Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is vitally important that any new political dispensation for South Africa should receive the support of the majority of each population group present in South Africa. I believe that this is and should be common cause in this House. We know by way of a number of speeches made by the governing party that the Government endorses this standpoint as well. We also believe that the PFP, the official Opposition, will endorse the statement that no new political dispensation in South Africa can become viable without the support of the majority of each population group in South Africa. Needless to say, we in the NRP subscribe to this view as well. No new political dispensation can survive isolated from either the White or the Black groups, let alone maximize its potential for ensuring that a peaceful and prosperous Republic can be brought about in which all the citizens of South Africa—Black, White, Indian and Coloured—can manifest a common loyalty. This statement of majority support from each group applies to any commission which intends to investigate a new political dispensation for South Africa, whether it be the Buthelezi Commission or whether it be the President’s Council as such.

The Blacks of South Africa, those living outside the selfgoverning homelands, those living outside the independent Black States, in other words, those living in the non-homeland areas of South Africa, represent a very significant group, by latest estimates well over 10 million people. Cognizance will have to be taken of their opinions and aspirations. They cannot be left suspended in political mid-air. A political settlement which caters for minority group interests only will not extinguish the burning aspirations of those who prefer to be associated with the non-independent homelands of South Africa.

*The fact that the terms of reference of the President’s Council exclude Black opinion, and therefore the search for a common political dispensation, will not remove the reality of Black pressure to share in a single South African economy, with the retention of a single South African citizenship. On the contrary. Any action which is aimed at eliminating Blacks from the process of deliberation and negotiation, will only result in growing demands for a rightful say and the inception of a new political dispensation. The rejection of Black opinion will result in a negative attitude towards all proposals coming from the President’s Council. Coloured and Indian South Africans not only have relations with the Whites of South Africa, they have very strong ties with the Blacks as well. At a political level, there is, for instance, the Black Alliance. These ties have a marked influence on the decision-making of the Coloured and Indian leaders, and therefore, of course, on their willingness to co-operate with the Whites. One should not underestimate these ties. The exclusion of Blacks from the President’s Council and the resulting alienation of Black opinion, will leave Coloured and Indian leaders in an unenviable position and will have a strong influence on any new initiatives concerning the Whites.

The unfortunate result of this could be that the positive intentions of the President’s Council will be neutralized. White leadership can no longer continue to retain the sole right to responsibility for the development of a new political dispensation in South Africa. This responsibility is the joint responsibility of Black, White, Coloured and Indian leadership. A collective responsibility for a political settlement in South Africa does in fact indeed exist; a settlement which cannot be properly implemented if Black opinion is deliberately excluded.

†Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-emphasize that there is a collective, a co-responsibility in South Africa for leaders of all population groups to accept responsibility for finding a new peaceful political dispensation. I also believe that Whites can no longer accept full responsibility for initiating moves in this direction. We recently saw the manifestation of the Buthelezi Commission, whose report will be made public on 11 March.

Have you signed the report?

Even though all parties may not agree on the initial recommendations, we in this party believe it to be the first step towards a successful solution being found in South Africa. Negotiation does not stop with the first inquiry into a new dispensation. Active participation in the process of deliberation and negotiation is an important means for reducing excessive and unrealistic secular demands on any new political dispensation. There is no question about it that eyeball to eyeball interface negotiation away from the public platforms between group leaders has a positive and moderating effect on narrower secular demands, such as a one man, one vote, winner takes all, dispensation. Exclusion from participation in this negotiating process, on the other hand, leaves the excluded group—in terms of my motion I am referring specifically to the Blacks—no alternative but to exploit, often by imotive rhetoric, their injured and collective pride and dignity, as political leaders always have it on public platforms. This is a process which will definitely be counter-productive to achieving a group consensus. I believe, and would like to state very clearly, that for this very reason the act of exclusion is far more dangerous than interfaced confrontation.

*I am convinced that White fears that Blacks would be satisfied with nothing less than a “one man, one vote” system of government, are overemphasized and misplaced. The cultural diversity of our plural South African society demands a single process for negotiation. Nevertheless, the solution to our political dilemma may possibly be found in a parallel political system which could accommodate the two macro-value systems. What is important however—I wish to emphasize this statement again—is that we must make the process one single process of negotiation.

I want to point out that the macro-value systems which have to be accommodated, consist of two specific systems of values. These two systems of values—viz. one for the non-homeland areas of South Africa which are founded on a democratic and capitalistic constitution, and that system which is in partnership with the homeland areas which functions according to their chosen system of values of a traditional consensus government and a communal economic system—should be linked to one another. So important is the survival and continuation of both value systems which constitute a part of existing and deep-seated group and leadership interests, that it is improbable that the leadership elements of these value systems would be prepared to accept domination of the one by the other. Therein lies the key to the approach for the future.

The Whites, Indians and Coloureds—or at least, the majority in that group—endorse a democratic capitalistic system, but the majority of Blacks who live in the self-governing independent States of Africa or in the urban areas of South Africa, will not give up their system of values, and this is based on a collective economic system and a traditional consensus-type Government. We have a First World system of values for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, for our objective is democracy, but there are also Blacks who endorse that standpoint, viz. democracy and capitalism. The challenge in politics in South Africa is to form a partnership between these two systems without the one dominating the other. One can therefore see how important it is that all the parties which are involved in the new system, should be involved in such a partnership as far as the development of a new political dispensation in South Africa is concerned.

In our opinion the Schlebusch Commission, which was the forerunner of the President’s Council, quite rightly obtained the evidence and opinions of all race groups. We therefore find, of course, that even an organization such as Inkatha, one of the strongest Zulu political groups in South Africa, submitted public evidence to that body. The leader of the Indians, members of the Indian group, as well as members of the Coloured group, and leaders of that group, voluntarily gave evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. We therefore have, in the Schlebusch Commission, a practical example of White, Black, Indian and Coloured leaders voluntarily submitting evidence to a commission. They were not forced to do this; they did so voluntarily.

It is a pity that this spirit of joint responsibility which was displayed during the proceedings of the Schlebusch Commission, has not been continued among all race groups in the President’s Council.

I think that everyone will agree that the continued submission of diverging opinions to any commission entrusted with the search for a new political dispensation is to be expected. This, in itself, was one of the basic reasons for the appointment of a commission such as the Schlebusch Commission.

†We cannot expect that people will put in testimony and witness that everybody can agree with. The very reason why commissions are established is to try to accommodate divergent views.

*For this reason it is a pity that success has not been achieved in furthering negotiations among all interest groups in the President’s Council.

†A very important fact that must be taken into consideration is that radical and moderate views will be expressed both in commissions and organizations such as the President’s Council. We should not, however, fear those radical views, but should welcome the fact that people are prepared to bring those views to institutions such as the President’s Council.

The demise of the Black South African Citizens’ Council, an adjunct to the President’s Council, that is still written into our Constitution Act, is also to be regretted. That Black council had the potential for developing full and proper negotiating facilities with Black leaders. We in this party believe that undue haste was shown m allowing this council to become dormant. We are aware that the hon. the Prime Minister indicated at the time that he had decided not to avail himself of the opportunity of this council and maintained that Black leaders did not want this council. The important question is, however why the Black leaders did not want that council. What were the underlying reasons for the demise of that council? We still believe that it is a council worth pursuing and that the hon. the Prime Minister should once again take the initiative to try to breathe life into that council.

We exclude Black opinion from the President’s Council at our own peril, Sir, because in the final analysis Black opinion will find expression. Black opinion will have a significant influence on the viability of the recommendations emanating from the President s Council. It will be tragic for all South Africans if Black opinion were to find expression and sympathy in hostile, militant organizations based outside South Africa, simply because we left them no alternative within South Africa. It will be an even greater tragedy for South Africa if moderate Black leaders were to be ousted by militant leaders such as the ANC. It will be a great tragedy if these militant leaders with bases outside South Africa—these militant leaders who continuously indoctrinate Black South Africans into believing that they can expect nothing from Whites except rejection—were to take the place of the moderate Black leaders we have in South Africa.

We ignore Black opinion at our peril Time marches on and, whether we like it or not Blacks are in the majority in South Africa, and differences of opinion about a new dispensation are to be expected, and leaving such differences unresolved amounts to gross political negligence. We in the NRP believe that time and goodwill are still on our side. We must make maximum use of our opportunities to negotiate a political settlement with all groups, a new political dispensation acceptable to all, acceptable to the majority of all groups in South Africa. In the process we must avoid sacrificing any group’s legitimate rights or smothering the legitimate aspirations. This situation can only be achieved if we are realistic enough to recognize that the negotiating process is as important as the achievement of the objectives of such negotiations We believe that the President’s Council offers an excellent forum for negotiation, whether it tween Whites, Coloureds, Indians and non-homeland Blacks or parts thereof. The very positive potential offered by this innovative creation of the President’s Council should not be neglected. On the contrary, it should be utilized to its maximum potential. We believe that that maximum potential emanates from all population groups in South Africa.

The annals of modern political history, especially in Southern Africa, are filled with examples of the consequences which flow from excluding major groups from the negotiating table. Recent events in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South West Africa bear tangible evidence and witness to the hypothesis that rejected opinion ultimately leads to violent confrontation. It is a real danger, amply illustrated in those countries, that those m authority who think that they can retain control over events by practising rejection, by their very actions lose the vital control and initiative over events. Zimbabwe is a classical example in this respect.

In conclusion, allow me to point out that once we get into the arena of the negotiating table we will, I am very sure, be surprised to find that those things that are of paramount importance to Whites, Coloureds and Indians are also cherished by the Blacks. Here I should like to state that the experience I gained when I sat on the Buthelezi Commission was an eye-opener. I had the opportunity of listening to and of reading evidence submitted by the full spectrum of Black opinion in South Africa—academics, tribesmen, political leaders, teachers, doctors and Cabinet Ministers. I have to say that listening to those people was very revealing. It was very revealing to discover that their underlying needs and aspirations differ only very slightly from those of any other group. They also cherish one South Africa and one citizenship, one economy, one loyalty, and the right of every group in South Africa to retain its own identity.

That is right. It is what ethnicity is all about—the right of every group in South Africa to retain its own identity and to have a legitimate say in building that partnership for prosperity in the Republic of South Africa. Including Black opinion in the President’s Council is but one small step towards making that partnership a reality. My experience and that of many of my colleagues, I am sure, on all sides of the House, has been that the needs and aspirations of the Blacks are not a threat to Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa. They can be accommodated in a partnership for prosperity, in which one does not have one group dominating the other.

If ever there was an opportunity to put into practice the theory of co-responsibility, the President’s Council offers that opportunity. The manner in which Blacks will participate in that council must be negotiated, and I should like to call upon the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to take the initiative once again to get Black opinion incorporated into the deliberations of the President’s Council. We believe that this matter is so important that the whole Cabinet could deliberate on this hypothesis. Hon. members of the Cabinet and hon. members of both sides of the House will take note of the history of Africa, its decolonization and its attempts at government in independent countries. We in South Africa cannot afford to alienate Blacks, and the process of rejection—in particular the rejection of their proposals and participation in any deliberations on a new political dispensation—will inevitably lead to their radicalization. Then we will have lost control, not only over our own destiny but over the destiny of all the citizens of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North has stated his standpoint in regard to the absence of Black people on the President’s Council. All of us have been aware of the standpoints of this party for years as well as those of the official Opposition in regard to the presence of Black people on the President’s Council. In the past the Government and the NP have indicated very clearly why Black people have not been included in the President’s Council. The argument today is once again simply emphasizing the basic difference between Government philosophy and the philosophies of the two Opposition parties. I do not think that we will ever meet one another at all in that respect, because we are on completely different wave-lengths.

You want to learn the hard way, is that it?

I agree with the hon. member that we do not want to alienate the Black people from ourselves. Nor do we want to drive Black people into the hands of the radicals. Nor do we want the Black people to talk about the politics of South Africa outside South Africa. We have a common standpoint in that respect. However, that hon. member is overlooking history if he thinks that this side of the House is holding a standpoint that is different. Before there was ever any dialogue with Coloureds or Asians in the history of South Africa with regard to constitutional development, dialogue had already taken place with the Black people in South Africa with regard to their constitutional development. Dialogue with the Black people has been under way for some time already. The consequence of this if the mere fact that there are already four independent Black States in existence today, that there are States like Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and long before those hon. members had entered the dialogue, dialogue was already been conducted there.

The NP has a specific pattern with regard to how this matter should be handled, and its plan for the constitutional and political development of the Black people has already borne fruit. It is true that there are still many of those people outside the Black States, and the NP recognizes the fact that there are Black people in White areas. However, I shall say something more about that later on. The fact is, however, that the general pattern that the NP has laid down, differs from the patterns that hon. members in the PFP and NRP want to lay down. However, to allege that Black people have been excluded from the dialogue on constitutional development, is not true. I do not want to dwell for too long on the dialogue with the independent Black States now. Other hon. members will do so.

However, I just want to point out that after it had become clear that the Black people did not want to support the proposed Black council, dialogue did in fact continue on an on-going basis. For instance, I can refer to the on-going dialogues that were continued. Over the past few weeks here in Cape Town, for instance, we have been conducting various discussions. The hon. the Minister, the two hon. Deputy-ministers and where applicable, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and other Ministers in question as well, have held discussions in connection with constitutional proposals. Matters like citizenship and joint community services have been discussed. Therefore, dialogue is continually taking place. These conversations are not limited to generalities either. These matters are discussed specifically. There is an on-going dialogue on the constellation of States, as well as on the economic development of this country. Discussions are going to be held by various Ministers next week with regard to this very matter. We must bear in mind that the President’s Council is not a body that deals with constitutional matters only. The President’s Council has other functions too. Our Black people have needs that are different to those of the Coloureds, Asians and Whites and that is why we have to accommodate them in other spheres too.

When the Black council disbanded and it was decided not to proceed with it, a basic agreement was reached to the effect that conversations with regard to these matters would be continued by the Prime Minister on his level, by the Minister of Co-operation and Development on his level and by other Ministers on their levels. It is a pity that the idea of a Black council could not find acceptance. There are forces that worked on this matter which made it impossible for the Black leaders. However, I want to tell hon. members that I can understand why some of the Black leaders were concerned about the appointment of the Black council. Many of the leaders of the Black states saw the Black council as a replacement of their Governmental position in the Black States. They saw it as a way of undermining their authority. Accusations were made against the Government that dialogue was not being conducted with the Black States in connection with constitutional development, but with the Black people in urban areas only. The leaders of the Black States view the Black people in the urban areas as their people. Chief Minister Buthelezi has said on various occasions that there is no difference between a Zulu in KwaZulu and a Zulu in Soweto. They considered them their people. The complexity of the situation where the Black leaders in the Black States recognize that the Black people in urban areas are their people, has lead to various other complications. I want to point out one only. I think the NP has never alleged that it has concluded its thinking on the question of the liason between the Black people in White areas with the Black States and vice versa. I think that at this stage the time is ripe to think seriously about it once again. I want to view this in conjuction with the matters that are being dealt with by the President’s Council on another level. If we want to understand the complexity of this matter, we must be aware of the ethnic ties of people. One cannot deny them. Whether the Black man is in Soweto or in Kwazulu, he has ethnic bonds. The Swazi in South Africa recognizes the royal house of Swaziland. These are ethnic ties. This is the situation that exists on the levels of culture and language and on other levels.

Another problem is that the political liaison is not yet so good. We shall have to look at the political liaison. It is not possible simply to say that the political liaison with Black States and other liaison should be dealt with the President’s Council or whoever. I know the hon. members will say that having Black people on the President’s Council, is aimed chiefly at the position of the Black man in the urban area or White area, because the PFP and the NRP view these people separately from the Black people within the Black States. The hon. members are making an error there.

Why do not ask the Black people what they would like?

We know what the Black people would like. We are always holding discussions with them.

From the discussions that took place when the Black council was discussed, two things became very clear. The first is that these people are seeking dialogue and not confrontation or violence. That is why I agree with the hon. member that we should talk to the moderate leaders while we have the opportunity of doing so. We do have that opportunity. However, the Government has not come to a standstill with regard to the situation. I said that we shall have to think a little more, or think a little further, as to where we are going with these Black people. That is why the Government has asked the Commission for Co-operation and Development to look at the situation of Black people in White ares. The terms of reference are wide. This is the first time that the commission has specifically received such a task and it is very far-reaching. We are also looking at it and in the process, just as we are doing in regard to other work, we shall consult with Black people. One must consult very discreetly when one consults with Black people and one must not set the traditional authorities of the Black people up against Black people in the urban or White areas, or vice versa. It is not so easy to deal with this type of situation. That is why it is much better, when one wants to speak to Black people about the future, with regard to a constitutional dispensation and a confederation or constellation of states, to use the instruments that are already in existence, that have been proven and that have achieved results in the past. Therefore, it does not mean that we are now excluding these people from our thinking completely with regard to a prosperous South Africa. We are of the opinion that the historical background that we have with the Black people in South Africa, is very clear. Surely there can be no doubt about the NP’s policy with regard to the position of Blacks. There is no difficulty in understanding it.

The hon. member for Durban North said that he had had the privilege to sit on the Buthelezi Commission and listen to various people. However, I want to tell the hon. member that he did not have the privilege of listening to any other Blacks besides the Zulus. Basically he listened to the Zulus only. It is an simple as that. Now the hon. member wants to tell me what Inkatha or Chief Minister Buthelezi wants for Black people in South Africa, is exactly the same as what President Mangope, for instance, wants for Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.] If the hon. member alleges this, surely he cannot tell us now that the Buthelezi Commission is such a fine example. The hon. member and his party ought to stand up here today and to declare what they would do with the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission. They must say so today.

Just have a little patience.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North and his hon. leader that the hon. member has moved a very opportunistic motion. It was very well planned, particularly the timing. It is a clever thing to state a standpoint here in the House, just before the findings of the Buthelezi Commission are made public. I agree with the hon. member that the timing is good. I know of other people who also chose their time well for launching certain actions, but it would also be very interesting what the hon. member for Sea Point is going to say. I hope the hon. member for Sea Point is going to participate in this discussion today as well. The hon. member must tell us whether he accepts all the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission. He need not spell it out—we know it is only being made public on 11 March—but the hon. member can simply explain his position as well today. Then the hon. members can go to a former colleague of theirs, who also sat on the Buthelezi Commission, and ask him whether he would declare his position before 11 March. Apparently it is a great opportunistic plan on the part of these two Opposition parties to discuss this matter today, because their ultimate goal—we are going to hear this shortly from one of these two parties—is that we should come back to a national convention. [Interjections.] It is definitely going to happen—there is no doubt about it.

