Mr Chairperson, a very famous philosopher in the 12th century once said: ``Please God, make me virtuous, but not yet.'' I get the impression here that people from the New NP and the DP want to be part of this process, but they want to speak for special vested interests. Therefore the hold of the special interests denies them the capacity to be part of the great movement.
They want to speak for all the people with outstretched or semioutstretched hands. But they do not define all the people in the way that we would like to. They go into the townships and they want to get the township votes now that ethnic mobilisation by the New NP is taking place. They will go to the townships to get votes from the blacks, but they will not go to the schools and universities where racial incidents are taking place. They will not go and talk about transformation and the need for tolerance and understanding.
The implication of what is taking place here is that the historically black universities need treatment and they need control of their financial matters, but that is a myth. I regret to say it is a racist myth, because if one looks at the details of what is happening, one will see a new world of segregative provisions for halls of residence in one university because they think that typically the slave-hearts would like it that way. The powers of intervention that I have at present are enormous, and I say this to the faint-hearted. Through the purse, the allocation of resources - the only allocation that I make, is the 14% of the education budget to higher education - I can control what they do. I do not wish to do that, because it is nontransparent. Under this provision here, I have to consult the Council for Higher Education. I would like to say to Mr Raju that the Council for Higher Education is not a know-all organisation. It does not know what is going on in every institution. In fact, the small staff that I have know what is happening in virtually all the institutions. The council is an advisory body that represents interests. Therefore I will consult them, as I am consulting them on language policy and on the shape and size of our education. They have written their report in this regard, and by January I shall write my response to them. I have not decided on my response, unlike some opinion-makers, but I am going to follow the attempt laid down there. I am not saying that I will reject it, but I am now looking at the 61 submissions made on this.
I say to the DP and the New NP that they have to look very concretely at this. The New NP does not state reasons why they object. They assert what they are doing. Mr Raju, on the other hand, reverses the arguments raised in the National Assembly with no evidence of engagement with issues at all.
I have been open to meeting them to debate the difference between autonomy and academic freedom, and there is a real difference. We should go through chapter and verse to look at these real distinctions. We must advance the whole issue of academic freedom.
I would like to tell Mr Kgware that part of the refashioning is to look at the interests of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. There are so many satellite institutions set up. There are at least three universities and technikons in Mpumalanga. It is highly irresponsible that there should be satellite institutions without reference to a framework, because we are not a rich country.
Businesspeople give endowments to the historically white universities, but they do not give endowments to the historically black universities. They are not interested in places like Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. We will have institutions of higher learning, providing we can rationalise, providing we have power to change and move. Now, finally, I must tell hon members and this House that there is no free ride or entitlement to higher education. The Constitution does not say that everyone has a right to higher education. It depends on their needs.
We are spending R270 million - that is a real redress - a year, to provide for the grants and the loans to students. These are all done through universities and technikons. No student in need who has academic potential should ever be denied a scholarship or a bursary, but beyond that we cannot go. Beyond that we have the two Bills. We have to invest money in Abet and in technical high schools. However, we must not give the impression that there is a free ride to higher education. We must support those institutions that object to students who have no academic capacity who insist on studying there for four or five years.
I end by saying that this is a very important debate. It allows us to look at other issues of higher education. When my proposals go to the Cabinet, I undertake that I will also bring them to this House, as I promised to the National Assembly, and we will have a debate here, in this House, before any final decisions are taken. That is the spirit in which we will work. That is the spirit in which this amending Bill will be operated by me and by my successors, because we must take into account the actual needs of our country, rather than some ideological interest that one may have - one's commitment to private higher education institutions, or one's commitment to those who give money to one's party for the purposes of fighting elections.
This is not our interest. Our interest is in the best interests of our young people, and particularly the institutions that exist in our country. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (New National Party and Democratic Party dissenting).