Mr Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already said and I shall deal with any remaining matters during the Committee Stage.

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 9, after “officer” to insert:
   , save for questions which may incriminate him in respect of any offence,

I should like to motivate this amendment in response to some of the comments that have been made on it. There is no objection on our part to any person who enters or leaves the Republic being required to furnish an official with full particulars of the goods that are in his possession and which he either brought with him into the Republic or which he intends to take out of the Republic. Also there is no objection to an official being entitled to require him to produce and open the goods for his inspection. Both those things are necessary in order for the officer to make a determination as to whether it is permissible to export and to import and, secondly, whether there would be any duties payable in the appropriate circumstances. Therefore there is no problem about giving the information to enable the decision to be made as to whether the goods can be exported or imported and what the duty is in respect of that. Nor can we object to the fact that when an official asks a man to answer a question that he should answer truthfully and properly. However, there is a principle and that principle is contained in the amendment, namely that no person should be required to answer a question that incriminates him. That is an ancient principle; it is a principle that is enshrined in our law and it is part of the system of justice that we have in South Africa. Therefore in the furnishing of all this information a person should not be placed in a position where he will incriminate himself. All that we are doing with this amendment is to seek to enshrine that ancient principle in our law. Therefore, without in any way prejudicing the operations of the customs and without in any way prejudicing the functioning and the obtaining of information, we want to enshrine that principle which is important to us in so far as the law is concerned.

Mr Chairman, to start with I just want to say that the principle that is now being included in this clause is no new principle in this Act. The hon member for Yeoville will concede that if he had studied the Act a little, he would have found that there were similar provisions in the Act.

On other matters.

I want to refer the hon member specifically to section 12(5)(b) of the Act, which deals with goods that are being transported, and that section reads as follows:

In other words, it is a principle that is already contained in this Act. I admit that it is an important facet of our law that no person is expected to incriminate himself as regards the committing of an offence. This is an important principle in our law. That is why a confession may not be taken down by a peace officer unless that person has been warned in advance that what he says may be used in evidence against him.

I want to point out to the hon member that we are dealing with a very special case here. The hon member will know that according to the present procedure, that person is already to a certain extent making an admission, depending on which one of the two lanes he takes. The moment he takes the green lane, he is tacitly saying, without a single question having been put to him, that he has nothing to declare. This is very important.

But that is his choice.

The purpose of the clause is two-fold. In the first place its purpose is that the State must receive all the revenue due to it. I do not think the hon member has any objection to that. The State must receive that revenue, and it must be collected properly. The second purpose of the clause is in fact to prevent that person from having to be charged in court. The questions are put to him, and if he answers them the matter is cleared up without his having to go to court. This is a very important difference.

If he tells the truth.

Yes, if he tells the truth, he need not be prosecuted. This is in fact the difference.

It is a fact that if the clause is amended as the hon member for Yeoville has proposed, and that person sees that he is going to incriminate himself, and admits that he is importing those goods and has therefore committed an offence, we cannot help him. Then there is only one option, and the person has to go to court. That is what this specific clause is seeking to prevent. We want to prevent that person, who has goods in his possession that he did not declare, from having to go to court. For that reason I feel that the amendment moved by the hon member is in fact frustrating the purpose of the clause. That is why I cannot accept it.

Mr Chairman, I want to respond briefly. I regret that the hon the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment. There are two points which I should like to make. The first is that the fact that in other clauses there are provisions which are unacceptable does not mean that we must support unacceptable provisions in this clause. Therefore, with respect, that argument is not of substance.

Secondly, the choice as to whether he answers to the question or not, still remains with the person concerned. He can therefore come along and answer at his choice a question which incriminates him. He can say that he is sorry that he went through the green channel, but he actually has a five gallon bottle of Chanel No 5 in his bag. He can then disclose it and he can be taxed on it. I see that the Commissioner is laughing. He is actually laughing at the thought of the duty he can collect on a five gallon bottle of Chanel No 5 because that would really be substantial. The point is that the person concerned has the choice as to whether he should answer or not. Correctly then the customs have the choice as to whether they will let him just pay the duty or whether they will take him to court because he is actually trying to get through without making the declaration. The choice as to whether to answer the incriminating question or not would therefore still be with the person seeking to pass through, if we use the hon the Deputy Minister’s example of the green channel.

I accept that the hon the Deputy Minister will not accept the amendment. I regret that, but maybe at a future date we shall be able to convince him.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Sir, I would like to deal with this schedule and at the same time also with what the hon member for Overvaal had to say on Friday. On Friday the hon member read a portion from an article which appeared in a financial publication in order to show that there were no problems in the footwear industry, in fact that everything was well in the footwear industry and that the imposition of duties was sufficient to deal with the problems of that industry. What the hon member did I find remarkably surprising. He said he was quoting from a publication without giving its name or the date of issue. He then proceeded to read a portion of the article totally out of context, which I think was a little naughty on the part of the hon member, to put it mildly.

What the hon member did not say was that the Prime Minister himself told the footwear industry that the answer to its problems was increased productivity and “to stop moaning about it”, to use the words of the article. What the hon member did not say was that the Footwear Manufacturers’ Federation had objected to import penetration. The hon member also did not say that imports were expected to exceed by 26,4% the total sales this year. The hon member decided not to quote this. What the hon member also did not quote was that Amrel, the chief executor of which he quoted here, happens to be the biggest importer of shoes in South Africa and is the biggest offender in respect of this very matter. They are profiting from it while it is the industry which is being paralysed in these circumstances. I would now like to quote from another publication, from the Manufacturing Review of South Africa. I quote from page 20, where Mr Lindert, the director of the Footwear Manufacturers’ Federation said that the footwear industry worth R600 million was being strangled by cheap imports. He said:

Sir, these are matters which are important. This is why we have said that mere protection of items by duty alone is not sufficient. In some cases there also has to be quantitative control. Let me quote again from the same publication:

In other words, the retailer has been doing surprisingly well because of the cheap imports which come into the country. It is the local manufacturer who is being “strangled”, to use the expression of the director of the federation.

For the hon member for Overvaal therefore to quote a portion of an article without identifying his source to enable one to check is not the way in which I believe debate should be conducted in this House, and I have to express my great regret that this was done on Friday by the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to enter the debate between the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Overvaal as far as this section is concerned. In any case, the hon member for Overvaal is not present here at the moment.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the hon member for Yeoville can quote what other people have said, and so can the hon member for Overvaal. At present there is a commission that has been appointed by the Government to investigate our protection policy. If any industry feels aggrieved, it is important that it give evidence before that commission. Then there is also the Board of Trade and Industry, which is investigating these matters at the moment. The hon member for Yeoville can tell me whether the footwear industry has submitted a case to that board.

Does this justify quoting out of context?

If that is not the case, based on the merits of the case and not on what two hon members have said, I want to say that if it is justified the matter should be submitted to that board. It will then not be necessary for hon members to quote what individuals have said. They will then be able to quote official standpoints on this matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I referred to certain problems we have in respect of this clause and asked for certain information. That information has not yet been forthcoming. I wanted to know what amounts were involved, because permits are applied for by the Oilseeds Control Board with the request that a rebate should be granted on a particular product. I would also like to know why this happened, who is responsible for it and who is involved.

Mr Chairman, the hon member discussed this clause in his speech during the Second Reading debate. What actually happened was that the Oilseeds Control Board imported certain oil and paid a levy on it, without realizing that a rebate applied to it. The clause makes it possible for the control board to recover that money, since there is no enabling provision in the Act. This clause now provides that the money may be paid back to the control board. A proper permit was issued for the oil to be imported, and this is now being done with retrospective effect. That is what we are making provision for in the clause.

Mr Chairman, as far as I am aware, large quantities of sunflower seed oil were imported at that time. Most of it came in duty free, but this was not the case in respect of two consignments. What I want to know is how it is possible for large quantities to go through correctly and for these two to be wrong. I think it was not imported by the Oilseeds Control Board but by a private company.

Mr Chairman, hon members will realize that thousands of items are handled by our harbours and that it is very easy for something like this to happen. I do not think that all consignments can be monitored properly when they are paid for. We have no problems with that, because the man pays the duty which is applicable. We cannot, after all, appoint auditors to go through the entire transaction with a fine-tooth comb. It can, therefore, happen that it subsequently becomes apparent that someone paid duties he did not need to pay, or paid too much. We should like to rectify matters in such cases, and if the Act does not allow us to do so, we have to amend it to make provision for this, and that is all that is happening here.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule:

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

This items represents the increased tariff which is going to be levied on beer. On Friday I already gave my reasons for this amendment. We believe that this item reflects the uncaring attitude the Government at the moment has towards the man in the street. I think that beer, as such, is symbolic of this. It is the common man’s drink and we believe that the Government should in fact allow the excise duty on beer to remain as it is.

In concluding my remarks I want to quote a short little verse which I think should interest the hon the Deputy Minister because I think that this verse, to a certain extent, symbolizes what a lot of people in the street are thinking at the moment:

Mr Chairman, the hon member is asking that the proposed excise duty on beer be rejected. I must say it really surprises me that a responsible member of this House can move such a motion at this stage. The hon member for Walmer must listen carefully, because this also applies to him.

I am listening.

I say it really surprises me that a responsible hon member of this House can move such a motion at this juncture. The principle now being incorporated in detail in this Bill was approved when the Appropriation Bill was read a Second Time.

That does not matter. That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. If the hon member wants to say that this House occupies itself with nonsense, he must say so. [Interjections.] What is more, after the Second Reading stage of the Appropriation Bill had been disposed of, this House went into Committee on each of the separate Votes. What is really astounding is that none of those Votes which have to be administered financially with the money that has to come from this proposal, were negatived. An amendment was moved to one Vote in an attempt to reduce the relevant Minister’s salary by R1 000. Other than that, hon members on that side of the House all agreed to those Votes. To say at this stage that certain revenue proposals should be rejected is absolutely the height of irresponsibility. This also applies—I am saying so now and I shall not reply to it—to the hon member for Walmer who wanted to do exactly the same thing.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order paper, as follows:

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister’s remarks are completely irrational. He speaks as if we have gone right through the Budget supporting every item and measure it proposes, a Budget that can only be described as the most “shambolic” Budget that certainly I have seen since I have come to the House. [Interjections.] This particular item increases the ad valorem duty on vehicles. It has not been motivated, and one gets the feeling, when reading the original Budget speech of the hon the Minister, that anything which is said subsequently is almost inconsequential to the Government. This is another instance where an additional few feathers is being plucked from this poor goose. It has not been thought through properly and it will have an immediate and direct effect on the cost of living, which is something the Government should pay more attention to. The country is groaning under the effects of recent increases. It will furthermore have a depressing effect on an industry which is already under strain. It will cause unemployment in an area where there is already extreme unemployment. Finally, the proceeds of the money so raised, will be spent and wasted without proper attention. At a time when the Government should be reducing its expenses, it is running unbridled ahead, and we can only vote against this.

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon the Deputy Minister’s remarks cannot be left unchallenged. The hon member for Walmer has already dealt with them in part, but I believe the hon the Deputy Minister does not appear to appreciate the difference between a budget and a taxation measure. If he was correct in what he said, we would not have any debate on this measure at all.

We can debate it.

Oh, the hon the Deputy Minister is prepared to permit us to do that. That is jolly decent of him. [Interjections.] The point which the hon the Deputy Minister does not appear to understand is that the one is an appropriation measure and the other a taxation measure. I want to put it to him very simply. The purpose of the Customs and Excise Bill is for us to decide whether certain expenditure items should be passed or not, and that is what we are debating at present.

The one issue which this Government stands accused of and from which it cannot escape, is that it has mismanagement as its hallmark in recent times, that it is wasteful as regards expenditure and that it indulges in ideological expenditure which could be saved. For the hon the Deputy Minister to allege that we did not bring this up during the Budget debate, shows that he does either not listen, does not read or is incapable of understanding, and I do not believe that because he is quite an intelligent chap. [Interjections.] He is quite an intelligent fellow, and he can read, hear and understand. Therefore, for him to say that is quite outrageous and ill-becoming.

There are other items in this schedule with which we disagree. Year after year I have raised the question of cosmetics. Does the hon the Deputy Minister believe that cosmetics and toilet preparations are essential? If he says they are not, he should go home and tell his wife and other wives that and that they should live without them. This is one example of something taking place which is utterly illogical.

The hon the Deputy Minister has also not dealt with the issue that by raising ad valorem tax, the Government is receiving tax on tax. The hon the Deputy Minister’s view is that because we did not mention it during the Budget, we are not allowed to do so today. That is unutterable political nonsense. The Government stands accused of mismanagement, of wasteful ideological expenditure and of having produced probably the worst and most ineffective Budget in the last 10 years in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in my long career in Parliament I have never heard such an absurdity as that uttered by the hon the Deputy Minister this morning. He is a Deputy Minister and he actually said that we could not move that certain things be amended in this Committee Stage. Does he not know the rules of this House? After all, he has been here for years. We voted against the motion that taxes be increased, but now the hon the Deputy Minister is actually saying that we should have voted against these things during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Finance. This revenue was not dealt with there. Does the hon the Deputy Minister not know that? Perhaps we should teach the hon the Deputy Minister a lesson across the floor regarding what a Committee Stage is and what a Second Reading is.

During the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Finance, we discussed expenditure, but not revenue. This Bill is a result of the Budget debate.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon member how one can deal with expenditure without dealing with revenue.

That is an even stupider question. [Interjections.] Now that is really stupid. We can reject this legislation and there can still be a surplus in the Budget. It is true that the State must have money. We are all agreed on that. But for the hon the Deputy Minister to tell this House and the world outside today that we may not move amendments here because the Budget has already been agreed to, is proof to us of the dictatorship of this Government. One may not even say that taxes should be reduced. The hon the Deputy Minister will just have to do his homework and learn the necessary rules and regulations. Then he will realize that we could delete all the items in this Bill, with the possible exception of one.

I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what revenue will be collected from the customs and excise duty on beer, as mentioned in tariff item 104.10. We have not yet heard that.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to a slightly different point on the schedule in front of us today. All these items, as the hon member for Sunnyside has pointed out, relate to moneys that are to be collected by Customs and Excise. What concerns me is the racialism inherent in the fact that this department does not appear to employ anybody other than White people. I have checked on the employment of the department, for instance at dock gates in South Africa, and I find that in every harbour—in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban and Richards Bay—only White customs officials are employed to collect these funds. I believe that is wrong. I believe there has been a fairly staggering turnover in the appointment of these people. White people who hold these jobs do not appear to value them and move out of them fairly quickly. I should like to know why there appears to be a specific policy on behalf of this department only to employ White persons in these positions.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 74(l)(c).

Amendments 1 and 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Schedule agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Question agreed to (Official Opposition, Conservative Party and New Republic Party (dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Exercising a choice at the polls is probably one of the most fundamental rights of a citizen in a democratic State. That is why it is of the utmost importance that the electoral procedure should be designed to allow this basic right to be exercised in the best possible way. Our Electoral Act is a comprehensive procedural measure which regulates every facet of an election, from a person’s registration as a voter to the result of an election, in minute detail. Such a measure is necessary, because everyone who has an interest in an election must know what he has to do, what he is not allowed to do, or what he may do to ensure that everything goes smoothly and that the election is a fair one.

Although our Electoral Act prescribes procedures which have been thoroughly tested and tried over the years, adjustments are essential from time to time, in order to keep pace with developments in the technological field, on the one hand, and, on the other, to replace or improve those procedural measures which have not stood the test of time.

In this connection I want to thank the select committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Tygervallei for their thorough revision of our Electoral Act, and for the well-considered recommendations they have produced. We greatly appreciate their unflagging efforts. The select committee brought out a report at the beginning of 1982. Only two of the committee’s recommendations were not accepted by the Government, namely—

1. (a) The recommendation that copies of voters’ lists in respect of each electoral division be made available free of charge to political parties and for public inspection within 30 days after the first day of January and the first day of July respectively; and
2. (b) the recommendation that applications for postal and special votes should close at 21h00 on the day immediately preceding polling day.

The reason why the former amendment was not accepted is that the manpower position and the financial implications of the printing of full voters’ lists every six months do not justify such a procedure. It was consequently decided that voters’ lists would be released on the dates determined by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Minister. The other recommendation was not accepted because it is not practicable to handle postal votes up to the last day before polling day. Provision is now being made in the Bill for a person to be able to vote as a special voter up to 21h00 on the day immediately before polling day if he submits his application for a special ballot paper to a presiding officer for votes of special voters in the electoral division in which he is registered. The idea behind this proposal is to ensure that all postal and special votes should reach the electoral officer in time to be taken into consideration in the counting of votes.

Furthermore, the Electoral Act, 1979, is being amended in order that it may also be applicable to the election of members of the two new Houses of Parliament which are soon to be instituted in terms of the Constitution Act, 1983. In this way, a uniform Electoral Act for all three Houses of Parliament will be placed on the Statute Book.

†It needs to be emphasized at this stage that the Bill before the House has nothing to do with the forthcoming general election for the House of Repesentatives and the House of Delegates. The Bill is aimed at the provision of election procedures for the time beginning immediately after the new Parliament has been constituted. It is of the utmost importance that everyone involved in the August general elections takes note of this fact.

It may well be asked why a new consolidated Electoral Act has not been drafted instead of amendments to the Electoral Act, 1979. The answer is that it was necessary to retain the provisions for provincial council elections. It was therefore though advisable to proceed by way of amendments rather than consolidation as there will probably have to be further adjustments and amendments in the course of constitutional changes on provincial and local levels. Furthermore, elections will be an own affair apart from certain general aspects, and the various Houses may in time to come wish to opt for different procedures. A last consideration is that the position of Chinese and other Asiatics is at the moment the subject of investigation and negotiation and, when their participation is settled, provision will have to be made for them in the Electoral Acts.

Another question that could be asked is why it is necessary that the proposed uniform election procedures be passed by Parhament at this stage. The reason is simply that there will be no prescribed election procedures for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates once the new Parliament has been instituted. As by-elections can become necessary at any time after the new Parliament has come into existence, the Bill must be considered now.

*Mr Speaker, although provision is being made at this early stage for the electoral procedures of the new Parhament, this measure has been explained to all the political parties of the Indians as well as the Coloureds. The parties have also been afforded the opportunity of making representations concerning the proposed measure. Only one party availed itself of the opportunity of commenting on the Bill. However, the representations have a bearing on the electoral procedures which will be applicable to the forthcoming elections as well, and the department will explain the electoral procedures in full to all interested persons and bodies by way of seminars to be held before the elections.

†Most of the proposed amendments are consequential and also technical adjustments owing to the necessity of making the provisions of the Electoral Act, 1979, applicable to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. The Bill also contains amendments of key provisions with regard to the registration of voters, election procedures, nomination of candidates and the registration of political parties. Before I proceed to explain the proposed amendments I wish to point out that this Bill is a somewhat lengthy measure, and I shall therefore confine myself only to the more important proposals.

The first major amendment proposed in this Bill is contained in clause 14, which makes provision for voters’ lists to be compiled from the population register. This procedure will be applied as soon as practicable after the provisions of the Bill have come into operation. Almost 95% of all Whites have now been taken up in the register and it is anticipated that by September 1984 between 70% and 80% of all Coloured and Indian voters will have been included. It needs to be stressed, however, that persons whose names are not yet included in the population register will not be disenfranchised if—

1. (i) they can prove to the satisfaction of the electoral officer that they have applied for an identity document; or
2. (ii) they were registered on a valid voters’ list immediately prior to the commencement of this measure.

The last-mentioned exception will, however, lapse after the first general elections held subsequent to the institution of the new Parliament.

In clause 11 of the Bill provision is made that voters must be registered in the electoral divisions where they have their ordinary place of residence. There are, however, certain exceptions to this proposed measure contained in clause 1(a) to (c), as well as in section 1 of the Population Register Amendment Act, No 101 of 1982, which still has to come into operation. One of the exceptions is that Ministers, Deputy Ministers and other elected representatives—and members of their family 18 years and older—may be registered at their official residences, or the residences deemed as such, where they, for the purpose of their official duties, are being compelled to reside for the greater part of the year. There is also a proviso that such Ministers, Deputy Ministers or representatives have a choice to register in their electoral divisions if they own private dwellings there.

Identity documents could play an important role in future elections, as was the case in the past referendum. In clauses 6 and 7 it is consequently proposed that—

1. (i) identity documents of deceased persons must be returned to the department to be cancelled;
2. (ii) it will be an offence to neglect or to refuse to return an identity document of a deceased person to the department; and
3. (iii) it will be an offence to be in possession of more than one identity document.

These proposals are deemed necessary to prevent malpractices with identity documents.

*A number of important proposals in connection with voters’ lists are contained in clauses 14, 22 and 28. The effect of the amendments is that voters’ lists will be furnished free of charge to the authorized representatives of each registered political party, and that they must also be made available for at least seven days at magistrates’ offices and such other places as may be determined by the electoral officer, for inspection by members of the public. Hon members are referred to clause 14 in this connection.

Since voters’ lists will be compiled from the population register in future, it is being proposed in clause 22 that notices of changes of address received by regional officers up to the end of each month should be recorded in the population register and the voters’ lists for that month for election purposes. Upon notification of a change of address, a document bearing the new address and stating his new electoral division and polling district is sent to the voter for safekeeping until he changes his address again.

The present position is that once printed, a voters’ list may not be amended, except for certain amendments mentioned in section 24(3). In terms of the proposed procedure in clause 31, it will be possible for amendmerits , such as the insertion into a voters’ list of a voter’s name which has erroneously been omitted, the removal of a duplicate registration from the voters’ list or the removal of names of persons who are not qualified to remain registered as voters, to be made right up to the seventh day before an election, while at the moment, it can only be done up to the nomination date. In terms of the new section 25B, the final voters’ list will be the voters’ list as supplemented and rectified up to the seventh day before election day.

I now wish to refer to a number of proposals aimed at simplifying and improving electoral procedures.

In clauses 35 and 79, it has been proposed that the State President may declare, in the election proclamation which he has to issue in terms of sections 34 and 110 for the holding of general and by-elections; that the postal vote system may be excluded in a particular election.

The postal vote system has been excluded for the forthcoming general elections for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Provision is being made, therefore, to enable this option to be exercised in future as well.

In clause 41, it is being proposed that the location of polling stations may be changed after nomination day with the concurrence of the candidate. Clauses 42, 44, 45, 48, 53, 57 and 61 contain proposals in connection with the handling of postal and special votes, as well as the counting of such votes, which are designed, on the one hand, to improve the procedures relating to the handling of postal and special votes, and, on the other hand, to ensure that everything goes smoothly when the votes are counted. Hon members’ attention is also drawn to clause 85, which proposes that the miscellaneous expenses which may be incurred during an election should be increased from R200 to R2 000.

†With regard to the nomination of candidates, hon members are referred to clauses 38 and 39. The gist of the proposals is that the amount to be deposited by a candidate is to be increased from R400 to R500 and that an independent candidate will only qualify as such if he has supporting declarations by at least 300 registered voters. A party candidate will no longer need supporting declarations, whether his party is represented in Parliament or not.

Clause 37 provides that political parties, already registered in terms of the current provisions, will remain registered under the new provisions.

It is also proposed that any political party which desires to be registered after the new measures have come into operation, must lodge at the department a deed of foundation which was adopted at a meeting and signed by at least 500 registered voters. This proposal will ensure that only bona fide parties will register and partake in future elections.

In conclusion I wish to refer to clause 90. The proposals contained in this clause are to the effect that only persons who are registered or who are entitled to register as voters for the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates respectively, may inter alia be appointed as agents, subagents, polling agents and messengers in elections for that House. This principle was introduced earlier this year when the Electoral Amendment Act, No 42 of 1984, was passed in this House.

Mr Speaker, it is somewhat incongruous at a time when we face two important general elections in August this year, to have before us a Bill amending the Electoral Act but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the coming elections. This Bill is clearly meant to apply only after the general elections for the Coloured and Indian population groups in August. This is obvious from the Bill itself and it has been confirmed by the hon the Minister in his introductory speech. This Bill embodies for the first time some of the recommendations of the select committee constituted two years ago. It does as such contain some technical improvements which are the products of that select committee’s deliberations. It is well-known that the PFP has consistently argued that legislation of this kind should be referred to a select committee for an in-depth discussion and in an attempt to reach consensus on the measure. Everyone will agree that some progress towards consensus was indeed made by the select committee which investigated certain aspects of this Bill. The problem facing us now is that the implementation of the recommendations of that select committee has been delayed until now, a time when in fact circumstances have changed to such an extent that a new approach is not only justified but I believe is in fact necessary. Were it not for the forthcoming implementation of the new constitutional dispensation we would have had to accept that the hon Minister has taken all the necessary and correct parliamentary steps to bring forward legislation following upon the deliberations of the select committee. We would not have been able to argue that point. But with the position being as it is now, should we agree to this Bill we would be legislating unilaterally for a situation which does not affect us immediately but will only arise later on. Thereby we will be imposing our will on the other two Houses under the new dispensation. Hon members may argue that we are doing this every time that we pass a Bill. That would be correct to some extent. It would be correct to say that with this legislation we are possibly imposing our will on the new dispensation. But this does not distract from the validity of the view that where such a course of action is unnecessary we should not insist upon it.

Therefore I move as an amendment:

Procedural restrictions do not allow me specifically to move that this Bill be referred to a standing committee or a select committee constituted in terms of the new constitutional dispensation. However, that is in fact what I have in mind. As I have said before the Bill is intended to become effective after the August elections. I would suggest that this Bill is particularly well suited to being one of the first pieces of legislation to be submitted to a committee constituted in terms of the new system. Every member of the other two Houses of Parliament will come out of the electoral process with firsthand experience of elections and therefore ready to make a substantial contribution to the discussions in such a committee. This is mainly a technical measure and can as such be a worthwhile subject for select committee discussions and if the Government is prepared to accede to the removal of a couple of ridiculous aspects, features which are not fundamental to the policy of the Government or to working of the new constitution, I believe that consensus between the three Houses under the new dispensation will in fact be possible. The alternative is merely to pass a Bill which we do not need for the immediate future. We certainly do not need it until the new system is in operation. It is a Bill which contains aspects which must surely be offensive to the members of the two new Houses. There has been rather a flurry of legislative activity in recent weeks, and it does seem as if the Government has little confidence in the ability of the new dispensation to produce the laws needed to run the country in the coming years. If the hon the Minister refuses our request to delay this bill, it would be difficult not to come to the same conclusion with regard to this Bill.