The hon. member for Durban North has now participated in a micro-national convention—where one of the Black peoples of South Africa only has been involved. He or his party must stand up and tell us what their attitude is with regard to the report of the Buthelezi Commission, which of those recommendations they have accepted, and if they differ with certain recommendations, why they accept the ones that they do.

Why were you not represented on it as well?

We do not need to sit on the Buthelezi Commission in order to hold discussions with KwaZulu. [Interjections.] We are holding discussions with KwaZulu every day. There is a conversation every day. These two Opposition parties must stand up and be counted with regard to this matter today.

They are boycotters.

This mini-national convention in the last British outpost was a failure and now they want to tell us that we should hold such a national convention for the whole of South Africa. The hon. members must realize that our attitude with regard to this matter is that we are serious about it and working on it, but hon. members must not expect us to think as they do with regard to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt is always at his best when he is on the attack. He is not so good when he is on the defence. When he began explaining the standpoint of the Government with regard to the Blacks, one could see that he spoke with very little conviction. However, I shall come back to the points he touched on.

In the short time at my disposal, I want to limit my contribution to 10 statements which I want to illustrate briefly and which I hope will facilitate discussion. [Interjections.] They are brief statements; not long ones. They are simply formulated, and hon. members will be able to understand them without difficulty. The first statement I wish to make, is that the composition of the President’s Council is a contradiction of the consensus which was reached in the parliamentary commission. I refer hon. members to page 4 of the interim report, paragraph 8(b), which states—

“All population groups” are the words which must be used, and they should be read with the terms of reference of that commission, viz.—

The second statement I wish to make, is that the exclusion of Blacks from the President’s Council is justified by the Government as a matter of principle, not on practical grounds. We have just had another excellent example of this from the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. In other words, an explanation based on considerations of principle is given as to why it is necessary and in order that Blacks be excluded from the President’s Council. We encountered this for the first time when the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs explained it. Then we heard it from the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. In connection with a question which I put to the hon. the Prime Minister, he himself said that should the President’s Council itself recommend that Blacks serve on the President’s Council, the Government would not accept this.

This brings me to the third statement and that is that for this reason, the official Opposition can have no part in the President’s Council. Why not? It is not because we have anything against the people who serve on the President’s Council; it is not because we are obstreperous, but because this involves a fundamental difference in principle, for in the terms of reference and the composition of the President’s Council there lies a fundamental difference in principle between the Government and the official Opposition, and what is this difference in principle? I he Government believes that it is possible to negotiate a separate constitutional dispensation in South Africa with Whites, Coloureds and Asians and, detached from that, another constitution for Blacks. That is the fundamental difference in principle. We believe that this is going to lead us astray, constitutionally speaking. We believe that if we persist in this, we are going to jeopardize ourselves and our own future. This is a difference in principle, and for that reason and no other we are not prepared to have any part in it.

This brings me to the fourth statement, viz. that the most urgent priority in South Africa is that the constitutional position of all race groups should be reconsidered. Here I wish to agree with the hon. member for Durban North. It is true that the validity of any constitutional dispensation is determined by its level of acceptability and the support it receives. It is also true that if we are going to try and negotiate a new constitution detached from and excluding Blacks, we cannot be assured of their support and acceptance. In fact it is not only I who say so; there are academics of stature who have only recently said this, academics who are clearly sympathetic towards the Government. Let me mention, for instance, what Prof. Willie Esterhuyse wrote in Die Burger of Wednesday, 3 March. I quote what he says under the heading “Magsdeling is onaanwendbaar”. He says—

Prof. Esterhuyse continues—

This answers the question of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. I quote further—

Prof. Esterhuyse states further—

This is being said by an academic who is given much prominence in newspapers which are openly sympathetic towards and which support the Government. The point is once again emphasized, that if we are truly going to become involved in a constitutional dispensation, it follows inevitably and logically that the eventual constitution must enjoy the widest possible acceptability in order to be successful.

This brings me to the fifth statement I wish to make, and that is that an extremely dangerous illusion is created by limiting constitutional reform, on the basis of some form of power-sharing, to Coloureds, Whites and Asians. I emphasize that this is extremely dangerous, because it is playing into the hands of polarization politics. Society is being polarized in the form of Whites, Asians and Coloureds on the one side, and Blacks on the other. This is crystal clear. Even if some form of constitutional dispensation is negotiated with the Coloureds and Asians, we will find that when we speak to Blacks concerning constitutional alternatives, we shall not only have lost a number of Coloureds and Asians, but we shall have reached a situation in which the process of polarization has already developed to the point at which we are no longer able to negotiate peacefully for constitutional alternatives.

†This brings me to the sixth statement which I want to make and I want to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention to this. It is an injustice to Coloureds and Asians and a gross impertinence that Whites try to manipulate them into a power block with them in order to bargain better against Blacks. [Interjections.] This is typical ganging-up politics. I want to know whether this is the policy of the NP. Is this what the NP is trying to achieve?

[Inaudible.]

I am saying that the NP is deliberately trying to get the Coloureds and the Indians on the White side so called in order to increase its size to better its bargaining position with the Blacks. If that is not so, then I ask the hon. the Prime Minister when he has the opportunity to repudiate the hon. member for Brits, Dr. Jan Grobler, because he says that is exactly what the policy is. I can only refer to the letter which the hon. member wrote to Dr. Andries Treurnicht and in which he made this a specific issue.

*The letter to Dr. Treurnicht by the hon. member for Brits was quoted in Die Burger of 25 February this year. In his letter Dr. Grobler is replying to a letter from Dr. Treurnicht, and he states in the postscript—

I emphasize the words “at all costs”. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is extremely dangerous politics. One cannot allow this. Of what use will this be to us? Suppose we succeed, over a period of five, 10 or 15 years, in getting the Coloureds and Indians on our side, what constitutional problem will we have solved thereby? Absolutely nothing.

†This brings me to the seventh point that I want to make and that is that all the conventional signs of political discontent and frustration in South Africa are increasingly being manifested by Blacks yet their constitutional position is regarded as having been finalized. What do I mean by this? I am referring to all the conventional or political discontent in any society such as strikes, riots, acts of violence and subversive action. There are also peaceful protests. Where do they come from? They come predominantly from the Black section of our population and that is a sign of political discontent. I asked our research department to do research in this regard over the past year in South Africa and to check out incidents of violence, subversion and so forth where the Police had to take action. The hon. the Minister of Defence has made the point many times as has the Chief of the Security Police, namely that incidents of this kind have increased. When we talk about the future of South Africa, we do not talk about the threat that the Coloureds or Asians pose to the White man. We discuss how we can find some sort of peaceful co-existence with the majority of the people in this country. As I say, I asked our research department to go into these incidents. This year alone we have already had three. On 13 February tear gas was used to disperse a crowd throwing stones in New Brighton in Port Elizabeth. Let us look at the targets that have been attacked. On 6 January 1982 there was a bomb explosion in the WRAB office in Orlando East. On December 1981 there was a bomb and arson attack on the PAB offices in Observatory here in the Cape. On 9 December 1981 the magistrates’ courts in Orlando were bombed. On 15 November 1981 there was an attack on the police station at Tembisa. I can go on in this way. Last year alone there were 51 of these incidents. These are the signs of political discontent that are being manifested in our society and whilst this is happening, what do we do? We devote time, capital and energy to discussing the constitutional future of Whites, Coloureds and Asians on the President’s Council. We are wasting time and we are doing so deliberately in the face of all these signs of political discontent in our society.

This brings me to the eighth point and that is the statement that the longer Whites postpone coming to terms with the constitutional demands of today, the fewer will be the constitutional options available tomorrow. That is as simple and straightforward as anything that we have experienced in Africa. The longer we postpone coming to terms with the real constitutional demands of today, the fewer will be the constitutional options available to us tomorrow. Here again I want to return to Dawie of Die Burger of this week. Here again I want to quote a source that is sympathetic to the Government.

*I quote from Die Burger of 3 March 1982 in which Dawie, expresses himself inter alia, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, the poor rebels! They, too, are now going to discover names they have never heard of before—

This is exactly what I said initially with regard to the President’s Council. Originally, certain options could have been negotiated and considered on the Fearless and the Tiger and on the President’s Council, but the opportunity for that has passed. That opportunity has been overlooked by the Government.

†This brings me to statement number nine which is that if the Government wishes to go for reform then it must go all the way clearly and understandably. It must not resort to half measures and confuse the people. The sacrifice has been made, the break has been caused, the split is there. They must not abuse the opportunity by going half the way. I am sure those hon. gentlemen will agree. One is not going to woo them back by half-baked theories and measures. The Government has to confront the whole of South Africa with real constitutional options.

It is for all these reasons that I wish to move an amendment to this motion which is also my tenth statement. The amendment reads as follows—

[Interjections.] These are phrases that have now become common currency. The Government have also now declared themselves to be interested in healthy power-sharing. By doing so the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government will not be sacrificing the sovereignty of Parliament or their position of power. The Government will simply be admitting that it has made a mistake. It has already done so in other instances so why cannot it do so in this case? In admitting this mistake, we will be opening up new possibilities for constitutional development in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment in which he proposes that all recognized and accepted leaders of the various Black groups should be included on the President’s Council. On the basis of what hon. members of the official Opposition have expressly said on previous occasions, I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he includes members of the ANC or other similar organizations amongst those recognized leaders. It is important that the official Opposition should state this standpoint clearly as well.

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

Unfortunately I have no time at my disposal to reply to questions.

Debate, man, debate.

Normally I do not mind answering questions. I am not afraid of questions, particularly not of questions by the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also tried to allege that the strikes which were held, sabotage and that type of action that has been committed, is inevitably a sign of the striving of the local Black population to participate in the political process of unity in South Africa. I want to challenge the hon. the leader to state clearly that they reject the idea that these uprisings, strikes and attempts at sabotage are inspired and incited, financed and planned by the ANC and by bodies such as the Communist Party of South Africa as well as by foreign powers in order to bring about destabilization in South Africa.

That just goes to show …

I want to put it very clearly that there is more than enough scope in South Africa for dialogue on a responsible basis in order to deal with all the problems that are being experienced with the social quality of life and in the sphere of the political development of the Blacks in South Africa, with a view to removing them. There is no need at all to participate in attempts at sabotage and the attempts at sabotage to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, are in my opinion very definitely not an attempt by local Blacks to participate in the normal constitutional development in South Africa.

They are only a few Guy Fawkes capers, aren’t they?

Indeed, this is a crucial question with regard to which there is a difference in approach between the PFP and responsible politicians in South Africa.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has already stated very clearly that dialogue is taking place in South Africa on a responsible basis and over a very wide field at the moment. The hon. member for Durban North alleges in his motion that this dialogue should necessarily take place in the President’s Council.

I want to state that the President s Council is an advisory body of the Government and has no share in the legislative process as such, but is merely conducting investigations and providing the Government with advice. It is not necessarily the best body to conduct this type of dialogue. The hon. member for Durban North alleged—and I agree with him—that the best level for dialogue is eyeball to eyeball” as he put it, i.e. out of the eye of the public media. It must not be subjected to the emotions that could become involved if it were to take place in the public arena. The hon. member served on the Buthelezi Commission, and it is a fact that inspired leakages to the Press take place, even in bodies of that nature, with the idea of promoting a certain philosophy by influencing public opinion.

Dialogue between the Government and responsible leaders—and these are not traditional leaders only, but also leaders on the level of local authorities, on the commercial and business level, indeed in all spheres—is regularly taking place on a responsible basis. I want to emphasize that participating in dialogue on a responsible basis is quite different to participating in dialogue when one is not obliged to put into effect the ideas that one expresses.

It has been alleged that the NP boycotted the Buthelezi Commission. I want to put it very clearly that if the NP had participated in the discussion of that commission, the NP representatives would not have been able to separate themselves from the fact that the NP is in power in this country at the moment. Invitations were issued to the ANC, inter alia, to participate in the consultations of the Buthelezi Commission, and this alone prevented the NP from participating in it. In addition, the fact that the terms of reference of the Buthelezi Commission were much more extensive than the normal sphere of responsibility of the KwaZulu Government, also prevented us from participating in the discussions of that commission. We can participate in such discussions, but then it must take place in another sphere. Indeed, such dialogue is being conducted over a wide sphere on a daily basis, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said, by members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, by members of the Cabinet and by officials. Therefore dialogue is taking place, and I am in favour of it. I support responsible dialogue.

If talk about the theory of participation in dialogue by means of the President’s Council alone, basically I have no objection to it. If it were practically possible to conduct such dialogue in the President’s Council, one could at least investigate the matter positively. However, let us look at another aspect. The President’s Council is not a body with a single purpose. It has been divided up into specific committees which cover five different spheres, including the economic, population relations, constitutional and scientific spheres. If representation were to be granted to all the various Black peoples in South Africa—and I accept that the hon. member for Durban North wants not only the Zulus to be treated fairly, but the Tswanas, the Basutos, the Ndebeles, kaNgwane and all the other population groups—it means that not only one, two or three representatives from each group can be appointed, because there are five committees and five different aspects to which attention must be given. Indeed, it would give rise to an impossible Babel-like confusion in practice. Discussions in the President’s Council do not deal with constitutional matters only, but cover all spheres.

I am of the opinion that this process of dialogue could take place on a much broader foundation of responsibility if it were to take place on a bilateral basis. If dialogue takes place on a basis whereby positive results can be achieved, it can surely be much more meaningful. If this matter is simply to be discussed in a joint forum, in the nature of things there are so many different interests that must each be given attention that the prospect for practical, positive progress by means of such a dialogue will be considerably restricted. However, the practical example that can be achieved from a bilateral dialogue is much greater than the possibility of doing this in the President’s Council under present circumstances.

I agree that the various Black peoples should also be involved in the constitutional discussions in the Southern Africa context. Surely this has been said by the hon. the Prime Minister as well. This is what is being envisaged with the establishment of a system of a constellation or a confederation of States. After all, we have already made a great deal of progress in that regard. However, these matters must be dealt with with a view to positive development, and not with a view to the possible confrontation that may emanate from it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition based his entire standpoint—I almost said his ten point plan; previously it was his fourteen point plan …

And you have no plan.

In actual fact the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s plan is not a plan. That is correct. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the PFP are continually stating in a systematic way the option of a joint political dispensation in Southern Africa as the only alternative. They are also deliberately trying to frustrate all positive attempts by this Government to bring about real development and progress in the improvement of dispositions and attitudes between White and non-White in South Africa. I am purposely saying that they are deliberately trying to frustrate it. Indeed, this is exactly what I mean. In the debates that we have been conducting here in the House since the beginning of this session, I have remarked on various occasions that they always drag the word “apartheid” into each debate with a negative connotation …

I thought that apartheid was dead!

… whereas we as the NP Government have long since decided that it is impractical and undesirable to use the word “apartheid” because it is a word that has developed a negative significance internationally.

What about healthy apartheid? [Interjections.]

Dead or not, apartheid carries on!

Since we are trying to bring about positive development here, with the recognition of each one’s identity, the PFP is continually involved in a deliberate attempt to frustrate all positive development. I do not want to use stronger words, Mr. Speaker, because they may be unparliamentary.

Oh, it does not matter. We will really not mind.

It is in this irresponsible sphere that the PFP is increasingly denying its own duty to make a contribution towards positive development. I want to contend that we in South Africa can make much greater progress in the path of the development and promotion of relations between White, Indian and Coloured if the PFP were to cease to act as the mouthpiece of those elements who do not have the interests of South Africa at heart. [Interjections.]

The President’s Council is a body that has actually commenced with its activities fairly recently. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has already indicated that provision was made for a Black council that would function separately, but that that plan was frustrated by a number of emotional, political implications that were linked to it. I feel that we should involve responsible Black leaders in positive discussions to a much greater extent, of course in cases where the discussions are aimed specifically at certain positive projects that have a bearing on the improvement of the quality of life. For instance, if it is the improvement in the quality of life in KwaZulu that is at issue, we can make more positive progress when we discuss this with KwaZulu, whilst not including other Black peoples at the same time. I am saying this because then we can have purposeful dialogue. I am in favour of dialogue. It is desirable and essential, and everyone inside and outside South Africa must know that this Government has positive intentions and that it has the well-being of all the peoples of South Africa at heart. We do not want to suppress anyone.

In conclusion I want to state very clearly that we do not advocate the idea of confrontation or polarization between White, Coloured and Indian on the one hand and the Blacks on the other. We definitely do not endorse that idea. We are in favour of the improvement of relations with all the peoples in a positive, responsible fashion, in a way that will make it possible for all the peoples in South Africa to live here peacefully and to have a positive future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River has made a very big discovery today, and that is that consultation is a good thing. It is nearly as important as the discovery that power-sharing can be healthy. The whole attitude of the hon. member for Klip River is proof of the Government’s basic problem. I shall come back to this, but firstly I want to refer briefly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

†The hon. the Leader of the Opposition outlined ten reasons why this motion was correct and why Blacks should be part of the constitution-making process. He then moved an amendment, however, to try to change the motion.

Just to improve it.

That is what worries me. In trying to “improve” the motion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, in my opinion, done something rather unfortunate. He has cast a slur on the leaders of other race groups who are currently serving on the President’s Council. [Interjections.] What he did was a deliberate slur. I say that because he has deleted the proposal to bring Blacks into the President’s Council and substituted—

Why delete the motion referring to having Blacks on the President’s Council and make specific reference to “recognized and respected” leaders?

Because it is part of the interim report you yourself signed.

