I have to inform the House that my attention has been drawn to a report under the heading “Horwood’s query on banker critics” which appeared in The Argus on Friday, 18 February 1977, and according to which the Minister of Finance used the following words, which are printed between quotation marks, with reference to the hon. member for Johannesburg North during the debate on the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill:

Elsewhere in the report it is indicated, again between quotation marks, that the Minister used the following words with reference to the hon. member for Johannesburg North:

The Minister denies that he used the word “coward” and the official Hansard report and the tape recording bear out that the word was not used. I did not hear the Minister use the word. If I had, I would have ordered him to withdraw it. No member rose on a point of order to draw my attention to it.

I have to inform the House that in these special circumstances I have permitted the reporter concerned to listen to the tape recordings of the Minister’s speech and his reply to the Third Reading in the presence of the Editor of Hansard Reporting.

The Argus yesterday published an apology to the Speaker and the Minister in which it is stated that after a thorough investigation it was established that the words “He is a coward” and “a coward who has run away to hide” had not been used by the Minister, and that the report was therefore incorrect.

The Editor of The Argus has addressed a letter to me in which he tendered his apologies to the Speaker and the Minister of Finance.

I have in my office reprimanded and cautioned the reporter concerned, who was this year admitted to the Press Gallery for the first time. He has tendered his sincere regrets to me.

Similar reports, written by the same reporter, appeared in The Star and The Daily News. These newspapers will apologize in the same way as The Argus did.

No further action is recommended to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the business of the House for next week will be as follows: On Monday we shall deal with the Additional Appropriation Bill introduced by the Minister of Finance, after which we shall proceed with the Second Reading of the Finance and Financial Adjustments Acts Consolidation Bill and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill.

*During the rest of next week, i.e. from Tuesday to Friday, we shall follow the Order Paper as printed for today.

In terms of a 1949 ruling by Mr. Speaker Naudé, dealing with notices of questions to Ministers (see M. of P., 1949, pp. 393-4), a Minister must be given a minimum notification of one clear sitting day in the case of a question for oral reply, which means that a question for a Tuesday must appear on the Question Paper not later than the preceding Monday and a question for a Friday not later than the preceding Thursday. Questions for oral reply which are delivered to the Secretary on the day preceding a Question Day are accordingly placed on the Question Paper for the next following Question Day.

Speaker Naudé based his ruling on the principle that it was the intention of the Standing Orders that such notice should be given to the Minister who had to furnish a reply as would ensure that a reasonable time would be made available to obtain the necessary information, and stated that it was contrary to his interpretation of the rule if notice of a question only appeared on the Question Paper on the day on which the responsible Minister had to reply, as was the practice at the time.

Questions of sufficient urgency have always been allowed with the prior consent of Mr. Speaker, who consults the Minister concerned before allowing such a question.

Representations have, however, been received from time to time that the present minimum period of one day’s notification is often inadequate and does not give Ministers and their departments sufficient time to obtain the information required for replies to questions.

After consultation through the usual channels, I have accordingly decided that a notice of a question for oral reply will only be accepted for the next Question Day if the question will appear on the Question Paper for at least two sitting days before such Question Day. This means that a question for a Tuesday will appear on the Question Paper not later than the preceding Friday and for a Friday not later than the preceding Wednesday.

The procedure relating to urgent questions will continue to be applied as in the past.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We in these benches are aware that a debate on this motion goes to the heart of the political debate in South Africa. It deals with the question as to whether we are going to share political rights and power or whether we are going to attempt to separate political rights and power on a race basis. We believe that it goes to an even more fundamental issue, i.e. whether we are going to have conflict in South Africa or whether we White people who have the authority at the moment, are prepared to negotiate with others in order to ensure that we have peace.

What in essence does the Act say? It is perhaps necessary to remind members, because this Act was passed in 1968. The Act is a brief one. First it defines four population groups: Bantu, White, Coloured and Asian. Then it limits political action on a multi-racial basis. It says that no person who belongs to any one population group—and that would include everybody in South Africa—can be a member of a political party to which a person belongs who may be of another population group. This means that you may not join mixed political parties. Secondly, at election time you cannot render assistance to either a candidate or a party as an agent or as a member of an election committee. No reference is made to financial assistance, but specific reference is made to assistance as an agent or candidate. Thirdly, it states that you may not address a gathering in which the overwhelming majority of people is of another racial group, if that gathering is to further the interests of a political party or a candidate. Finally, it says in section 3 that political parties in South Africa should not be allowed to receive financial assistance from abroad. Looking at this, I must immediately say that the question of financial assistance from abroad is not an issue between us and the rest of the House. We believe that it would be undesirable and that it is totally unnecessary for South African political parties to be financed by money from overseas. We are only asking for the repeal of the Act in so far as it prevents South Africa’s citizens from participating in political activities on a multi-racial basis. That is the gravamen of the motion which we have before us today.

I want to look briefly at the history of the Act, which is totally bound up with the question of Coloured representation in this Parliament. In 1964 the Progressive Party won the two Coloured seats in the Cape Provincial Council. In 1966 the four parliamentary Coloured seats were due to fall vacant, and all the indications were that the Progressive Party candidates would have won those four seats. At that stage these elections were delayed, and on 17 October that year a commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. S. L. Muller, M.P., to report on the question of “improper” interference and the question of the political representation of the various political groups. On 20 November 1967 the commission reported, making certain recommendations. There was also a dissenting report made on behalf of the UP, and signed by, inter alia, Mr. S. J. M. Steyn, M.P. Briefly, the recommendations were that Coloured representation in Parliament should be abolished and that a Coloured Persons Representative Council with 40 elected and 20 nominated members should be set up. The commission also recommended that an Improper Interference Bill should be introduced in order to prevent multi-racial or mixed political parties. These were in essence the recommendations of the commission. It is interesting to note that neither the evidence nor the recommendations paid any specific attention to any group other than the Coloured group. Right at the end, because there was no evidence from Indians, Indians were invited to give evidence. The majority group, the African group, however, was neither by way of evidence nor by way of formal recommendation considered by the commission. The consequence of this report was that in 1968 the Coloured representation was removed from Parliament, the CPRC was set up on the new basis and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was passed. The UP supported the hon. member for Houghton when she moved at the Second Reading stage that the Bill should be read “this day six months”. As far as the old Progressive Party, which was a multi-racial party, was concerned, it shed its non-White members. It is interesting to note that in an area like the Cape Peninsula the Progressive Party lost some 30% of its members as a result of this action. In Durban, Johannesburg and elsewhere the party sustained further losses. Inter alia, it lost a member who at the moment is the mayor of Soweto, Mr. David Tebahale, and who at that stage had been the national chairman of the Young Progressives of South Africa. The PP and the PRP has ever since then remained committed to restoring multiracial membership to that party, as soon as this becomes legally possible.

So much for the history. On what was this Act based? It was based on the belief that Coloured, Indian, African and White groups should be seen as separate nations and must conduct their political activities, not merely on separate voters’ rolls or in separate political parties, but in separate political institutions. This was born out of the vision, or dream, of the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, of separate development, the concept of separate national streams, each pure, each separate, each leading to sovereign independent nations, economically interdependent but politically independent. At the time, two years after the death of Dr. Verwoerd, one was still basking in the hey-day of the Verwoerdian philosophy and the consequences of that in terms of legislative and executive action. Actually, if you look at what took place then, this Act seemed logical, moral and even practical. It seemed in fact to be in harmony not only with the political mood of that time, but it matched what appeared to be the socio-economic realities of those days, because South Africa in that time—and think of South Africa eight to ten years ago—appeared to be a largely separated society, moving in the direction of greater and greater separation. One thinks of the situation when officials of the Bantu Affairs department were not allowed to shake hands with Black people.

Where does it say that?

That was a regulation at that time. Cabinet Ministers, members of that party and officials were not allowed to attend diplomatic receptions if there were any people who were not White in attendance. Can one imagine that? That was the rule at that time. [Interjections.] At the Black universities there was separation between Black and White staff members even in the tea-rooms. The professors had tea in separate rooms, they sat on separate councils and senates, the Coloureds and Blacks were advisory and the dream was that one day the Coloureds would become the senate and the Whites the advisory senate. We had separation in libraries, museums, theatres like the Nico Malan, hotels, universities and welfare organizations. The hon. the Minister of Sport knows his history. He will remember Dr. Verwoerd’s Loskop speech about sport. You could have no mixed sport as individuals or as teams at club, provincial or national level. No visiting mixed teams were allowed in South Africa. No Olympic teams were allowed if Blacks were to be included in those teams. Job reservation, District Six, and all those things made South Africa look like a divided society and in its own crazy way it looked as though it was becoming more divided.

In spite of the Government’s commitment to separate development, South Africa has over the years been changing away from a divided society towards a shared society. In spite of the skin of race which is over the body of South Africa, to which the Government attracts attention, the flesh and the tissue of South African society has been changing in an organic way towards a mixed and multi-racial one. I believe that although the Government is facing in the direction of segregation, South Africa, in spite of the Government, is moving in the direction of integration and multi-racialism. One only has to look at the points which I have mentioned. These were all things the NP approved of eight years ago, these acts of separation. All of them have disappeared. Even our South African Defence Force is much more multi-racial than it was before. Our churches are becoming much more integrated. Our educational system is becoming more multi-racial.

And the schools.

Yes, the schools as well. The impact of radio and television and even of such superficial things as modern pop culture are having an effect in bringing Black and White people more closely together emotionally. The economy is also becoming more multi-racial. We all know that we are developing in South Africa a cross-filing and cross-cutting of social, cultural, economic and sporting interests which are starting to blur the sharp edges of that race ideology devised by Dr. Verwoerd. The hon, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education may not like it, but if Mr. Pik Botha, the Foreign Minister designate, has his way when he comes to this House, South Africa will be a much more integrated society within the next three years. That is the commitment of a new member of this House, who is going to be here as a senior Cabinet Minister.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Not at the moment. The hon. member may ask a question later.

†Even if these important changes are taking place in the socio-economic nature of our South African society, we believe that much more fundamental changes are taking place in the political structure of our society. Greater challenges in this regard are confronting us in the political field and these changes that are taking place have already caused the Government to abandon certain of the basic elements of Dr. Verwoerd’s concept of separate development. What was that concept in essence? It was that we were not one nation, but a series of separate nations. Each one was to become sovereign and politically independent, there would be no sharing of power and each would be free to make its own decisions. There could, however, be co-operation through a commonwealth of sovereign independent States. I do not think that I have been unfair to the philosophy of Dr. Verwoerd in expressing it in that way.

In spite of the independence of the Transkei last year, I have no doubt that South Africa is moving in a fundamental way away from the separation of power and away from the separation of authority towards the sharing of political power. I want to illustrate this in two vital fields, of which the first is that of the Coloured people. Although the Government has not yet faced up to the alternative and although it is still fiddling around, it has already abandoned the basic promise of Dr. Verwoerd in relation to the Coloured people. For them there is no separate territory, no separate sovereignty, no separate nationhood, no independence and no commonwealth of States in which they can operate. The Coloured people have been accepted by the NP as an integral part of the White power structure of South Africa. I do not want to suggest that this has come easily to hon. members on that side of the House. Separate development was first changed to parallel development. Then we heard from the hon. the Minister of the Interior that this involved parallel lines that would never meet. Now we find that they are meeting in a joint Cabinet council, to which the hon. the Prime Minister said he would, if necessary, give statutory authority. The hon. the Prime Minister went further and conceded that where there were areas of common interests, there had to be “gesamentlike beraadslaging”. Then one had the Theron Commission, which found that the system of separate and parallel institutions for the Coloured people was a failure, because there were built-in anomalies which pointed to the impossibility of two sovereignties and two effective decision-making bodies in one shared area. From time to time we have had speeches by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who made it quite clear that as far as he was concerned: “A1 ons Bruinmense sal as volwaardige burgers by ons eie nasieskap aangeskakel moet word met die grootste moontlike spoed.” That has been the philosophy of the hon. member. A Cabinet Committee is at this moment attempting to devise a system which is a departure from the Westminster system in order to facilitate a sharing of decision-making between the White and Coloured people in areas of common concern. The public has caught on to this, thank goodness, and in spite of the NP there is a growing acceptance that the Coloured people should be reinstated as full citizens in the multi-racial areas of South Africa.

Reports and market surveys made by “Mark en Mening Opname” and reported in the Afrikaans newspaper, Rapport, have indicated this. In 1972 55% of the White voters said that the Coloureds should be directly represented in Parliament. In 1975 57% of the White voters said that the Coloured people should be represented in Parliament. Then they went to a much more exclusive group, namely the Afrikaner Broederbond members of the Cape Province, and sampled the opinions of a thousand of these people. Their sample indicated that among this elite group of Nationalists in the Cape Province 73% felt that the Coloured people should be directly represented in the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. [Interjections.] Surely we can no longer bluff ourselves that Coloured politics is essentially separate from White politics. If we are not going to separate Coloured politics from White politics, surely we should find means of encouraging people to share ideas, to co-operate and to understand each other’s aspirations, not merely at the level of the Executive, of the Cabinet, where the decisions are taken, but at the level of the voter, because after all, it is the voter who elects the Cabinet.

I have dealt with the Coloureds, but what applies to the Coloureds in this trend of events applies equally to those Africans, those Bantu, who are permanently settled outside the homelands. The same situation is developing and is going to develop further. Whatever the validity of the theories of Dr. Verwoerd and the NP was in the early sixties, circumstances have changed, and how much they have changed is reflected in the events which have taken place in the Black townships of South Africa over the past few months. It would be fatal for us to plan our future on the old NP dream that the Blacks working in our cities were temporary sojourners, or on the Verwoerdian concept that the political future of these Blacks can be separated from the political future of the rest of South Africa. These myths and these dreams disappeared in the smoke and the flames of Soweto from 16 June 1976 onwards. [Interjections.]

I want to put four questions which I believe we shall all have to answer in relation to the urban Blacks. Firstly, can we any longer base our policies on the assumption that Black South Africans living in the Black townships are there on a temporary basis? Is there any member on that side of the House who believes that one can accept them here on a temporary basis? Is there anyone? Clearly the answer is “no”. They are—and we all know, whether we want to admit it or not—part of a new and established urban community. They are living and working in the cities and are integrated into our economy permanently not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. From the moment last year in November that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development announced that they could own houses in perpetuity, the Government finally abandoned the Verwoerdian pretext that they were no longer there on a permanent basis.

The second question which we have to put is whether the political aspirations of the majority of Black people living in the cities can be satisfied within the framework of the homelands’ political structure. Quite clearly the answer is “no”. Let us look at how the Black towns erupted last year. They did not erupt because the Blacks did have a vote in the homelands. They erupted because Black people were denied the power and the authority to improve the social and economic conditions and to get rid of discrimination in the urban areas where they worked and where they lived and where they reared their families. That is where they have to exercise political power.

The third question is whether the Blacks in the urban areas are gaining in political power or not. We will be very foolish unless we face up to the fact that they are gaining in political power. Let us consider the impact which the collective action of the voteless Black South Africans has had in recent months on aspects of Government policy. They have caused the Government to abandon parts of its policy, they have had an impact on attitudes both inside and outside South Africa and also in regard to our international, our military and our economic situation. We have to realize that political power—and by that I mean the ability to influence the course of events and to change Government policy—extends far beyond those who have a vote. The issue is no longer whether we are going to share political power with them, but whether we are going to make it possible for them to express their political power peacefully and in harmony with us or whether we are going to see that it is expressed through violence and conflict.

The final question is whether we can separate so-called “Black” and so-called “White” politics from one another in the multi-racial economically active urban areas of South Africa. Once again the answer is “no”. There may of course be differences because of different present circumstances, differences of social, economic and political objectives for the present time, but nothing can undo the basic interdependence of Black upon White and White upon Black in the economically active urban areas of South Africa. Political decisions on such fundamental matters, for example, as finance, labour, foreign affairs and defence affect Whites and Blacks in exactly the same way because they are all part of a single South African community. These are the realities we have to face up to, and people are starting to face up to them, even on the National side. I do not have the time to quote from the Afrikaans Press, but hon. members are aware of the fact that the editor of Die Burger has said that if one cannot satisfy people with self-determination in their own separate areas, one must find a “gemeenskaplike staatstruktuur” for Black, White and Brown people in one area. We do not suggest that, given all the factors in the history of South Africa, it is going to be easy to avoid conflict in a political society where the realities dictate that we have to share power with one another, but surely if we are going to start sharing power, if we must accept a “gesamentlike staatstruktuur”, as the editor of Die Burger suggests, we must start looking for common ground for Black, White and Brown citizens in South Africa.

There are those, particularly outside South Africa, who prescribe a solution for our political problem in terms of a simplistic popularist slogan of “majority rule”. Some, who describe themselves as non-racialists, oddly enough go further and racialize this by adding the prefix “Black” to the slogan of “majority rule”. Let me make it quite clear that against the background of the complexity and realities of South Africa in the late ’70s, I believe that such a slogan is as unhelpful in finding a peaceful solution as was the slogan of Assistant Secretary of State, “Soapy” Williams, in the early ’60s, i.e. “Africa for the Africans”. We in these benches reject the simplistic concept of unfettered majority rule in South Africa, a concept which is associated, in the minds of people who do not think about it, with a “winner-take-all system” in a sovereign central parliament. Let me make it equally clear that we reject the concept of race domination, whether it be domination by a Black majority or by a White minority in South Africa. We believe that majority rule of this kind is no guarantee of individual liberty or of equality of opportunity.

What does Helen say?

Exactly the same.

In a country with a homogeneous population and a long tradition of democratic rule, the simplistic winner-take-all type of majority rule could be the result of citizens exercising their political rights on the basis of equality of opportunity. In a country like South Africa with its heterogeneous population and its legacy of division, however, we believe it would be quite unrealistic to expect any minority to submit to the absolute and unchecked power of any majority. Why, in the United States, which has been held up as the constitutional model for so-called “majority rule” for close on a century, discrimination of all kinds was meted out to the Black minority by the White majority. It was only when the Bill of Rights, reinforced and backed by a powerful, independent judiciary, limited the power of the majority and prohibited discrimination, that the United States society began moving with some speed towards the goal enshrined in its own Constitution, i.e. “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that amongst these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. We in these benches believe that all South Africans—and let me make this quite clear—have an equal right to full citizenship and citizenship rights, and we believe that those aspects can only be realized in a country where there is no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, religion or sex. We believe that this has to be done within the constitutional framework that prevents race domination and protects both the rights of individuals and minorities.

My party has put forward a set of proposals for achieving this, but let me emphasize again that we do not suggest that these proposals are either absolute or final because we acknowledge that just as in the case of South West Africa, the final constitutional form will have to be the product of consultation and joint decision-making by representatives of all sections of the South African community.

