory provision was made for a council consisting of members of various population groups to deliberate and advise on a new constitutional dispensation for our country. Parliament took this great step on the basis of a recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution under the chairmanship of the present Vice State President, the Hon. A. L. Schlebusch, on which I served as Vice Chairman. The Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution as well as Parliament gave very careful consideration to the principle of establishing a President’s Council and this principle was embodied in legislation after thorough deliberation and lengthy debate. Therefore I cannot again discuss the establishment and responsibilities of the President’s Council as such on this occasion.

†However, this does not prevent me paying tribute to the members of the President’s Council who, despite the strong opposition against that council by the dissidents in our society who have no regard to the Government’s sincere endeavours in achieving peace and prosperity for all the peoples in this country, had the courage of their convictions to participate in that body created by Parliament in order to pursue that goal.

The President’s Council officially commenced with its business on 3 February this year. Unlike the commissions of inquiry appointed by the State President, the council is not restricted to serve the State President with advice on matters referred to the council by the State President, as the council is also empowered to advise the State President on any other matter considered by the council to be in the public interest.

*By virtue of its origin and composition, one of the major functions of the President’s Council will be the formulation of recommendations for a new constitutional dispensation for the various population groups in this country. This implies in-depth investigations, consultations and free deliberations.

Unlike commission of inquiry appointed by the State President, to which the Commissions Act No. 8 of 1947 has been made applicable, the President’s Council, in spite of its wide and extremely important field of inquiry, does not have the power to summon witnesses. Since the President’s Council commenced its activities, other needs have emerged which can only be resolved on a statutory basis, and the Bill which is now before this House contains proposals intended to remove the problems which the President’s Council is presently experiencing.

I do not intend to go into detail about every clause in the Bill at this stage, but I shall refer to some of the clauses, by way of further illustrating the principles contained in the Bill.

One of the most important principles in the Bill is the right of freedom of speech and debate in the President’s Council and its committees, for which an urgent need exists. Provision is being made for this in clause 2 of the Bill, and I do not believe that anyone in this House would doubt the need for the granting of such protection to the members of the President’s Council.

The President’s Council will not be able to perform its task properly if its members cannot freely discuss and debate contentious matters.

†I have already mentioned the need of the council and its committees to summon persons to give evidence before the council or its committees, and consequently provision is made in clause 11 of the Bill for the President’s Council and its committees to call witnesses in the manner proposed in that clause.

However, witnesses summoned to appear before the President’s Council or its committees must also be protected, as in the case of commissions of inquiry and courts of law, and clauses 12 and 13 contain proposals with regard to the privilege in giving evidence and the liability of witnesses who appear before the President’s Council or one of its committees.

Another principle embodied in the Bill is the preservation of secrecy regarding certain matters. In this regard I wish to refer to clause 10 of the Bill, a clause which does not require any further elucidation, except to state emphatically that it is not the intention, with this proposed measure, to gag the members of the council whose sense of responsibility in the handling of matters of a confidential nature has never been questioned. However, in the case of commissions of inquiry, secrecy in matters of a confidential nature is normally safeguarded by way of regulations made in terms of the Commissions Act, 1947, and it is consequently deemed fit that the Bill should contain a measure of a similar nature.

*It is essential that a body such as the President’s Council be properly protected in the performance of its duties, and for this reason, provision is being made in clause 15 for punishable offences, in order to ensure that the proceedings in the President’s Council or its committees will take place in an orderly manner.

The publications of the President’s Council must also be protected in the interests of order, and for this reason, it is being proposed in clause 17 that no publications of the council shall be misused.

I have now described in broad outline the needs of the President’s Council as contained in the Bill which is now before this House. In order to achieve the objectives of the President’s Council, the proposals contained in the Bill must be accepted by Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill seeks to confer upon the President’s Council freedom of speech, freedom from liabilities and other privileges at present only applicable to Parliament and the provincial councils. In considering whether to support or oppose the Bill, it is therefore necessary to establish to what extent the President’s Council is comparable to Parliament and also to what extent there is justification for these exceptional privileges—and I call them “exceptional” guardedly—being conferred on the President’s Council.

Let us just take a look at clause 2 of the Bill. It reads as follows—

Council and any committee, and such freedom shall not be impeached or questioned in any court of law.

It then goes further, but suffice it to say that this clause in the Bill is exactly the same as section 2 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the exemption from legal liability, from arrest or detention under a provision of any law. This clause is also similarly framed to section 8 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. What is more, clauses 4 and 6 follow the same pattern and are similar in effect to sections of the aforementioned Act.

The Government has consistently tried to enhance the status of the President’s Council ever since that body was constituted. The Government has, in fact, tried to put the President’s Council on a par with Parliament in as many ways as possible. Let me just mention a few examples. Members of the President’s Council earn the same salaries and allowances as Members of Parliament. Cabinet status has also been conferred on the chairmen of committees of the President’s Council, and in terms of protocol rating, members of the President’s Council are in roughly the same position as Members of Parliament, etc. Now this Bill before us further seeks to extend the similarity between the position of the President’s Council on the one hand and the position of Parliament on the other hand. I believe the privileges conferred by the provisions which I outlined a few moments ago should be used very sparingly indeed, and I say this for very good reasons. These privileges represent exceptions to legal constraints applicable to other South Africans in the conduct of their private affairs, their business and even those who are active in public affairs. In fact, the equivalent of these provisions which I have mentioned and which appear in the relevant Act dealing with the position of Parliament, suggest the superiority of Parliament. In the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act these privileges suggest the sovereignty of Parliament, and therefore suggest that Parliament has the right to exempt itself from the processes of law and administration created by Parliament itself.

Does the hon. the Minister and do hon. members on the other side of the House really want to confer these privileges on the President’s Council? Does the hon. the Minister and do hon. members on the other side suggest that the President’s Council be put in a position similar to Parliament? In other words, are they suggesting that the President’s Council is also superior and sovereign and therefore has the right to be exempted from the normal processes of law and the normal processes of administration in the country?

Let us look at a couple of comparisons. This House is a House established by election and by age-old representative procedures which have been tested in terms of democratic standards. The President’s Council, on the other hand, is merely an appointed body and is, in fact, in every way merely a form of Commission of inquiry. Admittedly, as I have indicated before, the Government has taken pains to confer upon the President’s Council a status superior to that of a normal commission of inquiry, in fact a status superior to its predecessor, the Schlebusch Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution. That does not, however, put the President’s Council on a par with Parliament or bring it anywhere near the position of Parliament. Parliament is still the sovereign body in the country and still takes the responsibility for the administration of the country and for everything which happens within the borders of the country. It has to attend to the day to day running of the country, while the President’s Council has a very limited function indeed. In the main, the President’s Council is there to investigate constitutional matters and to advise the Government on constitutional matters in future. We all know that. There are subcommittees charged with matters of an economic nature, matters relating to race relations and scientific matters. It has, however, never been cleared up what the functions of these bodies should be. However, one thing on which I think we are in agreement with hon. members on the other side of the House is that the President’s Council is merely an advisory body, and nothing the President’s Council recommends or produces can ever be put into practice without it first being referred to this House. Having said that, I think it is absolutely clear that the President’s Council is a body which is very definitely inferior to this House. It is an advisory body, it is an appointed body and it is a body with very clearly a limited function.

I have indicated that the powers and privileges conferred upon Parliament suggest the superiority of Parliament and suggest the sovereignty of Parliament. Let us look for a moment at this question of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech actually means freedom from liability in terms of the laws of libel and defamation in this country. This is not only a privilege that has been conferred upon Parliament by an Act of Parliament—as stated in the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963—but this is also a process that has developed not only over many years in South Africa but over many centuries in other Parliaments on which our system has been based. This is a privilege that is sparingly used. It is a privilege that is used with great circumspection and under the strict control of the presiding officers of this House. It is also a privilege that is strictly controlled by conventions that have been built up and established over many years. There is in fact a strict set of rules in this regard, not all of which have been put down on paper, according to which these privileges are exercised. I have said that freedom of speech suggests freedom from liability in terms of the laws of libel and defamation. I believe that there can be no question in the minds of hon. members in this House that Parliament needs to have that privilege and that anybody charged with the supreme function of the administration and the supreme function of exercising soveveignty in a country should have that freedom of speech. We can cast our minds back to a period a few years ago when this House dealt with the very thorny question of the Information scandal. Nobody in this House would venture to suggest that it was not necessary and very clearly in the interests of good administration in this country that freedom of speech had to be enjoyed by every hon. member in this House at the time in order to discuss fully that very unpleasant matter and to open up the whole matter successfully so that the public could judge it in its ugly reality. With this in mind, I wish to pose this question: Can we visualize any equivalent issue that could ever come before the President’s Council? I do not believe that we can.

Furthermore—to mention a number of other issues—it is very often the function of this Parliament to criticize hon. Ministers, to criticize the Executive for their handling of particular aspects of the Administration in this country. In fact, it is our duty to question and it is our duty to criticize because it is the function of the parliamentary body to take responsibility for the day-to-day administration of this country, for the expenditure of public money and so forth. Consequently, suggestions are very often made and things are said that could in one way or another be considered to be of a libelous or defamatory nature. In saying that this privilege has been used sparingly, I also say that there is no question that this freedom of speech is absolutely necessary for the smooth and sensible functioning of a body such as this House. I do not believe that it can be argued in any way whatsoever that the President’s Council requires this freedom at all. It is simply not necessary for the President’s Council to conduct its affairs in the same way as we do here. If the President’s Council has a function, its function is primarily to negotiate new constitutional proposals.

Are you against freedom of speech?

Mr. Speaker, I will not venture to answer that question because if ever there was a man who would understand his own question in that regard, it is the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. I would not dare to answer that question and what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg would make of it, I would not care to guess!

It is never necessary for the President’s Council to criticize people. It is not an absolute necessity for members of the President’s Council, in order to fulfil their functions, to criticize in strong and possibly libelous language their fellow members or even people outside. The President’s Council is fundamentally a peace-making body and a body that is supposed to negotiate new constitutional concepts and so forth. In fact, their function in this regard is almost the opposite from that of members of Parliament in the sense that they must take care not to offend anybody. That is their function, while this is not at all the case in Parliament. Parliament’s function is to see that the administration of this country is conducted in the proper way, never mind whom we offend in the process and without fear or favour.

And to legislate.

Indeed.

I believe that the functions of Parliament and the President’s Council are worlds apart and therefore I do not believe that the simple argument that the President’s Council requires the same degree of freedom of speech could justify our supporting a Bill such as this.

There are other matters contained in the Bill as well that worry hon. members on this side of the House. I should now like to come to the question of secrecy. We all know that in terms of the Commissions Act it is a perfectly normal thing that the chairman of a commission can make an arrangement—this can also be done by way of proclamation—that certain of the commission’s proceedings should be conducted behind closed door. Evidence is then given behind closed doors and the discussions take place behind closed doors.

We are therefore not opposed to the idea that the President’s Council be given the power to decide that evidence will be taken behind closed doors if a particular witness wishes that to be done.

I believe, however, that the power to conduct business behind closed doors should once again be very sparingly used by a body such as the President’s Council. After all, the President’s Council is not a body which investigates some ugly financial matter, a matter which may give rise to libelous statements. In fact, in the process of negotiating and making investigations into the possibility of a new constitution, the more issues and statements are aired and the more public airing they enjoy, the better the chances are of the President’s Council arriving at some sensible result. I believe if the President’s Council is to serve any purpose at all—we have our reservations about this as the hon. member well know—it should as far as possible conduct its proceedings in the public eye.