I accept that, but I also accept that those members who are now serving on the Council are making a real and sincere contribution to seeking consensus. [Interjections.] I merely want to make it clear that I cast no slur on them, and I hope I can say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not intend to reflect on the calibre or quality of the people who are serving on the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Obviously I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we served together on the Schlebusch Commission whose finding he has quoted. The difference between us, however, is that having stated our view, having agreed that all races should be represented, we submitted a minority report in which we recorded our disappointment and disagreement. We placed on record that in our view a single consultative council embodying elements of all groups would be preferable to the proposed two bodies. Having stated our differences, we then participated and are trying to make a contribution. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the same difference of opinion that we had. He had the same objection that we had, but he chose, as a result, to refuse to serve. That is, of course, his right, but I want to make it clear that both of us had the same objection, though our reaction to that objection was different. The PFP’s reaction was to boycott, ours to serve. As long as that is clear …

Ours was to stick to our principles.

… then we understand each other. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who sees Zimbabwe as a miracle of reconciliation, says he stands by his principles.

Your party has no miracle.

That party says it stood by its principles, but we believe, and it is one of our fundamental principles, that we should make a contribution to the constitution-making process in South Africa. We believe that it is a more important principle to make a contribution and to serve South Africa than it is to say: “I do not like this and therefore I am going to have nothing to do with it.”

Boycotters.

It is just apartheid.

I do not want to waste further time on the official Opposition, because I think that in this debate they are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant in South Africa.

They are totally irrelevant because they are not in the President’s Council and they are not participating in the constitution-making process. This morning we again heard from their side a speech which merely put the negative. There was no positive suggestion of how to go about it or what the PFP envisages. Of course, they cannot do that because their policy is one of holding a national convention and seeing “what comes out of the pot”.

Vause, one of these days you will be sitting in the kitchen.

I cannot debate with a party which has no clear objective and merely says: “Let us have a national convention where everybody can talk and we will see what comes out of that.” I can, however, debate with the Government. I can debate with the hon. the Prime Minister because we have a clear-cut difference of opinion which has been restated in this debate. That difference of opinion relates to the place of the Black South African in the future of this country.

I believe there are two basic weaknesses, two faults, in Government thinking. The one is that, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt who is not here at present re-emphasized and as the hon. member for Klip Rivier implied, the Government sees all Blacks as one entity—I am not now talking about ethnic or cultural differences. Let me put it in another way. They see one solution for the Black people of South Africa. That solution is independence in their own States. [Interjections.] If the side debate between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Bryanston could stop, I should like to motivate what I have said. The hon. the Prime Minister shook his head, but the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said specifically that the basic difference was that we of the NRP saw non-homeland Blacks as a different entity to the homeland Blacks while in fact the Government see them as one people. He quoted the homeland leaders as having said: “Hulle is ons mense.” Of course, the homeland leaders want to regard them as “ons mense”. It means more people over whom they have control.

We see a proportion of the Blacks living in the White areas—not all of them—as having different value systems, as the hon. member for Durban North said, as having broken their links with the homelands, as having broken their tribal affiliations and as living a different way of life with different aspirations and a different approach to life from those who still maintain their tribal and homeland links. There is that group of Blacks. I want to make the point—anybody who served on the Schlebusch Commission will have to agree with me—that the overwhelming weight of evidence before that commission emphasized that there was a new plurality amongst Blacks, that there was a group, whom I call the non-homeland Blacks, who cannot be classified and dealt with as being part of the homelands.

What is the language of a non-homeland Black?

What language do they use?

Sometimes even one of the European languages; otherwise you find that Zulu has become an important lingua franca which goes across many of the lines. [Interjections.] It is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad about this reaction, because it proves my point. If the Government is so certain, why has it rejected our repeated pleas for an Erika Theron type commission to identify the aspirations and feelings of Blacks outside the homelands? Why is the Government afraid to do that? It instructs the Commission for Co-operation and Development, which is an organ of Government, to investigate but why does it not have an open commission on which Blacks themselves can serve in order to identify and settle this argument, so that we Whites do not have to argue across the floor of the House? I do not think it is for us to argue about what Blacks want—I think it is a cheak for us as Whites to say what the Blacks want. I have pleaded with the Government over and over again not to pretend to be the all-knowledgeable geniuses who know exactly what the Black people are thinking. [Interjections.] The Government should rather appoint a commission which will in fact identify whether there is—I believe there is but let us establish it beyond doubt—such a non-homeland Black group and also what their aspirations are. I believe that we will then be able to look at the position more clearly because then the Government will have to accept that we need more than one single solution: one solution for those who are in the homelands or are associated with the homelands and retain their links with it, even though they are living in the urban areas; and another solution for those who have cut their links with the homelands and are separated from it and who no longer see themselves as part of any homeland. That is why we stand for a twin system—a federal system in the common area, the White area, and a confederal system in the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, in a debate like this I cannot go into the details of how we see a federation and a confederation, because I do not have the time for it. However, I put it on record that the Government will be forced to come with a twin solution. The Government cannot hide behind local Government and municipal rights but political rights only exercised in the homelands. It is going to have to accommodate those Blacks not linked to homelands, within the structure in the common area, the so-called White South Africa, in which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and non-homeland Blacks live together. That is why we say, as is also stated in the motion, that they should be brought into the constitution-making process now.

We have talked of the Black Council and its rejection by Black leaders. Why did they reject it? They rejected it because they saw it as a form of rejection of themselves. They saw it as inferior and as specifically excluding them from the normal process in which Whites, Coloureds and Asians were to be involved. They saw this as an insult to the Black man, saying to him: “You are something different, you are not going to be part of the body which is going to negotiate the future constitution.” This is not speculation; this is what has been said to me. Homeland leaders have said: “Much as we want to be part of the constitution-making process, we could not participate in a Black council, because it insulted us; it treated us differently from White, Coloured and Asian.” It is not beyong the ingenuity of the Government to structure or to recreate a body which will not be seen to be inferior. We in the NRP are not wedded to a method, but we are committed to bringing the Blacks into the negotiating system, not, as the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt implied, by bilateral master-to-servant discussion.

Rubbish!

That is what it is. The Government is the master and it negotiates by grace. It talks. Why I say that is because the word used was “bespreking”—consultation. Never once did either of those hon. members deal with negotiation. There is a big difference between consultation and negotiation.

What does “beraadslaging” mean?

That is consultation. “Beraadslaging” is consultation.

Just what I said.

What one needs to bring people into the process is not just consultation; it is negotiation.

We do it.

The hon. member says they do it. But that is not what they talk about. They talk of consultation. The hon. the Prime Minister, in defending his “magsdeling”.

What do you mean by “magsdeling”?

… has repeatedly referred to “raadpleging”, “konsultasie”.

Did you sign the Buthelezi Commission report?

The hon. the Prime Minister will know on 11 March. I want tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we at least served on that commission. We served on it and tried to make a contribution. That is more than the Government did. It is more than this party did.

Was that negotiation or consultation?

Did you sign the report?

The hon. member is supposed to have legal knowledge. He should know something about the rules of a commission and the rules of secrecy.

Was that negotiation or consultation?

That was discussion; that was consultation. However, I say that in the President’s Council there is not just consultation; there is negotiation. It gets round a table and makes recommendations to the Government. This is my point. One cannot draw up a constitution that is going to enjoy general acceptance unless the Black peoples of South Africa are brought into the negotiating process. Let us accept that South Africa is both a multiracial and a multinational State. There are Blacks who have a nationality, while there are Blacks who do not have separate nationalities, viz. those in the non-homeland areas. We have got to bring those people into the negotiating process as well as into the consulting process. It is not enough for Government Ministers and departmental officials to consult loosely or even to “talk firmly” on specific issues which exclude the broad future pattern and direction of the country, issues which exclude discussion on the destiny of all South Africans.

In the time I have left I want to emphasize that the hon. the Prime Minister’s confederation is not going to work. It will not have the necessary acceptance level unless it includes a common nationality, a common South Africanism and a common economy, because this is the binding force that will give impetus to the common destiny that all South Africans share. We cannot escape that destiny. We cannot fragment it. The destiny of Black, White and Brown in South Africa is totally interlinked and interrelated. One cannot fragment it. If one has a common destiny, one has to have a common nationhood and common citizenship.

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

No, I have already experienced that hon. member’s stupid questions. I have no time to waste on his level of questioning.

In conclusion I want to say that the urgency which the hon. Leader of the Opposition stressed does in fact exist. The urgency is there, and we cannot bluff ourselves that we have unlimited time available to keep on waffling and waffling and talking and talking in the hope that somehow we will forestall and hold back the inescapable fact that Black and White will have to sit around the same table and sort out the same destiny. We are not suggesting one political instrument or one political institution. The pattern may contain many political institutions, but we do say that there is one ultimate destiny, and therefore there should be one linking mechanism which links together any institutions which will form part of the detail of the constitutional structure of the future. However, we destroy of the possibility of that having an acceptance value unless the creation of it takes place around one negotiating table. The Government accepted the Schlebusch Commission report and the hon. the Prime Minister is bound to that. He is bound to the creation of a council for Black South Africans who will participate in designing the future. The hon. the Minister, the entire Government, is committed to it and we say: “let us get on with it.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point was definitely not at his best today, and I can understand why, because I think this motion was an embarrassment to him. It was as clear as daylight to anyone listening to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Durban North that a difference in emphasis between them definitely existed. It was also understandable that for these reasons the hon. member for Durban Point was very cleary confused when he said that the Government saw “all Blacks as one entity”. Surely the hon. member knows that that is absolute nonsense. It is in fact the National Party that says that the Black nations consist of separate ethnic groups. In contrast it is the NRP that wants to regard all Blacks as one group.

I said “afgesien van etnisiteitsgebondenheid”.

The difference between the two hon. members, particularly in the light of the standpoint which the hon. member for Durban Point has just adopted, is much clearer if one considers what the hon. member said here in this House on 4 June 1980. I am referring to column 8065 of Hansard—

That speech was made 21 months ago. Has the hon. member for Durban Point in the mean time identified the position of the Black man so that he is able to adopt another standpoint here today? Has he? I want to ask the hon. member another question. Does the hon. member think it would be advisable to admit Blacks to the President’s Council at this stage, which would delay a possible solution among Whites, Coloureds and Indians even further? It is clear that the hon. member was contradicting himself. I shall therefore leave it at that and not spend more time on him.

There is unanimity in this Parliament that the constitutional status quo cannot be maintained in South Africa, and that it must be changed by means of consultation. For this reason the creation of the President’s Council as a forum for negotiation between various races was logical. In essence this was the aspect on which all political parties represented on the Schlebusch Commission agreed. The hon. members of the Opposition went even further. On 4 June 1980 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in this House in this connection (Hansard, column 8041)—

Those were his exact words and I would be glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would pay attention to this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this at a stage—and this is very important—when he was fully aware that the Blacks would not be involved in the negotiations in the President’s Council. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said this at a stage when it was general knowledge that the PFP would not participate in the activities in the President’s Council and that Blacks would not be represented there. That is why we listened with astonishment to his subsequent statements. I wish to mention just a few of them. I do not want to quote in detail because there is no time for that. With reference to the President’s Council he said—

On another occasion he said—

He also referred to the President’s Council as “sham reform”. Does this reflect the opinion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the people serving on that council or was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition merely dissembling when he said that he accepted the bona fides of this side of the House? I am not accusing him of deliberate dissembling; consequently there must be another explanation for this.

These statements by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition led up to the Transvaal congress of the PFP at the end of October 1980, before which there was a motion rejecting the President’s Council. The course of events there was enlightening and in this connection I should like to quote from The Weekend Post of 25 October 1980, in which the following was said with reference to that motion on the President’s Council—

It went on to say—

And, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note the place of abode of this delegate—

One of the most authoritative bodies of the PFP therefore rejected the President’s Council for two reasons. In the first place they rejected it because it was a nominated body. In its place they want an elected body so that people like Mr. Mandela, who openly advocates violence, can serve on it.

And Dr. Treurnicht. [Interjections.]

In the second place they rejected the President’s Council because it only had advisory powers. The implication of this was that that congress wanted a body whose resolutions would be binding. The PFP congress therefore wanted a body in which Blacks would be in the majority and that could dictate to this Parliament what to resolve. This is completely on a par with the statement by the hon. member for Houghton when she said “Parliament is a façade of sorts”.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must now tell us whether this is the way he wants to deal with this Parliament from the vantage point of his proposed national convention, because this is the way in which the radical power clique in his party wants to deal with this Parliament.

Now you are in trouble.

As far as the President’s Council is concerned, the NRP and we on this side are closer to one another, judging from previous speeches. I am therefore somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Durban North moved this motion here today; a motion that suits the PFP down to the ground. I say it surprises me, because the hon. member for Durban North actually replied exceptionally well to this entire matter in the speech he made here when the President’s Council was established. I want to quote to him from it (Hansard, 1980, column 8136)—

He went further and stated the difference of opinion between him and the official Opposition with even greater emphasis (column 8140)—

The best is yet to come (column 8141)—

The hon. member for Durban North is staring at me almost indignantly. Has he such a short memory? He knows what he said was true, there must be protection for minorities in this country, and the President’s Council is an excellent forum for providing this. In fact, the hon. member referred to this being the usefulness of this council. I can hardly imagine that he expects to receive a better reply to that question from the hon. the Prime Minister than the one he gave himself.

Why would it change anything if the Blacks were included? After all, the President’s Council is only of an advisory nature.

People speak about the urban Black man and are obsessed with a place like Soweto. The fact of the matter is that by far the majority of Black communities in White areas are homogeneous, for example the Xhosas in the Eastern Cape and the Zulus in Natal, and these people have cultural and emotional ties with the Black States that were brought into existence and are still to be brought into existence in terms of Government policy after prolonged planning, discussions and negotiations. Those Black States have their own territory, their own nationality and their own sovereignty. It is a normal situation throughout the world for people to live outside their own countries, but still to retain spiritual ties with their homelands. The fact that a person lives in Holland, even owns property there and seeks to achieve an economic ideal there does not entitle him to political rights in that country. It is a very important fact that if one separates political rights from ethnicity and separate nationalities, minorities in South Africa have no right to existence.

However, the NP is also realistic enough to take into account the frustrations and the aspirations of Blacks in the White area to arrange their own lives within their community context. That is why local authorities have become a reality for them and that is why we are making it possible for them to achieve economic ideals and to own land within the framework of our policy.

The present task of the President’s Council is complex enough. If one makes the constitutional success between the Coloureds and the Whites dependent on the solving of the Black constitutional problem, the task of the President’s Council will become impossible. For this reason I am of the opinion that the motion before this House should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, especially after the trauma of the last week and the perceptible shift that has taken place in the Government’s attitude towards “magsdeling” as far as Coloureds are concerned, we had hoped that there could now be an in-depth discussion of some review of the situation of Blacks serving on the President’s Council, rather than merely a repetition of all the old, outworn statements that really belong to the past with no relevance as far as the future is concerned. We had hoped that the hon. the Minister would now bring his policy up to date as far as Blacks are concerned, just as he is trying to bring his outdated policy up to date in regard to the Coloureds.

*What have we heard now from the three hon. members? The hon. member for Klip River says we must not have Black people on the President’s Council because it would cause a Babel of confusion. It would delay the resolution of the White/Coloured problem, said the hon. member for Namaqualand. It is true that there is a White/Coloured problem, but the greatest problem in South Africa is the relationship between the Black people and the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This is now the most urgent problem in South Africa.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, as well as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, strongly emphasized the ethnic ties of the Black people in the urban areas. I do not dispute this. It is true that there are ethnic ties. There are ethnic ties between Jews in England and Jews in America and in South Africa, but what difference does this make to their political rights in the country in which they live? It makes no difference.

You did not listen to what I was saying.

If there are some cultural or ethnic ties, does this fact detract from the relevance of the political situation where these people live? It does not detract in any way from their demands and their right to political participation in the part of South Africa where they live. There is a world of difference between culture and ethnic ties and the basic political struggle in South Africa. It is true that there are ethnic factors, but these cannot dominate the entire situation. There are other factors as well which play an important part in the political set-up.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal very briefly with the three hon. members on the Government side who have taken part in the debate so far.

I must particularly refer to certain comments made by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. Some time ago in this House he used a phrase in respect of Black people which, on reflection, he admitted, was disparaging. I should want to point out that his reference here today to the Buthelezi Commission is of much the same nature. To start talking of the Buthelezi Commission as a little conference which took place in the last outpost of the British Empire—that is what he said—I believe, was utterly uncalled for. He knows that the Buthelezi Commission was appointed by the KwaZulu Government, acting under the authority of this Parliament, and that it was initiated by a Black leader who was seeking desperately to find a peaceful solution to the problems of South Africa. Particularly in the light of the position that hon. member holds, as chairman of the Black Affairs Commission, I believe that he should be very careful before he begins to denegrate or deride or make disparaging remarks about the genuine attempt by a Black leader to find a peaceful solution to the problems of his part of the country. [Interjections.] I believe it is most unfortunate that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government did not participate in the activities of the Buthelezi Commission. They were invited to do so together with all other people who had an interest…

Boycotters!

I believe it was a genuine attempt by a Black statesman in South Africa to find a peaceful solution. It was a genuine attempt, and I believe that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—he is not in the House now—would concede this. I want to put it to hon. members on the Government side that their boycotting of the Buthelezi Commission—they would not even give evidence before that commission, let alone serve on it—was a very unfortunate step. I hope that when that commission’s findings are published they will give very, very serious consideration to the recommendations contained therein. I say this because an outright rejection of everything that commission says, I believe, will have an indelible impact on Black leadership in South Africa. It will show that this Government is closing the door to any option other than the option of separate development, which it wants to force down the throats of the Black people of South Africa.

If we reject all options coming from other people we will narrow the field of options until we are left with only the potential for conflict and confrontation. Whatever that commission may find, I believe that this Government should look in that commission to see whether there are not recommendations which can help this Government out of the dilemma which it has created for itself by following the Verwoerdian line as far as the Black homelands of South Africa are concerned. The Government is in a dilemma, and it knows it. I believe the Government should at all costs give emphasis and positive support to Black leaders such as Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who, whether one agrees with him or not, is trying desperately to find a peaceful solution in South Africa. If moderate Blacks are not going to be encouraged by a positive response from the Government, then heaven help us when one day we want to find a negotiated settlement in this country.