In other words, you do not have any policy yet. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me just mention briefly the six factors which we introduce in order to achieve this constitutional framework. We believe in a massive decentralization of power away from a single central parliament to self-governing states whose boundaries will be drawn taking group and other interests into account. We believe that there should be a Bill of Rights, entrenched in the Constitution, providing individuals and minorities with protection from legislative and executive discrimination at all levels of Government. Thirdly, we believe in an independent judiciary, operating under the authority of the Constitution and not under the sovereignty of Parliament. We believe in a Senate, not composed on the basis of a head count of voters on a national basis, but consisting of a defined number of members representing each state. We believe in the right of minorities to indicate, by way of a referendum, their acceptance or rejection of legislation affecting their basic rights. We believe in the right of minorities, both at federal and state level, to block amendments to the Constitution which are repugnant to them.

There will be those who say that constitutions do not provide any protection. If that is so, why are we wasting so much time and money at the Turnhalle in South West Africa? Constitutions cannot defy the realities of a situation. They cannot impose consensus on an unwilling society. They cannot function effectively in a conflict situation. When constitutions are devised, not by one section of the society, but through the joint consensus of all the people, when they are the product of consultation and joint decision-making, such as they are in South West Africa, they can be a very real factor in providing protection for minorities.

In the long run the security of minorities in South Africa and elsewhere does not lie merely in constitutions. It is certainly not to be found—as it is found among hon. members on the other side—in becoming conditioned to accept the inevitability of conflict between Black and White. Final security for minorities will only be found by reaching agreement and consensus through negotiation with the Black majority in South Africa. We will certainly not be able to head off conflict in South Africa, nor will we be able to negotiate agreement between Black and White, if we absolutize race and colour in our constitutional structure. We will not be able to find consensus if we entrench the race and colour divisions of the present in the future political structure of South Africa.

On the contrary, our task should be to seek common ground across the race barrier. It should be to try to minimize differences and to maximize common interests which are already developing in South Africa. The common interests that are developing are economic, cultural, religious, human and South African interests. The minority report of the commission of inquiry, signed, inter alia, by Mr. J. M. Connan, Mr. A. Bloomberg, Mr. T. G. Hughes and the very ubiquitous Mr. S. J. M. Steyn, had this to say—

We, as South Africans, are facing both pressure and threats. As I have said before, I do not believe we can go into the future as a divided people. Therefore we must start by allowing those South Africans, who put their common interest as individuals and their common bond as citizens of South Africa above divisions of race and colour, to associate with one another in the political party of their choice. There was a time when some White South Africans were suspicious and even afraid of joint political action between Black and White in our country. I believe that, just as has happened in Rhodesia and in South West Africa, in South Africa time will show that the greatest bulwark against aggression from without and the greatest safeguard against disruption from within will be found in bringing into a common political entity those moderate South Africans of all races who are prepared to work together in the interests of South Africa.

That excludes you.

Mr. Speaker, this cannot be done as long as the Prohibition of Political Interference Act remains on the Statute Book, and that is why we believe that it is in the interests of the security and future of South Africa that that Act should be repealed.

Mr. Speaker, when Publius Vergilius Maro started work on the Aeneid on his estate near Naples in the year 29 BC, he could never have dreamt how symbolic the tale of Aeneas would be of the struggle for the survival of peoples after him. Many of the elements in Vergil’s epic are to be found in the annals of the history of my nation and in the ethnic situation in Southern Africa.

The hon. member for Sea Point has asked that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act be repealed. We recognize that voice from the annals of the history of our country’s struggle against imperialism. After all, we are familiar with this type of argument. Over the years, we have listened to it and have consistently rejected it. Consequently, I move the following as an amendment—

Vergil’s epic is still relevant today. We hear, see and experience the enemies of the peoples of Southern Africa. We are aware of their stratagem and of their cunning plans to annihilate us. Behold the PRP, the modem horse before the gates of modern-day Troy! The characteristics of the notorious horse before the gates of Troy, are peculiar to this modem horse as well. In similar fashion, the PRP has come to destroy the peoples of Southern Africa, and in the realization of this goal, no method or stratagem is unacceptable to them. The PRP is akin to the Trojan horse—it is artificial and false—that is to say, it is not what it professes to be. Let us now take a look at a few examples. Principle No. 3 of their constitution states, inter alia, the following—

I now ask the PRP: How are you going to do this? How are you going to implement these basic principles? I ask this in respect of my religion and the ethnical and aesthetic norms of my people. I ask them: How will they protect my language? I ask them how they are going to protect the cultural heritage of my people. How are you going to protect the education system, the legal system, the political system, the social organization, the economic system and my territory? How are you going to protect the symbols of my freedom? In regard to education, will the Afrikaner be permitted, under their dispensation, to have his own schools in which he will be able to teach his children their Afrikaans cultural heritage, based on the principles upon which his way of life is built? Will they allow the Venda to teach the Venda children in Venda schools, the values of the Venda, which are based on the principles of the Venda way of life? Will they do this in the case of the Sotho, the Shangaan or the Indian? It is stated in their basic principles that the official languages of the party will be Afrikaans and English, but the native tongue of the majority of people in the PRP’s great nation in South Africa, is not Afrikaans or English. What are they going to do, in their dispensation, about people whose native tongue is Zulu, or Sotho, or Tswana? Mr. Speaker, as regards the vote and political control, these people say the following, and we read this in Principle No. 5 of their party’s constitution—

In regard to this basic principle of their party, I again want to ask the question: How are they going to implement this in practice? A year or two ago, the hon. member for Rondebosch held a meeting in my constituency. On that occasion, a man asked him—

The hon. member for Rondebosch, with all his eloquence, then performed an egg-dance, but he could not reply to the man. I want to know from the PRP today who is going to rule South Africa and when. As a White African, I want to know from them when I shall have to surrender to other peoples the political control which my people came by lawfully. In the same breath, they may as well furnish Nelson Mandela with a reply— Nelson Mandela, who speaks in terms of Black majority rule in South Africa—and tell him when he is going to have Black majority rule in South Africa. The PRP must please formulate those things clearly.

With regard to membership of their party, too, they must say whether it will be on a qualified basis. When will their party be taken over by the Black majority? For how long are they themselves going to retain control? I am putting these questions with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Florida. I want them to reply to his speech. The PRP must please tell me what “equitable sharing of political power” means. They talk about “protection of language and cultural heritage”. However, I want to quote from the latest edition of Deurbraak, and I want the English-speaking people in this House to be so kind as to listen to it. Just listen to what the PRP says when addressing young Afrikaners through this little publication, which costs them thousands of rand. They also promised to provide every student of the University of Pretoria with a copy of this publication. Listen to what they have to say about the English-speaking people in South Africa—

However, this is not relevant.

The hon. member for Houghton has been sitting in this House for many years, and so have the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Orange Grove—all English-speaking people. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point… Unfortunately, I see he is not present. Then I ask the hon. member for Mooi River to listen to what the PRP says about the English-speaking people. English-speaking people are now out. They …

Oh, please!

Do not “Oh, please” me!

But you know nothing!

The problem with that clergyman is that he is incapable of learning. [Interjections.] I was quoting from Deurbraak—

Who are these leading lights? All doublebarrel names: Beyers Naudé, Dreyer Kruger, Van Zyl Slabbert … [Interjections.] This is what they think of the English-speaking people.

Mr. Speaker, when I address them, I ask: Trojan horse, whom in South Africa do you want to deceive and whom do you want to destroy? The voice of the PRP is the voice of Sinon who, by means of a diabolical trick, persuades the Trojans to take the horse which is their downfall inside the walls of the city of Troy. The PRP wants to bring a Trojan horse inside the city walls of every nation in Southern Africa, and I ask who and what is concealed in the maw of that horse. [Interjections.]

Helen is in that horse!

What do they want to bring inside the city walls, within the national walls of the Afrikaner, of the Venda, the Shangaan, the Coloureds or the Indians? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer in the words of Laocoon, and with that I want to conclude—

This man goes on to say—

I, in turn, want to say: “Do not trust the horse, people of Southern Africa. Whatever it may be, I fear the PRP, even when they bring gifts.” In his speech this morning, the hon. member for Sea Point touched on many matters, but I state categorically that the PRP is not the party it purports to be. It carries in its maw the destruction of the peoples of Southern Africa and I will warn my people against it. I would be neglecting my duty were I not to tell from sunrise to sunset, the other ethnic groups in South Africa: “Become involved with those old Greeks, become involved with the PRP and you will draw into the heart of your existence people who want to destroy you. ” Consequently, we cannot support the hon. member for Sea Point, and in future debates we shall expose these people as the destroyers of law, order and the meaningful continued existence of the peoples of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed at the attitude which has been adopted by the hon. member for Rissik and which is embodied in the amendment which he has moved. The hon. member has kept his wagon hitched to the political philosophy of separate political activities for the communities of South Africa and he has asked for further entrenchment and extension. He is talking in the words and the thoughts of South Africa two or three decades ago, because there is not one of us in this House who does not believe and accept today that what is essential is to find the medium whereby political rights can be exercised together for the benefit of our country as a whole. That is the problem we have before us.

In the time which I have at my disposal—a limited 15 minutes—I certainly cannot respond in detail to the wide range of topics raised by the hon. member for Sea Point under the motion. I shall confine myself entirely to the motion which is before us and seeks the repeal of the particular piece of legislation. I want to point out at once that there can be no doubt that many of our problems in South Africa and many aspects of strained race relations are due to the fact that over the last three decades there has, by legislation, been placed the utmost restriction upon communication between the different communities in South Africa. I have in mind communication both on a community and a personal basis. Political discussion in a meaningful manner amongst the peoples of South Africa was stopped by the passing of the Act in 1968. Whatever reasons were advanced by the Government in 1968 for this piece of legislation, those reasons have no validity today. My attitude towards the motion before us is the same as my attitude in 1968 when this measure was presented to Parliament. My attitude is expressed in the minority report of which mention has been made and which was signed by certain people. It is important to know by whom it was signed. It was not only signed by Mr. S. J. M. Steyn, now the hon. the Minister of Community Development, but also signed by the hon. Chief Whip on this side of the House.

Furthermore, it was signed by Mr. A. Bloomberg at a time when he was still a representative of the Coloured people in this Parliament. I cannot accept that it is practical or wise that population groups should be separated into watertight political compartments, even within the Government’s own policy of separate development. There are political issues which are common to all— White, Black and Brown. These cannot be dealt with in a vacuum or debated at arm’s length or solely in the closed circle of a Cabinet council. There are political problems in this country requiring solutions. All communities must contribute in finding that solution. It is therefore essential that communication should not be stifled and made more difficult in all matters which affect the common interest of our community. On the contrary, I believe that only through frank discussion, acceptable common ideals can be clarified and applied. Today, with the political development amongst the Black and Brown people, one can hardly conceive that any matter of common concern is not also a matter of concern for the political parties and the public representatives of the various population groups as they have been arranged by the Government. Continuous and unimpeded dialogue is essential to achieve any degree of consensus. Political philosophies are meaningless, unless they are converted into political policies and espoused by political parties. Particularly is there this need for discussion and freedom of political contact and movement between political parties because by no stretching of the imagination can the CRC, the Indian Council or the homeland Governments be regarded as having the powers and the status of a sovereign Parliament. We live in serious and anxious times, times in which radical elements are able to exploit the political frustrations of the Black and Brown people. The utmost priority must be given in South Africa to search for a consensus amongst moderate people of all races, not only within our White race. Where better can we seek that consensus than in the ranks of the elected public representatives of the political parties, in the CRC, in the Indian Council or in any of the homeland Governments?

In this Parliament as well!

The Parliament cannot go on, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Rissik, appointing Select Committees of White representatives of the White Parliament to decide on the future contacts between political parties. If the hon. member wanted to do a service to South Africa, his amendment should have been to appoint a commission, consisting of members of this White Parliament, representatives and members of the CRC, representatives of the Indian Council and representatives of the homeland Governments to investigate the best means whereby there can be within the present dispensation political co-operation between the various parties.

There seems to be a fear in the minds of some people that this type of co-operation could and would threaten the preservation of social and cultural identities. On the contrary, it would open up a road of understanding between communities and would dissipate fears of sectional domination. I believe that it is the only way in which we can open up a road to a peaceful future of co-operation. That is the only way in which we can ensure the security of this country of ours. It is because of these reasons that I go along with the hon. member for Sea Point as far as the first aspect of this Act is concerned. Since he has put it on the Order Paper, the hon. member has thought it better to express his reservations in regard to the aspect of foreign funds coming to South Africa. That, however, is not in the motion. His motion calls for a total repeal of this particular legislation. This particular provision of the Act, which was referred to in the minority report and which we supported in the debate in 1968, is that financial aid to political parties from sources outside the Republic is undesirable. We have supported that throughout the years and in various other pieces of legislation. I do not think the people of South Africa—I am talking of all the people, not only of this Parliament, but of all legislative bodies that have been created however restricted their powers are at the present time—require foreign intervention, financial or in any other form, in order that we might solve our problems. Sir, it can be argued that this Act is not effective in stopping that flow of money into South Africa.

In view of the need for clarity on the motion before us, I should like to move the following amendment—

By this amendment we make our position quite clear in this matter. In the short time available to me, it is impossible to deal with the other aspects which were raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. They are matters which need a lengthy debate. But our line of future in South Africa, as I see it, is the creation of greater opportunities for discussion towards the solving of our problems, and that can best be done through contacts and the availability, one to each other, of the elected representatives of the people, even within the framework of the separate development policies of this country. It is only in that way that we can ultimately reach the possibility of a Turnhalle type of discussion where solutions can be found in consultation and by consensus and not by the dictates of a Parliament representing only one part of the population of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has moved an amendment with which we have no quarrel, except that when the original Bill was before the House, during the Committee Stage, you will remember, Sir, that I moved an amendment to that particular clause and, indeed, the UP moved an amendment to that particular clause. We supported each other’s amendments.

You were a lone PP then.

I might have been a lone PP, but nevertheless the hon. member and his party very kindly supported me in that instance. Therefore we are not at arms in regard to that matter at all. In introducing his motion my hon. Leader made it quite clear that we are not in favour of financial aid being given to political parties in South Africa for the purpose of persuading the electorate of the country to change the Government. We believe that to be an internal matter, and I said so on behalf of my party at the time the Bill was under discussion. Therefore we have no quarrel with the hon. member’s amendment. But I may say that the fact that my hon. Leader has couched his motion in the broad terms of repealing the Act, is very similar to the way in which we talk about repealing the Immorality Act. We do not want to repeal those sections of the Immorality Act which allow dirty old men to play with small girls, because we realize that this is a …

You must be careful about this.

One should always be careful. [Interjections.] I wish to say that I support the motion introduced by my hon. Leader. As he spoke it brought to my mind the memory of one of the most cynical debates that was ever held in this House. I might say it was a series of cynical debates, because the Prohibition of Political Interference Bill debate did not stand on its own; there also was the debate on the commission of inquiry, the debate on the Bill itself and then the final betrayal of the rights of the Coloured people when their representation in this House on a separate roll was removed. In fact, there was a trilogy of debates, all of them depicting a most cynical aspect of South African politics.

I have no doubt that when future political historians write up this era, that will be their judgment as to what happened to the Coloured people. None of us who were here when those debates took place were under any doubt as to the objective behind the Improper Interference Bill, although it came to this House in a much attenuated form from the original Bill, largely because after the commission had done its work it was discovered that there was no way in which the Government could prevent the Coloured people of the Cape Province from voting for the then Progressive Party at the forthcoming general election. It was clear that they were going to do that and that there were going to be four more members of the Progressive Party in this House as a result of that election. Having thus dithered around with Improper Interference Bills, etc., the Government came along with a final Bill and simply removed Coloured representation from this House and abolished these seats entirely. However, the attenuated Improper Interference Bill, as we have it today, rests on the Statute Book. I must say I have to smile when I read some of the words that hon. members on that side of the House uttered at the time. There was the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, who was then of course a humble musket-bearer. He said at the time (Hansard, 9 April 1968, col. 3713)—

All I can say is that he has a good crystal ball because what do we have here? We have 12 members in the party that I represented in those days.

Oh, a little bit of this and a little bit of that!

I am interested to see how the electorate has paid the Government back fourfold in what it proposed then. There would have been only four more members, but that number has now been trebled in this House.

They are all United Party members who have crossed the floor.

The intelligent voters in South Africa were therefore not very impressed with the arguments used at that time. I want to make the point that the whole exercise is really futile, because what the Improper Interference Bill sought to achieve, namely to prevent more persons of Progressive and now Progressive Reform thinking from being in this House, has failed. There is accordingly no point in having this Act on the Statute Book whatsoever. As far as the money clause is concerned we are not particularly interested. Apart from the fact that the Act has not achieved its objective—in fact is has dismally failed—I think it is ludicrous in this day and age, in the last quarter of the 20th century, to try to prevent association across the colour-line. It is not only ludicrous; it is positively harmful. It can only be, as the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Green Point have pointed out, to our advantage to have the closest possible contact. I believe that lack of contact is the main reason for suspicion and dislike amongst the races, and it is also the cause of ignorance of the way in which our fellow citizens of other racial groups are reacting to situations in the country. I had the privilege of belonging to a multi-racial party in the days when the Progressive Party was able to be multi-racial. As hon. members know, we have since had to suspend all our Black members. I want to say that it was a most enlightening experience to belong to a multiracial party!

I believe all of us learnt a great deal from that experience. If our youth, for instance, can come together at schools and at universities in South Africa across the colour-line it would also be much better for the general understanding of race relations in South Africa. Let me highlight this particular aspect. It is just nine years since the original Improper Interference Act was passed. Can any hon. member in this House in all honesty claim that relations between the Coloured people and the White people have improved during that time? Will they dare to claim that that is so? Hon. members should read the words of the then Minister of the Interior at the Third Reading of the Improper Interference Bill. He said (Hansard, 1 May 1968, col. 4453)—

He said “peace and happiness in the future”. Can we honestly look back on the last nine years and say that there has been peace and happiness between the races in South Africa? Of course not. On the contrary, there has been a marked deterioration both in the political and apolitical areas of race relations in South Africa. One has only to look at the steadily worsening attitude in the CRC which culminated, on one occasion at least, in the fiasco of not even being able to have the budget passed, and of the Government then having to appoint somebody who was not a duly elected representative of the majority party in that council in order to pass the budget of the council.

That was as a result of your party.

One only has to look

That was as a result of your interference.

Is it our fault? That hon. member takes the same arrogant view as so many other hon. members in this House, that the Coloured and African people cannot think for themselves, and that it always requires a White person to come along to tell Coloured people what they should be thinking and what they should be doing. As long as that attitude persists, there is no hope for better race relations in this country because hon. members on the Government side will never consult properly with members of the other races. They will dictate to them but they will never consult them. They will have dialogue with them, but they will take no notice of the suggestions which are made from the other end. There must always be somebody else to tell them what they think.

One only has to go onto the campus of the University of the Western Cape—and I think this is very significant—to see the sullen and hostile students on that campus. One only needs to do that to realize that there has been a steadily deteriorating relationship between the Whites and the Coloureds. The same thing applies to Africans. There is no doubt that there has been a steadily worsening relationship.

