Mr Chairman, I am sorry that the hon the Minister did not see fit to deal with this Bill, prior to its Second Reading, in the way that his side of the House proposed, namely to have it investigated and to keep back the findings of those investigations until such time as the new dispensation has actually come into operation so that the newly elected members of the two new Houses could also make their inputs. During the relatively long debate on this measure I did not hear anything that persuaded me to change my standpoint in this connection, and I still think that this would have been a wise step to take.

It was also interesting, inter alia, to listen to the hon member for Umhlanga who, although he did not support our amendment, nevertheless expressed his support as well for the idea that at such an early stage election legislation in South Africa should possibly be investigated in this way. It could also be said that this legislation would be eminently suited to be the subject of such an investigation, and I am sure that the members of the other Houses could have made a very valuable contribution in this regard because they could have spoken from a perspective which might possibly be somewhat different to the one we have here.

Another aspect the hon the Minister touched on, was the matter of own and general affairs. Of course it is clear—the hon the Minister admitted this in so many words—that it is not yet clear at this stage exactly where the line will be drawn between own and general affairs as regards the details of such legislation as this. Possibly this is understandable. I want to express the opinion that the vast majority of the important aspects of this type of legislation will of necessity have to remain general affairs. They are quite simply too closely connected with the functioning of the constitution of our country for the position to be any different. For that reason I also think that very few of the details will form the subject of the discussion of own affairs in terms of the new dispensation.

The first clause in this legislation amends the Population Registration Act, although it is also very close related to the amendments to the Electoral Act, and of course it is also of relatively great importance to us. We have moved a number of amendments to clause 1 and I myself have one here which I was unfortunately unable to place on the Order Paper in time although I have asked that it be circulated to hon members. This amendment deals with clause 1(1)(c) which creates the possibility for a Minister, a Deputy Minister, a member of Parliament or a member of a provincial council who, on account of his official duties, is obliged to spend the greater part of the year in a specific region or city, to be entitled to register there and for that to be deemed to be his ordinary place of residence. In this way Cabinet Ministers for example, who in South Africa reside in Pretoria for the greater part of the year—to the best of our knowledge—will then be registered there as voters, but they will have the option of registering in their own constituencies if they are elected members of one of the Houses of Parliament and if they are the registered owner of a house or a flat or something similar in that electoral division.

It struck us that there was not a third option. Why am I mentioning a third option? There are a large number of hon members of the House of Assembly, Ministers and ordinary members, who do not reside in their own constituencies, particularly those members who represent urban constituencies. They frequently live in another suburb of the same city. In terms of this provision that person will therefore, in my opinion, not have the option of registering at his ordinary place of residence if he has to spend the greater part of the year in another city on account of his official duties. Let us assume that because of the new dispensation next year members of Parliament will have to spend the greater part of the year in Cape Town; that it is found that the work is of such a nature that members have to spend six and a half months of the year in Cape Town. A member who resides in Waterkloof but represents the Pretoria Central constituency, will then have the choice of registering in Cape Town or in Pretoria Central, provided he is the registered owner of property in Pretoria Central. It seems to me as if one should make a third possibility available here so that a member may register at his place of residence in Pretoria which may be a few kilometers from his electoral division but may not fall under it. In my opinion clause 1(1)(c) does not make provision for that.

†I accordingly move the following amendment:

I trust that the various party spokesmen and the hon the Minister have received copies of the amendment. I believe that this will give such a member a third option. I think it is of particular relevance for members who do not reside within their constituencies and who do not own fixed property there and who when they are in Cape Town reside in a place such as Acacia Park. They may have no interest whatsoever in registering as voters in a place such as Acacia Park. I believe that this amendment caters for such a situation.

Mr Chairman, I too wish to move an amendment to clause 1, to that part of the clause that has to do with ordinary place of residence. The amended subsection (4)(b) refers to “a person undergoing continuous or full-time training in terms of” various Acts, including the Defence Act, and his ordinary place of residence “shall be deemed to be the place indicated by him as his residential address on any document completed by him in connection with and prior to the commencement of such training.” That in itself does not cause us a problem but I think what we need to bear in mind is for example a young man who is doing his national service for two years. In the normal course of events the address that he will have given will be that of his parents because it is fairly likely that he was living with his parents immediately prior to doing his national service. If a national serviceman is married he will give the address where he and his wife usually live. The problem that we feel arises is if that man was living with his parents or, alternatively, his wife moves during that two-year period and they or she thereafter have no connection with that address, then he also has no connection. If an election is held during that period, possibly when he has done national service for 18 months or so, and one attempts to find out where he is by going to that address, and maybe they have moved a year or more before that, it is often very difficult to find out what has happened to that particular voter. I accordingly move the following amendment:

The effect of this would be that if the address that he had given when he started his training was that of his next of kin and if while he is doing training his next of kin moves, he will be entitled to change his ordinary place of residence to that to where his next of kin has moved.

Mr Chairman, clause 1 and the few clauses immediately following it, form part of the framework that has been created to use the Population Registration Act as a basis for the future electoral system in the Republic of South Africa. The Population Registration Act is also the basis on which the entire new dispensation has been structured. This is the Act governing a person’s identity. Any attempt to water down this Act must therefore be opposed. Similarly the Prohibition of Political Interference Act ensued from the Population Registration Act.

If the CP therefore supports the hon the Minister in his standpoint not to water down the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the hon the Minister should not say that we are being abusive to the Coloureds and the Indians, because if that is the case, then he is also being abusive to those people. When he replies, he must therefore point out where in the course of the discussions on this Bill the CP was abusive to the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa.

The hon the Minister must also remember that the hon the Prime Minister had an interview with the Coloured leaders a few years ago. The minutes of that meeting were distributed among all hon members. The Coloured leaders left the office of the hon the Prime Minister without having accomplished anything. That was under the circumstances obtaining at the time, when the NP still accepted the policy of separate development with regard to Coloureds and Indians as well. Was the hon the Prime Minister also being abusive to the Coloureds and Indians of South Africa then?

This morning black banner headlines proclaimed these untrue statements of the hon the Minister to the whole of South Africa. Has the hon the Minister, as a senior Minister and as the leader of his party in the Transvaal, ever considered what this language of his has done to race relations? If we say over and over again that we do not begrudge the Coloureds and the Indians what we demand for ourselves on the basis of separate development, each in his own territory, then we are being abusive to the Coloureds and the Indians! This is unbridled language which is completely unworthy of the hon the Minister, and is doing South Africa a disservice. [Interjections.]

For the information of the hon the Minister I want to inform his that we held fruitful discussions with responsible persons from the ranks of the Coloureds only last week.

Who?

We shall not mention their names because we know what happens. We know the NP and we know what they do to those people. [Interjections.]

Order!

This brings me to participation and the boycott accusation that is being hurled at the CP. In this connection I should like to ask the hon the Minister something. The hon member for Kuruman asked him what he was going to do in regard to that group of people consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians who have openly announced that the new dispensation should be boycotted. I am referring to the UDF of course. What is the hon the Minister going to do with them? He has not yet said what he is going to do with them, but in this House he is accusing us of boycotting the new dispensation. He is saying this to the more than 600 000 supporters of our party. [Interjections.]

Order!

In addition he is saying this to people who enjoy more support from Afrikaner ranks than his own party does.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member but I think he is straying too far from the legislation now.

Sir, during the Second Reading debate the hon the Minister accused us of wanting to boycott the new dispensation, and I think that when the first speaker of a party has the opportunity to discuss a clause, he may digress a little. This has always been the custom.

Order! In that regard, the hon member is quite right and that is why I am allowing him, too, to digress very widely, but I cannot allow him to conduct the Second Reading debate all over again. I think the hon member must get a little closer to the clause.

Sir, I shall obey your ruling. I must point out to the hon the Minister that the by-election in Soutpansberg did, after all, take place within the milieu of the new dispensation. The same applies to the by-elections which are now in progress. What does the hon the Minister mean by saying that we are boycotting the new dispensation? Or does the hon the Minister want us to boycott it? If he does, he must say so. Does he want us to boycott the new dispensation? [Interjections.] We shall also participate in the proceedings of the standing committees, away from the overpowering influence of the Cabinet and its Press. Then the people will discover that we are not Frankenstein monsters, but sincere people who want to promote the greatest welfare of everybody in this country. The hon the Minister must reply to our arguments and when he does not have arguments he must not accuse us of being motivated by hatred. He knows whose pens are dripping with hatred for the Conservative Party. He, of all people, should know that. He knows of people in this hon House who have described us as radical, bellicose and hysterical people.

Order! The hon member must please co-operate with me and confine himself to the clause. Yesterday Mr Speaker also had to call the hon member to order when he advanced the same argument. The hon member must please deal more specifically with the clause now.

Mr Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday, the hon the Minister accused us of not putting forward motivated arguments on this Bill, and said that we were motivated by hatred. Because a more general discussion is allowed, on the first clause of a Bill in committee, I think I am entitled to react to that accusation by the hon the Minister. As I have said, when the hon the Minister has a shortage of arguments, he says we are motivated by hatred. But his own party hates us, while his Press, which is very close to him, describes us as Godless racists. That is what is being said by his people.

Yesterday we said that we were still waiting for scientific proof that the new dispensation could succeed in a deeply divided community. A report on constitutional structures in South Africa was discussed yesterday by the President’s Council. Die Burger reported on this under the headlines “Vertroue nodig vir oorlewing in Suid-Afrika”. In this debate Prof D J Kotzé said:

That was the standpoint adopted by the National Party over the years, the standpoint that there could not be prosperity and peace in a plural society governed in a single territory by a combined Parliament. That has always been the approach of the National Party. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it was with a feeling of discontent that we had to listen to what the hon member for Brakpan had to say. Population registration under clause 1 offers the structure the CP wants to use to create a separate homeland for the Coloureds. The measure before us deals with the population register as a basis for the voters’ lists of the new dispensation, a dispensation which has already been accepted by the voters. Therefore I cannot understand why this argument is being repeated. As a matter of interest I want to point out to the hon member for Brakpan that by 30 April of this year 696 829 Coloured voters had already been registered. It is particularly interesting to note that 414 156 applications for registration were received in May alone. On 30 April 299 898 Indians had already been registered and 182 599 applications for registration were received in May alone. Since this legislation is going to be used as the basis for voters’ rolls, I want to point out that it flies in the face of the realities of South Africa if one rejects the choice of the voters by voting against the provisions of this Bill. The mere fact that Coloureds and Indians are co-operating in such large numbers by way of registration proves that the standpoint of the CP on the registration of voters is undoubtedly heading for conflict. This measure is merely concerned with the practical way in which elections shall take place. We cannot debate the ideology behind it all over again now.

If separate development with regard to the Black peoples eliminates conflict, why do you claim that conflict is inherent in the standpoint of the CP as far as the Coloureds are concerned?

The hon member is trying to create the impression that in its constitutional structures for Black people the Government is striving for a separate development which will mean that Black people and communities will not be given constitutional rights. This standpoint is incorrect. A while ago the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning tabled a report in which our standpoint was stated. I do not wish to pursue this matter, because I feel that it is not relevant to this debate.

I want to put it to the hon member for Kuruman that when measures such as these are debated with them, they see South Africa in absolutistic compartments. This legislation will serve as a basis for the voters’ lists for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This is taking place in terms of the Constitution Act, that has already been passed. In the second place, the legislation is based on the realities of South Africa. It seems to me hon members of the CP will never be able to understand that one cannot have an absolutist standpoint with regard to the division of people and regions and then base the registration of voters on a homeland concept. This is an absurdity.

I cannot understand how the hon member for Brakpan can relate his remarks to clause 1, because this clause and this measure have as little to do with integration as the man in the moon. If there are constitutional structures for the various population groups—the hon the Minister explained this yesterday—there will have to be a point of contact somewhere in the future, in the form of a physical structure, such as a council, for example. Is this integration? Yesterday the hon member Dr Vilonel spoke to the hon member for Pietersburg about the voting procedures of the Medical Council, a council of which they are both members. Is that integration?

Are you aware of the fact that the Rev Hendrickse is striving for the abolition of the Population Registration Act?

The difference between us and the hon members of the CP regarding the aspirations of other population groups is that we live with the aspirations and standpoints of other people, and we accept it as part of the world we are living in that there are leaders of specific population groups who also have specific aspirations and standpoints, and here we are wrestling, figuratively speaking, over a measure such as this in an effort to accommodate each other. We in South Africa should thank heaven for the aspirations of people. If it had not been for the political aspirations of people, we would not have been able to come forward with a structure to accommodate those aspirations meaningfully and to endeavour to regulate the realities of South Africa. If it had not been for the aspirations of people in the economic sphere, this country would have come to a standstill. We in the Government party are not seeking conflict with regard to aspirations. As far as the question of the hon member for Brakpan regarding the Rev Hendrickse is concerned, I want to put it that the Rev Hendrickse is a political leader in this country who has adopted specific standpoints on specific matters. He may also have specific standpoints on this measure and may disagree with us here and there, but we can live with that. In spite of his disagreeing with us on a specific point, there are many other points in respect of which we can accommodate each other and hold discussions with each other. These are the realities of South Africa. The difference between us and the CP is that we say we have to live with those realities. That is why we are coming forward with a structure such as this and that is why we are saying in clause 1 that we are going to use the population register as a basis for elections, and we are going to use the election as a basis to allow democracy to act as a leaven in South Africa so that specific leaders, specific population groups and every individual will have the right to express their opinions, with regard to such a measure as this as well. The Rev Hendrickse most certainly has a specific standpoint on this too.

The hon member for Brakpan spoke about the hon the Minister who referred to persons who are abusive to others. If the hon member interpreted that remark literally, he was quite wrong. He knows just as well as any intelligent person who heard the hon the Minister that when he used the words “vloek teen die werklikheid” he meant them figuratively. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that as far as their debating on this measure is concerned, I also gained the impression that figuratively speaking they are flying in the face of the realities of South Africa. I want to tell them that we cannot go on like this. They are engaged in conflict-creating and conflict-generating politics. I want to ask them to co-operate with us with regard to this measure, because on the road ahead, merely in view of the large number of voters I have referred to, it will be extremely foolish to think that one can ignore the decision of the voters with regard to the consitution. It is also the height of folly to think that we should sabotage all the measures to implement that constitutional provision, such as this measure, on the road ahead. There are large numbers of people in South Africa, inter alia the Coloured voters who registered inlarge numbers during May, and the Indian voters, who want to be participants in this structure. They must surely be asking themselves what the CP’s plans for their future are. To think that one can talk about isolation, about absolutely separate population groups in separate homelands, is foolish. For that reason I should like to say that we support this measure.