The hon. member says I as a member of that commission must declare how I side. He should know that it would be a breach of integrity to start disclosing our individual members’ side. He can, however, wait until 11 March. He knows what the essence of any findings of that commission would be. If, to begin with, that commission finds—as the hon. members know it will find—that we are all South Africans, that we have a common destiny and that we cannot have peace in South Africa unless we are prepared to get rid of discrimination? We can have different detailed solutions in different parts of the country. We can negotiate in various areas and States—as we in the PFP say—different details as far as the solution is concerned. Any solution for the future of South Africa, however, must recognize the oneness of South Africa, the oneness of its people and the common destiny which binds us all in the future.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt says that this debate once again reflects the basic differences between the Government and the official Opposition.

*I have been in this House for a long time. I have been a member of this House before, at a time long before the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt made his appearance in this House. Even then the Government was saying that we were talking about the basic differences. I can still remember how we discussed the basic differences concerning sport. Even then the lines were drawn. The basic differences existed even then. There were basic differences about the acceptance of Black trade unions. Can hon. members still remember that? What has become of those basic differences? Where are those basic differences today? There were basic differences about the acceptance of Black people in our cities. Can hon. members still remember that? Where are those basic differences today? There were basic differences about the future of the Coloured people, about the question of whether there would be power-sharing or division of power. Look at them now! [Interjections.] It is even interesting to note the debate in this House about the Tomlinson report, in 1956, with regard to the basic approach to the infrastructure and the development of the homelands. Even then Advocate Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd said that it indicated a basic difference between the attitude of the Opposition and that of the Government. However, those basic differences have all disappeared. The basic difference about the fundamental principle in South Africa, the principle of power-sharing or division of power …

They stand for healthy power-sharing.

That is the crucial question in South Africa, and the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is an attempt to remedy the dangerous deficiencies in the President’s Council.

†Somehow or other we have to find a peaceful solution to the problems of this country, and it is no use finding a solution which is based on bringing Whites, Coloureds and Indians together in one “magsblok”—as the hon. member for Brits has said—so as to increase the bargaining power when it comes to conflict with another “magsblok”. That is the most dangerous of concepts for the future of White people in this country. [Interjections.] So we say that it is imperative that we start a process of negotiation that will include Blacks as well as Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] One of the problems about the wrong composition of the President’s Council is that from the very word go it acquired a stigma in the eyes of the Black people. It has the built-in stigma of the rejection of the Black person as a citizen of South Africa. That is the problem. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Durban Point will know this.

The hon. member for Durban Point talked about casting a slur on the Coloured people serving in the President’s Council. None of us, however, has cast any slur on the personal integrity or the motives of those people, but who of us can say that that council is even representative of the forces that exist in the Coloured community in South Africa today? Are we really claiming that they are truly representative? Of course there are people on the council who mean well, but there is a fundamental difference between having people of colour on a body and having people who are the genuine and accepted representatives of all sections of that community.

Did your party support the Indian elections?

How can that hon. member talk about this party supporting the Indian elections? [Interjections.] Whether I supported them or not, is irrelevant. [Interjections.] Those silly people may laugh, but they know that one will never determine the genuine representatives of the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians if one insists that the only way of doing so is by electing apartheid institutions in South Africa. [Interjections.] As long as one links representation to apartheid in South Africa, one is not going to find out who the true representatives are.

So who are the true leaders?

I happen to know that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs knows how we struggled to get other people in the Coloured community to serve. It is an open secret.

That is not true.

Ah, that hon. Minister is now saying …

It is not true.

We can have that out another time. At the moment time does not permit me to go into that issue. That hon. Minister approached and tried to persuade a significant number of other people to serve, but they would not serve because the Blacks were excluded. He knows that.

I am saying that that is not true.

I say it is true, and we shall prove it in due course. I think that we should stop playing with words, even stop talking about the details of the construction of the President’s Council. The real question in South Africa is whether we are going to be able to avoid the genuine sharing of political power in South Africa. That is the crux of the matter. All other matters are irrelevant. The real issue in South Africa is whether we are going to be able to avoid the genuine sharing of political power in South Africa. It is easy to try to turn it on and off like a tap. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said one could stop Blacks from sharing political power because they have an ethnic link to the homelands. That becomes the determining factor in having the Blacks share political power. We say that whether there is a Black ethnic link to the homelands is irrelevant. Their growing political power is in the highly industrialized areas of South Africa. That is where their growing political power is, and if one is going to look for a constitutional framework for the future, that constitutional framework can possibly take ethnicity, group content and pluralism into account but what it definitely has to take into account are the realities of political power that exist in South Africa today. As I have said, time and time again, political power does not depend solely on the vote. Of course the vote is a very important way of reinforcing political power, a very important way of expressing political power, but when a group of people collectively have either numbers, status or bargaining power, or if they have the will or some form of economic power, they are able to start to determine part of the course of the history of the country in which they find themselves. Therefore the question is not whether the Blacks are going to share political power or not, but how we are going to enable Blacks to share political power with us in South Africa in such a way that we can all live peacefully together on this subcontinent. That is what it is about. It is not about whether we are going to share, but how we are going to share. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I am delighted that, after four years of constant rejection of the concept of power-sharing between Coloureds and Whites, he has at last seen the light. In statements in the House and in pamphlets the Government time and time again rejected the concept of power-sharing and we on this side of the House are pleased that there is now the first sign of a forward movement in the direction of power-sharing.

I think we should just have a look at the history in this connection.

*Just see how we have been going round in a circle with the Coloured people over a period of 34 years. First it was apartheid. Then it was separate development. Then it was parallel development. Then it was consultation. Then it was co-responsibility. Then it was joint decision-making. Then it was vertical differentiation. Then it was division of power. In the end, 34 years later, it became power-sharing. During those 34 years there was bitterness, there was the alienation of the goodwill and the good faith of the Coloured people, and there was an intensification of the division in South Africa before the Government saw the light and realized that the Coloured people had to be included in the process of power-sharing.

I hope that as far as the Blacks are concerned, the Government will see the light sooner and will realize sooner than in the case of the Coloured people that the Blacks in South Africa must also participate in the power-sharing process.

†We do not in South Africa have another 34 years to wait. Every year that we delay, our options become narrower and the prospects for peaceful solutions in South Africa become less. Just as we told the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in the House four years ago that Coloureds will one day share power, so we say that, whether we like it or not and whether we want it or not, the realities of South Africa are that Black people are going to have to be included in the power-sharing process. So the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the motion is an attempt, at least, to get the Government to stop talking about past images and past shibboleths and to come down to the realities of South Africa of today. Whether we like it or not, all of the people who are actively engaged and employed in and who live in this country are going to have to be involved in the process of joint decision making in the future.

Mr. Speaker, everyone with a sense of responsibility and of the realities of South Africa and, in the broader context, of Southern Africa, is aware of the need for consultation, co-operation and deliberation among the various peoples of Southern Africa in order to bring about prosperity, stability and peace in this subcontinent. We may differ as to the methods of achieving this, but I think that the majority of people in Southern Africa with a sense of responsibility realize that this is essential. In the second place, I think that the radicals who do not wish to see that peace and stability perpetuated, are in the minority. Accordingly, before going further I wish to move as a further amendment—

I say that we sometimes, even often, differ in this House as to the methods to be adopted to bring about that stability, co-operation and consultation. Unwillingness to address these matters is disastrous; but over-hastiness to address them is equally disastrous. It is very easy for Opposition parties to try and reach for the stars. A Government, on the other hand, is faced with the realities. A Government has to show results. A Government has to struggle with and deal with those realities day by day. It has a responsibility. Clearly, therefore, it is possible for an Opposition to proclaim wild ideas and try to make people believe that they, the Opposition, have the final solution. However, it is on the Government that the heavy responsibility rests of maintaining peace in the country, promoting economic welfare to the extent that a Government is able to do so, and in addition, taking international considerations into account in all its dealings. Indeed, it is not only to the Republic of South Africa that peace, stability and progress are important; this is true of the entire subcontinent which we are concerned with and which lies within our strategic theatre. A Government, with its limited powers, as in the case of South Africa, has far greater responsibilities than the mere performance of its immediate task. Its dealings, leadership and actions also determine the fortunes of many of our neighbours. Therefore it is very easy to do as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done and trip along like a fairy with a good message for everyone, or like a bee that flits from flower to flower, promising something to each one. It is something else, however, to accept responsibilities in life and meet one’s obligations in a vast subcontinent such as this. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition understand how far the responsibilities of South Africa extend? That is not the impression I gained while listening to his superficial arguments here this morning.

Let us first consider the image of Southern Africa. The image of Southern Africa tells us that we have been experiencing constitutional processes in Southern Africa for a number of decades now, not all of them the creations of this Government. Some have been the outcome of circumstances after the Second World War. Independent States have come into being in Southern Africa, not all of them the result of the actions of this Government, and these have to be taken into account in practice. Major changes have been effected. The radicals disregard this, of course, because they want something else. The radicals want only one thing in Southern Africa, and that is a subcontinent dominated by communism. However, there are no fewer than seven independent States in Southern Africa which co-operate in some form, directly or indirectly, with the Republic of South Africa. For example, there are Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho, Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei. Must this Government tell those seven independent States that they should come and sit in the President’s Council? How ridiculous! Those people would laugh at us. Those heads of State, those heads of Government would say to us: But what presumption, what arrogance on your part, to come and ask us to serve on an advisory body of the South African Government in order to advise the South African Government, whereas we as heads of State and heads of Government can speak to you directly when we choose? However, the Opposition behaves as if that does not exist.

We did not say that.

But of course! It is stated in the motion.

No, it is not stated in the motion.

If it is not stated in the motion, what is stated in the motion?

Read it.

These are seven independent States that can speak to the Republic of South Africa at government level in their own right whenever the occasion presents itself, or whenever they wish to create an occasion. Moreover, they do so. For example, we form part of a joint customs union and we conduct discussions concerning tourism, economic affairs and labour. One need only ask my hon. colleague the Minister of Manpower how many discussions he is conducting with independent States at the moment. We are constantly holding discussions with one another as independent States at government level. Over the past month alone representatives of no fewer than six different Southern African Governments have conducted discussions with us here in Cape Town. What is more, we receive Governments not only from Southern Africa but even from places further away than South Africa. There is no lack of dialogue. Do hon. members know what there is indeed a lack of?

Please come back to the motion before the House.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that if he were to sell himself for what he thinks of himself and I, in turn, were to sell him for what I think of him, I should go bankrupt.

Rather discuss the motion.

Therefore there are seven States which, due to their independence, cannot take part in the dispensation as proposed in the motion before the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was proof of the despicableness of the conduct of liberals, then it is the rowdiness of the Opposition.

Apart from the seven independent States in Southern Africa, there are six other Black States which have some form of self-government. These States, too, have means and instruments for obtaining direct access to the Republic at government level. However, it is now being said that in spite of the liaison which takes place at ambassadorial or Commissioner General level, and in spite of direct access to one another at the ministerial level and the level of heads of Government, we should also ask the President’s Council to intervene. To do what? What is the President’s Council to tell us as regards the seven independent States and the six self-governing States, which those States cannot tell us themselves? The Opposition create the impression in this country—of course, they are no longer believed here—and abroad, with the aid of their Press, that there are millions of people in South Africa who have no franchise whatsoever, and in this way an incorrect image of South Africa is created.

But what about the 10 million people outside the national States?

Mr. Speaker, I request your protection against that turbulent hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

Just the one complaint remains, viz. that apart from the independent and self-governing States which have access to South Africa at government level, there are 10 million people living outside those national and self-governing States. I want to ask the Opposition one simple question: Must the Turks working in West Germany necessarily have a President’s Council to enable them to exercise their rights in West Germany? [Interjections.] If people from Southern Europe work in Switzerland, must they have their rights looked after by way of the Swiss Government in some form of such a State institution?

And if they are born in Soweto?

No, Sir. The fact remains that I have visited all our Black States, one after the other, independent as well as self-governing, and on all my visits one thing stood out as plain as a pikestaff, and that was that those recognized responsible leaders of the Black States regard those who live outside their States as belonging to those States. What is more, when I addressed public meetings in those States, the people from the urban areas outside those States, lorryloads and busloads of them, hastened to those Black States to attend those meetings. What is more, their children are increasingly attending school in the schools of those States. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he knows Langenhoven, and he knows that Langenhoven wrote that if a cat has kittens in an oven, that does not make them loaves. That is my natural answer to him—that does not make them loaves. These peoples’ dependence on and their cultural and spiritual links with their own people may not be denied or disregarded. I totally reject that liberalist standpoint.

Healthy rejection.

We are continuing, not only to gain or achieve those necessary contacts in the political and constitutional spheres in order to discuss matters of common interest; but our entire economic policy, which we again spelt out in fine detail before the Good Hope conference last year, is geared to cover those very facets of the lives of Black peoples, and these things are necessary to achieve what is so fervently desired, namely to strive for the upliftment of people, the improvement of their living standards and their happiness. In my opinion it would be attempting the impossible to try to include these independent States in a President’s Council formed for an entirely different purpose.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made this point. He said: “We are ganging up the Coloureds and the Indians against the Blacks.” Where does he get that from? [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. Do not shout me down, I am speaking to your leader now. Just subdue that turbulent member. The hon. member’s difficulty is that he has yet to learn the elementary principles of courtesy. That is his difficulty.

I am only trying to help you.

I want to ask the hon. leader: Has it not been since the time of General Hertzog that the theme that the Coloureds should move as close as possible to the Whites in South Africa has recurred time and again in the actions of all our political leaders? This was so in General Hertzog’s time, it was so in Dr. Malan’s time, it was so in Dr. Verwoerd’s time.

That is not true.

It was so after Dr. Verwoerd. All of them, in one way or another, adopted the standpoint that the Coloureds should not be regarded as a separate people with a separate sovereign status.

Surely you always regarded the Coloureds as such.

That is why I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is extremely unfair when he says “we are ganging up against the Blacks”. These people lack the vote. Since the time of General Hertzog there has been a search for a solution for the Coloured situation and Coloured relations. An earnest effort has been made by one Government after another since that time … [Interjections.] Do you want to listen to what I am saying. Could you then just ask your friends please to show me the elementary courtesy of behaving towards me as I behaved towards them when they were speaking? Or are you unable to control them? Is the hon. member not able to control the lot behind him? [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not a question of ganging up; it is a question of building relations without wishing to bring about a unitary community. That was General Hertzog’s standpoint in his time, too. Although he said that politically speaking, the Coloureds should be assimilated with the Whites, he said that he, as well as the Whites and the Coloureds, preferred not to be socially integrated. I still adhere to that point of view.

Does that apply to the sport policy as well?

I believe that the Coloureds constitute a group of communities, but I do not advocate an integrated unitary State or integrated unitary communities in any form. Is that clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now?

The motion of the hon. member for Durban North is in my opinion a so-called camouflaged effort to arrive at a different concept of the national convention. I have been listening to the hon. member since the beginning of the session, and I am forced to conclude that the hon. member is slowly moving in the direction of the PFP. [Interjections.] The only difficulty with him is that he wants to do it gradually. He argues about the 10 million people outside the Black self-governing or independent States.

A part of them.

All of a sudden they are now to be diverted from the path followed by their own people.

No.

But what does the hon. member want, then?

A part of them.

Which part?

Their leaders tell us: “We speak on their behalf.” Am I now to believe the hon. member for Durban North or am I to believe the Black leaders who speak to us at Government level? Since when has the hon. member for Durban North had the right to speak on behalf of 10 million different Black people?

Allow them to elect their own leaders.

Since when does he have that right, when their own leaders say: “We speak on their behalf, and not the Progs or the NRP.”

But who says that they are their leaders? [Interjections.]

Can the mentality of the hon. member for Durban North be seen now? It is now no longer the President of Bophuthatswana, the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa, the Chief Minister of KwaZulu or of any other self-governing State who speak on behalf of their people: No the hon. member for Durban Point says: “Who says they are the leaders?” The hon. member contends that they are not the leaders—what kind of nonsense is this that hon. members are talking?

Hold a referendum.

The fact is that these people are able to exercise political rights in their respective national States and they already do so, because some of them who were born, brought up and live outside their national States are serving as Ministers at Government level in the national states. Is the hon. member aware of that?

Yes.

Very well then.

I shall now proceed to discuss the urban areas as well. Urban areas are not only situated outside the national States, because the policy of the Government is specifically geared to making this increasingly possible within and in the vicinity of the national States and independent States. Thus it is not only in the White townships in urban areas that we want the process of urbanization to take place in a balanced way, but also in and around those areas where the national homelands are situated. We do not only want to grant village council powers to those urban areas and townships where millions of Black people from various national groups are established for purposes of the provision of labour employment, we even want to give them municipal rights. Indeed, we intend introducing measures in this House this year which will grant them such powers. However, I, too, associate myself with what my predecessor has said, namely that we shall go further and grant those people in the urban areas a greater degree of autonomy than municipal autonomy. We shall therefore afford them a high degree of self-government, and that degree of self-government can be developed in such a way as to link up with the national and independent States in the cultural and spiritual spheres. This in turn could lead to a strengthening of the idea of a confederation of States which is to come into being. That is my answer to the hon. member.

The South African process of constitutional growth is one that cannot take place overnight. The rate of change is determined by the realities and with due account being taken of the principle of self-determination, a principle which this Government will be prepared to stand or fall by. Let there be no doubt on that score. This process is moving towards such a confederation which would have to create instruments for itself in order not only to make permanent consultation possible, but also to do follow-up work. We are giving attention to that, too, and even if we have to reformulate and recreate the State structure in South Africa in order to deal with these processes, we shall be prepared to do so. However, I believe that a confederation can only be properly established when all these States have become fully developed and mature in a form of independence so that they may participate in this confederation of States.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to thank hon. members who have participated in this debate. Interesting speeches have been made and I believe greater clarity has been achieved as to the views of the various parties.

†Regrettably, I have only a few minutes in which to reply to the various points that were raised. In the first instance I should like to turn some attention to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In my view his amendment is not an improvement on the motion itself. Obviously therefore we shall not be able to support it. It is important, however, to state that I detect in this amendment a clear statement from the official Opposition that they have now moved away from the concept of a national convention.

That is not a good detection.

It is also clear that they have now in principle confirmed and reconfirmed their acceptance of the President’s Council, provided that members of all population groups are able to participate in its deliberations.

That has always been our policy.