Clause 10 is really an extraordinary clause to be found in a Bill of this nature. In terms of this clause it is actually made a criminal offence for a member or an employee of the President’s Council to divulge any information which he is given in confidence. First of all I think this is a highly unusual measure because one would expect, inasmuch as confidentiality is necessary for the smooth operation of the President’s Council, that one could surely rely on the honour and the co-operation of the members. What is more, I believe it is a measure which is open to abuse, because the decision whether a matter is confidential or not is left to the sole discretion of the giver of the information. In other words, even a matter that can by no objective test justifiably be considered as confidential, must be treated as confidential if the giver of such information feels that it should be confidential, notwithstanding the fact that it is for his own selfish purposes. If he feels that it should be treated as confidential, he can give the information to some member or official of the President’s Council and request him to consider the information as confidential. That receiver of the information is then absolutely bound by that confidentiality. He is bound to such an extent that he can be criminally prosecuted should he divulge such information.

I do not believe that there is justification for such a measure at all. I do not believe this is the sort of measure that should be introduced to ensure smooth operation. In fact, I believe it is quite an ugly measure.

There is a third matter which has become a thorny issue since this Bill has become available to hon. members. I refer to the compulsion imposed on members of the public to give evidence before the President’s Council. In terms of the Commissions Act, it is perfectly normal that a commission be given the power to subpoena witnesses to give evidence before it on any matter whatsoever. In the normal run of things it is not unusual to give the power to subpoena to a commission and to make it a punishable offence not to comply with such a subpoena. However, because of the Government’s handling of constitutional affairs in this country, because of the way the President’s Council has been constituted and because of the discussions around the President’s Council, a situation has unfortunately now been created where a very prominent political leader in this country, the Rev. Alan Hendrickse, the leader of the Labour Party, has issued a public statement to the effect that he and his party would not comply with a subpoena to appear before the President’s Council. This creates a very unfortunate situation indeed, because here the Government seeks to confer on the President’s Council a power which in other circumstances is perfectly normal.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask that hon. member what his attitude is towards the statement by the Rev. Hendrickse?

I am coming to that.

No, he will never come to that.

The hon. member for Simon’s Town should shut up.

Just answer the question.

The position is that I do not believe that the Rev. Alan Hendrickse under normal circumstances would wish to disobey or even venture to consider disobeying a subpoena issued by a normal commission appointed by the State President. He is not that sort of person. He is a responsible political leader, and he would not do that. He would not refuse to obey a subpoena issued by any commission appointed by the State President.

He will never reply to the question.

I believe the blame for the Rev. Alan Hendrickse’s refusal in this instance lies absolutely fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. There is no doubt about that. This hon. Minister has been charged with conducting constitutional affairs on behalf of the Government. He is the guru; he is the leading figure in that regard, and he knows that there has been a very considerable dispute between the Coloured Labour Party and several other political institutions and the Government about the need for the Coloured Labour Party even to have given evidence before the Schlebusch Commission, the predecessor of the President’s Council. He knows very well the arguments that were advanced.

Give us the arguments.

Listen to me. The hon. the Minister knows very well that the Coloured Representative Council when it still existed appointed its own constitutional commission, the Du Preez Commission, to investigate constitutional matters.

Where is Mr. Du Preez now?

The hon. the Minister must listen to me. When the Coloured Labour Party was invited to give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission they said: You formulate your own constitutional proposals because you are an all-White body, an exclusively White body, and we will bring our proposals formulated by the Du Preez Commission and then we can sit down and negotiate. The hon. the Minister knows very well that that has been the argument that has been advanced by the Labour Party. [Interjections.]

Do you know where Du Preez is now?

Yes, I know he is in the President’s Council. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister knows that that argument has been advanced and in spite of the fact that he knows very well that he has already had problems to obtain the co-operation of these people to give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission, the predecessor of the President’s Council, he now asks the support of Parliament to compel those people and any other individuals, groups or leaders, to give evidence before the President’s Council. So, while on the one hand the hon. the Minister is compelling people to recognize the President’s Council as the sole negotiating body for constitution-making in this country, on the other hand he is making it morally more and more difficult for any self-respecting Coloured leader, Indian leader and Black leader, to have anything to do with that body whatsoever. He knows that he is doing that and he knows why he is doing it.

For that reason I believe that the refusal, even in advance, of the Rev. Alan Hendrickse and the Labour Party to give evidence before the President’s Council should be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. It is a problem the Government has to sort out. By its composition of the President’s Council the Government has already imposed impossible constraints on constitutional development in South Africa. It knows very well that in its composition of the President’s Council it has excluded the mainstream of opinion in Coloured politics and Indian politics, not even to speak of Black politics. Therefore it has made the President’s Council an unacceptable body to these people and it is now making it virtually impossible for these people to retain their self-respect and at the same time appear before the President’s Council and give evidence for the purpose of constitution-making.

For these reasons, and others which will be outlined in due course, we shall not support the Second Reading of this Bill, but oppose it strenuously.

Mr. Speaker, for the best part of 20 minutes the hon. member for Green Point stood there holding forth like a person who had been told to talk for a certain period of time and who was trying to find arguments to fill up the time. He started by referring to the right of freedom of speech which is to be granted to members of the President’s Council and in this regard condemned the fact that the President’s Council was, as it were, going to be placed on an equal footing with this House. Sometimes when I listen to speeches of hon. members of the official Opposition, I am inclined to think that we may indeed have gone too far with the freedom of speech in this House. I gain the impression that the freedom of speech is to a large extent being abused by some hon. members of the official Opposition. While listening to the hon. member for Green Point, who has just finished his speech, my conviction was strongly reaffirmed, for what was the hon. member for Green Point doing if not harming and undermining the President’s Council in its prestige and its work? That is all the hon. member for Green Point was doing. The hon. member tried to justify his party’s action in boycotting the President’s Council.

That is correct, yes.

In addition, the hon. member for Green Point sought partners for his party’s conduct. According to the hon. member for Green Point, all the blame for the reluctance of the Rev. Hendrickse and his party to testify before the President’s Council must be placed on the shoulders of the Government and the NP.

Dead right.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North says: “Dead right”. In that case I ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North to substantiate this statement. After all, the hon. the Minister challenged the hon. member for Green Point to substantiate this statement. However, what did the hon. member do? He went on to deliver an assortment of vague generalizations, but never got so far as to justify his standpoint. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point spoke of reasons, but never mentioned a single reason himself. It is very easy simply to say vaguely: “I lay the blame fairly and squarely at the door of the Government”. It is very easy to make such hollow statements. However, when the hon. member is challenged to substantiate those statements, we wait in vain for replies and substantiation of his statements.

The reason the hon. member for Green Point and his party preferred to boycott the President’s Council is—or so they say—that Black people are not admitted as members of that council.

That is only one of the reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take any notice of backbenchers … [Interjections.] I do not take any notice of remarks by backbenchers when I have at my disposal clear statements by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition and other leaders of that party.

Helen is their leader. [Interjections.]

The allegation was made here that the official Opposition is not prepared to co-operate on the President’s Council because Black people are not admitted as members of that Council. Let me put a pertinent question to the hon. member for Green Point. If the Government were to decide to admit Black persons as members of the President’s Council, would the PFP continue to advance these specious arguments they have been using here this evening? Would they then continue to say that the President’s Council is not entitled to the protection of the freedom of speech of its members?

Yes.

The hon. member for Green Point says “Yes”. I am pleased that we are at least getting a clear reply from him on this. I now want to put it to the hon. member that it is now very clear that the argument concerning the admission of Black people to the President’s Council is nothing but a stalking-horse which is being used by him and his party.

I would say that it is really a horse of a different colour. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point has now revealed his party’s inherent contempt for the President’s Council. If the hon. member recognizes that the President’s Council was established with a specific task, that the President’s Council is dealing with the most delicate and sensitive problems in the public life of our country, and that the President’s Council was established with the best intentions, then if he is a reasonable man, he has to admit that the President’s Council and its members are also entitled to the same protection that is enjoyed by hon. members of this House with regard to freedom of speech. Surely it is an irrefutable fact that the President’s Council cannot perform its task effectively if its members are not safeguarded against accountability for statements and allegations made there, in the same way as is the case with this House. I repeat: the President’s Council was established specifically to advise on some of the most delicate and sensitive matters in the public life of South Africa.

The hon. member for Green Point himself mentioned that the Commissions Act also grants protection to commissioners, but he even begrudges members of the President’s Council the protection granted by the Commissions Act. In other words, the hon. member is debasing the President’s Council to a level even lower than that of an ordinary commission of inquiry. This simply goes to show that what this hon. member had in mind was not to discuss the legislation at present before this House, but to undermine the prestige of the President’s Council in the eyes of the public at large. Furthermore, the hon. member sought to find partners for his party’s boycott campaign against the President’s Council. One is amazed that people who adopt this boycott approach to such an institution are nevertheless so concerned and anxious about the provisions whereby to promote the effective functioning of that council which are contained in the Bill at present before this House.

What do we really have before us this evening? If I may draw an analogy with the establishment of a company, I want to put it that we already have the memorandum of association in the form of the amended Constitution, and what we are concerned with here are actually the articles of association of the company which are aimed solely at the effective functioning of this institution. However, the hon. member does not address himself to the effectiveness or otherwise of the measures proposed, or to how they would influence the effective functioning of this council, but argues about the existence and nature of this institution. His concern, as I have already said, is to seek justification for his party’s standpoint in questioning the existence of this institution.

The hon. member discussed the “sovereignty of Parliament”. I do not want to address the hon. member on constitutional law at this juncture, but I just want to say in passing that the concept “sovereignty of Parliament” was rejected by constitutional lawyers a long time ago. They no longer refer to the “sovereignty of Parliament”; they now refer to the “supremacy of Parliament”.

Yes, but he only completed his first year.

Is that so?

Yes, the hon. member would not know. They refer to the “supremacy of Parliament” rather than the “sovereignty of Parliament”. Whether one is working with the hon. member’s concept of “sovereignty” or the concept of “supremacy”, the fact remains that this Parliament, which according to him is sovereign, has the authority to grant and confer the same protection enjoyed by members of this House to members of another council. If this House, in its wisdom, sees fit to grant such protection to members of another council too, it is not a case of the council in question taking over the role of Parliament, for it has, after all, not created these privileges for itself. If the President’s Council had created these privileges for itself, the hon. member may have had a point. However, the very fact that this House is conferring that protection on the President’s Council confirms and illustrates the supremacy of this House above the President’s Council, and makes nonsense of the whole argument that the President’s Council is being put on a par with this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member argues that the very fact that this House has to confer the privilege of freedom of speech to the President’s Council, confirms the supremacy of this body. Should this House confer all its powers to another body, as may well happen in the case of a fairly drastic transfer to a new constitutional position, would that decision confirm the supremacy of this body, or would it not?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member thinks that he can avoid the absurdity of his argument by means of a clever or hypothetical question. If this House were to transfer all its powers to another council, surely it would emasculate itself. This House would then be completely emasculated.

Then it would be like the hon. member for Green Point.

However, we are dealing here with the question whether the President’s Council may arrogate those powers to itself or whether it must be granted those powers by another source of authority. The mere fact that this House is the source of authority from which the President’s Council must derive its privileges, specifically confirms the supremacy of this House. I maintain that it makes nonsense of the hon. member’s argument that if we were to grant members of the President’s Council the same protection as is enjoyed by hon. members of this House, we would be placing the President’s Council on a par with this House as far as supremacy is concerned.