Mr Chairman, you will not doubt be delighted to know that I do not intend to get involved in a political argument and that I do not intend to use the time-honored tradition of restating our Second Reading attitude to this Bill all over again under the first clause. I would, however, like to start off by seeking a little consensus here. I want to say to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that we in this party have tremendous sympathy for what he is seeking to achieve in his amendment. We would support his idea, but as his amendment is currently worded I do not believe it can be accepted. I do not want to steal his thunder but I want to ask him to consider possibly altering his amendment slightly. I will give the reason why.

He is concerned about the serviceman who finds himself away, somewhere, doing his military service, while his parents move from one home to another. The amendment then states:

This is where the problem arises. That serviceman has an identity document with him. In the back of that document is a slip of paper containing the former address of his next of kin, who have now moved into a new home. One cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that we can deem that that address has altered, because who is going to deem it? However, what I do think could be said is that when he is informed that this next-of-kin has moved, he should be allowed to apply for registration at such new address. I should like to ask the hon member for Cape Town Gardens to consider altering his amendment to read:

The effect will then be that that young man is going to be able to have his identity document altered and the process is not in any way going to be upset. He is not going to be walking around with an identity document with a slip of paper in it which contains the wrong address. He will get a notification from the department that the change of address is accepted and is in order. I think it is extremely dangerous for us simply to assume by what the parents have done his address will be deemed to have changed. We are, after all, dealing with a young man who is over 18 years of age and who is eligible to vote. This is the sort of thing that he must do for himself and it starts him in the correct habits too. He then knows that he is following correct procedures and he knows how to do these things. He accepts that when he goes out in life he may have to change his address possibly four, five or maybe twenty times during the course of his life.

As far as the amendment of the hon member for Green Point is concerned, we do not have any strong feelings about it. I believe he has presented an interesting case, but I regret it is not one that we enthusiastically support. I would, however, seriously ask the hon the Minister to give very urgent consideration to the amendment moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens because he has raised something here that is very pertinent; it is very relevant and is indeed a problem. I think that if the hon member for Cape Town Gardens would just rephrase it slightly to put it in such a way that it could be workable and it could be acceptable to both the hon the Minister and his department. At the moment I do not believe it is.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Umhlanga and I are in agreement as to what we want to achieve but there is obviously a difference of opinion in regard to what is necessary. I understand the point he was making and I should like to try to explain to him why I believe this amendment would achieve our aim. Subsection (4) of the Population Registration Act says:

and then one has these various categories that we are amending. For example, it states:

In the subparagraph we are talking about, it states “the ordinary place of residence of a person undergoing continuous or full-time training is …”. The hon member is concerned about the use of this phrase “it shall be deemed to be …” The clause as it stands in the amending Bill we are discussing states that the ordinary place of residence of the people who for instance are doing national service “shall be deemed to be the place indicated by him as his residential address on any document completed by him in connection with and prior to the commencement of such training”. That document does not necessarily cover the filling in of his population register form and the point of the Population Registration Act, in defining people’s ordinary place of residence, is saying what they should be putting in their books of life; what should be shown in the back, not what actually is shown, because these are two separate things. The one is that one has one’s book of life and one sends in a form which qualifies one’s ordinary place of residence to be a particular address. However, the mere fact that one’s ordinary place of residence changes, does not change one’s book of life or change one’s address on the voters’ roll until one has completed the form. Exactly the same would apply to a national serviceman. In terms of the Act his ordinary place of residence, for example if his parents move, would be deemed to be his new residential address, but his actual address in the population register would not change unless he took the trouble to send in a form. In that context I do not see the need to change this amendment to achieve what both the hon member for Umhlanga and myself are trying to achieve.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the remarks made by the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Brakpan, let me say that as far as the PFP are concerned our policy is known and we do not need to debate it every five minutes in this House and to waste the time of the House when it has to deal with particular problems. As far as we are concerned, we will participate in the new dispensation and try to assist where possible. That is one of the reasons why we are working on this Bill today.

Mr Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments to this clause:

1. 3. On page 5, in fine 43, after “he” to insert “or his wife”.
2. 4. On page 5, in line 44, after “flat” to insert:
   , proof of which ownership shall be furnished,

The reason for moving these amendments is that the man ofttimes does not own the home and it is usually in the name of his wife. As far as a member of Parliament is concerned the reference should also include his wife. As regards the second amendment, I think it should be necessary for him to produce proof of some description that he actually does possess the house or a flat in his constituency where he lives, otherwise someone might live in another constituency and just write a letter to the effect that he has a house or a flat in a particular constituency and therefore asks the Director-General to change his address. I think that proof should be furnished.

Mr Chairman, it may perhaps help to cut short the debate on the amendments if I were to say, at this early stage, that the hon member for Green Point’s amendment in regard to political incumbents, namely that they are granted a further choice, that of asking the Director-General to have them registered where they actually reside, is acceptable to me.

I also accept the first amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I am just wondering whether, bearing the hon member for Houghton in mind, he would not like to expand the amendment to include a reference to “spouse”. I would be glad if he would word it accordingly and then move it in that form.

†As regards the hon member’s second amendment, namely the insertion of the words “proof of which ownership shall be furnished”, I cannot accept it because I do not think it is necessary. It is inherent in the clause as it is worded at the moment that the people involved should have property there. Seeing that the clause deals with hon colleagues of this House and the Director-General, the top official of the department, I am sure that everybody involved will make sure that registration in terms of this clause will not be obtained under false pretences. I really do not think that we should add the words suggested by the hon member.

As far as the amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is concerned I want to say that although I have sympathy for the spirit behind it, I cannot accept the amendment. If we were able to handle this matter easily from an administrative point of view, I think it would be something worthwhile investigating. However, in the form the hon member has moved the amendment I am afraid that I cannot accept it. It is vague and would make it almost impossible to ascertain when and where the parents of a particular person have moved at a particular point in time. We must look at this from an administrative point of view and, whereas it is possible to make an exception for a very, very small group of people like us here, it is extremely difficult to involve oneself in making exceptions to general rules for groups of people numbering 20 000 at a time. There may be other groups deserving of this sort of approach, apart from those doing military service, and once we start with that, we are undermining the essence and foundation of our electoral system, namely that one must register where one resides.

I also want to point out that the amendment as worded in the Bill itself is basically the result of deliberations of the select committee. The new proposal is the type of further refinement which could best be considered when we come to the next phase of revising our electoral laws, the revision the hon member for Umhlanga called for yesterday afternoon. I therefore cannot see my way clear to accepting this amendment. However, I stand sympathetic towards the motive and sentiments behind it and I think we should keep it in mind when next we undertake the revision of these laws.

*I have now finished dealing with the amendments to clause 1. Now I come to the hon member for Brakpan. Firstly, with reference to the question he put to the hon member for Innesdal, I want to put a question to him. He asked the hon member for Innesdal whether he was aware of the fact that Rev Hendrickse was opposed to the Population Registration Act. The hon member for Innesdal gave him an answer. I now want to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he, as a legal man, thinks that Rev Hendrickse can repeal the Population Registration Act without also having the majority support of the White House of Assembly. He surely knows that that is not possible. If the majority of the White House of Assembly were to co-operate in having the Population Registration Act repealed, one would not need Rev Hendrickse to have it repealed, because then we could do it today without Rev Hendrickse.

That is not the point.

Of course it is the point. Hon members of the CP are scaring the voters with the alleged tale that what Rev Hendrickse, or whoever may be participating in the new dispensation, advocates, will necessarily happen. It could only happen if it also had majority support in this House. That is why we say frankly, loudly and clearly, in our arguments about this matter, that as long as the White electorate returns a majority party like the NP, which can also be trusted with the maintenance of White interests, they need not be afraid of entering upon this new dispensation.

The hon member—yesterday he and his colleagues also tried to do so—hides behind the statement that they regularly make about not begrudging the Coloureds any of the things they that demand for themselves. It is one thing to say one does not begrudge someone something, but if what one do not begrudge him is something he cannot obtain in practice, what one is not begrudging him has no substance. That is our argument. What is it that they do not begrudge the Coloureds? They do not begrudge them a homeland, in regard to which our challenge to them is that it cannot work. Nor do they begrudge having the Coloureds develop into a people, something the Coloureds do not want and cannot be persuaded to accept. They do not begrudge the Coloureds their own territory, which does not exist, which still has to be created. So when they make an offer, those to whom the offer is made surely weigh it up against its practicability. We say the offer is not worth the paper it is written on because it cannot be put into practice. In essence that is what they present to the Coloureds, and therefore the maintenance of the status quo, without the new constitutional dispensation, ie: We are not going to move you. You are free to remain where you are. It shall give you rights to some or other form, but if you want full political development, you must accept this offer that cannot be implemented. They also say: We are not going to buy up land to make this homeland viable. The Coloureds will buy it for themselves in order to have a properly consolidated homeland, a homeland they do not want.

May I please put a question? Is that not precisely the NP’s approach in regard to the various Black peoples in South Africa?

I am very grateful to the hon member for having put that question to me. No, it is not. Firstly, the Black peoples are indeed peoples. Secondly, they have an individual identity and a feeling of nationality. Thirdly, they also have a territory that has traditionally and historically been their territory. All the building blocks necessary for the construction of sovereign states, all the ingredients of the recipe for making this possible, are present in the case of the Black peoples, but all those ingredients of the recipé are absent in the case of the Coloureds. [Interjections.] For that reason the situation is not the same, nor is it comparable.

The hon member went on to reproach me for supposedly having said they reviled the Coloureds. Let me immediately reassure the hon member. I have never heard those hon members use any unacceptable words of vituperation. That is not what I accused them of.

That is what the hon the Minister did, in fact, say.

No, Sir. What those hon members are doing is spurning the Coloureds. They are not prepared to really ask: How can I negotiate for something that is really meaningful and practicable?

We do not accept political integration.

I am speaking now, not that hon member. How can I negotiate for something that is meaningful and practicable? [Interjections.] Whilst maintaining the interests of my people, it must also really be in the best interests of those people. As soon as one turns one’s back on people who have been living in this country just as long as one has oneself, one is pronouncing a curse upon them in the proverbial sense of the word.

The hon member complained of our having accused them, together with the UDF, of boycott action. The reason why all of us are dissatisfied about their attitudes to this Bill is because they do not co-operate like the hon member for Kuruman, who has thus far furnished a constructive contribution. In all respects implementation becomes the necessary consequence of the acceptance of the new constitution, because here they are offering total resistance to the implementation of a constitution that has democratically been brought into being. That is why their boycotting action is of the same calibre as that of the UDF.

The hon member also asked what I was going to do about the UDF. As long as the UDF acts within the law, I cannot, in all probability, do anything to them, just as I cannot do anything to those hon members and their boycotting. My criticism of them is equally severe, however, because in South Africa boycott action gets us nowhere when it comes to solving the problems of this country. [Interjections.] With this total resistance it is not possible to make any really constructive moves towards finding solutions in this country. That is my answer to that hon member, if he is asking what the NP did at this or that time. One thing is certain. The NP accepts the verdict of the electorate.

Since when? [Interjections.]

It accepts the verdict of the electorate. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must now give the hon the Minister a chance to continue with his speech.

In 1943 the NP accepted the position and continued with its constructive opposition. [Interjections.] It did not say, after the victorious party had obtained a mandate, that that party had not obtained a mandate. It continued in its efforts to persuade the electorate that its standpoint was the better one. In the meantime, however, it was not a boycott party and did try to improve every piece of legislation. It did not offer this kind of emotional resistance that absolutely runs counter to the best interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member is asking me for scientific proof to indicate where, in a plural community, political co-operation has succeeded. The answer is the Republic of South Africa. Let me ask the hon member: How long ago was it that the Afrikaners waged war against the English in South Africa? The hon member cannot deny that we are a plural society. We have two languages, and in the Transvaal his children and my children are not allowed to go to an English school. This is how deep-rooted the divisions still are. We have learnt, however, to co-operate because we have common interests. Because we have also grown together historically, we could even take our seats together in one House of Assembly in order to work together, even though we are so divergent. The differences between ourselves and the Coloureds and Indians are even more deep-rooted than those between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. There are greater cultural differences, and moreover racial differences too. That is why the NP says that in their case the structure for cooperation must be different to that in the case of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, for example. That is why more differentiation has been built into this system, and hence the concept of self-determination when it comes to own affairs. Unless the hon member is a complete racist, he must concede that South Africa furnishes proof of the fact that one can, in a plural society, obtain the kind of co-operation that we are experiencing here. I could mention other examples in the rest of the world, but we are not running away from the fact that our problem is more deep-rooted because it is not only a question of culture and language differing, but also a question of colour differences, including differences in economic and socio-economic levels too. This makes South African pluralism amongst the most complex and difficult to solve effectively. If we do not imaginatively look at solutions now, we are setting a course for conflict and confrontation, a course that will bring no one to any solutions at all.

Mr Chairman, I just want to react to the comments of the hon the Minister on the amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and express my appreciation for the fact that he has already accepted two amendments. I think the hon the Minister may be making a mistake if he sees the amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens as an exception to the general rule with regard to office bearers such as members of Parliament and members of the Cabinet. This is not the case as I see it. I do not think we are creating an additional administrative burden for the department at all. Let me explain this. The definition of ordinary place of residence in the Population Registration Act is there for various reasons, inter alia so” that the voters’ roll can be based on it in future. For the purpose of the Electoral Act that definition only applies when a person is undergoing military training and registers himself as a voter. Let us say, for example, he is undergoing military training somewhere in South West Africa. Now he cannot give his address in South West Africa, so he furnishes the address where he was residing immediately prior to commencing his military training. All we are asking is that we should create a situation where that national serviceman can give as his ordinary place of residence the place where his parents are now residing if they have moved in the meanwhile. It may happen that by the time he registers as a voter for the first time or submits a change of address for the first time, his parents have already moved. The problem we now have here is that as the Bill at present reads he is required to give his ordinary place of residence as his address, an address which was valid before he began his training. We do not think that this should necessarily be the case. It may be that when a man sends in a change of address for the first time, that address may no longer be valid. Our amendment will therefore not have the effect that the department will have to keep an eye on where that person goes. We are not placing an obligation on the department. This is merely a definition which is being given in the Population Registration Act in terms of which it is being provided what the person’s permanent place of residence will be deemed to be. I want to go so far as to say that when a person undergoing military training or anyone else sends in a change of address—at this stage he sends in an RV 1 form—and gives a specific address as his ordinary place of residence, the department accepts that information as bona fide information. The department will seldom if ever ascertain in some or other way whether the person actually lives there. To a great extent the department must therefore rely on the bona fides of the person sending in a change of address.