It has been their policy, and I am glad to see it confirmed. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on his side of the House have made the same cardinal mistake. What we have asked for in this motion is for the Government to exercise that responsibility that the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about, namely to create the facility for inter-group negotiations and deliberations without prescribing what the acceptable policy should be at the end. I think there is considerable confusion about this, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated in his amendment that it must lead to effective and healthy power-sharing. Who can believe that the end result will necessarily be a power-sharing formula? It may be that a division of power is preferred by all groups. To prescribe—and the hon. the Prime Minister has also done this—an end result before one has established a proper negotiating forum is, I believe, not in the essence or the spirit of this motion before the House today.

I should like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that as far as the leaders of the independent Black States are concerned, we have never—not during this debate or any other debate—suggested that they will have to be or will be forced to or will be requested to participate in the deliberations of the President’s Council. We are talking here about the area of South Africa outside the homelands; those that are not independent. I said so in my introductory speech. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that the forum that we must create for inter-group negotiations, such as the President’s Council—that is what it was established for—must be such that if there is a national homeland leader who wishes to change his position, and he himself and his people should decide that they are dissatisfied with their independent status, they should, we believe, be free to participate in the deliberations. I wish to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that they accepted the Schlebusch Commission’s recommendations as we also did. Therefore, if the hon. the Prime Minister’s interpretation of my motion here today indicates to him that I am moving towards the Progs, then he and I are moving in the same direction. [Interjections.] Well, the hon. the Prime Minister also said he accepted the recommendations by the Schlebusch Commission. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that that is the position.

I said it looked as though you were moving in that direction. [Interjections.]

No, Sir. If in his interpretation of this motion, the hon. the Prime Minister says I am moving in the direction of the Progs, then he and his party are moving with me.

And Koos van der Merwe agrees with you. [Interjections.]

I should like to turn now to some of the other points made during the debate.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.

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

1. (a) supplement shortages of skilled manpower; and
2. (b) establish a larger economic base by means of which unemployment among the less skilled may be reduced.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to move this motion. Few people will be able to disagree with the statement that this country’s greatest socio-economic problems may be summed up as being in the first place, a shortage of skilled manpower, in the second place, a surplus of unskilled manpower and, in the third place, the tremendous challenge of maintaining a high growth rate in order to confine unemployment to a minimum. It is clear that at this stage the manpower shortage can no longer be dismissed as being a mere seasonal or economic cycle phenomenon. It is a structural defect which occurs in an upward as well as a downward phase. This is proved by the fact that in 1977, during the recessionary period, when the economy had reached a low-water mark, 33% of the respondents of the Bureau for Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch indicated that they were experiencing shortages of skilled manpower.

Even at that stage 17% of the respondents indicated that they were experiencing shortages of semi-skilled manpower. Since then the situation has deteriorated considerably, and we may therefore expect a shortage of skilled manpower during the downswing phases and recessionary conditions as well. During the third quarter of 1981 the figure to which I have been referring was 89%.

To cope with this problem it is essential to place emphasis on the development of our manpower through training. No fault can be found with this. Such training must be accorded a high priority, particularly in the long term. As for the short term, I want to suggest that such a solution contains serious limitations and that it is not the only solution. I am saying this because it is a tremendously expensive process to train people for responsible positions in an industrialized community, particularly people who adhere to traditions and tribal customs. It also takes a very long time and frequently has limited results, because people who have a certain outlook on life, which has in the course of centuries become an inherent part of a specific culture, cannot change overnight. A good example of this is that in certain traditional areas in which growth points have been established it was found that when people received higher salaries the effect was that those people did less work and that it did not serve as an incentive to them to become materially more involved and to become more productive. Another shortcoming in the sphere of education is related to entrepreneurial skills. We have a tremendous shortage of entrepreneurs, and it is difficult to train them. Entrepreneurial skill is to a large extent an inborn quality, and not something which can be created by means of training.

One of the other restrictive factors is simply the fact that there is a numerical shortage in our country. Prof. Sadie of Stellenbosch has calculated that the Republic’s requirements in respect of additional White white-collar workers will amount to 576 000 during the 20 years leading up to the year 2000. The P.E. Consulting Group, the largest firm of business consultants in the country, has estimated that over the next 10 years, 250 000 people will be required in the upper layers of the professional category. In the next category, that of administrative and secretarial staff, a total of 1,5 million people will be required. This group of consultants points out that these people will have to be drawn primarily from the White group. It is clear, however, that as a result of the levelling off in the growth rate of the White population, that the White group will not be able to produce anything approaching that number of workers.

In contrast to training, the immigration of skilled manpower, economically active and economically independent persons, is obviously the short-term solution to supplement our lack of skilled manpower and to broaden our economic base, so that we can reduce unemployment as far as possible.

Immigration is a relatively inexpensive way of acquiring trained manpower because their country of origin has already trained those people. It is therefore not necessary for the country to which they are emigrating to do so. This is a very rapid solution and also one which can be very easily regulated. Immigration is also a very effective way of supplementing the number of entrepreneurs in our country. Persons who are prepared to exchange their country of origin for another country are in general more prepared to take chances and consequently emerge more easily as entrepreneurs. The greatest advantage to South Africa is, however, the fact that this will lead almost immediately and directly to employment opportunities for unskilled workers. It is generally accepted that the shortage of skilled manpower is placing a damper on growth in South Africa. When this shortage is therefore supplemented, there will of necessity be increased growth, which will provide more work for unskilled persons. It is difficult to say with any degree of accuracy how many unskilled persons will be provided with work as a result of a single skilled immigrant who enters the country. However, a good indication may be found in the present manpower structure in South Africa. According to Prof. Sadie five highly skilled technicians and artisans, 19 semiskilled and 28 unskilled persons are at this stage being employed in South Africa for every one executive official. Therefore the ratio between skilled and unskilled workers is approximately 1:7, and in the medium or short term at least, this ratio ought to remain constant because we have a surplus of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. It may therefore be inferred, under these given circumstances, that when one skilled immigrant enters the country, the possibility exists that he will provide employment opportunities for at least seven other unskilled workers. This may appear to be an extremely optimistic estimate, but if one takes indirect proliferation into consideration, one sees that it is in actual fact a realistic figure, perhaps even a conservative estimate. I am saying this because apart from the direct creation of employment opportunities in the work situation as such, such an additional, active person is also indirectly responsible for creating certain employment opportunities. For example he must acquire housing. He may need housing assistance. There is an increase in the number of municipal services. He needs motor transportation, and there is the repair work which that necessitates. He causes an increased consumption of food and other consumer commodities. As a result of the increased demand which he creates, he must be able to create many employment opportunities.

However, our unemployment problem cannot be alleviated only by importing skilled persons. I wish to suggest that economically active persons, regardless of whether they are skilled as such, as well as financially independent people, could play an important part in the progress which this country makes. There are numerous examples of countries which made tremendous economic progress as a result of immigration, although those immigrants were not necessarily highly skilled. In this connection one could refer to Canada and the USA at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, to Israel in the ’fifties, and to Taiwan, which at present has a tremendously high immigration rate.

South Africa has a proud record in regard to its immigration effort. It began with the need for trained manpower for industrial development, which arose after the Second World War in particular. In 1955 a Directorate of Immigration was established, but the State-aided immigration scheme began to make tremendous progress after 1 April 1961 in particular, when the Department of Immigration was established.

It is interesting to note the reasons which were advanced as to why the Government should create such a department. The commission which was appointed to investigate the protection of industries policy had the following to say in this connection—

I emphasize “noodsaaklik”—

I wish to assert emphatically that if this statement was true in the early ’sixties, it has acquired an even greater validity at the present time.

What role did our immigration drive play in supplementing our manpower shortages? It would appear that our immigration effort made a tremendous contribution, particularly in the ’sixties. During the past two decades 718 000 people entered the country. Of these people, 300 000 were economically active. In 1961 16 000 immigrants entered the country, which was already a relatively high figure in comparison with preceding years. In 1963 it rose to 38 000, and in 1966 to 48 000. In the ’seventies it remained comparatively static. It then stood at 40 000 and subsequently dropped to approximately 30 000. In 1975 it shot up to the record figure of 50 000. In 1978-’79 it dropped again to 18 000, when we also had a net outflow. Last year the figure was approximately 43 000.

On the face of it these figures may appear to be satisfactory, but I wish to suggest that there is considerable room for improvement. There are quite a number of aspects which have to be taken into consideration here. The pre-eminent aspect is the portion of this figure which may be attributed to the number of Rhodesian immigrants. People from Rhodesia who came to South Africa in the ’sixties comprised 13% of the total. Between 1970 and 1976 this dropped to 10%. From 1977, however, it rose again. In 1977 it was 32%; in 1978, 46%; in 1979, 50% and in 1980-’81, 42%. I maintain that these people did not come to South Africa because we had a strong immigration drive. They came to this country because of other factors, and if they had not come to South Africa, particularly during the ’seventies and late ’seventies, our figure in respect of immigration would have been an extremely dismal one.

An aspect which we should also take into consideration is the fact that between 1977 and 1978 we experienced the longest post-war upswing phase in our economy, yet in spite of that we did not exploit the immigrant potential properly.

Another aspect which we should take into account when we analyse the immigrant figures of the past 10 years is the potential which South Africa now has to attract immigrants, compared with 15 years ago. The gross national product for 1981 was approximately R68 billion, compared with the gross national product in 1966 of R8 billion, when we attracted 48 000 immigrants. However, when one takes inflation into account, the present gross national product is at least three times more than it was in 1966. This must mean that our economic base has broadened tremendously and that our potential to attract immigrants has at least doubled.

In view of this, I wish to suggest that the Government should give serious attention to expanding our immigration drive and to making it more streamlined and effective. I find it astonishing that the latest Economic Development Programme does not single out immigration as an important measure by means of which economic growth may be encouraged and maintained, and unemployment reduced. Naturally the course of the economy at home and abroad, and political factors, play an important part when it comes to the immigration potential of a country at any specific juncture. However, I wish to suggest that the role of the authorities should not be underestimated. The authorities should to a great extent accept the responsibility of recruiting immigrants, processing them in an effective way and making financial and other assistance available for an immigration drive. If one considers the money which the Government has spent on immigration during the past two decades and calculates this as a percentage of the country’s budget, one is forced to the conclusion that the priority accorded by the Government to immigration is considerably lower than before. And that is a pity. In the ’sixties an average of 0,34% of the budget was spent on the immigration drive. In 1964 and 1965 it was 0,43% and 0,42%, respectively. Since 1970 it has dropped consistently, to a percentage of 0,04 at present, i.e. only half of the percentage in 1964.

In 1981 R6,3 million was spent on immigration, while the amount spent in 1966 was R6,2 million. If inflation is taken into consideration, the amount which was spent in 1981 is, in real terms, approximately four times less than the amount which was spent 15 years ago. If it is taken into consideration that our manpower shortage is constantly increasing, and that immigration is a relatively cheap and rapid method of solving the problem, I wish to suggest that it is time the Government gave urgent attention to the appropriation of more money for this activity. The amount should be drastically increased. It could even be doubled.

I also wish to ask that the procedures according to which applications from prospective immigrants are processed be reviewed. If it takes between six and nine months to obtain a final decision on an application, the immigration drive can only suffer. I wish to suggest that, in order to reduce this period, consideration be given to the establishment of a centre in Europe where applications may to a large extent be processed and a decision in regard to them given, instead of forwarding all applications to Pretoria, which is a time-consuming process.

Another aspect which deserves attention is the staff situation in foreign countries and particularly the establishment of more immigrant recruiting officers in the outside world. From what I hear the Viennese office in Austria is working under tremendous pressure. In Switzerland, which could be used as an excellent launching pad for a recruitment publicity campaign in Europe, there is at present no full-time immigration officer. The Paris office is also under tremendous pressure because the office chief has to relieve the heads of other centres. However, I am grateful that a great deal of attention has been given to this aspect during the past three months.

To reduce our manpower shortage in a purposeful way by means of immigration, it would be advisable to set a target figure which could be set for every year. At present the Republic is attracting 3 000 to 4 000 immigrants per month. However, because we have a very great potential for attracting and accommodating immigrants, I do not think it would be unrealistic to set a future target of 10 000 per month for three to four years.

It may be deduced from my appeal for a greater immigration effort that I am not in favour of the selection of immigrants. But that is not the case at all. On the contrary, I believe that South Africa is an exceptional country in which exceptionally high standards of mores and morals are maintained. The people of South Africa are to a great extent still disciplined, pious and hard-working. Under no circumstances may we allow these standards to be undermined by fortune seekers. The criterion should continue to be whether our prospective immigrants are going to be good citizens and whether they will be assimilable with our population. However, I am critical of the efficiency and effectiveness of the bureaucracy in being able to decide in what categories a manpower shortage exists so that people who do not fall into those categories may be excluded as immigrants. We in this country do not believe in a centrally-controlled economy, but are convinced that the economy should be left to the free market mechanism, and this philosophy has my support.

It is quite conceivable that although a prospective immigrant may practise a trade in which there is seemingly no shortage in South Africa as an entrepreneur, with which other employment opportunities could be created here. There are many examples in their country of immigrants who came to South Africa as bricklayers or joiners, who worked in these capacities for a few years and who then, as building contractors, employed great numbers of other people.

I have already referred to the high standards and sense of discipline of the South African population. At present this is a great attraction for immigrants. There are many people who wish to move to South Africa because they no longer see a future for their children in an dissipated, permissive, socialistic society. These people would be a great asset to us, regardless of whether they are skilled or not, provided they are economically active and/or independent. More and more older people wish to move to South Africa to retire here. They bring capital with them and it does not take them long to persuade their children to follow their example. Consequently I believe that we should continue to move in the direction of having only two qualifications for immigrants, i.e. that the person will be a good citizen, that he will be assimilable into the rest of the population, and secondly that he will be economically active or independent.

I believe that immigration as a means of stimulating and maintaining growth, and in that way creating employment opportunities for lesser skilled persons, is at this stage being greatly underestimated in South Africa. I believe that South Africa at present has a great opportunity to utilize this method positively. In spite of setbacks, the South African economy is relatively sound and prosperous. The major immigration countries are to an increasing extent closing their doors to immigrants. South Africa is gaining prominence in the world as a stable, anti-communistic bastion where civilized and conservative values are respected. These standards will attract more and more people to South Africa, because they aspire to the same ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask, with all due respect, that the Government should avail itself of this opportunity, to the benefit of all South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member Mr. Schutte and I want to say that the fact that South Africa needs skilled workers is not disputed. In fact, I agree with much of what the hon. member said. However, how and why South Africa finds itself without skilled workers are questions I shall deal with during the course of my speech.

I want at this stage to move the following amendment—

The background against which South Africa needs skilled workers is that South Africa is to a large extent in a unique situation in Africa. South Africa is a modern, industrial State and it is a powerful one. As I say, in this respect South Africa is different from any other State including even Nigeria which has a huge gross national product from its oil but which is not a modern, industrial State like South Africa. Take the case of Rhodesia. Rhodesia had a very good economy but it was never more than a rural economy. Rhodesia’s economy was never really an industrial economy.

An industrial economy exists and depends upon the skills of those people engaged in industry in that country. It is moreover a fact—it is not a theory but a fact—that one can read about in any newspaper in this country, whether it is in Die Burger, Die Transvaler or The Daily News that in South Africa 75% to 85% of the work force in industry is Black. We realize that we are an industrial country with White people and Black people fully, absolutely and irrevocably integrated in one economy.

And Brown people?

Yes, and Brown and Indian people, not peripherally, but wholly integrated together in one economy. That, as I say, is simply a fact.

Even in Pretoria.

Even in Pretoria. It is a very fortunate fact, because it is this economy which sustains us all in South Africa, this economy which feeds us, clothes us, houses us, transports us, entertains us and gives our children the opportunity to get educated in South Africa. It is this economy that gives it to all the people of South Africa, whether they are White or Black. There is no doubt that some of us benefit to a far greater extent from this economy than others, but to all of us in South Africa this economy is vital.

There is a second point in which we in South Africa are in a unique or semi-unique position in Africa. If one flies over Africa in the day time, say to Europe, over this largely brown continent, as one looks at it from the air, one sees that all over Africa there are places where people have merely scratched the earth and where they are basically growing mealies. This one sees all over Africa. This is how people basically and fundamentally exist in Africa. This basically is what feeds people all over the African continent and this is what they live on.

In South Africa, however, the position is different. In South Africa there are more than 10 million Black people living in cities, in towns and they have no piece of land to scratch, to plough, to cultivate in order to feed themselves. These people in the towns and cities are not able to provide their own food from the soil.

Where do you get that idea from?

Those 10 million people who live in the cities in South Africa live by means of the wages they draw on Friday night or at the end of the month. It is this golden goose, this economy of ours, this industrial economy which, as I say, feeds and clothes all these people. Not only that, but there is one other very important point too, I believe, about our industrial economy. I believe that it is this industrial economy in South Africa which has preserved the comparative peace we have had in this country over the past 30 years. People have to work and they have to have their wages. So, when for example, Soweto erupted on 16 June 1976, what happened was that the young people, the radicals—I am talking about the Blacks—said to their parents that they should boycott their jobs and not go to work. For some two weeks or so Black people in large numbers did not go to work and they did boycott their jobs.

How do you know that?

I read the report of the Cillié Commission. Those Black parents had to work and they had to have those wages. Therefore, after two weeks they said to their children, “What ever you say, I am going back to work.” They said that because they had to eat. That is largely why those parents went back to work. It was not a question of the Security Police, section 6 of the Terrorism Act or the Army driving them back to work, although those aspects played some part in preserving comparative peace. The fact of the matter was that our economy was such that it helped to preserve the peace in South Africa.

It is vital that this economy is preserved. It is vital that we keep it going in South Africa, and that we keep it growing. I believe it is vital that we do not have 10 or 12 different little weak economies in South Africa in the different States, but that we keep one powerful economy in South Africa going. We have to be like the USA which has different federal States, but it has one dollar, one powerful economy.

What is happening to this one economy? Productivity in South Africa at the moment is not increasing. There is a severe shortage of skilled labour. However, we are not short of labour in South Africa. Indeed, we have so much labour in South Africa that we export it in the form of foreign States created by us.