In my opinion there is only one urgent aspect of electoral legislation that needs to be attended to now, namely to provide for byelections, as the hon the Minister has indeed indicated. I am now talking about by-elections which may take place shortly after the August general elections. This does not, however, require more than a minor amendment of the existing Act, which I am sure would receive a very easy and fast passage through this House.

This Bill is obviously intended inter alia to bring electoral legislation more in line with the new dispensation, but it is, however, sad to see that the Government could not resist writing into it some apartheid type restrictions. We all know that the new constitution is based on separate political representation but one wonders why matters have to be pushed quite as far as they are being done in this Bill. In this respect I want to refer specifically to clause 90 of the Bill, the clause which makes comprehensive provision for apartheid not only to prevail in the new dispensation and in elections in terms of that dispensation, but also for it to be seen to prevail in the functioning of the new system. It is a clause which is in line with the provisions of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, at a time when that Act has become a severe embarrassment to the Government and in particular to the hon the Minister. The clause provides that all formal appointments made by a candidate in terms of the Act shall be made only from the ranks of the race group to which that candidate belongs. Consequently an agent, sub-agent, polling agent, presiding officers for absent voters and some other functionaries provided for by the Act will have to be Coloured people if they represent a Coloured candidate, Indian if they represent an Indian candidate and White if they represent a White candidate. This shows an obsession with separation, with segregation, with apartheid, because it is surely not fundamental to the operation of the new constitution. Surely it is not necessary that the new system should function in this way. It is offensive not only because it insists on artificially forced segregation, but also because of the double standards it suggests. It is still in order, as is often done, for a White candidate to use Indians, Coloureds or Blacks to put up his election posters or to conduct any of the menial jobs that go with electioneering, but it is apparently unacceptable that such a person should spoil the sanctity of a White ballot paper. This of course also applies in respect of the candidates of other race groups. Why such pettiness should still be introduced into our legislation at this point in time beats me. Some of the strange consequences of these restrictions have emerged recently when the position of for example Indian persons married to Coloured people, particularly Malay Coloureds, was considered. Not only will such a married couple not be able to vote for the same candidate, the same party or even the same House, but if such an Indian husband, for instance, is a candidate for the House of Delegates, then his Malay wife will not be able to serve as his agent, subagent or polling agent or in any similar capacity. This is surely not the sort of restriction, the sort of pettiness, that is necessary for the functioning of the new system. In fact, the damage potential of this sort of legislative rubbish is, I think, there for all to see.

There has been a suggestion in Press reports recently that aspects of this Bill in fact strengthen the restrictive nature of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. In respect of the restrictions I have just referred to, this is in fact correct. It is correct to say and to read into this Bill that the divisions along racial lines are strengthened and extended. The suggestion has, however, also been made that, possibly, in respect of the registration of political parties this aspect is also being strengthened. In this respect I should just like to express a point of view which is slightly different from the interpretation given in some Press reports. It appears to me that the Bill before us does not change the position as regards the possible registration of political parties at all. I have mentioned before that I think this is something that is going to become a problem for the Government in the weeks to come, if it has not already become one.

What is the legal position basically? We all know by now that the Labour Party, which is basically a Coloured political party, has decided to accept Indians in their ranks as members and has decided furthermore to field Indian candidates in the elections for the House of Delegates. We all know, too, that this is prohibited in terms of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. However, that Act includes only a criminal penalty. There is nothing in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act which renders invalid any political steps taken by a candidate or political party. It merely provides for a criminal penalty.

Then I think we have to come back to the Bill before us and to the Act that is amended by it, because we are dealing here with the registration of political parties. It seems to me that the chief electoral officer, who must decide whether to register or not register a political party, has very limited authority to refuse the registration of a polictical party. In other words, if a political party conforms with the criteria laid down in section 36 of the Electoral Act, it seems to me that the authority of the chief electoral officer to refuse such registration is very limited. Therefore should the Labour Party apply for registration as a political party—I do not know if they have done so already—to field candidates for the House of Representatives and at the same time make a similar application to be registered as a political party to field candidates for the House of Delegates, as I read the present Act and the amendments brought in by this Bill, it appears to me that the chief electoral officer will probably not have the authority to refuse such registration. There may be other opinions on this matter—this is obviously a question of legal interpretation—but it certainly appears to me that the chief electoral officer will be putting himself in a very difficult position if he should decide to refuse such registration. If this is correct, it means that an Indian candidate, standing on behalf of the Coloured Labour Party, can in terms of the Electoral Act stand as an official party candidate. His party can be registered, his nomination can consequently not be refused and the validity of the subsequent election is then not affected at all. That is how I see the legal position. This means that unless amendments are made to the prohibition of Political Interference Act, we may find these people have a smooth passage through the whole electoral process but that in August or September this year there may be a few of our parliamentary colleagues who have exposed themselves to a criminal charge. This is possibly the type of situation for which many political candidates pray all their lives. It is one of the easiest ways to buy political credibility if one operates within the confrontationist political style which we are used to in South Africa.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister—I have done so before—that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act will be a pain in the neck, not in coming years, but in coming days. The hon the Minister knows what I am talking about. I do not know if he made any progress on Friday with Rev Alan Hendrickse. But whatever progress has been made, that Act should disappear from the Statute Book. It is a useless and senseless piece of legislation which surely does not contribute at all to sound electoral processes or conduct of politics in this country in general. [Interjections.]

In his introductory speech the hon the Minister made reference to the fact that electoral matters may become an own affair in terms of the new constitutional system. It has never been quite clear to me how one can let that take place effectively and what aspects will become an own affair and what not. Surely electoral matters are so closely connected and related to the functioning of the constitution that one will be taking a severe risk if one is to allow too many important aspects of electoral proceedings to become an own affair. I believe that there is every argument to be made to retain this as a general affair and to retain uniformity as far as possible. It is interesting to note that the decison to make electoral law an own affair was taken in spite of the fact that the very instruction to the select committee which investigated this Bill, was to ensure uniformity and to remove discriminatory aspects and to create an equal situation within the terms of the Electoral Act.

There is another aspect to which I would like to refer very briefly, namely the freedom to conduct elections and to participate in the electoral process in the main. I previously asked the hon the Minister to ensure, not only through his own department and his own action, but also in consultation with the hon the Minister of Law and Order, that the maximum freedom is allowed for the conduct of the elections, not only to those candidates and political parties who wish to canvass support for their party, but also for those who campaign for people to abstain from the elections. There is no question that to suggest, canvass for and to support an abstention, is a legitimate political activity and should be regarded as such. I am afraid that there are signs that this is not necessarily the attitude of the Government. In this connection there are the actions taken by the Security Police over the last few weeks and months where political pamphlets have been confiscated, people detained and other equipment confiscated for suspected offences. But in many of these cases it turned out that there was no offence. I believe that the possibility for abuse is incredibly wide if one is going to interfere in political activity on the basis that some kind of offence is suspected. It is very difficult to prove that there was no suspicion of an offence, but to constantly detain people, to arrest the leadership of political movements, to interfere with their political meetings, to intimidate people and to confiscate their propaganda material is an interference in the electoral process that we cannot afford in this country and which we should guard against. The situation is not looking particularly good at this moment.

I wish to just refer to a few aspects of this Bill which I believe will cause trouble and which have been contentious in the past. Firstly there is the question of an independent candidate requiring 300 affidavits in order to support his candidacy. I know this requirement on all registered political parties is now being removed, but it still remains an offensive stipulation. It is unnecessary. It is a fundamental interference in and a blot on democracy that this should take place. No longer is it 300 signatures but 300 affidavits, in other words sworn statements made before a commissioner of oaths or a person of similar appointment, which is an incredible harassment of a potential independent candidate. It is an incredible difficulty for such a person to obtain the kind of support. It means that he cannot go and knock on people’s doors to ask them to sign a piece of paper in support of his candidacy. That person has to be taken to a returning officer or a commissioner of oaths, for example a member of the Police Force or a postmaster. I believe it is quite unnecessary to retain this kind of ridiculous stipulation in the Electoral Act.

A second aspect in respect of which there has also been a tightening up is the number of signatures required when a political party applies for registration. Formerly 50 signatures of people attending the founding meeting of a particular party were required, and now that number has been increased to 500. I venture to say that very few of the political parties that function in the Coloured and Indian communities at this stage would have qualified in terms of that requirement had it applied to them before the coming elections in August. I see no reason to retain that restriction either.

Then there is the old question that we have argued about, namely the disenfranchisement of people on account that they have been found guilty of offences relating to national security. We have also argued that those security laws contain elements which are unacceptable to us and that the consequences attached to them in terms of this kind of legislation are quite unacceptable. It is interesting to note that candidates are now going to be nominated who formerly have been banned or detained in terms of security legislation. In other words, these are people who in the view of the Government have been guilty in one form or another of offences or actions covered by these security laws. I think hon members would know what we are talking about when we react to that.

I want to raise a last point. The hon the Minister argued that we need this Bill now to contend with by-elections immediately after the August elections and that that makes the passage of this Bill somewhat urgent. I have already indicated that we really require very minor amendments to the present situation to provide for that. The August elections for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates are going to be conducted on voters’ rolls compiled by way of normal application to register. The new Bill provides for a situation where voters’ rolls will be drawn from the population register. Surely the hon the Minister does not suggest that if a by-election takes place within a month after the August general election we are going to use a completely different voters’ roll system for such by-election? Surely there needs to be a process of transition. Surely experience of the last few months and the last few years about transitional mechanisms in terms of voters’ rolls has taught us a lesson. The hon the Minister surely realizes by now that voters’ rolls in general and certainly White voters’ rolls, are in an unbelievable mess as a result of the fact that the department could not cope with developments in this regard. This, I believe, is due to the fact that the political heads of Government have been overambitious and have been overloading the officials of the department, resulting in the problems that we face today. I have for instance several voters on my constituency’s voters’ roll who were registered at an hotel which has been demolished 15 years ago. That sort of thing happens, and the hon Minister’s department has been fed with numerous similar instances, of the most ridiculous events that have taken place. I do not know what gave rise to this, but I think it could well be due to the fact that the officials are overloaded with work. However, whatever the position is, I believe the hon the Minister should heed some of the lessons of the recent past and should in future try not to be overambitious in this regard. Should there be any by-elections between August and the end of this year, and should the hon the Minister suggest that those by-elections must take place on the basis of a completely new set of voters’ rolls, I believe that that is the sort of thing he should avoid at all costs, otherwise we will end up with an incredibly messy situation in the coming elections. I have warned against this sort of thing before, and I hope that the hon the Minister will take my warning seriously this time.

In conclusion I merely want to say that I honestly believe that the Bill before us requires the input of the people who are going to be affected by it after the August elections, and that we should therefore give them that opportunity. In the first place we owe it to them and, secondly, with the pressure of work upon us it would be ridiculous to try to force this Bill through a Whites-only Parliament and impose our will on the other race groups in that way.

Mr Speaker, we listened attentively to the hon member’s argument with regard to this measure, particularly concerning the question of whether the legislation should be dealt with by this House, or whether it should be referred to a committee of the new tricameral Parliament. I should like to point out to the hon member for Green Point that during this session they have repeatedly advanced the same argument when we discuss matters in which the other two population groups are involved, viz that they should be discussed in the new Parliament. If the hon member wants to take that argument to its absolutely logical conclusion, we should adjourn this Parliament and wait for the new Parliament, since all the population groups who are going to serve in the new Parliament are involved in the legislation we deal with in this House. The important question, however, is what our responsibility as Parliamentarians is as regards this legislation. I want to point out to the hon member for Green Point that we, as representatives here in this House, as well as our voters, have an interest in this legislation. From that point of view we must try to get our legislation on elections in the best possible order, since it affects the involvement and participation of our own people in democracy. It is important to our own people that we will be able to tell them that the errors and problems they identified in the legislation are being given attention. In that spirit we on this side of the House certainly cannot agree with the hon member for Green Point in his argument that the measure should wait for the new tricameral Parliament. In fact, the hon member is wrong in another respect as well, since it is precisely this kind of legislation that will be the topic of continuous discussion in standing committees in which the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives will be involved in the future.

Another point the hon member for Green Point raised and on which we disagree with him is his reference to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. We on this side of the House by no means wish to intimate that there are no problems in practice in respect of this matter. However, I want to point out to the hon member for Green Point that in South Africa it is very difficult to pass legislation in absolute compartments as far as group interests, as well as the political participation of particular groups are concerned. We accept that, and we live with that reality.

I want to ask the hon member for Green Point on the basis of his own reasoning whether he does not think that as regards the interests of the Indians and the Coloureds, they should pre-eminently express themselves as groups about how the provisions of legislation of this nature are going to affect them in the future. At this stage there is no doubt, and any right-thinking person would be able to see, that as regards this particular piece of legislation which the hon member for Green Point has dragged in here now, there are fundamental problems. In his own approach to this matter, even Rev Alan Hendrickse could not adopt an absolutist standpoint. I want to illustrate this fact for the hon member. The Labour Party has ties with the South African black Alliance. Despite their political association with the South African Black Alliance, the Labour Party, under the leadership of Rev Alan Hendrickse, broke off that association and entered a new political structure. Even the reasoning of Rev Alan Hendrickse regarding the Prohibition of Political Interference Act is illogical to a certain extent, and I would suggest that in view of its delicate nature, we leave that specific facet in the hands of the hon the Minister and the Labour Party, and also that in future we leave that matter to the people who are directly affected by it.

Undoubtedly the hon member for Green Point and his party find themselves in a dilemma on the political road ahead, since their traditional role of speaking on behalf of others and of saying in an almost paternalistic way what is and what is not good for others, what harms other people and what prejudices others, will undoubtedly fall away to an increasing extent in the future. We are entering a political era in which people and groups will increasingly speak on their own behalf, and I would therefore respectfully suggest that hon members of the PFP should rather reason with more vision, instead of retrospective suspicion as regards these matters. We are seeking vision, since in our opinion the politics of retrospective suspicion is something of the past. The essence of the new constitutional dispensation in which this measure is going to function is, in fact, such that we shall have to find one another on the basis of discussion on the road ahead. As regards the various race groups, there were no absolute divisions anywhere in the world. In this regard, I want to refer the hon member for Green Point to the USA. He can go to the library and consult the latest American textbook on census figures and he will see that there are people who are recorded as being Negroes and that there are others who are recorded as belonging to minority groups, and I want to ask the hon member for Green Point to go and look in the American statutory provisions how and where those people are classified. He will find that there is a large degree of overlapping in this regard, and that as far as countries with racially mixed communities are concerned, one has those problems to which he referred. However, I think that it would be a big mistake if he, the hon member for Houghton, or any other hon member in this House thinks that one can draw up absolute lines in this regard. If the logic of the hon member is carried through, viz that we must be able to draw absolute lines, his own party’s political policy falls completely flat. He is arguing that there are either absolute political groups with identifiable interests, or that no division can be made at all. He must just tell us what their policy is based on—on an absolute division, or on an absolute standpoint that a division is possible. They also find themselves in difficulties here and there in their political approach. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton asked what our party’s policy is as regards this legislation. No political leader in South Africa from whichever group, and no voter who listens, who reads and who hears, has any doubt as to what the NP’s policy is, and that is that we accommodate the group interests of people. It is written in our constitution in black and white. This measure exists in the light of the constitution and is meant to create the structure and methods in terms of which people can participate in the political process. Let me tell the hon member for Barberton that in a certain sense it is the NP’s constitutional and political structure that the majority should govern. By that we mean that the majority should participate in the governing process. The majority of every people, of every group, therefore the Whites as well, should participate in the governing process; in other words, the majority should participate in the process instead of the majority boycotting the process. We prefer majority government in which people participate in the governing process, rather than wanting people to stand outside and boycott and shoot. That is the essence of this amending Bill before the House at present.

Does that apply to the majority of the Coloured people?

Yes, definitely. We want the majority of the Brown people to share in democracy in South Africa in terms of the provisions of this measure. We want the majority of Asian people to share in the constitutional processes as well and to participate in elections in terms of the provisions of this Bill.

And the Black majority?

Surely the hon member for Parktown is aware that our standpoint is that the majority of all people, Black people as well—those are the structures we are working on; we are not running away from that—must be able to participate. What is the alternative if we as a Government who bears the responsibility cannot bring this about? Surely the alternative is conflict. There is no doubt about that. When the hon members of the CP were still with us, they maintained that standpoint throughout, viz that all people should have political rights. I therefore find it odd that they are putting a question like that to me now.

This measure deals with practical measures pertaining to elections. I am really sorry that it is not possible in South Africa—and we all regret that—to incorporate in a law how one should conduct politics, ie apart from how one should get onto the voters’ list, how one should go about casting one’s vote and how the votes should be counted. We must get the right spirit in regard to democracy in South Africa. Mr Speaker, last week I did a little work in Potgietersrus and I know that you are not going to permit me to speak about that during the discussion of this measure, and I am therefore not going to do so. All I want to say, however, is that it is a pity that we cannot rectify what we encountered there by writing it into this piece of legislation, since, as far as I am concerned, Potgietersrus is indeed a borderline seat (“grenssetel”). When one walks about there, one has to cry (“grens”) about the way in which politics is conducted. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members of the CP that the responsibility of hon members of this Parliament towards democracy and the responsibility in making a measure such as this work, so that every person can know that he has a right to participate in the political processes, is much greater than they think.

Since we are dealing with a measure such at this which concerns our right to vote in this country, we cannot allow our right to be abused. We may not trample on democracy. Nowhere in our country dare we allow democracy to be trampled on in the way in which it is being done at present. There is Potgietersrus I said to myself: We are dealing here with the voters’ right to vote. In a certain sense, the method according to which we vote in South Africa, viz that one has to make a cross, is wrong. Having listened to everything I heard there, I thought that there was really a certain degree of logic in that, viz that one has to make a cross to say that one disagrees; instead of saying that one is voting for a policy, one has to make one’s cross to say that one disagrees with the whole system, if I may put it figuratively. I should like to ask hon members of the CP to co-operate with us. Is it not the NP’s interests that are at stake. When we discuss a measure such as this, how we must let voters share in the democratic process, have themselves registered, function as political parties, cast their votes, fight parliamentary seats, we must do so at a level and in a way which allows justice to be done and which will be honest towards democracy. We as Whites in this House cannot be negative in this country on the road ahead. After all, we cannot build up a spirit of negativism. We cannot build up a spirit of being opposed to everything. Surely we must build up a positive spirit. We must let our people outside share in the free political structure, democracy, so that they would like to participate, so that they can respect us as parliamentarians, so that they can respect democracy, so that they can say to themselves: I would like to have my name on the voters’ list, I would like to become a member of a political party, and I would like to state my standpoint as opposed to another standpoint. It is a tragic day in South Africa when we experience and conduct White politics like it is being conducted up there, viz that it is no longer pro something, but completely anti-everything. I say that the White man is doomed if we want to conduct our politics on that basis—opposed to everything, opposed to everyone, opposed to everything that is said; nothing for anything. I say that that will be the day when one thinks that if one makes a cross for the CP, one is voting against the Government. If one makes a cross for the CP, one is voting for everything they stand for.

Did you have a great deal of bad luck?

Sir, before you call me to order and request me to come back to the measure, I want to tell the hon member for Barberton that he need not be concerned. We are not in the least concerned.

I should like to come to another point raised by the hon member for Green Point. The question he asked was whether this measure was necessary. As we gain experience of elections in practice, certain things come to the fore. It is wrong to say that we as the Government, meaning the hon the Minister and the Cabinet, decided unilaterally to come to the House with this measure. On the basis of practical experience in every election and by-election, the department brings certain problems to the fore, and it is our work to look at them. The hon member for Green Point and other hon members of the NP caucus served together on the select committee under the chairmanship of the hon the Chief Whip on this side. Together we discussed the problems pertaining to elections, as they affect all of us.

There are extremely positive provisions in the Bill. The most positive provision in regard to our own elections, which is a source of great joy to all of us, is the fact that in future we can establish the population register as the only basis for voters’ lists. This must have caused tremendous problems for every hon member of this House along the way, viz the tremendous campaigns for registration, which none of us looked forward to. We believe that with the aid of computers it will become increasingly easier to get our voters’ lists up to date better and easier in the future.

As regards the voters’ lists, the hon the Minister pointed out in his introductory speech that the one recommendation of the select committee which was not accepted by the Government was the one to the effect that we must make voters’ lists available to all constituencies twice a year. We are now amending the provision concerned so that the Minister or the chief electoral officer can decide when voters’ lists should be made available to constituencies.

I would suggest that it is absolutely vital for us as representatives and for all political parties to have the latest possible voters’ list in respect of our constituencies. I believe that with the aid of the computers at their disposal the department will in future be able to assist us in this regard. The hon the Minister used the argument of a shortage of manpower and he also referred to the problems they have in regard to computerization. However, I want to point out that the confidence of the voters and the confidence of all of us in the new system we are going to enter will become increasingly greater, and it is very important to us that we have the latest possible lists so that we will not have to wait long to know what the voters’ lists look like. This is essential in order to establish confidence in the system so that the voters can feel that the voters’ lists are properly up to date.

The hon member for Green Point said that the voters’ lists were almost chaotic, but I should like to disagree with him completely. There is no doubt that there are errors along the way, but one must also look at the tremendous number of voters in South Africa. One must also look at the movement of voters in South Africa. In view of that, I want to say that not even a super government or a super computer would be able to give us voters’ lists without encountering human problems along the way. After all, a computer only emits from the one end what a human feeds in on the other.

You are putting on a very poor show today.

I infer from the interjection of the hon member for Bezuidenhout that he thinks that it is possible to have voters’ lists absolutely correct under all circumstances notwithstanding the fact that one is speaking of millions of people. He is nodding assent, but I just want to tell him that it is not possible for us or for any computer, and that there is no system in the world that is perfect. We will have to live with an error factor as regards our voters’ lists for all time, but that is something we can rectify in terms of this measure. After all, there is a provision in this measure to the effect that errors in a voters’ list can be rectified up to seven days before an election takes place.

As regards the voters’ list itself, I have a request with regard to changes in address which I should like to address to the hon the Minister. We now have a provision in the Bill to the effect that voters who report their changes in address are sent a notice to their new address so that they can be sure that the voters’ lists have been rectified accordingly. I want to ask that we build in a mechanism—even if it is in the administration—so that a person cannot be taken off one constituency’s voters’ list by accident, or that it cannot perhaps be done deliberately, since we are now going to have a system in which a person’s signature will no longer have to be placed on a card. A person’s name can therefore be removed from a particular voters’ list and be transferred to another address. Such a voter will then receive a notice at his new address to notify him that his name has now been registered on the new constituency’s voters’ list, but it could happen that something could go wrong along the way and that a person’s name will not appear on the correct voters’ list. I therefore want to ask whether it is not possible for the computer to send out two cards, viz a card to the address from which a person is moving, as well as a card to his new address. This will prevent someone from being able to remove a voter’s name from the voters’ list.

Tremendous demands will be made of us as White parliamentarians in future. It is therefore a pleasure for us to see a measure such as this which will assist us in conducting politics. As a matter of interest, I looked at the hon the Minister’s reply to a question concerning the voters’ list on 31 December 1983. It may be interesting for hon members to know that at that stage there were two constituencies in the Cape which had more than 18 000 voters. There was one constituency in Natal, viz Umlazi, that had more than 18 000 voters. There were four constituencies that had more than 18 000 voters in the Orange Free State, whilst there were 64 constituencies with more than 18 000 voters in the Transvaal. As the hon the Minister is aware, the members of Parliament from the Transvaal have a tremendous workload.

It is the NP’s fault that that is the case.

I want to make it even more difficult for the hon member for Bezuidenhout. There are 31 constituencies in the Transvaal that have more than 20 000 voters. Since we are dealing with this Bill now, we as Transvaal members of Parliament want to tell the hon the Minister that we have a very hard time. Even if this is not relevant in regard to this Bill, we should like to ask him that the Cabinet should consider—an hon member of the Opposition addressed this request the other day as well—making it easier for parliamentarians to perform their parliamentary work, in the interests of democracy. I think that after 14 years in Parliament, I can join the grey-haired front-benchers in saying this. I—and I am sure all of us—realize how important it is that a parliamentarian must be able to perform his function in his constituency in the interests of his voters. I want to ask that in future all of us should throughly go into methods to make the structure we are introducing with this Bill function better. This is imperative, and we owe it to the voters. A voter is entitled to ask his member of Parliament where and how he can contact him. However, parliamentarians do not have their own infrastructure in their constituencies. This request of mine is not meant as criticism, but it is a remark I want to address to the hon the Minister once again. I know that many parliamentarians have already referred to this. When finances permit, I am of the opinion that we shall have to look urgently and in-depth at methods of assisting political parties and representatives on the part of the State so that they can fulfil their functions better. We would be undermining democracy if we could not let the voters of South Africa share fully in democracy and if they are not continually informed of how they can become involved. If we look at the number of voters in South Africa, I should like to tell the hon the Minister, who is the NP’s leader in the Transvaal, that we realize that he must have a difficult time, since 52,1% of all White registered voters are in the Transvaal, as opposed to 28,5% in the Cape, 11,6% in Natal and 7,8% in the Orange Free State. Sir, as you will know, since you, too, are a Transvaal parliamentarian, these figures show that we in the Transvaal work very hard. I see on this list that Verwoerdburg has a tremendous number of voters. I pity you, and I wish you everything of the best.