I do not think there is any sense in going any further into the other specious arguments advanced by the hon. member for Green Point, and I merely want to confirm that we on this side gladly support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is not unexpected that the official Opposition should oppose this measure, because that is what one must expect as part of the pattern of their attitude towards the President’s Council. We in these benches have a different approach to the President’s Council.

Are you thinking of a job for the future?

Unlike that hon. member who, I think, would find it very difficult to get any job where he could make any contribution other than a destructive and negative one—such as that party almost as a whole makes to political debates—we believe …

When he was being paid to be a doctor, he was practicing politics.

I do not want to be led astray on personalities. I did not realize who it was who had made the interjection. Had I, I might not have made that remark. I was thinking of the gentleman behind him who makes no contribution to anything. However, in the case of the hon. gentleman who made the interjection, I make an exception. I exclude him from that comment. The position is that there is a body which this Parliament has appointed to investigate a future constitution and to make recommendations to this Parliament. That body is dealing with the total constitutional picture in South Africa. It is, however, under attack from the radicals of both the right and the left. It is under attack from the right-wing HNP, and those who run with them, because they are totally opposed to any form of political change in South Africa. Their philosophy is such that they cannot, in any way, go along with any body like the President’s Council that could recommend changes that would alter the status quo. On the far or radical left there are similar people who are desperately committed to preventing the President’s Council from producing creative recommendations that might reduce the potential for confrontation, conflict and revolution in South Africa. Between those two extremes there are, of course, groups like the official Opposition which adopts a point of principle and then, in projecting that principle, makes the same contribution to the denigration of the President’s Council as the radical right and left are doing. One finds it very difficult to determine the dividing line between the radical left and what some of the members of the official Opposition seem to be doing in their approach to so many matters in South Africa. This has been seen over and over again in debate.

The President’s Council is, as I have said, a body that is under attack from the right and the left. I want to go further, however.

Are you the radical right, Vause?

Members of that body are also the victims of political intimidation. There are people who say they cannot serve on that council or make any contribution to it because of the way they would be treated by the radicals of the left.

That is right.

There are people I know who have told me they would like to have been able to play a part, but they say they would be slaughtered, destroyed politically, if they were seen to be associated with the President’s Council.

Why?

Why? Does that hon. member need to ask why? Let him ask that question of his own conscience and of his own party, because that party and those whom they go along with did their utmost to destroy the President’s Council even before it was formed. [Interjections.] Let me give the hon. member another reason why. [Interjections.] The reason is that they do not dare to allow the President’s Council to succeed … [Interjections.] … because the minute the President’s Council succeeds, the total irrelevance of that party in the constitutional debate, and in politics in general, will become obvious to everyone. [Interjections.] Their relevance will disappear …

Vause, are you getting stronger and stronger?

We see it in the fact that that party depends for its existence …

On radicals.

… on protest, confrontation and demonstrations and not on putting forward positive alternatives. We saw it in this House last week..

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he thinks there will be no success attributed to the President’s Council if this measure is not passed?

No, I do not say that at all. I have said that we must give the President’s Council a fair chance to see what it can do, but I also believe that we owe it some responsibility. When a body created by this Parliament, a body to which we have delegated a vital task in South Africa, is under the pressure that members of that council are under because of criticism levelled at them—because of public denigration—we have a duty to do what we can to protect them. That is why this party will support this measure. We accept our responsibility towards the people we have put there. Members of this party serve on that body and so we have a duty to those members if for no other reason, just as the Government has a duty to all the members whom they have appointed to do a job for South Africa. I am not going to be distracted by the hon. member for Hillbrow. When he asked his question, I was in the process of saying that we saw the irrelevance of the PFP last week when we debated a constitutional issue, viz. that of confederation. We found the official Opposition totally opposed to it and finding all the reasons in the world to criticize it, but not making any constructive proposals for an alternative. They were completely lost in that debate. [Interjections.] They were not in the debate because they do not have an alternative. They stand behind a national convention which is going to work out a policy for them. They have a great deal to say about “citizenship” and “no domination” but talk in platitudes. These are things we all agree with, but when it comes down to constitution-making that party is conspicuous by its inability to make any positive proposals in regard to what it would like to see. They can say what they do not want to see but not what they do want to see.

They are afraid to say what they want to see.

That is why I say that that party dare not allow the President’s Council to succeed because, when the President’s Council makes recommendations to this House, that party will be as irrelevant as it was in the confederation debate last week.

There is another reason why that party dare not let the President’s Council succeed. It is because it itself as a party has refused to give evidence on its own proposals which the President’s Council has received only in memorandum form. They have refused to appear before the President’s Council and face cross-examination by members of the Council on the interpretation and meaning of the policy they stand for. If they are not prepared to go before the Council and give evidence, they will obviously oppose any measure which gives the Council the right of subpoena. They are afraid that the Council might subpoena them as a party. The last thing they want, is to be put under the spotlight of cross-examination by the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

Do you think it will be worse than a general election?

They do not want to be put under the spotlight as this party was before the Schlebusch Commission, and as happened again in September last when the Council’s constitutional committee recalled Professor Kriek who gave evidence for us and cross-questioned him for almost a day. Let that party go before the Council and face the cross-examination. Let them defend the policy they say they have. They say they have a policy, but all one hears is protest. Where is their policy? Let them go before the Council and defend the policy they claim to have. [Interjections.] We believe that that Council is entitled to protection.

It is also entitled to freedom of speech which will enable it to deal with delicate matters. Let me give some examples. The Council has to deal with the Group Areas Act, matters of ownership and mixed marriages. These are very delicate, intimate matters concerning people. There is also the Immorality Act and other matters of intimate concern to people. Surely that Council is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech where they deal with matters of that nature?

The same protection as Parliament?

It is a body which is dealing with the future constitution of South Africa and with legislation, and which will report back to Parliament.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when proceedings were suspended for supper, I was dealing with the question of how essential it was to the official Opposition that the President’s Council should fail. The other leg of the issue was the attack on and the denigration and what I called the intimidation—with which I had started to deal—of members of that council. There is no doubt that one can call it nothing but intimidation when people who are participating in the process of seeking a new future for South Africa are accused of being Uncle Toms and puppets, of denying their own people, of letting down their side and of being “bywoners”. You name it—that is what they are accused of. I was saying that the official Opposition is part of the process of denigration of the President’s Council. I made it clear that we had our representatives who had been appointed to that council and who were trying to make a contribution towards a better South Africa, a contribution towards a New Republic for South Africa. We have a responsibility towards those members to give them protection against the sort of campaign that is being waged against them as individuals and as a council. I said too that the Government also has a responsibility to protect those whom it has appointed to do a job for South Africa against the attacks, the undermining and the insults that they have to face.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here. I challenged the official Opposition before supper to appear before the President’s Council to face cross-questioning, to face inquiry and the examination of their policy …

They will never do so.

We do so at public meetings.

… so that South Africa can see what they stand for. This is what is happening. The hon. member for Hillbrow says that they will do so at any public meeting.

It never happens.

Why don’t you do it in this House?

Mr. Speaker, why do they not do so in this House? The hon. member for Bryanston had made that interjection. That is what we want to know, Sir. If the hon. member for Bryanston had been here before supper he would have heard me say that in the constitutional debate which this House conducted on the confederal concept, that party had no alternatives to offer.

Because you did not know what a confederation was.

It found fault with everything. Those hon. members feel free to complain about everything but when one asks them to give us their picture for the future, what do they say? They talk about a national convention to seek consensus.

And freedom for Mandela.

They talk a lot of hooey and make all sorts of generalizations but when one asks them what they believe the constitutional set-up should look like in the final analysis, they are “tjoepstil”. [Interjections.] This party, the NRP, not only presented its written representations but also twice gave oral evidence, once before the Schlebusch Commission and once before the President’s Council.

What has that got to do with this Bill?

The NRP appeared before, participated in and sat in the hot seat of the Buthelezi Commission where it faced questions on and criticism and examination of its policy. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why his party has not given evidence before the President’s Council to tell that council what they stand for and face their criticism?

What has that got to do with this Bill for heaven’s sake?

We are dealing with the President’s Council and we are dealing specifically with the objection of the official Opposition to the right to call witnesses. [Interjections.] I am asking why that party which claims to have a plan, which claims to be able to make a contribution to the future of South Africa, does not appear before the President’s Council and put that solution to them and face the cross-questioning of the people who have been appointed to that council? I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why his party does not sit in the hot seat and put its policy clearly and specifically, or did it put it to the Buthelezi Commission clearly and specifically?

Yes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says “yes”.

We put it to the whole of South Africa clearly and specifically.

No, that is what that party has not done. That is why we believe that the President’s Council is entitled to the protection which will enable it to deliberate, to discuss matters and to hear evidence without intimidation, and to the normal processes which we accept are necessary to enable it to give its full attention to these matters without interference from those who are out to destroy it.

If they were elected…

Mr. Speaker, one hears this continuous yapping. It is like puppies yapping at the moon. We all know what it is like. You have little puppies yapping at the moon, …

Some moon!

… going on hour after hour just yapping. Then a big dog comes along and he just takes a nip at them and says: Shut up, stop making a noise for nothing. That is what is going on in the back benches of that party.

And the little puppy leaves a puddle.

There is continual noise. Noise, noise, noise, irresponsible wild noise. [Interjections.] What we want is not confrontation. This party has had a gut full…

We can see that!

… of the sort of political claptrap that was thrown at us by that party before the election, trying to create the impression that whenever this party takes a responsible view it is going along with the Nats, it is a “bywoner” of the Nats. To the NP members I say they will get their criticism as they have had in other debates during this session and as they will get again before the end of this session. When we support a measure like this they must not bluff themselves that we are kowtowing or going along with them. [Interjections.] What we are doing is standing by what we believe in, standing by what we have to offer South Africa. We know that what we have to offer is what South Africa needs and we believe that it is what South Africa will turn to.

You have said it three times. [Interjections.]

To those hon. members who keep shouting “toenadering” I want to say that I would rather “toenader” with the President’s Council than with the ANC or the PAC. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member inferring that the official Opposition identify themselves with the ANC?

No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. [Interjections.] It was said in vacuo. It was not applied to any party or to any politics. The accusation was that we were seeking “toenadering” and I said that if I had to “toenader” with anyone I would rather “toenader” with the President’s Council which I believe is sincerely seeking a solution for South Africa than I would “toenader” with those on the radical left, and I named the ANC, PAC etc. I talk of them as the radical left. I made it clear before supper that there were three elements denograting the President’s Council. There was the radical right, the HNP and their fellow travellers; there was the radical left who saw the President’s Council as a threat to evolutionary development; and there were people like the official Opposition who on principle were taking a stand which in fact amounted to denigration. I drew a clear distinction …

We heard it.

Then they can hear it a third time if necessary, because what is important is that South Africa should appreciate the game, the stunt, the evasive tactics and strategy which are being used to hide the nakedness of the official Opposition when it comes to a positive contribution to the future of South Africa. I have challenged them—and I repeat it—to come before the President’s Council and put their views, saying: “This is what we stand for” and not to keep talking about a national convention, full citizenship, mother love is good, no domination …”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is there not a rule which prevents tedious repetition? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must try not to repeat his arguments.

Sir, I have great difficulty in penetrating their understanding, but I think that, having tried twice, if I have not penetrated their understanding at all I shall leave it at that.