All we want to make provision for is that it will be possible to keep the addresses of national servicemen more up to date than is being provided for in the Bill at this stage. If a national serviceman lived with his parents before he began his national service his parents may move while he is undergoing military training. Two or three weeks after he commences his military training his parents may move to another part of the country. If this happens, the national serviceman must not be forced to consider his ordinary place of residence as the house in which his parents lived before he began his military training. It is that pegging down of the period which is causing us problems.

As far as elections are concerned, I can mention that political parties try to locate that person by ascertaining where his parents live. It would greatly facilitate matters if that person could in fact be registered where his parents are living at that specific time. Of course this does not mean that this must of necessity be the case. If that national serviceman does not send in a change of address, obviously he remains registered as a voter at the address where he lived before he began his national service. That address is then deemed to be his ordinary place of residence. It is only when the officer of a national serviceman advises him to send in his change of address that the possibility arises that he will give a new address as his place of residence. That address is then brought into line with the actual state of affairs at that stage.

In the first place we are not creating an additional administrative burden for the department, nothing more than that they will adjust a person’s address here and there if that person sends in his change of address himself. Other than that I do not foresee any problems in this connection. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to reconsider his standpoint on this amendment.

Mr Chairman, let us consider the reality of the situation given by the hon member for Green Point. When a man goes into the army, among the many forms that he fills in under present conditions is an RV 1 form. The address he indicates on that RV 1 form is considered his address at that time. In future instead of filling in an RV 1 form, he will have to fill in a change of address form in terms of the Population Registration Act. All that we ask is that if during the time that he serves in the army should he go to his commanding officer to notify him of a new home address, his commanding officer shall also see to it that he fills in a change of address form. That should be a right to do. If one leaves it as it is, then the serviceman does not have the right to have it done because the commanding officer can tell him that in terms of the law he need only do it once, and that is when the serviceman joins the army. We merely want to make sure that if his parents change their address or if he wants to change his own address while he is a serviceman, he can do it. There is nothing to prevent him, if he so wishes, filling in the form and posting it. If he does that, nobody will be the wiser. The only point is that we want to have it on the same official basis as it is at present.

Mr Chairman, I think I have found a way out by way of a simple amendment. What we are seeking to do here is to give the serviceman the right to change his address during his training. I move as an amendment:

This will cover the serviceman whose family has changed their address.

Mr Chairman, I am sympathetically disposed towards all the proposals made. However, my difficulty with the amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is, in the first place, that it is vague. He referred to “next of kin”. Who is a person’s next of kin? He may be married and living with his parents when he has to go into the Army. After he has gone into the Army his parents may move to one address and his wife to another. Whose address is now going to be allocated to him according to the amendment of the hon member?

I feel the solution lies in the direction indicated by the hon member for Umhlanga, namely that the address of the man will be the address at which he resides when he is not in the Army. Before I agree to a final statutory amendment I should like to discuss this with the Minister of Defence to find out what the Defence Force does when such a person changes his address. After that I may decide to introduce another procedure, which provides “according to the latest address”, instead of this amendment. We must determine the source of information.

Who corrects his book?

The Defence Force does so. I want to arrange this with them. That is why I am asking for time and I undertake, and I am binding the department to this, to consider this problem at the first amendment of this legislation. In the meanwhile I ask hon members to accept it as it stands. I think they have achieved their objective in that the matter will be investigated further. We may come up with a better method than the one being proposed here.

Mr Chairman, yesterday in my Second Reading speech I put a question to the hon the Minister with reference to clause 1(1)(c) which is concerned with the fact that a member of a House may be compelled to reside at a specific place for the greater part of the year on account of his official duties. What I want to know is whether this is not being stated the wrong way round here. I feel that a member of Parliament should be registered in his constituency and that when his duties take him elsewhere for a longer period he should be able to choose whether he wants to register there instead of where he lives. If the hon the Minister foresees that under the new dispensation Parliament will be in session in Cape Town for the entire year or for the greater part of the year, members of Parliament will be compelled to register themselves at their addresses here in Cape Town or to apply to the Director-General if they want to be registered in their own constituencies. If this is not the case it means that a member of the House of Assembly or a member of another House will constantly be asking himself where he is going to be for the greater part of the year. The Director-General of the department will also have to try to ascertain where a person finds himself for the greater part of the year on account of his duties. On this basis that member will be placed on a specific voters’ list. In such a case, will a member constantly have to give notice to the Director-General because a session of Parliament may be shorter one year and longer the next? There must be clarity on this so that a member will know where he must register and under what circumstances he must apply to be registered in his own electoral division.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to flog a dead horse, but I would like to point out two things to the hon the Minister.

Firstly, if he has a problem with the legal definition of next-of-kin, we certainly have no problem with the amendment moved by the hon member for Umhlanga. If he therefore finds that amendment easier to accept, it is neither here nor there for us as we believe that both amendments will achieve more or less the same thing.

The second point is that the hon the Minister seems to put great store on the question of determining the sources and being able to check with the Minister of Defence. One should, however, look at the practicalities of this. His department compiles the population register and after people have been issued their books of life, changes of address are based entirely on what people submit to his department. In the normal course of events they make no effort to check whether that information is correct. If somebody wishes to send in a fraudulent change of address, saying for instance that he lives in Vereeniging when he actually lives in Pretoria, it is not checked by his department in the normal course of events. A person doing that is in fact breaking the law and could be convicted if it came to light. There are certain ways in which this can come to light. One of the more likely ways is when a political party discovers that a person is registered at a particular address while they know that the person has never lived there and that the present resident has been living there for years. They then submit that information to the department which then checks it.

The amendment which we are suggesting will operate in exactly the same way the department will receive a change of address form, signed by somebody stating it as correct. They accept this at face value, as they accept all the other forms at face value. If somebody contravenes the law deliberately, he is guilty of an offence. I do not see any additional administrative problem or why these categories of persons are any different—in terms of the department supposedly checking whether the information is correct—from the other categories of persons who have to provide their ordinary places of residence.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Koedoespoort must remember that the basic rule was that the people for whom an exception is now being made, viz the office-bearers and members, always had to register where they lived. Consequently, if one was not living in one’s electoral division, one was not able to register in one’s electoral division. The purpose of this measure is that a member may now register in his electoral division as well. However, this is linked to the requirement that he/she has to own property there. There is no question here of a member being registered in the one electoral division one year and in another the next. This measure gives office-bearers the choice of whether they wish to be registered at their physical place of residence where they find themselves—particularly under the amendment which I accepted—or whether they ’ wish to be registered in an electoral division on the gounds that they own land there. This is a way of giving them a choice. What we could in fact debate now is whether we should have done this in a more elegant way. However, this is the only purpose of this provision. The idea is not that persons should be asked every year. The Director-General does not decide where a person should be registered. If one wishes to deviate from the normal rule of registering in the place where one is physically resident, one may ask the Director-General for this concession, and then one is not contravening the Act if one does so. That is all. I really think we should be pleased about this concession instead of kicking up a storm about it. I do not think that is necessary.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens said I was making heavy weather of sources of information. I tried to analyze his argument. I may make a mistake in my argumentation now, but off the cuff my basic reaction is that with this new provision in the Bill that voters’ rolls can be rectified up to seven days before the election all parties will now be doing canvassing. In a particular constituency they may come forth with a list on which, say, 200 names appear which they challenge because they could not find them because they have never lived there. In the event of those people doing military service at this point in time, according to the wording of this clause, I can go to the central computer of the Department of Defence and ask for these names to be run through to find out who is doing military service and what the official addresses are which are on record. With this new rectification system one might find more attacking of the validity of voters’ rolls than one has had in the past. Once again, I think this is a problem we can overcome within the parameters of the amendments moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon member for Umhlanga. I am just saying that I would be overhasty to do it here on my feet. Let me rather go and investigate the matter, and if and when the Government comes back to Parliament with this we will address this question.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister for accepting my first amendment.

With reference to what the hon the Minister said, can we not let this particular clause stand over until the hon the Minister has spoken to the Department of Defence and then discuss it at the end of the Committee Stage?

With leave of the Committee I withdraw my second amendment.

Amendment 4, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to get clarity on the hon member’s amendments. Did the hon member withdraw his amendment that on page 5, in paragraph (c), in line 43 after “he” to add “or his wife”

No, not that one. His first amendment still stands. He has withdrawn his second amendment. The hon the Minister has accepted the first amendment and the second amendment has been withdrawn by the hon member.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.

Amendment 5 negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr Chairman, I just want to indicate that we are negativing this clause. Hon members will realize that we have been working on a Bill of this kind for some time now. When this legislation was drafted we felt that the provisions of the 1982 Act could come into operation. We hoped that we would be ready to apply the legislation before September. In practice we have found, however, that we shall not be quite ready to do that and for that reason this legislation will be implemented by proclamation. For that reason I move:

Agreed to.

Clause negatived.

Clause 9:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

That means that as far as returning officers for absent voters are concerned, it will be members of Parliament, members of the President’s Council and members of a provincial council.

Mr Chairman, once again, I think this is something we could look at, but in my opinion, we should first give the new President’s Council an opportunity to find its feet before we involve them fully in politics in this way. Such an amendment would also be useful to us, since I know that this House of Assembly is going to elect quite a number of Nationalists as members of the President’s Council, and one would probably be able to make good use of them in elections by getting them to assist one and strengthen one’s numbers. [Interjections.] However, I think that at this stage we should not drag the members of the President’s Council into politics in that way. They are not a full-fledged part of Parliament per se, and although in terms of the principles of the constitution they have a role with regard to legislation, they are primarily an advisory body to the State President. They are therefore not involved in politics in the same way as MPs and MPCs, and I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, provision is made in clause 12 for an amendment which is perhaps more of a terminological nature, but which amounts to disqualification as a voter due to the fact that a person has been found guilty of what could generally be described as crimes against the State in or outside South Africa. I mentioned that during the course of my speech in the Second Reading debate, and the hon the Minister reacted to that relatively vehemently in his reply. In view of that, I want to tell him that it is well-known that hon members on this side have strong reservations with regard to those aspects of our security legislation on the basis of which this serious step is being taken in this clause, and indeed in the relevant section in the principal Act as well, by depriving the voter of his franchise. After all, it is true that what is regarded as crimes against the State at one stage may not be regarded as crimes against the State at another stage. We all know that it depends on which Government is in power, what loyalties apply, and so on. It is not something in respect of which one can apply an easy and objective standard. Section 4, which is being amended by this clause, refers to treason as one of the grounds on which a person can lose his franchise. Inter alia, it states:

If ever we were seeking proof of what I am speaking about, it is precisely what is written into this Act, viz that a conviction of treason which took place after that date is regarded as being different from a conviction before that date. The hon the Minister asked me whether I was trying to distinguish the seriousness of one kind of crime from the seriousness of another kind of crime in order to determine whether a person can lose his franchise on those grounds, but it is not I who am doing so in the first instance, since this is done in the Act itself. Certain political crimes or crimes against the State are specifically identified, whilst a number of other crimes are also mentioned. If one takes note of the requirements with regard to imprisonment it is clear that crimes against the State are regarded in a relatively serious light. That is understandable in theory, since one could say that a person who is guilty of an act which amounts to disloyalty towards his own country qualifies him as a person who should lose his franchise. Very often practice is quite different because people’s loyalties are placed under a great deal of pressure and tension as a result of a particular Government that is in power or the particular constitutional system that applies. We know that in treason trials during the past year the question has been brought up as to whether a Black person who has been deprived of his citizenship of the Republic of South Africa by a law of this House in which he has no say does in fact make him guilty of treason. That was a strongly disputed point of law in more than one case. I am putting this question to indicate how sensitive this matter can often be and how various very strong standpoints are adopted in this regard. I am saying this to illustrate our opposition to this kind of disqualification that exists in the Act and which is now being rewritten into this clause in a different form in that instead of making provision for the Terrorism Act and the old Internal Security Act, the new Internal Security Act is now being added.

Another aspect we find very odd, is that a conviction which takes place in an independent state will also deprive a person of his franchise. Surely we ought to begin learning lessons from what happens in some of these areas. We know of Gen Sebe who, until very recently, occupied a very high and strong position in Ciskei. On the basis of his advice and information this Government and the Defence Force in South Africa took very serious steps, inter alia, with regard to a raid on Lesotho. He has now been found guilty of a serious crime against the State of Ciskei. I must honestly say that it is not quite clear to me where the disloyalty lies in this situation and where things are wrong when people who until recently were good friends lock one another up and bring them before the court and these kind of things take place. Once again, I am of the opinion that this is an indication of a situation which creates a very dangerous state of affairs.

As regards convictions in the Republic of South Africa, we at least have a clear definition. If a person has been found guilty of an offence in terms of the Internal Security Act, there is no doubt and there is no question of a discretionary power. However, the present section 4 also includes a person who is found guilty of an offence under any law applicable in such an independent state, the aim of which is to combat terrorism or communism. Whose judgment applies in determining whether such a law combats terrorism or communism? That is the problem, and it is a very serious problem. Once again we are directly entering the political field in which legislation which is regarded by A as legislation to combat communism and terrorism, is regarded by B as legislation which simply encroaches on his political rights, his freedom of movement and his freedom of speech as a citizen of a particular country and which, in his view, has very little to do with communism.