I should like to raise another point. It has a bearing on the registration of young people. I should like to ask the hon the Minister once again that we should create a system in which when children, 18-year olds, are placed on the voters’ list for the first time, the State should send a little notice together with the registration card to congratulate them on becoming voters of South Africa. We should go further, however. It is shocking to see what a large number of young people are completely uninformed in so many respects when they leave school concerning the functioning of democracy, the existence of political parties and their role in political parties, that one is really surprised how, in view of that, it can be possible that they have just finished their school career. I would suggest that when those people are registered as voters, we congratulate them by way of a computer card and welcome them to the electorate of South Africa. We should also ask people to participate in democracy when the means permit. All of us who have travelled in Europe are surprised to see the tremendously high percentage polls in countries like West Germany and to see how involved those voters are in the voting process and in democracy. We believe that this is also very important to South Africa on the road ahead.

Yesterday there was an article in the Ekstra-Rapport with the photos of 66 candidates of the Labour Party for the new dispensation. On the one hand, this story in pictures of candidates on the front page made us all anxious to think what they still have to go through as far as the election is concerned, and on the other, it made one say to oneself: “We are facing the reality of the new dispensation. We can see these people. We can see them beginning to talk. They are visibly beginning to participate in an election in terms of our statutory measures.” This new dispensation augurs an exciting and challenging era that lies ahead for all of us. I should like to plead with the hon members of the CP not to try and fight this reality, since that is foolish. We are going to destroy democracy in South Africa completely if we fight about this reality. We must live with it and extend our hands to one another, in conducting elections in the future as well.

Many of the other measures in the Bill are of a technical and practical nature. On this occasion we should also like to thank Mr Fanie van der Merwe and his officials. If I am not mistaken, this is the final Bill in which Mr Fanie van der Merwe will have a hand in his present capacity. If there is another one, it is just as welcome. In any case, we thank him and his officials most sincerely for the good work they have done. On behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to express my specific gratitude to Mr Attie Tredoux, who went to a great deal of trouble to inform us about the provisions contained in this Bill.

With these few words, we should like to tell the hon the Minister that we are pleased about this measure and that we believe that in every respect this measure is going to greatly facilitate the workings of democracy, from the registration of voters to the involvement of voters by way of special and postal votes, as well as the counting of votes. We believe that this measure is a sign of the practical experience we have gained and that it is to the credit of those of us in this House at this stage of democracy in South Africa. We thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for this measure and take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, initially the hon member for Innesdal referred to a few general matters that I shall be replying to. Then he referred to certain technical aspects, on several occasions landing up in the doldrums and giving vent to certain generalities to which it is impossible for any right-minded hon member to reply. He said, amongst other things, that we should accept the realities in South Africa and not oppose them. Let me tell the hon the Minister and the hon member for Innesdal that we shall be opposing this new dispensation until justice is done in regard to White sovereignty, and White hegemony over our own affairs in our own territory has again come into its own.

The hon member for Innesdal said, in the last part of his “crying” speech, that there were problems in the Transvaal. If he were also to bear in mind that in the Cape there are going to be more Coloured seats than White seats, and that there are going to be more Indian seats than White seats in Natal, I think he would have even more reason to cry more heart-rendingly than he has up to now.

As far as the Bill in general is concerned, the hon member said, in reply to the hon member for Green Point, that if the hon member for Green Point’s argument were correct, all legislation would have to be suspended until the new dispensation came into operation. The hon the Minister said, however, that this matter is an own affair, and I would be glad if, in his reply, the hon the Minister would give further explanations about this, because paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 of the constitution provides that the following are own affairs:

It is important for the hon the Minister, who has been wrestling with this problem for a long time now, to tell us what the exceptions are which are prescribed or are to be prescribed by or under any general law. Does it mean, for example, that the question of franchise qualifications will be prescribed by a general law? Will the fact that a person must be 18 years old, or is a married woman, or the fact that one must own land or have obtained certain educational qualifications, be matters about which each population group will be able to decide for itself?

The hon member for Innesdal said that in this connection the White voters had an interest in a Bill, such as the one we are now debating, being tabled. So surely it would be all right if we were only to make this Bill applicable to the White House of Assembly which would, in future, govern the own affairs of Whites. Why make it applicable to all three Houses. We would, except for certain reservations—upon which another hon member on this side will elaborate further—be quite satisfied to judge this Bill as though it related to the Whites alone. The hon member for Green Point is correct, in a certain sense, when he says that at this stage we are already prescribing to members of other Houses how they should handle their elections.

The hon member for Innesdal also said that standing committees would look into these matters. I do not know exactly what he means by that, because surely it is an own affair. Why must there be standing committees of the three Houses to examine this mechanism? Surely it is a mechanism that will be dealt with in each House individually, or are we here again dealing with general aspects of the Bill? It would be a good thing if the hon the Minister could explain this to us.

With regard to the hon member for Innesdal’s argument about Rev Hendrickse having already renounced his ties with the Black Alliance and about it being, to a certain extent, illogical of him to be putting pressure on the hon the Minister at this stage by nominating members of his party for the House of Delegates, let me point out to the hon member that this conduct on the part of Rev Hendrickse is quite logical and in accord with his approach to the new dispensation. His approach is one of wanting to bring everyone into the new dispensation, including Black people. He does not want to accept the population register as a basis for the new dispensation. He wants to extend the population register and move towards a one man, one vote situation, with the Black people included as well. So even before the new dispensation comes into operation, the hon the Minister will have a fundamental problem to wrestle with. [Interjections.] It would be interesting to see how the hon the Minister is going to deal with this matter. We are living in an era of consensus, and we would like to see how the hon the Minister is going to bridge this fundamental difference in principle between himself and the leaders of the Labour Party. We support him in the fact that what little remains of self-determination is, to a certain extent, going to be preserved in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. If, however, he were to accede to Rev Hendrickse’s demands, that would be an indication to us of the extent to which the NP has moved towards capitulation.

The hon member for Innesdal goes even further and says that in this process the majority of the various population groups must be accommodated in the new dispensation, that they must become proud of democracy and must have the privilege of participating in the new dispensation. As far as the various peoples in South Africa are concerned, the CP is in full agreement with him that in the various areas where they govern or are governed, the democratic process of processes that they believe in should take their course. By introducing those prosesses into the context of White sovereignty, the White House of Assembly and White Regemory, however, one would be doing an injustice, not only to the Whites, but also to the Coloureds and the Indians. In other words, these winged words of his would indeed be applicable if these groups were to be encouraged to establish their own parliamentary of governmental institutions in their one territories.

This Bill is a sequel to Act 110 of 1983, the new constitution. The new constitution cannot come into operation before this electoral legislation now before us has been accepted. If this Bill were merely applicable to Whites, we would most certainly not have had any specific problems with it, except for certain aspects, for example the suspension of the processes in regard to absent voters in certain circumstances. Generally speaking, however, we would not have had any major problems with it if it had merely been applicable to Whites. In terms of this legislation, however, everyone—Whites, Coloureds and Indians—who reach the age of 18 years will now be entitled to elect representatives to the same Parliament, albeit in various Houses.

Surely that is in the constitution.

It is giving practical effect to a constitution that we reject.

But which the voters accepted.

The hon the Minister says the voters accepted it, but the NP has also lost elections in the past. We are convinced of the fact that the more the voters come to realize what it was they voted for on 2 November 1983, as the voters of Soutpansberg came to realize, and as the voters of Potgietersrus and Rosettenville are now coming to realize, the more those things will work their way through. As this new dispensation is put into effect and as the problems, which the hon the Minister himself is now experiencing, become ever greater, the White voters of South Africa will discover to what extent the hon the Minister, his Press and his other mass media have succeeded in leading South Africa so very much astray. [Interjections.]

All adult persons, Whites, Coloureds and Indians over the age of 18 years, are now obtaining the franchise enabling them to elect representatives to Parliament, a Parliament which is going to preside over general affairs in one joint land area. It is a Parliament that is going to consist of representatives of various population groups which differ completely in regard to their cultural, traditional and, to a large extent, religious background. [Interjections.] We, and South Africa, too, are still waiting for the scientific proof, the scientific arguments, to convince us that such a dispensation, such a coalition between peoples, can succeed, and to prove to us whether it has ever succeeded in the annals of history, particularly where so many traditional, religious and cultural differences apply in the composition of a Parliament.

Order! I think the hon member is digressing a little too much now.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask you please to allow me to digress in regard to this Bill, because as a whole it stems from Act No 110 of 1983, the Act which makes provision for the method by which voters are going to be registered and can vote, and which makes the new dispensation a reality. This Bill is the instrument in terms of which the new dispensation is going to be put into operation, and that is why it is essential for us to range widely in our discussion of it. I therefore ask you to exercise some patience in this connection, Sir.

Order! I shall allow the hon member a little more latitude, but I cannot allow him to discuss the constitution all over again.

Mr Speaker, I am not discussing the constitution, but merely wish to point out to the hon the Minister that we are still awaiting some scientific proof that a consociation of this nature can succeed. The hon the Prime Minister has previously denied it here in the House. Partition is the policy that has always applied in South Africa, and also in those countries where deeply divided communities must co-exist. The eventual solution was partition. [Interjections.] Partition has been NP policy over the years. [Interjections.] Is the establishment of the various national states not partition? Why is it an absurdity—and this question has been discussed over and over again—when it comes to the Coloureds and the Indians, whilst it is accepted in the case of Qwaqwa or Gazankulu? [Interjections.]

Order! With that argument the hon member is moving very far from the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I very politely want to ask you to allow me to discuss this aspect, because it involves the franchise for the various Houses.

Order! That is quite in order, but the hon member yielded to the temptation to speak about the Coloured and Indian homelands, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. As far as the CP is concerned, a coalition of peoples and population groups in one Parliament is something we are opposed to in principle. [Interjections.] As I have just said, we have been debating this matter since 22 February 1982, and we are still waiting for the Government to furnish us with scientific proof of where a dispensation of this nature has ever succeeded.

Now I come to the question of own affairs.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that in future this matter would be dealt with by the various Houses as an own affair. He does not want to consolidate the Electoral Act either because there are certain complications that still lie ahead—it seems tome, for example, as if provincial councils are on the point of being abolished. We should like to hear the hon the Minister’s approach to this matter.

As far as clause 90 is concerned, the question has already been argued exhaustively. The hon the Minister sits with his problem in regard to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. It is with great expectation that we are waiting to see how he is going to act in this connection, and we hope he is not going to bow to the pressure that is going to be exerted on him by Rev Hendrickse and the Labour Party.

Because we are opposed in principle to this dispensation and to this Bill, I move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan really makes things difficult for anyone who has to speak after him. He referred to the hon member for Innesdal, but the arguments of the hon member actually had very little to do with the legislation before this House. He simply linked this Bill to the 1983 constitution which we debated over a period of weeks last year and on which we held a referendum among all the voters of South Africa last year. He used this as a pretext to start that entire debate all over again. The hon member for Brakpan did not conduct a meaningful debate as far as the actual contents of the legislation before this House are concerned.

The hon member said that if this Bill had only dealt with elections for the White House, they would have been able to support the legislation. Except for the fact that reference is also made to other Houses, there is no reason why the hon member for Brakpan cannot support this legislation as being legislation that also applies to the White House. After all, the White House must also have a basis for elections, and the hon member for Brakpan did not advance a single argument to prove that any of the provisions of this legislation weaken the procedure in terms of which hon members are elected to this House. There was not a single argument from the hon member for Brakpan to show that these improvements that have been proposed by the select committee and accepted in the main by the Government, are unacceptable to his party. He built his entire argument on the fact that the entire set of rules, comprising almost 100 clauses, deals with the White House as well the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

We on this side of the House welcome this legislation. As was stated by the hon the Minister, this legislation is the result of an investigation by a select committee that carried out a careful and thorough investigation of the entire procedure of the election of members of the House of Assembly. The proposals this select committee submitted to the Government involve a situation which does in fact warrant consideration and investigation from time to time. As we progress and as technology, in particular, progresses, it is necessary to investigate to what extent one can adjust one’s electoral procedures. We on this side of the House particularly welcome the fact that we are doing away with two separate enumerations of the population of South Africa and that the population register will now also form the basis for elections. This means that it is being made easier for the individual voter to ensure that he remains on the voters’ roll merely by ensuring that his name appears on the population register.

It has already been mentioned in other debates that the matter of change of address on the population register is of the utmost importance . I do not want to take this opportunity to elaborate on change of address again, but in order to benefit fully from using the population register with regard to elections and to benefit fully from this very welcome amendment in terms of which the voters’ roll can be brought up to date to a far more recent date, we shall have to find ways and means of enabling the individual voter to report his change of address the moment he changes his place of residence.

The other provision I may want to say a few words about before turning to the hon member for Green Point in order to pass one or two remarks about his arguments, is the provision in clauses 35 and 79 that the postal vote system need not be used in specific elections. I should like to make an appeal for the postal vote system to be retained as far as possible and for the present system of postal and special votes to remain in use in future as far as possible. In a certain set of circumstances postal votes have advantages which special votes do not. We on this side of the House agree that the special vote system also has advantages but on the other hand there is greater mobility with postal votes than one gets with special votes. It is a simple fact that it is an expensive and tedious process to transport voters to presiding officers for special votes. Equally, no matter how much one would like to see voters make their own arrangements for special votes, this is the exception to the rule. In point of fact the vast majority of voters who make use of either postal or special votes are people who rely on a political party, not only to make the necessary arrangements for them, but also to transport them physically to the presiding officer for special votes. The transporting of voters to presiding officers for special votes when time is of the essence in the weeks and months prior to an election, is time-consuming and expensive. On the other hand, postal votes have the advantage that they are not time-orientated, as any arrangement with regard to special votes involving officials of the State must of necessity be. One can allow a voter to exercise a postal vote in the middle of the night, in the early hours of the morning or whenever his circumstances of work or whatever allow him to do so. It is also a fact that the service rosters and movements of certain voters make it virtually impossible for them to get to a presiding officer for special votes. From time to time during elections one also comes across a group of voters with whom one is literally at one’s wits’ end as to how one would have got them to vote had it not been for the postal vote. We on this side of the House do not object to the provision, but ask that the use of postal votes be retained as a last resort.

It would be another matter if it were possible to fight elections on the basis on which we fought the referendum last year, if it were possible to fight elections in a way which is not constituency-orientated. However, as long as we are compelled to hold elections under the present system which is constituency-orientated, it must be borne in mind that a large number of voters will either have changed their addresses or will not be able to get to a polling station owing to circumstances. That is why we feel that if one can use more than one method to enable those voters to cast their votes, so much the better.

In conclusion I should like to get back to one or two arguments raised by the hon member for Green Point. He made mention of the fact that clauses 90 to 93 of the Bill are apartheid legislation, to use his words. In this way he clearly indicated that he had fundamental objections to the principle that only persons who qualify to vote for specific Houses may act as election agents and other election officials in an election. If the message has not got through clearly by this time, we must re-emphasize that in the new tricameral system in which we shall find ourselves within the next few months the separate population groups—the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians—will participate in that dispensation as groups. Clauses 90 to 93 merely give expression to the general or basic concept of participation in the new dispensation by the population groups as groups.

By alleging that the specific clauses are apartheid measures, the hon member for Green Point is trying to slip in a provision by means of which he can ensure that there can be reciprocal influencing of elections by the different population groups. In fact, therefore he is trying to circumvent the entire basis of the new dispensation. In the days that lie ahead we on this side of the House will probably have to be mindful of the fact that in the same way that the hon members of the CP will try to wreck the new dispensation, as the hon member for Brakpan said that they would oppose it wherever they could, hon members of the PFP, too, will do everything in their power to use the mechanisms which have been created to implement the new dispensation, to establish their own unitary state and unitary community.

I think there is one argument the hon member for Green Point used that cannot be left unchallenged. The hon member asked that all people should be free to exercise their right to vote. He wanted an assurance from the Government that the voters would be free to vote and that people would not be intimidated. On the surface this sounded like a very reasonable request, until he began to elaborate on his argument by saying that there were indications that the Security Police were interfering in the political activities of people by means of intimidation and so on. In so far as the hon member is intimating that the Security Police will not allow the elections in terms of this legislation to be free, I think this is a disgraceful suggestion.

The role of the Security Police in our community is to see to it that people will be free to exercise their democratic rights. Not to intimidate them so that they are unable to do so. I do not think it befits an hon member of the official Opposition to suggest that we in this country tolerate the sort of intimidation tactics that are commonplace elsewhere on this continent.

We on this side of the House are very gratified at the progress made with legislation of this kind. Hon members of the PFP and the CP alleged that this legislation was unnecessary at this stage because it could just as well have been considered after the new dispensation had been implemented. Even if one were to see this legislation from one’s own viewpoint as a mere springboard measure for the new dispensation, a measure by means of which all three Houses can be involved in the new dispensation when it has to be debated and considered separately with a view to amendments, it would still be necessary to implement it now, no matter what amendments may be made to it in future.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umlazi has made some interesting observations, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, but I will deal with them during the course of my speech.

When first sighting this Bill my immediate reaction was that it is a Bill which one can truly call a Committee Stage Bill. My second reaction was that it is a measure which we should refer to a select committee immediately. However, we understand the problem in that we have a time-table to adhere to and that this therefore cannot be done. I just want to say that I disagree with the observation, which was also made by the hon member for Umlazi, that this Bill arises out of the workings of the select committee that sat to look into the Electoral Act, because that is not basically so. That select committee sat to consider the Electoral Act, the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act and the South African Indian Council Act as they affected election to the various bodies. Subsequent to that we have debated the new Constitution, a measure which was passed by the House last year. Certainly much of what was discussed in that select committee has found its way into this Bill, but circumstances have now altered completely with the new Constitution. Circumstances have also been altered because of recent amendments to the Electoral Act to cater for the first elections for the two Houses that are to come into being shortly. This does not detract from the fact that the select committee working under the chairmanship of the hon Chief Whip of the governing party, the hon member for Tygervallei, did sterling work and it is very pleasing to see that many of the recommendations that flowed from those hours of work have found their way into this measure. Although many proposals which emanated from that select committee found their way into this Bill, sadly many have not. The hon the Minister himself in his introductory remarks highlighted but two of them. Mr Speaker, I understand of course that the rules of this House would preclude me from dwelling too long on the omissions, because by doing so you will obviously rule that I am seeking to extend the scope of the Bill, so I will not run that risk. I will try to keep within the parameters laid down, but I would like a little later to touch on just one of those omissions and I hope that you will bear with me.

While I agree with much of what the hon member for Green Point had to say I regret that we cannot support his amendment. The idea is a sound one, but I would like the hon the Minister to give the assurance here today that he will give early and urgent consideration to again putting the committee to work, within the framework of the new Constitution, to give undivided attention to our electoral laws. I believe that is of paramount importance. I do not think it is competent for us today to decline to pass the Second Reading of this Bill in order for a committee consisting of members of the three population groups to be set up, but I do believe it is competent for us today to request that the Minister give urgent consideration to setting up, within the framework of the new constitution, a committee to look at South Africa’s electoral laws, because our electoral laws have, I think, suffered more than any other laws on our Statute Book.

We find ourselves now, in 1984, trying to update our electoral laws in the computer age, while for some inexplicable reason which I cannot understand we persist in retaining provisions that suit an ox-wagon era and an ox-wagon mentality. These are things to which we must give our urgent attention. In highlighting examples, I think I need go no further than to talk about the postal vote system. I believe that that is the most antiquated and outmoded system in operation anywhere in the world within any electoral law. It is open to abuse and malpractice and I disagree entirely with what the hon member for Umlazi has had to say in this connection. I shall, however, discuss postal votes in a little more detail later, if I may.

I do believe that this Bill should be treated purely as an interim measure in order to cater for the obvious need for electoral procedures for two new Houses as well as for our provincial councils. The fact is that by-elections will inevitably take place. I think a previous speaker said there is no need to have this Bill, now and that it could well be introduced after the new Parliament has come into being. I am reminded of the tragedy that befell a certain Major E B Isaacs—I think the hon member for Berea will remember this—who never took his seat in this House although he was elected to it. I think he died on the way down to Cape Town from Durban.

On the train.

Yes, he died on the train, as the hon member for Durban Point has just reminded me. That is the sort of thing that can happen. If the two new Houses are elected, we would have no electoral procedure for that sort of eventuality arising. That is one reason why we must have something on the Statute Book before the new Houses come into being. By-elections will inevitably take place between the coming together of the three Houses in one Parliament and the next general election, and I think it goes without saying that all four our provincial councils are in a state of limbo in respect of their future. Their future is in fact the subject of intensive debate behind the scenes at this very moment. I can only say that, when one considers what we have before us in Parliament at present, it would appear that their provincial councils’ terms of office will expire in 1986. That is the position in terms of the existing legislation. So, it would be foolish of us to speculate on what their future will be, but we certainly have to provide for them until at least 1986.

Having said all that, I should like to look at the subject matter of the Bill. Firstly I want to say that we welcome the principle of the compilation and maintenance of the voters’ roll from the population identity register. As I said earlier, we are living in the computer age, but what we must learn to do is to adapt to this age and to use the advantages of modern technology. The most important thing to remember about any computer is that it is only as good as the information one feeds into it and, therefore, if we want to make this Bill work in this age of modern technology, we must embark on a process of voter awareness and voter education. That is an important point and I cannot stress it sufficiently.

We have to do a few very simple things in order to make the new system, employing the population register, work effectively and efficiently. Firstly, we must make sure that every single citizen gets himself or herself onto the population register. Secondly—and I believe that this is vital—we must ensure that citizens always see that their addresses are correct. There are many ways in which this can be done. At the moment we have an identity document with a small pocket in the back cover in which there is a piece of paper explaining how to go about changing one’s address. All one has to do is to submit this paper with your new address—it already has the existing address on it—to the department in Pretoria, or to a local office once they are linked to Pretoria by computer terminals. That information is merely put into the computer which then stores the new information. It automatically slots the person into his new electoral division and his polling district. That information is then printed and the new insert is transmitted to the individual.

The problem is that 90% of South Africans who carry identity documents, are not even aware of the fact that in the back of this document there is this slip of paper which enables them to keep their address on the register updated. That is where the problem lies and I believe that in this regard one should call on both chambers of commerce and of industry as well as local authorities in order to do everything possible to assist the department in its campaign. We should also use our broadcasting services. If a person for instance had to produce his identity document when entering into a hire-purchase contract—any good trader would want to check this in any event—the trader can be told to ensure that the address of the person entering into the contract is correct, in other words that the address on the HP contract is the same as on the slip of paper at the back of the person’s identity document. When a person opens an account with an electricity corporation or applies for a telephone from the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, he/she should be required to produce his/her identity document in order that his/her address can be verified. In this way machinery will be put into operation and something positive will be done to ensure a notification of the change of address. This is the second aspect to which I wanted to refer.

The third aspect is dealt with in the Bill, namely the immediate return of all identity documents in respect of a deceased person. Here, burial societies and undertakers can obviously be called upon to assist as this is an area which could also be open to abuse.

These three things are all that are basically required to keep our population identity roll and voters’ roll up to date with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

We do know that in the transition period provision is made for those registered on existing rolls but who may be awaiting identity document numbers or who have applied for identity documents but have not yet received them. We welcome this provision. What we welcome even more, is the fact that they will only be catered for up to the first general election after the new Parliament comes into effect. Here again, it is in this period that voters’ education and awareness will be of paramount importance.

We are also very pleased to note that the provisions made for students, scholars, national servicemen, ministers, deputy ministers, and others as well as people undergoing paramilitary training, is being brought into line with existing provisions as are State employees in other countries. Provisions are also streamlined in respect of South African citizens who find themselves living in states which were formerly part of the Republic of South Africa.

I believe that the needs of political parties are catered for both in respect of the supply of voters’ rolls and the information required to update such rolls. At this point I want to take issue with the hon the Minister as regards the omission to which he referred in his introductory speech, namely the provision called for by the select committee regarding the twice yearly rendering of updated voters’ rolls to political parties. I take issue with the hon the Minister because I do not believe that he has motivated this sufficiently.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, at the time the House adjourned for lunch I was dealing with what the hon the Minister referred to during his Second Reading speech, namely that the recommendation of the select committee calling for voters’ lists to be made available to political parties at least twice a year could not be acceded to. One of the main reasons why he said this could not be done was because of a manpower shortage. I want to challenge the hon the Minister on that because I do not believe that this involves manpower at all. If one is dealing with the computerization of rolls and if, as is provided for in this Bill, each month there will be an updating of the rolls and the relevant information is punched into the computer, such as changes of address, the bringing in of people who have just turned 18 and thus qualify for the vote and the deletion from the roll of those who are deceased, then, at the end of a twelve month or six month period all that is required is the push of a button and the computer will do the rest. The computer could then print at least a flimsy of a roll which can be provided to a political party or to each of the political parties in respect of each constituency throughout South Africa. It is not a manpower problem. This is possibly something that the hon the Minister will not concede we should have twice a year, but I think he should give serious consideration to issuing a consolidated roll at least on an annual basis.

Also provided in this legislation is an interesting point, one which will be welcomed by all of us who have rural or periurban constituencies, and that is the provision not only for a residential address but also for a postal address.

Hear, hear!

Sir, this is something which the hon member for South Coast, obviously like myself, and I am sure also the hon member for Amanzimtoti and the hon member for Mooi River, has problems with. In respect of people in the rural communities we need to have a postal address as well as a so-called residential address.

The most interesting provision of all is contained in clause 35, where the insertion of the following subsection is proposed:

In other words, the State President may say that absent votes, postal votes as we know them, may not apply in a specific election. This is only 25% of the way along the road that we would like to travel. We believe that postal votes should be scrapped for once and for all. We believe sincerely that this method of voting is outdated and outmoded. It is abused and misused. I wish I had Roget’s Thesaurus with me, which I think our hon colleague for Sandton is so fond of quoting from, because I think there could be a multitude of other adjectives that could be used in describing a postal vote. Anyone who can deny that the postal vote system is one of the worst things that ever happened in any electoral process is living on cloud nine.