What has happened in this country in the nine years since the Prohibition of Political Intereference Act was passed? What has happened is that moderation amongst Black people—and here I am not referring only to the Coloured people, but to the Africans and Indians as well—has been replaced now by Black power. That is the difference. That is because the forces of moderation have apparently achieved nothing for the Black people and because White power has deliberately rejected all efforts of co-operation and has alienated moderate Blacks as a result. That has been the result of the deliberate efforts to separate the political institutions and the political thinking of the different races in this country. I believe that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act has been one of the instruments that has accomplished that. When one looks at this Act in this day and age and examines the definitions clause alone, one can see what an absurdity this Act is. What does “population group” mean according to the Prohibition of Political Intereference Act? According to definition, “population group” means—

1. (a) The Bantu population group;
2. (b) the White population group;
3. (c) the Coloured population group;
4. (d) the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population group.

I ask you, “from time to time”! Do hon. members really believe that people have a chameleon-like character by which they leap from one population group to another, as indicated in the definitions clause? If any normal person picks up this Act and examines it, he will wonder at what extraordinary motivation there was behind the passing of this Act, eight years ago. The hon. the Minister of Information and of the Interior is a widely travelled man these days. How can he stand up before any of the groups he addresses so articulately when he is overseas, of course not always presenting exactly the sort of view I would present, because there are often numbers of half-truths in the statements that he makes?

I beg your pardon?

Yes, half-truths.

Can you prove that?

Oh, yes! Just as the hon. the Minister has copies of the speeches I have made overseas, so I have copies of the speeches he makes overseas.

I shall wait for you in my Budget Vote.

I also have my spies!

It sounds like a mutual admiration society.

On the contrary. It is a mutual spying association, I think. Can the hon. the Minister tell me that he can honestly stand up and defend a definition like that in an Act on the Statute Book of the Republic of South Africa today?

But naturally.

“But naturally”, he says; yet he knows that he would be laughed out of court if he tried to defend a statement such as “persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups”. Honestly! The hon. the Minister knows that this is an anachronism. If he wants to do South Africa a great service, he will agree with the motion moved by the hon. member for Sea Point this morning; he will agree that it is time that this ludicrous Act is taken off our Statute Book.

What we should be concerning ourselves with in South Africa at this moment in time, this critical moment in time if I may say so, is establishing means of contact between the races and not separating the races. We should be striving to share responsibilities and rights in South Africa, instead of trying to keep people apart. I believe that the greatest safeguard in South Africa would be if Whites and Blacks were to work for change together in common institutions and in common political parties. Otherwise I think we are heading for complete polarization of the races in South Africa, which would be to the utter detriment of this country. Indeed, I believe that, unless Blacks and Whites make peace and security in South Africa their common cause, we are all lost and that the thousands of millions of rand, which I have no doubt the hon. the Minister of Defence is going to ask this House to vote in the main appropriation for purposes of defence, might just as well be money thrown into the sea. It is therefore with much pleasure that I support the motion of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Sea Point, Houghton and Green Point have misused this motion in order to come and make wider integration speeches here. The point of departure of the hon. leader of the PRP was that the Government was moving in a multi-racial direction and that consequently, the necessary opportunities had to be created. Surely this is far from being the truth. Surely this is not the position. As formulated once again in one of the Government’s latest statements, it is surely very clear that the Government believes in the pattern of different races in South Africa and that the political aspirations of all the peoples present here can only be satisfied within a separate sovereign political system for each race. Surely it is clear that the unfolding of the Government’s policy is taking place within this framework and that the basic principles remain the same. An interesting aspect is that the hon. member for Green Point has now taken one step closer to a marriage with the PRP.

We adopted this standpoint as long ago as 1968.

The UP now agrees that this act ought to be repealed. They agree that Brown and Black ought to be admitted to their party. Moreover, they now believe that their party can become a multi-racial one. This is how one interprets the amendment which has been introduced. In other words, they are surely together. Why must they wait another five days, why must they wait until the 2nd of March, when they will break up completely after the result at Durbanville? [Interjections.] The hon. members of the PRP—I shall return to the UP shortly—have, in their customary manner, attempted to steer away from the aspects which are really relevant here. They came along with fine words and a so-called spirit of human dignity, but what are the true facts? They never referred to the fact that the majority of witnesses who testified before the commission, pointed out the necessity of having control of the evil of uncontrolled influence which is taking place in the political arena amongst Coloured and people of colour in South Africa. After all, 14 of the 19 witnesses said that there ought to be some form of control. Representatives of Coloured groups came to ask for that. Coloured political parties came to ask for that. Individuals, too, asked for that. Mr. W. K. Long, who was an editor of The Cape Times, wrote a book which appeared in 1945, entitled In Smuts’s Camp. In it, he referred to “die skurke wat op geheimsinnige wyse daarin geslaag het om die Kleurlingstem onder hul duim te kry.” Surely this is what it was about? Coloured leaders have personally testified that they are powerless against the White politicians or their agents who go to the Coloureds and want to organize their own politics in their midst, whilst those Coloureds who have been elected and appointed by their own people, are pushed out by subverters who seek to exclude them. In 1964 the CRC, too, accepted a motion which reads as follows—

They forget the crimes they committed at that time. The most important reason why the Act came into being, was that there was blatant interference in and exploitation of non-White political rights in South Africa by White politicians who, deliberately and selfishly, attempted to exploit them for their own gain. This had to be put a stop to. Who was behind the scenes? There were various people, but was it not the PRP in particular? Was it not the PRP which came and bedevilled the whole business? Now they come here with fine-sounding words and I shall come to others, too, in due course. Was it not they who, in 1966, paid a sum of money to a Government official who was a Commissioner of Oaths, to register Coloureds for inclusion on the voters roll? Was it not those people who, when offences were committed in this process, paid the fines? They are now turning their backs on those aspects. However, this is a party which, in 1974, was only able to attract 5½% of the votes of the White electorate of South Africa. After all, that party now knows full well that there is no other way of obtaining more votes, apart from the crumbs left over from the UP, or augmenting its ranks with non-Whites. It is for this reason that they want to repeal this Act. After all, they do not believe in the concept of separate peoples, each having separate sovereignty. They believe in a unitary state with one South African people, all integrated. They believe that the Act must be repealed so that they may once again see their way clear to committing political interference and to taking over and bringing under their control the political institutions which have been established by the Government. The PRP and its financial power on the one hand, have so much money that they do not even need ¡ money from abroad. On the one hand it is the money, and on the other hand it is getting the vote of people of colour.

What do the PRP want to achieve by repealing this Act? Surely this is very clear. It is very clear that they should like everyone to be able to become members of the same party. We know that they are integrationists. We know that previously, they were indeed a multi-racial party and that they should very much like to become one again. We know that in this process they will do everything in their power to become one. After all, we know how they made a political football of the Coloureds in particular at one time. Let us take a closer look at the way they operate. When they are facing the outside world, it is all fine words, and I shall come back to this later.

However, they refuse to convey their actual policy to the electorate of South Africa. What is happening in Durban North? We have heard the legendary story of the hon. member for Durban North to the effect that in September 1976, he clearly stated that he was an advocate of violent unconstitutional extra-parliamentary action in order to bring about the demise of the White structure in South Africa. [Interjections.] I have here a cutting which deals with this. The hon. member for Sea Point tried to set matters right, but they are all like that. We know what the hon. member for Houghton said in England about majority rule. On her return to South Africa, she qualified this when things became too hot. She did at least conclude by saying—

We know that the hon. Senator Bamford said the same in the Senate in reply to a question by the Minister of Defence, because when he asked him whether he was in favour of a Black majority Government; he said “Yes”. Surely that party cannot come along afterwards and make interminable qualifications? Where will they stop? Why do they not confront the electorate with the true facts so that they may take cognizance of them? It goes much further than that. In Durban North, just as in Durbanville, not much policy has been expounded, but the hon. member for Durban North—unfortunately he is not here today—sent out a circular, in both English and Afrikaans. I have before me photocopies of both. How does he conclude his letter? Such a wonderful, unctuous letter, one with which he attempts to gain votes, and then he adds a postscript below his signature—

[Interjections.] This is what they tell the electorate. I have this same letter in English, too. [Interjections.]

What are the PRP doing in Durbanville? They are using Anne Fisher photographs. They have Kolynos smiles. They have the friendliest agents. They hold meetings, but nowhere do they expound their policy. But what do they do? Whereas a powerful party such as the NP in Durbanville requests 3 telephone lines in order to run its large organization, the PRP asks for eight. At the polls in Welgemoed, where they have no more than 48 votes on voting day, they ask for four telephones as against the one which the NP asks for. Four telephones to bring 48 voters to the polls! [Interjections.]

Surely this has nothing to do with the motion!

I want to ask the hon. leader of the PRP whether he is prepared to hold the Buthelezi meeting in Durbanville before the 2nd of march. He must reply to this please. [Interjections.] It is in this covert fashions that the PRP operates. [Interjections.]

I should like to dwell for a moment on the consequences which would result from the repeal of this Act. In the first place, Black, Brown and White would obviously be thrown together. The interesting thing, however, is that if this legislation is repealed, the CRC will still exist. This motion does not include the abolition of the CRC. When one looks at the way the motion is worded, the question arises as to how, if a White person may become a member of a Brown party, or vice versa, it is possible, for each to become candidates for each other’s institutions. Surely this is inconceivable. Nor, surely, can people vote for each other’s institutions. What, then, is the next step? After all, this is undoubtedly what the fundamental idea behind the motion amounts to, viz. to postulate once again an unqualified and integrated community and to strive for it unequivocally.

However, what good purpose can the retention of this legislation serve? Surely this is what is important? The retention of this legislation will, I believe, contribute to the maintenance of law and order and to the establishment of political goodwill and co-operation among all races, by creating a dispensation in which the different population groups can express themselves politically, all this, of course, without oppression of minority groups. However, the contents of this legislation will in no way prevent the coloured groups from attaining their own political dispensation, in accordance with their own political policy; on the contrary, this is encouraged. They are not prevented from carrying on dialogue; on the contrary, the leaders are encouraged to consult at the highest level, to have a say in the highest bodies in order to obtain statutory representation in all the relevant bodies in South Africa. The retention of this legislation will also lead to the proper ordering of political relations among the different population groups of our country, with its wholly unique—and this is important—and particularly heterogeneous population structure. At the same time it also protects the minority groups against political domination by the more developed and more moneyed groups. Moreover, the retention of this legislation excluded disadvantageous consequences by creating the opportunity for consultation and discussion in order by so doing to eliminate political isolation at all times. The ideal is clear, viz. that the Government wants to strive for a fair and just system by way of a system of interdependent, peaceful co-existence, and not by a totalitarian political unitary state. In addition, the retention of this legislation reduces the friction which could possibly have existed among population groups by affording each of those groups unlimited opportunity to develop politically and to build up a national pride in the process, a national pride which will run parallel in all the different population groups, parallel, too, in respect of the different political parties. This holds for all the population groups in the country. For that reason, the Government has a duty towards the non-White groups and the other races of South Africa to preserve and extend this peaceful dispensation. Were it to neglect this duty, this could only give rise to chaos. For this reason, it is important that we oppose the motion of the hon. member for Sea Point with all the strength at our disposal, and support the amendment of the hon. member for Rissik, because there must be an effective Act, an Act which may be applied whenever and as often as is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion which the hon. member for Sea Point introduced today, presented the House with another opportunity to consider the philosopies of the different political parties in the House. It is very clear that the hon. member for Sea Point has only one thought in mind and that is to promote the idea of a unitary state in South Africa, a common society, and everything that entails. The hon. member for Houghton strongly supported him and made it very clear that we must have common institutions in South Africa in which all races will be represented. When one considers the situation as it has developed in South Africa, it is very clear to me that a pattern of community governments for each group has emerged in this country. The hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Houghton, as well as the hon. member for Green Point and anyone else, can complain and fight against it, if they want to but it is one of the accomplished facts which we have to accept in South African politics. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point and the party he represents, have said that they support Kowie Marais’ 14 points. What is Kowie Marais’ central idea? It is that we must accept that South Africa is not a common society, but a plural society. Is this correct?

Right.

Then if we in South Africa have a plural society—and I accept this, but the hon. member for Green Point pays lip service to it—can one not say at the same time that one wants full-scale integration all along the line? Then one cannot talk in terms of … [Interjections.] Give me a chance; you have had opportunity enough to talk.

You are really courting them fervently.

No, I am not wooing them. I am stating realities and facts and when the hon. member is a few years older, he, too, will accept the facts about South Africa. [Interjections.]

We will give him a chance. If we accept that we are a plural society and that there are institutions for every group in South Africa, we cannot propose that this legislation be abolished in its entirety, or support such a thing. All that can be done under these circumstances is to look at what the shortcomings in the legislation are. For example, there is the provision that no-one may be a member of the political party to which members of other race groups may also belong. Under the circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa, is this not an impractical provision? Because how can I be a member of a political party to which the Coloured also belongs when I do not have a seat in the CRC? Similarly, how can he be a member of my political party when he does not have a seat in my institutions? Consequently, under the circumstances prevailing in South Africa at present, this provision is completely correct. Why should I, as a White person, interfere in the internal political affairs of the Coloured, as he discusses them in the Coloured Representative Council? He has certain responsibilities towards his own people. He does not have those responsibilities towards me as a White person. Why should I prescribe to him how he is to administer his education, his local affairs, his rural areas, or whatever responsibility he may get in the future? Why should I, as a White man, accord myself the right to interfere when I do not have a seat there and when he does not have a seat in my institutions either? However, there is one provision in the legislation which troubles us on this side of the House, namely section 2(c). It reads—

I believe that this particular provision has an inhibitory effect on anyone who, from time to time, wishes to invite a member from a different population group to his meeting, or to carry on normal dialogue with those people. We ought not to have a provision of that nature which, technically speaking, could for example prevent me from being invited by Coloureds or Blacks to explain my political standpoint to them.

I do not want to interfere in their elections, because I am not interested in them. I think that it is normal usage—all the more so today—that dialogue should take place between the different race groups. I believe that this section should certainly be amended in such a way as not to inhibit normal dialogue and consultation. For that reason, I should like to move the following amendment—

If the motion of the hon. member for Rissik is put to the vote, I and this group will be prepared to support him for the simple reason that it is an improvement and represents progress and because it means that the Government is prepared to take the circumstances in South Africa into consideration. I found it so interesting that the hon. member for Sea Point discussed all the changes which are taking place in South Africa. After all, his party is the one which is always saying that various political parties in South Africa are in favour of White supremacy. Not only the Government, but my group as well, are accused from time to time of being in favour of White supremacy in South Africa. What did the hon. member for Sea Point do? He told about all the changes taking place in South Africa. He told about the changes in the field of sport and in the social sphere and of what the editor of Die Burger and various Afrikaner academics and such people have to say about the changes which must take place and those which are already taking place. In other words, the hon. member for Sea Point testified to the changes which are in fact taking place in South Africa and to the fact that even the Government is advocating this.

I was talking about political changes.

In fact, the thought has often struck me that it will not be long before the hon. member for Sea Point asks to be made a member of the NP. [Interjections.]

I think it is important that we should be told by the official Opposition what their attitude really is towards the repeal of section 2, because if it is their attitude that they now want to allow all political parties to draw members from all population groups, I want to know what has become of the policy in which I believed when I was still a member of that party, viz. that we have to create institutions for each of the different race groups of South Africa. I want to know, for example, what will happen to the policy of the establishment of community boards for the different groups in South Africa, or is the UP altering its policy so that it can be brought into line with the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton when she said that community bodies had to be created in which all race groups in South Africa could participate? I think it is the UP’s duty to give a clear answer on this, because if the legislation is to be repealed, section 2 will have to be repealed as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to take part in such a debate on a Friday morning. I should only like to point out that it is purely coincidental that the hon. member for Rissik and I are similarly attoned.

The hon. member began the debate with a story about Aeneas and the flames and the blood that flowed there.

†I could not help feeling that there had never been a more apt illustration of the problem we have in South Africa today than the burning of Troy and the story of Aeneas going out to seek a new country, a new State and a new structure. I believe that we are absolutely in that very same position today, because at the burning gates of Soweto we are setting out to find a new structure, a new political dispensation which is going to replace that of this present Parliament, which has demonstrated its inability to cope with the problems which we have here in South Africa. It is something on which we all agree in this House, that party with their multinational Cabinet council and everything else.

You can exclude us.

Well, I shall exclude that hon. member, because I know he is nowhere near even thinking about the problems of South Africa. He is so “DDT” that it is pointless talking to him. What has to happen in South Africa is that we shall have to have another look at the question of sovereignty. The hon. member for Newton Park asked whether this party was now abandoning its position, a position which we have held for many years. He also asked about the position of the community councils and the legislative assemblies which we have postulated as being an answer. What we have to do is to get away from the question of domination, because it is the question of domination which is inhibiting any kind of political progress in South Africa. It is the domination of Black groups by the White man which is inhibiting progress. I want to say straight out that I am a conservative. [Interjections.]

Last Friday a piece of, one can almost say, effrontery, appeared in The Cape Times, written by Mr. Gerald Shaw. He referred to the conservatives of Natal, saying “the conservative voice of Natal is heard again”. It was almost a piece of unconscious humour, because the little piece from the Bible which was quoted at the bottom of the page read—

We in Natal are known to be and respected for our conservatism.

And your Jingoism.

If ever there was a jingo in this country, then that hon. member is he, that hon. member who is sitting in the Chief Whip’s bench with such an air of importance.

†I am not going to be distracted, although it is a bitter temptation. I would like to say that conservatives are the only real liberators in history for the reason that when the structures of power in a society have been destroyed by the radicals and the revolutionaries, and when the whole of society is in a state of flux, the conservatives are the people who have to take the pieces of the State and put them together again and make them work. They have to erect the new structures of power which reflect a different situation of power. It is the conservative who takes the pieces of the State and puts them together and makes them work. That is precisely the situation in which the Black people find themselves in Soweto today. That is the situation there. [Interjections.] My advice to that hon. member is that he should just try to think, and not talk. He must not hurt himself. The Black people in Soweto find themselves in the situation that the young people, the students, have broken down the authority in that area. They have attempted to impose a rule of their own. They have attempted to impose on those people certain rules which they have drawn up.

It is now going to be a test of the political maturity of the Black people in Soweto whether they are going to be able to reimpose upon those young people their control and their conservative approach to life and government in South Africa and whether they are going to be able to benefit from the changes of thinking which are going on in the White mind in South Africa throughout all political parties. Who are we, as White people in this Parliament, to cut ourselves off and say that we will not be a party to propagating among the Black people throughout the country and in Soweto the idea that we have a common destiny and that we have something to share? We have the same conservative approach and we have something that will enable them to repel the incipient socialism which is growing up in the minds of the young people. Surely that is something that every single hon. member in this House is in agreement with.

Can that be done in one political party?

Just cool it! What we have to try to find is a structure of power. That is our problem in South Africa today. This is a Parliament which passes laws which affect the lives of all the people in South Africa. The hon. member for Newton Park was concerned that we would be mixing in and interfering in the politics of the other groups, but every single law that is passed in this House affects all the people of South Africa. Under the present situation as we sit here today … [Interjections.] … they cannot have a say in the laws that affect them and which are passed by this Parliament. The Government has already taken certain steps. They have already created a Coloured council and they have created a council for the Indian people. They are creating, in the urban areas, councils which are elected bodies that reflect the opinion of those people. This party of ours has said, over these many years …

Which party of yours?