The second thing that is happening to our economy, is that the value of the rand is accelerating downwards. The rand which is earned by these people every Friday night or at the end of every month, has in the past six years dropped to below half its value. From the date of Union, it took 40 years for the rand to devalue down to half its value, according to the Department of Statistics. Now, in the past year, according to the department, the rand has dropped 15% against its present value. No doubt it will even drop faster during this year.

The cause of both these facts must be laid at the door of this Government. The cause of the loss of productivity is the shortage of skilled labour. The basic causes of inflation are the shortage of skilled labour and an excess in the money supply caused by this Government.

Is immigration the answer to this? What has this Government said about immigration in the past? The hon. member Mr. Schutte says that this Government has a proud record in regard to immigration. In 1948 the NP member for Westdene said in this House, as recorded in Hansard, that immigration was not in the interests of South Africa because there was unemployment in South Africa. It is an irony that today hon. members on that side of the House realize how wrong they were, and they now move a motion that calls for immigration because of unemployment in South Africa.

And the wheel has turned.

Precisely. The worm is turning.

The second irony is that in 1948, in Hansard, col. 1691, the NP argued “that immigration would create problems with which future generations would be burdened”.

Harry, were we wrong then or are we wrong now?

You have always been wrong.

Today the NP argue that we are burdened with the problem because of the lack of immigration in the past.

The third irony is that in 1948 the NP argued that “Jewish immigration must be stopped because it is not in the interests of South Africa”. Today the Government will pay anything for the skills of the Israelis and, in fact, they put up Jewish people as their candidates.

The fourth irony is that when in 1948 a UP Minister called for selected immigrants who could train apprentices, the NP scoffed and in this House said that these immigrants aggravated the position. Today an NP member calls for immigration for precisely the same reason—to train local people.

As long as they are not Roman Catholics.

It is of course the result of NP policy and the result of the Citizenship Act that in 1948, when the NP came into power, the net gain in immigrants was 29 000! In 1950, one year after this disastrous Government came into power, the net loss in immigrants was 1 841. In 1951 the net loss in immigrants was 138. It took 15 years to reach the 1948 immigration figures—15 wasted years. For example, in 1961 when the Department of Immigration was instituted, the net gain in immigrants was 1 327. By that time Australia already had passed the million figure for immigrants since the war.

There are other features of the policy of the Government in relation to immigrants that have led to an unsatisfactory situation in South Africa in this regard.

In 1977, in this House, one of the hon. members on the Government side asked why so many immigrants did not accept South African citizenship. That was the hon. member for Pretoria East. It was pointed out, on 14 May 1979, by the hon. member for Kempton Park that (Hansard, 1979, col. 6394)—

Why is that? Clearly, the conditions created by this Government in South Africa are not attractive to immigrants. Furthermore, 80% of the people who left South Africa during the first six months of 1977 were not people who had been born here. Why do these immigrants leave? Perhaps one reason is that immigrants are generally less loyal than the people who are born in a country. That is why I say …

There are exceptions that prove the rule.

That is so. I agree. That is why I say we must first train our own citizens instead of having to rely on immigrants. It is a simple fact that the gap in Government spending on education between one White child and one Black child has increased over the years since this Government came into power in 1948. That is one of the reasons why in this country we do not have skilled workers in sufficient numbers from among our own people. Even in 1978 this Government decided to cut immigration by 50%. That is what the hon. the Minister said in this House. The categories that were cut off in 1978 were construction and building workers, television technicians and motor-car and diesel mechanics. Those are three of the categories cut off in 1978. Why is that, Mr. Speaker?

The then Deputy Minister of Immigration said here in the House, on 14 May 1979 (Hansard, 1979, col. 6405)—

Shortly after that, however, we found that there was a great need for immigrants in these very categories because in 1980 an hon. member of the NP spoke in this House of the severe shortages of fitters and turners and electrical technicians, among others. The trouble is, however, that this Government has closed the stable door after the horse has bolted. This Government does not have—and has never had— a consistent immigration policy. In the sphere of immigration the Government behaves exactly as it has behaved in other spheres as well. In 1950 the Government used every possible device in order to deprive the Coloured people of political participation, and in the 1980s it struggles with every possible device to bring the Coloureds back into the process of political participation. In the sphere of sport this Government, during the 1960s, denied the MCC cricket team the right to play cricket in South Africa. Today it is struggling to get the MCC cricket team back into South Africa.

That just shows how mixed-up they are. [Interjections.]

Finally, I submit that what the Government must do is the following. It must first of all be consistent in its policy.

That is asking a bit too much. [Interjections.]

Secondly, the Government must embark on a process of intensive and sustained training of our own people. Thirdly, the Government must use immigration specifically and consistently to the end of creating means for the training of our own people and for the employment of our own people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Schutte moved a very constructive motion here in this House, with the constructive aim of trying to find solutions to a real problem facing this country. That is why I think it is a great pity that the hon. member for Pinetown did not join in this constructive attempt to try to find solutions for the problems we are experiencing. Instead, as we have come to expect from the PFP, he spent his time pestering this Government with negative arguments that go all the way back to 1948. However, this is 1982. He was referring to situations that prevailed 34 years ago and which no longer apply today.

What about 1978?

I shall be coming to 1978.

I hope so, because you are still way back in the last century.

He said there were quite a number of things in our policy he found ironic. However, I think his behaviour here was the greatest irony of all, because members of that party profess to be members of an enlightened, progressive, changing party and that they are people who support change. What is an enlightened party? Surely an enlightened party is a party that is able to adapt its policy to changing circumstances and act accordingly. However, their arguments go back to 1948.

†They say that the NP’s policy should at least be consistent. Those people, who argue in one breath that there must be change, say in the same breath, when we are changing, that we must be consistent. [Interjections.]

*If that hon. member would just be courteous enough to listen to me I could tell him a few things. At that stage there were other reasons why a restriction was placed on certain categories of immigrants. I should like to remind that hon. member that 1948 was only three years after the end of the Second World War. Thousands of South Africans had returned from the war, White and Coloured South Africans without any proper training. They therefore had to live under difficult economic conditions. The result was that at that stage of its development South Africa was in no way an industrial country of any standing. There was unemployment, and it was that unemployment that played a major part in the defeat of the UP which was in office at the time and to which that hon. member presumably belonged, i.e. if he was old enough 30 years ago.

In 1978 he hurled accusations at the Government to the effect that the building industry was one of the categories that did not come into consideration for immigration purposes. However, he knows very well that in 1978 we had the so-called “building boom”. Every second teacher, third quantity surveyor and fourth artisan suddenly became a building contractor and began to build houses, consequently there was a surfeit of builders. There were, however, other categories in which people were more necessary. Why should we therefore, under those circumstances, have imported building workers? Of course it is quite a different matter today. Today there is a shortage of over 1 300 people in the building industry. Circumstances therefore change and any intelligent, enlightened government is adaptable enough to adjust to different circumstances.

What happens in a recession? Do we then send them away?

I feel that the time of this House has been wasted this afternoon by the destructive and unnecessary politicization of this matter. The hon. member Mr. Schutte certainly did not say that the training of anyone in this country— Black, Coloured, pink, green or whatever— should be curtailed by immigration. As a matter of fact, he pointed out in his argument that immigration should be an aid to the training of people of colour. People should also be capable of being trained. The present situation is a change and surely that hon. member must take that into consideration. However, he still has a colonial mentality. That is why the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information was quite right when he said that that party had a built-in racism. However, that is not all. Not only do they have built-in racism, but they are also the real verkramptes in South Africa, because they cannot escape the history of 30 years ago. They are simply not moving with the times in South Africa.

They need immigrants in South America.

They are the real verkramptes because they are sitting in this House and still have their colonial mentality. However, the fact of the matter is that the situation that has developed in South Africa, is quite different to the one which prevailed in 1948 or 1978. There is a shortage of skilled manpower and the Government is doing everything in its power to reduce this shortage by training people of colour, members of every population group here. This is being done by means of the establishment of in-service training centres. In my constituency there is the Apex in-service training centre for Coloureds, and I want to thank the Government most sincerely for giving their approval at the beginning of this week for the erection of hostels there so that those people can live and be trained there.

However, in this country we have an estimated shortage of almost 11 000 trained people in the private sector and almost 17 000 trained people in the public sector. This is a total shortage of 28 000 people. If one applies the argument of the hon. member Mr. Schutte, which is a valid argument, that every trained worker creates employment opportunities for seven other workers, then the shortage of these people is resulting in 200 000 unskilled persons being without work. For this reason we must now of course find an immediate solution by recruiting immigrants so that they can also help with training, particularly in-service training, of all people in this country, irrespective of race or colour. As long as there are these impossible shortages—4 619 in the metal industry, 1 998 in the electro-technical industry, 1 130 in the motor industry and 1 748 in the building industry—in-service training is out of the question because not only are the workers overworked, but they must also work overtime and cannot spare the time for in-service training. That is why it is essential that we recruit immigrants for this purpose.

I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I agree that we must have selection. I agree with everything that the hon. member Mr. Schutte said. However, I really feel that at this stage we must try to find methods of making the selection procedures a little more streamlined, because I think that in the situation in which South Africa finds itself we can hardly afford people having to wait between three and nine months to find out whether their applications to come to this country have been approved.

In this regard I feel that the Department of Manpower can also play a major role. Recently two labour attachés were appointed, one is already in Brussels and in the near future the other will be in Washington. However, these people do not have their own staff. They use the embassy staff. I feel that we should not merely have two labour attachés abroad, but that we should also have attachés in London and in Bonn, as well as in various other countries where we can find skilled immigrants, that labour attachés must have their own staff to recruit the right kind of skilled immigrants and that the burden on the Departments of Internal Affairs and Foreign Affairs and Information must be lightened in this way so that they will only be involved in political screening, criminal offence screening, etc.

There is also another solution I want to touch on briefly and that is what I call interim immigration. In Germany, the Netherlands and various other countries there is a system in terms of which students at technical high schools, which are more or less the equivalent of our technikons, after undergoing two years’ theoretical and practical training, have to undergo a year or two of practical training. They can do this in any country in the world, including South Africa. I think that these people should be invited here to a greater extent than is being done at present, to be used as a sort of bridging investment until other local people have been trained sufficiently. They can themselves help in the training programme or they can free other skilled artisans to make their contribution to the training programme.

In my constituency there is a very active organization, the Gereformeerde Immigrasievereniging, that has brought 120 of these young people to this country during the past month to work here for the next year. I also feel it should be made easier for these people to come here. They can be used very effectively in the private as well as in the public sector, and I think there are certain deficiencies we should attend to, I cannot however, say more about this in this debate because my time is too limited.

Of course there is another problem as well. South Africa not only has a shortage of skilled manpower and an abundance of unskilled labour; we also have a housing shortage, and any immigration campaign must be related to the housing situation. These two matters are inseparable. We already have a problem with Black migrant labour here, where people from outside the metropolitan areas can come here if they satisfy two requirements, namely that they have a job and a place to stay. We must impose the same requirements on firms that want to recruit workers abroad, in other words we must give firms that offer their overseas workers, not only work but accomodation as well preferential treatment in the selection of workers. However, this is only a partial solution to the problem and could in any case create further problems, as has already happened in my constituency. There are several large firms that have purchased entire blocks of flats and the South African citizens who were living in them were evicted to make room for the British, Belgian and German employees they recruited overseas. Hon. members will agree with me that this is an untenable situation. Positive attention must therefore be given to this aspect. When I say this I am in no way suggesting that I feel that immigration should not be promoted. I have given the motion my wholehearted support in this connection. What I do want to say is that the housing problem should also be solved in so far as immigration is concerned. In this connection I want to make a suggestion. The Government has said for some time now that it cannot provide housing for all the population groups or for workers of all the population groups. That is why from time to time it addresses pleas to the private sector to play its part. I am very glad to see that the private sector is playing a greater part in this connection, although they also have their own problems of course. In the economic situation in which we find ourselves today they have, for example, liquidity problems, which means they cannot easily find a few million rands to invest in housing. Long-term loans for the development of flats, cluster housing, or whatever type of housing the private sector is planning for all its employees, are not necessarily a problem, because they can still be obtained from building societies, by means of guarantees and the like, although this is also rather difficult at the moment. In my opinion, though, long-term financing is not the main problem here. The main problem is development or bridging capital over a period of two to five years. This capital requirement consists of the planning, the preliminary and the erection costs of a housing project until the scheme is established as a fixed security asset and individuals as buyers or residents can take over the full responsibility themselves by paying off or taking over the costs of the purchase price by means of long-term loans, by means of which the bridging in financing can be paid back. If one wants to provide such bridging financing, one must have an organization. I therefore want to suggest that serious consideration be given to something along the lines of a housing development bank. The bank should have the following aims: To mobilize medium-term and long-term funds and loans, to make bridging development loans for two to five years available to approved organizations for approved building schemes for employees in the sub-economic and economic classes. These funds could be obtained in the first place from the considerable share capital of the public and private sectors, commercial banks, insurance companies, etc. The funds could also be obtained from overseas investments at low interest rates guaranteed by the State. I feel this is a matter that the State might well consider. I happen to know that such money is available, but unfortunately it is not always available under reasonable conditions. There is also the possibility of attracting investments from prescribed investments in pension funds and insurance funds, as well as from allocations made from time to time by the National Housing Fund or obtained from the State estimates.

The development bank should of course be a nationally registered body with a board, representative of both the private and public sectors, as well as an executive committee that will raise funds and administer loans. What I am, therefore, advocating is a kind of housing developing bank that could operate like a combination of a development bank and a utility company. I also feel that those firms recruiting immigrants abroad should receive some form of concession from the Treasury so that it would be easier for them to provide prospective immigrants with housing.

With this attempt at being constructive and at finding a solution to the labour problem, I should like to support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, being a speaker from one of the minor parties means that I have to have fourth bite of the cherry. It often appears that one has to come in and find that other speakers have stolen most of one’s thunder.

Have you ever thought of the chap who has to reply to the debate? [Interjections.]

I have thought of the hon. member who has to reply to the debate. I have been in a similar sort of situation before, and I know what it is all about. I think everybody in the House must basically support the motion. However, I am also going to support the amendment of the Opposition because I am quite sure that even the hon. member who moved the motion cannot object to the principle involved in the amendment. I believe the primary function of a Government is not to fill our occupations with immigrants, but to use the immigrants as a stop-gap while our own personnel is being trained. [Interjections.] I do not think it can be denied that there are shortages of skilled labour and manpower in South Africa and, beyond any question of doubt, as we have changed from an agricultural to an industrial country, we must broaden our economic base. Obviously a substantial infusion of suitably qualified immigrants will assist in doing that.

The hon. member Mr. Schutte did make certain points which I must bear in mind. As a matter of fact, I listened with interest to him because his arguments in favour of more immigrants to South Africa were largely the arguments used 30 years ago by the United Party, when the Government was changing the old Smuts policy on immigration. It does seem that ultimately events have caught up with the hon. members on that side of the House. I may add that I am very pleased that this is in fact the case. He also indicated that the Government had a proud record in respect of immigration. I am not going to query the quality of the immigrants that the Government has seen fit to allow into the country. I believe that basically we can be proud of the type of immigrant that they have admitted. I may add here that I came to this country before this Government came into power.

So we cannot be blamed for that!

No, Sir, the Government cannot be blamed for me. However, in so far as the consistency of their immigration policy is concerned, I feel that it is very difficult to say that one can be proud of their policy. Quality yes, consistency no because I believe we missed the boat many, many years ago. I can remember at the time when I first came to South Africa that in Great Britain and probably in many European countries, South Africa was the number one choice. That was so without any question of doubt. If Australia could gain over 1 million immigrants then there is no question about it that South Africa could easily have gained more than 1 million immigrants. What is more, with natural growth and if they had all followed my example, we would probably have had 2 million or 3 million more White people in this country than we have here today. [Interjections.] Therefore, as far as this proud record is concerned, I would say that one has to be a trifle cautious in that regard.

When it comes to the pure economics of immigration I believe that one should take a good hard look at the situation. If one imports—if I may use that expression—immigrants who are mature and who are trained in their occupation, one is importing a capital product that has cost somebody something of the order of R50 000 to produce. Therefore, every 10 000 immigrants we acquire increases the capital stock of the country in respect of manpower skills to the tune of R0,5 billion. If we consider that in a peak year we may have a net gain of 40 000 immigrants it means a gain to the country of something like R2 billion worth of manpower. That is an awful lot of value that we are getting. In other words, we are getting something that another country has had to pay for and train. Therefore, in terms of cold-blooded economics such an immigration policy is very sound provided that one can make use of those immigrants. Obviously, we can use such people in South Africa because for every trained or skilled person who comes into this country, one can find less skilled occupations being created for between five and 10 people, depending upon the type of skill that one is importing. This will in fact assist materially in alleviating the unemployment problems that we have.

The hon. member for Pinetown intimated that the Government had closed the stable door after the horse had bolted. I do not think that he is quite correct in saying this although the general direction of his thinking was right because we did miss an opportunity. Fortunately, however, there are still a few horses inside the stable or outside the stable wanting to get in so that whilst I believe that we did miss a number of opportunities I do not think we have missed all the opportunities. In fact, when one looks at current immigration applications and at the number of people wishing to enter the country, one realizes that there are many people still wishing to avail themselves of the type of life we lead in South Africa. There is no doubt, however, that we did miss opportunities in the past.

The hon. member for Benoni seems to be the National Party’s prime apologist. The excuse he gave for the Government’s not bringing immigrants into the country at the appropriate time, or for stopping immigration was because at that stage we were insufficiently industrialized. Of course, even the hon. member himself will know that he was talking absolute poppycock when he said that. These people were not brought in at the time when immigration was halted more for political reasons than for any other. Some hon. members may have short memories, but I can remember the different arguments very well that went on at the time of the NP becoming the Government and closing down on the immigration scheme. Much of the talk at the time was that the immigrants, if they came in too large numbers, would dilute the traditional way of South African life, the traditional Afrikanerdom and so forth. These were the reasons at the time—1948-’50—for cutting back on and stopping immigration. If people try to kid themselves that it was for any other reason, then I am afraid they are deceiving themselves.

As far as I can see, it was a mistake, because at that time, without any doubt, we had a very good quality of immigrant coming in. What is more, the majority of them were paying their own way to come to South Africa. There was a scheme whereby they were assisted, sure, but the majority of immigrants who came to South Africa round about that time, paid their own way, brought in their own capital and set up a number of very substantial business enterprises, many of which have grown and are today very substantial employers of labour. That source was cut off, however.