The hon member for Umlazi made much of it. He was in favour of the retention of this system.

What is the postal vote count in Rosettenville?

Sir, whenever a little breeze blows in the Free State every “windpomp” goes “oink”. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umlazi made mention of postal votes and said he was in favour of the system. I think the South African voter is probably one of the most pampered and spoilt in the world today. I think with our system we are entrenching something that has become rife in our society. All the mother of today seems to do is to cart her children backwards and forwards to school, to play, to sport, to swimming, to tennis, etc. She drops and carries; she takes the children here and there. This is exactly what we are doing with our voting system. We who represent political parties fetch voters and carry them to the polls; we are doing all manner of things. We mollycoddle and pamper the voters. We do this in respect of the special vote system and that is bad enough, but in the postal vote system we run backwards and forwards, wasting a lot of money and doing something that virtually only lends itself to abuse. [Interjections.] I think there are a number of hon members in the Government benches who agree with me. Their faces display considerable interest in what I am saying. [Interjections.] We might need votes but then for heaven’s sake let us encourage the voter to exercise his vote in the proper way. A voter should want to vote of his own accord and that is what we should encourage in our society. [Interjections.]

Another interesting provision is the increase from 50 to 500 signatures required for the registration of a political party. In this regard I intend to move an amendment in the Committee Stage. I agree that there should be 500 signatures but I do not agree that we can expect that 500 registered voters will attend an inaugural congress of a party. There I think we are asking a lot, and I do not think it is feasible. However, since an independent candidate needs 300 signatures, I see no reason why a party which seeks to be established should not require the signature of at least 500 registered voters who subscribe to the articles, the aims and the principles of that party. To say, however, that there should be 500 people at the meeting at which these articles are accepted I think is asking a bit much, and I will move an amendment accordingly.

Another provision that is welcomed is the one concerning boundaries, magisterial districts as well as jurisdictional areas of local authorities and municipal wards. It is long overdue that municipal wards are taken into account when a delimitation commission sits. I think this will find favour with most if not with all hon members.

We also note the amendment in regard to the question of the distance that a voter has to travel in order to cast his vote. According to the amendment a voter who will be more than 25 km away from the nearest polling station, may cast either a postal or a special vote. In the urban areas this is highly desirable, and we have no argument with it. However, in the rural constituencies I think this is going to be impractical in certain instances. If we are not very careful, I think we are going to find that in far-flung rural constituencies up to 80% of eligible voters will expect to cast either a special or a postal vote before election day, only by virtue of the fact that they live 25 km away from their nearest polling station. I am sure that this will apply to the sort of constituency that the hon member for Kuruman represents. This is possibly stretching it a bit far, but it certainly is welcome in respect of urban constituencies. I wonder, however, whether we should not have a differential there between urban and rural areas.

There is a tightening-up of the regulations in regard to the indentification of a voter, and we believe this is a good thing. We believe it is right that a person should be able to identify himself by means of the type of identification that parliamentarians wear when they come in and out of this House. It is an official identification and is acceptable. However, what we also believe is right is the amendment introduced in respect of a written identification of a voter in that it is more in the form of an affidavit—if I may use that term—than it has been until now. That identification will be carried out by means of set questions and answers and will have the signature of the person that claims to be the voter. I think that this is something that will make anybody think twice in regard to falsely representing themselves to be someone they are not.

There are many other provisions in this legislation that have a streamlining effect and which do a great deal for our electoral legislation. As I have already said, electoral legislation is among the most amended legislation on our Statute Book. However, in conclusion I should like to come back once more to the question that I dealt with at the outset of my speech.

In the first instance I want to deal with the question of the change of address. I mentioned a number of ways in which we can ensure that each time a voter changes his address that new address will be submitted. There are many methods that can be looked at in this regard. During the lunch break my hon leader mentioned the question of estate agents to me. There are people in urban areas moving from flat to flat or into boarding establishments or whatever the case may be. What I would urge the hon the Minister to do is to give teeth to some form of legislation to ensure that people notify the department timeously of changes of address because that is the only way in which we are ever going to find a satisfactory solution to this problem. It is also the only way in which we are going to be able to get our voters’ rolls into the order in which we would like them to be so as effectively to represent the voice of voxpopuli in this House.

Finally, I want to commend to the hon the Minister our thinking in regard to the urgent attention that will have to be given once the Indian and Coloured Houses have become part of this Parliament to the establishment of a select committee to investigate the Electoral Act with a view to its amendment and ultimate consolidation so as to streamline it once and for all. As the hon member for Green Point so rightly observed, when those gentlemen take their seats in Parliament they will have a certain amount of experience behind them. They will have experience that they can bring to that committee that none of us has had because they will have had experience of voter patterns, trends and requirements among their own people. With all due respect to what the hon member advocated in his amendment, those people will then be able to bring to that committee the knowledge that they have gained as a result of the elections they will have just fought. However, the important thing is that the hon the Minister give this House the assurance that he will establish such a committee because, if he does so, I can assure him of our support for this legislation. We also reserve our right to move and to speak on certain amendments to this Bill during the Committee Stage which we think will further improve the legislation.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Umhlanga. The hon member said many things with which I agreed and a few with which I did not agree, but in general the hon member was very positive. He said that he could not support the amendments of the CP and the PFP, and I agree with the hon member on that score as well. He recommended that in the new dispensation a committee should be appointed to investigate all the electoral legislation, and I have no fault to find with that either because I think it is a good suggestion. The hon member was also firmly opposed to postal votes. I want to tell him that I am not as vehemently opposed to postal votes as he is, although I am not nearly as enthusiastic about postal votes as my colleague, the hon member for Umlazi. I think there is still a place for postal votes, but not such an important place. I think it is in fact necessary for us to make provision for postal votes during the transitional period, but I wonder whether that committee which may perhaps be appointed in the new dispensation should not give serious attention to getting rid of postal votes.

The hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the Electoral Act was a comprehensive procedural measure which governed every facet of an election from registration of a voter to the result of an election in minute detail. That is quite correct. This legislation is the instrument which is used to achieve what we want to achieve. In English one would say: “It is a vehicle”. In other words, one’s election system will vary according to what one wants to achieve.

The hon member for Pietersburg will certainly support me when I say that in the Medical Association we have an election system where we receive an envelope containing a number of other envelopes. Then, at one’s home, one takes out these envelopes, fills in one’s ballot paper and inserts it in the one envelope, which one seals and then inserts in the other envelope containing other things. One then inserts this whole lot into yet another envelope, and posts it to the registration officer.

The hon member for Pietersburg is an active member of the Medical Association, just as I am, and he knows about that procedure. He once told me that he was an active member of the Association. That election system where one votes alone at home will not work in this case. It works in another case, but in this connection I just want to say that I have a problem with the hon member for Pietersburg, with the CP, in as far as this legislation makes provision for separate voters’ lists for the various Chambers. The hon member for Brakpan kicked up a fuss here and said that the CP could not accept this legislation because this legislation was not in relation to Whites only. I made notes of previous occasions when they spoke about “full” and “total”, when they were referring to the apartheid of the White man, to separate development. They want it to be full; they want it to be total. But I want to make the statement that they are not being honest with themselves and that they are not being honest with the voters either.

I come back to the hon member for Pietersburg, and I want to make the statement that he is a member of a mixed, multiracial organization. He is on the voters’ roll of that multiracial organization and he participates in its activities. My reason for saying this, is that both the Medical Association and the Medical Council are mixed. The voters’ roll of the Medical Association is the register of members of the Medical Association. I know Dr Siedat, I know Dr Komhalo; I know Dr Ismail and I know several of those gentlemen who are members of that association and who are on that voters’ roll. Similarly the hon member for Pietersburg is also a member of the Medical Council. When an election takes place, he participates in it.

The hon member may say that the Medical Council is a statutory body and that one is compelled to register, otherwise one cannot practise. I concede that, but the point is that he has never objected to this before. He has never said that it was wrong that this should be the case. In fact, if the hon member were to go so far as to say that it was wrong that this should be the case, it would be rather nonsensical. Consequently he has never done so.

The Medical Association, however, is not a statutory body. It is a voluntary organization. The hon member has even served on a committee of the Medical Association. When the hon members of the CP act in a rigoristic way and wish to bring about absolutistic separation, strictly according to compartments they are being absolutely unrealistic and dishonest. What is more, there are leading hon members of the CP, including the hon member for Pietersburg, who are members of mixed organizations, who participate actively in those organizations on a voluntary basis and whose names appear on a mixed voters’ roll, also on a voluntary basis. The hon member has never in his life made any objection whatsoever to that. It may perhaps be a good thing if the hon member would also tell this to the people of Potgietersrus.

Last Saturday, while I was driving to the Transvaal, I told my wife that I must prepare for this debate today, that I would have to refresh my memory as far as the legislation was concerned, and that I would have to make a few preparations in regard to the CP and the HNP … [Interjections.] It is not strange that I should have made a slip of the tongue. I made a slip of the tongue and said “HNP”, but as the students would say, the CP took the HNP and just twisted it around a little and turned it into the NHP—the Neo-Herstigte Party—and now they are hand in glove, and totally so, with the Herstigte Nasionale Party. No wonder I made a slip of the tongue! This is all I want to say about their attitude to the legislation.

My wife then asked me how I could prepare myself to reply to people who had not yet made their speeches. I then told her precisely what the CP would say. They would say that this was not pure White legislation. They would say that they did not accept the result of the referendum. They would say that they did not accept the Constitution Act from which this legislation stems and which serves as the basis of the legislation. That is precisely what happened here today. Similarly I said that the PFP would say that We had not consulted these people; we should wait until that happened one day. I shall come back to the PFP later.

As far as this last White Parliament is concerned, the White Parliament which now for the last time will discuss such legislation to which the hon members of the CP are objecting because it is not for Whites only, I just want to say that in the referendum we had a two thirds majority. We believe that the voters are not stupid. We believe that the voters knew what they were doing when they voted for the new constitutional dispensation, not in a general election, but on a specific subject in a referendum. We accept that decision.

When the CP broke away from us in 1982, they waited quite a while before they said that they accepted a Coloured homeland as a policy. They did not say it at once. As I have just been saying, it took them quite a while to become the Neo-Herstigte Party. This legislation makes provision, inter alia, for democratic parliamentary elections. It makes provision for the party system; in actual fact, it encourages the party system in the sense that if one is a member of a registered party, one does not require any signatures.

Another fellow-traveller of theirs, the AWB, is seriously opposed to the democratic system as well as to the parliamentary system and the party system. I do not know of any hon member of that party, from the leader, the hon member for Waterberg, downwards, who has stated that they summarily and totally reject the AWB because of these principles of the AWB. Those principles which the AWB proclaims are utterly in conflict with this legislation. In this connection I want to quote from Sweepslag, the mouthpiece of the AWB, from the first edition which appeared in 1982. I repeat that this legislation makes democratic elections for Parliament by means of various political parties possible. The AWB states on page 37 of that publication:

Reference is being made here to the Constitution Act of 1961:

On page 42 they say that the Afrikaner is not accustomed to political parties; they do not want political parties. They say they reject the democratic parliamentary system as forced upon us by the conditions of the peace treaty in 1902. That is precisely what provision is being made for in this legislation. The AWB went on to say:

When I quote these standpoints which the AWB adopts in regard to the principle of this legislation, I want to ask those hon members of the CP/HNP what their standpoint in this regard is. Do they reject it, or is this why they are opposed to this legislation? The AWB continued:

They said that the “droewige partystelsel” that we had was the result of liberalism. In addition, they said that this system had degenerated:

The hon member for Brakpan’s standpoint on the result of the referendum is that one should not accept it. He does not think that one should accept the decision of the voters when they made use of this procedure for deciding. What did the AWB say? They stated further:

I should like to ask members of the CP what they say about this. It was also said:

We say that we would rather have a democratic system and that is why we have this Bill, so that democratic elections can take place. They say that every citizen will then vote for a person and not for a party.

I come now to a very important quotation as far as this legislation is concerned. In this connection one must bear in mind that the Afrikanervolkswag is a front organization for the CP. It took the CP a long time to say that they were in favour of a Coloured homeland. It took them a long time to say that they accepted virtually everything the HNP was saying. How long are they going to take to accept these statements? Why do they not reject them out of hand? Why do they not reject the AWB and say that they do not agree with these standpoints?

Order! I want, to point out to the hon member that on a number of occasions now he was treading on the white touchline as far as the Bill was concerned. He must return to the Bill now, for it is no use saying every now and again that the Bill says this or that while he is actually making a political speech.

Mr Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. However, I want to quote the following passage because I am of the opinion that it really does have something to do with the Bill. It is concerned with the purpose of the system, which is different to the system which we have at the moment, and reads as follows:

I shall not say anything more about this passage now, and shall put it to one side.

The CP now rejects this logical legislation which the Whites say they want. We must not forget that we held a referendum and that the Whites said that they wanted it. The Whites said that they were prepared to reflect on their own affairs, but that they were similarly prepared to accept that there should be a tricameral Parliament. The Whites accepted the system in its entirety.

Before I discuss the history of this matter for a while, I should like to refer to the PFP. Their theme song once again was that we should decide on this measure together with the Coloureds and the Indians, and should not pass it now. Apart from the fact that the hon the Minister pointed out that there had in fact been consultation with the Coloureds and Indians, apart from the fact that the Coloureds were asked to comment, it is quite simply the case, as the hon member for Umhlanga also pointed out, that by-elections will have to take place. He referred to an hon member who died on a train. A very good friend of mine, Rev De Lange, also died after an election while he was on his way to Parliament. Consequently, we must make provision for by-elections in such cases. People may die at any time after nomination day, and provision has to be made for a by-election. The Whites invited the Coloureds and the Indians to a working luncheon. Surely we need not wait until they are in Parliament, until they are physically present, before we set the table and decide on the menu. Surely we can set the table at this early stage with white table-cloths and napkins. Surely we can say that the emblem on the glassware should be waterblommetjies from the Cape on a brown background. Surely we can say that there will be curry and rice and bobotie on the menu.

Recently, hardly a month ago, legislation was passed here on Indian education as an own affair. All the hon members in this House, including the hon members of the CP and the PFP, supported that legislation wholeheartedly. They did not say that we should wait with this own affair of Indian education until the Indians themselves were sitting in Parliament. We must carry on in the meantime, and we must set the best possible table for when the members of the two other Houses turn up. Then the table must be set, so that we can sit down and enjoy that working luncheon and implement the new dispensation from a practical point of view as well.

In conclusion, I should like to refer for a while to the historical aspect. At the outset I said that the kind of election which was held and therefore the kind of legislation one required, depended on the object one wanted to achieve. The Medical Association is a mixed organization, and I say that its voters’ roll is not suited to Parliament. For this purpose we need a different set-up, and a different kind of election.

I just want to refer briefly to the four elections of Paul Kruger after the Transvaal regained its independence. After Amajuba and 1881 the Transvaal became independent and when ex-President Burgers died at Richmond, the Transvaal decided that they should hold elections again—the triumvirate was then in power, with Paul Kruger as the vice-president.

The first election was held from 15 January to 15 February 1883. It therefore lasted for one month and a day. The candidates were Paul Kruger and Gen Joubert. Paul Kruger polled 3 431 votes, and Gen Joubert 1 171. Consequently a total of 4 602 voters voted during that period of one month and a day. The hon member for Innesdal also referred here to the latest figures on the number of voters per electoral division. We say that the system which Paul Kruger used, in which the voting lasted for a month and a day to allow 4 602 voters to vote, was appropriate for that occasion, just as the Medical Association system is appropriate for that association. However, we cannot now apply that system of Paul Kruger here and vote for a month and a day.

The second election of Paul Kruger in the time of the Transvaal Republic again lasted for a month. It took place in January 1888, and in that election Paul Kruger polled 4 483 votes and Piet Joubert 834. That gives one a total of 5 317 votes that were cast during that month.

Sir, new legislation is required for new circumstances. The third election took place in 1893. That was an important election, because in that election other procedures were involved. Almost 100 years ago, in January 1893, Paul Kruger polled 7 911 votes and Joubert 7 246. Paul Kruger therefore had a small majority. A former judge, Mr Justice Kotze, polled 85 votes. The majority was 665.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether he cannot tell us what Jan van Riebeeck’s majority was.

Sir, I do not specialize in the past to the extent to which the CP does. I do not go back as far as Jan van Riebeeck. I begin with Paul Kruger. For me, that is going back far enough.

Gen Joubert felt aggrieved about Paul Kruger’s majority of 665. He said he did not agree with it. As I have said, this election took place in January 1893. The Executive Council of the Volksraad then discussed this matter in depth. They even examined the ballot papers and then changed the result. The Executive Council said that Paul Kruger had polled 7 881 votes, Joubert 7 009 and Kotze 76. Incidentally, the total was 15 242—as hon members will see, they were moving in our direction as far as numbers were concerned.

The people were still not satisfied with the decision of the Executive Council, and at that time the Volksraad had the final say. These ballot papers were then taken to the Volksraad and the Volksraad met on 1 May 1893—bear in mind now that the election had been held in January—and a commission of six members was appointed, three Kruger supporters and three Joubert supporters. The Volksraad then told them that they should reach a consensus. Those six members then deliberated and eventually reached a consensus and brought out a report on 9 May 1893. They then decided that Paul Kruger had polled 7 854 votes, Joubert 7 009 and Kotze 81.

When they submitted this report to the Volksraad, it was agreed to, after a lively discussion, by 21 votes to three. This is an example of an election being held and then referred to the Executive Council of the Volksraad, where the Volksraad had the final say. I want to repeat that this would not be appropriate to this legislation.

The fourth election took place between 3 January and 3 February 1889. Paul Kruger polled 12 858 votes, S W Burger 3 753 votes and Joubert 2 001 votes. The majority was therefore 9 105, and 18 612 voters cast their votes. According to the hon member for Innesdal, 64 constituencies at present have more voters than the aggregate number who voted in the election in the Transvaal Republic in 1889.

I want to conclude by making one or two observations on the Bill itself. [Interjections.] I must concede that I am a relatively new member of this House. I thought that in the Second Reading one discussed the general principles and not the details of the legislation. The details are actually discussed during the Committee Stage, but I also want to refer to a few details now.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister referred to clause 31. On my copy of his speech it is on page 11. I think that this is a printing error, because clause 31 merely deletes certain provisions. The hon the Minister must have meant clause 28. There is a misunderstanding as far as this clause is concerned. The clause provides that the voters’ list may be adjusted up to seven days before an election. The problem has now been postulated that the name of a person who voted by, means of a postal vote weeks before may appear on another voters’ list seven days before polling day. However, that cannot happen. This is obviated by other clauses, the details of which I do not wish to discuss now. To prevent confusion, it would be a good thing if this matter were cleared up.

This legislation is merely logical, and is in fact plain common sense. The people determined with a two-thirds majority that the new constitution should be implemented, and here it is now being done. I cannot understand why hon members on that side of the House want the legislation to be read this day six months. It makes no sense at all. It is a great pleasure for me to support this legislation.

The words of the hon member may be those of a newcomer to the House, but the appearance is that of an old hand at the game.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Dr Vilonel has told us a great deal about many things but very little about the Bill. He told us things about the Medical Association, about the AWB and about President Kruger in the Transvaal. Out of all that, he came to two conclusions, both of which I am able to support. The first conclusion he came to was that the Transvaal has more voters today than what it had in the days of President Kruger and his second conclusion was that he supported mixed voters’ rolls enthusiastically. For instance, he also has no problems with the Medical Association having a mixed voters’ roll. I hope that he will be able to extend his logic and vision into other fields in the not too distant future.

I do not know if it is necessary to apologize, after listening to some of the previous speakers, for the fact that I plan to confine myself largely to the contents of this Bill, but that is what I plan to do. Referring to the hon the Minister’s opening speech there are two aspects which I would like to comment on at this stage. There should firstly be no misunderstanding that the select committee which sat three years ago, has limited terms of reference. As a select committee we were not called upon to investigate the whole Electoral Act or all the electoral laws. A series of amending Bills that had been read a First Time in this House were referred to that select committee. Our instructions were to look at those Bills and possible changes thereto. I think it is necessary to put that in its context. It was not a comprehensive review, although it was fairly wide-ranging.

The second aspect was touched on by the hon member for Umhlanga. In the hon the Minister’s speech he said that only two recommendations of the select committee were not accepted by the Government. That is not factually correct. In the hon the Minister’s view there may have been only two recommendations of great consequence that were not accepted, but a large number of the recommendations have not been incorporated into this Bill, some dealing with important detail and some with not so important detail. We will, however, deal with those during the Committee Stage.

I should like to highlight some aspects of the Bill that I think are of importance and deserve the attention of the House. The first is the question of consultation with Coloured and Indian persons who are going to have this Bill applied to them in their elections in due course. I am not referring to the August elections, but to subsequent elections. I do not believe that the sort of consultation that the hon the Minister has referred to is adequate, not that he could do anything more at this stage of the proceedings. However, I do not think it is adequate in terms of revising the electoral laws. In the select committee we proposed that prior to the committee reporting, our proposed Bill should be published and comments and representations thereon invited, particularly from Coloureds and Indians, and that such comments and representations should be considered before the committee submitted its report. We were supported in that by the hon member for Umhlanga. However, hon members from the Government side voted against that. Nevertheless, it was interesting that when we came to the report of that select committee it was seen fit to make specific reference to the need for consultation. At that stage we were talking about the Coloured Representative Council and the South African Indian Council because those were the two statutory bodies for whom the election laws were being amended. It was specifically stated that certain sections of the Electoral Act in connection with the registration of political parties, additional nomination requirements and voting by absent voters, shall not be applied in respect of the Coloured Representative Council and the South Africa Indian Council until the said councils or the voters who may elect members of the said councils have been consulted thereon. I think that was a wise view. I still think it is of great importance. The point made by the hon member for Green Point is perfectly valid, and hence I support his amendment.

The question of the urgency of the matter has been raised, both by the hon member for Umhlanga and the hon member Dr Vilonel. As the hon member for Green Point said, we are well aware that we could not go into the September situation with nothing at all and that we have to have something. I think it will be interesting for hon members to note that clause 106 of this Bill provides that if it is not practical to compile the voters’ list in the new way for the purposes of a by-election then the existing provisions, as far as Whites are concerned in terms of the Electoral Act and as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned in terms of the Electoral Amendment Act of 1984, will apply. Our belief is that it would have been far wiser merely to have brought in a very short Bill containing provisions that by-elections that take place before the Electoral Act is revised in a comprehensive way can be held either on the basis of the existing Electoral Act or, alternatively, on the basis of the Electoral Act that is going to apply for the August elections.

The next thing I want to draw attention to is the question of using the population register to compile voters’ rolls. This party supports that concept in principle, and we always have supported it. It has been in the pipeline for five or more years, and we have never opposed the idea of moving in that direction. The two problems that we have always maintained need special attention are, firstly, the question of the transition from the existing system to the new system and, secondly, the question of exceptions, for instance whether there are certain categories of persons that for some reason or other should be treated as exceptions either on a temporary or a permanent basis.

Unfortunately, when the 1979 Act was passed, certain assurances were given because, as the hon the Minister will know, that Act itself provides for the voters’ rolls to be based on the population register but it was not to come into effect until a date set by the State President. Promises were given that rolls would run in parallel, and all sorts of things of that nature, before the switchover was actually done. That has not really happened. There has been supplementing of the rolls in terms of legislation passed by Parliament in June 1982. I will therefore accept that to some extent there has not been a complete overnight switch.

We have always consulted Parliament. We have never done it without the consent of Parliament.

The hon the Minister is correct; his department has always acted within the law, in the sense that if he wanted to change the Act he introduced a Bill—which we did not support, I might say. However, the promises made in 1979 of running in parallel and making sure that the new system was more effective and better than the old one before we switched over, that has in fact not taken place. I do not think that these promises have been made with the intention to mislead or anything of that sort. I honestly think that the political heads of the hon the Minister’s department, himself and his predecessors, have underestimated the problems of switching over to computerization and have overestimated the capacity or possibly the manpower resources of the department. For example, last year when we discussed this question of using the population register and also using books of life in the referendum, we pointed out a number of difficulties that could occur. The hon the Minister explained various steps that would be taken, and I want to look at only two of them. One, for instance, was the question of getting photographers from the department to go to old-age homes. We were told that this was one of the ways in which senior citizens who did not have books of life, would be assisted. However, trying to get a photographer from the department to come and do that job, was like getting blood from a stone. Eventually, for a short period on one day, we managed to get a photographer to a certain home. However, in terms of generally assisting people in old-age homes on a wide scale to get their books of life, that help was just not forthcoming. Many people sent in perfectly acceptable application forms before the end of September and yet were not able to vote on referendum day because they had not received their books of life. We will never be able to quantify it but it certainly occurred to a sufficient extent for people to come to us and complain about it.

As a result of this switching over, the way it is being carried out and the over-estimating of the capacity of the department, the voters’ rolls today—certainly earlier this year—are in a bigger shambles than I can ever remember them being.

The hon member for Innesdal said that when one is dealing with millions of voters one cannot expect the voters’ roll to be perfect and that one could not expect all changes of address to be picked up straight away. Of course we accept that, but I can assure the hon the Minister that in many constituencies including my own there are hundreds and hundreds of voters either on or off the roll who should not or should be on that roll, as the case may be. The names of certain people are continually being removed from or replaced on the roll, and I am referring here to hundreds of people as far as just my own constituency is concerned. I am not referring to only half a dozen or so. We are having people registered at other addresses in Sea Point, Port Elizabeth or Durban in the Cape Town Gardens constituency, and I think that a little more modesty should be shown in regard to the question of the capability of the department of handling these large numbers of people. I know that it is very difficult and people do not inform the department in good time, and so I have a great deal of sympathy for the department in this regard. However, if one is going to have an efficient system then it must be based on reality. We must move forward from an improved situation and we should not allow ourselves to be in the chaotic situation in which we are at present.