I want to turn to two specific issues. The first is their objection to the secrecy provision. A Select Committee of the House on a normal investigation into any matter which it is instructed by the House to investigate—it could be a Bill, an inquiry into the Electoral Act or anything else—has the power to call witnesses, to call for papers and to sit in secret. Let me also deal at the same time with the powers of subpoena.

A Select Committee on a most unimportant issue such as an administrative matter has the power to call witnesses, to call for papers, to deliberate in secret and to prevent the evidence, deliberations and any documents before it from being published. Considerable sanctions apply in that regard. Those hon. members serve on every Select Committee. They tacitly accept these provisions with regard to investigations and inquiries by Select Committees not when making a law—they say Parliament is different—but when the Select Committee is operating as an investigative body. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is at present serving with me on the Parliamentary Select Committee on constitutional affairs. That Select Committee has the power to call witnesses, it has the power to meet in secret and it has protection against the publication of any document or evidence which may come before it or which it may hear.

However, when we have another body established which a Select Committee of the House, later a commission, recommended, a body which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party accepted in principle and then rejected because it did not meet their full requirements, a body which they wanted to see in existence in a different form with Blacks on it, as we did, then they want to deny that body the power they themselves accept in a Select Committee of the House in which they are represented as full members. One cannot have it both ways. The point I want to make is that we are not prepared to be accused and denigrated and insulted because we are doing what we believe is right. While hon. members of the PFP hide behind Parliament and its powers and behind the Select Committees of Parliament they are not prepared to appear in public and state their support of a step such as this.

We have heard talk of the refusal by the Rev. Hendrickse to give evidence. That is not unique, however. Where did he get his example from to refuse to give evidence?

From the NP.

Mention was also made of the Du Preez report. The Du Preez report is before the President’s Council. The Du Preez report was also before the Schlebusch Commission. I have it in my records. It is one of the documents that was submitted as evidence. It was evidence that the hon. Leader of the Opposition heard and accepted. Yet the PFP used this as a reason for not appearing themselves to give evidence.

No, we have had enough of this camouflage, this smoke-screen, this smearing by implication. Let the people now see for themselves the facts. The only way in which they can see the facts lies in the hands of the PFP. We in the NRP will go on playing our part to try to build a new Republic in South Africa, while the PFP will be seen to be the party that will not participate in that process. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention two reasons why I have a sincere appreciation for the speech made here this evening by the hon. member for Durban Point. In the first place, I want to put it to the hon. member for Durban Point that the entire political dialogue, the entire political debate in South Africa as regards the White political parties, is becoming largely a futile one. If the hon. Leader of the NRP had not pointed out here this evening that there was, after all, a White Opposition party in South Africa which attached value to the continued existence of both the White and the other ethnic groups, that futility would have been emphasized once again. It is for this reason that I have had a lifelong and sincere appreciation for the conservative or right wing, that is to say, the old United Party, of which the NRP is the continuation.

In the second instance, I also appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point does in fact still have a seat in this House tonight. While it is true that we differ as to the instrument with which to deal ultimately with the problem of South Africa’s population situation, we do have with us hon. members of an Opposition party with whom one can at least discuss matters, the inevitable differences notwithstanding. Debates such as those which have marked the session which is now coming to an end, sometimes give rise to a feeling of despondency about the PFP. We feel despondent, sometimes even desperate, because in their planning for South Africa hon. members of the PFP make no provision whatsoever for either the White man or any other ethnic group with its own diversity.

I want to make the categorical statement this evening that cultural ties or ethnicity or ethnic links—it does not matter what we want to call them—stands in the way of the fulfilment of the ideas of the PFP. I have no doubt in my mind on that score. Accordingly it is very difficult to try to conduct a debate with hon. members of the PFP.

As far as the NP is concerned, we shall in any event not allow ourselves to be trapped by either despair or despondency in dealing with the problems of this country, nor shall we sacrifice the will and conviction in our hearts in regard to the search for a solution for the problems of South Africa.

The NP created the President’s Council. We all know what led up to the establishment of the President’s Council. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—initially not as leader of that party—was in fact a member of the Select Committee in question and subsequently of the Schlebusch Commission. Up to a certain point the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went along with it. However, I know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was unable to go the whole way with us. It is of course because his left wing—whether it be visible or invisible—has such radical, such leftist links, and has sold out and written off the future of the White man so completely, that hon. members of that party cannot move a finger to assist the Government in the effort to solve the problems of Southern Africa.

You yourself did not agree.

Where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get that from?

Surely that is a lie.

Surely that is an untruth. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Where did I, as a member of the Select Committee, in my election campaign or anywhere else say that I did not agree with the President’s Council? I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes me an apology as far as that is concerned. I wonder what would happen with regard to the national convention which the PFP wants to hold, a convention in which they would also involve the truly radical element in this country. I want to say to the hon. members of the official Opposition that there are indeed people in this House who are so radically leftist that even the proposals which they would put forward to sell out the White man in a neat and circumspect way or to sell out ethnicities, would not come anywhere near to the demands which those people would make on them.

Remember, Jaap Marais will also be there.

I should like to know from the hon. members of the PFP how they are going to deal with the radicals and * leftists at that national convention they want to hold. I therefore want to say this evening that the NP, with the assistance of those other parties which have a sense of responsibility, will continue to move legislation in regard to the President’s Council, on the one hand to facilitate the business of the council—their task is difficult enough in any event and therefore the NP wants to facilitate their activities—and otherwise to accord them all the protection that the Government can give them. The NP will carry on with such responsible action, together with responsible members of the Opposition like the NRP, but also with responsible leaders of all the population groups in Southern Africa. The NP has already made very good progress along that path, and that explains the absolute dismay in the hearts of the Opposition parties and their efforts to thwart every step taken by the NP, because they see that the NP is winning.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have respect for the hon. member for Rissik because that hon. member is always honest in his opinions. If he believes in a policy direction he does not try to cover it with a smokescreen, and this is why I have more respect for him than for most. It is because he is appreciably honest and direct. But by suggesting that this party makes no provision for the White man or for any other minority group in this country, he is making a very grievous mistake. I say this because the constitutional thinking of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was directed, in terms of the planning of the policy, at how precisely one could protect minority groups and how one could protect minority rights. The whole thrust of the debate from the PFP is that the way the NP is going about it is going to ensure the exact opposite. They are following precisely in the footsteps of Ian Smith in the then Rhodesia. They are negotiating a situation here and now which ultimately is going to ensure greater conflict, and the whole solution of this problem is how to resolve that conflict. When one creates a body to try to resolve that conflict, a body such as the President’s Council, and one then by legislation excludes 70% of the population of the country from the deliberations of that body, one is not actually improving the situation but is making it worse. This is precisely the problem that we have. It was nice to have the hon. member for Durban Point taking part in the debate, because we always welcome some light relief. I want to tell that hon. member that I believe he is a member of the species circellium bacchus, and he can consult an entomologist to find out what that is.

He has suggested that members of this party would not be able to get jobs in constructive situations. Well, I do not believe that the hon. member himself is an exception to this rule. He has said that anybody who opposes this legislation is an extreme radical. The vast majority of the population of this country must then be extreme radicals, because this very President’s Council has not been accepted by the Black population which, as I have already said, is 70% of the population. It has not been accepted by this party which represents approximately 20% of the White voting population in South Africa, nor has it been accepted to any degree by the Coloureds or the Indians. Therefore, 80% of the population has rejected the President’s Council, and yet that party claims to be the only party in step. This is a ludicrous situation, Sir. [Interjections.] He accused us of contributing to the denigration of the Council. However, the Government did this in its own legislation when it founded this very Council by refusing the majority of the South African population a voice on it.

I now want to get to the hon. member for Mossel Bay who spoke about the right to freedom of speech. He suggested that sometimes he would not like to see freedom of speech given to members of the official Opposition.

I did not say that. I said you misuse it.

Did the hon. member who put this party’s point of view at the beginning of the debate say anything libellous?

Who?

The hon. member for Green Point who put the party’s viewpoint in regard to this Bill.

I am not interested in your questions. Make your speech.

Because basically, you said members on this side should not be allowed freedom of speech.

That is a blatant lie. I never said so.

Of course you did. The hon. member for Mossel Bay suggested that he wanted to restrict freedom of speech.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay cannot say that the hon. member is telling a blatant lie. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but I say that what the hon. member alleges is untrue.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

I would suggest to the hon. member that he looks at his own Hansard.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay in referring to the President’s Council, talked about the statutes of a company. He likened the Bill before us to the statutes of a company. Does the hon. member admit that he said that?

Yes.

I now want to point out one simple fact to the hon. member. In relation to a company, the directors are elected. However, in relation to the President’s Council the members are not elected but appointed, and this makes a major difference. [Interjections.] This always happens when hon. members on the other side of the House attempt to defend legislation. They are only truly happy in those ventures when they are attacking the official Opposition. The hon. the Minister referred to members of the President’s Council who were going about their work “despite the strong opposition against that council by the dissidents in our society who have no regard to the Government’s sincere endeavours in achieving peace and prosperity for all the peoples in this country”. He first of all suggests that hon. members on this side of the House are dissidents in our society because we oppose the President’s Council. I want to repeat what I said to other hon. members. If one takes the total population of South Africa and works out the percentage of those who are in favour of the President’s Council as compared with those who are against it, who then are the dissidents? They are certainly not to be found in our benches. The hon. the Minister speaks about peace and prosperity for all the peoples in our society, in spite of the happenings that have taken place during this session. First of all we had the happenings in regard to Nyanga. Secondly, only last week, we had the Status of Ciskei Bill in terms of which 1,4 million people who actually live in South Africa are going to have their citizenship taken away from them. For that hon. Minister then to speak about peace and prosperity is, I submit, really quite ridiculous.

Let us look at the Bill itself to see what is happening. The hon. the Minister is seeking to give the President’s Council basically the same rights and privileges, in terms of certain items, as this South African Parliament, this supreme or sovereign Parliament, whatever one may wish to call it. What they are trying to do, in other words, is to make a creation of the NP into a Parliament. I submit, however, that the basic differences remain unanswered by hon. members on that side of the House. As we have said, it is not a Parliament, because it does not have the right to produce legislation. There is, however, a more important sense in which I think that is also true. The President’s Council is not an adversary body. In the democratic system Parliament is an adversary body in the sense that there is a Government and an official Opposition which are the adversaries. In the President’s Council, however, that is not so. In the President’s Council members are appointed for a specific purpose and not, in any way, to oppose one another. There are no political parties as such. The divisions in the President’s Council are not divisions on the basis of political parties. So the situation prevailing there is totally different to the one prevailing in this Parliament. We have no objection to the President’s Council calling witnesses and calling for evidence, but this Bill seeks to go too far by introducing freedom from liability under the laws of libel for anything said in the President’s Council. For those reasons we shall not be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I do not intend reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, because I do not think there is anyone in this House who understood what the hon. member wanted to say.

That is right.

With all due respect, no one really knew what his argument was about. [Interjections.] I should like to come to the really fundamental matters.