Eventually the Government, as I say, realized the error of its ways and had to reopen the immigration system. Having stopped immigrants, however, then the logical thing for the Government to have done at the time would have been to start training the Blacks, the Browns, the Asiatics internally into the various skills which were required for South Africa. Regrettably, this did not in fact happen, because it was at that stage that job reservation came into being in a very big way. Not only were they allowed to learn the jobs, but even if they knew them, they were not allowed to do them if those jobs were reserved for another community. This is why I say it was a question almost of adding insult to injury to South Africa when immigration was stopped, because instead of the natural development of training people to take the place of the fall-off in immigrants, we had job reservation.

Well, fortunately, the Government has had, in this as in so many other things, a change of heart and for all practical intents and purposes job reservation no longer exists. I believe it does in one or two occupations but, as I say, for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist.

I believe it is important for us to get all the skilled immigrants in the particular occupations we require. Yes, I would support it wholeheartedly, but I do not believe we shall ever, in the state of development we have now reached and with the population we now have, be able to resolve our industrial and general economic problems with immigrants alone. Therefore it is vitally important that we use the period while we are encouraging greater immigration, to speed up and accentuate the training of the local population.

Here again, in this direction the Government has done a great deal in the last few years, and anybody who says that it has not made prodigious efforts I may even go so far as to say, in the last four or five years is unjust and unreasonable, because in so far as the development of technikons and training institutions is concerned, the Government has put in a lot of money, time, thought and effort. I am afraid, however, that one cannot make up a neglect of more than 20 years of a situation, in a very short space of time unless one is prepared to make very substantial sacrifices. This is what I believe is going to happen. We are going to have an increase not only in the size and quality of the technikons, but also an increase in the number of technikons and the various other training institutions and in the subsidization, if necessary, of apprentices and various other categories of occupation.

We will not achieve the desired result and obtain the fullest possible employment unless we get the skilled workers, and we will not get the skilled workers solely by immigration. We might get some over the short term but, as everybody knows, the South African population is growing at an increasing rate, the Black and the Brown sections of our population at a much faster rate than the White section. Perhaps immigration will keep the pace on the precentages comparative levels going, but it will not ease the burden in the ultimate. Merely in passing let me say this is one of the reasons why I am so opposed to the concept of abortion, because, as I said only yesterday, it is the White people who will control the size of their families while the other groups do not appear to do so.

Without discussing the issue further, I would say that we support the question of immigration. I particularly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinetown and I hope that all hon. members will support it because it is within the spirit of the original motion and makes the intention clearer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo made a fairly positive contribution with regard to this motion. However, I find it incomprehensible that he can support the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown. I think we must state very clearly, so that it can penetrate to hon. members during this debate, that it is not an “either, or” approach that is at issue here, but a “both, and” approach. We have never said that immigration should favour either one group or the other. We have said that it should favour both groups.

I should like to keep the debate out of the political sphere and try to make a constructive contribution. For the information of the hon. member for Umbilo, may I just say that with regard to the danger of overpopulation in South Africa, it need not be a problem in our country, because at the moment the population density of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa is 16 persons per square kilometre, whilst in Holland, for instance, it is 299 per square kilometre. Therefore, his fears in this regard are unfounded.

There are still many people in South Africa—this became clear from today’s debate as well, particularly on the part of the Opposition—who have a sceptical, negative attitude towards immigration as a concept on the one hand and immigrants as people on the other. However, if we think about it carefully, we will have to admit that every White person in South Africa is either an immigrant of the first generation or the descendant of earlier immigrants. It is these previous generations and people who are still immigrating to South Africa who are helping to build up the Republic into the most developed country on the continent of Africa. All immigrants over the centuries have shared in building up this country. Everything that we experience in South Africa, they have helped to establish. There is scarcely a sphere in South Africa where immigrants have not made a very important contribution or even played a decisive role. One could talk about this for a long time, but for the purpose of the motion that is under discussion now, I just want to point out the tremendous role that immigrants have played in the economy of this country over the centuries. They are not taking the bread out of the mouths of South Africans, as some people allege and believe. The opposite is in fact true.

If we were to summarily cut off the flow of immigrants to South Africa, it could have a very negative effect on the economy. It could also result in the economy in South Africa developing so slowly that it would be to the detriment of all the inhabitants of South Africa. Then I am not talking of the White section of the South African economy only. We must simply bear in mind that we do not bring nonentities to South Africa as immigrants. We are bringing highly skilled people here. In their turn they are bringing specialized knowledge and skill with them. They are bringing things to South Africa of which we have a tremendous shortage. In his opening speech at a congress of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, in Pretoria in 1975, Dr. T. F. Muller stated that more than 30% of our country’s annual intake in the labour force was provided by immigration. During the late ’sixties it had already been calculated that South Africa would have to find between 13 500 and 14 000 economically active, skilled immigrants every year if it wanted to maintain a real growth rate of 5,5% per annum. In order to obtain this number of skilled workers, a total of approximately 40 000 immigrants must be brought to South Africa every year. This goal has not been achieved for the past decade. The hon. member Mr. Schutte has already pointed out that in 1977 and 1978 there was a net flow of emigrants away from the country,

We dare not under-estimate the contribution that the immigrant makes in South Africa with regard to skilled labour forces and the provision of employment opportunities for less skilled people. Therefore, when we look at the important role that immigrants play in our total economic set-up, and become increasingly aware of the shortage of skilled and high-level labour forces in South Africa, I feel that a continued, stepped-up immigration campaign is of the utmost importance for the further economic growth of South Africa, particularly since it is very clear that we will not be able to be self-sufficient with regard to skilled labour forces within the foreseeable future. There are probably a large number of factors that could improve our immigration campaign. However, I want to point out two aspects that are of cardinal importance for a successful immigration campaign.

We can indeed speculate about the should or should not of immigration until we are blue in the face. The number of 43 000 immigrants in 1981, however, speaks for itself and proves that immigration is not simply a dream. It is part of reality which must be taken into account. I am also aware of the fact that attention has already been given to these two matters to which I now want to refer. However, I believe that it would be a very good thing if we could take a closer look at these two aspects once again. These are the recruitment and assimilation or integration of immigrants. As far as the recruitment of immigrants is concerned, I just want to say the following. In the first place the hon. member Mr. Schutte and the hon. member for Benoni have already pointed out the fact that the formal procedures surrounding the recruitment of immigrants should be simplified and streamlined. It can be asked whether procedures and formalities that must be settled prior to actual immigration, are not of such a nature that we have already lost a considerable number of potentially good immigrants because of this. Secondly, the advertising campaign that is being conducted for the recruitment of immigrants in countries abroad, is also very important. It has already been pointed out in a few memoranda by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information and by the Department of Internal Affairs that there are problems surrounding the placement of advertisements in the media for the recruitment of immigrants in certain countries abroad. This is a problem indeed. I experienced it myself during the period that I was studying abroad. I still recall very well from my student days in Utrecht in the Netherlands, how some people reacted with an excess of emotion towards advertisements in the Press for recruiting people for immigration to South Africa. However, there are still some of our countries of origin and related countries where advertisements in the media are not a problem, and can still be placed freely. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and the department, in co-operation with the private sector, to launch many more advertising campaigns in those countries where there are no problems with advertisements in the media. From reports by the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie and the 1820 Settlers Memorial Association, it has become clear that there is still a great deal of interest in immigration to South Africa, in contrast to the type of thing that is being said by the Opposition. In the four years that I spent studying abroad, I received many personal applications for immigration, and that interest is still on the increase. Quite simply, better advertising campaigns amongst people in our countries of origin and those in other related countries who can easily be assimilated into our society, requires additional more serious thought.

Since it is not so easy to encourage the flow of immigrants from our countries of origin on the official level, we shall have to take a look at the possibility of informal or nonofficial recruitment. I think that South Africans who are working or studying abroad for a long period could be utilized. A prospective immigrant’s personal contact with a South African on an informal level, is much more valuable to the interested or prospective immigrant, and much more acceptable too, than going to one of the embassies of our country on their own initiative. People in Germany and the Netherlands in particular told me that due to the political feelings of those countries towards us, they were afraid to be seen going to the South African embassy. Informal or non-official recruitment, followed by official rounding off, seems to be the key to success in the future.

I shall now have to speak very briefly about the second point viz. the settling in of the immigrant. There are many obvious reasons why a large number of immigrants return to their countries of origin due to the fact that the immigration attempt was not successful. We shall have to develop a more positive attitude towards immigrants. We shall have to make them feel more at home in our schools, churches and community life, and then we will really be able to pluck the fruits of an immigration campaign that is very essential for South Africa.

For someone to be happy in his job and to function productively in the economy, he must live happily and feel that he is part of the community. He must know that he is not simply being tolerated but that he is being fully accepted. High demands will be made of our attitude towards immigrants in order to make this a reality. I hereby support the motion of the hon. member Mr. Schutte.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Potgietersrus, and in actual fact I cannot find any fault with what he said. Indeed, I think that he displayed a great deal of reasonable, common sense in what he said. This applies to the speech by the hon. member Mr. Schutte as well. I think he made a very good case for the point that he put here. In the nature of things, in his motion he did not emphasize the point that the hon. member for Pinetown made. However, this is a point which is the main one in our opinion, viz. that immigration should actually be seen as supplementary—if it must serve a purpose in providing labour forces for our economy—to the main task, and this is to train our own people to provide for the economic requirements of our country. That is why in the nature of things I associate myself fully with the amendment of my hon. colleague.

I was somewhat amazed at the attitude of the hon. member for Benoni. It is a pity that he is not here now. I am referring to his preposterous accusation that my colleague tried to politicize this entire matter. I cannot understand the hon. member for Benoni, because it is being said every now and then in the House: “Just look at what the Government did in 1945”. Now he says it is unwise to refer to what the NP said in 1948 or in the years following that. There is merit in saying: “Let us just forget what happened in South Africa 30 or 40 years ago, or what people said or did”. However, it seems to me that it is not as simple as that.

There is a second matter that the hon. member for Benoni raised, on which I am not clear. He alleged that we have already accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Riekert Commission at this stage, viz. that with regard to the admission of Blacks to our urban areas, there are two criteria, viz. the availability of housing and the employment opportunities. As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for those two principles to be converted into legislation in practice. I want to tell the hon. member for Benoni in his absence that it seems to me that he has actually anticipated the matter in this regard, particularly if we think of what has been done about the so-called squatters here in the Peninsula over the past few months.

What do you mean by “so-called squatters”?

In general we cannot escape the fact that, to a considerable extent, the problem of the shortage of labour forces is a function, inter alia, of the policy that the NP followed during the ’forties, and particularly the ’fifties.

You must be very careful about what years they were. You were on this side too at one stage.

Yes, I shall come to that in a moment. It is tragic that the NP Government has taken so long to change this policy.

Let us take a brief look at the results of that policy. In 1947 there was a favourable net balance of 21 000 immigrants above emigrants, and in 1948 it was 29 000. In 1949 the figure dropped to 6 000. In 1950 there was a negative balance of 1 200. The largest positive balance at that time was in 1952, when it was approximately 9 000. After that it dropped to 6 900 in 1953, 5 000 in 1954, 4 000 in 1955, 2 000 in 1956, 3 500 in 1957, 5 700 in 1958, 3 000 in 1959, 2 900 in 1960 and 1 327 in 1961. Only in 1962, with the change in the policy of the Government, was there a positive trend in the excess of immigrants over emigrants. In that year there was an increase of 11 000. In 1963 it was 30 000, and in the years between 1964 and 1970 the positive balance was approximately 30 000. The sober facts that if we had followed a different policy in those really important ’fifties, in other words if we had brought people into the country during those years at the same rate as the NP Government did subsequently, I am convinced that our economy would have been in a totally different position today.

Apart from this justified accusation that one can direct at the Government, I want to say that if one tries to establish what the lessons are that we should learn from this, it seems to me that there are three in particular. The first one is that to a large extent the anti-immigration premise on the part of the Government at the time was based on the fear that, if we had continued with the immigration policy that was followed in the years between 1946 and 1947, before the takeover, it would have led to the loss of the identity of the Whites. This has been stated on many occasions. That is why the aspect of the ability to be assimilated is being emphasized. I do not want to embarrass the hon. the Minister if I quote from the debates of 1948.

[Inaudible.]

No. One of the fears that prevailed, was that because there might be elements that would not be assimilated, it would endanger the identity of the groups. I have the extracts here that I can quote to the hon. the Minister if he likes. In any event, the course of events proved that that fear was not based on facts.

The third was the ability that we had to rationalize a preconceived standpoint. The hon. member for Pinetown referred to it too. For instance, I am thinking of the motion that was moved here by Mr. Mentz in February 1948 which read—

1. (a) the growing unemployment in the country,
2. (b) the housing shortage and the shortage of foodstuffs,
3. (c) the continuous rise in the cost of living, and
4. (d) the lack of adequate opportunities for South African youths to enjoy vocational training,
5. this House is of the opinion that the Government’s policy of State-aided immigration is not in the interest of the country and should therefore be suspended until such time as proper provision has been made for the matters referred to.

It was not Mr. Mentz only who said these things. They were also to be found in the speech of another NP member, a certain Mr. Van den Berg, on 17 February 1948, (Hansard, col. 1690).

Surely you were National too then.

I shall come to the hon. the Prime Minister in a moment.

Were you or were you not?

The National Party admits that it has made fundamental changes to its policy. What ridiculous person does not change his view of politics in 30/40 years?

What is your point?

The hon. the Minister cannot say on the one hand that it is good to change and then on the other …

Yes, but what is your point?

The hon. the Prime Minister put a question to me.

But what is your point?

It is logical and obvious that a Government, when it is confronted by facts, must adapt its own view to those facts. [Interjections.] I am pleased that the Government does indeed display that ability at times. [Interjections.] I just want to quote what Mr. Van den Berg said on the same occasion …

Is that relevant now?

Yes, it is. On 5 March 1948 (Hansard, col. 2752), Mr. Van den Berg said—

This was definitely a problematical situation for many White South Africans. However, if we take the housing and work position of the non-White today, of the Black man and of the Coloured, and we were to use the same arguments, there would be no room for the motion of the hon. member Mr. Schutte because those people are in exactly the same position today in which the Whites were in 1948. We have a tremendous ability to rationalize in politics, in order to justify a preconceived standpoint.

I am illustrating this point because it is one of the real problems with which we are faced each time in this House. In other words, it is not a rationally justifiable standpoint, but a rationalized justification for a preconceived premise.

That is not true.

The hon. member knows that it is true. The third lesson that we can learn from this, is the point blank refusal that they sometimes display when it comes to listening to reason. Businessmen, industrialists and the Opposition have for years insisted that the Government review its immigration policy. In spite of all those representations, that were based on rational grounds, the Government refused. However, let me say at once that I am grateful that a change did in fact take place …

Hear, hear!

… and possibly this is something of which the NP may be proud, and I am now addressing myself specifically to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is no longer risky to change, and this is the important thing. In the past the National Party changed fundamentally in regard to various premises. Just think of their attitude towards the Indians. Until shortly before we became a republic, the official policy of the National Party Government was not to accept Indians as South Africans. Their policy was one of repatriation. One can also think of the change in NP policy with regard to the view on the permanence of the Black city dweller. Three or four years ago the Black city dwellers were still viewed as “temporary sojourners”. One can also think of all the changes with regard to Black trade unions.

The hon. member must please come back to the motion under discussion.

I just want to make the point that I believe that there are lessons to be learned from the policy changes of the NP over the years. If we look at the effect that immigration had on us, it becomes apparent that since 1940—i.e. for approximately the past 40 years—the total number of immigrants who came to South Africa, was approximately 950 000, i.e. nearly 1 million people. This illustrates the importance of a positive immigration policy. If we think of what the effect of that number of people was on our economy and the composition of our population, I think it is unnecessary to make a special case for a positive immigration policy.

One also simply has to look at the various categories of employment which those immigrants hold in our economy. Over the past nine years more than 36 000 men and more than 15 000 women in the professional categories have come to work in our country. As far as the production workers’ category is concerned, more than 34 000 men and 1 777 women immigrants have come to work in our country over the past nine years. Therefore there is not the least doubt that these immigrants have played a tremendous role in the expansion of our economy.

Time does not allow me to go into these aspects further, but there is nevertheless one more aspect that I want to point out. I think that we cannot look at immigration separate from the problem of emigration. Although we have attracted more than 900 000 immigrants to South Africa over the past 40 years, in the same period we have had an emigrant loss of approximately 500 000. The net gain, large as it is, would consequently have been much greater if we had not lost such a large number of people through emigration at the same time. Emigration is not an unknown phenomenon. Indeed, South Africa owes its early establishment to people who immigrated from other countries.

In the political sphere too we are acquainted with the question of emigration. Basically there are three categories of people who are leaving South Africa today. There are the people who are emigrating voluntarily, people who leave here with a one-way ticket and people who are deported. If we look at the events of the past week with regard to the number of emigrants who left the NP then we wonder whether it was due to voluntary emigration or enforced one-way tickets or whether they were deported. I hope that we will indeed have some clarity on that matter in due course.

The problem is simply, I believe, that we cannot afford to follow a positive policy of immigration without giving attention to the reasons why large numbers of people are leaving South Africa. In the immigration context the reasons for emigration must also be considered. My plea is that in weighing up these problems we should indeed give just as much attention to the reasons why people are leaving this country. It is also true that many of the immigrants who came to South Africa have left South Africa again. Of course there could be many reasons for this. However, if we really want to follow a positive immigration policy it is our duty to protect the capital and energy that we put into that immigration policy, by conducting the necessary investigation to establish whether we are capitalizing on that capital as much as we can by establishing the reasons why people do not remain in South Africa or why people are leaving South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, while I was sitting and listening to the hon. member Prof. Olivier it struck me that we on this side of the House have had several young speakers who understood this problem of immigration, spoke about it and advocated immigration itself. However, on the Opposition side, particularly on the part of the official Opposition, there were hon. members who harped on the 1948 era. I want to put this question to the hon. member Prof. Olivier: Why did he not go back as far as 1914? To me, Sir, the problem is here today and this is what I admire about the NP. Over a period of 30 years, on every occasion, it has discussed the problem that was relevant at that stage. It did not go back in history each time and then bring up all sorts of things here. I just want to tell the hon. member that I am very pleased I was not one of his students because he harped on this to such an extent in the first part of his speech that I did not pay attention to the second half of his speech.