I think that the question of the disfranchising of old people is a very relevant one. If the figure of 5% in respect of people not having books of life is an accurate one—I am sure the hon the Minister feels it is an accurate figure and it may well be so—I think that quite a substantial proportion of this percentage are old people living either in old age homes or in flats or houses on their own. These people are very often difficult to reach. They do not want to go or there may be money involved in having their photographs taken which they cannot afford. We have pensioners living in flats on something like R150 per month who are afraid to part with any sort of document. Although the department has been helpful in simplifying the forms, the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of these people throughout the country, and I do not think that there is any need to disfranchise these people. We intend moving an amendment at the Committee Stage to provide that people over the age of 65 years when this Bill becomes law will be entitled to remain on a voters’ roll for the rest of their lives whether or not they have a book of life.

According to the hon the Minister, we are talking about 5% in terms of White voters as far as this matter is concerned. However, as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, he estimates that something like 30% of Coloured voters will not have books of life by the end of this year.

Why do you take the most negative figure? I said it was between 70% and 80%.

I am sorry. I was going to mention Indians. I thought the hon the Minister said that it was 70% for Coloureds and 80% for Indians. Very well then, let us make it between 70% and 80%. However, given the optimism of the hon the Minister as far as this sort of thing in the past was concerned, I put my money on the 70% rather than the 80%. In any event, let us take the figure at 80%.

One also does not know how many of the people forming that 20% who do not have books of life are also not on the voters’ roll. The hon the Minister did not give us any figures in this regard. However, working on the 80% figure, it would mean that if one was making use of this legislation without clause 106, we could, let us say, have a by-election early next year in February in a seat for the House of Representatives or House of Delegates, and that as many as 20% or 30% of the people entitled to vote in a constituency will have to have their names placed on the voters’ roll by way of a special mechanism. I think that that is quite unsatisfactory. I feel that the issuing of books of life should reach between 90% and 95% before there is any switch over. One has to remember that there has not been the campaign among Coloureds and Indians in regard to obtaining books of life that there was among the Whites prior to the referendum. I know it is encouraged, but there has not been an equivalent campaign. There again, we are going to end up disfranchising a large number of people. In this regard I should specifically like to ask the hon the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to give some clarification , and then I will possibly take the matter further at the Committee Stage.

Clause 12 states that people must have an identity document to be on the voters’ roll. The proposed new paragraph (c) states in line 50:

This is quite straightforward. However, what I should like to ask the hon the Minister is whether those people are going to be kept on the voters’ roll all the time or is the voters’ roll going to be taken from the population register and, if and when an election or a by-election takes place, will those people then have to go along and make special application to be put on the roll? If I remember correctly the advice given to us in the select committee by the officials, they had in mind that only at an election or a by-election would one bother to add those other names. I think that that can cause problems, presumably because those names would come on that list that comes out seven days before the election. If one is talking of large numbers, such as in respect of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates there could be, or a large portion of the electorate, I think it could cause considerable problems because up until the last week one would be fighting an election on only 80% of one’s voters’ roll and then one would suddenly be getting a potential 20% more voters. I should like the hon the Minister, when he replies, just to explain how procedurally the department plans to handle that aspect.

One of the main approaches of the select committee was to get a uniform elections system between the three groups, namely the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. I think that is a highly desirable aim and in many respects this Bill implements that intention. I should like clarification on one matter, however, a matter to which the hon member for Brakpan referred, namely the fact that in the Constitution the following is mentioned under Schedule 1 that as an own affair:

I should like the hon the Minister, again when he replies to the Second Reading, to give us an idea of what aspects of this electoral process he imagines being what one might call an “own affair” in terms of administration, control, etc. It would appear as though we are going to have one Electoral Act—we do have one and it appears as though that is not likely to change. So that would obviously be a general affair because it applies to all three groups. I cannot imagine what the hon the Minister has in mind; whether each of the three groups is going to keep its own population register separately and make up its own roll? Then one would have duplication. Therefore I should like to know which aspect, other than possibly some very minor and trivial aspects, are in fact going to be dealt with as own affairs as opposed to general affairs—unless one is going to have three departments. If one thinks in terms of the departments involved in elections, they are essentially the Department of Internal Affairs, the regional representatives of that department as well as magistrates in many parts of the country. The Department of Justice and the Department of Internal Affairs provide the bulk of the personnel involved in this, and how one is going to split that up I do not know. If they are not going to be split up, in what respect is it going to be an own affair?

There is an aspect which in a sense causes us to move away from having uniform electoral systems. Far more seriously, in my view, is the totally undemocratic aspect that there is a provision in terms of which the State President, when he issues a proclamation, can provide that there will be no postal votes. I am not a great fan of the postal vote system. I think it leaves a great deal to be desired; in fact so much so that in the select committee I proposed—and here I quote from the report of the select committee:

I might say in this regard we were supported only by the hon member for Umhlanga and not by anyone from the NP.

I do not think that the postal vote system is wonderful and cannot be improved; in fact, I feel very strongly that it should be improved. To have a system whereby in a proclamation the State President, at his discretion, can declare that in an election there will be no postal votes is also unacceptable. One should realize that this will not be limited, though the motivation suggests that it will be the case, to the House of Represenatives or the House of Delegates. I think it is quite unsatisfactory if the State President can merely by proclamation decide that there will be no postal votes in a particular election or by-election. I think such a system is open to abuse. In the nature of an electoral law one wants to prescribe as much as one can and to leave as little as possible to a discretion.

The hon the Minister claims that there has been consultation with Coloured and Indian persons and if in fact one or both of those groups do not want absent votes, then one should rather put that in the Bill and provide that postal votes will not be allowed in respect of those Houses while they will still be allowed for the House of Assembly. If postal votes are not to be allowed for any of the three Houses, then the system should be abolished altogether. Alternatively, if the other two Houses later feel that they would like to have postal votes, then they can come forward with recommendations. I am quite sure that hon members of this House will be quite happy to go along with their wishes. Merely to allow in a Bill for the absolute discretion of the State President so that he can decide in the case of a particular by-election or in a general election for any House that one can have postal votes or no postal votes as he will announce in a proclamation, I think is undemocratic and completely unacceptable to us.

There are also provisions which tend to place restrictions on the participation in the democratic process or the electoral system. I think in this context it is worth our while to consider how important it is for a democracy to encourage the involvement of the maximum number of people. I believe that in this country as well as in many Western countries it is a very serious problem that large numbers of the citizens feel alienated from the bodies which govern them, whether they be local authorities, second tier government or central government institutions. I think it is a cause for grave concern that one finds a growing number of people who adopt the attitude that it does not matter for whom one votes or it is not worth voting because in the end it makes no difference. That is not a peculiarly South African disease, and to that extent I believe that for people who believe in democracy we should be encouraging people at every turn to participate in processes.

Let us look at the question of a deed of foundation. To be able to register after the new Constitution comes into operation a political party has to hold a meeting of 500 people at which they sign a deed of foundation and give various details. I think there are two aspects, in this respect which deserve our attention. The first is that throughout the new constitutional system we have worked on the 4:2:1 ratio, which is approximately the ratio of the sizes of the White, Coloured and Indian population groups. Surely if a White political party, to show that it has support of substance, needs 500 people at a meeting it is unreasonable to expect of an Indian political party to have to get the same number. The logic of 4:2:1 would apply here as well as it would apply anywhere. I might also say that in these days of very high travelling costs I believe that a requirement like this will in effect discriminate against any political organization that draws its support from poorer rather than better off people, because obviously where there is money for people to travel from major centres to one meeting, you are going to have a much better chance of getting 500 registered voters to sign this deed of foundation. People who cannot afford to travel are going to find it that much more difficult. I therefore see this as an obstacle rather than assisting …

The population density at Chatsworth is such that you do not have to travel far to get 500 people there.

During the course of the debate earlier on one of my colleagues suggested to me that I should say that this should become a requirement even for existing political parties, because he felt that would be a devious way to get rid of the hon member for Durban North and some of his colleagues, but until that interjection I refrained from making that remark. However, I think the hon member earned it in the end.

We got 4 600 signatures in 1981. Ask Rupert Lorimer.

Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will allow the hon member for Durban North some speaking time.

A second aspect in this regard restricting or discouraging participation is this question of 300 affidavits being needed for someone to stand as an independent. First of all, I believe that this is an unfair hindrance on the campaign of that person. We all know that in elections, time is of the essence. I think it would be wonderful that if I stand in an election that my opponent in addition to all the things I can spend my time doing like holding meetings, collecting postal votes and all the normal things we do like designing our leaflets and so on, still has to go around and try to get 300 affidavits. People are very loath to sign things and I think that that in itself is an unfair advantage for people who do not stand as independents. Secondly, it clearly flies absolutely in the face of the concept of secrecy in an election. Why should 300 people have to put their names on affidavits which are then available to the candidate and his agent? Presumably the implication is that he cannot spread this information far and wide, but surely he can investigate certain things as a result of it otherwise there is no point in his knowing about it. It breaches the whole secrecy aspect of elections. At present you have a system whereby one person nominates and another person seconds a candidate so that there are only two people who are obliged by law to publicly declare support for a particular candidate, whereas now we are trying to force it on 300 people. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, let me just first refer briefly to the hon members for Green Point and Cape Town Gardens, in particular to the facet to which they devoted a reasonably long and drawn-out portion of their speeches in the debate, ie the 300 signatures that must be submitted by an independent candidate in the prescribed form. There is an expression that defines very well what we are trying to do here and that is to clamp down on certain “cronies”. We want to prevent someone simply deciding at any time suddenly to stand as a candidate in a constituency. In the past we had many such instances of a candidate coming to the fore and merely drawing a few votes. The whole electoral procedure is thereby affected, from top to bottom. Such a person knows for a fact that he has no change of winning that constituency. I do not know how many of these independent candidates have lost their deposits in the process—the statistics ought to be interesting. Let me tell hon members that I personally know of instances where our old political friends, the HNP, which has now amalgated with the CP, in the past having submitted a list of 400 signatures of people supporting them. Then the election comes along and they obtain 100 votes. In truth, democracy is democracy, but the whole question of ballot papers, their printing and distribution, are affected for the sake of a 100 votes. It is simply beyond me. I really think that type of person must now simply fall in with this provision. If he can show proof of 300 people who really support him as an independent candidate, we give him the opportunity to stand.

In the past a person whose political party was not represented in the House also had to obtain 300 signatures. We have now completely omitted this requirement. In the select committee the hon members did, in my view, largely agree with us that we should relax this requirement. If I am not mistaken, they also agreed with us, to a large extent, that we should try to prevent—and I must now choose my words very carefully—these “cronies” from coming along with only 70 or 80 supporters, with the person then trying to fight an election on the strength of that. I think we have discussed that situation over and over again. In the Committee Stage we can again come back to this facet and to the necessity of having 500 people sign a political party’s manifesto.

I do just want to tell the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that the chairman of the select committee, the NP’s Chief Whip, really did allow a great deal of time for discussion. I do not think one of the members of the select committee can say he did not have an opportunity to say exactly what he wanted to say. Now we again come back to the specific problem envisaged by the hon members of the PFP, ie that of 70% or 80% of the Coloureds and Indians having documents, whilst the other 20% or 30% do not. I do not know how many times I have heard their representatives say, on television and on other occasions: “You people must register; you must obtain identity documents so as to be able to vote.” There are indeed other organizations that want to prevent people from registering and having their names appear on the population register, thus preventing them from voting. People do, in any event, have the next few years to have themselves registered and to have their names incorporated in the population register so that they can become voters. If they do not do so, I honestly do not know how we should continue in our efforts at spurring them on to register.

This brings me to the case of the old-age homes. I do not know how good the hon member’s organization is, nor do I want to blow my own trumpet, but I also have an old-age home or two and some aged in my constituency and I want to assure you, Sir, that in my constituency there are very few aged indeed who could not vote in the referendum. Why is that? The reason is that I personally approached the department and made the necessary arrangements. All one has to do before the next general election—and we do not know how far away that is—is to ensure that the people in the old-age homes receive their documents. One must go to the department and ask the officials to come along with a view to arranging for the names of the people in the old-age homes to be included in the population register. That is how simple it is, and I cannot understand why the hon member continually harps on the fact that the has old people who do not have the necessary documents. It is the simplest thing under the sun to put it right. In any event, they do still have the next few years to ensure that when an election comes along, the aged can participate. In my opinion they will still have an opportunity to register over the next eight years. The hon member must just get down to tackling the issue. Then he would get his old people onto voters’ lists.

As other hon members have already indicated, this Bill aims at amending the Population Registration Act and the Electoral Act in the light of the recommendations of the select committee, of which I was also a member. I think it is of cardinal importance to note that the principle of the equality of all the groups to be represented in Parliament is incorporated in this Bill. There is now a uniform system of principles for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. I again want to repeat that it is important to note that although there will be one Parliament, the voting for members of the three separate Chambers of that Parliament will take place on the basis of three separate voters’ lists. If by-elections or a general elections were to take place after 22 August, no group can say it has to be satisfied with a second-rate Act, or that the Whites had the best Act bringing them to Parliament, whilst the other population groups had to make use of an inferior Act. No one would be able to fling that in our faces, since everyone in Parliament will be elected in terms of the same provisions and be governed by the same principles.

There is one thing I agree with the hon member for Brakpan about, and that is that this Bill stems directly from Act 110 of 1983. That is the one great truth the hon member proclaimed here. As other hon members have previously remarked, however, the voters of South Africa have indicated, with an overwhelming majority, that we should continue with this. No matter how many times the hon member for Brakpan and his leader say, outside the House, that they “will not take it,” let me put it to him today that we shall take the reins of the future in our hands and do what we think is right. We shall strive for fairness and are not afraid to look the future squarely in the face. We do not want to turn our backs on the future, particularly in view of the fact that two-thirds of the White voters in this country have told us to go ahead.

I cannot, like the hon member, contend that the voters did not know what they were voting for. I wish he would tell members of the public that they were stupid and did not know what they were voting for. I know and believe that every voter who voted yes or no knew exactly what he was voting for and also knew that he could trust the Government with the future of this country. The voters knew exactly why they were voting “no”. Hon members on the opposite side of the House could possibly have influenced a few of them, but I am certain that the voters knew what it was all about.

I want to come back to the principles contained in the Bill. Several procedures are being improved and made more streamlined. There are also provisions that will clamp down on certain abuses. Taking note of exactly what has been tabled here, I think that anyone who does not support this Bill should go and think again. As hon members have remarked, in future voters’ lists will be drawn up from the population register, with the proviso that people who do not yet possess an identity document will, in one specific instance, still be able to vote. Here I must link up with the hon member for Umhlanga, who is not present at the moment, and say that we must do everything in our power in an endeavour to ensure that people who are entitled to apply for identity documents do, in fact, do so. We shall not, however, suddenly be removing people who do not have identity documents from the voters’ lists. We are again affording them ample opportunity to have their names incorporated in the population register so that they can be registered as voters. We again want to appeal to all our people today—this includes Whites, Coloureds and Asians—to ensure that as of now, and during the next few years, they put their affairs in order so that they do, in fact, register in terms of the population registration legislation. They must not heed calls to stay away and not to register. We know that activists are calling upon them to do so, We know they are trying to subvert democracy in this country. I repeat: All parties ought to accept the principle of encouraging Whites, Coloureds and Indians to have their names recorded in the population register. At present procedures are so simply that after the next general election there will really not be anyone in the country who will be able to say firstly that he did not know about it or, secondly, that he did not know to set about things. All the opportunities and facilities are there.

This legislation before us contains certain provisions about the way in which we should deal with duplicate identity documents. Since these documents are going to become increasingly important in future, and since they are increasingly going to be made use of in elections, we can no longer afford, in future, to have these documents simply lying around. There are numerous examples of people who have identity documents, have temporarily misplaced them and apply for a duplicate, which is then issued. When his original document comes to light, he is in possession of two documents. I know of people who have even had up to three documents. That is something we must curb as quickly as possible. I can guarantee that in future those identity documents are going to be abused. Whether in the case of a referendum, a general election or a by-election, as sure as we are sitting here those documents are going to be abused.

The legislation also makes provision for the fact that in cases where someone attaches sentimental value to the identity document of a deceased member of the family, he or she may return the document to the department, together with the necessary request to keep the document, after which it will be returned after having been properly cancelled. Then these documents cannot be hawked around.

By the way, there is another important amendment being introduced here, and that is that amended voters’ lists can still be issued up to seven days prior to an election. This is, of course, going to stop quite a few of the dead rising from their graves to vote. In the past we have seen how many cases there were of people who, although they had been dead for some time, suddenly “make an appearance” on polling day. In the one or two cases I know of it is amazing, in view of where the voting took place, that the ballot papers did not catch fire!

Be that as it may, it will now be an offence—the legislation makes provision for this—not to return a duplicate identity document or the document of a deceased to the department within a specified period. In the case of a duplicate identity document it must be returned to the department for cancellation, and in the case of an identity document of a deceased, it must be returned for the purposes of cancellation, but with the proviso that a next-of-kin can have the document returned to him.

I think that the other aspect to which I referred a short while ago, ie that voters’ lists can be brought up to date up to seven days prior to an election, resolves one of the big problems we have come across, that of a voter arriving in a constituency a fairly short while before trying to vote there. That has always caused problems for political parties. Hand in hand with that, of course, there have also been the problems of postal votes and special votes. This now offers political parties and their candidates an opportunity, if they want to make use of postal votes, to do so and also to get a voter onto the voters’ list of his constituency within a reaonable time prior to an election. This consequently eliminates the necessity for postal and special votes. There is a further provision in regard to the specific use of postal votes, and that is that the one initially issued will be the one that will be valid in future.

Of course the select committee endeavoured, as far as possible, to eliminate the problems experienced in the past, but I know that problems will crop up again in the future. No matter how many times we ask the hon the Minister to tell us what are own affairs and what are general affairs, it will be of no avail. We could not try to furnish a definition, but if the legislators in this country could encompass everything in one Act, it would never be necessary for us to table amending Bills here. Although they thought the old constitution was perfect in every respect, we subsequently had to amend it. Similarly this legislation will have to be amended in future. Hon members must really not think we can now pass legislation to cover every eventuality in the future.

Today I should also like to appeal to hon members of the CP. Why do they not accept, as their referendum compatriots, the members of the PFP, have done, that the referendum is now something of the past? Each time they disagree with a Bill introduced here, we have to conduct a referendum campaign all over again. Why waste so much time by repeatedly making use of the same arguments? The way they conduct themselves in this House, and the arguments they advance, have come to assume a fixed pattern. How often have you, Mr Speaker, not had to point out to them that we are no longer conducting a referendum campaign. We must now stop making the 1838 blood-and-tears speeches here. That would be fitting and proper at some national festivities, if they choose to make those speeches there, but this is 1984. We have this country’s future before us, not behind us. We must now take firm hold of the reins of the future, without being afraid to do what our sense of responsibility demands of us. I am therefore making an appeal to the hon members of the CP not to attempt to conduct the referendum campaign all over again each time they speak. Let us now act like responsible people. Even though we do not agree with certain procedures or principles—and we know they do not agree with the referendum result—it is unnecessary for them to hark back to it each time.

For me it is a privilege to support the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am quite sorry that the hon member for Stilfontein concluded his speech on that note, because in the main I agree with most of the arguments he advanced. I shall, as time goes on, come to the points on which I disagree with him. I now merely want to react to the last remark the hon member made.

The hon member said that a referendum was held and that two thirds of the voters voted “yes”. He says there is consequently a mandate in terms of which the government can now act. That is all very well, because that is so. There are, however, one third of the voters who did not quote “yes” in the referendum and therefore did not extend such a mandate. Here we must remember that we are dealing with people, people who must take decisions and people who can change their minds. The history of not only this country, but of all countries, indicates that people can change their minds. In 1943, for example, the old United Party of General Smuts scored a resounding victory at the polls, and if the NP at that time were to have decided that that was the mandate, had accepted the fact and left matters at that, and if no one had fought against it and tried to convince the voters to see things in a new light, the United Party would still have been in power in this country.

But it still is.

The fact of the matter is, however, that throughout history the various political parties have presented their policies to the voters with the purpose of convincing them to change their standpoints. That is why a mandate from the voters is not an everlasting mandate. It can change, it can be amended. On that basis the CP is determined, with its principles and its policy, to keep fighting, just as the old NP of those days fought in order to convince the voters to see things in a new light.

Just as the HNP did.

Yes, as the erstwhile Afrikaner Party helped the NP of those days, the HNP will help the CP to bring this about. There is no crime being committed in doing so. Let me say again that we shall go on fighting until we have won. Like every other party, we are confident of being able to do so. [Interjections.] What of it if people laugh today? At the beginning of 1948 the old United Party laughed at the idea of the NP being able to take over power. This merely goes to prove that he who laughs last, laughs longest.

Just tell us when we must start laughing.

Yes, the hon the Minister can start laughing now, but we shall be laughing later.

This Bill relates to two very important Acts in this country, firstly the Population Registration Act of 1950 and, secondly, the Electoral Act of 1979. If I were to make a few general statements, my first statement would be that it is essential for the Population Registration Act of the Republic of South Africa to be as effective as possible and that any method to improve that Act should be adopted. It is also true that an Electoral Act—as far as we are concerned, there is more than one—is of fundamental importance to a specific population group. And that is why it is our conviction that an Electoral Act should be enlarged upon as effectively as possible so as to eliminate all possible shortcomings and solve all the problems encountered along the way, so that eventually one has the best method by which elections can be contested.

In this legislation there are, in regard to both the Population Registration Act and the ElectoralAct, certain amendments to improve on the methods adopted, etc, which we on this side of the House would have welcomed and with which we would have had no problems. The hon member for Brakpan, however, very clearly stated the CP’s principle, and that is that we would have supported this Bill if it had been destined only for the Whites. Since it is now general legislation, however, emanating from the constitution of 1983, which we reject and oppose, we are not prepared to support this Bill as such.

The hon member for Umlazi, who is unfortunately not present, said earlier that he could not understand the hon member for Brakpan’s standpoint, as far as this was concerned, because there were only a few clauses in this legislation dealing with the franchise of the Coloureds and the Indians. That is surely untrue. Every clause of this legislation deals with that, for clause 107 of the legislation specifically repeals the Electoral Act for Indians, which is still in force. So this means that when this legislation is passed, it will be applicable in toto, as far as their elections are concerned, to the Coloureds and the Indians. It is therefore not a question of this legislation merely containing a few clauses that are solely applicable to the Coloureds and Indians, and of the remaining clauses merely being applicable to the Whites. This amending Bill will, in its totality be applicable to all three population groups when it becomes law.

A further problem that we on this side of the House have with this Bill, as a general law, is that it will be administered by a Minister entrusted with general affairs, ie the hon Minister of Internal Affairs. This Bill, however, makes provision for so-called own affairs, for own elections. It is a general law making provision for own elections. It creates a problem as far as we are concerned. Schedule 1(10) of the constitution provides that elections are an own affair, but subject to existing general laws; ie elections as own affairs are subject to the provisions of this Bill, and this Bill is one which prescribes, in detail, how elections for Whites, Coloureds and Indians must be held. For my part there is a slight anomaly in what the hon the Minister said earlier in his Second Reading speech, and that is:

The hon member for Stilfontein went further and said that we should have such a uniform law because one population group must not be able to reproach another for having had a better law, whilst the law applicable to it was an inferior one. Just after that, however, in regard to the whole question of why there could not be a consolidated law, the hon the Minister said:

If each House were to opt for its own procedure in the future, that uniformity, that uniform Electoral Act, is surely not going to retain its uniformity. That would land us up in the doldrums in any event, with each group eventually having its own Electoral Act. That is what the CP stands for, each population group having its own Electoral Act for its own elections for its own people, on its own territory, for its own Parliament. There are people who say that such utterances reflect an illusion. The old United Party also thought the claims of the old NP were an illusion, but they had their own illusions shattered. At the proper time the voters shattered their illusions.

I also have a problem with clause 106. Clause 106 provides that existing voters’ lists will apply for interim elections, if I read it correctly. My problem is that this Bill is now hastily being piloted through. After the new dispensation has come into operation in September and by-elections must take place, according to the Minister this legislation must be ready for use in those by-elections. Could the provisions of clause 106 not function just as well for that purpose? If so, why the haste? Could the hon the Minister, in accordance with his policy and viewpoint—and I think that would have been fair and just—not have held back this piece of legislation, could he not have held back the integrated Electoral Act until all three the Houses had been constituted to decide about each clause of this Bill and to see whether each of them agreed with the content of the Bill as the Electoral Act for each of the groups?

After having made these few general statements I just want to highlight, for a moment, a few princples in regard to specific matters contained in the Bill and to express a few thoughts about them. This bill incorporates more than one principle. It would perhaps have been easiest if one could have dealt with it in the Committee Stage where one could discuss each eparate clause to indicate what the shortcomings or benefits in each clause were. [Interjections.] I know that we shall be coming round to that, but unfortunately we are still dealing with the Second Reading, where it is more a question of the principle being discussed, and one cannot go all that deeply into particulars, because otherwise the Committee Stage would perhaps become superfluous.

I personally welcome the fact that in future voters’ lists are going to be drawn up from the population register. In my view it will perhaps, in future, appear to be the best method by which to have a complete and unadulterated voters’ list drawn up. The present methods are tried-and-tested methods that we have adopted for many years, but they did not work all that effectively, and with each election we always had the problem of people who were not registered. On the one hand we had the problem, in recess periods, of people not having the interest in politics that they ought to have to ensure that they registered. It was chiefly the function of political parties to have people registered, apart from the general registration of voters that is carried out from time to time. In the interim it was the function of political parties to have people registered because political parties endeavour to have as many supporters as possible on the voters’ lists. If political parties had not set about having people registered, the voters’ lists would probably have been even more incomplete, with even more shortcomings.

That is why I think the method of using the population register will perhaps appear to be the best method, but it is also my conviction that we shall have to give much more serious attention to the fact that when anyone moves from one address to another, notification should be given of that change of address. I do not know whether it is the case, but I proceed from the standpoint that addresses should accompany the names of all the people recorded in the population register. I take it that is the case, but if it is not the case, a person’s address should also be at hand in the population register.