We are also aware that in South Africa steps were often taken against persons, in terms of the old Suppression of Communism Act, who had very little to do with communism as such, and in many other cases as well. Yesterday I pointed out that certain people were incarcerated or restricted on the basis of information which Ministers of this Government believed justified such restrictions and which would then prima facie mean that in the eyes of those Ministers those persons were guilty of offences in terms of the relevant legislation Now some of those people are going to come and sit in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa after August. Some of those people could even become Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers in the new dispensation. If there is one thing which should cause us to reflect on this disqualification, it is those circumstances. As I have said, this is something which may perhaps make sense in theory; but in a country in which there are divided loyalties, in which there are very strong feelings about politics in which people disagree radically with one another concerning constitutional matters and look at these matters from completely different perspectives, it is dangerous to write a disqualification of this nature into legislation which is as important as this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I would like some clarification from the hon the Minister in connection with clause 12(b). If this is accepted, the Act will read:

I have a problem in connection with students who go to, say, the United States, Germany or Holland for a period of three years and who do not have the means to come back on holiday at a particular time. They go overseas to take a Ph D degree. Their ordinary place of residence will change during that particular time, because they are away for quite a long time, say two or three years. Therefore their names can be removed from the voters’ roll. I should like clarification from the hon the Minister that this will not apply or that it will be couched in such a way that this will not happen. There may be a case of a big mining company which sends over one of its employees to another country for a period of two or three years to work for that particular company at its branch office in, let us say, Peru. Why should such a person then be deprived of being registered as a voter on the population register as well as his opportunity to vote?

Mr Chairman, in reply to the hon member for Green Point I just want to say that I find his contribution this afternoon just as unfortunate as I found the one he made last night. When one analyses his speech dealing with the question of conviction of crimes in terms of the Internal Security Act, one realizes that he is confusing two concepts, namely conviction by a court in the first place and administrative action in terms of certain powers in the second place. I am not saying that he is conceding it, but he does not say clearly and unequivocally that this disqualification can only apply when someone has been convicted by a court. In the second place, this disqualification can only apply if the court has sentenced that person to imprisonment without the option of a fine. This provision deals with serious offences in terms of the Internal Security Act, therefore, and it deals only with those matters in the security sphere which are in fact brought before a court, resulting in a conviction. This is the first point.

With regard to the second point, where he is dragging Charles Sebe into the matter, I want to say that this provision deals with a section in the Electoral Act. It deals with the conduct of people who may vote for this Parliament. Up to now, those people have been Whites, and the Coloureds and Indians are now being added. This measure is not concerned, therefore, with the rights of people other than those whose electoral rights with regard to this Parliament are being regulated.

The third point concerns the crimes referred to, of which Whites, Coloureds or Indians whose qualifications or disqualifications is at issue here may be guilty in terms of the legislation of the independent states. As he himself read, this is linked to the concept of “the combating of communism and terrorism”. In this case, too, they must have been convicted without the option of a fine. Furthermore, the hon member knows that all the independent states will form part of the same basic legal system together with the RSA. I think we may respect this and we also know that the administration of justice in the independent states is of a high standard. Therefore I think the hon member was trying to make political capital out of a provision which has been on our Statute Book for many years. All we are doing now is to make a consequential correction, because we no longer have a Terrorism Act nor the other Acts that have been repealed. These have now been combined in a new Internal Security Act, and that is why this provision is before us. No new principle is at stake here, and the same reasons which applied when we placed these provisions on the Statute Book still apply today. I disagree with the hon member, therefore, I have taken cognizance of his standpoint, and I wish to leave the matter at that.

As regards the question of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, it is true that we are dealing here with the concept of where a person lives.

†“Ordinary residence” is not defined in the Electoral Act but it is defined in the Population Registration Act. The hon member will find that in clause 9 of the Bill which we have just accepted. In this connection I want to refer the hon member to clause 9(q) which reads as follows:

*That is the technical legal interpretation. In the population Registration Amendment Act, No 101 of 1982, the following definition is given of “ordinary place of residence”:

This means in effect that a person’s ordinary place of residence is the place where he is ordinarily resident, in the words of the definition which I have just read to hon members. The one which must be recorded in the register is the one at which he is ordinarily resident. If there is any doubt about a person, the electoral officer will have to determine every time whether he is resident in England, for example, or whether he is ordinarily resident in South Africa. There is a limit up to which temporary absence does not affect one’s right to vote, but as soon as this temporary absence means that one is no longer ordinarily resident at the address here in South Africa, one can no longer be a voter. Just as we can never do away with the principle that everyone has to pay income tax, we really cannot do away with the fact that one can only vote when one is resident in this country. I am not prepared to introduce a system, such as the one which the hon member advocated at Second Reading yesterday, in terms of which persons who are permanently resident outside the borders of South Africa should be able to vote here and in terms of which we should have a whole procedure for this, as the Portuguese and the Americans do. It does not form part of our traditional system. I think we have had enough reform for the time being, so I am not prepared to consider something of this nature at this stage. I think we should first carry out the reforms on our agenda.

Let me just say in this connection that our Electoral Act accommodates people who are employed in neighbouring countries, of course, very often because we have sent them there because it is in the best interests of South Africa that they should be there, that there should be expertise there, that there should be interaction, and that is why they are specially accommodated. Even then, it is still linked to a specific constituency, and they do not get that right even though they are not living in South Africa; they get that right because, even though they live there, they are regarded as being falling within a particular constituency which is geographically adjacent to the place where they live. So that are actually registered at their address outside South Africa, and we simply include that place as though it were in South Africa. However, we cannot do this with London, America, Canada, etc. Then we would lose control, and I do not see my way clear to doing that.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid that I am still not happy about the hon the Minister’s reaction to the argument I raised with regard to the offences which disqualify a person as a voter. The hon the Minister mentioned the fact that I had mentioned Gen Sebe as an example, but we also know that there is a South African citizen who was seconded to the security service in Ciskei who found himself in the same dilemma, and that man got away. I think it was a Col Minnaar—I think that is his rank—who was in the same position. That is the kind of person who could very easily find himself in the same position. Are we prepared to be saddled with legislation in this House which requires a vague definition of legislation which may apply in an independent state and in terms of which a person can be found guilty? The hon the Minister mentioned that there may be sound legal systems in some of the countries. In some of them, there are, but I am not sure about all of them. The fact of the matter, however, is that those independent states have the right to define prohibitions in legislation as they see fit. They have the right, inter alia, to alter the onus of proof and to alter and adjust the definition of crimes to the extent that it is very difficult for the defence to prove a person’s innocence. To tell the truth, they could let it apply in a completely different system if they prefer. For example, they could let a completely inquisitorial system apply there, instead of the traditional accusatorial system which we pursue here. That is why I say that we could create tremendous problems for ourselves.

Order! I regret to interrupt the hon member. During his first turn to speak I permitted the hon member to state his fundamental objections, but I cannot permit him repeatedly to argue the principle that already appears in the principal Act. The only thing that is being altered here—as the hon the Minister indicated—is that a provision of an Act which no longer exists is being replaced by means of an Act which has since been passed. The hon member therefore cannot argue the principle again.

Sir, I shall abide by your ruling.

I want to make only one further point, and that is that minimum prison sentences are prescribed on a large scale, in legislation affecting internal security as well. That additional qualification is therefore of minor importance at this stage. As a matter of interest, I want to point out that the only other crimes that are mentioned are murder and treason. Rapists, robbers and all criminals of this nature therefore qualify for the franchise, but now we are disqualifying people who fall within the definition, and I am somewhat unhappy about that.

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

The amendment means that a person who is 65 years of age or older at the date of commencement of section 4(l)(c), is not subject to the disqualification that he or she may no longer register as a voter after a certain date if he or she is not in possession of an identity document. This is an argument we have mentioned previously in debates, and we also moved an amendment to that effect in the select committee, since we believed that many older people in South Africa really have a problem in obtaining an identity document.

I am aware of the fact that the department has taken steps to render assistance in this regard and to make things a little easier for those people, but it is still not sufficient really to improve the position for them. I really do believe that one could make this exception for that category, which in reality, is becoming an increasingly smaller category, so that they will have the right to remain registered if they have problems with documentation in order to obtain identity documents.

There is such a thing as the date on which they entered the country, and there is also the question of dates of birth. There are many people in South Africa who immigrated here from Eastern Europe and who are very old now. Some of them are not quite sure of their date of birth, nor do they know on what date they entered the Republic. They are not quite sure of their status as far as citizenship is concerned, for example. Obtaining identity documents sometimes creates a problem for them.

It is true that during the campaign launched last year to try to issue identity documents to as many people as possible, in practice the department reduced and relaxed the requirement concerning the presentation of supporting documents considerably. Whereas previously a number of documents was required before an identity document could be issued, the department was a great deal more lenient. That facilitated the situation somewhat.

I believe that if we accept this amendment we can make it easier for that category of people to remain registered as voters, and even to register for as long as they live. After all, this is a category which will disappear naturally in time.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to reply in full again to the arguments regarding so-called political crimes. I just want to emphasize once again, as regards Gen Minnaar as well, that the scope of what happens in the national states is restricted to crimes in which the combating of communism or terrorism is involved. It will be the electoral officer of the RSA who will have to judge whether it is communism or terrorism that is relevant or not. It will not be a stranger, and that judgment will take place in terms of our system, the decision whether or not a person should be disqualified, and he will have recourse to a higher authority if this is not looked at properly. He will be able to have a decision which is not based on sound grounds reviewed, for example, when the chief electoral officer has not given due attention to the problem and not followed the correct procedure. We are therefore dealing with a narrow field, but I shall comply with the ruling of the Chair. In fact, we are dealing with an old principle here and it is really not relevant in regard to this clause.

As regards the amendment of the hon member for Green Point, I have given it thorough attention, since I was notified about it in advance. However, I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment and I just want to give a few reasons for this. Firstly, as soon as this Bill becomes law, voters’ lists will be drawn up from the population register. The amendment to the effect that people who are 65 years of age or older can be disenfranchised if identity documents have not been issued to them, is in conflict with this principle.

At present there are two ways in which one’s name can appear on the voters’ list. The first is that one fills in an RV 1 form and applies to be registered. The second way is that one can get onto the list automatically because one’s name appears in the population register. We do not want to have a dual system in terms of which a person can get onto the voters’ list in one way and into the population register in another way. This moratorium is now being given until the next general election, whenever that may be. I do not know whether hon members are trying to find out whether we are possibly planning a general election, but I want to reassure them. The respite being granted by this is really ample, in my opinion. There is sufficient time for everyone whose name has not yet been recorded in the population register to have this done. I want to appeal to all parties in this House to continue assisting those who do not yet have an identity document to obtain one. The department will do its share. The contents of the book of life has already been made more streamlined in the sense that less information appears in it. It is now being encumbered with fewer other administrative functions. As an hon member rightly pointed out, the procedure has now been considerably simplified.

In order to get the name of a person who is older than 65 years on the voters’ list, a form has to be filled in anyway. The hon member for Green Point referred, for example, to persons who have been naturalized. Such persons must have a naturalization certificate and they must state on their RV 1 forms when they entered the country, when they were naturalized, as well as other details. Apart from the fact that a photograph has to be added, I really do not think that is a great deal more trouble to obtain an identity document than to fill in an RV 1 form. For the sake of good order and a uniform system in which new and accessible information from one source is available so that the dual system of administration can be eliminated, I believe that I can feel free to ask parties and voters to give their co-operation. Today I appeal to everyone who does not yet have an identity document please to apply so that an attempt can be made to reach the 100% mark.

Let us compare the old percentages with the new ones. I do not have the precise figures with me now, but I made enquiries at one stage, and if my memory serves me correctly, the highest figure of registration amongst the Whites is 80%, if it is compared with the number of Whites over the age of 18 years. As regards the population register, we have already reached 95%. That is as close as possible to absolute success. Of the remaining 5%, many may be fictitious because some people have already been taken up into the population register under their new, married surnames. There are such cases. That 5% is therefore too high, and I believe that the real percentage is therefore probably higher than 95%. We are speaking here of a handful of people who have now become too few to maintain a separate system for them.

Mr Chairman, I accept the explanation of the hon the Minister in respect of people who are going to work for a particular firm, but as far as university students are concerned I still have a problem. In this respect the Act reads:

If an Oxford scholar attends that university that is his place of residence and he can automatically be taken off the voters’ roll for the period that he is away until he comes back to South Africa.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

It is a consequential amendment which arises from the fact that clause 8 was negatived.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

In essence this means that when the new voters’ list is prepared and printed all political parties are given notice as to when it is going to come into effect so that they know when it is going to happen. In that way there will be no possibility of their seeing a notice in the Gazette and discovering that it is going to come into effect in a few days time.

I might say that the amendment that I am proposing is one that was unanimously accepted by the select committee. I might also add that quite a few of the amendments agreed to by the select committee have not been incorporated in the Bill. I think the hon the Minister should indicate to us why they have been left out. This is a safeguard for political parties, and I hope the hon the Minister, as did the select committee, will accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to say that I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr Chairman, this clause provides for extra information to be provided on the voters’ rolls and it occurred to me that as the new change of address forms require one to provide one’s telephone number, it would be to the advantage of participants in elections to have that information available to them. However, on reflection I realized that this could be an invasion of privacy, a gross invasion of privacy. I am sure the hon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will be able to confirm that many people when they apply for telephones, specifically record that they do not want their numbers disclosed to the public. I will therefore not be moving the amendment that has been printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr Chairman, I move the following two amendments:

1. 1. On page 27, in line 37, after “Delegates” to insert:
   , in respect of each division
2. 2. On page 27, in line 37, to omit “or” and to substitute “and”.

The clause as it stands provides for the chief electoral officer each month to supply political parties with certain information relating to changes in the population register and therefore also in the voters’ rolls. It does not prevent him from providing it in a form whereby each electoral division is shown separately. On the other hand it does not oblige him to do so either. The select committee accepted the words “in respect of each division” in order to make it quite clear. However, the wording of this clause has since been changed and shuffled around. However, the need for that information to be available to electoral divisions individually remains as strong as ever, and I hope the hon the Minister will therefore not have a problem in accepting my first amendment.

The other amendments relates to the information that one gets in respect of a voter. The relevant part of the clause reads “with the name and residential address or identity number of each White person”. It is of the utmost importance to political parties and their party organizations that they receive names and residential addresses. To receive a name and an identity number is in itself insufficient. To be able to effect these changes, the electoral offices must have the necessary information regarding residential addresses. So they certainly have that information at their disposal.

Although the wording of the clauses as a whole has been rearranged, I must point out that the select committee also accepted that the addresses of voters should be furnished, and I therefore hope that the hon the Minister will be prepared also to accept my second amendment.