These days the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes his contributions by way of interjections. I should like to react to one specific interjection that he made with regard to the hon. member for Rissik. He said the hon. member for Rissik did not agree on the President’s Council. This is not true, and not only is it not true. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has no grounds for making such a statement. However, what is in fact true is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself was in favour of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Therefore, the one who ran away from his own standpoints, was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he knows that what I am saying, is true. He told me this personally. In spite of this he has availed himself of opportunities several times in this House to hide his standpoint whilst I have always complied with the rules with regard to his behaviour. That hon. member knows that his caucus decided that the members did not have to adopt a standpoint on the President’s Council until after they had heard who had been appointed to the council. They could wait until then before they decided whether they were to participate or not, and the hon. the leader knows that when the Second Reading debate commenced, he issued instructions that they should adopt a standpoint in opposition to the President’s Council.

Ouch!

What I am saying to him here now, I am prepared to say outside in public too.

Then go and say it outside in public.

I am prepared to say in public that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told me that he supports the President’s Council.

That is an untruth; it is a lie.

I shall say it in public, because it is a fact.

Order! The hon. the Minister must accept the word of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If he maintains that it is not true, the hon. member is obliged to accept it.

I accept it, Sir. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to live with his conscience.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not also obliged to accept the word of the hon. the Minister? If the hon. the Minister says that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it, surely the hon. the Leader should know that it is the truth.

Order! It is a standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that is at issue. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I do not want to take this any further, except to say that I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition most probably finds it difficult to live with himself at times.

In my case it is possible.

Of course, but I could not live with a conscience like that.

But you do not have a conscience.

Sir, I cannot descend to that level at which he is talking about a conscience. However, the hon. the Leader must decide on that. I have finished dealing with him in that respect. However, I think that to come along under these circumstances and accuse another hon. member without any grounds whatsoever, detracts from all traditions of debating that I am aware of. [Interjections.] Of course not. However, I came here long before that hon. member, and I was not paid to come here by anyone else.

That is a lie too.

It is a lie, and you are a liar.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it, Sir, but nevertheless it is the truth.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

The President’s Council is a creation of Parliament.

So is the Rent Board.

You know, Sir, it is becoming difficult to conduct a debate with people who make such ridiculous statements as that hon. member does.

Why don’t you call a public meeting in Port Elizabeth instead?

At least I did not run away from my constituency like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did from his. Therefore, I think we should rather not talk about that.

What is this legislation that is before us all about? It is about an instrument that Parliament created in order to carry out certain functions efficiently. Now the hon. member for Green Point says in his argument that we want to equate the President’s Council with Parliament.

Surely that is true.

That hon. member must allow me to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point and not to the interjections of an hon. member who wants to deliver his speech for him. The hon. member for Green Point saw an analogy in the provisions of the legislation that are before us and the powers of Parliament. What he failed to do, was to say that the same analogy also applies to bodies that are not sovereign or that are not supreme. The provincial councils also derive their powers from an act of Parliament. Identically worded provisions are applicable to those councils too. Similarly the Commissions Act also contains identically worded provisions. Indeed, some of those hon. members have served on a Select Committee of Parliament that had those powers too. What is the debate really about? It is about the fact that the hon. members of the official Opposition have withdrawn from the processes that are attempting to find answers to the questions of the country.

To the dilemmas of the NP.

Let us look at what the hon. member for Green Point does with regard to the people who serve on the President’s Council. I want to remind him that members of his party are also serving on that council. Did their honesty come to an end on the day when they declared that they were prepared to participate in a process of inquiry and advice regarding a future political dispensation for the country? Did Mr. Japie Basson stop being an honest man on the day that he began participating in this process? Did advocate Neser stop being an admirable man when he said that he too wanted to participate in the process? The hon. member knows that there was a stage when Mr. Sonny Leon was the great prophet and expressed standpoints with which the Opposition were in agreement. Did Mr. Leon stop acting honestly when he became part of a process of seeking for answers? [Interjections.] The hon. member uses the name of Mr. Du Preez, who was the chairman of a commission of that party with regard to a future constitutional dispensation. Mr. Du Preez discovered that the contribution that he is able to make, he is able to make within that council. Therefore, what do we find today? We find that these people who at one stage were teammates of hon. members in the official Opposition, are subjected to abuse and condemnation today because they are following a path that the official Opposition does not want to follow in South Africa. [Interjections.] There is only one obvious conclusion and this is that the official Opposition knows that when it comes to a peaceful solution, they cannot come into power.

I want to say in all seriousness tonight that the official Opposition cannot come into power in this country in a constitutional fashion. [Interjections.] That is why they are not prepared to use constitutional institutions in order to bring about reform in this country to make it possible to achieve a just community. I want to ask this question in all fairness: What right does the hon. member for Green Point have to call into question the honesty of people like Dr. Quint in this House?

When did I do that?

The hon. member even went so far as to say tonight that people who serve on that council …

I did not.

Please. Look at your own speech. The hon. member said: “Self-respecting Coloured people are not prepared to serve on the council.” [Interjections.] Surely he said that. I want to ask the hon. member: What right does he have to say that Dr. Quint is not a man with any self-respect? What right does that hon. member have to say that a man like Reverend April has no self-respect? What right has the hon. member to say that the members of the Indian group have no self-respect? What gives that hon. member any right whatsoever to speak about the quality of the self-respect of other people? What qualifies him to do so? I want to say: As long as we use that language with regard to the morality of other people in this House …

You are the worst in this House in that respect.

… as long as we use this derogatory terminology about the participation of other people in institutions that we do not like, we will fail to find solutions.

You are 100% correct.

I am not aware of a single member of the President’s Council who has abused the President’s Council in order to express standpoints with regard to hon. members opposite as those hon. members opposite are doing here with regard to members of that council. [Interjections.] I say the hon. members opposite must decide on this themselves.

I now want to come to the only person that the hon. member for Green Point was able to quote and this is Rev. Hendrickse. I want to put the following question to the hon. member in this regard: If he or a member of his party were to receive a subpoena after this Bill had been passed, would they refuse to come?

I thought you did not want to listen to us.

Are they going to refuse to come?

I thought you did not want to listen to us.

That is not the point. The hon. member must answer my question. Is he going to refuse to come?

We shall state our standpoint here.

But you have not done so. Do you know what the hon. member for Green Point does, Sir? He says in anticipation that Rev. Hendrickse has the right to ignore a subpoena in terms of the law after this legislation has been passed. As a lawyer he knows that this means that one is encouraging someone to commit a crime. I just want us to understand what the implications of the standpoints of the hon. member for Green Point are. If we understand this, we also understand the standpoint of his party with regard to their behaviour in connection with the responsibilities and duties that the legislator places on people.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban Point. Although the hon. member did not express it in my exact words, he nevertheless is attuned to what is happening in the country. The hon. member for Durban Point is attuned to the way in which the powers of radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum are trying to fine one another in order either to destroy or to delay orderly progress in this country.

I repeat that this legislation is not granting the President’s Council more powers than it needs to carry out the directives that this House has given it. In conclusion I just want to say again that we can differ with one another when it comes to instruments and methods. It is our right to do so, but we do not have the right to question the quality, morality and self-respect of people whose standpoints differ from ours with regard to the President’s Council. That is why it is tragic that we have had to have the experience tonight of people in another council being spoken about in such a way, and then hon. members who address those people from their privileged circumstances want to deny that council its right to enjoy the same privilege. I ask once again: What is the Opposition in this country doing if it does not even want to grant people in another forum the right to defend themselves against the type of attacks that we have had to listen to here tonight?

That is why I say that this side of the House will take all the steps that are necessary to enable the President’s Council to seek, to investigate, to consult and to convince in order to see whether it cannot make a contribution that the official Opposition is not prepared to make.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the amendment moved by my hon. colleague here. In the process I should also like to reply to a few of the statements that the hon. member for Virginia made here. He said, inter alia, that equal facilities can indeed be created, even should those facilities be separate. Therefore, what the hon. member’s statement actually amounts to, is the old philosophy of “separate but equal”. This is the philosophy that was characteristic of a period in the history of the southern States of the USA. Now I assume that the hon. member is aware of the fact that, after it had weighed up all the facts, the American Supreme Court came to the following fundamental conclusion in its judgment of 1954: “Separate can never be equal.”

The problem does not really lie in the equality of the facilities, but in the enforced nature of the separation, and in the fact that people are forced to be separate, whilst they themselves have had no say in the decision that they should be separate. Then we can go ahead and make the facilities equal. We can make the physical facilities equal. Under those circumstances, however, those who are affected by it, will still not accept the equality. It is as simple as that.

I therefore want to put the question to hon. members of the NP whether, if the same thing had been done to us, if the British, after the Anglo-Boer War, had told the Afrikaners that they had decided on our behalf that the Afrikaners would have a university in Koekenaap, that they themselves would create all the facilities for us there …

Then you would not have been sitting amongst the Progs today.

What is wrong with Koekenaap?

It does not matter where. If the British had told us that we were under no circumstances allowed to attend any other university, I firmly believe we would never have accepted it.

Tell me what is wrong with Koekenaap?

No, there is nothing wrong with Koekenaap. I simply chose Koekenaap as an example. However, the fact is that we would not have put up with it. This is the statement that I want to make. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.] I do not want to tire the hon. member for Virginia with the whole story of how the process of compulsory separation took place in the southern States of the USA. Amongst other things I can refer to the case of the Texas Law School, where an attempt was indeed made to create certain equal facilities, but since there was nothing that could compare with the status of that law school, the American Supreme Court decided that there was no question of equality.

The second point that was raised here and which was raised once again several times tonight, was the question of cultural ties. Here we have the Vista University, but it is not being said anywhere, except for the fact that it will accommodate Blacks, that the Vista University is intended for one specific Black cultural group or other. Therefore, we do not have the whole philosophy of cultural ties here. It is a racial measure that is at issue here. The distinction that is being drawn, is a distinction between Blacks and non-Blacks, but not between Zulus, Xhosas and others. Let us please not fool ourselves here by saying that what we are dealing with here, is the creation of institutions where these people are being afforded the opportunity of giving full expression to their cultural heritage. Surely this is simply not true.

In the third place I want to point out that mention was also made here tonight of the cultural ties of the Coloureds and I want to ask the question that has already been asked time and again before: In what respect can it be said that the Coloureds are a separate ethnic group with a separate culture? It has been said many times here that the Coloureds are not a nation; they are not a nation in the making. What does this mean? It means that in saying this we are admitting that those people do not have their own separate cultural identity. It is as simple as that.

I now want to deal with the fact that the Vista University is meant to be an exclusively Black university. I want to refer to what the committee of inquiry itself had to say in this regard and for the record I quote from page 164 of the report—

One can disagree with that or not. The committee goes on to say—

On page 165 of the report the committee says with regard to new facilities, in paragraph 2.2.1(iv), that this community—

On page 171 the same standpoint is stated where they talk about the admission of students to White universities. I want to come back to what they said about the facilities existing at White universities that are not being utilized. The committee says that it should be left to the universities themselves. In conclusion the committee says in paragraph (ii) on page 172—

When we discussed this Bill during the Second Reading, our objection was in fact that we did not have access to this report, just as the De Lange report is not yet available at this stage. Our main objection was that it placed us in an impossible situation for discussing the Bill, in the absence of this and the De Lange report. As far as the recommendation that ministerial approval should no longer be necessary, this committee’s report supported us fully.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier raised two points to which I should like to react briefly, and the first is his exposition with regard to circumstances in America. What he said is indeed true, but the hon. member is surely aware of the fact that in America there was the so-called enforced integration. He will probably agree with me on that. The hon. member also knows that over the past two years there has been a counter-reaction to enforced integration, which is in fact been led by Moynihan, because it was discovered that it was not in the best interest of either the White American or the Negro to attend an integrated school. Indeed, it was to the detriment of both groups. For the purposes of his own argument, however, the hon. member overlooks this, and therefore does not tell us about it. It is a generalization simply to say that the Coloured population is not a nation in the making, and that, exclusively for that reason, nationally oriented universities should now be done away with and the groups should be thrown together. However, it goes deeper than that, Sir, and I shall presently quote from the Retief report, from which the hon. member quoted too.