In this regard there are two matters involving clause 12(c) that I want to bring to the hon Minister’s attention. This relates to people who are not registered but who come along to vote. It is provided that if they can prove that they were on a voters’ list before the Bill came into force, or can prove that they had applied for a book of life, they could vote. The first provision does not create any problems as far as I am concerned, because one only needs to have an old voters’ list available to prove whether a certain name is there or not. Then the matter is settled.

Involved in the application for an identity document, however, there is a problem. It has been my personal experience that one applies for an identity document on a single form. To that form one attaches one’s photographs. One does not, however, receive a receipt from the department indicating that it has received those documents from one. I want to suggest that such an application be made in duplicate and that upon receipt of the application the Department should stamp the one form and immediately post it back to the applicant so that it can serve as proof of his application having been received. The truth of the matter is that once one has posted one’s application one does not, in any event, know whether it has arrived at its destination, because the fact that it could get lost in the post is not an impossibility. I think it would be the easiest possible method to have the copy of the form stamped and sent back so that the voter then has the necessary proof. He must, in any event, prove that he has applied, and if he did not write a covering letter of which he has a copy, he has nothing to prove that he did apply for an identity document. Then it is merely his word against that of the returning officer. I think it is a recommendation that the hon the Minister could perhaps consider in this connection.

There is also something else I want to point out. In the bill provision is being made for identity documents to be handed in in the event of someone’s death. It is also provided that failure to do so would be punishable. Would it not be easier to tie this whole matter up with the registration of the death? It can be provided that when someone dies and his death is registered, his identity document must be handed in. The handing in of the identity document would thereby not be finked up to the voters’ list, but to the registration of a death. It would then be much easier to solve or resolve the problem. When someone dies, his death must be registered, and if the handing in of his identity document is made a legal requirement, one would know that it was being done and not discover subsequently that a deceased’s identity document is still lying around somewhere, with the possibility of being misapplied in an election. Personally I do not have any problems with the possibility of having more than one identity document. It is a good thing that this will not be the case, but if careful attention is paid to electoral provisions, with names being deleted when a voter receives his ballot paper, the chances of casting a double vote in a constituency where such voters are registered is absolutely minimal, even if they each had three identity documents. Many people have more than one identity document. He does, for example, have a document relating to his place of work, a pension document and his ordinary identity document. There is consequently more than one document with which someone could try to cheat if he wanted to, but I am of the opinion that this possibility if being eliminated by the provision in the Bill that in the case of postal votes, special votes and votes cast at polling booths, a voter’s name should be deleted, and he would only have a chance to vote again if the returning officer neglected to delete his name. The use of identity documents or other means of proof to cheat with, are legion, regardless of whether a voter has one or two identity documents.

I should like to refer the hon the Minister to clause 1(1)(c), in which provision is being made for a Minister, a Deputy Minister or a member of a House of Parliament, and so on, being registered as a voter in the constituency in which he spends most of his time, and not necessarily in the constituency in which he lives. If he is absent from his own constituency more often than he is actually present, he must apply to be registered there. I think the reverse should apply. The normal procedure should be for a Minister or any other member of Parliament to be registered in the constituency in which he lives, but that he should be able to apply to the Director-General to be registered as a voter in the constituency in which he finds himself for the greater part of the year. Apart from the fact that some members of Parliament live outside the constituencies they represent, I think that the normal course of events would be for someone to be registered in the constituency in which he lives.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention, and let me tell him in advance that what I am going to touch upon has nothing to do with politics and that I have no sinister ulterior motives in doing so. I want to give him that assurance, because the hon the Minister apparently has it in the back of his mind that he should seek some sinister meaning in everything I say in the House. In this case there is nothing sinister in what I am going to say, and it does not have anything to do with politics either. If we draw up the voters’ lists on the basis of the population register, with those voters’ lists being augmented each month and names also being removed from them one takes it that they will be as up to date as possible. In clauses 14,18, 22, 23 and 28 provision is being made for the voters’ lists to be as up to date as possible for each constituency. If we proceed from that assumption, this means that we are going to have a minimum of absent voters. So if one has a minimum of voters who can be regarded as absent voters, I think that the provision of special votes for those cases, which are in the long run going to be exceptional cases, would be the method to adopt. Consequently we could do away completely with the question of postal votes. Together with postal votes, special votes have proved to be a good and effective method of casting one’s vote. I do not want to argue now about the abuses relating to postal votes and so on. Let us rather leave it at that. I am arguing on the basis of the comprehensiveness of the voters’ lists as a result of their being based on the population register and their being reviewed on a monthly basis, so much so that they would be as comprehensive as possible. Those voters who are not registered on the voters’ list of the constituency in which they will find themselves on polling day will prove to be the exceptions. Provision is also being made for the voters’ lists to be corrected up to seven days prior to the election. It is therefore merely a question of the last six days. If an adjustment has not yet been made by that time with regard to the odd voter here and there, I think that the special vote has been proven to be an effective enough method for those voters’ who cannot be present in their own constituencies, to cast their votes.

I want to go further. The hon member for Umlazi debated the possible benefits embodied in postal votes. Let me say, however, that the argument I have advanced is sound enough to convince me that there is no longer any justification for postal votes in our electoral system. Now the hon the Minister himself has, in regard to Coloured and Indian elections, which are on the doorstep, advanced arguments in the House, arguments which he regards as of decisive significance, to indicate why postal votes for Coloureds and Indians should be abolished in the coming elections and will not be made use of. I think those arguments are also valid in regard to White elections. This also affects the provisions contained in section 35 and 79 of the Act, provisions which we regard as absolute anomalies in the Act. In terms of those provisions the State President can from time to time by proclamation—it seems to me this can take place quite arbitrarily, because no criteria or norms are laid down in terms of which he must decide—decide that in a specific election the system for absent voters should be abolished. We strongly object to that. We are convinced that it is wrong to include in this Act a provision empowering the State President by proclamation, without fixed norms, criteria or rules being prescribed, to decide to abolish the method in terms of which absent voters can vote in a specific election. If we were to do away with postal votes for everyone, the relevant provisions to which we object need not exist, and this would eliminate many of the problems that could be experienced in future. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether these measures are being incorporated here with a view to their still applying only to the Coloureds and Indians in future, or will they also apply to White elections? After all, according to the hon the Minister we want a uniform Electoral Act giving everyone equal treatment. On the basis of these arguments I do not think that there is any justification for postal votes in future.

We must also bear the fact of the independent candidates in mind. In the House today the fact has been debated that there is no justification for independent candidates. In the history of this country, however, independent candidates have played an important role, many of them having won elections. Things have, however, become increasingly more difficult for the independent candidate. He is now being placed in a situation in which he has to submit 300 sworn statements, not merely signatures. Existing political parties also have the edge on him because he does not have the mechanism for dealing with postal votes, and then the same argument applies as that advanced by the hon the Minister in regard to the present Coloured and Indian elections, ie that their mechanism is not good enough to handle postal votes. The poor independent candidate never has an adequate enough mechanism to handle postal votes.

Like the CP.

The CP had more than 10 000 members when it was established and therefore does not have any problems where postal votes are concerned. [Interjections.]

On the basis of this argument I want to suggest that the hon the Minister take a very serious look at the continued existence of postal votes.

I also want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to clause 38. In terms of that clause a candidate’s permission is required for nomination—that is nothing new—and it is also provided that he should be legally competent to become a member of Parliament. I believe that the latter obligation should be imposed, not on the candidate, but in fact on the political party which he represents and on whose behalf he is contesting the election. Every political party ought to ensure that it fields a candidate who meets the requirements of membership of a House. On that basis I believe that this responsibility should be imposed on the political parties and not on the individual candidates. The parties must declare that all their candidates in a general election or a by-election meet those requirements. This would inevitably mean that this would then only be applicable to independent candidates. Such an independent candidate has quite a few requirements he must comply with, and I do not think he would go to all that trouble without ensuring that he met the requirements for becoming a member of Parliament.

I also want to focus the hon the Minister’s attention on clauses 41 and 67. In those clauses provision is made for the returning officer to be able to decide on certain matters for himself, provided he has the candidates permission. As I see it, no provision is being made in these clauses for what should happen in the event of a returning officer not having all the candidates’s permission. If one candidate were to be pig-headed, for example, it would mean that something that could very well have been a very good thing for the polling stations and so on, would simply fall through. Should provision not be made for some other method of settlement if candidates cannot agree? I can also foresee an independent candidate, who probably would not have enough people to help him in an election, possibly having problems agreeing to what would indeed be useful and beneficial to the other candidates, who are party candidates. Then he could simply wreck everything.

This brings me to clause 71(b). Could the hon the Minister give us some indication of what precisely this clause envisages? A voter whose name does not appear on the voters’ list can, after having submitted proof to the returning officer, be allowed to vote. His ballot paper is kept to one side, however, and is not counted. Does this mean that his vote will not be counted in that election at all—or is his ballot paper merely being preserved in order to satisfy the voter or not make him unhappy?

A court case could ensue.

I am still coming to that. Or is it possibly a question of his vote being counted if there were to be a court case? Would the onus eventually rest on that voter to prove that he was entitled to vote, or would the onus rest on the returning officer, who allowed him to vote, to prove that he could vote?

I want to content myself with these few remarks and link up with what the hon member for Brakpan said by adding that I cannot support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall refer to a few of the aspects to which the hon member for Koedoespoort referred. However, I want to make the general remark that the actions of the CP in this House recently, and again today, are symptomatic of a disease in the body of that party. If one were to give that disease a name, I would say that it is fear. It is fear that the White man in this country will go under, or fear that the White man will lose his identity. We in this House have had to hear ad nauseam how we want to sell out the White man. The speeches of those hon members are full of statements such as “the Government wants to make the White man abdicate or capitulate”, or “this is the final time that a White Parliamant will deal with this matter”. This morning we heard from the hon member for Brakpan, and from the hon member for Koedoespoort again now, that they are opposing this legislation because they are opposed to the new dispensation and because this legislation also applies to the Brown people and the Indians. With this opposition they are once again showing their inability to keep abreast of the realities of this country.

The hon member for Stilfontein also referred to that, but the fact is that on 2 November last year the White voters gave instructions by a two—thirds majority that a tricameral Parliament should be established. This House amended the constitution accordingly by a large majority, and both the Brown and the Asian population have already indicated unequivocally that they would like to participate in the new dispensation. A great deal of progress has already been made with the machinery to make the new dispensation a reality, and the legislation before us is part of that machinery. Moreover; this legislation is essential legislation, too. The Electoral Act Amendment Bill we approved in March this year, in terms of which the Brown and Indian chambers are soon to be composed, only makes provision for the first general election in which these two population groups are going to participate. If a vacancy should arise in any of the constituencies of the two Houses after the general election, that vacancy cannot be filled unless this measure is approved and placed on the Statute Book. Sir, you can therefore see how futile and ridiculous the CP’s opposition is and how out of step they are with the realities of this country. I want to tell hon members of the CP that the measure under discussion constitutes a small subsection of a larger process, a process of change and renewal which can no longer be reversed. Nothing the CP says or does will make us depart from our chosen course. The more they resist and protest, the more irrelevant they will become in the development of our history.

In his introductory speech the hon the Minister explained the purpose of this legislation, viz firstly to place a uniform Electoral Act on the Statute Book for all three Houses of the new Parliament, and secondly, to give effect to the recommendations of a Parliamentary select committee. The hon the Minister also competently illustrated the important amendments, amendments with which we on this side of the House largely agree. I therefore do not deem it necessary to comment on that any further, except to comment on the system of postal and special votes, to which a number of other hon members have also referred today. In this regard, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Umlazi, who made a plea for the retention of the system of postal votes. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that he is not advocating the abolition of the system of postal votes today, but is instead retaining it by way of an option arrangement through the State President. We are aware that after the referendum last year there were pleas that postal votes may as well be abolished, and the hon member for Umhlanga, as well as the hon member for Koedoespoort, made a plea in that regard again today. However, I do not agree with that way of thinking, and that is why I am thanking the hon the Minister for the fact that the system of postal votes is going to be retained in terms of this legislation. The champions of the idea of abolition came to that conclusion during the referendum, when absent voters were permitted to go and vote at any polling station in the country, and the most important reason for a postal vote thereby fell away. Hon members will recall that during the referendum we used only special votes. I can also understand that the Brown and Asian political parties want to make use only of special votes at this stage. In my opinion, the reason for this lies in the fact that at this stage they do not yet have large, strong organizations such as those the NP has built up, for example. That also explains why the hon member for Umhlanga and the hon member for Koedoespoort are so keen to have the system of postal votes done away with. The fact is that the party organization of the hon member for Umhlanga has collapsed completely. That party no longer has the organization to deal with postal votes, and I do not think that the party of the hon member for Koedoespoort has such wonderful organization either. They realize that they are lagging far behind the NP. That is why they want to do away with the system of postal votes.

After all, it is as plain as a pikestaff that the more absent voters there are, the more difficult it is to let everyone vote in time. During the last general election my party let between 10 000 and 11 000 absent voters from the Transvaal, the Free State, Natal and the Cape interior vote by way of postal and special votes here in the Cape Peninsula alone. We let 90% to 95% of these 11 000 voters vote by way of a postal vote, for the simple reason that one gets a lot further with postal votes than with special votes within a particular period of time. In the case of a postal vote one has to visit the voters twice, but it must also be borne in mind that one drives from address to address. In the case of special votes, however, one first has to drive the voter from his address to the magistrate’s office, and then drive the voter back to that address before one can go to the next address.

I recall that at the time when I was still the chief officer of my party in the Cape Province, on a particular day one of our hardworking helpers—he was also a presiding officer for absent voters—let a record number of 60 voters from different addresses cast postal votes at the different addresses. That same presiding officer assured me that if he had relied solely on special votes, it would have taken him the best part of a week to let everyone vote.

I concede that in areas where there are relatively few absent voters, for example, in the rural areas, the party organizations would like to make use of special votes. Special votes are the ideal method of voting in an emergency, for example, when the voter has to leave at short notice, or for those cases which arise a few days before polling day. I therefore welcome the amendment the hon the Minister is moving now, viz that in future special votes can be cast until 9 pm on the day before polling day. However, I want to reiterate with a great deal of emphasis that particularly in the urban areas where there are large numbers of absent voters, the system of special votes alone will not be sufficient and that we would like to make use of the system of postal votes as well.

Although I do not wish to move an amendment in this regard at this stage, I do want to avail myself of this opportunity to focus the attention of the hon the Minister on a practice which the PFP and the CP have been using to an increasing extent recently. As I have already said, these two parties do not really have wonderful organization, with the result that in most cases the NP beats them by far in tracing absent voters. What they are doing now is to go and take down the names and addresses of absent voters from the application forms we have handed in in the office of the electoral officer and then they try to steal a march on us with special votes among the voters. That is real vulture politics. [Interjections.] We do the work and they want to benefit. In most cases these two parties are given a rebuttal, but what annoys me is the fact that they pay special attention to elderly voters in particular and they terrorize old people to such an extent that they are eventually too afraid to cast their vote. We would be able to combat this evil partially if we could arrange that the first special votes and the first issuing of postal votes take place on the same day. As you are aware, special votes can be cast from the seventh day after nomination day at present, whilst the first postal votes can only be issued from the 21st day before polling day. It is usually during this time that the PFP and the CP workers do the most harm. I said that I did not want to plead for a change at this stage, but it is very clear to me that we will have to consider this problem in the future.

Finally, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my joy at the fact that almost 95% of all Whites have already been taken up in the Population Register and that the expected figure for the Brown people and the Indians in September is being estimated at as high as between 70% and 80%. This interest on the part of the Brown people and the Indians augurs well for the future.

If ever there was a group of people that deserves our greatest praise and gratitude, it is the officials who have been in charge of issuing thousands of identity documents over the past two years or so. First of all, it was the identity documents of the Whites that had to be issued before a certain date, and now it is those of the Brown people and the Indians. I want to thank the hon the Minister, the Director-General and all the officials concerned and at the same time congratulate them on the success they have achieved with this.

I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I follow on the hon member Mr Kritzinger with a certain amount of joy because his attack on the PFP is an indication that our postal vote organization has been so successful and he fears us to such as extent that He wants the hon the Minister to introduce special legislation to prevent our beating them at their own game. However, I shall have more to say about this matter at a later stage.

There are certain aspects of this legislation which make me feel that it is a prelude to disaster. I shall deal with these matters during the course of my speech with particular reference to certain elections that are due to take place soon.

I want to deal in the first instance with the first eight clauses of this Bill dealing with the population register. I feel, Sir, that this problem can be solved in a particular way. I fully agree that there is no better means than the Population Registration Act to have everyone on the voters’ roll. I believe that legislation should be passed so that we can have a system similar to a general registration taking place once a year. Take for instance the month of March. That will be the month when everybody must notify the population registration authorities of their present address. Whether they are the old people to whom the hon member for Stilfontein referred or the young people who have just turned 18 years of age, they will all have to fill in registration forms which they will then have to return post free to the population register in Pretoria or hand in to a regional office. In that way one will have everybody in South Africa doing a general registration of their own during, for example, the month of March. If that is done, surely it will take no longer than three months, ie April, May and June, in order to put everything through the computer so that at least once a year, during July, a complete voters’ roll, with the people mostly at their correct addresses, will appear. I see no problem with this because this is the system that is used in the United States of America where it is known by everybody that the month after Labour Day, which is a public holiday, is the month when general registrations are done all over the United States of America and in every state. That is where they get them ready because they know in the United States of America that there is going to be an election on the first Tuesday in November. That system is known by everybody and that is the way it can be done. That would avoid the present problem of saying that people should register. It is no good saying that people should register and that they should notify their change of address. We know from our experience that it is not done. The only way I can see that it can be done properly is to specify a month a year when one has a campaign. The Government has the use of the television service and it could be put on television that such and such a month is the month in which one must notify one’s address to the population register. The Government also has the use of the Press and the radio. There is no reason why with a proper campaign it cannot be done. It was shown in the referendum that when everybody was asked to get their identity books they did so. They did apply and I would say that most of the people were able to get their identity books. As a matter of fact the department went to great lengths at the end in order to ensure that those people who had not got their books could get them. I know of a case where three days before the referendum I contacted the department and I got an identity document for a certain old lady who had lost hers. I think that that could be done quite easily. All the problems that everybody here has mentioned in connection with out of date voters’ rolls could be avoided. I hope the hon the Minister will do something in connection with this.

In clause 1 there is the question of the registration of members of Parliament and Ministers at another address. There is one little mistake in this because it is laid down in the Bill that members of Parliament and others should register at an address of a house they may own in their own constituency. The hon the Minister happens to be a lawyer and he knows that most of us are married by antenuptial contract and that we never have a house in our name. The house is in our wives’ names. I think that one will find that most of the Ministers are in exactly the same position. However, the hon the Minister can rectify that himself.

I want now to deal with one problem that arises and that is the question of businessmen who leave South Africa to work for a particular firm overseas or South African students who study overseas for two or three years in order to take a degree. The result is that they are in danger of losing their registration because they have moved out of the country, according to the way this legislation is worded. I want the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that he will make absolutely certain that where a person has gone away temporarily to another country, either to do business in that country, to work for a particular firm or to be a student, he will not be deprived of his place of residence. While I am on the question of people overseas, I also think we should seriously consider why South African students studying abroad and people who are in business on behalf of South African firms should not be entitled to vote in an election while they are abroad. In the American system for the presidential election and every election every American, no matter where he is, is entitled to vote. I think the time has come for the Government to appoint returning officers at our embassies in order to enable South Africans to go there to vote either by way of special vote or by postal vote provided they can show proof in which constituency they are registered. It will not entail large numbers of voters. There is no reason why South Africans who study overseas should be deprived of their right to vote when they intend coming back to this country.

The legislation is very important because this Bill will be the last piece of leigslation in terms of which the RV 1 is going to be allowed. To put it somewhat differently, the next general election will be the last one in which the RV 1 will be available to anybody who wants to vote. Thereafter it will only be people who are on the population register who will be eligible to vote.

The question of the inspection of voters’ lists is also very important. I find that there are certain difficulties in trying to get people off the voters’ roll. One inspects the voters’ list and one goes along to canvass at a particular place but then one finds the person is no longer living there—the house has been demolished. One then endeavours to have that person’s name removed from the voters’ list by saying to the electoral officer that that person has not lived there the previous five or ten years and nobody knows where he is. The electoral officer then requests one to give him the new address of that person, but one cannot give that new address. One knows that that person is no longer living there and that for the past one or two elections he did not live there. That is why I think there is merit in my suggestion that there should be a general registration for the population register because if there is such a general registration, it will certainly obviate that problem in future.

Would you advocate a fine if they do not register?

There is a fine.

But would you advocate enforcing it?

A person must register; it is compulsory for him to get an identity card.

But would you recommend imposing the fine?

There is a fine of R50 if one does not register as a voter. If one introduces legislation and one does not have some way to enforce it, what is the use of passing legislation at all?

Well, taxes will be increased that way.

We find that the voters’ list will be supplied 30 days before an election. This is far too short a period in which to have a final voters’ list for the purpose of fighting an election. The hon the Minister must kindly ensure that this is changed to a much longer period. One cannot expect anybody to fight an election within 30 days and at the same time be certain of who is on his voters’ roll. It is true that most of us already have all our cards and everything in order, but it would save a tremendous amount of time if there is a system whereby once a year one gets a voters’ roll which one knows is up to date and which one can use. I think one should get a voters’ roll within a week after it has been declared that there will be an election. With the computer system which the department has it should not be difficult to have the prints out in a very, very short time. The Government Printer is all set up to have these rolls printed on very short notice.

I want to deal with the provisions which enable the State President to declare that an election will be conducted without postal votes. I think this is a most iniquitous clause contained in the Bill. It is even worse after the speech made by the hon member Mr Kritzinger. For many years the NP has won election after election through excellent organization and the utilization of postal votes. Because the PFP and others have now fared better than they have, they now want to provide for this possibility. That is the basic reason why we have this proposal. During the past five years we have proved in election after election that we are able to get postal votes. In Pinetown our postal votes ran into four figures and in the last election most of us got postal votes running to four figures. I think it would be iniquitous if we were to find out when an election was called that the State President in that proclamation stated that there would be no postal votes. This provision should be taken out altogether, and it also applies equally as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. You must have one Electoral Act for all the Houses. I disagree completely with the hon the Minister when he says that the election for each House should be different. I maintain that if you allow the Houses to elect their members differently you demean the worth of a member of Parliament, because some people may be less worthy than others as a result of the manner in which they were elected. You cannot have more than one system. If there is a general election and the White group are allowed to have postal votes, everybody should have postal votes. I do not believe that the majority of the White members of Parliament would want to see the elimination of the postal vote. I feel that the same must apply in the case of the Coloureds and the Indians. I agree that in the case of the first election it may be necessary but it is certainly not necessary as far as the future is concerned.

With regard to clause 37 I want to say that when legislation in this respect was introduced in the House on the last occasion the hon the Minister was confronted with the problem of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. We on this side of the House tried to inform the Minister that it was an Act which should be repealed in its entirety. The hon the Minister is now using this Bill as a back door to bring into effect what he cannot accomplish in respect of that Act. He wants to avoid amending that Act and now includes it in this Bill. He can then get rid of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, something which the Whites, Coloureds and Indians all want to see happen, but he can then tell them that he still has them tied up because of this provision he now proposes to put into the Electoral Act. The hon the Minister is now putting into this Act what he wanted to have in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. I do not think the hon the Minister should do this. It is grossly unfair that he should try to do it by way of this back door.

I would like to refer to the question of the 300 signatures required by an independent. I do not think the hon the Minister realizes how difficult this is going to be in many instances. Does the hon the Minister know, for example, that in the case of the House of Representatives the Western Orange Free State seat only has 2 924 voters according to the latest delimitation? In respect of the House of Delegates the Malabar constituency in the Cape Province only has 3 843 voters. It is absolutely absurd when you have such a small number of people in a constituency to expect a man who wants to stand as an independent to get 300 signatures because it actually means that he would have to get the signatures of almost 10% of the voters in such a constituency. This provision is the result of trying to think only in terms of White constituencies and not of Coloured and Indian constituencies. When we discussed the Electoral Act Amendment Bill a few months ago, in March, I took part in the debate on it and I feel that, as the delimitation which came out last week shows, many of the things I said then have proved to be true. I said (Hansard, 14 March 1984, col 2980):

Sir, I have in front of me—you have probably been through it—the delimitation report which came out on 11 June. It deals with the delimitation for the Coloured House of Representatives and the Indian House of Delegates. Some of the remarks made by the hon judges should make the hon the Minister’s department really feel ashamed because they show a complete neglect on the part of the department to carry out the work they should have carried out. Let us quote from this particular document. In paragraph 1.2 one reads:

Sir, when we have had delimitations in the past, we have been furnished with all the details, the maps and all the statistics, but what has happened in the case of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates? I quote further:

At a later stage they say:

If one does not provide people with the necessary statistics, maps and polling-district set-up, how can one expect them to do a delimitation at all? The report goes on as follows:

Order! Could the hon member indicate in what way the delimitation of constituencies has any relevance to the Bill?

Oh yes, Sir, voters’ rolls have to be drawn up after the delimitation and there is even an amendment in this particular Bill dealing with that. It also deals with the question of what happens from one election to another when a delimitation takes place. It also deals with by-elections after a delimitation. That is why it is relevant. The report goes on to say:

In other words, there were no details of polling districts available. There were no statistics for weeks. Then, in paragraph 1.9, one reads:

I do not understand this. For months we knew there was going to be a delimitation. The Consitution Act was signed by the State President last year and we knew that there was going to be a delimitation. We knew, too, that the population register was going to be used. We knew where the people were. Why were the statistics not furnished? If a delimitation can be done for the Whites, why can it not also be done for the Coloureds and the Indians? I think it is disgraceful.