Mr Chairman, I have looked at the amendments briefly and I have no fundamental objection to them. The position is that we are already doing what the hon member is asking in any case. The hon member is correct that the select committee recommended that. These are only slight amendments, and in view of that, I accept them. They bring the clause more in line with the recommendations of the select committee.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is convinced that in terms of this clause a voter is safeguarded against his name being removed from the voters’ list without him being aware of it. Personally, I feel very strongly about the fact that when a person’s name is removed from the voters’ list he should be notified. If he moves to a new electoral division and he applies himself, he obviously knows about it. However, if someone else reports a change of address on his behalf, the voter concerned could be quite unaware that his change of address has been reported. I raised this matter yesterday and I should just like to hear from the hon the Minister whether he is convinced that there will be no such cases and that people will not be removed from voters’ lists on a large scale and be registered at new addresses without being informed.

Mr Chairman, last evening I did not get around to the hon member’s request, viz whether when we receive a notice of a change of address we should not only post a card to the new address, for which provision is made, but that we should also post a card to the old address to tell the same person that he has been transferred to another address, so as to ensure that if he is transferred in error he will know about it. I think that firstly, the cost linked to such an exercise in making provision in this way for the exceptional case in which errors could come to the fore, will really be very high. It is a demonstration of tremendous mistrust, in every case of a change of address, to write to an address of a person who has let one know that he no longer resides at that particular address, despite his having notified one. If the changes of address are genuine in 99,9% of the cases, I just feel that it is not quite right to go that far. What have we done now, however? We are now affording a voter and a political party the opportunity to request a rectification up to seven days before an election. As I know the hon members of the NP, our canvassing has already been completed seven days before an election. By that time one has already found all the errors. If there is someone who says, for example, that he has been residing in that constituency for eight years and that he cannot understand why his name is not on the voters’ list, his case can be investigated. One can then ascertain where the false change of address occurred. I believe that with the provision that rectifications can be made up to seven days before an election, persons who have not really changed their address, but for whom false changes of address were sent in, need not be concerned, since irregularities of this nature will be traced by the various political parties and they will be in a position to place their names back on the voters’ list so that they can cast their vote. I want to give the hon member the undertaking that if at any time it comes to light that there are malpractices in that regard, we shall have no choice but to make changes of address subject to stringent, formal restrictions. Then there will have to be signatures in legible handwriting by witnesses, together with his address, which one can check, etc. We would then once again be creating a lot of red tape. However, I gained courage from the referendum. There were a few possibilities for abuse, but I honestly received no real complaints about any misdemeanour during the referendum campaign, despite the opportunity that existed for this here and there. I am convinced that if there were any malpractices on a significant scale the parties that were wide awake would have traced them. I believe that we should rather try to relax the rigorism in our rules and regulations in this regard, since this does not concern a principle, but an ordinary administrative action. We in South Africa should really be cost and labour saving. Consequently, whilst I can very well understand the sentiment behind the hon member’s argument, I think that we should first have a test run of the procedure as it is set out here. I can assure the hon member that if problems arise we will take very firm action.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to have clarity on a certain matter. What would the position be if one could put the voters’ list in an electoral division in order by way of additions and omissions up to seven days before election day? Supposing one’s organization is already at work and has issued a few hundred postal votes to voters who have already been living outside the electoral division for five or six months or a year—it does not really matter how long. Supposing an application is returned and the postal vote has been issued and an Opposition Party then traces such a voter’s new residential address with the aid of the application form that has been handed in and then objects to that voter’s presence in the particular electoral division in which a postal vote was issued to him. What is the situation going to be then? I am simply asking.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon member put that question. A misunderstanding could easily occur. We cannot permit additions to and omissions from voters’ lists up to seven days before an election. The voters’ list still closes on the date determined by proclamation. One can only make rectifications. One can therefore only rectify errors, for example, in the case where a person’s name has been erroneously omitted from the list whilst it should have been there, and he can prove this, and his name was on the previous list as well. We know how many cases of this nature there are. It makes these people furious. We will now be able to rectify that. Regardless of whether he moves at a later stage, or whatever, if he is lawfully on that list and that is his address in the population register as well, he cannot again be registered at another place and vote there at a late stage in an election campaign. Consequently, the closing date remains fixed, as before. This concerns the rectification of errors, and nothing else.

Mr Chairman, I should like to support what the hon member for Innesdal has said. Possibly there is a compromise that would not cost the department as much. I think the hon the Minister conceded earlier on this afternoon that, given the new system of using the population register for the voters’ rolls, one may get confusion and disputes in certain areas about where people’s ordinary, places of residence are. I think the hon the Minister should also bear in mind that, although they have not been applied as yet to any great extent, there are provisions in the Population Registration Act which allow for all sorts of organizations and people like municipalities, landlords, caretakers of flats and others to send in change-of-address forms. I think it was suggested yesterday, too, that this could be done when telephones are applied for. I think there is, therefore, provision in the Act already for all sorts of people to be required to advise the department of changes of address of citizens and therefore of voters.

What one wants to avoid at all costs is the department being inundated with queries, requests and objections about the voters’ rolls during the election campaign and specifically between the proclamation date and seven days before the election. During that period the department could not possibly be busier. In future general elections, in addition to the 166 White constituencies, they are also going to be handling nearly the same number, in total, of Coloured and Indian constituencies. So they are going to be under even more pressure. We all know that with postal votes and such they are stretched to the absolute limit as it is. The last thing we want to do is now to create some system that will place an even bigger work-load on them.

I should like to suggest a possible solution which would not be as costly as the suggestion of the hon member for Innesdal but which could be as effective. Where the application for the change of address is not signed by the voter himself, the department could do what the hon member for Innesdal has requested. In such an instance they could then send an advice to his old address as well as to his new address. However, in the case where the person concerned has actually signed the form himself, the department could merely send it to the address he has acknowledged as his new address.

Mr Chairman, I would also like to join issue on this particular point. While I think that what the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has said is very true, I also think that there is possibly an easier solution and that is that if it is seen by the department that it has received from an individual the slip contained in the back of his identity document requesting registration of a change of address, the department will acknowledge receipt thereof together with a return slip reflecting the new address for insertion in his identity book. If the change of address is notified in any other way then I believe the point raised by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens will certainly be relevant namely that there should be a notification.

I should like to make one point clear. At no stage during the Second Reading debate did I say, and neither do I now say, that any other agency should be involved in notifying changes of address. What I do say is that other agencies should be involved in checking that the voter has in fact got the correct address on the slip in the back of his identity document. That is the point that I want to make.

Another point that I also want to make rather strongly in this respect is that when such a person applies for a telephone or an electricity connection or wishes to enter into a hire-purchase agreement, or even if he goes into his bank or building society, that address in the back of his identity document on that slip of paper must be checked against whatever application he is making at that particular time either through a local authority or the Department of Posts and Telecommunications or whatever the case may be. I want therefore to stress the fact that it is not for the agency to change the address but for the individual, but that the agency can assist materially to ensure that those changes of address are constantly updated and maintained.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their positive contributions in respect of this clause. It is quite obvious to me that they want to ensure that no voter will be affected negatively by the action of anybody else. Obviously, then, I sympathize with the sentiments expressed by the hon members for Innesdal, Umhlanga and Cape Town Gardens. However, it is all a question of how it is to be done and what procedures are to be followed.

There are various solutions in this regard. As far as the solution offered by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is concerned, I do not know whether he has seen my signature. If I sign something, how will anybody be able to know that it was I who signed it?

May I please ask a question? Is it not so that the forms that are sent in by a caretaker or a municipality or in fact by a political party are not signed by anybody? The signature element on that form is left blank. These people do not sign on behalf of the voter. Therefore, it is assumed that where there is a signature it is the signature of the voter himself.

The argument could be that when it is blank, yes. Obviously, however, quite regularly the person is asked to sign and that signed form is then sent in. It is, however, also possible for a husband to sign on behalf of his wife. Therefore the signature does appear but we do not know whose signature it is.

Well, that is fraudulent.

Well, he notifies us. If we have to react in regard to a blank form then we must also react in regard to a signed form. The point I must consider is whether or not to institute a full system of control in regard to change of address forms by having the forms checked, having witnesses to sign, checking whether the witness has actually signed and evolving generally a system in terms of which I ensure that the correct procedure is adhered to. We are considering that possibility, and we are monitoring the situation. In fact, at one stage I was on the point of deciding to institute such a procedure. However, we do not need special legal authority in terms of this legislation to do so. I can give hon members the assurance that we will monitor the situation and I also want to say that we are open to practical suggestions in regard to how we can effectively guard against misuse without creating a monster of red tape to catch a mouse. This is the balance we must establish. We are all for sound control but we are not for excessive control. I have sympathy with the ideas expressed but I would like hon members to try to forge them into a practical and not too expensive proposal. If they give me that proposal, I give them the undertaking that I shall seriously consider it.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

1. (2) The day contemplated in subsection (1) shall be the last day of the penultimate month preceding the month in which the proclamation which relates to the election is issued under section 34 or under section 110.

The effect of this amendment will be to revert to the situation as it is now in relation to the closing date of voters’ rolls for both general elections and by-elections. What is proposed in this amending Bill is that as far as general elections are concerned there be no change, and that the closing date be the penultimate month preceding the month of proclamation. The suggestion is that as far as by-elections are concerned, the closing date be the preceding month. Obviously at any election time it is desirable that the voters’ rolls be as up to date as possible and, if it were theoretically possible to get accurate voters’ rolls the day before the election, that would be the best of all because then on election day the situation would be as it is on that day. But obviously that is impracticable so one has to have a cut-off date sometime earlier.

I would suggest that in practical terms of electioneering one of the most important things for the participants in an election is to be able to get a comprehensive voters’ roll as soon after proclamation day as possible so that they can know, subject to the minimal number of amendments and corrections made seven days before the election, what the voters’ roll is for the election that they are involved in. In terms of the proposed amendment in the Bill, not my amendment, namely as the Bill reads now, if, for example, there is a by-election and it is proclaimed on the third of a month—which means that nomination day will be about three weeks thereafter—the voters’ roll for that election is going to be closed as at the end of the previous month; in other words, it could be as little as one day before the proclamation that that voters’ roll closes. If an electoral office has to prepare a voters’ roll it obviously has to wait until it has the information for that month in hand before it can set about preparing the voters’ roll. If, for example, a person in a certain constituency has filled in his card in Cape Town, Durban, Pofadder or Pietersburg and there is a by election somewhere in Port Elizabeth, the electoral office will have to get in all those cards first before they can determine who needs to be taken off the roll and who needs to be put on. The law provides that the electoral office has to give the candidates and the political parties a voters’ roll at least 30 days before the election. I think that all political parties accept that as being the legal requirement but in practice know that if they did not get them a long time before that it would cause enormous difficulties. The law provides that 30 days is the latest that they can come out, but in practice that would cause a great deal of difficulty.

I believe that the hon the Minister should not underestimate the problems. There are all sorts of things which can happen. There are postal delays and it is even possible that a magistrate or someone in a distant town can delay the submission of cards. There are also computer breakdowns. I think it was illustrated today by the hon the Minister himself when he asked that clause 8 be withdrawn. Despite the passing some two years ago of legislation in connection with the population register, he was concerned that even by September this year the department may not be in a position to implement that legislation. We are changing to a certain number of new procedures. We are for instance going to use the population register. I think that the disadvantages caused by having voters’ rolls come out quite a long time after proclamation day will be considerably greater than the disadvantage caused by the fact that voters will not have the extra month in which to get registered.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to accept my amendment. We should wait to see how this system of using the population register works and if we find that the department has become so streamlined and the computer is working so well that they can produce lists at the drop of a hat, then we can again look at this in the future. I think to some extent the proposal is theoretically possible, but in practice it may cause enormous difficulty. I think the advantages are minimal and therefore we should rather stick with the existing closing-off date. If in future we think it is practicable, we can look at having a later closing date.

Mr Chairman, if I am not mistaken, we now have in this Bill the provision as it was recommended by the select committee.

Yes.

The hon member made a plea that we should change it. Therefore, he wants us to depart from the select committee’s recommendation.

The select committee did not accept my arguments.

I just wanted to make sure so that there would be no misunderstanding about it.

†I have considered the amendment of the hon member, but I do not think it is really necessary to do what the hon member suggests. I think that in the case of by-elections we can cope on what is foreseen in the Bill. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is correct that the Bill contains what the select committee recommended. I think he will accept that two years ago when the select committee sat, we did not have the experience that we now have had of trying to implement the 1982 legislation in regard to the population register and which involved using the population register for the compiling of voters’ rolls and using the computer for various things. When he moved that clause 8 be negatived, the hon the Minister accepted that things had not been found to be as easily implemented as originally thought. This is not said by way of criticism, but we are faced with a position where we deal with millions of names. People do not fill in forms properly and there are also other factors which cause delays. What we were hoping would happen by about the end of 1982 we could not introduce fully even as yet. We now have far more experience than the select committee had when it sat.

There have been instances and I know that in 1980 for example there was a proclamation for a by-election. The proclamation appeared in the first week of July that year. It means that the voters’ roll for such a by election will in terms of this clause close on the last day of the month immediately preceding the month in which the proclamation is issued. It would therefore have been 30 June. Does the hon the Minister agree with me that before one can prepare a voters’ roll for such a constituency, all the documents from all the regional officers have to be received, including those which are not on line and do not have terminals? I know some of the bigger offices have this facility but a person in the outlying areas is by law permitted to send in his change of address by post. All these have to be received from all over South Africa. One needs to know who to put on the list and who to take off before the consolidated roll can actually be prepared. I would like the hon the Minister to give us an indication of how long he believes this process will take. In terms of normal postal delays I would suggest that it will take quite a few weeks before one will be able to start printing the voters’ roll. I would also suggest that the possibility exists that at nomination day the voters’ roll may not be ready for the returning officer to be able to check whether the person nominating and seconding is on a valid voters’ roll or not. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to rather have less haste and more speed in this regard.

If one finds in the future that the voters’ rolls can be produced 14 days after proclamation, experience will have shown that is is reasonable and possible and we will then support this provision. Until such time, however, I appeal to the hon the Minister seriously to consider accepting this amendment.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the hon member’s constructive efforts, but I think the clause should remain as it is.