That man must either be a simpleton or a clown. I do not know which. I am in this party and have been since I was elected to Parliament, and I intend to continue as a member of this party. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me tell that hon. member that what we have to do is to find a structure which will enable us to accommodate Black people, Coloured people and Indian people within an overall political dispensation in such a way that it will not be construed as interference for us to have allies among the other political groups. Why is it wrong for us, as a conservative group of people, to have allies among the Coloured, Indian and Black communities—people who are intent on preserving the way of life that we now have here in South Africa, one which we believe is bringing all of us, Black and White, to a point of fruition that is totally strange and unknown in Africa and that holds out the ultimate promise for Africa? I ask the hon. the Minister who is going to reply: What is wrong with that? Why are we not allowed to have access to those groups, to participate with those groups, to inspire them, if we have to, and to encourage them to withstand the socialism and communism which are today capturing the minds of the youth? This is our problem. Anyone who knows anything about the state of mind of the young Coloured people, the young Black people in Soweto and the young Indian people at the university in Durban, will know that that is the truth. How does the hon. the Minister propose to deal with that? Here we have a proposal, introduced by the hon. member for Sea Point, to repeal an Act which prohibits any kind of interaction on that basis. I am naturally tremendously in favour of that because I can only see a future for White people in this country in a situation in which we can provide inspiration, leadership and help, if we have to, and in which we are inspiring people to preserve and not destroy the society we have.

I should like to give an analogy of the position of White people in South Africa. Any hon. member here who has been down to Muizenberg along the old Main Road will know the old house with the red roof. When one drives towards Muizenberg along the old Main Road the old house stands there as clearly as if it were standing on a knoll. As one drives towards the house, however, it recedes. Then, when one reaches a point where one ought to be able to see the house clearly, it has disappeared. It is one of the most difficult things to identify the exact position of that house. The White people in this country are in a position of dominance, and it was the hon. member for Sea Point who asked whether Black power is growing. Of course it is growing. By means of organization and in the realization of common strength, Black power in this country is growing. The Government is encouraging it to grow in the homelands. The Government is encouraging Coloured power to grow by giving more power to the Coloured Council. The Government is also encouraging Indian power to grow. However, in the Black urban areas, which the Government does not recognize, Black power is nevertheless also growing. What will happen, as we move towards a common future, is that the White profile is going to recede. It has to, in its own interests, because as long as it remains perched above the level of power of everyone else, it is the target for every single radical and every single revolutionary in South Africa. What we have to do is to find a structure such as the one this party has proposed, our federal solution. We say that there are groups of people, and this brings me back to the question of sovereignty. The question is the avoidance of the domination of one group by another. Let us take, as an illustration, this Parliament and the Coloured Council which for arguments sake I shall call the “Coloured Parliament”. If the Coloured Parliament is going to be safe from domination by this Parliament, there has to be an element of sovereignty in that Coloured Parliament which this Parliament cannot affect. Does the hon. the Minister intend to introduce that into the Coloured Parliament? How can he remove domination of the Coloured Council by this Parliament if it is only in certain spheres, i.e. those things that make the Coloured people separate from the Whites, that there is to be sovereignty built into the institution which speaks for Coloured people? Only after that has been done, is it possible for powers to be delegated from that sovereign body to some multi-racial council which deals with certain specified things on a basis delegated from the sovereign bodies of the different racial groups.

What other solution is there to the problems we have in South Africa of groups of people? The fear of the White man is that of domination, the fear of the Coloured man is that of domination and the fear of the Indian is that of domination, while the fear of the Black man is that he is today being dominated by a White minority. Our situation is such that this Parliament does not meet that need, and it never can. I think the hon. member for Sea Point has introduced a motion which is merely one step towards the sort of solution which we are going to have to see, and the solution lies outside this Parliament. It lies in having this Parliament as an element therein. It is the question of sovereignty, however, that is going to decide the entire political future of all the people. The hon. the Minister must tell us where that sovereignty is going to lie. If he refuses to repeal this Act, as he will, he must tell us where sovereignty is going to lie in relation to the Coloured people, the Indians and the Whites. One can share sovereignty provided there are sovereign groups who delegate certain powers to a communal body. Alternatively, one can refuse to share it in which case this Parliament will continue to dominate all the other groups. I believe that the hon. member for Sea Point has done us a service by introducing this motion …

He is coming your way, Colin.

… because it has given us an opportunity of discussing this matter. It has also given this party an opportunity of making its attitude clear. I think I have made our attitude quite clear to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Newton Park. I have not hedged an inch from the things I believe in. The party stands exactly where it did. We have our entire policy thought out and set out in detail.

Are you sure?

I am absolutely certain. If it becomes necessary to move to a certain position which is being forced upon the White man in South Africa, that is not unprecedented. The party on the other side of the House has been doing it for years. It has been moving its ground year after year, and it was forced to do that by the strength of the Black community in this country. The danger today lies not in the fact that the Black man is rising in power, but in the fact that that party cannot provide the leadership required at this moment. We are wallowing in a trough. We are not leading, and the initiative is passing out of the hands of the White man into the hands of the Black man due to the failure of the party on the other side of the House.

Who is talking about leadership!

Mr. Speaker, since we learned to know the hon. member for Mooi River after the egg-dance and somersaults of former years concerning the Schlebusch Commission, etc., he will of course realize that we have come to a stage where we no longer take any notice of what he says. He will understand therefore, why we no longer reply to whatever clever stories and vague theories he dishes up to the House. In contrast, we had a breath of fresh air today which came from the Opposition side and which demonstrated how a responsible, positive Opposition ought to conduct itself. I address this compliment to the hon. member for Newton Park. I do not agree with his interpretation of section 2(c). I think that his objection to section 2(c) is unfounded, because that provision specifically relates to the case of “furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person …”. As I say, we do not agree with one another. Indeed, we are poles apart, but without repeating the boerehaat and the abuse of the Afrikaner and the Nationalists, the hon. member for Newton Park showed how an Opposition can make a responsible contribution in the House.

Tell them, Tom.

The leader of the second smallest party in this House made the suggestion that a particular Act should be repealed. The result of his suggestion will be that we will have to return in part to 1968. I cannot analyse the position before 1968, at this juncture, but the National Party was in power before 1968 and it was the party which introduced the legislation concerned. What was the greatest sin of the National Party in the history of South Africa after 1948? It was the fact that it won an election in a legitimate and constitutional way in South Africa; that it took political power away from the handyman of the Empire and of the handyman of the Anglo-American Corporation in South Africa. It did so against all expectations and in the face of all the powers drawn up against it. It did so with a clear-cut policy of separate development, while there were Coloured voters on the Cape voters’ roll and while there were Native representatives in Parliament.

In other words, with its policy it obtained the support of the majority of the voters of South Africa in a legitimate way to govern in this Parliament. This was its greatest sin. The anti-Afrikaner establishment, the jingo establishment, the Press establishment, the priest establishment, and particularly the money establishment said that the triumph of the NP had to be avenged at one time or another. The NP’s ideal was spelled out for that election. Briefly, it was one of racial peace, order, harmony and prosperity for all population groups in South Africa: for Afrikaners and English-speaking South Africans, parallel development, side by side and with mutual respect and for the non-Whites, every group, the opportunity for full political self-determination in this country, without domination of one by the other, without the opportunity of giving a small rowdy faction, as the PRP is in South African politics, the opportunity to exploit the colour sentiment of various people for one reason only, namely, their own political gain. Who are these people? Let us look at these people who are telling us to repeal this Act. Why is the PRP asking that we should repeal an Act? After all, they are above the law in South Africa. They do not take any notice of the laws of South Africa. They did not bother about this Act. After all, it is merely a peg which they want to use. I see they do not react. I can mention examples to them of how they disregard the laws of South Africa.

Rubbish!

Does the hon. member say it is rubbish? The hon. member for Rondebosch is sitting at the back over there. Last year he was accused of a criminal offence. The hon. member for Pinelands is encouraging church leaders to break the law in South Africa.

Come back to the motion.

I am busy dealing with the motion. [Interjections.] Who are these people? They are people who have no ties with the country. They have no ties with South Africa. They are just as much at home in the United States of America, Scotland, England or Europe. They are here for two reasons only: For the climate and for the money. They attract their support from those people who, according to the survey by Rapport, will be the first to run if there is trouble in South Africa, people who have already started running.

And who send their money out, too.

And who send their money out, too. They are the people who are now returning to where their fathers, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers came from because they have never broken the ties with those countries.

Be careful not to expose your own background.

I have a background which is my own, and I am so proud of it that my heart swells whenever I think of it. But for these people, South Africa ends in Jo’burg, Sea Point and Rondebosch. From there they fly to the Swazi Spa, to the Riviera, to Las Vegas and to Rio. From there they send their children to finishing schools in Switzerland or England. They know nothing about the country and its people, about the Afrikaner, the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds, and they despise them all equally.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, while I was occupied with my speech before the adjournment for lunch, the hon. member for Benoni—I think it was he—said by way of interjection that I am denying my background. Unfortunately the hon. member is not here at the moment but for his information I want to mention that my background is 100% Afrikaans. I grew up in an Afrikaans community. My language is Afrikaans. If, in his United Party-orientated, distorted Afrikaans he meant that I was denying my origin, and implied thereby that I speak as I do because I have a little English blood in my veins, I can assure him that I have never been ashamed of my origin or the fact that I perhaps have a little English blood in my veins. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this is a distinction which I share with the McLachlans, the Smiths, the MacDonalds, the Loyds and the children of President M. T. Steyn. [Interjections.]

Order!

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is a distinction which I even share with the Queen of England. She, too, has a little English blood in her veins. [Interjections.] I believe that it is a distinction which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with his British title, envies me, and a distinction which the hon. member for Benoni envies me. [Interjections.]

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the subject of my speech and I should like us to take note of the people who are behind the motion of the hon. leader of the PRP, the hon. member for Sea Point. I want us to consider those people without becoming personal. Unfortunately the auntie of Soweto is not here now. [Interjections.]

You are being personal now!

No, I am not being personal. The aunty of Soweto, or the aunty of Sovieto … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please refer to the hon. member for Houghton as the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I am still coming to the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Soweto … [Interjections.] wants to tell South Africa how to rule itself. The statement I made earlier on is that these people do not have ties in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Waterkloof entitled to … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, with that noise on the other side it is very difficult to get my point of order across. The hon. member for Waterkloof continues to refer to the hon. member for Houghton as the hon. member for Soweto. [Interjections.]

Order! I was under the impression that it was just a slip of the tongue on the part of the hon. member for Waterkloof. Was that the case?

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. It was a slip of the tongue on my part. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove is wasting my time on purpose. The hon. member for Houghton has no ties in South Africa, apart from her own ties. As soon as something happens here in South Africa, which makes it impossible for her to remain here, she is going to join her children in the USA—she with her paternal liberalism, something which is being rejected even by the USA’s Ambassador to the UNO.

Order! I should be obliged if the hon. member would return to the motion before the House. I have allowed him a long introduction, but I shall be obliged if he now confines himself to the motion. [Interjections.]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing specifically with the motion. I am considering the people who introduced this motion and I am examining their sincerity as regards their overtures towards certain other population groups in South Africa. The PRP has a great newspaper editor, one Jan van Eck—the author of various articles in Deurbraak. He is one of the people who wants to tell South Africa how politics, ethnic politics in particular, should be managed in South Africa. He is somebody who speaks about courage, daring and perseverance and who wants to make appeals pleas to the young people of South Africa. Who is this Jan van Eck? He is the son of a Dutch immigrant who requested that he be granted South African citizenship earlier than normal so that he could receive a South African farming bursary for his studies. However, when he was called up for military service in South Africa, he dissociated himself from his South African citizenship and became a Hollander once again so that he did not have to do his military service. [Interjections.] I shall content myself by referring to the hon. member for Rondebosch who had the audacity to quote Gen. De la Rey to us in the House of Assembly. I just want to tell him that Koos de la Rey was Koos de la Rey. He told Paul Kruger what he told him, but he never collaborated with the enemies of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof said absolutely nothing new. In fact, he paid no attention whatsoever to the motion before this House. Actually I cannot react yet another time to suspicion sowing and innuendoes, because this was simply the usual speech which the hon. member makes every time he speaks in this House. [Interjections.] I think the time has arrived for him to shelve that speech and to write out a new one. [Interjections.] The other Government spokesmen were the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Durbanville. They, too, played a little petty politics but they at least tried to take the motion seriously and to make certain remarks in support of their standpoint on the motion. The important point which emerged from this, was that both of them said that the legislation was important.

Tell us about the parachute.

Were I to talk about the parachute, I would give that hon. member one, so that he might take a jump from somewhere. [Interjections.] The most important point raised by the hon. members was that this legislation was necessary in order to maintain the community of peoples of South Africa. The hon. member for Rissik also made the point that because we were proposing the disappearance of the legislation, it would mean that the peoples of South Africa would be destroyed. He wanted to know in what way the cultural heritages of the different peoples would be preserved. The hon. member for Durbanville discussed the differing national pattern the Government was trying to maintain in terms of its policy. The hon. member advanced this as a reason for the retention of the legislation. However, no mention whatsoever is made of peoples in the legislation. The long title is “To prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group and the receipt by political parties of financial assistance from abroad.” [Interjections.] After all, a population group may consist of different peoples. This is possible. The point is that the legislation does not concern the ethnic peoples referred to by the hon. members; it concerns race groups.

The division between the population groups mentioned here, is a purely racial division. In that respect, the legislation is a contradiction of the policy of the Government, as propounded by the hon. members [Interjections.] Consequently, the legislation concerns race groups, whilst for the Government, the issue is ethnic groups. [Interjections.] The point is that if this type of legislation is seen as being essential against the background of the explanation given by the hon. member for Durbanville, it is, in a certain sense, also a motion of no-confidence in the Government’s policy itself. I want to motivate this, not only on the basis of the arguments of the hon. members, but also on the basis of the arguments which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, advanced yesterday as a reason for the failure of the negotiations between the two parties. It concerned the fact that the PRP does not recognize or is not interested in group identity. Such a statement is supported by Government spokesmen, who have repeatedly stated that this party has no respect for group identity.

†I want to take this argument up and say quite clearly what this party’s position is in as far as group identity and groups are concerned. The first point I want to make to the hon. members if they are interested … [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. members must please throw their interjections together and give them to an hon. member so that he may make a decent speech. We certainly cannot debate in this way. [Interjections.]

†The first point I want to make is that we recognize the existence of groups in our society, but the point is that it has been shown historically in different societies that one cannot legislate a man into an ethnic loyalty or a group awareness. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that if one constitutionally recognizes a particular group in such a way as actually to limit its participation in the other structures and opportunities in the society, one engenders conflict in that society. When this is done by one particular group, which has the monopoly of power in that society, then that particular group becomes the most important single factor of conflict in that society, because it monopolizes power and manipulates it in order to create conditions in which other people can only participate as groups according to the dictates of those who govern in that society. The hon. the Minister knows this is the dilemma of South Africa, namely that we have this Parliament which is in fact the constitutional and legislative assembly of predominantly the White group in South Africa. This legislative assembly is used to legislate on behalf of all the other groups about which the Government declares itself so concerned. The point is that those other groups cannot participate in this debate and determine to what extent they can voluntarily identify themselves with the particular group they belong to, or participate in all the other structures in our society. That is the political dilemma which confronts that party and all the other parties in this House. This is the political and constitutional problem that will have to be solved. We therefore say quite clearly that we recognize the fact that there are groups in South Africa.

Obviously one cannot legislate a man into being aware of the fact that he is a member of a particular ethnic group. He is either aware of it or he is not, and he either wants to maintain that identity or he does not. Despite the fact that one has no prescriptive legislation in the United States of America, for example, as far as a man’s group membership is concerned, one nevertheless has a strong group awareness there. One finds this all over the world. Moynihan and Glaser showed this in their report called Beyond the Melting Pot. They wanted to show that there was no melting pot in the American history. Why? Because the different groups occupied different rungs in the economy, occupied different residential areas to a large extent and competed with one another for the opportunities in that particular society. So, despite the fact that one has a very open society there, those people still maintain an awareness. The same applies throughout the world. A fascinating article has just appeared in Newsweek. It is called “Who is an Australian”? It starts off by saying—

It goes on to say—

What is the point I am trying to make? The point is that there you have a diversity of ethnic and racial groups in that society; they have problems and conflicts and there is discrimination; they in fact say that Australia has a racist policy in certain respects; they have problems and they are competing with one another, but the important point is that there is no way—and the Government recognizes it—in which one can constitutionally legislate for the different groups in such a way that one excludes the most significant groups in that society from the centres of power and the economy in that society, because if one does that, one simply entrenches conflict and engenders tension in that particular society. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider this point and not to indulge in the kind of pettiness we have heard during the last couple of hours, which has nothing to do with the argument and does not even take the motion seriously, but just carries on with the character assasination of people. I want the hon. the Minister seriously to consider this question. Does he really believe that the White group in this society of ours—and when I say the White group, I include the English and the Afrikaners—can only maintain itself as a cultural entity or as a racial group if it monopolizes political power? If he says “yes”, then that very fact will become the most important source of conflict in our society in the future, as it has been in the past. If the hon. the Minister says “no”, it means that we shall have to find a new way of negotiating with one another, against the plurality of South Africa we will have to find a new way to come to terms and to find out how we can effectively participate in politics and in the economy of our country. If that cannot be done, no constitutional blueprints that are unilaterally constructed by that side of the House will resolve the conflict situation in our society. Not in a thousand years.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the point which the hon. member for Rondebosch has just raised towards the end of my speech. I want to begin by saying that I think it is a good thing that we were able to discuss this motion here and that the various political parties were again able to present their standpoint on what is actually the essence of our political issues in South Africa, i.e. that we as a group of peoples at present find ourselves geographically in one area, and from this must find a political solution to our problems. Each individual member of every political party is struggling with this, and each one of us is earnestly engaged in this matter from day to day. It is so that on this occasion the UP and the PRP adopted precisely the same standpoint. Both parties fully support the motion—the one moved it and the other supported it, the UP by way of an amendment and the PRP by way of their leader’s orally expressed standpoint dissociating themselves from the section which deals with financial donations from abroad. Furthermore, the two parties adopt the same attitude, in other words when I am dealing with this part of my speech, I am speaking identically to the PRP and the UP, for they adopt the same standpoint. On one point they drew back, i.e. on the donation of money from abroad, but they agreed that the remainder of the legislation should be repealed and withdrawn.