The hon. member for Umbilo convinced me that we should recruit immigrants from English-speaking countries. He spoke for a fairly long time on the quality thereof and he spoke about several millions that have apparently come to South Africa since 1948. I want to tell him that I support him and I think we should start in Natal. He could not resist dragging the Afrikaner into this debate once again as if it was the fault of the Afrikaner that we have not recruited enough immigrants. The hon. member for Potgietersrus stated his case very clearly. He said that we should invite capable people to emigrate to this country. As I have already said, the hon. member for Umbilo blamed the Afrikaner for the situation that arose in history and he did not come to the problems that this motion is in fact dealing with today.

The hon. member for Pinetown made the statement here that 10 million people in the cities do not have land to till. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a city and I never needed to buy a plough or to cultivate my land in order to make a living. I think those hon. members have missed the point completely.

I want to say thank you very much to the hon. member Mr. Schutte for having moved this motion in the House today. I support it and I do so for various reasons. In the first place I believe that in this period of reform, South Africa should take stock of where the growth problems lie in our country and in this area of Southern Africa. Secondly, I agree because if we are to create 1 000 employment opportunities per day in the RSA, we must analyse the knowledge of our population composition and establish whether the growth of the population will be able to keep up with the growth of our economy on the short and the long term. Thirdly, I agree because if we are to create 1 000 employment opportunities per day, we must deliberate whether we have enough resources or enough skilled human material on the short term in order to create many employment opportunities for the various sectors in which we are going to experience the shortages.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier stopped off at Nyanga’s squatter camps once again. I want to ask him: If one were to take people from the squatters’ camps at Nyanga in order to train them, in what direction would one train them? Surely those people are not skilled. We need people with skill to help to train those people.

I am deliberately linking my standpoint for a continued immigration campaign to the concept of growth because there is one growth trend from which people cannot escape. This is the population growth throughout the world. The world-wide population explosion is the greatest crisis facing mankind, and depending on how every person, every city, every nation, every country and every section of the world approaches this crisis, the chances of surviving the crisis will increase or decrease. Depending on how it utilizes its human materials and natural resources, every country, every city and every section of the world will increase or decrease its chances of survival.

In order to escape this crisis, South Africa will have to concentrate on immigration as the only solution to the problem of the shortage of skilled manpower. Immigrants are the people who will have to help us to establish a foundation in every sector of our community on the basis of which we will be able to decrease unemployment amongst the less skilled people in all sectors. There is a drop in the population growth of that section of our population that must guarantee the management, the planning and the growth of not only this country, but the whole of Southern Africa as well. At the same time there is an extraordinarily high growth in that section of the population that forms the manpower leg of the region and the country.

In order to maintain the standard of living of a country and a region, the average growth rate of the gross domestic product must be equal to the growth of the population. If this growth can be maintained for at least 20 years—therefore, as long as it takes the babies who are born today, to become productive—only then will one be assured to a certain extent that independence has been achieved. Only then will one be able to establish with a degree of certainty whether the babies of 20 years ago will be able to succeed in caring independently for the economic growth of their country, their cities and their regions, as a result of their training. Only then will one know whether a region has become self-sufficient.

In order to be able to say this in 20 years’ time, we must have people in Southern Africa today who can undertake the training of the children and the babies of this region. Those who have to undertake the training of people for the various sectors in Southern Africa, must also not be settled in a single geographic area alone, nor must they be active in certain sectors of the community only. On the contrary, they must be distributed throughout the entire labour spectrum.

The Public Service has had the experience of the private sector luring away its staff for many years already. Not only does it leave its mark on education, the police force, health services and various other Government services, but it ultimately affects the total smooth running of our economy and everything that contributes towards making this country grow and bloom.

The economic and political dispensation of every region and sector in Southern Africa must have experts at its disposal, people who can take the lead in public administration, in commerce and industry, agriculture, mining, education and the health services, as well as in maintaining law and order and creating healthy relations between inhabitants of the region, and particularly, I believe, between moderate politicians. Each one must devote himself to the field in which he strives to produce the best and to achieve success. If we can succeed in doing this, in 20 years time we will be able to look with joy at the young man who is going to take his place in this region of the world.

For many years adequate and effective guidance was not given to the people of Africa. Consequently this continent is deteriorating. We notice this in Southern Africa in particular, where stable economies had been established, in comparison with the rest of Africa. Over the past years large numbers of immigrants have streamed into South Africa from neighbouring States because there was no expert political guidance in those neighbouring States. On the short term this was to South Africa’s benefit, but on the long term this region will not benefit by it. It has already been proved that the economies of our neighbours are beginning to collapse. If these economies disappear from the scene, it would mean a loss of trading partners.

I think the hon. member Mr. Schutte was very successful in proving that the present state of affairs has a detrimental effect on the productivity of our country and of the region, and that it retards the growth and political development of South Africa and Southern Africa.

Therefore it is important that we should take stock of our immigration policy, because it may be dangerous on the long term if the campaign is not stepped up. That section of our population that provides the capital and initiative in South Africa, is acting in a co-ordinating and supervisory capacity at the moment, and due to the onslaught on this region their productivity is being seriously hampered by the additional contributions that they must make towards protecting the country from an enemy that is a threat to stability in various spheres. This group is apparently going to be leaned on more heavily in the future for an increased military contribution, and this is a further factor that makes it essential for us to promote this campaign.

According to a recent newsletter from the HSRC on “Suid-Afrika se bevolking—die vooruitsigte en implikasies” our population is going to double within the next 30 years. That is why it is essential that we should launch this major action. I feel that this action should be aimed not so much at obtaining highly qualified immigrants, but at the spiritually defensible immigrant who is ready for hard work, and who is looking for a country where moral values are important. Such an immigrant will be able to be easily assimilated amongst all South Africans.

The person who moved the motion pointed out that Southern Africa needs people with entrepreneurial qualities, because such people create employment opportunities. I agree wholeheartedly with this. That is why I want to refer to what Prof. Weber, senior lecturer in economics, said recently at Sasolburg. He was talking about economic preparedness, and he said—

He went on, and said the following about training—

He had the following to say about entrepreneurship—

One of the greatest economists, J. M. Schumpeter, alleged in reply to the communist manifesto of Karl Marx, which predicted the downfall of capitalism, that Karl Marx was wrong with regard to his identification of the cause. It is the disappearance of the entrepreneur that will destroy capitalism. In Prof. H. J. Weber’s opinion, Schumpeter is correct. The same investigation that discovered the 23% contribution of training, revealed an even more amazing result in this regard, viz. that 35% of the growth in the economy—prosperity—is to be found in entrepreneurial ability. Entrepreneurial ability is defined as follows—

Such an entrepreneur has an insatiable thirst and striving for achievement. This is what is required for the solution of the South African problem of unemployment and the economic growth problems.

Since immigrants have the courage to begin from scratch in a new country, they have many of these abovementioned characteristics. That is why I believe that it is essential to attract them to South Africa. The economic position in the world is such that we cannot but benefit by it.

The population of South Africa is going to double within the following 30 years. Consequently the country needs people with qualities of entrepreneurship now. We see Africa dying around us, and if we are not going to train the peoples of Southern Africa to increase their productivity now, within 30 years our numbers will be too small to attempt the task, and we will not succeed in providing the economic foundation that will be necessary for the doubled population. We shall have to replace the immigrant from a neighbouring State who is working here as a migratory labourer at the moment, with immigrants from the homelands of the Republic of South Africa. This creates employment opportunities and opportunities for families from South Africa.

Furthermore we shall also have to encourage our large entrepreneurs to expand their recruitment campaigns abroad so that they can keep their hands off the staff of the Public Service, otherwise we will experience a decline in the State administration because it is their only alternative labour market.

By the year 1830 the world population amounted to 1 000 million. Exactly 100 years later it had doubled. By the year 2000 the anticipated world population will be 6,2 milliard. This is 2,2 milliard more than the present. A rapid population growth in underdeveloped communities is placing considerable, sometimes insurmountable stumbling blocks in the path of their development towards a higher standard of living, better standards of nutrition and health, better housing, better education, etc. 90% of the anticipated population growth is going to take place in the less developed areas of the world, whilst many developed countries are not experiencing any growth at all. In order to escape the crises of the population explosion in our region, we shall have to give serious attention to stepping up our immigration campaign.

Mr. Speaker, at the very outset I want to remark that if we were to look at the matter on an historical basis, it would be clear that the bulk of the population of this country consists of descendants of immigrants. This does not hold for Whites alone. It holds for the other population groups too. Therefore, it would have been a good thing if during this debate, particularly on the part of the Opposition parties, we had emphasized the one positive aspect, viz. that the immigrant population that came here, did not destroy the local population of the country, as was the case in other countries.

There is a second point that I should like to raise in this specific regard, and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Potgietersrus. This is that the development of this country is supported to a large extent by the contributions of immigrants, and now I am talking about development in the broadest sense of the word. It applies not only in the economic sphere, but in the cultural, technological and many other spheres too. In many spheres the country owes its development to the contributions of immigrants.

Now I come to a third remark that I want to make in this specific regard. Apart from the immigrants as such that we have imported, we have also imported ideas and models that do not fit into the Africa context. Indeed, in our present day debating we often make use of imported political models and philosophies that do not fit into the complicated society in which we are living. However, I had hoped that the motion of the hon. member Mr. Schutte would give us the opportunity to conduct a debate on the specific subject that he raised in his motion, but it seems to me that we cannot escape negative debating in this House. I simply cannot understand why we in this House do not have the ability to utilize opportunities positively.

In this regard I now come back to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He availed himself of the opportunity to discuss a 1948 motion by Mr. Mentz, a motion that was introduced in the context of that specific era. Surely I do not have to remind him of how relevant that motion was in actual fact at that time. Here I agree with the hon. member for Boksburg. I want to allege that the essence of the politics of the day is in fact to be found in making decisions within the context and the reality of the time. However, that hon. member made a point—and I had so hoped that it would not be necessary—of saying that we took certain steps at the time to protect identities. However, I want to refer him to Act No. 22 of 1913. He is an historian, inter alia, and therefore he will probably concede that the NP was not in power at the time. I quote from section 4(1)(a)—

These were the type of people who would not be permitted as immigrants. In view of this provision I also want to quote from a notice that was issued on 1 August 1913. The point that I want to make, is that it is no use playing historical facts off against one another. [Interjections.] Why then is that hon. member doing so? Since the hon. member started this, I should like to quote—

I leave the specific type of person out for the moment—

1. (a) in which that person is not domiciled, and
2. (b) in which that person is not, in terms of any Statute of that province, entitled to reside.

Do you know who signed it, Sir? It was signed by General Smuts. What point does the hon. member want to make now by delving into history and then accusing this party? Why is the hon. member not prepared to admit that the NP Government was the first Government to recognize the permanence of the specific population group that General Smuts said should not come here, and to accept them as part of the South African population?

I did say so.

What then was the point of this argument while we are living in an era when we are all advocating reconciliation between population groups?

The hon. member also gave us statistics with regard to the years after 1948 and pointed out how the immigration figure had dropped. Does the hon. member not recall the propaganda that was made in the world outside, against the perspective of the time, for instance that the country would be brought to its knees economically, that the banks would close and that the workers would end up on the streets? Surely the hon. member knows it is true. He too was a member of the commando that alleged this. Now he comes along and says that after 1948 the NP Government stopped the flow of immigrants. Surely this is simply not true.

I turn to the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member Mr. Schutte proposed that as far as immigration is concerned, we should emphasize the importance of two specific aspects. The first is the shortage of skilled manpower. Is there anyone who contests this? The second is the creation of a wider economic foundation in order to decrease unemployment. The hon. member for Pinetown moved an amendment to this. I hope I have understood him correctly and I do not want to do him an injustice, but he said that, although we recognize that we need immigrants, we should give the citizens of South Africa the highest degree of education and training, and that the immigration policy should be aimed at accelerating this. Therefore, the sole purpose of his amendment is a motivation for an immigration policy, and I want to debate this with him. He could have emphasized the need for training and education for our own population. Indeed, this is a high priority of the Government, and our standpoint with regard to immigration is qualified, inter alia, in the sense that we say that it should not take place at the cost of the local population. However, the sole purpose of the hon. member’s amendment achieves the opposite of what he wants. I should like to ask him whether in the first place it is not necessary for economic reasons for us to recruit skilled immigrants. He nods his head in confirmation. This is important, because the economic ability of the country determines the total ability of the country, ultimately the country’s financial ability too, of achieving the goal of education as well. He will agree with this.

Why then cannot he debate with us and support the motion of the hon. member Mr. Schutte? However, the hon. member goes further. He also said “with a view to providing employment for people with less training”. While we are in a developing process of providing education and training to our population, surely the hon. member will concede that it is a long-term objective and cannot be achieved on the short term. Is this not true? The hon. member agrees. Then if we have a shortage of high-level manpower and a shortage of trained people, and if we then accept that skilled people are necessary for the employment of unskilled or semiskilled people, why is the hon. member not prepared for the sake of that—he and his party who make such a fuss and who have the interests of the Black people at heart—to support the motion of the hon. member Mr. Schutte? I am asking the question because I am seeking the real reason, the motive for the approach of hon. members on the opposite side. When I have analysed everything, one thing only remains, and this is that the hon. members on the other side cannot resist bringing a racist or colour element into every debate. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central should rather not react to it.

Why not?

Because he is an example of what I am going to explain now. I want to say today that South Africa is one of the most sought-after countries in the world for immigrants, in spite of the image that the hon. members opposite are creating of South Africa and in spite of the fact that in debating and in public addresses, this country is being accused of being a suppressor of other people. I say with absolute conviction this afternoon that if we had not had a selective immigration policy, this country would have been overwhelmed by immigrants of all races from Africa. Does the hon. member want to contend this? I want to ask the hon. member: Why would people from countries in Africa, countries that are free, and started out on the basis of “one man, one vote”, want to come to this condemned country, the country of suppression? I am still seeking an opportunity to rise in this House and compliment the hon. members on the other side for having availed themselves for once of an opportunity to praise our country’s good qualities and characteristics. I want to ask once again, and I am asking this in view of the seriousness of the time in which we are living: Why are these hon. members unable to see the positive things in a country? Or do they simply want to score points against us and never score points for South Africa?

It is your policy that is negative.

No. The hon. member must give me a chance. I listened carefully to him. I ask the hon. member in all fairness: What sort of image of this country does he and his party project abroad, where immigrants must come from? If the hon. member looks at his own speeches and those of his colleagues in his party, does he think that if those speeches were read by people abroad they would still want to come to South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister speaking to the motion? The hon. the Minister spends his time discussing the image of South Africa projected by my party. What has that got to do with immigration?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member is merely proving my point. He does not have the necessary understanding. He does not understand that when one has to recruit immigrants, as the hon. member for Potgietersrus asked, the image of one’s own country is very important in that country. The hon. member cannot even understand this.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier, as well as the hon. member for Pinetown, want to take us to task for inconsistency. I do not even want to talk about that party’s political past. However, I want to ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier whether it is his standpoint that with regard to this specific subject, given the economic development of the country after 30 years, we should be following exactly the same immigration policy as we followed at the time. Is that the hon. member’s policy?

Please repeat the question.

It is the Friday afternoon nap that does that!

The fact is that the Government’s standpoint with regard to immigration is very simple. We are following a policy of selecting immigrants based on the needs of the economy of the country. Indeed this is what the hon. member Mr. Schutte is asking for as well. There are important reasons why immigration takes place on a selective basis. In the first place we want to bring about economic growth and we want to broaden the economic basis. By means of selective immigration we want to broaden the total pool of knowledge, technological and otherwise. Consequently we are interested in the skill that immigrants can bring into the country.

However, we are not aiming at economic growth and development only. Through our economic power and capabilities we are also in a better position to uplift the less privileged people within our borders. The skills that immigrants bring into the country, also enable us to provide employment opportunities in spheres where skill is required. This applies in particular to those who have still not had the opportunity to receive formal education today. The policy of the Government will therefore be not only selective, but elastic too. No one will question the fact that the movement of immigrants between countries is also determined by economic activities or the level of development or growth in the country of destination or origin. Therefore it is meaningless to present statistics for a good number of years ago, without referring back to the circumstances of the time in which they should be judged.

I also want to discuss a third principle, viz. that immigrants may not come to our country if it would be to the detriment of the local population, and “local population” has a comprehensive definition. It includes Whites, Blacks, Asians and Coloureds. If we look at the matter, taking into account the requirements of the day, and these requirements, why do hon. members not say that they agree with it? The official Opposition wants immigrants for training only; it does not matter whether there are schools, whether there are teachers, they must come for the sake of training only. I can understand their need for training, but the population is wiser than they are!

I want to make a final statement. If we were to wait until our total Black population had been accommodated before we could obtain immigrants, then I want to tell the hon. member Prof. Olivier—this …

I did not say that.

… is what the argument was about—we would not be able to obtain them. I want to tell those hon. members without mincing matters—and I make no excuse for it—that they must tell the industrialists in the country that they can have their immigrants, but not for the sake of economic development, because this is what the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown provides.

I just want to make this last point. I expect prospective employers of immigrants to do their duty with regard to housing for immigrants. I am saying this directly to you because I think it is unfair that we should be depriving anyone, White or Coloured or Asian, who is a South African citizen, from his housing for the sake of immigrants. I hope hon. members will agree with me in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the hon. members for their contributions, especially the hon. the Minister and hon. members on this side of the House, who made so many positive contributions.

†Mr. Speaker, it was never the intention to drag this debate into the political arena and it is a great pity that hon. members of the Opposition sought to do just that.

Hon. members opposite referred to statements made in 1948. I just want to point out to them that it has been because of the prosperity created in this country by this Government since 1948 that we have had a very high growth rate and that we need immigration. Making statements of that nature at this stage is being totally irrelevant. I also wish to emphasize the fact that hon. members on this side have stressed the fact that training is required, especially in the long term. However, that is not the complete answer. We also need immigration, especially in the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.