He really did not convince me that the arguments of the select committee in this regard and the decisive decision taken in the select committee should be amended and that new facts have in fact emerged.

I also want to refer to his argument concerning the withdrawal of clause 8. What we cannot perform is not what is now being done on the population register, but functions which would have been added if clause 8 had remained. This is additional work which forms no part of what we are dealing with now.

†That argument is therefore not applicable. In a by-election there is obviously the need for parties to have as fresh as possible a voters’ roll to work on.

And in a general election.

Yes, in a general election as well, but in the case of a by-election the task is not so enormous. The hon member is correct in saying that we should look at all the fresh information which came in during the previous month. However, the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with only a few constituencies. There is always the possibility that if late information comes in, it can be amplified by an additional roll or by deletions which can now be done up to a later stage. However, that will only involve a small number of people whereas the information itself will be as fresh as possible and available to the candidate. I have no doubt that this was an important fact to hon members on the select committee when making this recommendation which we have accepted and which has been incorporated in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, if a proclamation for a by-election appears in the Government Gazette in the first week of a month, which means that the voters’ rolls closed at the end of the preceding month, can the hon the Minister give us an indication of how long after that the department anticipates they will be able to provide the parties involved with voters’ rolls for such a constituency?

I cannot give an exact time. I think it would be wrong to try to do so. The fact of the matter is that when a proclamation is issued it will be done knowing full well, firstly, the date upon which, in terms of the Act as it will then be, the voters’ rolls will close, and secondly, that all the parties putting up candidates will want voters’ rolls as soon as possible. The department carefully checked this clause before it accepted it. The department sees its way clear to operate efficiently within the framework of what is prescribed. I am not a computer expert but the department tells me that it can do it. This is where we differ. The department’s performance during the referendum proves to me that it can do it and that it was as good as its word in the referendum. I have no doubt that we will be able to meet these requirements.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

This clause has to do with voters’ rolls to be used in by-elections. Subsection (4) of the proposed new section 26 reads as follows:

Section 30 makes provision for rectifying certain errors that may have occurred. Section 25A contains an element of overlap with section 30. Section 25A also determines the circumstances under which a printed voters’ list can be adjusted after the cut-off date for an election or a by-election. I think it makes it clearer. I have never been able to understand why reference to section 25A is not made in the Act and why reference is made to section 30 but without reference to section 25A.

Mr Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

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

We have indicated on several occasions in the past that we believe that legislation as important as this should be firm, predictable and there for everybody to see. Political parties and organizations should be able to plan their affairs accordingly. We have indicated that we believe that electoral legislation in fact goes hand in hand with constitutional legislation and is therefore extremely important. As a result we have on several occasions objected when we felt that discretionary powers or powers to do certain things by proclamation in regard to this type of legislation should be avoided. We have objected when powers were introduced to take certain steps by way of proclamation rather than to write the provision for such conduct of elections into the legislation itself; in other words, we prefer law to regulation or proclamation when it comes to this type of legislation.

The hon the Minister has indicated in regard to this matter that the State President may in his wisdom, obviously on the recommendation of the Government, decide that the system for absent voters, the postal vote system as it is commonly known, will or will not apply in a particular election. The hon the Minister has indicated that the main reason for this is because of the fact that in the case or the SA Indian Council they do not have a postal vote system but a special vote system, while in the case of the old CRC it was the other way around. There is therefore no certainty as yet as to how these two race groups who will now become part of the parliamentary system will prefer matters to be conducted in regard to the elections for their own Chambers, namely the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

We can sympathize with the hon the Minister in his dilemma in this regard, and for that very reason we believe that we could have waited a while before introducing this legislation. This dilemma with which the hon the Minister is faced in regard to postal votes surely also applies in a number of other areas. There must surely be a number of other issues covered by this Bill that are going to be contentious from the point of view of those people.

The solution that the hon the Minister sought in this case was to say that the State President would decide whether the system of absent voters would apply or not. We object to this and, in fact, we object to it every strongly on the basis that we believe that an integral system of electioneering such as that one should be part of the Act, and that people should know where they stand as soon as possible. Should that matter only be mentioned in a proclamation, it may well mean that any number of applications to vote as absent voters may have been signed up before the proclamation was in fact issued. Hon members who served on the select committee that deal with these issues and who participated in previous debates on this sort of legislation will remember how strongly members felt on the issue of when a person should have the right to start signing up postal votes, from which date onwards one would have the right to canvass voters and to ask them to sign applications to vote as absent voters.

I believe that we have here a fundamental change to that situation and a subsection fundamentally affecting the position that one may well know that a by-election in a particular situation is in the offing. A vacancy may be gazetted while the proclamation of an election may only follow at a later date. Obviously in a situation like that political parties are inclined to start the ball rolling immediately, to start canvassing immediately and signing up these applications. However, a number of these applications may at a later stage be rendered invalid because of a proclamation of this nature being issued stating that the absent voter system will not apply.

There are other amendments on the Order Paper, namely one in the name of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and even one in the name of the hon the Minister himself, dealing with the absent voter system and the date from which applications for postal votes can be signed. These amendments indicate the strong feelings people have about this and how important political parties regard the fact that they should know from which day onwards they can have these applications signed. We believe that the spirit of this paragraph is in conflict with the view we hold in this regard. I am sure that the hon the Minister will have our sympathy and co-operation should he feel if this Bill becomes law and there are some feelings on the part of the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates that they do not wish to have such a system, that he would like to change the procedure. As we know there are strong feelings in this House about it. There are some members who disapprove of the system entirely, while other members like it. We will therefore have to attend to this matter in future as well. However, I do not believe that the solution to this problem lies in giving the power to the executive to decide in respect of a particular election whether that system should apply or not.

Mr Chairman, the hon member must not fall out of his bench when I say that I am going to accept his amendment. I am accepting it because I would also like to amend these provisions, as I indicated in my reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday. The hon member is in possession of an amendment to clause 42, in terms of which there will still be a proclamation by the State President, and which will, it is hoped, remove certain formal and administrative objections which existed to the system of proclamation as proposed here in clause 35. I believe that we shall be able to discuss the particulars more effectively when the committee has heard what the proposed amendments to clause 42 entail. In connection with the question of proclamation, I want to give the assurance that this is simply a mechanism to enable the State President to give effect in a simple way to the consensus on a matter which is not going to harm anyone if there is an option which is exercised by a particular House. It will remain our endeavour, in respect of White elections, to obtain consensus as far as possible on practical matters such as these. The hon member may rest assured that as long as this Government is in power, we shall not abolish postal votes by proclamation before at least having arranged for in-depth discussions and having made every attempt to achieve consensus on the matter. On the other hand, there was appreciation over a fairly wide spectrum among the Indians and the Coloureds for the fact that we did not burden them with the postal vote system in their elections. I am not saying that they did not have people in their ranks who also wanted it, but these are decisions which they can take for themselves, hence the simple procedure which we want to introduce. The way it was, however, it could have resulted in problems for parties, and we do not want it to be of such an arbitrary nature that parties could be prejudiced by a proclamation, that they could do a lot of work for nothing and that there could be a lack of certainty. Hon members need not wonder whether there are going to be postal votes during the next election or not. The amendment which I propose to move will remove any uncertainty and should therefore meet with approval, although I know that the hon member will still object to it in principle.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendments:

1. 3. On page 37, in line 61, to omit “particular”.
2. 5. On page 39, in line 1, to omit “that particular House” and to substitute “one or more Houses”

Unfortunately, I have given the hon the Minister a copy of only one of them, but the other is really consequential. In terms of my amendments, subsection (1) will provide that:

I think I am correct in saying that the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech or in his reply to the Second Reading debate suggested to us—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that it was not the intention to use this amending Bill either to reinforce the Prohibition of Political Interference Act or to bring it in through the backdoor. In fact, if I remember correctly, he was virulently upset with the hon member for Bezuidenhout for even suggesting such a thing. That may or may not have been the intention, but I would suggest that clause 37, as it stands, achieves that purpose. It does just that, at least in certain respects. My amendments do not limit the hon the Minister in any way. They do not go contrary to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, but merely serve to leave this legislation neutral in that regard. The hon the Minister can do what he wants with the other Act, in which case we may or may not agree with him, and, if necessary, we will have our debates and disagreements on that subject at that time. I do feel, however, that the changes I have proposed are only reasonable.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon member for Umhlanga on the Order Paper, as follows:

The object of omitting the word “of” is to make it easier for people to achieve what is intended. In other words, we have no objection to and in fact strongly support the concept of at least 500 signatures being obtained for a deed of foundation of a political party. That is very fair and reasonable. However, particularly bearing in mind the fact that there are various other communities also creating political parties, it may not be practical or feasible to obtain those 500 signatures at one meeting. One gets smaller communities of, perhaps, Coloureds or Indians in particular areas and they may not find it possible to get 500 signatures at one meeting while they could otherwise very easily get 500 or even 1 000 people to sign the declaration. The effect of omitting the word “of” will be to accept the fact that a meeting as such has to accept the deed of foundation but that the 500 signatories to that deed of foundation need not necessarily all have been at that meeting. That is the intention of the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I just want to refer to the second amendment moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. I do not know whether I heard him correctly to say that his amendment is not in conflict with the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. I was not able to follow the hon member properly.

It is open-ended. It neither endorses nor prevents the application of the provisions of the Act.

Because of the wording of the hon member’s proposed amendment, I gain the impression that at the back of the hon member’s mind there is his dislike for the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, and that it is for that reason that he has moved the omission of the word “particular” and the substitution therefor of the words “one or more House of Parliament”. I do not know whether the hon member followed the hon the Minister correctly last night because quite obviously the hon member’s amendment is in conflict with the provisions of the Prohibition Political Interference Act.

May I please ask a question? In some respects the hon member for Innesdal is correct. However, I would like to ask him whether it is not so that yesterday the hon the Minister said during the Second Reading debate that it was not the intention to use the provisions of the legislation before us as a means of reinforcing the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Obviously, I am not suggesting the opposite namely that he wants to include provisions in this legislation that are in conflict with that Act.

Mr Chairman, obviously I cannot reply for the hon the Minister but what the hon the Minister did say was that legislation to amend the Prohibition of Political Interference Act might be introduced. However, Sir, I am sure that I interpreted the hon member quite correctly to say that this amendment of his on this clause was in conflict with the provisions of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act.

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

This is not a terribly elegant amendment, Sir. If it had been possible to draft it a little more clearly by the omission of a few more words, I would have done so. However, that was not possible because it would have resulted in an amendment involving the provisions of the principal Act which are not being amended by this Bill, and that is not allowed.

What my amendment seeks to do is to eliminate the requirement that 500 people attending the foundation meeting of a political party need to sign the foundation document so that that need not be a requirement for the registration of that political party. I have often said—and this has been the standard attitude of my party over many years—that we do not believe that one should place unnecessary obstructions in the path of an emergent political party. We have agreed to the concept of the registration of a political party because there are certainly some advantages in this fact. However, to expect such a party to have 500 people attending a foundation meeting and that those people should sign the foundation deed is, we believe, quite unnecessary. In fact this legislation—and again this is a matter of principle to us—is going to become applicable to the new dispensation. We all know it will only apply after the elections in August and we also know that it is specifically stated in the Bill that the parties which have already been registered by the date on which this legislation becomes operative will be deemed to have been registered in terms of this Bill. However, I think the point needs to be made that it would have caused severe difficulties for the political parties now involved in the elections for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates if this requirement had been expected of them. We know that there are several political parties in the running and I doubt very much whether any of them had anywhere near 500 people at their founding meeting. Even the Labour Party did not have that many people at their Eshowe congress in Natal. Very often political parties do have larger attendances at their meetings, but this is a very severe bureaucratic difficulty indeed to impose upon a party. I do not believe that this is necessarily an indication of the strength of a political party. Some people love to attend political meetings and other people do not. There are political parties in this country which do not have massive attendances at political meetings, or at congresses for that matter, but which nevertheless are quite substantial political parties. Other political parties have thousands of people at their founding meetings, but that does not necessarily mean that they are tremendously strong and broadly based political parties when they actually get off the ground and have to canvass the support of the general voting public. We therefore believe that this is a blight on the democratic tradition and that one should not have this kind of thing written into our law. Until now the requirement has been 50 signatures, and in terms of that requirement every political party sitting in this House is registered. Now that we are all established, we increase this tenfold. This is very much a pro-establishment clause, and I honestly believe that there is no reason for us to impose such a restriction on political parties or organizations that may emerge in future. I know the argument has been advanced that one needs to have such a strict requirement for the registration of a political party because if one does not have this strict requirement it will circumvent the requirement that 300 signatures—now 300 affidavits—must be obtained to give support to a candidate who stands as an independent. The argument has been that if such a candidate did not wish to obtain the 300 signatures, all he needed to do was to find 50 signatures and pretend that he had started a political party. In that way he would get around this requirement. I honestly believe that few people will go to those fraudulent lengths to circumvent the law. In any event, I believe that the 300 signature requirement is also fundamentally a bad one, particularly as in the case of certain of the population groups in this country democratic political activity is a relatively new thing. In the case of the Coloured and Indian people they will for the first time have some kind of representation in Parliament and for the first time some of them are actually becoming involved in electoral politics. I therefore believe that to introduce any sort of restraints on that activity at this stage is completely wrong in practice and offensive in principle.

There is just one other point I should like to raise. I should like to indicate that in respect of the amendment of the hon member for Umhlanga which was moved by the hon member for Umbilo, we are prepared to support it very much as a second prize because it certainly does reduce the stringency of the requirements that are written into the Bill.

Mr Chairman, when one looks at the development of political parties in South Africa, especially as far as White political parties are concerned, one finds that since the founding of the Herstigte Nasionale Party in 1969, many other small political parties have come into being. There has been the National Conservative Party, for example …

And the mighty CP.

There has been the Democratic Party, the party of Dr Gerdener. The hon member for Kuruman is quite right in saying that another small party has been founded, namely the CP. Of these small parties which have mushroomed in White politics in recent years, hardly a single one survives today. We now have the position that the CP is being swallowed up by the HNP, or perhaps the HNP is being swallowed up by the CP.

They are both swallowing at the same time.