The question now arises: What precisely does the legislation, to which the United Party and the PRP object, prohibit? In the first place it prohibits a person from becoming a member of a political party of another population group in the country. Secondly it prohibits any person from rendering assistance as an agent, as a member of an election committee, from supporting a candidate in elections, from addressing meetings to promote the interests of a party or to promote the candidature of some political candidate or party. Even if this motion were to be accepted today, at this moment, the other legislation still remains in force. For example, the CRC which will remain the Parliament of the Coloured people, while only Coloured people may be candidates and only Coloured people may vote for that council. The various legislative assemblies, of the Tswana, the Venda, the North-Sotho and all the other Black peoples, remain as they are at present, and only their own people may vote and be candidates for their elections. Where would we find ourselves politically if we were to accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Sea Point today? It would mean at once—this is what is restricted by this legislation and what hon. members wanted to undo—that hon. members will be able to participate in the following practices: In the first place they may become members of political parties in Coloured and Black politics. The hon. member for Houghton, for example, may become a member of the Coloured Labour Party and the hon. member for Green Point may become a member of the Opposition party in Bophuthatswana. In other words, the entire Opposition as they are sitting here, may become members of the political parties in the Black and Coloured politics of South Africa. They, in their turn, may exert their influence to mould those political parties on their lines and according to their wishes. It means intervention in the politics of our Coloured and Black people. I want to know at once whether this will bring peace in South Africa with its ethnic relations. The worst may happen, i.e. that the PRP may support one political party for Coloureds, while the UP may support another.

Then we have the position that the two parties will fight among themselves, while the Black and Coloured people are used as pawns in their ultimate political aims. What Bablelike confusion and what folly will arise! It is more likely to bring friction and conflict on all sides than peace. Can hon. members imagine for one moment what future elections for the CRC will be like with such a political dispensation which the various population groups may enter and co-operate in actively. Not only would it be a dirty political election, we would also have returned to the old dispensation in regard to which the Coloured persons themselves testified time after time before the commission, of which I was a member, that they no longer wanted to be exploited by White politicians. I have one quotation here to indicate what the Coloureds themselves have to say in this regard.

Who is that?

It is the Federal Coloured People’s Party, which is also an Opposition party as the party of that hon. member is at the moment. I quote—

It is the Coloureds who say this—

This is the testimony of Coloureds themselves—

He was referring specifically to this hon. member—

This is the testimony of Coloureds on what that hon. member requested. Yet he says that he is speaking on their behalf.

What an atrocious injustice would be done by such a decision to the Black and Coloured people of our country, people who want to, and must be able to, and are able to decide in their own right about their own affairs. The full human dignity of those people is impaired when these people say in a highhanded and know-all way: “You are not quite up to the task which lies before you. We shall come and tell you how to run your politics. We want to interfere; we want to become members of your political parties; we want to help you to take decisions; we have far more experience, and we shall come and take charge.” This is the same paternalism of which we are being accused every day. I am convinced that such a change would bring only disaster in South Africa and no benefit of any kind. I acknowledge the problem of South Africa, but this is truly no solution to it.

This situation may also be reversed, however, and Blacks and Coloureds may then begin to take an interest in the politics of those of us in this House, for party membership will be open the other way round. That is to say, Blacks and Coloureds may also become members of the UP …

With a unitary system.

Yes, the hon. member supports the motion. They may also become members of the UP, if this Act were repealed. It is stated there very clearly, and it is possible. The possibility exists, therefore, that thousands of Black and Coloured people may join the political parties opposite.

In fact, there will be an organized campaign to get them to join. The hon. members for Green Point and Sea Point will be the chief propagandists, for they will go into Langa and Nyanga, into Sea Point and all those places, to canvass people for their party. I can picture the hon. member for Houghton sitting at a table in Soweto enrolling members for the PRP.

Normally the policy of a political party is determined by its congresses, and these Black and Coloured people now become members of that party and consequently determine its policy, collectively at the party congresses, or is it their intention to deprive these people, in some sly way or other, of their right to determine policy at the congresses? Therefore we can imagine the position that will arise and the policy that will be determined at those congresses. Let us take this idea further. The policy is determined at the congresses by means of a qualified vote or ultimately by an ordinary vote and must inevitably lead to Black majority rule in South Africa, as certainly as we are gathered here today. This is what the hon. member for Houghton, at least, advocates. We must thrash out this story of Black majority rule here and now, for it is in the interests of South Africa, it is in the interests of the voters of Durbanville, and it is in the interests of the Johannesburg municipal elections to do so. I am going to quote something to the hon. member, and she must not try to evade it now. She is present here in person now. The previous occasion she was not here, but now she is present here in person, and now we can discuss this man to man, or rather, man to woman. I am quoting from her television interview on 8 September 1975 in Melbourne, Australia. The programme was entitled “Monday Conference”.

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

No, do not evade the issue. We can deal with questions later. I think it is necessary for politics today that we iron out this question. The interviewer asked her—

There is no misunderstanding about this question. Mrs. Suzman replied—

Right.

The hon. member says “50% immediately”. I shall quote further—

Then she went on to say—

Just listen to this—

She corrected the statement—

[Interjections.]

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

You may put your question in a moment.

*In other words, a Black majority on the voters’ roll is obvious as far as she is concerned. The interview continued in a very interesting way. A little later in the same interview one of the other participants, Mr. Little, put the following question, after she had referred to qualified franchise—

A very straightforward question. What was her reply?—

The interviewer asked her about “Black majority rule” and she referred to “get there”.

To get to “one man, one vote.”

I quote further—

I am drawing your attention to this, Sir—

Is there anyone in this House who can still deny that the hon. member for Houghton, at least, made out overseas that Black majority rule in South Africa must come, that 50% of the seats in this House would immediately be ceded to Black representatives when her party comes into power, and that the remainder—a majority—would come gradually because compulsory education would cause all the other people to qualify as quickly as possible? That is a complete handover to Black people! Now the hon. member may put her question.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. Minister not concede that it is possible that Black voters will vote for White members of Parliament? [Interjections.]

Alice in Wonderland!

Order!

I readily concede that Black people may vote for White people, but if those hon. members live in such a fools’ paradise that they believe that in the spirit prevailing in Africa today, in which a fight for Black control is in progress, the Black people, when they have a majority on the voters’ roll, will not organize themselves into political parties which will take over control of this Parliament, I am astonished at the political naivety of those hon. members. [Interjections.] I now want to state the positive standpoint of my side. I cannot only be negative. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

There is another point I just want to rectify quickly. I only have five minutes left, and I have not come to my side of the matter yet. There is a further aspect in this debate which dares not be bruited abroad for it is to the detriment of the whole of South Africa, an aspect which was stated by the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River.

Tell us about sovereignty for the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

The hon.* member for Green Point said: “This Bill is a restriction on communication. Political discussion in a meaningful manner has been stopped by this Act.” The hon. member for Mooi River said: “We should have access to those groups. We should inspire them to maintain a way of living against communism.” All three members missed the point completely. There is nothing in this Act which puts a stop to dialogue, liaison or discussions on any level whatsoever. This is a false picture which is being bruited abroad …

Deliberately.

… i.e. that we are allegedly doing this. This Act provides merely that no person may become a member of political parties beyond the dividing line of colour and, secondly, that no person may address a meeting to promote a political party beyond the dividing line of colour. In other words, an hon. member opposite cannot hold a meeting and tell them that the United Party is a good party. He may hold a meeting and tell them hundreds of things he wants to tell them, but he may not promote his own party or one of their political parties or a candidate of such a party. I think it is disgraceful that hon. members are bruiting this misconception abroad. Sir, talks are in fact taking place every day. Various reciprocal talks are taking place, in the Cabinet Council as well. In this way Black leaders addressed the UP congress in the Transvaal last year or the year before last. No action whatsoever was taken against those people. What a misrepresentation to bruit abroad that we are, through this Act, prohibiting people from making contact with one another or from conducting a dialogue!

In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to put the other side of the case. I want to state the positive side, as the NP sees it. Let me make it clear that a political dispensation develops historically and grows according to the realities, the facts and the circumstances of each individual country. No political dispensation of one country, even though it is the best system in the world for that country, can be taken over holus-bolus and succeed fully in another country because circumstances differ from one country to another. Therefore, we began with the Westminster system because, originally and historically, we inherited that system. However, there is no reason why we should adhere permanently to that system. On the contrary. We must take a new look at it, and at present a Cabinet Committee is doing just that to try to give it a new content and solve the specific problems of our country within a political dispensation. That is why the committee is working on this. They are doing very good work.

Let me make another point. By its very nature politics is mobile within certain boundaries. The concept “mobile” and “within certain boundaries” are important. Political stagnation was never a qualification, but the realistic growth and unfolding of a policy, with retention of fundamental principles, provides the necessary stability and the necessary confidence, but also the essential mobility to be able to meet the challenges of changing times. Let us consider the position in South Africa as we see it—this is where the difference between the Opposition parties opposite and ourselves comes in. South Africa is not a multi-racial unitary state. South Africa is not like the USA, which is the perfect example of a multi-racial unitary state. It is not the same. South Africa is a sub-continent in which various peoples with various cultures, of various origins and with various backgrounds, still exist after having been brought together through their colonial history under the influence of Western Europe—not America. Just as Western Europe solved its problems centuries ago by strife, bloodshed and wars, after which the boundaries were ultimately drawn with national groups living side by side, peoples who are now co-operating with one another voluntarily in the economic, social and other spheres, while yet retaining in a pure form their own identities and sovereignty, so we in South Africa are on our way to providing each of the nations here with its full human dignity and sovereignty so that each may ultimately govern itself to the fullest extent, may each take decisions concerning itself to the fullest extent and may each be sovereign—I am using this term deliberately—within the present policy of the NP.

What about the Coloureds?

I shall come to the Coloureds in a moment. The homelands are creating this position for the Bantu—I shall not discuss this any further.

Let us see what remains after the homelands have become independent. Those remaining are the Coloureds, the Whites and the Asiatics, and then there is the physical presence of the urban Bantu who are still living here. I want to say at once that this is a plural community.

The solution in respect of a plural community is based on the policy of plural democracies in which each receives the right to make decisions affecting themselves in conjunction with one another. The first requirement I lay down is the preservation of the identity of the Whites. The second is that the future of the Whites shall be decided only by the Whites in the political institution manned by the Whites. There shall be no concession of any nature on that level. Similarly the Coloureds and the Asiatics should also develop and utilize their political institutions to the fullest extent, so that each of those groups will ultimately decide on their own future alone, on their own; in other words, sovereignty over their section of the community. Then there remains the common spheres in which Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics have common interests. As I have said, those matters are at present being discussed at the level of the Cabinet Council. However, that is not the final form of liaison; in future further development may take place. The committee which is working on this, may develop it further so that everyone concerned may eventually have a joint say over certain of the matters which we have to do collectively. It seems to me my time has now expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the in-service training of employees is primarily the task of the employers, we nevertheless find that the Government has intervened and made great contributions, with its positive actions, to the in-service training of Bantu workers.

In the first place there was the Van Zyl Committee, an interdepartmental committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of the then Secretary for Bantu Education, the late Dr. H. J. van Zyl, which was appointed in 1973. The terms of reference of the committee were to inquire into the desirability and the feasibility of prior and in-service training of Bantu workers in White areas.

In the second place, the Government implemented the recommendations of the Van Zyl Committee, which were accepted, by appointing a permanent committee consisting of representatives of the employers’ and the employees’ organizations.

In the third place legislation on this matter was passed last year. The Act in question, Act No. 86 of 1976, provides, inter alia, for the promotion and the regulation of the training of the Bantu employees in the industries through the establishment, control and financing of public centres, the approval of private centres and the recognition of private training centres. The co-ordinating committee which was also established as provided in the Act was entrusted with the in-service training of Bantu workers in White areas. The standpoint of the Government is very clearly reflected in the speech made last year by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education with the introduction of the Bill. He said that the maximum utilization of manpower was most closely linked to the increasing of productivity, which, in its turn, could best be achieved by improved training. In addition he said that, the Government, through this measure—that is to say, the legislation—wanted to make a positive contribution towards increasing the productivity of the Black worker. We can therefore see that the Government is closely involved in the in-service training of the Black worker, as well as in the ordinary training of the Black worker.

The Department of Bantu Education established a variety of training schemes and schools aimed at the establishment of industrial training facilities for the Bantu, as was also envisaged in the Act.

Unfortunately my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I have to sketch very briefly what kind of training and what schools are being made available by the department. In the first place there are the departmental industrial training centres in White areas. These centres are being constructed in densely populated urban Bantu residential areas, near industrial areas, and form part of the education programme of the Department of Bantu Education which makes it possible for pupils in Stds. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to attend weekly industrial training sessions lasting approximately 2 to 2½ hours each. This is supplementary to their ordinary schooling. Eight centres have been established and fully equipped at a cost of R2,72 million. These are situated in the following places: Molapo and Orlando in Soweto; Sebokeng, in the Vaal Triangle; Imbali, in Pietermaritzburg; Lamontville, in Durban; New Brighton, in Port Elizabeth; Mamelodi, in Pretoria and Katlehong, in Natalspruit. Further planning for the construction of the following three centres has already reached an advanced stage, i.e. that of Thembisa, in Kempton Park; Kwa-Thema, in Springs; and Atteridgeville, in Pretoria. Additional centres are also being planned for Guguletu, in Cape Town, Thabong, in Welkom, as well as in Bloemfontein and in Dobsonville.

At present three homeland governments are also giving consideration to similar training centres in their densely populated towns. At present centres are being proposed for the Ciskei, i.e. at Mdantsane; in KwaZulu, at Umlazi and Madadeni; and in Lebowa. Boys in Stds. 5 and 6 may attend these centres and receive their basic training in any two of the following four subjects: Electrical work, bricklaying, woodwork and metalwork. After orientation courses have been received in each of these industrial subjects, they may decide in Std. 7 to continue with one or two of these subjects as optional subjects for their junior certificate. The training at these centres is free of charge. Pupils are conveyed free of charge by bus from the schools at which they are enrolled to the centres and back. It is expected that in 1977 basic industrial training in this case will have been given to 16 500 pupils. When a centre is in full operation, it will be possible to train approximately 5 000 pupils per annum at each centre. If we complete this calculation, we shall note that the 15 centres will be able to train 75 000 pupils annually.

At the Molapo centre in Soweto the in-service training of teachers is provided. Teachers are being trained as industrial instructors. At Molapo 78 such instructors are already being trained.

A second kind of training is private in-service industrial training. Industrialists who wish to introduce private in-service industrial training schemes for their Bantu workers, may apply to the Department of Bantu Education for registration with a view to the acquisition of income tax concessions on admissible training costs. The income tax concessions are deductions in respect of the current costs incurred for the in-service industrial training of Bantu employees. The Department of Bantu Education undertakes the inspection of these training centres to determine whether they qualify for registration. When centres do not comply with the requirements set by the department for registration, the employers are provided with professional advice to make subsequent registration of their undertakings possible.

Since these taxation concessions were introduced in 1974, there has been very great interest. Since 1974 more than 1 100 inquiries have been received. The number of inspections carried out in 1976 was 225, and the total number of schemes already approved, is 260. The number of various industrial courses offered, is 545. Industries involved include, inter alia, the following: Brickwork, quarries, stone-crushing, motor manufacturing and assembling, textiles, clothing, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, fertilizer manufacturing, refineries, mills, catering, and so on. Thirty different industries are involved in this matter.

A third kind of training is the public industrial in-service training centres. The co-ordinating council which, as I have already said, was constituted in terms of the Act, recommended that industrial training centres be established at the following places. In Pretoria, at Waltloo; on the East Rand, at Apex; on the West Rand, at Chamdor; in the Vaal Triangle, at Sebokeng; in Bloemfontein, at Boithusong; in Port Elizabeth, at New Brighton; in Pinetown and in Potchefstroom.

In the case of Potchefstroom the centre will be constructed at Boskop, and will be for the agricultural industry. The cost of construction of the centre will be borne by the Government. The running expenses will be borne by organized commerce and industry. Employers may claim income tax concessions in respect of admissible costs incurred in the training of employees who take approved training courses at the centres. Bloemfontein and Chamdor have been in operation since 1975, while those at Pinetown, Sebokeng and Port Elizabeth came into operation in January 1976. The remaining centres should also come into operation during 1977.

Each centre is controlled by a control board on which the local representatives of all the national employers’ organizations, as well as a senior officer of the Department of Bantu Education, have representation. The centres are situated in established or developing industrial areas and are being constructed to meet the collective training needs of commerce and industry. Courses which are being offered at present or being planned, include the following: Workshop assistants for motor cycles, agricultural machinery and motor vehicles, motor vehicle repair assistants for the automobile industry, greasers in the motor industry, forklift drivers, plant maintenance courses, arc welding operators, gas welding operators, stores clerks, female exchange board operators, repair assistants for business machinery, building assistants, civil engineering and construction industry assistants, typing and business administration, salesmen, shop assistants, mobile plant operators, punch card and computer operators, and supervisors. The Department of Bantu Education provides the centres with professional guidance and advice on co-ordination, planning, salaries, evaluation and so on.

A fourth type of training is that of the private training centres. One such private training centre for the in-service training of employees of other bodies was registered in 1976. This is the training centre for heavy duty and extra heavy duty vehicle drivers of the Industrial Council for Road Transport, and is situated at Luipaardsvlei. Applications from other industrial councils for the registration of this type of private centre have been received and are still being investigated.

A fifth type of training system is the so-called ad hoc border industry schools. In 1969 the Department of Bantu Education introduced a subsidized in-service training scheme for factory operators to provide industrialists with financial assistance in this way if they established decentralized factories in the border areas. The industrialists provide the training centres, specialized equipment and materials, while the department provides financial assistance by paying subsidies on the salaries of instructors. The industrialists also provide the instructors who train the employees. In addition the department furnishes professional advice and exercises control over the salaries and the standard of training. To date 20 of these ad hoc industrial schools have been established and registered. Applications from border industries for the registration of such schools are still being received and are receiving attention. In 1976 2 962 such Bantu workers were given in-service training. Since the introduction of the scheme 13 379 employees have been trained. In 1976 an amount of R40 050 was paid out in subsidies. The total amount paid out so far in subsidies, is R429 160. The various industries that made use of this training system during 1976 included the following: There was one school for the furniture manufacturing industry; five for the clothing manufacturing industry; four for the textile industry; two for the rubber and plastic industry; one for the pharmaceutical industry; two for the aluminium products industry; one for the cable manufacturing industry; one for the asbestos products industry; and one for the printing industry—a total of 20 schools.

The sixth and last type of training is that of crash courses offered by ad hoc industrial schools. These ad hoc industrial schools are situated in decentralized growth areas and offer crash courses to meet the collective training needs of groups of industrialists. Intensive training in basic manual and industrial skills are provided by these courses, which cover a variety of industries. Most courses extend over a period of 13 weeks. Upon completion of the course a practical test is set by the department, and appropriate certificates are then issued to the successful candidates. All costs of the ad hoc industrial schools and courses are borne by the Department of Bantu Education and the homeland governments. These schools meet the needs of local industries and also render a valuable service to homeland communities by providing individuals who, owing to inadequate training, cannot qualify for admission to trade schools, with industrial training. The courses are offered by five ad hoc industrial schools. These schools are situated at Babalegi at Hammanskraal, Ntuzuma in Durban, Isithebe on the Natal north coast, Ezakheni in Ladysmith and Mdantsane in East London. Two other schools are at present under construction and should begin with the courses in 1977. The two schools are Thlabane in Rustenburg and Enseleni in Richards Bay. Such a school is also being planned at Mabopane in Pretoria. At present the following courses are being offered, viz. arc and gas welding, woodwork and machining, bricklaying and plastering, and courses for workshop assistants in the automobile industry and for textile operators. I want to indicate the progress shown by these schools. In 1970 the first textile school was established at Mdantsane, with 448 pupils. Since then the number of pupils has varied between 400 and 600 each year, so that by now a total of 3 458 pupils have already been trained in this way. The other ad hoc schools began in 1971 with 40 pupils, but this figure has now grown to an intake of 535 pupils in 1976. The total number of persons trained in this way, is 2 039.