The idea that it is merely a racial measure—these are the words that the hon. member used—when we talk about nationally oriented universities, is devoid of all truth. When one is dealing with education and training, even with academic tertiary training, one cannot separate the mere imparting of knowledge from those things that are related to it. One cannot separate it from the milieu in which one is in the process of being trained. One cannot separate it from the cultural background or from the world view of such a nation, because these things all form a unit. Therefore, when the separation of the various universities is at issue, the issue is not that White and Black may not sit next to one another whilst they are absorbing knowledge. What is at issue is the creation of the best possible opportunities for absorbing such knowledge and ultimately being of the greatest use to the community. Therefore, it is not a question of us looking down on another group, any more than the idea is for the Black man, the Coloured or the Indian to look down on the White man.

In order to support this standpoint, I want to come back to the same report to which the hon. member Prof. Olivier referred, and I want to quote from page 89 of the report—

• (a) die Swart studente dikwels die amptelike taal as medium van onderrig nie goed magtig is nie en dus sukkel om die tempo van werk te handhaaf.

The report goes on—

• (b) hy by die Westerse kultuurpatrone moet aanpas;

This is an accepted fact—

• (c) hy dikwels as gevolg van ’n bepaalde akademiese agtergrond op sekondêre skoolvlak nie maklik by die universiteitstandaarde kan aanpas nie;
• (d) die studiegelde betaalbaar gewoonlik veel hoër is as vir Swartes en beurse of ander vorms van toepaslike finansiële steun nie beskikbaar is nie;
• (e) die student se studiemetodes dikwels nie doeltreffend is nie.

Surely that hon. member has some experience of this. I myself have no experience of tertiary education, but I do have experience of ordinary school education. After all it is very true that the study methods of children with specific intellectual abilities will differ to those of children with a different intellectual ability. Surely the same will happen in the universities too. Therefore it is unfair towards the Black people, the Coloureds and the Asians to throw them together with a group of White students …

Is their standard lower?

… and I say this on the basis of the fact that one is making it difficult for those students to qualify themselves in the direction in which they want to be qualified. It is difficult due to various adjustment problems. Therefore one would already be creating inequality if one were to allow those people to study together with the Whites.

On page 125 of the same report under the heading “Bevinding” in paragraph 4 we find the following—

In the same report it is said that evidence was led by the Black people that they do in fact want their own university so that they can be educated within their own milieu and receive their education in the same cultural atmosphere and therefore ultimately be able to serve their own community.

I want to conclude by saying that there is nothing racist in this legislation, nothing that is trying to criticize students at all or to place them in an inferior light in comparison with the Whites. What is being clearly stated in this legislation, is that one must afford those groups the best possible opportunities so that they can be assisted as rapidly as possible to make good their backlog. However, the argument of those hon. members is in fact making it difficult for those students.

Mr. Chairman…

Oh no, surely you had your chance in the Select Committee.

… I just want to reply briefly to one or two points that the hon. member for Virginia raised, and I shall not be long. I assume that when the hon. member referred to integration in the USA, and mentioned Mr. Moynihan, he did not want to allege that Mr. Moynihan or any other person in America wants to return to enforced segregation in the schools. If that hon. member is not aware of that, I should like to tell him that the possibility of enforced segregation in the USA has been totally excluded.

And voluntary segregation?

This brings me to the piece that the hon. member quoted from page 89 of the report. We find that students experience problems with study methods at all universities. At all universities we also find that some students do not do as well as they should after they have left school. All universities have the problem of a high failure rate, particularly in the first year.

Were you not the lecturer there?

However, this is not always due to the factors that are mentioned in the report. The hon. member for Virginia will concede that even if those factors were in fact valid, those factors were not stated in absolute terms. There are students who have those problems. It is not correct to allege that all Black students experience these problems.

I said all Black students, but not all to the same degree.

Why must this degree of enforced separation be maintained? After all, there is a lack of logic in the entire matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin with the last argument that the hon. member Prof. Olivier has just raised, viz. the question as to why this measure is necessary, why it is necessary to establish a university for Black people. It is being done for the simple reason that the report on which the legislation has been based, proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Black people who gave evidence before the committee testified that there is a need for such a university for Black people, specifically to serve the Black people. That is why this university is being given to them. The majority want it. Now I want to ask the hon. member: If his party were the Government now and the majority of the people were to ask for such a university, what would they then do? Would they say that they cannot have it?

We shall accept the recommendations of the report.

The hon. member asked what would have happened if the British wanted to give us an Afrikaans university. Does he know what we would have done? We would have grasped it with both hands. We would have grasped Afrikaans schools. We would have accepted it, if it were in the middle of a marsh or wherever. We did not want the British schools. Now the Black people come along and ask us for the same thing. They say: “Give us our own things,” and here we are telling them that we are giving it to them. The hon. member raised the exact same arguments as the hon. member for Pinelands did. The hon. member for Pinelands said: “It has been demonstrated again and again that separate is not equal.”

†Are the University of the Witwatersrand and the Rand Afrikaans University then not equal? By law these two universities are separate. The one is an Afrikaans-medium university and the other is an English-medium university.

But I can go to either of them.

The hon. member can.

That is the point.

However, are these universities equal or not?

Of course they are not equal in that sense.

There is no difference as far as equality is concerned. [Interjections.] Both of them are recognized as good universities. As a result of the laws of the country, however, everybody cannot go to the University of Zululand, neither can everybody go to the University of Natal. Yet, are they equal or are they not equal?

*In Natal there are two universities. The hon. member for Pinelands is wrong in saying that since they are separate universities for the different population groups, the two universities are not equal. The committee says the following on page 97, paragraph 10.1—

In other words, the standards and quality that are being maintained at those Black universities, are recognized as being of the same quality as those at White universities. Those hon. members are making a big mistake in saying that the difference in quality is due to the fact that they are separate institutions. That is not true. Indeed, in one and the same school or university one can have a difference in the quality of teaching in two classrooms that are adjacent to one another. The quality is determined by the pedagogue and by the students. It is not due to the fact that they are separate institutions. There are many other factors that play a role. Therefore, it is not true to say that one cannot have teaching of equal quality in the separate institutions. It is not true. Even in one and the same institution it is impossible to have equal quality. I want to put it like this: In South Africa at least 11 or 12 languages are spoken and if one is now going to admit all the children who begin school in Sub A to one school, one cannot teach in all 12 languages in that classroom; one can only teach in one language and consequently one out of 12 children is going to receive education in its mother tongue, education which is accepted throughout the world as the best method.

Correct.

Therefore, one group only is going to be in a privileged position whilst the other 11 groups are going to be discriminated against. Therefore, one cannot provide equal education in one classroom or school. I say it is impossible. If one has 12 different classrooms for those 12 different population groups in which each group can be educated through the medium of its mother tongue one would be placing them in an equal position and eliminating discrimination. Consequently I say that one cannot eliminate discrimination by means of integration, but one can eliminate it by means of separate facilities.

But surely we are not creating 12 Vistas.

I say we are heading towards that.

I want to complete my statement finally by saying that one cannot eliminate discrimination in one integrated institution, which the PFP is asking for, nor can one have equal education in it, but one can in fact have it in terms of our policy and this is what the Black people are asking for.

Reference was made to the Coloureds, but does the hon. member know what Dr. Van der Ross said? He is reported as follows—

He then mentions the reasons for his standpoint. They are the same reasons as those that are mentioned in the report.

We cannot eliminate discrimination in the same school nor can one establish equal opportunities for different population groups in the same institution. I contend that this applies to universities as well. The report of the Retief Committee produces the irrefutable evidence for this because—

This is stated in paragraph 8.6, page 19, of the report—

They go on to say—

The hon. member for Virginia quoted this paragraph too—

Take note that Black students experience tremendous problems of adjustment. They go on to refer to a conference that was held at Wits on the subject of the problems of adjustment and the problems of the Black students at the White university. It is quoted that it was said on the occasion of that conference that the Black student has more problems adjusting to a White university than vice versa. If one places those two groups of students in the same university, who has the biggest problem in adjusting? The Black student. He is therefore being placed in a disadvantageous position. Therefore what the PFP is asking for, is to discriminate against the Black student and deliberately to place him in a disadvantageous position.

Oh no!

That is what the PFP is asking for. What the PFP is advocating, is not to the benefit and in favour of the Black student, but is to his detriment. Where does this lead? The hon. member for Pinelands said—

That is right.

Let me tell the hon. member exactly the opposite is true.

*In the same report reference is made once again to the conference at Wits and what do they say? Listen to this—

†This becomes necessary when Black students attend a White university. They say further—

”They say here at the University of the Witwatersrand that when Black students are present at White universities and those students struggle to adjust, they become aware of themselves and develop a Black consciousness. Black consciousness is the result of this; this is what one gets at these mixed universities. One has tension, Black consciousness and ultimately conflict. However, one does not have this phenomenon in separate institutions. There one has healthy nationalism. The hon. member for Pinelands said that we are cultivating healthy nationalism in separate universities. He is correct in this regard because this is what we are doing and what we want to do. Healthy nationalism …

I said exclusive nationalism and not healthy nationalism.

Very well then, exclusive healthy nationalism. This is what we are cultivating. This nationalism is exclusively healthy, and we are not afraid of healthy nationalism. We are not afraid of it, but …

What about exclusive nationalism?

That hon. member is afraid of nationalism. He does not want to help cultivate it; he prefers to destroy it.

Exclusive nationalism can lead to conflict.

That does not matter; it cannot.

It does not matter?

Healthy nationalism, whether it is exclusive or not, is the best, finest force in any nation. However, what does that hon. member want to do? He wants to destroy it. He wants to do exactly what Milner did. The spirit of Milner fives in the body of that hon. member. He wants to destroy the healthy nationalism of the Black people. He wants to destroy it, and the question is: Why? He wants to force them into White universities. [Interjections.] The Vista University is in exactly the same position as any other university in South Africa. The doors of this university are not absolutely closed. One of the clauses provides for students of another colour being admitted to this university, and the same applies to all other universities. However, it is not unqualified; it cannot be unqualified at any university. This committee recommended that ministerial approval—as the hon. member said—be removed. According to the report the vast majority of the Black witnesses who gave evidence, said that they wanted their own Black university, a university with its own character. However, they did not say who should exercise control over that university. The committee ascertained that there was a need for a university with a Black character and it went on to say that there should be control over such a university in order to get it off the ground in practice. However, they do not say that the Minister should exercise the control, but the university authority. This is the difference. They say that compulsory segregation should be replaced by voluntary differentiation.

What does that mean?

It means that they still want a separate institution, but on a voluntary basis.

No.