There have been other political organizations or parties, too, which have mushroomed and which have now all been accommodated in the CP or the HNP. Before any political party is founded, be it a White, a Coloured or an Indian political party, surely there is a long process leading up to the foundation meeting. Surely it is not a question of getting up one fine morning and deciding that one is going to form one’s own political party, and then proceeding to a certain place to do so. There is always a long process leading up to it. Surely one has a policy which one propagates and on the basis of which people have to support one.

That is not always the case.

The hon member for Umbilo argues that in some small places, there will not be 500 people to attend the foundation meeting, but who is going to start a political party in Hofmeyr? [Interjections.] When one wishes to start a political party—it does not matter for which one of the population groups—surely one selects one of the bigger centers for this purpose. One may start a political party in Kimberley, for example. Surely one is not going to start a party in Riversdale; of course not. One may do so in Durban, in Port Elizabeth or in Cape Town. One is certainly not going to do so in Smithfield, but rather in Bloemfontein.

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

Yes, Sir, but first I want to say that Oudtshoorn does not come into the picture at all.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware of the fact that the NP of the Cape Province was founded in Middelburg in the Cape?

Yes, but Middelburg in the Cape was a big town in those days. [Interjections.] As a result of the depopulation of the rural areas, and of the representatives which Middelburg had, it became completely depopulated, with the result that it is just a small town today. It is not a town in which one would found the NP or any party today.

If any group of people wishes to found a political party and they cannot even persuade 500 people to attend the foundation meeting, then that political party has no viability, in the first place, and it cannot survive in the South African situation. Indeed, there is recent proof of this. The CP was founded at a meeting held in the Skilpad Hall. The hon member for Kuruman said that that meeting was attended by 10 000 people. The foundation of the party was attended by 10 000 people, in spite of the fact that that party has no policy.

The UDF came into being when people met to discuss politics, and its foundation meeting was attended by thousands of people. The argument of the NRP and the PFP that no numbers should be prescribed in respect of the meeting at which a party is founded cannot be accepted. If one cannot even get 500 persons to attend the foundation meeting of a party in support of one’s views, one might as well give up.

I personally feel very strongly about the question of independent candidates. I want to emphasize that if people are allowed to stand as independent candidates on an ad hoc basis, especially as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned, the matter will be complicated—in the words of the hon member for Green Point—for those political parties which already exist and which are for the first time participating in an election with a view to gaining seats in Parliament. If on a subsequent occasion, when we are all sitting around a table, discussing this legislation, the Coloureds and the Indians were to ask that an independent candidate should be able to stand without the qualification of 300 affidavits, that would be quite in order. It would be their decision and they could then do what they liked. However, I am convinced that if they asked for this, they would request that it be deleted again after one or two elections.

Mr Chairman, I am surprised by the remarks made by the hon member for Kimberley South.

Since the introduction of the law in terms of which political parties have to register, one should look at the number of White political parties which have registered. Only six White political parties have registered, one of which has played no part in politics whatsoever. What is the hon member for Kimberley South afraid of as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned? They cannot get 500 people as easy as the hon member thinks.

Why not?

Because it is not easy for them as costs have to be incurred. This provision in the Bill is unfair. It should be left as it is and Coloureds and Indians should also be able to register in future, not only for this election, but also for future elections when big changes will have occurred in the political structure for the Coloureds and Indians. One should not think that there will only be Solidarity and one or two parties amongst the Indians and Coloureds, for instance the Labour Party, the Peoples’ Party and two or three others, that it will remain like that for ever. There will be changes. I therefore believe that we should leave the law as it is.

Mr Chairman, I am quite sure that the little light relief provided by the hon member for Kimberley South was well appreciated. I wonder if the hon member with his attitude that if one cannot get 500 people at an inaugural meeting one has no hope, has ever heard of the saying that from a small acorn a mighty oak tree can grow; in other words, if one has a small group meeting to inaugurate something it may well be that it will still grow into something big. After all is said and done, the Christian religion was started by a small group of disciples and apostles. There were not 500 at that meeting. That eventually turned into a very large organization. I just want to make the particular point that it does not mean to say that because fewer than 500 people attend an inaugural meeting it does not have potential.

I should like to make another point which I think has been overlooked by the hon member. It is perfectly true that it may well be that these new parties, if any, will be started in the greater metropolitan areas. This may well be so but it must be appreciated that the Coloured and Indian people who wish to start these new parties are not in the same affluent sort of situation, as far as transportation from all over the country is concerned, as are many of the Whites.

You will be surprised.

When it comes to the Indian community in Natal I know that there are a substantial number of affluent people. I think, however, that it must be generally said that whilst there are affluent people there may be people who wish to join a party which is not sponsored by the affluent part of the community. One must bear this in mind. They might be socialists or social democrats, like the hon member for Yeoville or whatever it may be. They might not be terribly well off. I rather suspect that the insertion of this clause in the legislation is rather like closing the door after the horse has bolted. In so far as the main political units that are going to be around for some time in the future are concerned, I feel that they are registered and under way. I do, however, accept the necessity for having a specific minimum number to formulate a party but not necessarily at the inaugural meeting. This is the point I made when I spoke earlier. I accept that it is necessary to stop frivolous little groups from starting their own funny little parties to circumvent the necessity of getting 300 affidavits signed for candidates. I do, however, feel that in respect of our peculiar circumstances in South Africa—we have made many adaptations to accommodate these peculiar circumstances—it is desirable to agree to have 500 signatures of voters or eligible voters but not necessarily that they should attend the inaugural meeting.

Mr Chairman, before I forget I should like to move an amendment that has nothing to do with the argument we are conducting at present. I therefore move as an amendment:

This amendment also arises out of the fact that clause 8 has been negatived.

I listened attentively to all the arguments. Before I react to specific speakers in detail, I think it would be a good thing, for a moment, to give an overall perspective. The day we decided that a party’s name could appear on a ballot paper, I think we made a fundamental change to our electoral system. In the previous system it was the candidate’s name that appeared on the ballot paper, and regardless of the party to which he belonged, the people voted for him. Nothwithstanding that however, he was supported by a certain party. The Electoral Act was subsequently amended to make provision for a party’s name to appear on the ballot paper. Thereafter a voter was in no doubt about the fact that when he was voting for a party’s candidate, he was voting for the party. We know, from the development of the party system, that people quite frequently vote for the party and not so much for the candidate. This results in the registration of a political party being of tremendous benefit to such a party. There are, however, other benefits involved in being registered as a party, amongst them the fact that under certain circumstances voters’ lists are made available to such a party. A further advantage is that names that are incorporated in the voters’ lists or deleted from the lists are conveyed to the party. If I am not mistaken, in contrast to what the Select Committee recommended—and hon members must remember this—it is no longer at all necessary, in terms of this Bill, for a registered party to obtain 300 signatures. For if a party, only once, adopts the correct procedure when it is founded, it has all the benefits which I have just mentioned and which result from registration. Moreover, it cannot be deprived of its registration unless it acts unlawfully. Being registered is therefore of fundamental benefit to people who have organized themselves into a party.

†There is nothing in this Bill that provides that to establish a political party one must have a meeting attended by 500 people and also 500 signatures. One must comply with that provision in order to have one’s party registered but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent 10 people getting together and establishing a party. There is nothing to stop them marketing themselves as a party, publishing their programme of action and advocating their policies. Then they are, however, not yet a party acceptable or deemed acceptable for registration. They must then build themselves up and at least prove that they can meet this basically fairly modest requirement of getting 500 people together and getting them to sign and thus prove that they have gained sufficient support. One accepts that to get 500 people together, one must have at least support beyond one town. One must at least have a programme of principles that can penetrate to a larger section or a reasonable percentage of the community.

*After having done so, one has the benefit of registration, and after one has registered, one has the right to place one’s name on a ballot paper. One receives information, one is invited, one has a vote in regard to delimitation procedures; in other words, one enjoys all the benefits of a registered political party. We therefore place a high premium on the fact that when a political party is registered, it is a body that has proved itself, in some or other way, in the political process. I therefore do not see my way clear to accepting the amendments that strive to move away from this proposed provision.

Then there is the other amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

†Unfortunately I cannot accept his amendment either. This Bill was drafted at a point in time when there was really no dispute about the question whether or not one could register one party in two Houses. The Bill was drafted by legal experts as a result of the new constitution. Obviously, the reference that one can only register a party for a particular House is in accordance with, firstly, the new constitution and, secondly, with the Prohibition of Political Interference Act as it stands at the moment. In that sense it supports the principles contained in the constitution and in the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. It was not, however, included in this Bill for that specific purpose.

*During this session a Bill covering that matter is to be introduced, and it may contain provisions that are also related to this. It may also contain other provisions, or provisions not related to this. The fact of the matter is, however, that if possible statutory amendments to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act also relate to the registration of parties for the various Houses, it will also substantively be spelt out in that new legislation and we can then debate it. It therefore is related, but has not quietly and cunningly been included here to change the situation. Hon members must remember that when this was drawn up, as is also the case now, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was on the Statute Book just as it stands now. That is why I agree with the hon member for Innesdal’s argument in this connection. I want to warn him, however, that this matter might indeed be addressed in legislation that I am planning to introduce.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. I think reasonable enough case has been made out to indicate why the registration of a political party cannot, for the purposes of registration, merely consist of a small handful of people attending a tiny function, because what is involved here is an important matter.

Mr Chairman, in regard to the question of the 500 signatures I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister. The relevant portion of the clause reads as follows:

It stands to reason that a party’s deed of foundation is accepted at one of the first meetings of such a party. One’s dilemma in this connection is that a party could perhaps start with 50 or 100 members. Within six months or a year, however, that party has perhaps grown to such an extent that it could easily hold a meeting at which 500 people were present. Are we not now creating for ourselves a dilemma because the party’s deed of foundation was accepted at a meeting of the party at which 500 people were not present? When the party has just been established, and has only 100 or so members, it perhaps accepts its deed of foundation, because one cannot, after all, have a party actively established for six months or a year without some or other deed of foundation, having to wait until there are 500 people at a meeting before such a deed of foundation can be accepted. That is but one of the problems that we could be letting ourselves in for in this connection. The hon member for Kimberley South said that he believed that the Coloured and Indian political parties would possibly also give this provision their approval. Let me tell the hon member that if he were to make this requirement of 500 signatures applicable to the parties already engaged in an election struggle, he would find very few of them that had anything good to say about it. I can give the hon member my absolute assurance on that score. It is, of course, true that as soon as one becomes part of the establishment one’s priorities perhaps change too. The fact of the matter is, however, that we must accept that what we are embodying in our legislation here is placing a limit on the democratic development of political parties in this country, a restriction which did not apply in regard to our own political parties that we have here in the House.

Mr Chairman, I would like to respond to what the hon the Minister said. I did not say he was “skelm” or that the Bill was “skelm”. While he correctly says that the use of the word “particular” in this clause supports the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, I would also suggest to him that it in fact entrenches the sentiments of that Act, whereas the amendment I have moved is neutral. It does neither entrench nor overthrow it. I would suggest that, if he does not want us to believe that this Bill is being used to entrench that Act and bring it in through the back-door, whether that was the intention or not, he should accept my amendments which do not oblige him to do anything else in relation to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act.

Secondly, I should like to comment on the registering of political parties and the question of there being 500 people at a meeting. The hon member for Green Point has indicated clearly that either one wants to encourage people to participate and form political parties or one does not. In the discussion of the subject a number of hon members and particularly the hon member for Kimberley South were thinking in terms of nation-wide political parties such as the main ones in the White political arena. However, I do not think it is unreasonable to anticipate that, for example, the Indians in the Western Cape would feel that they have certain unique problems. Certainly, if there were any Indians in the Free State, they would possibly have some very unique problems. The vast majority of Indian voters are in Natal and the vast majority of Indian Members of Parliament will come from that province, but the Indian voters living in Cape Town may well have some peculiar problems of their own. They may feel that they are not being catered for by the bigger parties which theoretically are nation-wide parties but which in practice are based in Natal because that is where the majority of Indians live, and they may then want to form their own political party to be able to contest seats in the Western Cape or in the Cape as a whole. One must bear in mind that for Indians the whole of the Cape Province is divided up into only three constituencies, the one in the Western Cape being called Rylands and the others being North Western Cape and Malabar. I presume that Malabar is somewhere in the Eastern Cape. The total number of voters in each of those constituencies ranges from some 3 800 to 4 500. In the Western Cape, in other words, there are fewer than 4 500 registered Indian voters as per the population register and the delimitation. If those people want to establish a political party—they can have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting that kind of representation—they also have to have 500 people at their meeting, which is more than 10% of the total electorate. One must also bear in mind that geographically it is quite a big constituency because it will include Indians wherever they may be in the Western Cape. I would suggest that that is therefore a most unreasonable requirement which would be a very real obstruction for such a political party to gain the various benefits the hon the Minister has mentioned. I want to say I support the amendment of the hon member for Green Point. In this respect, we must not think only in terms of White political parties with a nation-wide following but we must also think of the circumstances of parties that may be involved in the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates or may want to become involved in one of those Houses at some future stage.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I just wish to react to the hon member for Green Point. I do not agree with his interpretation. Anyone with legal training, such as he, I, the hon member for Brakpan and others would be capable of drawing up a deed of foundation, with a view to registration, for a party which was founded with 10 people, built itself up and was later able to get together 500 people and at the same time this would afford recognition to the fact that this was a party which, as far as it was concerned, had existed from the date of its actually being founded as a small group. I am sure that this is feasible. I do not think that there is any prohibition on saying that one first has to declare oneself null and void before really being able to re-establish oneself so as to register. I do not agree with him. Moreover, I asked various other experts, and the feeling is that his fear in this regard is unfounded. That is not the intention. The intention really is—and this is also my answer to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens—that one can found a party with as few people as one wishes. Three people can found a party if they wish, but that does not entitle that party to have its name on every voters’ list and to obtain all the benefits, status and the recognition that the registration system entails. It has to achieve this by first broadening its support. Alternatively it may say that it will only obtain its 300 signatures, nominate its candidates and advertise them as candidates of the party, but then the party’s name will not appear on the ballot paper, but instead that of the candidate. However, it can still state what it likes on its posters.