If we consider, further, the in-service training of the Government departments and corporations such as Iscor, when they act as employers responsible for the employment of the Bantu, and if we also take into consideration the trade and technical training, as well as advanced technical training of the Department of Bantu Education, we in South Africa may be proud and grateful of this record of the Government. The training is being financed and co-ordinated by the Government. The Government has also added the necessary momentum to this training. Special tribute in this regard is due to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and his deputies, as well as to the department with its Secretary and all its officials, for this great and noble task they are performing in regard to the training of our Black people and the lesser privileged Black people, as well as for their active and positive contribution. For this reason we feel that the discussion of this motion in this House is justified.

Mr. Speaker, at this late stage on a Friday afternoon I daresay all of us can think of many other things that we would much rather do than to be discoursing in this particular Chamber. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Vryburg has put before the House a motion which is an important one. It deals in general terms with the training of workers and, more particularly, with the in-service training of Black workers. The material which the hon. member has put before us, constitutes a very useful record. He has obviously done a considerable amount of research in this matter and I think the material is useful. On the other hand, we rather saw him as a lawyer with a bad brief, although he did make the best of the poor material at his disposal. One cannot, however, put up a very good case if there is such a paucity of meaningful subject matter.

In essence, what the hon. member tried to do, was to thank the Government for the progress that had been made in the field of in-service training. Whilst it is true that he perhaps did not indulge in panegyries, his language did become a little bit extravagant, because he told us that the Government was active and positive in this new attitude of theirs. Seen against the total requirement, we believe that the present effort is in fact a puny one. It is true that this marks an important turning point as far as the Government is concerned and it is true that it at least represents a dramatic departure from the attitude that the Government has had in the past. It is, however, also true that, time after time, when we advocated the training of non-White people in the industrial setting, every time we were told that it was not on. In fact, the general approach from the Government’s side was: How can you train non-White people? Every time we advocated this, we were told: “Al wat julle wil hê is dat die Swartmense die Witmense se werk van hulle moet wegneem.” Of course, we remember well what Dr. Verwoerd’s approach was in this regard. He was quite clear; he pegged the amount that had to be spent on Black education, because his attitude was: What am I going to do with all these Black people if I educate them and if I do not have jobs for them? That kind of approach still permeates right through the thinking of the Government. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Innesdal deny it? What other conceivable motive could Dr. Verwoerd have had to peg the amount of money that was devoted to the education of Black people?

That the Blacks themselves should pay more.

He said on many occasions that he dared not train them more, because if he did, he would not have jobs to give to them. That hon. member spent some time in that department, and I am surprised that he is not aware of this fact. The attitude of the Government was consistent throughout. They said that we should not provide advanced training for non-Whites and certainly not to Blacks in the so-called White areas. The attitude of the Government was consistent. It said that all industrial training should be done in the homelands. Does the hon. member deny that? That was the attitude of the Government until very recently. They still had the myth that there was going to be a change in the tide, and that the flow was going to be reversed. Indeed, next year was to be the magic year when, somehow, all the non-Whites were going to float back to the Reserves; they were going to disappear like mist before the morning sun. We all remember the magic year of 1978. The view throughout was that all this training should be done in the Bantu homelands. It is true that there has been progress, because last year the Government came before us with the legislation to which the hon. member for Vryburg has referred, and which indicated a very dramatic departure in Government attitude as far as this issue is concerned. The difficulty, of course, is—and this has been at the back of Government reasoning all along—that they have still never accepted the permanence of the Black man in the so-called White areas. What to most people would be a small step is, in fact, for the Government a giant forward leap. I have frequently put the question to the Government: Do they accept the permanence of the Black people in the so-called White areas? We can never get anybody on the Government side who is prepared to make this little concession. Their whole approach to training obviously stems from this philosophical approach. The point is that one is never going to get the kind of training and the kind of effort which is necessary to deal with the situation as long as one’s attitude is the one which is still current in Government thinking. The Government does adjust to a changing situation, but they also always do so with reluctance; they always drag their feet. They never willingly and with alacrity attune themselves to a changing situation.

Always too little, too late.

That is quite right. Always too little, too late. I am not denying that there is progress. The hon. member has given us facts and figures to show that there is progress, but viewed against the magnitude of the problem, my contention is that this progress is of a peripheral nature.

Whilst I make this point of the magnitude of the problem, perhaps we should just look at it. It is estimated at the moment that the total population in this country is in the region of 25 million people. It is understood and generally accepted throughout the world that in a modem, mature economic society— and I am sure ours would qualify—one needs from 10% to 12½% of one’s total population to carry out the higher-skilled tasks. If hon. members do the necessary calculation, they will find that we require in South Africa more than three million people to carry out the higher-skilled assignments in our industrial society. We obviously cannot meet these from the White group only because the Whites constitute less than four million people and only 38% of them are economically active. Whichever way one looks at it, almost half the people that one requires to do the higher-skilled tasks in our society, will have to come from the non-White people in South Africa. This is a question of sheer arithmetic. Let me take just one of these higher-skilled tasks, that of artisan, and look at the position as it obtains at the present time. I do not know what the latest figures are. The hon. the Deputy Minister may well, when he replies, be able to give them to us. I have not verified these, but last year when we were given figures we were told that about 3 500 Black people in fact held some trade qualification. That is an infinitesimal number. It is understood today that there are probably about six million Black people who are economically active. Of this total number of six million people we have 3 500 who have qualified in a trade; in fact, 17 of them are electricians. This gives hon. members some idea of what we have at the present time and it gives us some idea of what we will require.

How does this compare to the rest of Africa?

Why do you want to compare us with a country like Malawi again? We are at totally different stages of economic development. The hon. the Deputy Minister was associated with Zambia for quite a long time. I can tell him that the figures in Zambia are very significantly higher.

Better?

Yes, of course. Just one mine, Rhokana Mining Corporation, employs more trade-trained people than there are in the whole of South Africa. What we must not overlook, too, is the fact that right at the moment, from the figures I have, there are 400 Black people who are in training in the trade sphere. If my figures are wrong, I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister will correct me. How does one relate 400 people who are being trained against a total Black work force of 6 million people and a total Black population of probably about 18 million people? The ratio is infinitesimal. Sure, a beginning has been made, but we have not even started yet on this important assignment. This all stems, once again, from the Government’s philosophy because the Government has continually stated that these people must not be trained here, and that they must be trained in the homelands, but in the homelands there are not sufficient job opportunities for them. The economic activity happens to be here where we are, in so-called White South Africa. Indeed, it is calculated that the homelands probably represent about 2% of the total economic activity of South Africa. In any event, these jobs will have to be done by Black people because the Whites are opting out of the blue-collar jobs. The Coloured people are also, more and more, tending to prefer white-collar jobs. The Indians do exactly the same. I therefore want to make the following prediction. In 10 years time the bulk of the tradesmen and artisans in this country will have to be Black if we are to survive in an economic sense. If we see what is being done at the moment against the background of the requirements of this country, it becomes apparent how very little we have, in fact, done.

The in-service training scheme, to which the hon. member has referred specifically, deals of course entirely with operator training. Again, let me say that this is a useful beginning. Obviously we must have operators, but the figures released by the department two days ago to my colleague, the hon. member for Jeppe, figures to which he will refer, again show that we have merely just begun to scratch the surface. Nowadays everybody must be trained because the whole situation has changed. In America it is estimated that less than 10% of the work force can be regarded as unskilled, and in fact receive very little training. 90% of the workers require training, in fact often training at quite a high level.

There is, of course, one other aspect of the background against which this must be viewed. The argument will be raised—and I am quite sure it will be raised in this debate—that we cannot do so much training now because we are faced with a situation of unemployment. Sure enough, there is unemployment in South Africa at the present time. In fact, there is massive unemployment and the unemployment is increasing day by day. The figures are quite alarming. This unemployment is going to have immense repercussions in South Africa. The fact that we have this unemployment is, of course, due to the economic recession which is in turn largely due to gross mismanagement by the Government of one of the most favourable economic situations in the world. It is due, too, to lack of confidence in this country. There is not an inflow of risk capital, certainly not of the magnitude required to deal with the situation. There is also poor productivity in South Africa, and poor productivity stems primarily from the fact that our industrial training is so inadequate, and because there is poor productivity our unit costs are high, and hence we are not competitive in the international sense. We cannot compete with other countries and that is why our exports are down. We therefore have a vicious circle, all the elements helping to reinforce one another and all of them operating reciprocally.

This situation is also due to the fact that our internal market is so small. If South Africa’s internal market were very much greater than it is at the present time, we could have coped with the situation but the market is small because we do not train our people enough, and hence we do not pay them enough. So we go round and round in circles like a dog chasing its own tail. The reason for all this economic stress is, of course, because we are not making optimum use of our human resources, and that is why the situation has been created in which we find ourselves today. The argument that we should not train at the moment because there is unemployment and because we would flood the market with work-seekers is, of course, not tenable because if we have confidence in the future of South Africa, as I am sure we do have and as the Government always professes to have, now is the time to invest in the future of South Africa by training people so that when the upswing occurs again and there is an economic take-off, we shall not, as has been the case in the past, be held back because of an insufficiency of trained workers.

So, whilst progress has been made in this field, my contention is that the progress will of necessity remain limited because there is a whole set of other built-in weaknesses in the whole labour structure which the Government has established for South Africa. A fundamental weakness is that the Government will still continue to try to fragment the work force. They still see a Black worker as being fundamentally different to a White worker. Hon. members will remember how, when we raised this last, we tried to contend that the work of a Zulu rigger does not differ in any way from that of a Xhosa rigger, but that their work is fundamentally the same. There might be quantitative differences, but there are not qualitative differences. I have administered psychometric tests to, probably, thousands of people and I can tell hon. members right now that there are no qualities that Whites have that non-Whites do not have. Last time we mentioned this, the hon. the Deputy Minister subjected us to a long harangue and talked about identity. He said we must retain our identity. He talked about circles that interweave. We do not do this with the Whites. Although the Afrikaner worker is entitled to his identity, we do not train him in a way that differs in any manner from the way in which we train an English-speaking worker. Why then should Blacks be trained in a different way? I have maintained before that what is ultimately required in South Africa is that we must all build together. White hands and Black hands must build together, and if we do not create an opportunity for them to do so, they will destroy as has happened in Soweto recently. Labour is indivisible and I cannot understand how the Government tries to create the situation where White workers will be trained in a certain way and Black workers in another way. This form of fragmentation is unbelievable. One will not find it anywhere else in the world.

There are other impediments to the growth of productivity. How can one make maximum use of people, how can one train them, as long as the Government perseveres with something like job reservation, which is like a form of medieval guildism? It is completely out of place in a modem economic society. How can one make the best use of labour as long as the Government perseveres with the Physical Planning Act? Productivity stems from mobility of workers, mobility both in the vertical and the lateral sense. People must be able to move up in the occupational hierarchy and they must be able to move horizontally into areas where their skills are required. Here, by means of its provisions, its legislative provisions, the Government is working in diametrically the opposite direction. We will not make progress in this field until such time as there is a new ministry, a Ministry of Manpower, of Planning, Development and Utilization of Manpower in which all these activities can be properly correlated, because as long as we fragment it as we are doing at the moment, we will not make progress.

This is how we view this matter and although the motion, as far as the hon. member goes, has the advantage that at least it has drawn attention to what is being done at the present time, our view is that this is completely inadequate, and until such time as there is a dramatic and major change in the whole philosophy of the Government with regard to the labour issue, our efforts will continue to be puny and ineffective.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make use of this opportunity to support the motion of the hon. member for Vryburg. It became apparent in an investigation carried out by the personnel research department of the University of the Orange Free State, that meaningful tendencies are crystallizing in the way in which Black labour is being utilized in industrial organizations. The various personnel practices contribute towards diminishing the labour problems of organizations. It is apparent from the investigation that the majority of Black workers, i.e. 67,2%, are still found in unskilled positions. However, there are significant indications that this group is becoming smaller. The participants in this investigation indicated the most important changes which may be expected in the labour market over the next few years.

Firstly, Bantu will be utilized in broader, higher labour positions than is the case at present. Salary increases and narrowing of the wage gap may be expected. Labourers will become scarcer. More skilled and better trained Bantu will also become available. The competition for labour will increase. Of the greatest importance here, is that it is quite clear from this that the utilization of labour will have to be accompanied by increased productivity which in turn is a result of better training, and not only academic training, but technical training as well. This training will have to include professionally directed instruction, which means skill and efficiency, and therefore makes the person involved more productive. Only if we can succeed in achieving increased productivity can we speak of higher wages, and because we are dealing with the training of Black people here, can we speak of the narrowing of the wage gap as well. Training, and definitely in-service training too, can and must also comply with the necessary characteristics. The whole issue is always that the training must be goal-directed and must never be a goal in itself. It must always be an instrument to a goal. Training must always be goal-directed; it must be effective and it must satisfy the economic requirements, otherwise training can have an adverse effect upon the long-term economy of a community.

I have already said that the investigation to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, proved indisputably that labourers are becoming scarcer. The labour shortage, more specifically the shortage of skilled labour and the increasing demands which are being made on the economy, directs the focus more and more on the quality of manpower and consequently on the ratio between real production and management expectations. Then training also means the utilization of Bantu labour in the economic system of South Africa. Therefore in the planning of training facilities, we must always take note of the contributions to the gross domestic product of the most important sectors in the economic structure of a country. The changing tendencies of the contribution of the various sectors to gross domestic product must be taken into account. For example, the contribution of agriculture to the gross domestic product decreased from 22% in 1920 to 9% in 1970. The contribution of the secondary sector, namely that of manufacture, construction, electricity, gas and water, increased from 10% to 31% over the same period. The service factor remain fairly constant at 50%, while mining decreased from 18% to 11%. For approximately the same period, from 1921 to 1970, the Bantu population increased from 4,7 million to 15,1 million. It may therefore be expected that the employment of Bantu in the various sectors has changed in accordance with the change in the economic structure. At the same time one must take the economically active Bantu population into account. In 1970 the Bantu labour force already amounted to 5,6 million, with an increase of more than 80% since 1951. It may be interesting to note in passing that the White labour force increased by only 52,4% over the same period. Another important change was the increase in the number of Bantu women on the labour market. Between 1951 and 1960 the increase was 271 000, while, during the next 10 years, the increase was more than 1 million. In 1970 there were already 1,9 million economically active Bantu women. This is 33,7% of the total number of Bantu on the labour market. And this is in comparison with 21% in 1960.

Furthermore, it is very important that the industrial distribution must be taken into account in the planning of training. According to statistics, the employment of Bantu is beginning to shift from the primary to the secondary sectors, and to the tertiary sector as well. The ever-increasing entry of the Bantu into the factories is also meaningful, and it is here that we find the greatest value of in-service training. Professional distribution and the perceptual changes in the professional groups must also be taken into consideration, and once again statistics indicate that during the years 1951 to 1970 there was a notable decrease in the numbers of the lesser skilled professions, while there was a considerable increase in professions in the higher categories. Statistically it is difficult to say with a great deal of accuracy what the actual extent of the upgrading of the Bantu in the economy is, but it may be accepted that the percentage of labourers without training, is decreasing. It is particularly difficult to ascertain these figures in the private sector.

At the moment approximately 15% of the total labour population in South Africa is being appointed to posts in the higher categories, while 85% are employed in the lower categories. Although it may be generally accepted that there is going to be a shortage of labour, at the present moment one can definitely not talk about a shortage of labour, but about a shortage of skill. This shortage of skill resulted in urgent attention being given to the matter, and that more attention will be given to the training of Bantu in functional professions in future, but to better utilization of the leader group as well. With the development of the homelands and the accompanying employment by the authorities, as well as the establishment of industries in those areas, unlimited amenities are being created for trained and qualified Bantu. Entrepreneurship, technical skill, professional practices, management ability, etc. can be applied and developed to an unlimited extent. At the moment there is ample provision for this and further facilities are always being created.

Mr. Speaker, since the House is conducting a debate on the in-service training of Bantu today, I should like to emphasize that I am convinced of the fact that the Government gives very high priority to this training, precisely because the Government realizes how important it is. In the first place it is in the interest of the national economy because a productive, efficient labour force is of the utmost importance for an economically prosperous society, and more specifically in a country like South Africa with its multinational structure, but also because it is in the direct interest of the individual and his dependants. Training immediately places the trained person in a competitive position. This means that he is now able to compete on the labour market in the specific category of work for which he has been trained. This immediately affords the worker concerned security. He can therefore make a valuable contribution towards production. Since the Government is very much in earnest about this matter, Parliament passed the In-service Training Act last year. In this way in-service training is being regulated in an orderly way and it assures the employer and the employee involved in the training of the necessary protection. Speakers on this side of the House spelt out the achievements of the Government in the debate today. The speech of the hon. member for Vryburg made us take note of all the various bodies which are being created to provide this training.

During the past years, the training of the Bantu by means of the education system and other training facilities, has made considerable progress. In 1955 there were 970 230 primary pupils. In 1973 this figure had already increased to 3 276 742. During the same period there was an increase from 34 933 to 209 519 pupils in secondary schools. These are increases of 400% and 500% respectively. In 1975 19,8% of all Bantu were attending 11 947 schools and 62 879 teachers taught at these schools. This is 19,8% of all Bantu as against only 7% in 1945. Apart from formal academic education more and more attention is also being given to industrial and technical education. In advanced technical education at the moment 14 advanced courses are being offered at two colleges. Eight departmental industrial training centres are also being established to enable Bantu pupils to be able to take preparatory industrial subjects. Some of these centres are already functioning. Furthermore eight industrial centres are being established in White areas in order to serve industrialists who have common needs. The contribution of the State towards those centres is R100 000 for buildings and R100 000 for equipment per centre. There are also five ad hoc industrial schools, while four more schools of this type are being planned. 422 crash course attendants had already been tested during 1974. During 1974, 2 079 factory operators were trained at 17 ad hoc industrial schools.

The figures for university training also show a considerable advance. Prior to 1956 only 14 026 students were attending university. Between 1956 and 1973, 3 671 students graduated. During 1960, 481 students were registered and during 1974, 3 545.

The homelands are also being encouraged to create training facilities. The hon. member for Vryburg referred to this and I do not have to spell it out once again. Since the industrial training schemes were launched, 800 firms have requested the registration of schemes. Of these, 300 completed forms have been received by the Department of Bantu Education. A total of 270 schemes have already been put into operation and a further 30 schemes have been recommended for registration. These figures may already be rather antiquated, because the position changes from day to day. The remaining 100 requests have either been withdrawn or referred back to the applicants for adjustment. The Industrial Training division of the department, which deals with this matter, is in contact with industrialists every day and is constantly acting in an advisory capacity. During the past few years there have also been regular discussions and meetings between the department and industrialists, in order to inform the latter on the in-service training schemes. In general it may be accepted that if the Bantu acquire certain skills and qualify in certain directions, their remuneration increases accordingly. Over and above the increase in productivity this has brought about, there is also the tendency to renumerate the Bantu for cost-of-living increases and to narrow the wage gap between Whites and Bantu. This results in an accompanying higher standard of living.