I now want to refer to another matter in this regard. When I spoke on these matters previously, I said that one should not use the population register because it would lead to difficulties. One should use registrations and postpone the use of the population register until later. As a result of the Group Areas Act certain problems have occurred.

Sparseness and density of population caused major problems in view of the basis on which the first delimitation was done. I want to refer to two places. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, large numbers of people are still registered on the population register in District Six. They are now in Mitchell’s Plain and all over the Cape Peninsula. In Durban there is a town called Phoenix where, a few years ago, there were only cane fields. Today thousands of Indians live there and hardly any of them have been put onto the population register.

There is a constituency in Cape Town called Tafelberg which ostensibly has a certain number of voters in terms of the population register, but the people do not live there. The reason for this is the Group Areas Act as applied by the Government. When the Government is asked to reconsider its decisions, it brushes the matter away as if of no account.

I want now to refer to the situation in Mitchell’s Plain where 20 seats had to be delimited. As a result, a large number of them had to be deloaded, whereas in normal circumstances—as far as delimitations are concerned—urban areas are loaded. They have been deloaded because the Government knows that the people are there but there are insufficient voters as far as the population register is concerned. I believe the whole situation smells and I say again that this is a prelude to disaster. One cannot be sure that the people who are elected will be elected on a proper basis.

When we discussed the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill in Committee last year we stopped at clause 32. We never dealt with the question of the representations in Parliament. What has happened as a result of this? I want to refer to the differences which have occurred. As regards the Coloured House of Representatives, one can go as high as 16 350 voters in the Cape Province to elect one member. In the Free State, on the other hand, one can go as low as 2 430 people according to the population register to elect one member.

The same applies to the House of Delegates. In the Cape Province, Schauderville in Port Elizabeth has 16 318 people and is loaded 14,8%. The Western Free State has 2 924 voters with an unload of 15,8%.

Again as far as the House of Delegates is concerned, there is a seat in Durban called Cavendish with 10 281 voters and in the Cape there is a seat called Malabar which has 3 843 voters. The size of some seats is incredible. The seat called Kalahari covers half the Karoo. A candidate who needs to get 300 signatures will therefore have to drive around for three weeks to obtain these signatures if he wants to stand as an independent.

He also has to take a commissioner of oaths with him.

Yes, he has to take a commissioner of oaths with him. Is he allowed to take a White commissioner of oaths with him? It will be contrary to the Prohibition on Political Interference Act.

I believe that the whole basis on which the delimitation was done, will not result in the proper representation of the Coloureds and Indians in their first Paliament.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member for Bezuidenhout right at the outset that if he has the idea that the NP wants to do away with postal votes, he has lost his bearings completely. That was never the NP’s idea. The PFP learnt well from the NP, and that is why—it is also the only reason—they are today advocating the retention of the system of postal votes. I am glad we have something in common on that score.

As the hon the Minister correctly stated in his Second Reading speech, exercising a choice at the polls is probably one of the most fundamental rights of a citizen in a democratic State. That is why amendments and improvements are affected to the Electoral Act from time to time. The legislation before us, too, is a great improvement on the Electoral Act of 1979. That is why there have always been select committees, and will continue to be in future, to achieve consensus on this important Act, the Electoral Act. The object is not only to make it possible for every voter to exercise his rights as a voter, but also to make it as easy as possible for him. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Umhlanga, as well as other hon members, but I should also like to have my own say in this connection. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said:

It is fit and proper that this should be stated in this way, but not one hon member in this House has the assurance that the period determined by the chief electoral officer or by the Minister could not perhaps be two or even three years before the voters’ list is published. I want to make this plea to the hon the Minister. If the voters’ list is not able to appear twice a year, for whatever reason—I accept that this must be the case—it will appear at least once a year. The whole idea in an election is to make it as easy as possible for the political parties to get every voter to the polls. One can only do this provided one is working with a voters’ list which is as up to date as possible. That is why I want to advocate very earnestly that the period that may elapse before a new voters’ fist is available for inspection shall not exceed 12 months.

The hon member for Umlazi advocated the retention of the postal vote system and referred to problems in connection with special votes. Other hon members also referred to this matter, including the hon member Mr Kritzinger, to whose observations I shall react later. But first I want to dwell on this point. I want to refer again to what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech. He said:

This is true, but how many times has it not happened before in the past, in various elections, that a voter fell ill after 21h00 on the day immediately preceding election day on election day from, for example, a heart attack, high blood pressure or some ailment or other …

Or died!

No, then the hon member lets him vote. It could happen that something happens to a person which prevents him from visiting the polling station on election day. That means that there is only one other way of getting such a voter to the polls. One must then arrange with his doctor to convey him to the polling station by ambulance and then this poor fellow has to be carried into the polling station in a blaze of publicity, with the newspapers present there and photographs being taken. I think we should eliminate that possibility completely. I want to advocate that the postal vote system should be taken further. If a voter falls ill during the night or on election day, I can see no reason why he should be prevented from casting his vote in his room in the hospital , or wherever he may be. This must only apply to a voter in the electoral division in which he is registered. It is very easy to apply to the chief electoral officer for a postal vote, take it to the voter in hospital or wherever he may be, so that he can sign it, and then bring it back to the returning officer so that the person is still able to cast his vote before 9 pm. I want to advocate that we should not impose the restriction that postal votes may only be issued up to the day immediately preceding election day.

Furthermore, I want to refer to clauses 35 and 79, and I just want to return briefly to what the hon the Minister said, something to which various hon members also referred. To me personally it seems as though this portion of the hon the Minister’s speech, and also the relevant provision in the legislation, is the beginning of the general elimination of the postal vote in future. I want to say honestly and very frankly to the hon the Minister that I sincerely hope that I am completely and utterly wrong in my deduction. Consequently I should very much like to hear from the hon the Minister whether this is so or not. I want to elaborate on this question.

For the coming general election for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates the postal vote system has been excluded completely. Personally I think it is a pity that the Coloureds and the Indians adopted that resolution. The hon member for Innesdal quoted figures here to indicate how difficult matters were for a Transvaal MP. He said there were certain electoral divisions with 18 000 voters, and others with 20 000 and more. He compared this with the situation in the other provinces. He explained how difficult it was for hon members of those electoral divisions to serve their people. [Interjections.] The tiny electoral division of the hon member for Bezuidenhout does not even cover’ an area of a square mile. He can criss-cross it before breakfast on a little BMX bicycle. On the other hand, however, we have electoral divisions in the Cape which are easily one and a half times the size of the total surface area of the whole of the Orange Free State. Nor is there only one such electoral division; there are a few of them. Because there are electoral divisions of such enormous size and vast distances, it is essential that the Coloureds in those electoral divisions in particular should receive attention. Take, for example, the Kalahari, and the electoral division of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Namakwaland. There are farms which are not situated 10 or 15, 20 or 30 kilometres from the nearest town or polling station; there are farms which are situated more than 100 miles from the nearest town, and there are no proper roads. There are only gravel roads.

If there are Coloured voters living on a farm, the owner of which is a member of the CP or the HNP, surely that owner will not ensure that those voters come to town on election day so that they can cast their votes. If he does not bring them into town, who on earth is going to do so? If they have to rely on their own transport, must they travel X number of miles along a gravel road on a donkey cart? That is a journey which cannot be completed in one day, but which will take a few days.

The PFP farmers will let their people vote.

Yes, that is the difference, Sir. The hon member is quite correct. Although the PFP voted and worked against these changes during the recent election, they are man enough to say today that although they do not agree with everything and although to their way of thinking the pace is not rapid enough, they are prepared to participate in the changes in South Africa.

But now we come to the CP, and in particular to the hon member for Brakpan. I am quite certain that neither the hon member for Brakpan, nor any other hon member of the CP, took any trouble at all to cause one of the Coloured people employed by them, such as a domestic servant, for example, who is a voter, to be registered, or encouraged those people to register. Of course they would not do that, and why? The reason for that, in the hon member for Brakpan’s own words, is that they do not want to give the Coloureds an opportunity to vote away the sovereignty of the Whites. He and the other hon members of his party will therefore not take any trouble at all to cause a Coloured voter to register or to get him to the polls or to help him in any way to cast his vote because if they do so they are helping that Coloured person to vote away the identity of the Whites. How absurd!

The Act prohibits me from doing so.

No, the Act does not prohibit that hon member from doing so at all. [Interjections.] There is no difference between the approach of the CP and that of the UDF, who are the boycotters as far as the present elections for Coloureds and Indians are concerned. They hold basically identical standpoints in this connection.

The hon member for Green Point has a lot to say here about clause 90 in connection with the formula according to which candidates may only appoint agents from their own population group. However, that is nothing new. This has always been the case in all White elections. What is so strange about this now being extended to other population groups? I think the hon member was merely talking for the sake of talking.

The hon members of the PFP also had a lot to say about the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. I can understand that. The hon members will recall that the predecessors of the PFP, the old United Party, were pre-eminently cast in the mould of influencing people and of even holding peoples’ hands while they signed their names. As soon as they were able to sign their names, then they could make their cross against the NP. I can understand that, because it is an inborne trait. They must be allowed to interfere whenever and wherever they wish.

What astounds me, however, is the fact that hon members of the PFP kicked up a great fuss about the fact that independent candidates will have to submitt 300 sworn statements. But is that not a tremendous improvement on the existing procedure? Surely hon members know that the grandsire of the CP, namely the HNP, knocked at doors during one election after another to get people’s signatures so that the party could participate in the election. Their latest approach is to tell the voters now that they represent the old NP, and then people sign. I just wanted to say in passing that in my opinion there is no longer a place in South Africa for independent candidates.

Nonsense!

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is evidently pleading for the continued existence of independent candidates. There was a time when independent candidates played an important part in South African politics. Someone else said the same thing here today. In the politics of today, however, there are clear dividing lines between the various political parties. Voters have a very wide choice. But what is happening now? A certain candidate was nominated from the list of Coloured candidates in Kimberley. Then someone else, who thought he should have been the candidate in that electoral division, stood as an independant. Very well, let him stand as an independant. The criterion is that he has to get hold of 300 sworn statements. There are few hon members sitting on the opposite side of this House who in any election, in any given electoral division, can collect 300 names, and I can say that this is their potential manpower in that electoral division. What does it mean if a person has signed his name to a piece of paper, a sworn statement indicating that he supports a certain independent candidate? Then surely that support goes much further. Surely he can go to work for that person and perhaps he could also give that person a donation. Therefore these 300 are more of an asset to such an independent candidate than anything else.

A great deal was said here about mistakes in the voters’ lists. Of course this is a completely new concept in our Electoral Act. I want to associate myself with the hon member Mr Kritzinger when he praised the department. Personally I think the department performed a superhuman task in succeeding, in the short time at its disposal, in getting 95% of all White voters on to the voters’ lists via the population register. That mistakes occurred was to be expected. However, one can improve and learn from one’s mistakes. I believe that next time around, when we are again compiling voters’ lists, there will be far, far fewer mistakes in them than was the case during the recent election.

I come now to the hon member for Brakpan. I could never understand it before, but after today I can understand why that hon member is sitting where he is. When that hon member said today that the NP once stood for a policy of total partition, I realized for the first time why that hon member was sitting where he is sitting now. A policy of total partition was not, is not and will never be the policy of the NP. Do hon members know what the policy of the NP is? The policy of the NP—and this applies to those hon members as well—was separate development. That which I demand for myself, I must be prepared to give my neighbour. If I cannot give him what I demand for myself—and that hon member and all his colleagues sitting over there endorsed this policy over the years—then I must share it with him.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens also discussed the population register. I have already pointed out that certain problems are being experienced, but I am certain that everything will be fine in future. I am also pleased that the PFP is advocating that the postal vote system should be improved.

The fact that 500 people must be present when a political party is founded does not create any problem for Whites, Coloureds or Indians. When the CP was founded, there were thousands of people at the founders’ meeting in the Skilpad Hall.

No, 10 000 people.

Very well, 10 000 people, and when the UDF was established, there were tens of thousands of people present at the founders’ meeting. They came from all over. The number of people that has to be present at the founders’ meeting does not therefore create a problem.

I am pleased that the hon member for Stil-fontein referred to the question of identity documents because I also have a problem in that regard. I do not want to repeat his entire argument, except perhaps to point out one aspect. I should like to be personally convinced that the falsification which occurs in respect of identity documents will be contained. I should like to ascertain from the hon the Minister how the department is going to eliminate falsifications altogether if we are, once again, voting only on the basis of the identiy document. I foresee, as other hon members also said, that this may be a possible breeding ground for malpractices.

The hon member for Koedoespoort made a good point when he said that when a person applied for an identity document, one should submit one’s application in duplicate so that the department could endorse one copy and return it to you, so that you could have some proof that you had in fact applied for such a document. I think this is a brilliant idea and in that respect the hon member has my support.

On the other hand, the hon member—I do not want to be rude and say that he became hysterical—became very serious about the abolition of the entire postal vote system. In this connection I want to associate myself with my good friend the hon member Mr Kritzinger who elaborated on the question of the postal vote system and told us what was being done at the moment in the by-elections in which the CP was participating. I also referred to this earlier on. It is the easiest thing in the world. One submits an application for a postal vote to the electoral officer, and then there is someone sitting there like a predatory politician, and he writes down the new address of the voter. He then has someone go to that address. When that person arrives there, he tells the voter that he is from the old NP. He then asks the voter whether he applied for a postal vote. The person does not know precisely what is happening, but that visitor influences the voter precisely because he says he is from the old NP. The voter is then influenced to vote for a candidate other than the candidate for whom he wanted to vote, or for a political party other than the party for whom he wanted to vote.

Give us just one example.

I shall give you an example, and then the hon member must ask me again to give him an example. Let us consider what happened this morning in Rosettenville. I knew the hon member for Kuruman would put his foot in it, because he cannot do anything else. [Interjections.] The hon member for Jeppe behaves like a big shot in the Jeppe constituency. His father-in-law is a presiding officer for absent voters, a certain Mr Vorster. This same Mr Vorster submitted an application for a postal vote that had to be issued to a voter. When the NP went to the voter, the voter said that she had never applied for a postal vote. She made a sworn statement, declaring that she had never done so. [Interjections.] The signature which appeared on that application was not her signature. Nevertheless, the postal vote was issued to her. [Interjections.] There are other examples as well. The hon member has just said that I should give one example, and I have just done so, but there are also other examples in Rosettenville of where people were improperly influenced by members of the CP. [Interjections.] The CP members are yapping their heads off now because I gave an example which they are still going to pay dearly for. When the NP brought this matter to the attention of the returning officer, the hon member for Jeppe turned up there and suddenly withdrew the appointment of his father-in-law. It was too late, because the crime had already been committed. In this connection I should like to endorse a speech recently made by the hon Chief Whip of the NP. The penalties for contraventions of the procedure in regard to postal votes should be made far more stringent, for then the kind of incident which occurred this morning in which the CP was involved, will not take place so easily. To my mind it is no wonder that the CP in Potgietersrus will not allow the hon member for Jeppe to set foot there.

In conclusion I should like to raise another matter. I should like to see included in this measure or in future electoral legislation the provision that if a candidate is elected as a member of a political party and subsequently defects to another political party and therefore leaves the ranks of the political party which he was representing in a particular electoral division, the Electoral Act should provide that such a member forfeits his right to represent that electoral division and that he automatically ceases to be the representative of that electoral division. Furthermore, it should be provided that in such a case a by-election need not be held, but that the political party who originally nominated him as a candidate, and of which he was a member, will be able to appoint a new candidate to succeed that person as member. It is not only the NP that has this problem, because all the political parties have had to deal with this kind of thing. I know of only one person who had the courage of his convictions to resign from his constituency and to stand again in that constituency for his new party and then win the election. I am now referring to the hon member for Simonstown.

Hear, hear!

Order! I have been giving some thought to the hon member’s statement that to him it was no wonder that the hon member for Jeppe was not allowed to set foot in Potgietersrus. The alleged offence to which the hon member referred was not committed by the hon member for Jeppe. Therefore when the hon member subsequently made the statement that he did not find it strange that the hon member for Jeppe did not set foot in Potgietersrus, he was casting a reflection on the hon member. He must withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I do not mind withdrawing it. That was not my intention. Whether it has anything to do with it or not, the fact remains that the CP of Potgietersrus is not allowing the hon member for Jeppe to help with that election. That is a fact. He was referred back to Rosettenville. However, I want to continue my argument. [Interjections.] That CP member has such a lot to say, but why does he not resign? [Interjections.] I have now referred to the elected members. What I cannot understand at all, however, is that a member who is elected by a caucus and who belongs 100% to a political party, can walk over to another political party and then keep on sitting there. Sir, you will not allow me to elaborate on this any further, but I wish I could tell this House what I thought of such an hon member.

I support this Bill with great satisfaction and conviction.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kimberley South referred to an incident involving a postal vote which supposedly occurred in Rosettenville this morning. On behalf of the CP I wish to say that we do have problems with the postal vote system because the system lends itself to abuse. Therefore I am inclined to agree with the hon member for Koedoespoort that it would be better to do away with this system. The hon member for Kimberley South is an expert on the postal vote system. Fortunately I had the privilege of serving together with him in the same political party for many years. Therefore it is unnecessary for me, Sir, to point out certain things to you. That is the reason why consideration should rather be given to doing away with postal votes than to making it easier for people to obtain postal votes. In clause 42(d), the substitution for paragraph (e) by the following is proposed:

In the past one had to be 50 km from the polling station, but now this is being brought down to 25 km. In terms of this amendment virtually all the voters in the polling district of Vanzylsrus in the constituency of Kuruman can vote by postal vote before polling day. I think that that is absolutely unnecessary. It promotes the use of postal votes. I think it should be made as easy as possible for the voter to cast his vote at the polling station or by way of a special vote. Perhaps in future we could see whether it could not be made easier for the voter to cast his vote by means of a special vote.

The CP does not wish to condone the abuse of postal votes. If the hon members opposite find that postal votes are being abused, they must lay a charge; then the hon member for Kimberley South must not act as judge, but the court must issue a finding. The hon member for Kimberley South also said that the CP and the HNP would not bring Coloured voters to the polls. He said that the CP and the HNP would not move a finger to have Coloured voters registered. He then asked why we did not wish to do so. I shall tell him why. I am afraid that the hon the Minister might charge us under the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Kimberley South whether he is going to take Coloureds to the polling stations in Kimberley South on election day.

No.

Why, then, does he expect farmers to take the Coloured voters on their farms to the polls?

May I reply to that?

No, the hon member has had his turn to speak. [Interjections.] What, then, is the difference, Sir? The hon member said by implication today that the farmers should take their Coloureds to town. Then I want to ask the hon member whether those Coloureds also have to say what political party they are going to vote for.

Sir, may I react to the hon member’s question? [Interjections.]

If the hon member expects the farmer to take his Coloured voters to the polls, why, then, can he not take the Coloured voters in Kimberley to the polls as well? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kimberley South also referred to the founding of the UDF, which involved thousands of people. He spoke about it as if it was the founding of a political party. I now want to put it to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs that the UDF is operating as a political organization. They are concerning themselves with the election among Coloureds and are discouraging the Coloureds from voting. Is the hon the Minister going to clamp down on the UDF, because Coloureds, Whites and Blacks belong to this organization? [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Kritzinger said that the Conservative Party was discussing the constitution. When we came to the discussion of clause 34 of the constitution, the guillotine was applied and Parliament was unable to discuss the constitution further than clause 34. The content of the Bill at present under discussion has its origin in sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the constitution. There was no opportunity to discuss those clauses and therefore I do not think the hon member should take it amiss of us when we wish to discuss that now.

The hon member also contended that the CP wanted to do away with postal votes because we supposedly had a rotten organization.

Yes.

The hon member confirms it.

I now want to ask the hon member whether the National Party under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is the leader of the National Party in Transvaal, has a rotten organization in Rosettenville or not. [Interjections.] The Conservative Party, with its so-called rotten organization, is at present ahead with postal votes in Rosettenville. [Interjections.]

Give us the figures in Potgietersrus.

In Potgietersrus the Conservative Party decided to make use of special votes. I do not have the correct figures now, but the leader of the National Party in Transvaal must prepare himself for a sound thrashing in Potgietersrus and a shock in Rosettenville.

Today the hon member Dr Vilonel once again tried to link the Conservative Party to the AWB. He said inter alia that the AWB rejected the parliamentary system and advocated a form of national socialism. I want to refer the hon member to the book P W Botha—40 jaar. In this book reference is made to speeches by the hon the Prime Minister in his young days, and I quote:

Yes, that is true.

The hon the Prime Minister said that the Ossewabrandwag was the bearer of this. He went on to say:

I quote further from the book:

At that stage the Ossewabrandwag stood for a form of national socialism. Was the hon the Prime Minister branded a Malan Nazi because he did that? He was branded a Malan Nazi by the old United Party. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member Dr Vilonel today—he appears to be very worried about it—what the CP stands for. [Interjections.] The CP stands for every people having the right…

Order! I have permitted the hon member to range fairly widely by way of introduction. However, we are now discussing a Bill and not the principles of parties. The hon member will recall that I called the hon member Dr Vilonel to order in his connection as well. Therefore the hon member must please confine myself to the Bill now. He may not now propagate the principles of his party.

Sir, the CP rejects this Bill. We have moved an amendment that it be read this day six months. [Interjections.] The Bill provides for voters’ lists and for a procedure in accordance with which members are elected to the new Parliament. The hon member Dr Vilonel made the statement that the CP rejected this Bill because we did not believe in the democratic parliamentary process but championed a national-socialist point of view. In that case, Sir, I request your permission to be able to say what the CP does stand for. I hope I shall be permitted to do so.

Order! I have already explained the position clearly to the hon member. He will recall that I called the hon member Dr Vilonel to order and told him that I could not permit him to range so widely while merely saying “the Bill provides” now and again. I can permit the hon member to say that the NP, as far as the Bill is concerned, stands for certain principles. The hon member may then state what principles the CP stands for and point out in what respect the legislation ought to be changed. However, I cannot permit the hon member to make propaganda for his party’s policy and principles on the pretext of speaking about the Bill.

Very well. The NP and this Bill provide that a multiracial tricameral Parliament be constituted. [Interjections.] This Bill establishes the machinery whereby members of the new multiracial tricameral Parliament will be elected. The CP does not agree with that. We say that every people must be given the opportunity to elect in a democratic way, by means of an election in accordance with its own voters’ rolls, representatives for its own Parliament, a Parliament which will be capable of deciding on every facet affecting its life.

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

No. The CP is in favour of this Parliament being the Parliament of the Whites in South Africa, to which the Whites elect representatives in a democratic way to govern the Whites alone. We wish the Coloureds and the Indians, too, to have this.

The hon member for Innesdal referred to the loading and deloading of constituencies. The hon member for Bezuidenhout also referred to this. The hon member for Kimberley South addressed his colleague from the Transvaal in quite strong terms in this regard. As a Cape man he addressed his colleague in fairly strong terms. The hon member for Innesdal said that in Transvaal, 28 of the 76 constituencies were overloaded, while only one of the 56 constituencies in the Cape was overloaded. He asked that the hon the Minister, as the Transvaal NP leader, consider the situation. [Interjections.] I see that the hon member for Community Development has a sly laugh on his face and he pushes on his thumb when I refer to this. [Interjections.] I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument of the hon member for Innesdal. If we consider the composition of the new Parliament we see that the Cape will have 56 White representatives, 60 Coloured representatives and three Indian representatives. This gives a total of 119 members who may be elected to the various Houses by way of this voting system. Transvaal has 76 Whites, 10 Coloureds and 6 Indians, a total of 92 members of Parliament who will be coming to the new Parliament. In the new Parliament that will be elected in terms of this legislation, the Cape will have 27 more members of Parliament than will the Transvaal. [Interjections.] Therefore I sympathize with the argument of the hon member for Innesdal because in this way the Transvaal is being placed in an even more unequal position. [Interjections.] I have already indicated that I do not wish to answer questions.

I want to ask the hon member for Innesdal not to emphasize this point too much, and I ask the hon the Minister, as leader in the Transvaal, to tolerate this inequality that is now going to occur. On behalf of the Whites in the Cape I ask that this irregularity be perpetuated, because what is the position in the Cape? The Cape will have 56 White, 60 Coloured and 9 Indian members of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please give the hon member a chance to make his speech.

If the hon the Minister is going to tamper with the numerical ratios of the White Chamber of the House of Assembly, this will necessarily mean that the number of White members of Parliament in the Cape will be reduced. If the hon the Minister were to comply with the request of the hon member for Innesdal, this would necessarily mean that the number of members of the House of Assembly from the Cape would have to be reduced, and I therefore ask him not to tamper with it. In the Cape the Whites will already have seven members of Parliament fewer than the Coloureds and the Indians.

The Bill also provides for the election of provincial councils. However, the Government has not yet indicated precisely what it is going to do at the second tier of government, except that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has intimated that the second tier of government—and I take it that this is the provincial system—will see to the general affairs of local government. We are concerned about the fact that we have to agree to legislation in terms of which provincial authorities, too, will have to be established, whereas as yet we do not know how those authorities are to be established. At the first level there is a 4:2:1 ratio; that is to say, 4,5 million Whites, 2,5 million Coloureds and 1 million Asiatics, and that is built into the composition of the three Houses. I have already said that the Cape will have 56 White, 60 Coloured and 3 Indian members of Parliament, and according to the NP that is fair, Christian and just. If the provincial councils are in future to become bodies dealing with general affairs there is therefore a possibility that our fear may be justified, viz that the provincial council of the Cape will consist of 56 Whites, 60 Coloureds and 3 Indians. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I know that I, too, strayed somewhat from the subject, but in my opinion the hon member is no longer dealing with the legislation either.

Order! If the hon member is guilty of that I shall point it out to him. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. However, if in the new provincial councils there is also going to be second tier government co-responsibility, that is to say, joint consultation or power-sharing, this party cannot support legislation which will make provision for the election of those councils. In the Cape, where the Coloureds are by far in the majority, we certainly cannot support such a Bill.