I say, therefore: Let us give it a chance. We do not wish to bind democracy. That is why this provision has been inserted here. I just wish to remind hon members that when I was elected I had the experience that a party was supposedly founded with the name Gemeenskap-Volks-en Arbeidersparty. Throughout election day we looked for the candidate of that party, because if we could prove that he was dead there would be no election. That evening we had him fetched from his home merely to show the electoral officer that the man was still alive. He gained 37 votes. I do not think he was entitled to present himself as a party candidate. A party, in the democratic system as it has developed here, accords a status far higher than merely the personal inputs. It develops a personality of its own and it also develops an attraction—or otherwise—of its own. Therefore I say: Let us place it on something of a pedestal, because I think that that is what we are achieving by way of this clause.

May I please ask a question? The hon the Minister will recall that in the old United Party, too, a party was suddenly founded, called the “Tom, Dick and Harry” party. [Interjections.]

Amendment 1 negatived.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

I think that the fact that I have moved this amendment will enable us to curtail the discussion of the clause somewhat.

Mr Chairman, naturally we shall not be objecting to the hon the Minister’s amendment. It creates the situation that the obligation imposed on such a candidate is somewhat alleviated. The extent to which it will help such a person is not quite certain, because I can imagine what the situation would be if one used the example referred to by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. If one considers the Indian voters in the Cape who are, in fact, concentrated in the Cape Peninsula, one can well imagine that even if the requirement is set at 150 people, in the sense that such an independent candidate would only have to obtain that number of signatures, it would in fact be attempting the impossible to comply with that requirement.

We are here dealing once again with a clause which we have in the past consistently objected to because it provides that it is necessary for such a candidate to obtain 300 signatures in support of his candidature. In the first instance this is a violation of the concept of a secret ballot. Although it is not a legal requirement that anyone who supports his candidature necessarily has to vote for the candidate, it is surely a very clear indication that such a person will indeed vote for that candidate, or that he is well-disposed to his candidature for some reason. Therefore we feel that this is, fundamentally and as a matter of principle, an unacceptable situation.

This is of course a situation that is abused, and it is summed up as such by people who comment on it. Hon members will recall that about two years ago there was a provincial by-election in Stellenbosch. At the time a tremendous dispute arose as to who had signed the document in support of the CP candidate. Die Burger kicked up a big fuss about it, saying that certain people who were apparently supporters of the PFP had sup ported the candidature of the CP candidate by signing his document. That political issue persisted until it was ascertained that members of the NP had done the same. To tell the truth, one or two people who served on NP committees had also signed that document. We must make no mistake about this because it is something that is bandied about in the political arena. It is the intention of political parties and members of the media who abuse it that people should see the support of the candidature of such a person as a declaration of support for the candidate, not only support for the fact that he can stand as a candidate, but also support for the fact that such people think he is the best candidate to be elected. I do not believe one can easily get away from the idea that in fact this violates the principle of a secret ballot.

It also creates real practical problems for candidates. I am not one of those who say that they really object in principle to independent candidates. There have been independent candidates who, although not elected, did succeed in bringing into prominence one specific principle or aspect of politics in a very effective way. In that respect they served a certain purpose. I believe that there is still room for such developments in South Africa. It is a long time since an independent candidate was elected in White politics. However, hon members know that in the case of the old Coloured Representative Council, and even more so in the case of the South African Indian Council, people were often elected as independent candidates. The development of political parties, particularly in the case of the South African Indian Council, only occurred later. Even the party which is at present the majority party in the South African Indian Council only became a party after its members had been elected to the council. Therefore I see nothing wrong with an independent candidate. The hon the Minister mentioned his personal experience in this regard, viz that a candidate stood against him who took so little interest that he did not even attend the counting of the votes, and they never even saw him. However, a candidate has to pay a deposit, and there are certain things that are required of him, and I cannot imagine that this is something which occurs regularly. A person who takes so little interest that he does not even make propaganda for himself; does not even canvass voters; does not even attend the counting of votes or show his face on election day—for such a person to expose himself to the problems one encounters in an election is a very rare phenomenon.

A more common phenomenon is that someone who feels strongly about some aspect of politics stands as an independent in an election because he believes that none of the political parties are bringing his particular problem to the attention of the House of Assembly or the public actively or prominently enough. Therefore I believe that it cannot be contended without further ado that there is something wrong in a person making himself available as an independent.

Earlier in the debate it was rightly remarked that people very often vote for the political party and not for the person. If one were to seek people in the streets of, say, Cape Town or any other city or town in South Africa to sign a document in favour of the PFP, the CP or the NP, two out of every three people would perhaps be prepared to sign a document in favour of one of those parties because two out of every three would probably be able to identify with at least one of those parties. For an independent candidate, however, it is more difficult. The person concerned may be very talented and competent, but on what basis could he persuade the public to provide their signatures?

He could also be a crank.

Yes, he could also be a crank; that is true, but the point is that we are here throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Life is being made impossible for independent candidates.

The situation is now changing. Now 300 signatures are no longer required because, as hon members have rightly contended, this can lead to abuse. That is true. The requirement is now 300 affidavits. It is outrageous, to say the least, to expect such a person to take 300 people to a commissioner of oaths or to drive 300 people, one by one, to some point at which a commissioner of oaths is available. Once again the established political parties are benefiting, because every MP is a commissioner of oaths. Several of their members and officers are, too, and for that reason that candidate can go from house to house canvassing signatures, whereas an independent candidate has to take a voter to a police station, post office or similar place unless he can get hold of a commissioner of oaths who has so little to do that he can walk around with him in the hope that he will be able to get 300 signatures out of the 1 000 people he approaches. Therefore this is an outrageous provision and it makes life virtually impossible for independent candidates.

†It is a case of total overkill for which, I believe, there is no justification at all and which should be opposed in the strongest possible terms.

I now move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon member for Green Point. I feel it is quite unreasonable, particularly in the light of the provision in a previous clause which has already been agreed to, that a political party should have 500 supporters while an independent candidate, according to the amendment of the hon member for Green Point, need not have anybody at all. It just does not seem to make sense.

The amendment of the hon the Minister definitely improves the matter. In a huge constituency with more than 25 000 voters it is possibly going to be somewhat more difficult to get a spread of support.

In general we are not happy with this clause as it is, although it is of course an improvement on the situation as it was originally in that members of political parties not represented in this House or in a provincial council also had to get 300 signatures. We felt at the time, and also said so, that this was a most undemocratic procedure and that it was quite wrong that there should have been this necessity. The obligation on parties to show proof of their support has been removed, and we are very happy.

When it comes to the situation in respect of an independent candidate, we have another situation. An independent candidate can in fact be a nuisance candidate and a bit of a crackpot. Especially as the deposit required is relatively low in a parliamentary election it might be worth somebody’s while for R500 to play the fool. As far as we are concerned it is desirable to have some sort of stricture or some indication that such a person has genuine support. We feel that 300 in itself may not be an unreasonable number, but where we do find ourselves in some difficulty in supporting this Bill is in the fact that it has to be done by way of affidavit. I do not know how many hon members in the House—but I do know that certain hon members of the CP have gone through the trauma of getting 300 signatures. I am not sure whether they had to have an affidavit with them at the time. Somewhat recently, as an exercise, I endeavoured to get 300 signatures to support a candidate—a well-known person—for a municipal election. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister is not interested it does not matter. But is there then any point in my speaking? [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister is not interested I might as well sit down. [Interjections.] The point is that as an exercise on this very issue I endeavoured to get 300 signatures for this purpose. I might tell hon members that there was one hell of a lot of work involved in this, not only in getting the signatures. If I had to take each of these supporters to a commissioner of oaths or some such individual to make an affidavit, this would have been an utterly impossible job for somebody who is not involved with a political party. This is the point. The individual was not standing for a political party. In this instance we are talking about an independent candidate who does not stand for a political party. To perform this operation of getting 300 signatures, all attested to by a commissioner of oaths of some sort or another, is going to be an almost impossible job for a person to do if he is in addition to that going to fight an election and get around to do ordinary canvassing and all the other work which is required. It is going to put him at an enormous disadvantage. However, we do believe that it is desirable to have an indication of his support and we believe therefore that it surely would be adequate if one had these signatures and they were witnessed by a responsible adult. Then in terms of clause 38(b), which the hon member for Sea Point also wishes to have removed, they would be open for inspection, and if those signatures were not adequate or irregular, the candidate would in any event be disqualified. I therefore cannot help but feel that the hon the Minister is not only making it difficult for a candidate under those conditions, he is actually making it quite impossible, and as a consequence I move the following amendment:

This, in effect, ensures that there shall be 300 signatures and that they are witnessed but not necessarily attested to by a commissioner of oaths. This is reasonable and not as impossible, as what is before us is impossible for an independent candidate.

Mr Chairman, one must ask oneself whether we want to encourage independent candidates in South African politics, yes or no. If we do want to encourage them to stand, there are certain disadvantages involved, as the hon member rightly pointed out. For example, at its founding meeting a political party must have no fewer than 500 members to establish a party. However, an independent candidate may, without obtaining a single signature, stand in an election and be nominated, and at the same time enjoy the benefits to which any political party is entitled. The hon the Minister mentioned some of these benefits, but there are many other important benefits as well. For example, certain documents are transmitted free of charge for a candidate. If we were to permit an independent candidate to obtain 100 or 300, or one could even make it 1000, signatures without obtaining affidavits, then the hon member for Green Point is quite correct. One could then walk down Adderley Street and ask everyone one sees to support one’s candidature as an independent candidate. What the people are signing for, however, they do not know. They do not know what the man’s principles are, what he stands for or on what grounds he is going to fight the election. Moreover, in the past we have found that anyone signs that document, and this has given rise to several malpractices, examples of which have been given here today.

And false signatures.

And false signatures, yes. Let us call a spade a spade. If an independent candidate has to obtain affidavits from 300 people one will be eliminating all possibility of malpractices. The hon the Minister has gone out of his way to accommodate the proposals of hon members opposite so that in a large rural constituency an independent candidate will only have to obtain affidavits from 150 people. I appreciate the fact that he was prepared to go so far. Personally I should not allow an independent candidate at all in an exclusive constituency.

Mr Chairman, to pick up where the hon member for Kimberley South left off, I think the hon the Minister’s amendment, which in the context of the whole thing we will be supporting, about reducing the number where you have very big constituencies does fulfil a certain need within a bad system. On the one hand, he has catered for people who have very big areas to cover. On the other hand, he has not moved any amendment dealing with the relationship between the 300 and the total number of voters in the constituency. If you have constituencies such as the ones I have read out that have fewer than 4 000 voters and somebody wants to be an independent in one of those seats he would have to get signed affidavits from something like 7% of the voters. I feel that is a far more onerous requirement on him than for somebody who is in a constituency with more than 20 000 voters. I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister that in addition to him making an exception for very big constituencies he should also make an exception for constituencies that have fewer than say 10 000 or 12 000 voters, because I think the case for those constituencies is just as strong.

Before I return to the question of the 300 affidavits, I would like to move the following amendment:

The amendment is consequential upon the one moved by the hon member for Green Point and of course also relates to our concern about the secrecy of a voter’s affiliation. The hon member for Kimberley South, who obviously dislikes having any independents in elections …

Just a nuisance value.

I will come back to that because I happen to hold the contrary view. The hon member talked about the advantages of registration. Of course there are advantages attached to having political parties registered, for example, obtaining changes in the voters’ rolls between elections whereas an independent candidate will only get a voters’ roll at the time of an election. He also raised the point that if it is considered an advantage a registered political party can have its name on the ballot paper for its candidates, which helps the voters to identify who the candidate is standing for, if the political party feels that that is a plus for the candidate. There are therefore lots of advantages for being a registered political party, whether an independent gets 300 signatures or not.

I found the logic of the hon member for Umbilo a bit difficult to follow in one respect. I accept that he has tried to make it easier for an independent to get signatures, and to that extent we support it because we do not think it should be made unnecessarily difficult. But the hon member himself pointed out that in an exercise he carried out recently it was extremely difficult to get 300 signatures while a great deal of work was involved.

It was not difficult; it was time-consuming.

Well, it was timeconsuming to get 300 signatures. He did, correctly, also say that an independent would have that problem in an election. That is, of course, one of the reasons why I said yesterday that it was an unfair hindrance in the campaign of an independent. That results in my feeling that this should be scrapped altogether. However, despite the time-consuming procedure which is a hindrance in the campaign, the hon member still appears to believe that one does need something of this sort.

Yesterday, in the Second Reading debate, the hon member for Stilfontein was complimented, I think, by the hon the Minister for the strong case he made out for the question of 300 signatures. Amongst other things, he mentioned the case of Walvis Bay. He may think that that is a good reason to support the requirement of 300 signatures, but I would suggest it is exactly the opposite. In a by-election in Walvis Bay a couple of years ago the HNP candidate got more than the necessary 300 signatures but in the election he got fewer than 200 votes. I think that that very clearly indicates that large numbers of voters consider the requirements of 300 signatures contemptible. They are prepared to sign these things to enable people to stand because they believe that people have a democratic right to stand as candidates.

I now wish to move on to the broader question of independents. Hon members on the Government side have said all sorts of things about independents. My knowledge leads me to believe that, certainly since the Second World War, independents have caused very few problems in elections. In many instances there are already other candidates standing so that the actual election or by-election in that constituency would in any case take place and the independent is just an added candidate. Yesterday I made the point that generally we want to encourage people to be involved and take an interest in our democratic processes. To the extent that independents add to the spice of politics, I think they should be encouraged and not chased away. The arguments about the waste of time and money are, I think, generally invalid because in the whole procedure the number of occasions when money is wasted on independents by the State is very limited indeed. I think it is a small price to pay to encourage involvement.

Various terms have been used to describe the sort of independents we want to discourage, including “cranks”, “freaks”, “nuisances” and “crack-pots”. The term “nuisance ” was, I think, a bit of a Freudian slip because there are hon members in the House who probably feel that elections, particularly in their own constituencies, are a nuisance in any case. They think it would be much better if one did not have elections. I feel that it is of the utmost importance and in fact desirable, even if a member has a big majority in his constituency, that he be obliged to give his voters an opportunity to give him a further mandate if they so desire. I think that, even if an independent only gets 37 votes, he does, by standing, render a service because he makes the public representative aware of the fact that he is dependent on the voters for the position he holds and makes him go back and reassure himself that he still has their support.

When it comes to the cranks, freaks and crackpots, I think it is worth remembering that one man’s freak is another man’s hero.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.