To sum up, it may be said that formal training is necessary in the first instance and that informal and in-service training are made more effective by this. Training necessarily leads to increased productivity which in turn results in better possibilities for competition and offers the trained person the opportunity of a higher income with an accompanying higher standard of living. In this way the Government is creating a satisfied and happy community.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Middelburg has ranged far and wide in his speech, but of course the whole question of training does range far and wide. It was interesting to listen to the statistics he offered the House, but what was perhaps especially encouraging to this House was the renewed and initial interest in training on the part of the Government and its spokesmen. The motion before the House is indicative of this. It is probably a motion that would not have been on the Order Paper a few years ago.

This motion deals specifically with the promotion of the in-service training of Black industrial workers although, as I say, speakers have moved far beyond that. In a moment I shall return to that, but allow me to join with others in saying, initially, that the importance of training in South Africa for all workers, irrespective of race, cannot be overemphasized. It links up with productivity, with the question of the wage gap, with inflation, unemployment and the whole range of industrial subjects. In this climate of inflation, recession and unemployment, it is obviously important that training must not be limited only to Black workers. There will have to be considerable retraining of Black and White workers in order to meet the present situation. It is obviously particularly important to train the vast reservoir of Black workers. I suppose that, if one is to look at the history of this new development of interest by the Government, one can look back to the budget of 1974 in which tax concessions were offered to employers to enable, encourage and stimulate them to train their own employees.

Of course, we also had the very notable advance of the Bantu Employers’ In-Service Training Act, No. 86 of 1976. When one debates the motion before the House, one must inevitably return to the debate which took place on the introduction of this Bill in 1976. In this Act provision is made for certain public centres to be set up. These have been developed and some progress is recorded. There are also private centres which fall under the auspices of this Act and, furthermore, employers can apply for recognition of their own training schemes. I want to emphasize today that wide implications flow from the stress placed on in-service training and from this whole Act. I do not want to belabour the point that has already been made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, namely that this represents a frank and long overdue recognition of the fact that Blacks are a permanent part of urban South Africa. We do not have to labour the point, but we do have to stress how important it is that this should be recognized in every field. It is encouraging to note that this recognition is implicit and explicit in this emphasis on in-service training. Secondly, it is clear that the Government, together with the rest of South Africa and especially employers, no longer view the Black worker as a replaceable labour unit, but as an indispensable part of our total labour force which must be utilized to the full. This, too, is encouraging and an implication that we must not overlook. Thirdly, there is an obvious implication in the realization that, if we are going to maintain economic growth or, indeed, increase economic growth in South Africa, we have to talk meaningfully in terms of increased productivity. I agree with the hon. member for Middelburg when he emphasizes that one cannot have this increase in productivity unless one also stresses the training of all South Africa’s workers. A further implication which, I hope, will not go unnoticed, is the need for job mobility for Black workers. If one imposes a ceiling on those whom one is seeking to train, one is going to increase frustration rather than actually to resolve it. Immediately when one places a key in peoples’ hands and says to them that there are certain doors which are closed to them, they will want to start breaking down the doors and we cannot entertain that for one moment. We cannot cope with that.

Therefore I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who will be replying to the debate, that I hope that he appreciates and that the employers and all of us in South Africa realize that we are simply playing with fire if we increase education and training without also being prepared for the consequences which must flow from that as surely as night follows day. If we educate and train the Black workers, their chances for development and promotion must not be inhibited. We know that up to now their chances have been inhibited and that it is still the case today. Let me give a simple example of this. There is not only Government legislation on job reservation, but there is also a customary approach which has the effect that, even when the Government is prepared to move, the employer and his fellow-employers will not budge or that there will be resistance from a particular trade union.

When one looks again at the Bantu Employee’s In-Service Training Act and one reads through the debate of last year, one sees that some of us referred specifically to certain weaknesses of that Act. It strikes me as incongruous that the whole question of the training of Black workers, which we are debating, should fall under the auspices of the Department of Bantu Education. It is quite clear to me—I cast no reflection on the hon. the Deputy Minister or on the Minister—that it is simply basic common sense that when one talks about training and about industry, one is talking about something beyond education. One is then in the field of industry, and it seems to me that it makes far more sense for this to be handled by the Department of Labour itself. This matter is essentially industrial in character and therefore must inevitably have very wide repercussions which affect labour policies and patterns, and therefore I submit that it should fall under the Labour Department.

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would take a moment in his reply to tell us about the co-ordinating committee which was appointed in terms of this Act. During the debate last year I raised the question—not only in the second Reading, but also in the Committee Stage and again in the Third Reading—of the membership of that co-ordinating committee. I pointed out that in terms of the Act itself it was quite possible and highly probable that the total membership of that co-ordinating committee would be White. It seemed to me then and it still seems to me now that, if we are going to talk about the training of Black workers and the best possible way to implement this, it would make good sense to have someone, who is aware of Black aspirations, Black experience and Black know-how, directly involved as a member of that co-ordinating committee. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us who are actually members of that co-ordinating committee now and whether Blacks have direct access to it in order that they may be involved in the very training which is specifically designed for Blacks.

I want to suggest that the Bantu Employees’ In-Service Training Act simply does not go far enough. One has only to refer to the limited number of artisans in South Africa to realize the need for skilled workers in South Africa, the need for Blacks to be trained not only as operators or semi-skilled workers, but also as artisans. On that score I am fully aware that the legislation concerning apprenticeship makes no reference to race whatsoever, and that is a refreshing change. Nevertheless, despite this, it is almost impossible for a Black man to train and to qualify as an artisan in South Africa. Why is this? I think that there are three reasons. First of all, there seems to exist an enormous amount of confusion in the Labour Department itself. Here again, one inevitably has to talk about the Labour Department as the repercussions spill over. Then, of course, there is the resistance and the attitude of certain trade unions which prevent this from taking place and also, I must say, the timidity of most employers. In this connection the South African Government should rethink its immigration policy. Instead of bringing in so many foreigners to fill the posts for skilled workers, we should train those Blacks who actually qualify and who are ready to move into this area.

Substantial progress has been made. Liberal tax concessions allow companies a 98% rebate on costs associated with the training of Black workers. However, in three years fewer than 200 training schemes have been registered with the Department of Bantu Education. Naturally, these figures have to be updated. First of all it seemed to me that the number of training schemes was in the region of about 200, but then I asked the hon. the Minister how many employers had applied up to the end of 1976 to have training schemes for Black employees approved by his department and was told that 399 applications had been received, of which 260 were approved. I further asked what total number of employees was involved, and I received a strange reply on 4 February of this year: “The information is not readily available. No statistics are supplied to my department on the number of employees who have been trained in such schemes.” That seems a strange thing. If the department is responsible for this, if they receive applications and vet those applications, I would have thought that it stands to reason that the department should be kept informed of how many employees are actually being trained under the schemes which have been approved by the department itself. The hon. member for Jeppe has put another question to the hon. the Minister and I understand that he is going to deal with that matter, so I shall not refer to it as well. Let me say, however, that employers are simply not taking advantage of the concessions and the opportunities that are made available by the Government. I know that it is generally thought that we in the Opposition benches blame the Government for everything, but it is true that the Government is to blame for a great deal. However, I want to make an appeal to employers throughout South Africa to take advantage of the opportunities and the schemes that this Government makes available.

You are really a boring clergyman.

Some employers have complained about excessive red tape. I therefore hope the department will do everything in its power to make it as easy as possible for employers to avail themselves of the opportunities afforded them.

In the final couple of minutes at my disposal I want to bring one case before the House, a case which I believe indicates a very short-sighted approach by the department. I am referring to the Transvaal clothing college in Johannesburg. If we are going to commend the Government for its stressing of, emphasis on and positive attitude towards in-service training, I must add that I think the Government is being very short-sighted indeed in its relationship with this particular college. This college has been given until October 1977, I understand, to stop training Africans, failing which it will have to close down. The Bantu In-service Training Act prohibits the college from offering Africans any courses other than those relating to their employment. It may not be generally known that the unions contributed nearly R25 000, through a six cent weekly contribution by the 19 000 Blacks employed by the industry in the Transvaal. Without this money, obviously, the college must collapse. It would have to close down. At the moment the college trains an average of 35 full-time students per year from all race groups for managerial and design positions. In addition, about 200 part-time students, mostly unskilled Black workers in the clothing industry, are learning advanced skills. I fail to understand why, if we are concerned about training and wish to emphasize training, this college should be penalized. Surely, there must be some way in which a multiracial training college can be accommodated in the total training needs of South Africa. It is true that training is getting new recognition, but it is equally true that it is only a very, very small beginning.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands put certain questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister and I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to those questions. Therefore I do not want to react to what the hon. member said here myself. When one looks at the definition of industrial training, one sees that one of the aims is to equip the employee better for the work he does in the industry to which he is attached. It is the primary goal of training to make a positive contribution towards the greater productivity of the Black worker. According to the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch, approximately 290 000 workers enter the labour market annually. 240 000 of these are Blacks. It is important not only to find work for these people, but also to know that when they are employed, they will be trained and equipped for the work they do. The Government and the private sector realized that the demand for and the continued training of Black workers has never occurred on so large as is the case at present. Several years ago the position was quite different. At that time—in contrast to the position with regard to manual labour— the biggest stumbling block as regards the employment of Black workers in modern industry was their lack of training. Therefore it was probably one of the most important developments in recent years when sincere, country-wide concern arose concerning the education and training of Blacks in our country. Since education is a matter for the Government, the Government realized that it had a direct and indirect interest in the matter and that it had to assist in the training of Black workers. This was accompanied by the rapid economic growth and the shortage of trained White workers as a result of which we in South Africa realized that without utilizing Black labour, we would never be able to cope economically in trade and industry.

Another important factor which we must bear in mind, is that the existence of the homelands has become a fact and that it is necessary to be able to furnish these people too, with training, education and leadership on all levels. It must be possible for their people, too, to be trained for that purpose. This is especially significant as regards the border areas because these areas will actually become the manpower market of the homelands. Above all they will have to provide skilled manpower and entrepreneurs on all levels. For this reason the Government saw the necessity of the creation of training opportunities for the Bantu and of the development of such opportunities. The most rapid and effective way of providing for these two requirements, was to be found in the method of in-service training, because one was dealing with people who were already involved in an industry and had some knowledge of it, so that it was only necessary to develop their skill further. In other words, in-service training complies with the requirement of urgency. There is no real waste of time involved in the training. For this reason the Government has taken three very positive steps.

I should like to discuss the three steps in more detail. Firstly, there are the tax concessions which have been made. Secondly, the department established centres at schools where pupils could take industrially-orientated subjects and courses on a part-time basis. Thirdly, in terms of the 1976 Act, in-service training centres were established. As far as the training of Black workers in industry is concerned, the Government took these three steps and in this way displayed a positive attitude towards this problem. Firstly, it was decided in 1974, to assist and encourage employers by means of tax concessions, to train their employees. As a result the Income Tax Act of 1962 was amended accordingly in order to arrange these matters. In order to qualify for the tax concessions, employers had to apply to the Department of Bantu Education in this regard. So far, 142 similar schemes have already been approved and 423 different industrial courses are already being offered. These courses include welding, woodwork, machining, bricklaying and plastering and there are also courses for motor workshop assistants, textile operators etc.

Secondly, it was decided that the Department of Bantu Education would contribute directly towards offering industrially-orientated courses to pupils at school, as part of and supplementary to the normal school education. Centralized departmental centres have been planned and erected for this purpose in densely populated Black urban areas. Eight of these centres have been erected at a cost of R2 720 000. Apart from this, three more are being planned and there are also plans for extensions to those already in existence. When all these centres have been completed, approximately 60 000 pupils will be able to receive training in industrially-orientated courses every year. However, I want to repeat that this is supplementary to normal school education. The eight centres are distributed over a wide area in practically every major centre in our country, with two in Soweto, one in the Vaal triangle, one in Pietermaritzburg, one in Durban, one in Port Elizabeth, one in Pretoria and one in Natalspruit, while further centres are being planned for Kempton Park and Pretoria. There are three homeland Governments, namely the Ciskei, Lebowa and KwaZulu, that have expressed a desire for similar centres to be erected in the homelands. The trade subjects offered are electrical work, bricklaying, plastering, wood and plastic work, metalwork and welding. After the pupils have undergone orientation instruction in their trade subjects, they can choose one of two of these trade subjects in order to qualify to the junior matric level. The training at this centre is free and pupils are also given free transport to and from the schools where they undergo their normal class education.

These centres also needed well-trained Black instructors. Therefore a start was made in 1976 to train 30 instructors at the Molapo centre in Soweto, and this year a further 30 instructors are being trained intensively.

However, it must also be realized that the training schemes were not the final answer to the problem. Therefore, in the third place, it was decided to plan and erect centrally-situated industrial training centres in 8 White industrial areas. The co-ordinating council for the in-service training of Black employees which advises the Minister on the in-service training of Blacks, recommended that centres be erected at the following places: Pretoria, the Eastern Rand, the West Rand, the Vaal triangle, Bloemfontein, Port Elizabeth, Pinetown and Potchefstroom. The Potchefstroom centre is mainly geared to servicing agriculture, with a view to training in the handling of agricultural machinery in particular.

The Government adopts the standpoint that the training of Black industrial workers is basically the responsibility of industry because employers already receive considerable tax concessions in respect of expenses they incur in the training of Black workers. Concessions of 98% to 100% are authorized for this purpose. Therefore the Government only provides the funds for the erection and equipment of these centres, while the running costs are borne by organized trade and industry.

Two of these centres came into operation during 1975, namely those at Bloemfontein and on the West Rand, while the three centres at Pinetown, Sebokeng and Port Elizabeth began their training in January 1976. Other centres will be occupied during 1977. The centres are erected to provide for the joint training requirements of local trade and industry. These centres are situated in established or developing industrial areas. The courses offered at present, or being planned, are intended for the industries in the area in which the centres are situated.

The Department of Bantu Education furnishes the centres with vocational guidance and advice. The department acts in co-operation with organized industry, particularly in determining and co-ordinating training requirements, planning of production-orientated courses and the length of such courses, drawing up of syllabuses and the testing and certification of trained workers.

Since the legislation in connection with the training of Black workers in industry came into effect, the number of Black workers trained by Government bodies is as follows: The Department of Bantu Administration and Development has trained 1 407 workers, while the Bantu Investment Corporation has trained 1 750. The Department of Forestry has trained 4 925 workers; Escom, 1 139; the Post Office, 26; the South African Railways, 3 127; the Department of Water Affairs, 12 000; and Iscor, 1 463. This is a total of 25 837.

One must also take note with appreciation of the training which State departments provide for Black workers in their own circle. For instance, we call to mind the South African Railways and the Post Office, that have trained more than 55 000 Black workers on a regional basis where it was necessary to make them better qualified for their work. We also call to mind the hotel school at Ga-Rankuwa which is used by the Hotel Board for training of Black cooks. All this is done to train the Blacks to become independent and look after themselves. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to support the motion of the hon. member for Vryburg, namely that the House notes with approval the Government’s active and positive attitude towards the promotion of the in-service training of Black industrial workers.

Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that this debate more properly concerns the Department of Labour, but nevertheless it is, of course, a debate which concerns Bantu education, because the introducer of the motion is commending the question of in-service training, which, for some reason or other, has fallen to the lot of the Department of Bantu Education. The general approach of the introducer of the motion and of those who have supported him, and I think one might even say, of those on this side of the House who have spoken on the motion, seems to indicate quite clearly that everyone is quite pleased with the fact that the Government has taken some positive steps in promoting in-service training for Black workers. This, of course, received the approval of the House last year when, I believe, there was agreement on all sides of the House that the Bill had been introduced timeously if not perhaps somewhat belatedly.

Therefore, there is not very much controversy in this particular matter with regard to the fact that a positive attitude has been adopted by the Government. I am really concerned about the question of the activity of the Government in relation to the training of Black workers, the question of ensuring that there should be proper training with proper objectives.

It is on this matter that I should like to say a few words, but before I do so, I might perhaps relieve the House of its expectancy with regard to the information disclosed to me by the hon. the Deputy Minister through questions which I put to him. Prior to the promulgation of Act 86 of 1976, eight public centres has been registered or established. Since then none. Prior to the promulgation of the Act, that is prior to 30 June 1976, one private centre had been registered or established, and since then none. Private schemes, that is to say, schemes run by employers themselves in their own businesses, their own industries, their own factories, numbered 206 prior to the promulgation of the Act. Since then a further 62 have been registered, making a total of 268. The total number of workers who have received in-service training during that period is 77 726: Public centres accounted for 1 662, private centres for 963 and the private schemes—schemes run personally by employers in their factories—for 75 101, making a total of 77 726. It is also interesting to note that, prior to the promulgation of the Act, the State spent some R271 225 on this, with an additional R36 382 thereafter, making a total of R307 607. The Department of Public Works, however, provided the bulk of the money in the form of buildings, viz. R855 462, of which R2 282 774 was spent prior to the promulgation of the Act. These are the figures, and whilst one is appreciative of the fact that something has been done, I think it certainly indicates the paucity of the effort that has been made.

I do not necessarily want to indulge in recriminations about the Government’s failure to be more active and more positive in the past, during the many wasted years when the Government devoted most of its energy and activity to restrict, hamper and shackle the training and advancement of Black individual workers in this country. Let us rather face up to the problems which are presenting themselves to our country today. With the present economic slowdown and the consequent unemployment rising to somewhat high figures and possibly near-dangerous dimensions— and this is something which is not only common to the Republic these days—it may seem somewhat strange to warn the Government how vital and important it is to proceed rapidly with the necessary provision of in-training facilities and other training facilities for Blacks. I do wish to refer, however, to the observations of a Mr. J. A. Parsons, who is a well-respected research officer in Johannesburg. He is the senior research officer of the Human Resources Laboratory of the Chamber of Mines, who made a recent study of manpower needs for the future in South Africa. I do so in order to illustrate to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the House how essential it will be to proceed at a very rapid pace in the training of Blacks, not only in the skilled and semi-skilled field, but also in the field of managerial posts. Before doing so, however, let me give some figures which illustrate the urgency of a more positive approach.

I am now going to deal with research which has been done by some leading people in this country, who have presented their findings in book form. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister might find this in the library. This research indicates that by the end of this century, when the population is expected to reach about 60 million, 10% of the active labour force will be White, whereas 60% of the active labour force will be required for skilled jobs, as foremen, skilled workers, salesmen, managers, etc. while 40% will be required in the semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. With the present system prevailing, of the restriction of the movement of Black labour, of job reservation, of the slow pace of training, Planning of the Environment Act, of the lack of negotiation provisions, 10% of the active labour force of the population will have to cover or be expanded to cover 60% of the jobs, i.e. the jobs which require skilled personnel. Ninety per cent of the active work population, the remainder of the labour population, will be compressed virtually into the remaining 40% of the jobs. Although these figures are only approximations, in my opinion they should be sufficient to destroy the belief held in certain circles that genuine growth, leading to much greater national wealth and prosperity for all, is possible without relinquishing the current restrictive practices which effectively bar most non-Whites from the skilled and managerial type of jobs.