They are not asking for a university without character. The committee specifically advocates a university with a Black character and they definitely say—hon. members may look it up in the report—that there should be a restriction. The restriction that they are asking for, however, must be exercised by the university council. In contrast to that we say that the university council should approach the Minister. The Minister is prepared to support and to help that council that he has appointed and in which he has confidence, to maintain the character of the university. We are prepared to assist them, and if we can make it easier for them, we shall do so. We are prepared to look at that. We are also prepared—and we are not ashamed of this—to say that we support this council and furthermore that we are prepared to grant them help and assistance in order to maintain the character of this university, to increase it and to enlarge it so that it can provide education of the best quality to the students who study there.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Committee that we are discussing an amendment, which I moved earlier and which in effect would delete subsection (2) of clause 3, the subsection which makes it compulsory for Vista University to be open only to Blacks as defined in section 1 of the Population Registration Act. Then, of course, we have the exception which we come to when we discuss clause 21. I mentioned earlier and I want to mention again that the hon. the Minister, naming all the people who served on the Retief Committee, told us what an impressive committee this was.

It was.

It was indeed. I agree one hundred per cent with him. Then he also quoted Prof. Van der Ross, and I agree that he made the particular statement that has been read out. However, Prof. Van der Ross is on record, and has been for many years, as being in favour of an open university system. He has said that time and time again. The hon. the Minister does not tell us that.

He said this was a success.

That is all right. I am saying that he is on record as saying again and again that he stands for an open university where the university itself makes the decision and not the Government. Am I right in that? That is the position. So it is no good trying to quote these people out of context.

That is not out of context.

Of course it is out of context. We are talking about a Bill which, if it is passed and my amendment drops, will mean that this university will be only for Blacks. That is what Prof. Van der Ross says he does not agree with. Why then quote him in favour of it?

Then the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia both quoted from the report indicating how difficult it is for Black students. Let me concede immediately that Black students and other students have considerable difficulty in coming to terms with the demands of a university. I concede also that because of the situation in which South Africa finds itself the vast majority of Blacks, though not all, because of where they live, the conditions under which they have lived and the opportunities they have had or not had, find it extremely difficult to adapt immediately to the new situation at, for instance, the University of Witwatersrand, the University of Cape Town or wherever. The hon. the Minister, having quoted from the report and sketching all the difficulties, did not go on to say that the Retief Committee, consisting of all these prominent educationalists, actually suggests that universities ought to be open.

They did not say that.

Of course they did. My hon. colleague Prof. Olivier quoted three or four passages in that regard and last Friday in the House I quoted the appendix by Prof. Dreyer who says that the committee recommends an open university and that he believes that that is going to create many problems. He proceeds to list the problems and disassociates himself from the committee’s findings. He was the sole exception. That is why I say it is not the Retief Committee that made this recommendation, but one single person. It should be called the “Dreyer recommendation”.

I believe that the hon. the Minister is wrong when he says that we in the official Opposition are seeking to discriminate against Blacks because we say that universities should be open. If the university is located outside Pretoria, in Bronkhorstspruit or in Soweto, I would say that that university should be open. For obvious reasons it would have a particular kind of character according to its location, but I believe that the students themselves wish it to be open and that the majority of Black educationalists also wish it to be open and not confined to one group.

Finally, the hon. the Minister suggests that Black consciousness is formed more at White universities where there are small groups of Blacks turned in upon themselves.

That is true.

Where then did the top leader of Black consciousness attend university?

You are an expert in that field.

Stutterheim.

Not Stutterheim. That hon. Minister knows as well as I do that it was at the Medical School in Durban. That was Black.

Of course, but it is open.

What is the hon. the Minister talking about?

There are Indians and Coloureds there.

I see. That is interesting. At Vista University there are going to be Zulus, Xhosas, Tswanas—the whole lot.

You are getting yourself into a corner.

No, Sir. I find it very difficult to understand. The hon. the Minister should be very careful when he interjects. The Vista University is now not an open university. Nevertheless, at that university one has all the various culture groups that need to be protected one from the other. I could see that the hon. member for Virginia was consistent throughout until last year. When this House passed legislation enabling students other than Zulus to attend the University of kwaZulu and students to attend the University of the North and the University of Fort Hare, regardless of their ethnic affiliation, the inconsistency was there for all to see. If the hon. the Minister wants to be consistent, I believe he is discriminating against Black students because he puts Xhosas and Zulus in the same university. That is discrimination if one were to follow the logic of the hon. the Minister’s arguments. It is just not true. What is this big argument about the importance of separate cultures and therefore separate universities? What is the hon. the Minister doing? He gives us an example pertaining to Sub A. We are not talking about Sub A. We are talking about tertiary education.

A final point I should like to make is one about black consciousness. I believe this is a very important point. The hon. the Minister knows the Snyman Commission report better than most hon. members in this House. He has read it. I have also read it. Many hon. members in this House have read it. What does that report say? The finding of the Snyman Commission report was this. Because of the discrimination and because of the structure and the system of the universities, a reaction has developed there which led to a strong nationalism, which was very difficult to control. Now the hon. the Minister says he believes nationalism is a good thing. I believe, however, that exclusive nationalism which holds to itself to the expense of others can be very dangerous in South Africa.

But we say exactly the same thing.

I am not talking about Afrikaner nationalism now. I am also not talking about the NP. What I am talking about now is the development of Black consciousness at the moment. Mr. Justice Snyman said that this was unhealthy, that it was bad and that something should be done in order to curb it. One of the reasons why legislation was brought to this House which enabled Blacks, irrespective of their tribal origin as it were, or their national state origin, to go to all the universities in South Africa, was exactly that one. We all know that they used to be totally separate before. When this change was brought about, the Government began to move in the right direction. That is the reason why we oppose this particular clause. That is also the reason why we stand by our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply very briefly to the arguments that the hon. member for Pinelands has just raised here.

The first statement that I want to make, is that I do not have the least doubt that within the next decade or two, there will be a university here in Southern Africa for each population group. If the Republic of South Africa does not establish them, the national States themselves will do so. This is exactly what is happening. This is the case with the Transkei and with Bophuthatswana, as well as with Venda, and it will be the case in future in every other national State. If we do not do so, those States will do so themselves. The national States that are already self-governing at the moment, approached this department or the Minister without exception at least once a year with the question of whether the time is not yet ripe for establishing a university in their State. Therefore, it will happen.

But they will not be exclusive.

Furthermore I want to concede that tension does exist in our universities from time to time. My personal opinion is that the reason for that tension must be sought in the fact that members of the various population groups of South Africa are studying at those universities. This is one of the reasons why tension arises.

So, what are you doing now?

With the establishment of Vista University, the university is now going to be brought to the various communities. Where the Vista University is going to operate, it is in the nature of things going to have students in that specific community that originate predominantly in the specific community. Therefore the university will have the character of that specific group.

In Soweto too?

Perhaps not to the same extent in Soweto. However, we must give the people a chance. We must bear in mind that those universities are going to be in the hands of the Black people. Therefore, we must afford them the opportunity to regulate these matters to a certain extent. I am sure that we are going to be amazed to see what they are going to come up with. Hon. members of the official Opposition must not have the least doubt that the Black man, with regard to educational institutions, is a hundred times more aware of his nationality and his culture than those hon. members themselves are. They need not have the least doubt about this.

Therefore, if we afford those people the opportunity, they are going to come up with things that will serve their own community and will suit their students best. The hon. member said that the Retief Committee recommends that universities should be open. The hon. member must just read carefully what the Retief Committee says. On page 164, paragraph 2.1.5, it says—

In other words the Retief Committee says that he makes better progress within his community at the undergraduate level, but for post-graduate study he finds it easier to move out of his group. This committee recommends consistently that facilities should be created with the character of that national group and that community, but this is where the difference lies. They say that the university authority should take those decisions, whilst we say the Government, supported by the Minister, should take those decisions. Since this university must get into its stride, it is essential for the Minister to help that authority to maintain and to elaborate upon the character of that university.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

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

We in the official Opposition have been saying, in the Select Committee and during the Second Reading debate, that we have two major problems with this piece of legislation. One is the racial exclusivism and the other is the denial or lack of internal autonomy. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the amendment were to be accepted the phrase “, with the approval of the Minister,” would be deleted. The hon. the Minister knows that this frequently recurring phrase does not specifically refer to the present hon. Minister, but the Minister, whoever he may be. We must remember that we are making a law here, and the Bill would actually be improved if we tried to lessen the influence of the hon. the Minister, whoever that Minister may be at any particular time.

We believe that a prerequisite for any university to be worthy of that name is that it should enjoy maximum internal autonomy. We concede, however, that no university has ever enjoyed total autonomy, nor ever will, but we are inclined to say that we should aim towards the maximum possible internal autonomy for the good of that university. We believe that this must be an essential component without which a university would certainly lack credibility. A university should be as autonomous as possible in order to develop its own philosophy and its own character, under control of its own council. It is our view that in this piece of legislation the hon. the Minister is not doing justice to the council itself. He has repeatedly said that the control or direction of the university should be under the guidance of the people who are most affected or influenced by the specific university. We are saying that the constant refrain “with the approval of the Minister”, and even phrases such as “with the permission of the Minister”, etc., are counter-productive as far as this is concerned. We are specifically making this point in connection with clause 4 because we do not want to repeat the same argument for each and every clause. We prefer to set out our argument now. When we come to a discussion of this aspect in later clauses, we then merely have to say that we have already stated our case, have convinced the hon. the Minister and he can accept all our amendments.

Very nice.

Without this autonomy a university becomes little more than a glorified high school, and none of us wants that. The Bill before us contains what I would call several constraints whereby the Minister, and not the council, will have the final decision. It is really a university which is governed and determined in the important areas by the Minister. We do not think that is healthy. It is our contention—and we have made this clear—that a university should be free to decide who should be taught, who should teach and what should be taught. Without these fairly basic and modest rights a university will always be in danger of having other views imposed on it from outside. Furthermore, because this Bill hobbles the council and holds it back as it does, and where this is not done in respect of the so-called White universities, Vista University is open to the connotation of inferiority. I do not say there is a guarantee of that; I am saying it is a possible danger. We do not have to deal with it; we have enough problems as it is. For this reason there is a very real risk that Vista University will not enjoy the full confidence of the very people for whom it is being established and whom it wishes to serve, or attract the high quality staff that every university seeks to have.

I want to quote from what was said at the Fourth General Conference of the International Association of Universities which was held in 1967 and which laid down a guideline for what the internal autonomy of a university ought to be. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister and I will be at one about much of this, but in some respects there is obviously also a parting of the ways. I quote—

There are five of them and I want to quote them very briefly—

1. 1. Whatever the formalities of appointment may be, the university should have the right to select its own staff.
2. 2. The university should be responsible for the selection of its students.

We have already seen that this is not happening—

1. 3. Universities should be responsible for the formulation of curricula for each degree and for the setting of academic standards.
2. 4. Each university should have the final decision as to the research programme carried on within its own walls.

Finally—

1. 5. The University should be responsible, within wide limits, for the allocation among its various activities of the financial resources available to it, that is, space, equipment, capital funds, recurrent operating revenue.

In conclusion it is said—

I want to stress that. We are not suggesting that there should be the widest possible degree of autonomy in order that there should be less discipline. On the contrary. The more autonomy one gives to a university, the more one encourages it to be responsible. We say the more one holds a university back, the less responsible one encourages it to be. Some improvements—I concede it again—were made in the Select Committee. We are grateful for this. We think that they were wise amendments which were accepted and which have now been accepted by the House. However, we do not believe that there were enough. I move my amendment because we believe that internal autonomy is important for a university.