When one looks at clause 41 of the Bill, one becomes still more concerned because it inserts a new subsection. The boundaries of magisterial districts and those of jurisdictional areas of local authorities and of municipal wards are being inserted there. As yet we do not know what the third tier of government in South Africa is going to look like. [Interjections.] Why does the hon the Deputy Minister not spell that out to us? He must spell it out to us; then we need no longer be concerned about it. This Bill provides for the election of the various Government bodies, but as yet we do not know what they are going to look like. Perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister knows what they are going to look like, but he is refusing to tell us, or else he is concealing something from South Africa.

I wish to express my concern in this regard because if the third level of government were to be appointed on this basis the Coloureds would be in a majority in every town in the Cape.

The hon member for Brakpan appealed to the hon the Minister not to give in in regard to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the provisions embodied in this legislation. He must not succumb to the pressure exerted by the Rev Hendrickse and his Labour Party whereby they could gain access to the Coloured and Indian Houses. If the hon the Minister were to give in in this regard and give the Rev Hendrickse his way, it could happen in future that the leader of a Coloured PFP and the leader of an Indian PFP could be included in the Cabinet, while the leader of the PFP in the White Chamber would find himself in the official Opposition. We could also have a kind of NP/PFP coalition in the Cabinet with a PFP opposition in the White Chamber. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley South is laughing about that, but if the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs does not stand firm as regards the provisions of the Prohibition of Political Intereference Act, that could happen. Accordingly I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to stand fast and not to yield an inch. Once the Rev Hendrickse is with him in the Cabinet a refusal without consensus will cause problems for him and his party.

In the new dispensation the hon the Minister is going to have problems, because he and the Rev Hendrickse are at present clashing about this matter. Either the hon the Minister or the Rev Hendrickse, whose party has adopted a standpoint on principle opposed to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, will have to give in if they are to achieve consensus.

In its information documents the NP has stated that it guarantees separate voters’ lists for South Africa. This Bill is in fact a Bill which gives effect to the idea of separate voters’ lists. On those separate voters’ lists for which provision is made in this legislation, however, 85 Coloureds and 45 Indians are to be elected members of the South African Parliament. When, in terms of their race federation plan, the old United Party wanted to bring eight Coloureds to the House of Assembly and six to the Senate, when they wanted to bring a total of 14 Coloureds to Parliament—and they wanted to do so on separate voters’ lists—the NP fought it might and main. Now the same NP is putting forward an Electoral Act which provides that 85 Coloureds and 45 Indians should have a seat in the multiracial tricameral Parliament. This is a remarkable situation. This Bill falls under the Department of Internal Affairs and it has already been spelt out that it is a general department. The Minister and the Deputy Minister may be White, Coloured or Indian, and the hon the Deputy Minister has said that he knows of many Coloureds who are better than he or the Minister. That is in Hansard. [Interjections.] It is a department the Director General of which may be a Coloured, according to merit. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that elections were an own affair. Therefore there will be an own election for Whites, Coloureds and Indians under the umbrella of a general department. This is a typical example of the new constitutional dispensation. Whites, Coloureds and Indians now have to stand under the same umbrella, and for this reason the CP cannot support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I shall reply to many of the matters mentioned by the hon member in the course of my speech. However, I wish to deal at once with the political part of his speech and with what his party colleagues have had to say in respect of politics in this connection.

We are beginning to get a little weary of these oversimplified arguments. Let us analyze what the hon member has said. He says that the NP fought the admission of Coloureds to Parliament when the United Party advocated it, and that we were now bringing them to Parliament. That is the essence of his argument. However, that is a denial of the truth. Surely he knows that the United Party wanted to bring them into this same House of Assembly, and drew no distinction between own affairs and matters of common concern. He knows that the proposal of the United Party did not make provision for every population group to put forward its own majority opinion, or for machinery to be created in accordance with which efforts had to be made to reach consensus on the majority opinions in respect of the same matter of common concern, and co-ordinate them properly. He knows that this would have been the thin edge of the wedge because it overlooked the distinction that does exist, and failed to incorporate any assurances for the minority or for the majority group. The hon member pretends that this new Parliament, which will consist of three Houses, is merely a mixed Parliament. That is misleading the voters, and we shall have to tell them at Potgietersrus and Rosettenville how these hon members are oversimplifying a matter which they helped us to develop. When they fully perceived the logical consequences of what they are jointly responsible for, they took fright and ran away. The hon member and his party say that they are so strongly opposed to this Bill that they will ask that it be read this day six months. That is only because arrangements are here being made for the franchise of Coloureds and Indians in terms of an Act which this Parliament passed after two-thirds of the electorate approved it. In all seriousness I want to put a question to those hon members. After all, they say that they are full of confidence that they will take over the reigns of Government. Therefore, in the interests of South Africa I want to ask them to find themselves an answer to this question: “Do they think that they will ever manage to get their policy to succeed without the Hendrickses and the leaders of the Coloureds? However, the hon member stands here and condemns them.

I did not condemn them.,

Oh yes! The hon member disparages them and runs them down.

That is not true.

Those hon members act towards them in a humiliating way and put their faces on pamphlets in a humiliating way. [Interjections.] They do so without having anyone in the ranks of the Coloureds and the Indians who listens to them. Without the co-operation of those people those hon members will make no contribution to the welfare of their own children. [Interjections.] The time has come for those hon members to stop trifling in a reckless fashion with ethnic relations in South Africa. Again this afternoon the attitude adopted by the hon member for Kuruman reflected a reckless approach to ethnic relations. Can they make their policy succeed if they do not have their own voters’ lists? Can they make their policy succeed if they do not at least have a democratic substructure? Those hon members are not interested in helping to create such a substructure.

Not for a multiracial Parliament.

Those hon members are not interested in co-operating to establish legislation which will give the other population groups the opportunity to elect their own leaders. At the moment they do not have elected leaders. If those hon members want to speak to a representative Coloured leader, with a person who has a democratic power base at the moment, with whom would they speak? [Interjections.] Those hon members are not interested, at this stage of their existence, in having any trace of influence in Coloured ranks. They have only one motivating factor, and that is hatred of us who sit here. That is what keeps them going, and the electorate is finding that out. We are already experiencing this. We experience it where we work. When one asks a person who initially said that he would support the CP, or that he was in favour of an own Coloured homeland, whether he believes that it will work, he says: “No”. If one asks him about those four or five meagre points of the CP’s policy in this regard he replies to each point: “No.” One then finds that he wants to vote CP because he has been motivated by those hon members to carry hatred in his heart. However, he is not voting for what those hon members stand for, because what they stand for cannot work, even according to their own supporters. I want to ask those hon members whether they are going to serve in the standing committees. [Interjections.] It is very relevant. Are they going to serve in the standing committees? Of course they are going to serve in the standing committees. They are going to serve in those mixed standing committees. I want them to do so. It is right that they should do so, but why are they going to sit on those committees? What will they say if Eugene Terre’Blanche asks why they sit on those mixed committees? What is their defence going to be? He will be told: “Look, we have done our best, but the Act has been passed and we now have to work within the system.” That will be the reply; that is the only logical reply. Now I ask the CP: Surely the new Constitution has also been placed on the Statute Book as an Act and it has created a system, but surely it is equally inconsistent if the hon members of the CP are going to sit on those committees, is it not? The hon members have to co-operate to at least try to establish electoral acts which will give effect to a constitution that has already been accepted, and they must not adopt this obstructionist attitude.

Are you going to clamp down on the UDF?

The hon member for Kuruman says I must clamp down on the UDF.

I ask whether you are going to clamp down on them.

Yes, he asks that and he says that they are boycotting, but what else is the CP doing in South African politics? In the CP’s own way, and motivated by totally different factors, the CP is playing a boycotting role in the politics of South Africa and is preventing the development of good ethnic relations.

The hon member asks questions about the third tier, and once again his argument is misleading. Surely he knows that it is the policy of the Government that there will be own local authorities for every population group at the third tier. This has been accepted at congresses and is expounded in every official document of the NP. One cannot have own local authorities if one has mixed voters’ lists or anything of that kind.

What about what is common at the third tier?

As regards what is common at the third tier, one will have to develop machinery to provide how one cooperates at that level. Of course one will have to do so, and the CP, too, will have to do so. After all, the hon member for Lichtenburg himself tells us that the CP’s homeland can work because the CP is not going to remove all Coloured communities. The CP is going to leave them just where they are. Are they going to have rights there? Is the CP going to give them rights of local Government there? Why are the hon members silent now? If the CP gives them that, the CP will probably have liaison mechanisms with them because the CP is not going to remove them; according to the CP they will stay where they are; they will simply become a country. I think I must resist the temptation to devote too much attention to the CP in this debate.

The hon member for Kuruman quoted speeches from P W Botha: 40 jaar made by the hon the Prime Minister. I found this very interesting. It was in reaction to anti-democratic statements contained in the constitution of the AWB that the non member did so. What did the hon member do? He did not dissociate himself from those extracts he quoted, but attacked the leader of the NP. What is he doing thereby? He is protecting the AWB. Just as we have not had an unambiquous dissociation from the AWB from any of the leading figures in the CP, the hon member defended the AWB by implication. What did he also do? He even built them up. He knows that the OB was an organization of considerable prestige until it began to go wrong, until it began to play with violence. By implication he is comparing the OB with the AWB.

Who, in the last years of the OB, were the greatest fighters against the threat posed to democracy in South Africa by the OB at that stage? There sits one of them, the hon the Prime Minister. Then too, there was Dr Malan and Verwoerd, whose name the CP is so fond of peddling, and there was Hans Strijdom, whose name the CP also likes to peddle with. They perceived the danger of anything of that kind. If the CP really wants to follow their path as they say they do, then they must turn away from the path they are following by embracing these elements that seek to deal recklessly with South Africa.

Before reacting individually to the speeches of hon members I wish to touch briefly on two themes which have cropped up on virtually every speech.

The first is the question of own and general affairs. I have been asked what “general” and “own” mean. The constitution gives an indication that elections are own affairs except in so far as there may be general legislation. I do not think it would be advisable for me to attempt to provide a full classification of what may be own and what general. Let us seek our point of departure in this regard in the constitution. The constitution specifically provides that in this transitionary phase we shall take time to determine this. Section 98 of the Constitution contains certain provisions in this regard. Moreover, in terms of section 102(2)(a) and section 87b the Electoral Act is in any event still administered by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Therefore at a specific date it has to be regarded as a general Act until the State President provides otherwise. This is in terms of a legal opinion I obtained earlier. The Bill we are discussing at present is initially a general measure. The constitution vests in the State President the power to transfer specific things identified as own affairs. For example, provision is made in the constitution for a procedure to determine in the course of time what is general and what is own. On the one hand there is a procedure on the part of the Executive. The constitution also provides for a different procedure, viz that each of the two new Houses, from the time of their inception, and the House of Assembly, from September, may say that as far as each group is concerned it identifies certain things which it regards as “own”. Since the constitution provides that elections are own affairs, such a House draws up its own Bill which goes through the procedure prescribed, and the State President then certifies that measure as being an own affair. Thus we can take the initiative and the Coloureds, too, can take the initiative in identifying what is really own and placing an individual stamp on it by introducing and formulating legislation. In the third place I want to say that the test for this is laid down in the constitution. If one seeks a general classification one should ask oneself what in this Bill, if it were to be changed for one of the three Houses, influences the right of choice or the standard of the right of choice of the other groups. If the answer to such a question is that the proposed change will indeed affect and infringe upon the right of choice of the other groups, then it is a general matter. However, if it concerns a matter which will not detract from or take anything away from the right of choice of any of the other groups, then it is an own affair. That is the test laid down in the constitution. At this point I am not prepared to give a long list of things that may be own or general. Hon members may rest assured, however, that specific aspects are embodied in the constitution and cannot be done away with. The question that there are three Houses, viz a House of Assembly for Whites, a House of Representatives for Coloureds and a House of Delegates for Indians, is stated in the constitution. All the basic qualifications as to who may vote etc, are built into the constitution and are among the entrenched sections in the constitution. Therefore the basis of this Bill may be found in the constitution. However, there are many other things in respect of which there is room for “own” emphasis, and for that reason it is important that we should call it an own affair. Another classification one could perhaps use is to say that general affairs are those things that regulate the basic pattern of who may vote when, and the franchise, if I may put it that way, while own affairs are the election process and everything that in fact has to do with the election process.

The second theme was the availability of voters’ lists. In this regard I first just wish to set something straight, because a misunderstanding may have arisen with regard to this new provision to the effect that amendments to the voters’ lists may be effected up to seven days before the elections.

†It is not the idea that voters’ rolls can be amended up to the seventh day before the election, for instance, by adding names of people who recently moved in. The old principle will still apply, namely that on a particular date the voters’ rolls will close. This amendment up to the seventh day before the election will only involve the rectification of an entry in respect of a person who already lives there and has an identification document; in other words where a mistake was made. It is not, however, a question of the date of registration, if I may put it that way, being shifted up to seven days before an election.

*I just wanted to set that straight. As regards the availability of voters’ rolls I should just like to bring it to the attention of hon members that the cost involved in making lists available every six months is quite high. We calculated what it would cost to make voters’ lists available once for all three Houses. It amounts to more or less a quarter of a million rands. Therefore we are talking about at least a half a million rands every time we issue such lists. Apart from the arguments I have already advanced I should like to emphasize that I believe that we should not specify a rigid date on which voters’ lists should be issued. We should allow ourselves to be guided by the need. If a rigid date is specified the situation could arise that we could have voters’ lists printed for everyone at the considerable expense mentioned and then, if a general election is called two months later, a lot of lists would immediately have to be reprinted. I want to ask that we rather proceed on the basis that voters’ lists are printed at regular intervals but that in addition, we allow ourselves to be guided by the need. If hon members have a need then, as I know them, they will not hesitate to convey that need to me. We must bear in mind that once one has a voters’ list, one gets all the deletions and additions every month.

†We have been reminded that we live in an age of computers. Computers are available not only to the Government and the Department of Internal Affairs, but also to the parties and they are getting up to date information hot off the press every month with regard to addition and deletions. Therefore, I think it may not really be necessary for a newly compiled list to be made available every six months.

What is wrong with once a year?

I do not even want to commit myself rigidly to that. I do believe, however, that on average one can make such lists available once a year.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he will consider the feasibility of making available to the parties a computer tape in the correct alphabetical sequence at a nominal cost on an annual basis, should such parties want to print the lists themselves using a computer agency?

Before one can provide a tape which one can certify as being correct, one must compile the voters’ roll for the constituency concerned. We can, however, look into that and see what is possible in that regard. I just want to say that, obviously, we are prepared to make the information available to parties, but we must do so in an orderly way. We must also get our priorities right. The first thing we must do as get the population register up to date and keep it up to date. Then such a list will be of great importance to parties. However, as long as it is in the state which has been criticized here in this debate, obviously a lot of work is entailed in providing such a list. Let us, therefore, at this point in time Have a drive to get it up to date. Thereafter we can all ask for a new list which will then hopefully be more up to date than the ones I could conceivably make available tomorrow.

*The next general theme to which I want to refer relates to the requirement of 300 signatures. The hon member for Stilfontein has replied in some detail in this regard and I should like to associate myself with his arguments and with those advanced later in this connection. There is a distinction between an independent candidate and a registered political party in this regard. In the past there have been independent candidates that forced elections which were not really elections that served democracy, but instead made a mockery of democracy. If one cannot obtain 300 signatures then I believe that one really cannot claim to influence enough voters to win the election. Before we get to the Committee Stage I shall consider the question whether we should build in a factor for constituencies that are really extensive. This will of course entail tremendous administrative problems, but we can discuss it in more detail tomorrow, in the Committee Stage.

I have already referred to the future of the provincial councils, but I want to add something more because a few hon members referred to this again. In this regard, too, the guidelines, laid down by the Government are very clear. Second-tier Government must be substantially reformed as a result of what we have done on the first tier and also due to our declared intention as to what must happen at the third tier. Therefore reform will take place, and I intended nothing more or less in my Second Reading speech. Before we draw up the final legislation in this connection, the reform proposals on second and third tier Government must first be tabled in Parliament, because legislation in that regard will be discussed here.

I want to put it to the hon member for Kuruman that we cannot change the provincial councils administratively. That is why the provisions of the old constitution relating to the establishment of provincial councils, still applies. Only Parliament can abolish or substantially change the provincial councils. A debate in this regard may be conducted when the proposals are introduced. We are sympathetic with regard to the problems and the service provided at the second tier of government, and we realize that a total vacuum would create serious problems there. As soon as there is interaction and discussions take place with the people affected by this and concrete proposals are put forward, we shall be able to debate the matter more meaningfully.

As far as postal votes are concerned, quite a lively debate has been conducted. Standpoints for and against postal votes have been put forward. The standpoint is that that it must be optional for each House because this is clearly an own affair. Whether Coloureds will have postal votes or not will not influence the quality of our franchise. We therefore built this in and designed a procedure so that it could be optional. We can discuss the details of the procedure tomorrow in the Committee Stage, because I only have limited time now, since the debate took longer due to the statements made by certain hon members in respect of their standpoints. As far as postal votes are concerned, however, there are a few matters I want to refer to. In the first place, cognizance must be taken of the fact that we have differences of opinion in our ranks. As far as this point is concerned, I agree with the hon member for Green Point that provisions that are too contentious must not be passed now. Let us not fight about their abolition at this juncture, but rather leave that until later. My personal opinion in this regard is that reform is necessary, and postal votes play an essential role. However, I believe that the overlapping between postal and special votes should be reduced. Consideration must be given to using special votes for exactly what they were designed for and for using the postal vote for exactly what it was designed for. The main aim of the postal vote, and the essential service it provides, is to enable the person for whom it is totally inconvenient or impossible to cast his vote in person, to vote. I do not think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, however, we must ensure that we do not put voters who vote before polling day, in a better position than voters who have to travel by car to the polling station in person on polling day. I think that the healthy voter who is unable to vote on polling day ought to be dealt with in a different way to an ill or invalid person or, say, a person who lives 400 km from the nearest polling station. In this regard we must initiate reform in the future. I, too, am in favour of reform, but I feel that we need not abolish the system per se because it still serves a useful purpose, particularly in certain instances. We are considering whether certain practical objections in regard to the present wording of the provision could not perhaps be overcome by way of an amendment. I may do so in the Committee Stage.

Many hon members made very positive contributions in regard to the importance of keeping the population register up to date. I want to give the hon members the assurance that each of their suggestions will be duly considered. We shall consider them carefully to see what we can manage, so that we may do even better than we trust we are already doing.

The Prohibition of Political Interference Act was also raised several times. In this regard I want to point out that I intend introducing legislation relating to this Act during this session. Therefore I am of the opinion that we should postpone the debate until that legislation comes before the House. However, I want to say to the hon member for Bezuidenhout that there is nothing in this Bill that came in by the backdoor. I object to the accusation he levelled that we were trying to incorporate something in a sly way in this regard. The provision which he refers to as having slipped in by the backdoor is already a provision of the electoral legislation in terms of which the Coloureds and the Indians are now conducting an election. Therefore there is nothing new in this. I think that that was an unfair allegation. To be quite honest, it made me extremely angry. [Interjections.]

I now turn to the hon member for Green Point. He said inter alia: “We will unilaterally legislate for other groups.” That was his objection. He asks that we should rather postpone the legislation and institute a select committee, and that in the meantime we should carry on, making slight adjustments here and there. We must have a proper system when we start. Surely these are tried and tested provisions. There is nothing new or really strange in this. Indeed, apart from a few exceptions, these are in fact the same provisions in terms of which the Coloureds and Indians are conducting elections at present. We are not coming forward here with a totally new provision which could have any significant negative effect on their rights. Moreover, they have the right to start immediately. What are we doing by passing this legislation that is different to what Parliament will have to do before the new dispensation is introduced, viz to pass new Standing Rules and Orders? After all, when we convene and when there is a by-election, there must be rules. Therefore I believe that what we are doing here is exactly the same was what we are doing as parliamentarians. We go so far as to say that the Standing Rules and Orders of the House of Assembly will initially apply to the other two Houses, too, until such time as they have time to change them. In the same way they can effect changes, in this instance with regard to the electoral laws, because that is an own affair. Therefore the reference of this matter to a select committee is not the appropriate course of action in this instance.

†I should like to say to the hon member for Umhlanga that I think that there will have to be further reform with regard to various aspects. However, let us first get a little bit of experience. Do not ask me to artificially manufacture something and immediately put it before a Standing Committee in October. Let us rather have a session or two first. Then, as we will be doing with the Standing Rules and Orders, we can get together and finalize the matter.

I want to refer to another point made by the hon member for Green Point.

*Once again he asks me to give the assurance that we shall maintain the right not to vote—the right not to wish to participate. However, he adds that the police interfere, and he complains that they seize pamphlets. I have a few of them before me, and now I should like to know from him which of these pamphlets he is defending. Is he, perhaps, defending this one, which reads:

This pamphlet was distributed in connection with 16 June and was handed to me by a Coloured leader with the question: What are you going to do about this? Listen to what the Muslim Youth Movement has to say:

Then this brief sentence follows, and the hon member must tell me whether he agrees with it:

Does the hon member agree with that? Is he pleading for the right to boycott, or is he pleading for the right not to vote? That is the question he will have to answer during this debate. We are certainly not in favour of boycotting. No one may in any way intimidate or prevent anyone who does wish to vote from exercising his democratic right. [Interjections.] Pressure is building up to intimidate people and deprive them of the opportunity to vote, and we shall certainly not permit that. However, if a voter clearly intimates that he does not wish to vote, for example because he does not like the new dispensation, he cannot be compelled to do so, and in that case, as far as I know, he is not guilty of an offence. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said something else in this regard. He objected that in terms of the Electoral Act a voter could be disqualified if he was guilty of what he calls “a political offence”. Does the hon member want us to draw a distinction between types of crime, viz between crimes which are declared crimes by Parliament?

Such a distinction is drawn in the legislation.

But the question is the degree of seriousness of a crime. Why does the hon member want to single out political crimes? Does the hon member want a person who has been found guilty of terrorism, to be dealt with in a different way to the man who is found guilty of fraud? In the essence, that is what he is advocating.

The man who has been locked up …

We cannot go along with his standpoint and unfortunately we shall not be able to accept his amendments in this regard in the Committee Stage.

I take pleasure in thanking hon members on this side of the House who have supported the Bill very effectively. I still have several notes before me but perhaps hon members should remind me of their contributions in the Committee Stage. I can react to them then. As yet there is just one particular facet that I want to refer to, viz the vehement attack made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout on delimitation. However, we said from the outset that we could not come forward with the ideal legislation at this point. After all, there are no developed voting districts for the Coloureds which have already been used for elections. There is a vacuum that we first have to bridge; in fact, we must build up machinery from scratch. I agree with the hon member that this is not ideal legislation, but the next delimitation will be far better.

I should have liked to reply to the effort made to drive a wedge between the NP in the Cape and the Transvaal, but all I can say at this point is that we shall sort out our delimitation problems with one another in a friendly way. When the next delimitation takes place we shall see to it that there is a new division.

Order! There being fewer than 15 members on one side …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not correct, Sir, that if any hon member is behind Mr Speaker’s Chair, he shall be deemed to be present for a division?

I do not see any hon members there.

There may well be, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! There are two hon members behind the Chair. [Interjections.]

May I address you in this regard please, Sir? In terms of the rules of the House any hon member behind Mr Speaker’s Chair shall be deemed to be in the House at the time of the division. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. We were just on our way out, Sir … [Interjections.] … and the bells were still ringing outside when you, Sir, stated that there were fewer than 15 hon members on one side. That being so, I submit that as we were on our way out of the House when you called the House to order to say that there were fewer than 15 members on the one side …

Were both hon members still in the process of walking out?

Yes, Sir. We were in the process of walking out.

The hon members were not stationary behind the Chair?

No, Sir, we were not stationary; we were in the process of walking out. [Interjections.] We may thus have been discerned by hon members as being behind the Chair.

I do not know whether the hon member for Umhlanga, who raised the point of order, was able to see whether the two hon members behind the Chair were stationary or not. Would the hon member care to address me on this point?

Mr Speaker, were I able to return to my place I would be able to avail myself of the manual which clearly states that anybody who is behind Mr Speaker’s Chair is deemed to be in the House and shall be counted for the purposes of a division. That is very clearly specified in the manual that has been so well drawn up by the officials of this House. The position is absolutely clear and unequivocal.

Mr Speaker, may I please address you on this point of order? I should like to point out that while the hon member for Greytown and myself were on our way out of the House, the door at the back was still open. At that stage, with the door still open, you then made your announcement in regard to fewer than 15 hon members appearing on one side, at which we immediately stopped.

The doors should have been locked.

Mr Speaker, hon members sitting in that row of benches on that side had sufficient time to leave the Chamber before the door was locked. However, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was sitting in a seat twice that distance from the door, and he was clearly not prepared to leave the Chamber. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon the Minister that he certainly has no idea of what was in my mind whatsoever. He cannot state as a matter of fact that I did not want to go out. I clearly did, and the last member of my party was about opposite your Chair, Sir, when I got to my feet to leave the House.

The relevant provisions in the Manual for Presiding Officers on page 148 are as follows:

This also refers to the back of the Chamber.

The doors were certainly open, Sir, when we were on our way out and you announced that there were fewer than 15 members on the one side. At that stage the doors were certainly not locked, and I am sure that this fact can be confirmed by members of the parliamentary staff.

Order! The Manual states further:

May I address you further, Sir? The fact that we were subsequently able to leave the Chamber I think indicates the fact that the doors were not locked.

Order! It is compulsory for the doors to be locked. They were not locked and therefore I rule that the two hon members in question were deemed to have been outside the Chamber at the time of the division.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs J H Hoon, F J le Roux, Dr W J Snyman, Mr L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Mr W L van der Merwe, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment moved by Mr F J le Roux dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.