The legislative restrictions are also aggravated, I must confess, by traditional and historical prejudices and attitudes amongst people in the general industrial and commercial fields. These too must change and become more accommodating if our population is to continue to exist harmoniously and contentedly in our plural society. The changes that will have to occur in the South African economy of the next 20 to 25 years, to accommodate the exploding population, are vast indeed and it is essential that we take positive steps, based on proper planning, so that we do not explode suddenly into a position which, because of need and demand for labour, will become chaotic.

I should now like to deal with Mr. Parsons’ conclusions. His first conclusion was this—

He goes further and quotes another research officer, Dr. Wyndham, who in 1975 used a different method and different assumptions from those of Mr. Parsons. He states—

This indicates the urgency of the need and the importance of accelerating the pace of training and accelerating the pace of provision of immediate planning which the Government must undertake in order to ensure that all these demands will be met to as great an extent as possible. This is supported, interestingly enough, also by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who themselves presented a memorandum and gave evidence before the Cillié Commission very recently in connection with the riots, because the whole issue became pertinent to them, not only when dealing with the cause of the riots and not only with regard to the social side, but also with regard to the socio-economic side. They support this issue completely. They go on to emphasize how restrictive legislation is hampering the achievement of what is required in this country and the solution to this particular problem. Dealing with job reservation, as an example, they say—

In other words, this means that although there were not enough people to fill these vacancies, they were reserved for Whites despite the fact that there were Blacks available who could take up some of these posts. They go on to say—

They then deal with the Environment Planning Act, the job reservation provision in the Industrial Conciliation Act, the question of freedom of movement and a revision of the entire influx control proceedings. They say that this lack of freedom, not only as regards the Blacks themselves, but also with regard to employers in the engaging of such employees as they may wish, is another vital hampering effect in the placing of these people in employment. They give many figures to illustrate this. As regards skilled training facilities for Africans, they say that—

This means that the enrolment was insufficient to cover what was provided for. They also point out that whilst 3 300 students enrolled in 23 Black schools in 16 trades, there were only 520 jobs available in these categories. At the same time 8 628 jobs were available in these categories for Whites. This shows just how job reservation interferes with the normal movement and development of proper labour requirements in our country.

I want to conclude on this point. My objective in bringing this information to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister is that whilst all of us agree on the importance and the value of the in-service training and whilst we approve of the Government’s positive attitude in proceeding with it, we cannot agree with the pace of the training, nor can we accept that this Government has any true appreciation, bearing in mind the long-term point of view of the development of the economy of the country, of what is required in respect of the problems that will have to be met. We must make our plans now and put them into execution. It is in this direction that the hon. the Deputy Minister may play a part in persuading his Government to look at the matter more realistically, to try to minimize these hampering factors.

Therefore, I want to say, finally, that the principle of job reservation, as entrenched in legislation, which has now been virtually admitted by the Government to be purely a symbol of the protection of the White worker, has become a symbol of the humiliation of the White worker who requires no job protection in the modem era where efficiency depends on the merit of a worker’s production and not on the colour of his skin. This humiliating symbol has aroused the scorn of the worker abroad. It is to our shame in our own country that we still persist in maintaining this system, even although every Government speaker boasts that it only prevails to the extent of 1½%. Yet this system is maintained for other purposes; obviously these are political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the debate which has been conducted, I should like to express my sincere appreciation to all members of this House who participated in the discussion. In particular I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Vryburg for the way in which he introduced the motion and for the exceptional way in which he furnished particulars of what was being done by the Government and other bodies in the interests of the in-service training of Black employees. I also want to express my thanks to the hon. members for Middelburg and Alberton, as well as to the hon. member for Hillbrow—I shall come to him again in a moment—the hon. member for Pinelands as well as to the hon. member for Jeppe who has just spoken.

I think we are unanimous as far as this matter is concerned. There is a great need for the in-service training of Black employees. Both sides of this House are perhaps not equally eloquent in their appreciation for what the Government has already done, yet I do think that the Opposition, who did not speak in opposition this afternoon although they could not refrain from expressing criticism, are to a certain extent confronted by a dilemma. On the one hand reproaches of negligence in respect of the training of employees, and so on, are levelled at the Government, but on the other hand the hon. members on that side of the House had tremendous approbation for the reproach that the Government is doing too much on a level where private enterprise should actually be operating. This is a very difficult dilemma for hon. members of the Opposition, because before one makes too many demands on the Government in respect of interference in training programmes, and so on, one has to ask oneself whether it is not interference in a sphere in which private enterprise should emerge more prominently. Of course it has to take place under the eye of the Government, to ensure that all interests which are relevant to such a matter, are protected and taken care of.

I have already expressed my appreciation for the contributions made by hon. members, and I should now like to deal with a few of the matters they raised. Perhaps I shall not be able to deal with all the aspects they raised, but I should like to give the undertaking that if they remind me I should like to react further to those aspects during the discussion of the Bantu Education Vote. Perhaps I do not have all the answers available this afternoon, but I gladly undertake to look into the matter and report on it further.

Because the hon. member for Hillbrow was the main speaker on the Opposition side and said various things to which I definitely have to react, I want to single out a few little aspects which he touched upon. I want to begin by saying that I think he cast an unnecessary reflection on Dr. Verwoerd, who was supposedly not in favour of the training, instruction and even education of Black children. I do not think that was a fair reference. The object of Dr. Verwoerd, the then Minister of Native Affairs, with the take-over of education by the central Government was to afford mass education to the largest possible number of Black children for a minimum period of four years. This was defined in the 1953 Act. With that a foundation was laid, for any right-minded person realizes that one cannot content oneself with four years schooling. The foundation is laid for a need for further training, instruction and education. I do not think that the hon. member was being fair to the memory of Dr. Verwoerd. In addition I want to point out to him that it was in the time of Dr. Verwoerd—I think I am correct when I say this—that the legislation for separate universities for the various population groups was passed with a view to affording the various national communities an opportunity of having institutions for higher education which would be symbols of the pride of those particular peoples. It is an opportunity which they did not have with the universities which existed at the time.

I should like to point out another little matter as well. The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to the “permanence” of the Black man in the White area. That is merely a word. Suppose we were to accept the “permanence” of the Black man in the White area, then the question of what one is going to do with the people who were, after all, “permanent” in the White area, would still remain. However this is not merely a question for the Nationalists and those people who are conscious of race or nation; it is also a political question, and I think in view of the politics of the hon. member for Hillbrow and his party, a matter of conscience. He has to give political answers to that question, and give answers on the social level. It is when those answers are given that the paths visualized by that party and those visualized by our party, diverge.

I think I have already referred in passing to the hon. member for Hillbrow’s idea that the Government should do this and the Government should do that. It is not fundamentally the task of the Government to provide that kind of training for which hon. members were asking. Here private enterprise and the employer must come into prominence. We find it in other spheres as well that employers simply think that they may employ people, while they do not even make provision for the accommodation of those people. Then they run to the State, which then has to provide the accommodation. In that way these people cause the entire reproach which they level at the Government to miscarry, the reproach that the Government is stifling private enterprise in this country. It is a contradiction in which hon. members on that side of the House are entangled. However, where does the difference in approach emerge very clearly? As the hon. member opposite put it—and this also strikes a responsive chord among members of the PRP and others—the overall population of South Africa of 25 or 26 million people—not only those in the definable White areas, but also those in Coloured group areas and in the homelands—is regarded as one community. As a further simplification it is said that they may be regarded as “one modem, mature economic society”. It is really a very one-sided view of the human reality in South Africa to see this only through the spectacles of an economist and to speak only of an economic community. It is not only an attenuation of the reality in South Africa, but a disregard of the facts in South Africa. It has nothing to do with blind ideology, but with the basic reality in South Africa. The basic reality in South Africa is not only economic interests and is not only that we have an economic community. There are, it is true, economic interests and realities which have to be taken into consideration, but if one is going to absolutize without mentioning social, political and cultural realities, it places one beyond the factual realities in South Africa. In my opinion this is the mistake the hon. member for Hillbrow made.

The hon. member implied—and this also became apparent from speeches made by other hon. members on that side of the House—that they consider this training to be insignificant. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to 3 500 artisans as well as to 400 who were receiving training. Against this several facts may be set. At present there are 3 800 persons receiving training in trade schools. These are people at present receiving training, to say nothing of those who have already been trained. 2 713 have already passed the tests to acquire artisan status. This gives a different picture to the one the hon. member wanted to depict. During the past five years 9 568 persons have undergone tests after the completion of crash courses. These are people for whose services and skills a specific need arose. To meet that need, crash courses were offered in five different places. A need arose, for surely one is not going to train people for something unless a need arises. The need was determined, and for that reason those crash courses were introduced. I reiterate that during the past five years there have been 9 568 people who completed those tests.

Then, too, there are the ad hoc industrial schools at which 2 031 people were trained during the same period. At Mdantsane in East London there is a textile school at which 3 458 people have been trained during the past five years.

Are those operators?

We are referring now to needs which exist. We come to the managerial posts as well. I would concede that hon. members were correct if they pointed to a need which exists in that sphere. I do not think we will argue about these needs, but when it comes to the manner of filling the need, the paths do indeed diverge, for then we do not consider the whole of South Africa to be a country without differentiated communities in that country whose interests have to be looked after. I want to point out that 9 036 registration certificates were issued to Bantu under the Bantu Building Workers Act alone. These grant artisan status in the building industry. I think it only fair that one should mention this figure as well, even if we do say that it does not present the complete picture. I think one should also take into consideration that when people are being provided with in-service training according to the requirements of circumstances which exist in that specific category of work, it is nevertheless training which meets specific needs.

Hon. members referred to vacancies on the managerial level and elsewhere. We can discuss this and of course we must give this our consideration, but in fact I want to dispute and question the idea that one should simply provide training, that one should embark on tremendous training programmes without first having identified the precise need for which one wants to train those people. Once one has identified the needs for which training is necessary, it needs to be asked in what area this is, for South Africa is not simply a piece of land which belongs to everyone. On this the two sides of the House differ fundamentally. Hon. members on that side of the House proceed from the concept that South Africa is one big country, and that in this one big country 26 million people have an equal claim, regardless of ethnic context, cultural context, background and the fact that there are certain regions in the country which belong historically to certain peoples and communities. That is apparently the approach of that side.

Economically we are a unity.

That is the very problem I have with the hon. member. He peers through a pair of economic spectacles and says that we are economically indivisible, but the economic reality is not the total reality. The question still remains: Where does the person live who is part of the overall economic unity? That hon. member, and perhaps, too, the hon. member for Parktown, would not mind if members of other race groups moved in next to them in their residential area, but there are people who would indeed mind if this were to happen. The same person who now has a share in the undivided economy of South Africa, has the franchise in South Africa. Where is the hon. member going to afford him his franchise? He differentiates among this general population and does not want to afford him the same franchise on the same voters’ roll. This he took over from the NP. The hon. member accepts that he now has to vote on another voters’ roll and that he now has to live in another residential area. Is it not true that he accepts that? In other words, when one comes to the political implications, which are also relevant to labour, the hon. members are more inclined to think in terms of differentiation and the distinction which does indeed have to be drawn.

In my opinion this is the error in the philosophic approach on that side of the House. Hon. members are always referring to the ideology or the political philosophy of this side. Those hon. members also have a specific political philosophy. In our political philosophy we do not want one simply to visualize the total population as a whole, or that one should fragment the social, the economic, the educational, the cultural and the political and deal with each aspect separately. We want a total vision of the total reality in South Africa. Then one cannot simply speak of one undivided economy. Even if the communities are economically intertwined, this question still remains: In what designated living-space of an ethnic group is this labour taking place? Where are the workers living? Whose area is it? Who, in the final instance, has the say within this specific area? We on this side reject the idea of a kind of “common society” or the idea of grey areas. Who is ultimately going to have control over such a grey area? Is it going to be a grey control? If it is simply a grey control here on the lower level, because it need not be on the highest parliamentary level, surely it is power-sharing. It is power-sharing and then, while one might perhaps have political division in the top structure—as those hon. members apparently want, because they want a differentiation in administration, at least on the second level …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must not stray too far from the motion.

I gladly abide by your ruling, Sir, but the hon. member led me into a very interesting side-issue and, by your leave, I shall return to him later [Interjections.] The hon. member who is now sitting there smiling with such pleasure, should really have discussed the motion but then made all kinds of references to “philosophy”, “one economic unity” and that kind of thing. Perhaps the same also applies to the hon. member for Pinelands who, if I remember correctly, referred to “uninhibited training”. In this regard what I want is that we should identify the need.

No, I did not refer to “uninhibited training”, but to uninhibited mobility, job opportunity.

Which really amounts to the same thing, and it would mean free mobility of every single labourer, so that he would have an equal claim with any other individual to offer his labour in every possible place—it makes no difference where. If he is going to be allowed to offer his labour anywhere, it goes without saying that he will have to be allowed to live anywhere, wherever he wished. We shall not be able to impose restrictions on him as far as his residential area is concerned. I do not want to hit the hon. member below the belt, but then he must not say that people may not climb through the fence at a certain place in Pinelands. Neither should one, if that person has to walk down Camp Street, subsequently move to South Way and then to Tomato Street, or wherever one might eventually end up!

The hon. member put a question in regard to the composition of the co-ordinating council. Apparently it vexes the hon. member that the co-ordinating council does not also have a non-White representative. The fact of the matter is surely that the co-ordinating council concerns itself with the training requirements of White employers and White employees. Surely this is the area within which the co-ordinating council acts. However, I do not think that the interests of the employee are placed out of perspective as a result of that. After all, it is in the first place the White employers and the White employees’ organizations in the White area who are brought together in a council and who take care of their interests and in addition, too, look after the interests of the Black employees. We make no apology for this, for we do not consider the Black employee in a White area to have precisely the same claim as the White employee, and hon. members may differ with us if they like. Nor do we look after the interests of the Blacks only in the White areas here where they sell their labour, we are also engaged in the training of Black employees to make them skilled so that they may plough back their labour in their own area and among their own people. In certain work categories use is made of migrant labour to an extent of up to 92%. Such a migrant labourer is supposed to return to his homeland, and if he receives his training here and is able to return to his homeland as a skilled worker, he is an asset to his homeland. In other words, we are not merely discriminating negatively against people; we are affording them an opportunity of being trained, but—and we are not ashamed to admit this—we accept that there is a White area in which a White say has preference, just as there are Black areas in which the claim of the Black man has preference.

I have in fact already replied to various aspects which hon. members raised. The hon. member for Pinelands, however, made another interesting statement which in my opinion boomerangs a little on the criticism levelled at us. The hon. member said that he actually had to reproach the employers for not having made use of the opportunities that were being afforded by the Government. After all, that was what the hon. member said, was it not?

Exactly what I said!

In other words, the hon. member for Pinelands gives the Government credit for having in fact created opportunities and scope for the training of Black employees and he reproaches the employers for not having made sufficient use of the opportunities. In my opinion this statement destroys a lot of the criticism that was laid at the door of this Government, implying that the Government was not doing enough to promote the training of Black employees.

I do not think it is necessary for me to react to the very able speeches made by the hon. members for Vryburg, Alberton and Middelburg or to go into everything they mentioned, but for the sake of interest I want to refer hon. members to one specific scheme in which no fewer than 200 courses are being offered. For certain reasons I am not mentioning the name of this specific scheme now, but hon. members will be able to deduce for themselves that it has to do with the iron and steel industry. The 200 training courses were considered by the Department of Bantu Education. We have a special division dealing with industrial training and in this case 200 courses were considered and approved. We went to inspect the localities where the training will take place, and we examined the courses. It may interest hon. members to hear what kind of courses are being offered there. There is, for example, a course for concrete pavers lasting 24 hours, a course for quench drum attendants lasting 32 hours, and courses for mixing drum attendants and pug mill workers lasting 24 and 32 hours, respectively. The pug mill worker has nothing whatsoever with the politics of the hon. members of the PRP! There is also, for example, a course lasting 32 hours for granulated slag workers. If it was only a matter of silt, I could perhaps have given an indication, but what is involved here is “granulated slag”. [Interjections.] There is a course for cooling bank attendants and a course for coke driers—this has nothing to do with the hon. member for Stilfontein— and then there are seven courses dealing with various aspects of a pit man assistant. This has nothing to do with the hon. member for Durban North, for it is a pit man assistant who is being trained there! There is also a course—this may refer to the hon. member for Pinelands—in light mills finishings! [Interjections.] So, too, there is a course for casting ladle preparers and I wonder, with all due respect, whether this could not be a pointer in the political sphere to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps to the former judge, Mr. Justice Kowie Marais, who are preparing some or other political casting ladle! There is even a course for anticorrosion coaters—perhaps they need this on that side of the House. There is a course for greasers.

This is no reference to certain forms of journalism; the active practitioners are sitting right in front of me! There is also a course for catchers. I should still like to see who the catchers are that are going to catch the greasers! There is a course for fork-lifters lasting 92 hours. I do not know where I should seek the following team in Parliament, but there is even a course for dolly carriers and tipplers. A course for supervisors lasting 160 hours is also being offered. I think it is important to know that all this training is taking place within one scheme only. In this scheme there are 200 courses which were all examined, tested and checked by the Department of Bantu Education with regard to the contents and the duration of the course and what certification could be issued after the completion of the course. We had to assess whether the training did not perhaps form part of the normal production. We had to institute an investigation into how much of the training took place away from the conveyor belt, as it were, and how much of the training took place during production; otherwise the people cannot lay claim to the full tax rebate. Another question we have to answer in this regard is whether everything is taking place according to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. This is a matter which has to be cleared up with the Department of Labour. The co-ordinating council decides whether the scheme may be recommended for approval by the Secretary for the Department of Bantu Education. What is also involved in such a scheme—and this is a major task—is the testing of instructions and the task of furnishing those instructions with guidance where necessary. In addition equipment has to be provided and it has to be ensured that the localities chosen are suitable for this training.

I do not think I need to say anything further about this motion. I want to thank hon. members once again for their contributions, and I think we can congratulate the department on the progress which has been made. We have not reached the end of the progress, but we can congratulate the department on the progress which has already been made. We can also congratulate the co-ordinating council on its efforts in this regard and express the hope that this in-service training will be of great benefit within the White area, of great benefit to the Black employees and consequently, indirectly, of great benefit to our Bantu homelands or fatherland regions as well.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister sincerely for his illuminating, clear and comprehensive reply to this motion. I should also like to thank my colleagues from Middelburg and Alberton for the support they gave me with their sound and responsible speeches. I should also like to thank members of the Opposition for their contributions, contributions which were presented at a high level. This motion definitely succeeded in its aim of bringing to the attention of the House the good work which the Government is doing in this connection. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to withdraw the motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.