Mr. Chairman, like the official Opposition, we also believe very strongly in university autonomy when it comes to the entrance qualifications for students and the academic aspects of the university. However, where we do differ from the official Opposition—and consequently the hon. member for Pinelands will understand that we cannot support his amendment—is that wherever the Minister’s approval is required for fiscal measures, i.e. as regards monetary matters, we believe the Minister’s responsibility and accountability for the State funds to be spent in this way must be retained. I should like to remind hon. members, and particularly the hon. members of the official Opposition, that Vista University is going to be predominantly financed by the State. It is going to provide low-cost education. As a result there is specific accountability that rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. The effect of the amendment in this instance will be, as it will be in a subsequent clause as well—like the hon. member for Pinelands, we do not want to repeat the arguments, so we shall put them clearly on record at this stage—that the Minister will be freed from his accountability to the House for the expenditure of State funds, which is something we do not want. I do not believe that that would be correct. We believe that one can go so far with autonomy in terms of academic aspects and the admission of students, but where very considerable State expenditure is involved, we do not believe one can actually free the Minister of that accountability. Regrettably, that is going to be the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands. As I have said, we in these benches do not feel that that is correct. We feel that the Minister should retain that accountability to the House.

I should like to point out that this specific clause, which both the hon. member for Pinelands and I are using to explain our positions, actually deals with fiscal measures only. I think the hon. the Minister himself has said that he should retain that accountability. However, where we do agree with the official Opposition in regard to other clauses where the academic autonomy of the university is affected, we shall of course be supporting the official Opposition’s amendments. In this instance, however, we want to retain that accountability of the Minister and I believe that on reflection the hon. members of the official Opposition will possibly agree that we must have the Minister accounting to the House for the expenditure of State funds. Therefore, regrettably, we shall not be able to support the official Opposition’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to thank the hon. member for Durban North for his support. His explanation is quite correct. It is as a result of the fact that this is a fiscal measure.

*I do not believe that this measure affects the autonomy of the university, for the simple reason that other universities, too, are not fully autonomous because they operate on a formula basis. The number of students enrolled at a university determines the sum which that university obtains from the State. Therefore there is a specific criterion whereby to determine how much the university can receive. The university has to confine itself to the amount it obtains from the State plus donations it receives.

In the case of the Vista University it is impossible to implement the formula basis because the university does not yet have students and would therefore have to start without funds. However, because the university has not yet been established it cannot expect to receive large donations either. The result is that in this instance, the State has to accept the responsibility for its establishment. Only when the formula basis can be applied to the Vista University as it is applied to other universities can the provision relating to ministerial approval be withdrawn. It is simply unimaginable that a university authority could carry on with planning, expansion, etc. without obtaining approval from the body that has to provide the finance. It is for that reason only that ministerial approval is required. However, I contend that this will not affect the internal autonomy of that university to a greater extent than would be the case on the basis of the formula principle. Moreover, universities that function on this basis in the beginning stages are better off than the other universities. Medunsa is an instructive example. In the case of that university the amount per student is far higher than at other universities because that university is still in the phase of becoming established. However, one cannot do this without ministerial approval, because the Minister must report to this House as to where he obtains the money. This will be the case with the Vista University as well, because this university is also going to begin by having a larger per capita expenditure than other universities. Therefore, in this sense it will be better off, but once it has obtained the money, the council will proceed to spend it. Therefore the Vista University is as autonomous as any other university in every respect, but in this regard procedures other than those laid down by the formula have to be adopted, and that is why this measure is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, this argument was also advanced during the sitting of the Select Committee and therefore it certainly comes as no surprise to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia that we are raising this matter again here, because we stated very clearly that we believe that the council of the university ought to have the power to take many of the decisions which, in terms of this Bill, are subject to the approval of the Minister.

I should just like to make one remark about the speech of the hon. member for Durban North.

†He says he does not want to release the Minister of his accountability to this House. If we were to compare the amount of money voted annually under the Votes of the Department of National Education for White universities with the amount voted for Black universities, the former amount would exceed the latter probably hundredfold.

And the number of students?

If the hon. member for Durban North wants to be consistent he should really apply the same formula because if his argument is based on the accountability of the hon. the Minister to this House, there is no reason why the councils of the White universities should have a greater degree of autonomy and freedom than the councils of the Black universities. The reason why we believe that the council should have the right to make those decisions in this case as well is because of the way in which these councils are constituted.

*Looking at the composition of the council as laid down in clause 10, it is evident that the council comprises, inter alia, the rector and the vice-rector. However, the appointment of the rector and the vice-rector are also subject to the approval of the Minister. It also comprises three members of the Senate, one person occupying a post on the establishment of universities designated by the Minister, one person nominated from amongst its members by the Council for Education and Training, one person nominated from amongst its members by each of the teachers’ associations recognized by the Minister in terms of the Act, seven persons nominated by the State President and one person nominated by the Minister, who shall vacate his seat immediately the membership of the convocation reaches 100 for the first time. The Government has the final say over the number of people appointed to that council. I cannot imagine the Government appointing people to that council who would not have the necessary responsibility and who as a result would not be able to exercise the necessary authority in order to ensure that the activities of this university are conducted as they should be, as is the case at other universities.

Why, then, are you concerned about this?

Why should a motion of no-confidence in the council be moved in advance, because that is the essence of the matter? [Interjections.] No, wait, let me continue.

The reason that is being advanced—and this was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban North as well—is the matter of finance. I believe the hon. the Minister will concede that this is a very relative matter, but as I indicated in one of my earlier speeches, it is true that the State subsidizes our White universities by considerably more than 80%. Therefore I do not know why this should be a factor. Perhaps Vista may be State-subsidized by up to 100% in the beginning stages, but logically speaking, does that justify the exercise of all these powers by the Minister instead of the council? In my opinion that does not hold water. It is not logically convincing.

Moreover, I must point that in the case of this clause it is not a question of finance. I must therefore point out in all humility that appears to me as if the arguments of both the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. the Minister are irrelevant in this connection, because subsection 5, which is at issue here, concerns the status and proprietary powers of the university.

But the clause before the Committee at the moment is clause 4.

Yes, and that is exactly what clause 4 is about. It concerns the status and proprietary power of the university, but subsection (5) of clause 4 provides—

No reference is made here to financial arrangements that can be made; this is an agreement which the university may enter into with another body in any sphere.

How can you be so stupid?

… with the view to the continuation of its activities. It does not necessarily follow that financial aspects are at issue here, and in that sense it appears to me that in point of fact, the arguments advanced here do not hold water.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member in this regard, but bearing in mind the concept of the Vista Bill as a whole, the implication is that the private sector will also be involved. Agreements may be entered into with the private sector in regard to the provision of buildings and so on. This will in point of fact mean that this clause has a financial implieation, and specifically on those grounds the entire debating point revolves around the finance involved. This is in contrast to the situation at an ordinary White residential university or an ordinary Black residential university. For that reason it is particularly applicable.

Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all that I do not share the lack of confidence which the hon. the Minister has in Vista University in terms of receiving donations.

The university will receive donations but certainly not enough.

Of course not enough, but they will receive considerable donations, as far as I can see.

But one cannot rely on such donations.

Of course, and that is why the Government has to be involved. I have no quarrel with that at all. They are going to receive specific donations, and this is where it corresponds with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Virginia that because of the involvement of the private sector, because of the agreements with the private sector, the university itself is not going to spend money; it is actually going to receive money and donations …

Not necessarily.

Well, not absolutely necessarily; that is correct. That is, however, going to happen very largely. They are not going to begin to spend money in order to insist that the private sector should become involved. It is just the opposite that is going to happen.

Let us look at the wording of this clause. We are actually pressing this because it gives us an example of the whole debate around this matter. We will certainly not press this matter where it appears again in other clauses of the Bill. We argued this matter in the Select Committee and we found that we could not persuade the committee. Nevertheless, we are still convinced that we are right. Clause 4(5) reads as follows—

What happens should the university want to enter into an agreement with the Urban Foundation? Why on earth should they then have to rely on the approval of the Minister? It just makes good sense for a university which is in its initial phase, where many people are concerned about the lack of skilled people, the lack of university graduates, that money should be channelled to that university. The fact that the council itself has the right to do that, the right to negotiate and to reach an agreement, I guarantee, can actually encourage people to give money, to realize that there are no strings attached, that this university is not a Government or political institution, but that it is merely a university which is trying to get on its feet.

Let us bear in mind the character of this particular university. When the hon. member for Durban North talks about fiscal responsibility, loans, and all the rest, I concede immediately that the points he makes are valid. As far as this specific subsection of clause 4 is concerned, I believe, that we are actually tying the hands of possible donors by imposing this obligation that they have to wait for the approval of the Minister. Finally I should like to stress another point. The hon. member Prof. Olivier has made the point that we have here a very effective council still to be elected and/or appointed. It is obvious that we all want to see the best possible council. We do not know who the members of that council are going to be. The hon. the Minister may already have some rough idea about that. They are, however, going to be top class people. To tell those top class people now that they cannot conclude any deal—exchange student deal, Urban Foundation deal or any other deal, for instance with another university such as the University of Stellenbosch—makes no real sense at all. If they are treated in that way they cannot be encouraged to take the responsibilities which are theirs as a council. That is why we urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. He can by all means look at the other ones, and where he feels that there are enormous sums of money involved, we will of course be defeated. On this specific issue, however, I can guarantee that it will not be the case.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Pinelands foresees, and what he is advocating now, is a matter for which provision is indeed made in the Bill under clause 4(3). I quote—

As a result of a recommendation by the Select Committee, the word “Minister” is to be deleted—

Ministerial approval will therefore not be necessary in cases of this nature. Surely this confirms the fact that the Minister does not want to be involved when Government funds are not at stake. When this university receives funds by way of a donation, an agreement or in any other way, and it is an unconditional donation or allocation of funds, the university is free to proceed with the transaction. However, it is only when the State or State money is involved that the Minister must be consulted. Allow me to illustrate this by way of an example.

Say, for example, the PFP were to declare its intention to establish a chair, not in political science but in a decent science, and that party contributed R1 000 per annum for that purpose. Say the establishment of the chair costs R25 000 per annum. Surely that would mean that the Minister would have to provide for the allocation of R24 000, while the PFP would only contribute R1 000.

Surely the council would not accept that.

No, the council would not accept that. I should perhaps agree to it, but the council would not accept it.

You therefore chose a poor example. Rather find another one.

If a person were to offer to contribute R1 000 for a chair, it would mean that the State would be responsible for R24 000, and after all, the Minister’s approval would have to be obtained for a financial implication of this nature. For example, the university authorities could say that they were going to hire buildings from another educational institution for R10 million per annum. That is an enormous sum, and therefore the Minister would have to be involved. Surely he has to know in advance what to budget for, so that he can tell them whether the money will be available or not. After all, that is clearly a matter of orderly management and orderly government. Where the State is not involved, at least 24 amendments were accepted in the Select Committee specifically to indicate that where the Minister and the State are not involved, they do not in fact want to be involved and therefore this can be removed from the legislation. It is only where there is a financial implication for the State that the Minister’s approval is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister by way of interjection for an example and I do not want to give him too much time because he may even come up with a good one. Therefore I am going to be very brief. I just feel that we have not heard any different argument to convince us that this amendment is a bad one. In fact it has convinced us that the arguments that we used in the Select Committee and that were turned down and the arguments that we are using now are the right ones. We believe that the council can take responsibility and that they are not going to act irresponsibly. In particular, no mention is made of fiscal matters at all.

Yes, there is.

Well, I cannot see it. I do not see any sign of that. The hon. the Minister has had two chances to tell us what they are but he has not done so. Therefore we cannot but move this amendment, stand by it and vote for it.

Amendment put and the Committee divided: