Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate indicated that in any matter of importance or of principle he would not act on his own but refer the matter to the Cabinet. Therefore, although we have expressed some doubt about this clause earlier on, we are prepared to accept it as it is on the basis of the Minister’s assurance.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

There is only one small point I should like to make in connection with the question of the replica of the Minister’s signature. From this I understand that there will be a rubber stamp of some sort or a method of embossing which would be used on temporary commissions. I think it is important that we should get from the Minister the assurance that there will be total security in regard to such a replica. We already have had cases where secret documents have disappeared from departments of State and it is of even more importance that something similar will not happen to a replica of the Minister’s signature with all the implications that may involve, because such a replica could be used far more dangerously than a document which deals with security.

I agree completely with the hon. member that we must not leave such a replica lying around. Of course, we will not give the right to use this replica to just any person. Therefore I can give the necessary assurance to the hon. member in this connection.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

We on this side of this House are naturally not at all opposed to the principle contained in this clause, i.e. the establishment of a medical scheme for persons who retired from the Permanent Force before 1964. To tell the truth, we have pleaded for such a scheme in this House on several occasions in the past. I have received the prospectus of this scheme and should like to ask the Minister whether better provision cannot be made than is set out in the brochure. According to this, persons who have rendered services for many years and have sacrificed the best years of their lives for that, will not receive treatment in military hospitals. Admittedly they are granted the right to go to their private doctor, who can then ascertain whether they should receive treatment in a general ward of a hospital or not. Furthermore, it is stipulated in this brochure that members must pay a premium every month and that they must pay the first one-seventh of the costs. Only then does the Department take over. These people have received treatment in military hospitals all these years, therefore I wonder if it is not possible to make arrangements so that they may continue receiving treatment there. The Minister will say that the facilities are not available. In fact, I can see him smiling. We know how full these hospitals are, but I nevertheless want to draw his attention to the fact that there is no longer a large number of people concerned here. I therefore want to express the hope that once this scheme is in operation it will be possible for the Department to introduce something better, something more attractive for those who become members of the scheme.

The Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that the details of this arrangement would be dealt with administratively and that we would only be accepting the principle of it at this stage. However, I think it is important that while accepting the principle we bear in mind the fact that under the new system of national service all medical students do their military service after having qualified. That means that there is a vast number of additional medical personnel available to the Department. In support of the plea of the hon. member for East Rand, I would urge that this aspect, apart from the mere physical limitation of military hospitals, should be taken into account. Here there will be differential treatment; I do not call it second rate because I do not question the medical treatment, but the conditions under which it is intended to apply this scheme are certainly inferior to the conditions applicable to persons pensioned after 1964. Therefore I join in the plea of the hon. member for North Rand for a reconsideration of the scheme it is intended to introduce.

We would all probably like to make the necessary facilities available. We are taking a step forward here and therefore I can only say that the whole problem will be approached as sympathetically as possible. However, there are two aspects which I want hon. members to appreciate immediately. The first is that my hon. friend the hon. member for Durban (Point) is totally wrong if he suggests that we have large numbers of medical national servicemen available at present, because this is not so. If the hon. member wants to, he can discuss the matter with me and I shall show him the figures. There is in actual fact an acute shortage of doctors in this country. Nor are there only three military hospitals in South Africa, but also several dozen sick-bays where medical services have to be provided in terms of the national service system. The second aspect is that the existing hospitals simply do not have the necessary facilities at the moment to meet all the requirements. However, I shall convey the representations made by the two hon. members to my Department and ask that these be taken into account when the new system is launched. At this stage, however, I cannot bind myself to an undertaking to meet these representations.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

I should be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain why this clause is necessary and whether there may not be cases where a person who is not on duty should appear before a military court rather than before a civil court.

A national serviceman can be tried before a military court, but after he has completed his national service, the military courts have no jurisdiction over him. This is merely a correction, because as the Act reads at present, there is an anomaly.

I am afraid I cannot quite agree, unless I am missing something here. The original section in the Act reads “if he is not so on service or undergoing training or on duty”. What about a person who is still on the strength of a unit but who is not on service, is not undergoing training, is not on duty, but is still subject to the Military Discipline Code? Technically, he is not on service or undergoing training or on duty but he is still subject to the Military Discipline Code. If he should commit an offence which is a purely military offence, why should he not be tried by a military court?

That can still be done.

The hon. the Minister says that that can still be done. The Act as it now reads gives an option of trying him before a magistrate or in a military court. We are now asked to amend this section to remove the option of trying him under the Military Discipline Code before a military court. We are trying him under the Military Discipline Code but he must be tried in the magistrate’s court, not in a military court. That is the point I want to get at.

As I understand it, the position is very clear. The proposed new paragraph (b) reads as follows—

In other words, if he commits an offence in terms of the Defence Act while he is on service, he falls under the Military Discipline Code, but when he has completed his national service, the other courts have jurisdiction over him.

I am afraid we cannot support this clause. At the Second Reading we raised the question of possible damage to private property and the question of nuisance to private persons which could result from aircraft flying over such property and inadvertently breaking the sound barrier, causing breakages to windows, etc. The hon. the Minister justified it by pointing out that the height must be reasonable and that the wind, weather and all circumstances must be reasonable. There have been many instances of damage to private property, sometimes without the actual breaking of the sound barrier, but with a similar percussion caused by flying just under the sound barrier where the flow of air over the wings apparently creates something similar to the breaking of the sound barrier. But in addition there are particular residential areas in and around Pretoria, particularly the Lyttleton Club view area, where there are constant complaints about the disturbance caused by low-flying aircraft. Although the word “reasonable” is used, we see this clause as an attempt to make it more difficult to complain or to take any action against the Defence Force for a disturbance under the category of “trespass” or “nuisance”. Sir, these are citizens of South Africa, entitled to their privacy and rights just like any other citizen, and we do not see any justification for indemnifying the Department in this way. If the Department is not responsible and there is a claim against it, then it can prove its innocence in court. It can then prove that the aircraft was flying at a reasonable height in relation to wind, weather and circumstances. In other words, the citizen has the right to bring his claim and the Department has the right to defend itself against that claim. But I object to a clause which indemnifies the Department in advance and places the onus on the complainant to prove that the action was not reasonable. As the position stands now a person can complain; the Department must then disprove the claim. If this clause is passed, the complainant must prove that the aircraft was not flying at a reasonable height in relation to the circumstances. The onus of proof is being put on the complainant and I believe that this is not a reasonable clause, and unless there is some explanation other than the one given by the Minister in his reply to the Second-Reading debate, we will have to oppose this clause.

I do not think the hon. member is quite correct in his interpretation that the onus is being placed on the complainant. The object of this amendment is that the State should not be burdened by all sorts of trivialities as far as its Air Force is concerned. This is the object of this clause, as far as I can see. As far as civil aviation is concerned, there are strict regulations under which this is controlled, but as far as the flying of such planes is concerned, the only question which arises in a case of low flying is whether that flight may possibly have caused damage; this is the issue in that case. The position is that the same cannot apply in this case as well, but the private individual is not being deprived of any right here. All that is being said here, is that before the State can be burdened with complaints in respect of trespass or disturbance—not compensation for damage which resulted—it must be tested in terms of reasonableness …

But the complainant must first prove it before he can lodge a complaint.

The complainant does not need to prove whether it was reasonable or not; the complainant can still lodge the complaint but the State must not be burdened with it unless it can satisfy the test of reasonableness. Sir, I should like to support the clause as it reads at present, because I think that our Air Force and our Defence Force need this type of section in modern times, also in respect of residential areas where airports are situated to-day. As I understand the clause, the State is not trying to evade its obligations as far as compensation for damages is concerned; is not trying to evade its obligations if a pilot of the Air Force should contravene the strict flying regulations to which he himself is subject. In my view this is not the object of this clause. It just boils down to this, that the State is asking this House to help it so that it will not be bothered unnecessarily with trivial complaints.

I should like to support the hon. member for Durban (Point) in his plea as far as this clause is concerned. The hon. member for Potchefstroom mentioned the fact that reference is made here to “nuisance”. The question of the nuisance caused by modern aeroplanes is something which has assumed very great proportions today. I am sure the two hon. members sitting over there, the hon. members for Rissik and Waterkloof, will support us, because those two suburbs of Pretoria are to-day subjected more than any other to the full noise of the aeroplanes taking off from Waterkloof, and if there has ever been any nuisance, it is being caused here. The nuisance does not apply to private individuals only, but in that part of Pretoria are situated the university, training colleges and quite a number of schools, and on some days it is very difficult for those institutions to continue with their activities.

But there is another aspect of this question of nuisance which is still going to cause the Department a great deal of trouble, and that is the question of land which is situated in the vicinity of these airfields, land which certain undertakings want to develop as residential areas and for other purposes. The situation is very difficult to-day. There are certain areas near Waterkloof where the provincial authorities do not want to allow the land to be developed at all, not because they are thinking of damage which can be caused by aeroplanes breaking the sound barrier, but because of the nuisance. I, too, am not at all in favour of completely indemnifying the Department. I think it is a matter which the Department must examine very closely, in order to consider the interests of these institutions and the private undertakings which have land in these areas.

The hon. member for North Rand has just put in a very strong plea for this clause. He has just explained to us why the clause is necessary, because he referred to certain members who represent suburbs of Pretoria and he told us how much annoyance and nuisance military planes were causing there. In other words, if this clause does not appear in the Bill, each of those persons will, according to him, have a lawful complaint against the Air Force. In other words, the necessity of this clause is confirmed by him, so that all the inhabitants in those areas cannot jam the switchboards of the Air Force Station at Waterkloof with complaints that the aeroplanes are making too much noise. He made a very strong plea here which proved the necessity of this measure. This does not deal with unauthorized flying. The breaking of the sound barrier is not concerned here at all. In any case, this is something which takes place at great heights, and not over inhabited areas. The clause therefore deals with disturbances caused in the normal course of events. It is quite correct that there is in fact a large volume of sound in certain areas which is very closely linked with the topography of the areas; it depends on the direction of the slope and the direction from which the aeroplane is flying, etc. But if those disturbances can all be sources of complaints, the hon. member must realize—and his plea confirms that he does—how many complaints can be received if this clause is not placed on the Statute Book. Therefore I am greatful that the hon. member’s plea really amounts to strong support for this clause.

Before the hon. the Minister replies, I should like to appeal to the hon. members for Waterkloof, Rissik and Pretoria District to enter into this debate and to give the views of their voters in the areas which are most affected by this measure, and to give us the benefit of their experience, and as Government supporters they should tell us whether or not they support this clause.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I am discussing the clause and I am seeking evidence to support our point of view that this clause interferes with the rights of private citizens and reduces the rights of citizens, particularly in certain areas. I am appealing to the hon. members representing the areas directly affected to give us the benefit of their knowledge and experience on this issue, because I am sure we can benefit from their views on an issue reducing the rights of the voters whom they represent. That was my appeal to the hon. members, to give us their views on this clause. The hon. member for Middelburg can stand up and say that they want to protect the Department so that the public cannot jam the switchboard with complaints, but is that not exactly why we should be wary of passing this clause, in view of the admission that the switchboard is jammed with complaints?

You did not understand me.

Why is the switchboard jammed with complaints if there is nothing to complain about? The hon. member said we had to have this clause so that the switchboard would not be jammed with complaints. But this is to turn those complaints into unnecessary complaints, and I challenge the hon. member to deny that many hundreds of complaints are being received. Complaints are certainly lodged and, I assume, received, and the hon. member himself admits that this is to prevent those complaints annoying the Department. Our job as Parliament is not to care for the convenience of a Department, but to act as watchdogs over the welfare and rights of the people. We are not entitled to reduce rights simply to protect the Department from the nuisance of their switchboard being jammed with complaints, because if that jamming is, due to the number of complaints, so serious that they have to be protected by law, it is an indication that there must be a reason for those complaints.

Before the hon. member becomes too lyrical about this matter, I think I must just say that in the first place most of these airfields were built long before they became surrounded by residential areas. People came to live there in spite of the fact that they knew that aeroplanes were operating there. Secondly, the Air Force flies according to rules. Specific rules have been laid down according to which flying must take place and at what heights, etc. But this clause states explicitly that there are circumstances which can affect those rules, such as wind and weather. As an old Air Force man, the hon. member for North Rand ought to know this. I myself have been in aeroplanes in the case of which the rules were affected by the fact that stormy conditions developed. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that the Air Force will not be unreasonable, but I want to show him how unreasonable the public can be. There is an agitation in some areas that an airfield such as Waterkloof, for example, must be moved. Does the hon. member know what it will cost to move Waterkloof?—R60 million. It is very easy for perpetual complainers to say that Waterkloof should be moved, but they do not know how much there is at Waterkloof.

I want to give another example. A well-known man in Rondebosch—I do not want to mention his name—wrote to me that Saturday afternoon is the only time that he can take a rest and he would like me to stop Harvards taking off from Youngsfield and flying over his house in the afternoons when he wants to sleep for a while. I wrote him a nice letter in reply in which I assured him that I sympathized with him in the problem of his afternoon nap, but I pointed out that Citizen Force pilots were involved, pilots who sacrificed their Saturday afternoons in order to undergo training to help protect our coasts. I asked the man to be a little more sympathetic. Do hon. members know what he wrote back to me? He agreed with everything I had told him, but pointed out that it still did not answer his question. The question was: Why do the aeroplanes not take off in the opposite direction? I then wrote back, saying that if he would change the direction of the wind, I would have that done. This is the sort of nonsense which one gets so frequently. Recently we held at Air Display at Ysterplaat. I think all of us sitting here were filled with admiration for what our Air Force did there, but just ask the officer in charge at Ysterplaat what he had to experience, until the middle of the night. People threatened him with court cases and even made the allegation that the Mirage aeroplane which had landed there, had broken the sound barrier and that windows had cracked as a result. This is not true. However, there are a lot of “busy-bodies” in the country. The larger section of the public does not trouble us, but everywhere there is a group of busy-bodies and know-alls who want to disrupt the normal course of affairs. I now want to ask hon. members not to speak up for the know-alls and the busy-bodies, but to speak up for an organization which flies according to rules and which lays down sensible rules. They must also be protected so that they are not subjected to complaints of this type. I hope hon. members will view the matter in this light, and that they will not insist that we conduct a lengthy debate about this, because I am not going to give way in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to conduct a lengthy debate about this matter. However, I just want to point out that the Minister said that certain persons came to live around our airfields, and that they must now be prepared to put up with that inconvenience. In certain cases this is in fact true, but he can certainly not say this of people in parts of Pretoria such as Brooklyn and Arcadia. Those people lived there long before Waterkloof was built.

What do you want us to do? *

No, Sir, that is not the point. The Minister went further and said that flying takes place according to rules, but the Minister must remember that it is exactly when flying takes place according to these rules that this nuisance is caused. When the Waterkloof Airfield was built, there were no complaints at all, as a result of the type of aeroplane which was in use at that time. To-day the situation is completely different. We merely ask the Minister to take these points into account.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment, but before doing so, I want to apologize for the fact that it did not appear on the Order Paper. The fact that the definition in the clause, as it reads at present, is not in strict accordance with the explanation I furnished to the House yesterday, came to my attention only last night. The intention here is merely to control the advertising of vaccines and drugs that are prescribed. All this amendment is doing now, is to give specific effect to that. I move the amendment, which reads as follows—

†This is in conformity with what I said in my Second Reading speech, which hon. members heard and agreed to. This amendment specifically puts into effect what was discussed here yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the implications of the amendment which the Minister has now moved, in regard to the classification of certain preparations. I understand that his decision to move this amendment has been brought about by representations which he has only recently received. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether this amendment is in complete agreement with all the recommendations which have been received.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that this amending Bill was drawn up by the Department on the recommendation of the Drugs Control Board. The specific intention with this Bill was to deal with these two aspects of the matter, namely vaccines and drugs prescribed in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. That was the intention all long. The original provis on, as printed in the Bill, went a bit further. All that we are doing with this amendment is to bring this provision into line with what we intended doing all along.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for his explanation and in view of that explanation we on this side of the House have no objection to the amendment as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have any objection to this clause but we would appreciate it if the proviso contained in this clause could be explained to the committee. The new section 58 reads as follows:

Mr. Chairman, numerous regulations are, of course, issued in terms of this Act. Some of them are obviously not required in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, and for that reason it is provided here that only those indicated to be applicable there, will be so applicable.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in clause 2, line 28, the word “elsewhere” appears. I take it that the word “elsewhere” means outside the Republic of South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will explain to us whether it is the intention of this newly created board to carry on its activities in other countries outside our own and, if so, how this is going to be done. We should like to know whether it is going to be done through an agency or whether the board is going to enter into agreements with other governments to do this work.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members will remember, when the Prune Minister made the announcement about this particular process, he indicated that other countries would be welcome to participate in this project, provided they are non-communist countries and provided we can come to some agreement to the satisfaction of South Africa. This provision is made merely not to exclude other countries. I do not say that it would be, but it might be the position in future that a friendly, non-communist country may ask South Africa to do certain things on its behalf in regard to the enrichment of uranium. This word is put in merely to make it possible for the Uranium Enrichment Corporation to fulfil such a function. That is the only reason why the word is in this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment to this clause—

1. (10) The name of every person appointed as a director of the corporation and the name of the chairman of the corporation shall be published in the Gazette.

I wish to apologize to the hon. the Minister for it not being possible to have the amendment placed on the Order Paper but I have shown him the courtesy of giving him a copy at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is self-explanatory. It is merely a request that when the names of the directors of this corporation are announced, their names will appear in the Government Gazette. I believe that the whole manner in which this subject has been handled, the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister, the reception of this announcement by this hon. House, the interest outside, the prominence that has been given to the debate on the matter, the fact that early legislation has been introduced to deal with this particular matter, the Press coverage and the public interest both inside and outside South Africa, shows us that the Uranium Enrichment Corporation will be a very important body and one in which there will be a great deal of interest. I believe that the activities of this body will be of interest not only outside South Africa but on the home front in financial, industrial, scientific, commercial and educational bodies. I believe that because of that it should be possible for the Minister to accept my amendment. I put it to the Minister that this is a large corporation involving a great deal of money. R50 million is being allocated in this bill for the operations of this particular corporation. We are aware that the State itself will be the sole shareholder in this corporation and that the shares will remain vested in the State. I believe that in view of these facts it is appropriate and desirable that provision should be made for the gazetting of the names of the directors of the corporation. While I ask this, I wish to state that there are precedents of this kind. I should like to mention that similar provisions exist in the Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1964, the National Education Policy Act of 1967 and the War Graves Act of 1967. I trust that in the light of what I have said, the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was friendly enough to give me a copy of this amendment a while ago. I have some sympathy for and understanding of what is proposed here by the hon. member, because I think under normal circumstances this is and should be done. I think under normal circumstances anything that can possibly be told to the public and to this House, should be told to them. It is perhaps best if that is done by way of advertising in the Government Gazette.

†Let me say to the hon. member that I have sympathy with what I think are his good intentions. It is good practice under normal circumstances but in this particular case I cannot accept this amendment for the simple reason that we are dealing here with a matter which is top secret. Mr. Speaker, secrecy is perhaps priority number one. The hon. member will perhaps remember that I mentioned that we had a production committee consisting of industrialists, economists, scientists and engineers, men of very high standing in South Africa. I seriously considered whether I should inform Parliament who those people were. The hon. member will remember that I said that there were seven. They advised the Government. They have judged whether this project should be continued. After consultation with people at the Atomic Energy Board we decided not to make those names known for very obvious reasons. It is in their own interest that their names be not known. It is in the interest of this whole project that as little as possible is known about the people who know what is going on. We, for instance, thought about bringing down a number of these project leaders who were working on this process to be present here when this big announcement was made for which they worked for so many years. But again we decided that only Dr. Roux and Dr. Grant, the two who are known in any case, will come down.

Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. member’s request.

There is another matter which I should like to raise in this regard. I think it is in the interest and for the safety of these people that their names be not known. We have of course the assurance that they will be appointees of the State President. I think that should under these circumstances satisfy this House and the public. Later on it might be different. But at this stage I think we should give priority to secrecy in this matter and not make the names known of those people who will initially serve on this board. The hon. member was quite right in saying that there will be great interest inside and outside South Africa in regard to this matter. The less that is known about this council and the people involved, the better it will be for South Africa. I have not spoken to all the individuals who served on the production committee, but I have spoken to some of them and I may say that they felt it is better that their names are not mentioned. Most of them, I suppose, will be appointed or will be considered to be appointed on this board by the State President. I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether that means that when this corporation is registered with the Registrar of Companies, the names of the directors of the board will not appear?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the legal position is, but from a security point of view we must find ways and means of not giving all the names of those people who are appointed.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I understand the motive of the Minister. But I do not know how he will be able to carry this out. After all, these are directors of a company. Their knowledge of the scientific workings of the corporation will be minimal. They will now know how uranium is enriched and what the process will be. They may want to know. Surely, these people will not for all time be a secret body who will go with hooded capes and hats into the board room of the Uranium Corporation. How will it be possible to keep these people from the outside world? With due respect, I think the hon. the Minister is making a grave mistake in overemphasizing the secrecy aspect as far as the directors of the board are concerned. We will never be able to keep the names secret. I would suggest that we follow the hon. member for Berea’s idea and have their names published That in itself will show that these people will not play any great part in the production of enriched uranium, other than their directing abilities.

Mr. Chairman. I understand the hon. the Minister’s reasons for advancing the argument that he has, namely that in his opinion, the names of the members who will constitute the board of directors should be kept secret in the interests of the development of this corporation for one and in the interests of the individuals themselves for another. This does seem to me to involve a matter of principle. I am not in a position to argue whether this contention of the hon. the Minister is justified in the circumstances or not. What does concern me is that as a matter of principle there is nothing whatsoever in clause 4 which justifies keeping the names of the board of directors secret. The clause is framed in the usual way in which such clauses appear in other Bills forming corporations of this sort. The normal implication of this clause is that since it is a State body, the names of the members of the board automatically become public once they are appointed. I wonder on what grounds the hon. the Minister will be able to justify retaining secrecy under the clause as it is presently framed. I would be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to hon. members that the entire Bill was drafted in this way with the intention that the members of the board should not be known. This is not only my idea. We have had discussions on this matter. We have looked at it from all angles. I may refer hon. members to clause 11, which has a bearing on this. It reads as follows—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection
2. (2), the provisions of the Companies Act, 1926 (Act No. 46 of 1926), or of any other law relating to companies, shall not apply with reference to the corporation.
3. (2) The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette, apply to the corporation any provision of the said Act or other law, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, with such modifications as may be specified in the proclamation.
4. (3) The State President may be like proclamation exempt the corporation from the provisions of such laws as may be specified in the proclamation, to the extent so specified.

In other words, this was our intention. I may refer hon. members to clause 2 (2) as well, which reads as follows—

the name of the corporation in his registers on the date so fixed.

Here it is clearly provided that only the name of the company will be entered. I may tell hon. members that at this stage it will really not be in the interest of this matter for the names to be made public. I just want to repeat that one day when the process may be in full progress and large scale production is undertaken, the situation will change. At this stage it is decidedly not in the interest of this entire matter. The hon. member for Rosettenville said that we would in any event not succeed in keeping the names secret. The names of the members of the production committee, however, are completely secret, just as the process is a complete secret. I should like to ask hon. members that at this stage we should not insist on the acceptance of the amendment which was moved with good intentions.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned last night I indicated that it is ridiculous of the United Party to want to imply that making provision for the issuing to persons of identity documents is an assault on the individual’s freedom. I also pointed out that the Opposition’s insinuation of Nazism was, from the nature of the case, untenable. In the formulation of its policies the National Party cannot ever be fed by national socialism, because this is not the basis of the National Party, nor has it ever been. The National Party has throughout the years rejected national socialism just as it has rejected liberalism and communism. But, Mr. Sneaker, hon. members of the Opposition cannot say as much. They cannot say they reject liberalism. That is the reason why they now supposedly want to act here as the champions of individual freedom, because the basis, idiom and ideals of the United Party in such legislation are directed towards accomplishing the destruction of the South African population. I do not blame them at all for availing themselves of this opportunity, because this will once more be to the National Party’s advantage. It will give us an instrument with which to defeat these people again. They are prepared to oppose any legislation of this nature, conducive to the good order and benefit of the country. The United Party does these things not only on a theoretical-philosophical basis but in practical politics they also destroy the individual’s freedom. During the recent election it was very clear that individuals such as the hon. member for Newton Park scandallously attacked the freedom of individuals, and of this side of the House. Therefore those hon. members must not say that they are the champions of individual freedom. In practical politics they do not do so.

Order! The hon. member is really going too far now. He is fighting the election all over again.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the Bill. In this Bill the National Party is already acting, not only as the protector of individual freedom, but also as the protector of the freedom of the individual in all the social contexts in which he finds himself. I am therefore sure that the public will accept this Bill as such, because they also realize that the freedom of the individual goes hand in hand with responsibility. But those people also want this country to be governed well and to be governed properly. Therefore I am sure that they will make use of their freedom to be fellow rulers. In conclusion I want to make an appeal to the voters in my own constituency, where there are thousands of young people. I am thinking particularly of the students in my constituency. I appeal to them to take the lead, after this Act has been passed, to be the first to come forward and to fall in with what this Bill offers them, thereby setting, not only the older people, but also the hon. members of the Opposition, an example.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Rissik, unlike the hon. member for Parow, did not start off with an attack on Die Afrikaner. As a “verligte” now he perhaps still finds it difficult to attack the allegations made by Die Afrikaner. I want to assure him that the line taken by Die Afrikaner has nothing to do with the objections on this side of the House. But what do we hear from the hon. member for Rissik? It was nothing but a string of platitudes. Accusations that we are limiting the freedom of the individual become claims that we are not patriotic. He, however, gave no answer to the objections made by the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Maitland on the details of the measure which is before us. We heard from the hon. member for Rissik quotations from 1949 and 1950. I noticed, however, that when he was quoting the late General Smuts he did not quote his words from the same debate in the same session in which General Smuts said that the measure was an attempt to classify the unclassifiable. He omitted that. But that was not the only thing the hon. member omitted. Speaking yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Rissik alleged that my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, had made a certain statement. I now quote from his Hansard—

I then challenged the hon. member and I said, “haal aan”. He wriggled and he squirmed and I continued to challenge him until he purported to quote the hon. member for South Coast. This is what he quoted—

I then challenged the hon. member to read further and I requested him to read the next paragraph. The hon. member refused. Therefore, firstly he purported to quote to this House the words of my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, and secondly, when I asked him to continue reading he refused. Now I have traced the speech the hon. member was quoting from, only to find out that he was not quoting the words of the hon. member for South Coast.

I never said that.

His Hansard says clearly and unaltered—

When we challenged him to quote it, he quoted the words of Dr. Dönges.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether the hon. member for South Coast did not collaborate in drafting that report.

I shall deal with that. The hon. member for South Coast was a co-signatory to a report which was quoted by the then hon. Minister of the Interior, the late Dr. Dönges. But that hon. member purported that this was what the hon. member for South Coast has said.

No.

I have not finished with the hon. member. I challenged him to read on. He read the above-mentioned quotation and I asked him to read on. Then he stopped, and in his Hansard there is a fullstop, but there is no fullstop in the original speech; there is a comma. He not only did not complete the paragraph but he did not complete the sentence. I say this was done deliberately and with intent because I challenged him and I quote from Hansard: “Read on. I challenge you to read the next paragraph”. Therefore, his stopping at that point was deliberate. What he deliberately left out were the following words—

The hon. member purports that the hon. member for South Coast advocated this measure and the identity card or document which is contained in this measure. That was the clear purpose of the hon. member’s quotation. I say it was done deliberately. It was not a fair and not a worthy manner of dealing with the words of an hon. member of this House, to quote out of context through another speaker part of a sentence and refuse when asked to do so, to complete the sentence. I repeat, that hon. member did not only fail to complete the sentence: He refused to complete it and I believe he owes this House an apology.

If I had any doubts at all about the wisdom of our opposing this measure … they have been removed. Before I leave the subject, may I revert to what I have said for a moment in order to clear the record. On the very next page of Hansard, in the very next column there was an interjection by Mr. Sullivan, then the member for Berea, questioning whether in the Administrator’s memorandum, there had been any reference to an identity card. Dr. Dönges admitted that there was no reference in it to an identity card. I do this because I want to tie it loud and clear to the question of the identity document. That too the hon. member did not tell this House. He tried to make out that my colleague supported this measure when he was Administrator of Natal. I repeat that if I had any doubts about this measure before they have been dispelled by the speeches we have heard from that side of the House. The speeches have revealed a fundamental difference in the philosophy of the two parties.

The hon. the Minister has discovered that it is a computer age. He must have told the hon. member for Parow, because I am sure that the hon. member for Parow did not know that himself. Hon. members opposite think that a computer age is an age in which people are fed into machines and ciphers come out. The policy of the National Party is to feed people into machines so that pawns or ciphers emerge, whereas our approach to a computer, to mechanization, is that one feeds in information in order to obtain answers with which to serve people. We regard the machine as a means of serving people. The hon. member for Rissik even went so far as to say that this machine would counter the permissive society. Does the hon. member believe that a hippie can be fed into a computer and that a regimented robot with short hair will come out? That is the extent to which hon. members’ idea of regimentation goes. He believes a computer can regiment people. That is the basic difference in our approach. We recognize and accept the need for streamlining, for automation and centralization. We accept rationalization, but we do not accept the regimentation of thought and of people. We do not accept the invasion of privacy.

I accept that this measure has been scientifically planned. I would like to pay tribute to the officials for the work they have done in investigating and planning this measure. From the viewpoint of officialdom and the running of a department they have certainly gone a long way towards finding a system which will be convenient for the Department. They have gone to a lot of trouble to do research, to investigate other countries and to apply and adapt the information to conditions in South Africa. Obviously, as was said by the hon. member for Rissik, this is a scientifically planned idea. It is a question of what is planned to achieve. It has been planned from the point of view of the Government and of the Administration. We look on it from the point of view of the people. We look on it from the point of view of what it does to South Africa and not from the point of view of changing South Africans from people into a little book. That is the administrative viewpoint, namely that a human being is translated into a book. In that book, instead of a person, one will then have a record of that person. We look at this question from the point of view of what it does to the people. This little book is very neat, tidy and convenient administratively, but we are interested in how it affects every single person in South Africa. From that point of view we have two objections. We object to its practical implementation, because on these grounds we think the hon. the Minister and his Department are counting their chickens before they are hatched.

It is the old idea: You have a dozen eggs. If you have 75 per cent hatched, you will have nine chickens. If 66 per cent of them survive, you will have six hens, and each of those hens will lay so many eggs a day. Now we are told that with a population that changes entirely in eight years, by processing 7,000 people per day, we are going to be able to keep a complete computerized record of the people of South Africa. I believe that that is being over-optimistic. In the same debate of 1950, the hon. the Minister of the Interior forecast that in a matter of five years or so, they would have a machine which would be able to turn out voters’ rolls simply by pressing a button, because they would have the names there. I quote from the debate of 8th March, 1950. I start from a comma, because the previous part is administrative, but I will read it if anyone wants it. I quote—

That was 20 years ago, and now in 1970, we are told that it does not matter, we are now going to do it easily in five years, complete, up to date, everything in the bag. I would suggest that, rather than rush into this, let us establish the mechanism, the mechanics of it. But let us not commit ourselves to a route and a direction before we know how this is going to work in practice.

Our second major objection is the invasion of privacy. My friend says that I admit that this is a good thing. Nobody on this side of the House has objected. I said when I started this speech that we have no objection to streamlining, to automation, to centralization or to rationalization. I said …

What is your objection?

If my friend would only listen! I am not allowed to speak Afrikaans or Zulu. I am not entitled to speak in simpler language, Sir, he would understand. I have said clearly we have two objections. One is that the Minister is being over-optimistic, and the second, I state now, is that this measure is an invasion of privacy.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Did I hear him correctly as saying that Afrikaans is a “simple” language?

No, Mr. Speaker, it shows that the hon. member is a simple-minded person. What I said was that I am not allowed to speak in Afrikaans or Zulu or to put it in such simple terms as they can understand. It is the member who is simple, not the language which he purports to speak.

I repeat that this is an invasion of privacy which the hon. member for Parow calls “’n paar kleinlikhede”. The hon. the Minister says that there is nothing confidential in this measure. There is no invasion of privacy. But he admits that this “book of life”, as it is called, will be required to be shown to post offices, banks, building societies and landlords and will gradually expand until it is used in all fields of our daily life. According to him, it reflects nothing which invades privacy.

The very first item we find in this book is on page 1, namely the date of birth. Secondly, the identity number which is to be given to a person, will include the year, month and day of birth. That will be the start of one’s identity number. That is set out in clause 4 of the Bill. One’s very identity number discloses your date of birth. The hon. member for Rissik says that there will be no objection to that. Well, then I must have been very strangely misled. Even in the registering of voters time and time again I found that voters in a building will not hand in their votes’ card, their R.V.1, to the caretaker or the landlord, because they do not want to disclose their personal details of age and birth.

Any census enumerator has endless trouble with people in regard to the disclosure of their age. Sir, what about the many, many ladies who enjoy the best ten years of their lives between their 29th and 30th birthdays. The years between their 29th and 30th birthdays are often the best ten years of their lives, and they cannot go on putting 29.1, 29.2 and so forth as their age because their age is on their identity card; it is in their number wherever they go. I do not think the Government has realized just what sort of reaction this first invasion of the privacy of a person is likely to bring about. Every member on that side— the Minister, the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Rissik—has pleaded with us to help to bring about acceptance of this book, and the very first invasion which this book makes is into a privacy respected by many people, not only women. I took the trouble to look up a few prominent names in Who’s Who, and it is surprising how few people give their date of birth, particularly when they get older. This publication of a person’s age is going to mitigate against the acceptance of the book before you start.

Sir, let us go through this book. Pages 1 and 2 make provision for four photographs. As you get older you have to put in another photograph. [Interjections.] No Sir, I am not ashamed of my age; I am speaking on behalf of those who will object to this measure. My age is no secret. [Interjections.] My mental age is a little bit above that hon. member’s. Then having dealt with age, we now have four pages of instructions, and then we get three blank pages for marriages, so it is expected that people will be married three times.

What utter nonsense.

Anyway, it is provided for. Hon. members want to know in what way privacy is being invaded. They know that under the Pension laws in South Africa there are many pensioners who cannot get married without serious financial loss and that there are hundreds and hundreds of couples who pretend that they are married but in fact are not, because when two pensioners drawing a pension marry, they find their income sliced because their assets are joined together. Where each person individually can earn an old-age pension, that pension is reduced when they marry or it can even be lost. I have had case after case where by law in this country we force people to live in sin. In practice nobody knows that those people are not married, but now when they go to look for a flat they are going to have to show this book to the landlord and he is going to look and say, “but you are not married; I am not going to have people in this building living in sin”. There are thousands of illegitimate—including Whites—children born in South Africa every year; I think the figure is 19,000 odd. Those mothers call themselves Mrs. Brown or Mrs. van Niekerk or Mrs. Jones and they bring up their children with the cover of legitimacy, even though they are not actually legitimate. Every one of those mothers is now going to be exposed as soon as she has to show this book for any purpose; her landlord, her postmaster, her bank manager, any clerk in any office can all look at this book and see immediately that she is not married and that her children are illegitimate. If that is not an invasion of privacy, Sir, then I want to know what is an invasion of privacy. These hon. members say that there is no invasion of privacy here; that there is nothing in this book which you should need to hide. No, there is nothing in it which they need to hide or which I need to hide, but we are not legislating for people who live exactly according to the rules; we are legislating for a cross-section of people in South Africa. I do not know the private history of all hon. members opposite …

We do not know yours either.

But I do know that there are thousands and thousands of people in South Africa who are accepted in society and who have as part of their background something which they do not want known, either with regard to their marital status, their childrens’ legitimacy or their age. These are the people for whom hon. members over there are also responsible; they are not only responsible for the perfect couple, for the paragon of virtue who has never sinned, the paragon of virtue who has never been divorced or has never remarried; they represent all of South Africa and we as a Parliament should not callously and cold-bloodedly introduce legislation which is deeply going to hurt the susceptibility of many hundreds if not thousands of people.

Then, Sir, you go on, after three pages for marriage details, to medical details. Details have to be given of the person’s blood group and his allergies. I think that is an excellent thing on a voluntary basis. Then details are required of immunization, if you go overseas. Then you get three pages for driver’s licences. I have had a driver’s licence since, I think, 1938, so if that hon. member wants to work out my age, he can work it out from that. Since that time I have had to use my driver’s licence twice, once when somebody bashed into me and once when I took out an international driver’s licence. Twice in my whole life I have had to produce my driver’s licence, but now I have to carry with me three or four pages for driver’s licences, for the rest of my life, in case I have to show my licence once more in my life. Then, Sir, we go on to gun licences. The only time I ever handled my gun licences was when I transferred them into my name when my father died. I have never handled or touched them since.

How then do you buy cartridges?

I registered them with my arms dealer; he has them in his register and once he has registered them, they are registered in the record. Then, Sir, you have 24 blank pages in this book. What is intended to be put into those 24 blank pages? Is that for another 24 marriages or another 24 birth certificates? Obviously it is the intention to use those 24 pages; otherwise they would not be in this book, so you end up with a booklet of 50 pages to replace what you need to-day to identify yourself, namely, a little card that has a number and your name on it, a simple little card which you can carry round in a little wallet in your pocket. There you have your identity, your number, and your name. Instead of that I now have to walk round with this 50-page booklet which, before you have been handling it very long, is going to get tattered and dogeared. It is going to have to be replaced over and over again but, what is more, it is going to get lost. It is going to be the easiest thing on earth to lose a book of this nature, whereas a simple little card you can slip into a hip pocket or a top pocket, but when you carry a book like this you cannot even get into the top pocket of your jacket. It means therefore that you must wear a jacket and that you have to carry this around with you all the time to identify yourself, when, as far as 99 per cent of the information contained in this book is concerned—everything bar one page—you are seldom going to have to use more than once or twice. I suggest that what will happen is that people will not carry this booklet because it is going to be a nuisance, and if they do carry it, it will get lost and then it will have to be replaced. Furthermore, how are you going to change the information contained in this book? The book will have to go in and the new information will have to be inserted laboriously by hand or glued in. It is a fixed book and every time you want to buy ammunition for instance, you have to hand in your gun licence, which I do not remember doing because the last time I bought ammunition they took the details off the register; the licences were registered with the firm. Sir, you could have a very much simpler system than is envisaged here.

Then we come to the question of addresses. Who is going to be entitled to be informed of a change of address? The Minister says only those in whose interest it will be. But that is not true. When the voters’ roll is printed that address will become available to everyone, so there is no security or privacy of address.

That is the case today.

To-day if a person does not notify his change of address he does not commit an offence; he is not obliged by law to notify his change of address. But let us come to the practical side. Landlords have to check up every person who moves in and out within 14 days of their moving in and out. What happens where there is no caretaker or supervisor? What about the privacy of the person who moves into a flat, and what about the mistakes which can be made? No, Sir, we accept the idea of a central register, of streamlining and mechanization, but we object to the invasion of privacy which will result from this booklet of 50 pages which we are going to have to carry around and show to anyone with whom we have to do business.

Sir, the story is told of a boy who prepared for an examination. He wrote a composition about a horse because he expected that he would be asked in the examination to write such a composition. The examiner asked him to write a composition about an ox. He could not get out of that one, so he wrote as the title to his composition: “A horse is not an ox,” and then he wrote a composition about a horse. This entire argument of hon. members of the Opposition puts me in mind of someone who prepared a composition, and then did not say a word on the subject he had to speak about.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat took a great deal of trouble to exonerate the hon. member for South Coast in respect of his part in a report submitted in 1948. I do not want to dwell on that, but if the hon. member is so fond of passages quoted from Hansard, then I want to quote what the hon. the Minister of the Interior said at the time: hon. members will find it in column 2508 in the Hansard of 1950. An hon. member of the Opposition had asked for the date of the report, and the Minister of the Interior replied: January, 1948. I quote—

A register or card?

Sir, this whole Bill deals with the establishment of a register and a card: this dealt with a registration system and, linked to that, a card which would have been issued. It is not only what a man says, but also what he keeps silent about that can stand as an accusation against him, and I have read through this entire debate and except on three occasions, in the Committee Stage, the hon. member for South Coast did not raise his voice as the hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted to imply in his defence this afternoon.

At the beginning of this motion which he moved, the hon. member for Green Point said that the Government had made a “complete somersault” in connection with this legislation, and that it should therefore be opposed. He claimed that initially, in 1968, when this matter was raised, this document was spoken of as if it could possibly be used as a passport. I consider it necessary for me now to deny this categorically. It was never the idea that the passport should be the central document in this whole system of registration. But if someone has made a “complete somersault”, not only in this debate and not only since 1968, but since 1950, when the Population Registration Act was introduced, it is the opposition on that side of the House. If it is necessary to prove this, as I shall probably be asked to do, I should like to quote a few passages, from the Hansard of that time, by leading figures in the Opposition who spoke about the establishment of a Population Registration system and the establishment of this identity document. I quote, from column 2534, what the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the late Field Marshal Smuts, said in speaking about this matter. Members who attended the debate at the time—and I was not one of them—will remember that it was asked that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and General Smuts also felt this way. He said—

There was no mention of objections on principle, other than that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee. And he was not the only one. Mr. Jordan, who followed him up, said in Col. 2538—

To this, and to this alone, he objected. Subsequently, when he could not obtain satisfaction in this connection, and a Select Committee was not voted for, it was mutually emphasized that proper investigation had not been made before the Population Registration Act was put into operation, i.e. the central system as it existed in part from 1950.

I want to go further. Hon. members on that side of the House probably noted that one of the leading figures in the then United Party had already expressed himself, on behalf of his party, in favour of the population registration register. The one I am referring to is Dr. Steenkamp, who said the following in Col. 2629 of Hansard. [Interjections.]

Everyone, one after the other, emphasized that the register could be of great value; the only single objection was that there had not been a proper investigation. But surely that objection has now fallen away. Have there not been several instances when this matter was investigated, since that 1935 Select Committee report, where a minority report was also submitted, in 1944 and subsequent to that, as the hon. member for Rissik indicated? Mention was made here of an official of the Department of Census and Statistics, and of another official who investigated the matter; in fact, it was investigated on several subsequent occasions and, lastly, since 1968 and even before that, it was thoroughly investigated by the Department of the Interior and in many countries of the world. Sir, there was only one chief objection to the Population Registration Act of that time, or they made as if there was only one objection, and that was in respect of the lack of investigation.

Let me now come to this document about which the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke. The hon. member made a great fuss about the privacy of individuals now being interfered with, and he said: We refuse to make this kind of information known. He referred to the fact that he already has an identity document, and other speakers also said that it gave them complete satisfaction and that they were happy. But when this identity document was introduced without the date of birth, the number and other things, you should have heard what the United Party said about this identity document which the Opposition is now so proud of. Sir, must I read it to you? In column 2633 the same Dr. Steenkamp said the following about the proposed identity document—

“Fight to the bitter end”, and every member of the Opposition sits with that document and to-day they are pleading for its retention. And now I must listen here to the moving speech made by my friend, the hon. member for Durban (Point). They say that bulky people are frequently good-natured, but he nearly moved me to tears, Sir, and I do not cry easily, about the mothers of the nations and the women who must be humiliated because their date of birth is indicated there!

The hon. member continued to gesticulate here about the poor people who live in sin and who will now be punished. Let me in the first place say that all of us probably condemn such actions, and if necessary this must be rectified in other legislation, because I do not dispute that there are such cases. But the hon. member spoke for some minutes about that and he forgot to read the Bill. He should just have read clause 9, the new section 13. There it is stated—

But the hon. member was almost in tears because the poor people would now be punished if they had lived in sin. [Interjections.] The Minister has already said that the privacy of members of the public would be protected.

I want to come back to the member who introduced the reply to this motion, the hon. member for Green Point, who said in his motion that he moved that the House refuse to approve the second reading of the Population Registration Amendment Bill because, inter alia, the proposed identity documents could be used in a way calculated to encroach upon the right to privacy of the individual citizen of the Republic of South Africa. Reading the hon. member’s speech it strikes one that although he spoke, at the end, of the privacy of the citizen which would now be violated, he was not concerned, when he began his speech, about the privacy of the individual. This was simply a decoy at the end to influence those people, the same kind of decoy which the allies of the United Party also used in the recent election in their newspapers when they said that privacy was now being interfered with and that this was becoming a police state. I see the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) laughing about that. The hon. member must just listen to his own members some time. He did not hear the hon. member for Maitland say yesterday that this looked almost as if it came from those countries with totalitarian governments.

Is that not true?

There, Sir, you have it from that hon. member as well, who dares to admit here that this is so, they who deny that they are repeatedly insinuating that this is becoming a police state. [Interjections.] Are further proofs necessary that any steps this Government takes are interpreted by way of direct accusation and by way of insinuation —is there any further proof necessary that that side of the House is bent upon presenting every measure adopted here as suspect and presenting it in the worst possible light? At the end the hon. member said, as a decoy, that this involved privacy which would now be interfered with. When he began his speech he said that as far as this Bill was concerned there were two matters that had to be investigated before it could be continued with, and the two chief things he mentioned were the “practicability” and the “necessity”. That is what he said at the beginning of his speech. I want to say a few words about that, about the practicability of this Act and, secondly, about its necessity.

Firstly, as far as the practicability is concerned. I want to admit that there is going to be a lot of work involved, and that it will be a difficult task. I want to say further that a lot of work has already been done and that this has already been a difficult task. The preparation work for the implementation of such a system has, in any case, been done by many years of study, and our officials deserve praise for that, in particular the officials who went to visit overseas countries to see what the best system was for us to apply here. Its possible practicability was thoroughly investigated on various occasions. Parliament has already de bated it since 1935. Select Committees before and after the second reading debated broadly and at length about these matters. The Administrators of the provinces held discussions about it. The officials worked on it. It goes without saying that there will still be many adjustments made, and that is also why the hon. the Minister said in his opening speech that this measure could not be implemented immediately, and I think the date which was set was the 1st July, 1971. It was said that it would take at least five years, according to calculation, to give any measure of completeness to this system. But thanks to the 1950 Act, which was opposed by the Opposition, thanks to the Amendment Bills subsequently introduced, and thanks to the work done for the registration of marriages, births, deaths and the other registration, thanks to all that additional legislation passed through the years, there are very, very much more reliable information available at present for the compilation of this register. Therefore, as far as the member’s first argument is concerned, i.e. whether this system is practicable, I can say that we have taken all possible practical measures to make such a system, in fact, practicable. This of course goes hand in hand with the co-operation of the public, the officials and ourselves, as Parliamentarians, who must pilot this legislation through. I must agree with what was said in 1950, i.e. that it is essential for the co-operation of the public to be obtained. I do not know if it is any use, even at this late stage, telling the Opposition that they could also co-operate to make this system succeed as it has succeeded in overseas countries, but then they must not adopt that attitude which they have thusfar adopted towards this measure. For this system to succeed properly it must have the full support of our whole population. And I do not doubt that when the advantages of the system are presented to them they will, in fact, support it.

But there is still another argument in favour of the practicability of such a system to-day. In 1950 we did not yet have the technical skill we have to-day; as far as that is concerned we have made infinite progress since 1950; technological development since than makes it possible for us to-day, with greater self-confidence, not only to tackle the register, but also to print the identity documents and to send them to our people. It is true that the compilation of the register will, to a large extent, have to be tackled from scratch, but as far as its practicability is concerned, I say that if it was practicable in 1950 to compile a population register, it is to-day a hundred times more possible and a hundred times easier to compile this new register. In the report made available to us ail an account is given of the system in other great democratic countries. A similar system has existed the longest specifically in countries with the longest democratic history. I am thinking in particular of Holland, where such a system has already been in existence for many years, and where it has already progressed far. Other European countries also have such a system, and there it was repeatedly proved that it could serve an excellent purpose.

As regards the question of costs and the question of whether we can afford it, the hon. the Minister has already pointed out that the initial costs involved would be high. But if those costs are weighed against the staff costs and the present-day divided control, I think that it would be more practicable to control the whole matter from one central office, instead of having various centres such as is the case at present. If it has thusfar been possible, with the present system of divided control, to keep a complete record of births, marriages and deaths, it ought to be cheaper to maintain a central register. In fact, that this will be the case was abundantly proved by the investigation which the officials instituted and which was correlated by the Minister and his senior officials. The question was also put as to whether we would have the necessary staff. We as a young country have reason to be proud of the staff we already have in our Public Service, and if they are not already available, the necessary staff can be trained within the year of respite granted before the system has to come into operation.

I therefore think that this system is practicable, except, of course, for those people who, as the hon. the Minister of Community Development said one day with reference to the Bible, “Like cowards see a lion in the way”. The Government and the National Party also realize that there are difficulties ahead, but if this system is for the good of our population and for proper government, then it is our attitude that it should be introduced.

The second point the hon. member for Green Point dealt with was whether this system is really necessary. As I have already quoted to you, Dr. Steenkamp said in 1950 that this system would serve an excellent purpose. This has also been realized by both sides of the House. To all the other advantages connected with this system, I just want to add the following: Proper control can be exercised over the thousands of immigrants who are, at present, illegally within the borders of the Republic; it could facilitate crime detection; it could help to trace tax evaders. I trust that the hon. member for Durban (Point), like myself, can plead not guilty to this sort of thing, and that it would therefore not be applicable to us. Furthermore, it can be of assistance in the issuing of passports, and at a glance it can supply necessary information. All these benefits are surely sufficient reason for the compilation of such a register. For our male and female citizens themselves it is also necessary.

There was broad elaboration here about the violation of such a system on the privacy of the individual. When we deal with the manner of identification in the Committee Stage, we can go into the merits of the proposed manner of identification fully. But one thing is surely as clear as daylight—if we want a small and trim document, as was shown to us here, a document which contains all the information which one needs in loose form anyway, it is surely much better to have such a document. For example, the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke about fire-arm licences. Perhaps he has forgotten, but the first time he had to go and buy bullets, he had to show his licence so that the dealer could make a note of it. To-day I can assure him that if he wants to go and buy bullets from another dealer, he will not get any, even to shoot a murderer. It is therefore desirable to have such a document at your disposal. Many people to-day carry the separate documents with them. All that is now being done here is to say that all these documents must be made available to the people as one document, with the express understanding that information detrimental to a person—for example the endorsement of his licence, or the fact that he is divorced— will not be indicated on the document. But is it not to the advantage of all of us if a note could be made in such a document about what we are, for example, allergic to—for example, that we are allergic to certain injections? Is it not to our advantage that such information should appear there? In this way one could continue mentioning the advantages of the kind of identity document being proposed here.

I want to prophesy that, when this debate is over and the Act is on the Statute Book, such a document will become the proud possession of every member of our White population, and that the benefits involved will become more and more evident. I want to wish the officials success with this system, and I want to thank them for the trouble they have already taken to prepare an efficient system. I also trust that our Opposition will co-operate after this Act has been passed and that they will encourage the public of South Africa to give their support to the maintenance of a proper book of life for every male and female citizen of our country.

I have listened to the crusading speech of the hon. member for Wit-bank with great interest. He seems to have taken this matter very much to heart. However, he has missed the entire gravamen of the objections to this Bill. As I understand it, the objection is not so much to the establishment of a national register as such, but to the fact that people have to carry this fat little booklet in the place of the small identity card to which we have all grown used and which has had its uses, although I still object to the race classification thereon. Otherwise it is neat and easy to carry and can be used as an identification inside the country as well as overseas. As I have said, I would of course much prefer it to be without the W because this offends me particularly. The real objection is against the replacement of this identity card by a fat little booklet which is going to be a complete nuisance, certainly to every woman whose handbag is already crammed full of objects. Ask any woman what a nuisance it is going to be to have to carry this thing around. The hon. member, however, said it was going to be a matter of pride, that every citizen was going to be proud of it. Well, I do not know what he carries around in his pocket. I certainly do not carry my marriage certificate and I do not carry my poliomyelitis certificate, nor my smallpox certificate, nor my driver’s licence— none of these, and I do not see any need for carrying them. Should it be necessary for me at any time to produce them, I can always do so. If I had a firearm licence I would not carry it with me. As it is, I do not have one because I do not consider it necessary to have a firearm; nobody has been shooting at me lately.

I think this whole thing is absurd and I fail to see how this hon. member can get up and with such assurance say that everybody is going to be proud of having such a booklet, a booklet which, as has been pointed out this afternoon especially by the hon. member for Durban (Point), carries a lot of intimate details which not everybody would like to have publicized. The Minister said that such a booklet would be a convenient thing to women when they get married because they would then no longer have to change their driver’s licence. But I do not know of any woman who objects to having her driver’s licence changed. As a matter of fact, it is not even essential to do that any longer as one can still produce one’s driver’s licence in one’s maiden name. What is going to be an awful nuisance is to have to send in this document whenever one changes one’s address, never mind one’s husband. That really is a nuisance because it may just be that one changes one’s address more often than one’s husband. What will in future be required, is that we shall have to send in the book so that our new addresses can be entered therein. That is how I understand it in any event.

But you are wrong.

Otherwise the book will be valueless. I think the hon. member for Wit-bank has totally misunderstood subsection (2) (e) of the proposed new section 13. In terms of that you have to say whether you are married and give “such other particulars as to his married state as he desired such doment to contain”. The basic fact is that whether one is married or not or perhaps divorced, that information has to be contained in this document. I do not know what is meant by “other” particulars, but I suppose we shall be informed about that sooner or later. It is these “other” particulars which are left to one’s own volition, not the initial information. The hon. member does not understand the contents of this Bill.

I want to say that this Bill is intrusive. That is what I object to. Why should one have to carry this information around with one, and why should it be available to anyone who wants to look at one’s driver’s licence, for instance. Such a person could then page through this document and obtain other information as well. It is completely unnecessary. It is an intrusive document. I do not know why a country like South Africa should require this sort of legislation at all.

The hon. member mentioned that many countries in Europe have similar legislation. They may have a national register. I wonder how many countries make it necessary for all this information to be contained in one single booklet, to be produced on demand to certain officials. I have done a little research, Sir. I telephoned various embassies for information on whether other countries require their citizens to carry a booklet like this around. This is the sum total of my investigations. There is no such thing in the United Kingdom. They do not even have an identity document as such. There is a national health card which one produces when one goes to a doctor under the National Health Scheme or to a hospital, and, of course, there is a driver’s licence which one only has to produce in case of accident or any other emergency of that nature. Canadian citizens have a social security card which they do not have to produce on demand and which they do not have to carry with them at all. It contains no information except the name and the address of the bearer and his social security code number. In Australia there are no documents of this kind at all. The U.S.A. do not have identity documents of any kind either. They do not have anything like this. What they have to have in their possession, although they do not have to carry it with them is a draft card for young men of draft age. Then there is a social security card which is again only used when the citizen wants to claim the benefits of social security. Of course, everybody who drives a car has to possess a driver’s licence. They do not, however, have to have it incorporated in a document which sets out one’s national identity number, one’s age, one’s sex, one’s address, where one votes, in one book. In Germany there is an identity document. It is a personal card which simply has the name, the date of birth and residential address of the bearer. In Sweden there is a personal card and a health insurance card, combined in one. Now why does South Africa need this? Nobody has told us. Nobody has mentioned it at all. The hon. member for Witbank told us of all the documents he apparently carries with him. I should like him to turn out his pockets and show us all these documents. I wonder whether he would like to take them all out now and show me his driver’s licence, his identity card, his birth certificate, his marriage certificate, etc. Does he have his marriage certificate?

No, I do not have it with me.

Does he have his birth certificate with him? Does he have his firearm licence? I am sure he has one.

Order! Will the hon. member please address the Chair?

Yes, Sir. I am addressing the hon. member through you. Unfortunately the hon. member for Witbank is sitting behind me and it is a bit difficult. I am asking the hon. member whether he can show to the House all the documents that he says a decent citizen of South Africa does not mind carrying around with him every day of his life. I cannot see through the back of my head, Sir. I must just turn around to see what he has got. As far as I can make out, Sir, he has produced two documents, his identity card and his driver’s licence. I must say that for a decent citizen coming from Witbank, it is a disgrace. He has none of the other documents on him.

It is true that I was not in the House in 1952, but I was already very interested in politics, and I remember when the abolition of Passes Act was passed in this House. There was a tremendous discussion and all the advantages of having all the different documents which the unfortunate African had to carry around with him, combined in one booklet, the registration book, were discussed very freely across the floor of this House. And very impressive arguments they were too. It interests me to see that the same arguments have been used this afternoon in regard to this new book of life, as it is being called. I do not think that this means anything. What does mean something is the inconvenience the citizen is going to be put to, and the fact that this is intrusive and completely unnecessary. The hon. the Minister can have his national register kept in some dusty archives in Pretoria.

Dusty?

Well, they usually are. We do not have enough civil servants to keep them clean anyway. These records can be computerized and everything can be streamlined. All that can take place without this booklet being produced. I ask the Minister to leave us with our nice little identity card. I have grown very fond of mine, except for the fact that I do not like the race classification on it. If the format were exactly the same without that “W” on it, I would be very proud to produce it at any time. As it is, when I produce it overseas, I do not tell anybody what the “W” means. They can think it means “woman” as far as I am concerned. The card is, however, very neat and very convenient. I certainly do not want to have to carry that fat little booklet around with me wherever I go. It is a nuisance, and I think every other citizen is going to find it a complete nuisance.

You have to have a pass nowadays to show whether you are a boy or a girl.

Yes, some people might very well need that.

I want to say that the next time Departments give out advance information about legislation to hon. members, I hope I shall be included. Unfortunately I was not included the last time, when apparently the Department met members of the different parties. For some reason or other my invitation was mislaid. I hope the hon. the Minister will note that I would really like to be given what advance information is being given to other members of this House so that I too can speak with a little more authority when I discuss Bills. I am, however, going to vote against this Bill for the various reasons I have given. The necessity for the production of this booklet has not been explained to us. I do not object to the compilation of a national register as such, but I think that that can all be done without the production of this little booklet. I find this whole thing intrusive. I do not find it being done in any other Western democratic country into which I have made investigations. For all these reasons I intend to vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before commenting on what the hon. member for Houghton has just said, I feel I must thank the Minister for coming forward with this Bill so as to give final shape to a decision that was taken by the Government a few years ago already. In doing so, he has also furnished proof of the extent to which progress has been made in the study of population registration, identification documents and documentation and centralization of other essential registrations. So much progress has been made in this sphere, that we have now reached the stage where it is possible to introduce this legislation. We are eagerly looking forward to the commencement of this legislation, which, it is hoped, will be on 1st July, 1971. To my mind this is a major achievement. I do not want to go into the background and the history of the Bill as this has been dealt with at length by previous speakers, particularly on this side of the House and by the Minister himself. However, I want to express my astonishment at the sudden opposition we have had from the Opposition. We put this matter to the Opposition two years ago. I had private talks with various members of the Opposition, and the general impression I gained was that the Opposition as such supported the whole of this new Population Registration Act in principle.

It shows how easily people can be misled, does it not?

There was no question of anybody being misled. I would be pleased if anybody could point out to me instances of people having been misled. Of course, other events have taken place since then. What has happened, is that after many years of employing the same old Opposition tactics in politics, i.e. of scare-mongering, conjuring up spectres and suspicion-mongering, they managed during the recent elections not to go on losing seats, but to take a few additional seats. In other words, at last circumstances played along with them and the time was ripe for them, and perhaps their tactics gained more acceptance than ever before in any previous attempt of theirs at employing them for political purposes. After all, a provincial election will be held shortly, and they have been asking themselves: What is the Government going to give us which will give us new striking power? We must link this to this Population Registration Act, and we must pretend that it is a devilish undertaking and a sinister attempt at making the population of the country suffer, and not as we Nationalists are saying, i.e. that it is an attempt at making life easy and pleasant for them. That is why these ideas of totalitarianism, Nazism and even of a police state have been expressed here; that is to say, the idea of regimentation. The fact of the matter is that just as has been the case in other parts of the world, we in this part of the world have not been standing still either. We have made progress in every possible sphere. We have reached the stage of development where, in a properly ordered society and national economy, it is in my opinion not possible to wait with the introduction of proper identification and a central registration of the essential matters, and with automating them so that they may be easily obtainable for various purposes.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Houghton. I found it interesting to hear a lady, of all people, using the argument that her major objection to the Act was not the provisions which are being incorporated with it now—and in this respect she differs from the official Opposition—but that she had become accustomed to a slim card which she fought tooth and nail when it was introduced.

That is not true. I was not here then.

In that case I apologise.

But you are absolutely right, because I would have fought it.

The hon. member does at least admit that if she had been here, she would have fought it tooth and nail when it was introduced. Now she has become so fond of it because it is so slim, dainty and thin, and because she will not like a fat booklet.

She probably keeps it in her “hip pocket”.

I do not know where she keeps it. She probably keeps it in her handbag. I see the hon. member keeps it in his purse, but where does she keep it?

In my handbag.

This booklet will not be much bigger. I just want to point out to her that this Bill does not force anybody to carry this identification document around all the time. This is one of the objections that was initially raised by the Opposition. They said that one would lose this identity card, and wanted to know where one was to carry it. In practice people are going to find that they will not keep it in a place where, when they need it for this or that purpose, they will have to go and look for it because they do not know where they hid or mislaid it. They will carry it with them as far as possible.

Now I come to another argument that was advanced, not only by the hon. member for Houghton, but also by members of the official Opposition, i.e. that the booklet would contain too many facts of life. One’s driver’s licence would be in it. If one’s driver’s licence were demanded, one would not send this identification document to the person concerned by registered post. One would merely take it out and open it at the place where one’s driver’s licence is, or have a copy made of it and send it away, if it has to be sent away. One would merely show that page. For what reason would people, if they merely wanted one’s identity number which already gives them a few facts, want to ascertain other facts of life contained in that book? What interest have they in raking out those facts? If I were to show my book to a person and I thought he was looking where it was not necessary for him to look, then I would after all be man enough to ask him why he was looking for that information elsewhere when the information in question was to be found on such and such a page. After all, I would tell that person to confine his attention to that particular page, especially if I were afraid that he might see facts of life, which could not be detrimental to me as a person, for those are the only facts that will be contained in the document.

To my mind the hon. member for Maitland really acted like an old woman here. I have never seen a man who is as concerned about the ages of ladies as he is. I do not think all the people are as concerned about their age, for on how many occasions is it not required of one to-day, especially in the sphere of commerce, to state whether one was married by ante-nuptial contract or in community of property, and to state one’s name, age and place of birth.

This information is given. This is not public knowledge, and what is recorded in this booklet is, after all, not public knowledge either. Nor is it essential that such information should become public knowledge. If it is not a case of a person pretending to be much younger than he really is, or of pretending to be much older than he really is, there is no need for any person to be ashamed of his age. In fact, it is a recommendation for a lady who is reasonably old, still to be looking as attractive as do many ladies of my acquaintance. I can appreciate that young ladies who look very old, worn out and jaded, would not find it pleasant to make their age known. These are the childish arguments we have had to listen to here.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I want to say that I found it pleasant to hear that she was now accepting something which she would have fought in principle. At the moment she no longer has anything against it, apart from the fact that it indicates her race. I think some members of the Opposition have the idea that we are going to do population classification with the aid of this identity book for which this legislation is making provision. This legislation envisages nothing of the kind. This information will not be used to classify people in order to ascertain what population group they belong to. That has already been done. That information is merely being incorporated in this booklet. The majority of the countries in Europe have truly homogeneous populations, and in those countries they are admitting that it is essential for one to have identity documents, an idea which has already been put into practice by them, in order that the State may have an easy method of being properly informed who its citizens are, how many people there are in that country and where they are, where they work, how many of them are unskilled and how many of them are graduates, whether they have motor licences, etc. What it wants, is essential information. There are civilized countries that are making use of this system. Those people are not afraid of their facts of life. It is not true that it is merely a meaningless identity number which they have incorporated into their identification system there. It is on the basis of a preliminary study by our officials of the systems of other countries that it was decided to follow this example. A study was made of the manner in which they had assembled these various facts and particulars in one handy document, in book-form, so that to a large extent this, too, might virtually be called a book of life. But we in South Africa have to deal with an Opposition that is not susceptible to changes. The National Party has had to struggle to bring about every change that has taken place in South Africa, whether it was progress towards greater economic independence or in the political sphere. It was only in the course of time, after it had been proved that these changes were practicable, that such changes were accepted by the Opposition. Let me mention an example. When we were still a member of the Commonwealth, it was that very same Opposition, as they are sitting together over there, and their followers, who under the influence of their Press, thought that it would mean the end of South Africa if we were ever to change our constitutional status by becoming a republic. However, when we had become a republic it was the United Party’s policy, which was duly announced by its Leader, that as soon as they came into power again one day, they would lead South Africa back to membership of the Commonwealth; they would also entrench this in a “Bill of Rights”. However, they have abandoned that idea, for they are no longer saying it. However, we carried through our plans. I am saying now—and I am making this statement without fear of contradiction—that this is but one example of what has to be done in the interests of South Africa and what is being regarded by the Opposition as impossible. They find it impossible until we show them that it is not only impossible, but also desirable and in the interests of the country. Then they want to say that it is their brain-child. As they are sitting over there to-day, they are Republicans, one and all. There is not one of them who wants to return to membership of the Commonwealth. I am convinced that there is nobody on the Opposition side who would like to see South Africa being led back to that old situation in which we found ourselves at that time. We could go back further, to our industrial development. Hon. members have only to read the Hansard of that time. In doing so, they would see how impossible and impracticable it was, for instance, to develop our own steel industry here in South Africa. Just think of Sasol. Today it constitutes the keys to our future and the foundations on which our economy is based. It has become a pillar of support. Everybody is proud of it; they are proud of it and so am I. It has been instrumental in enhancing our own South African sense of nationhood. We are aware of the shortcomings in the existing system. We are aware of the fact that registers cannot always be kept up to date. However, this new system implies so many benefits to the public and to the State. The only thing that is new, is the fact two photographs will now have to be taken of the holder of such a document. In addition, changes of address are only to be reported at one central point. This is more or less all that is being asked of the public. Furthermore, I foresee that with this system it will be possible to exercise better control over illegal immigrants in the country. I have been told that it is estimated that in the Rand complex alone there are approximately 80,000 illegal immigrants, excluding non-Whites. We do not know where they are. There is at present no proper, watertight control in South Africa over people obtaining visas to visit South Africa on holiday tours. It is difficult to ensure that these people leave South Africa again at the appointed time. Of course, this proposed system is not complete. However, the Bill makes provision for both additions and the omission of what may later appear to be unnecessary. More additions can still be made here. The hon. member for Green Point said that we had turned a full somersault, for we would, amongst other things, have included in this system the automatic possession of a passport as well. It has been said before—and I myself have said it in a radio talk—that with 90% of the applications for passports we do not experience any difficulty. Nevertheless, this embraces a great deal of work and takes up a great deal of time. If this should, however, be included in the identity document, people would find it much easier to obtain one. However, as it has not been included at this stage, it has become one of the objections raised by the hon. member for Green Point. However, there are reasons why this cannot be done right now. There are good reasons why we say we should first be given a chance, for there is nothing to prevent us from eventually including a passport in this identity document—just as little as there is anything to prevent us from eliminating the registration of voters, for instance. Facts that might be required in this regard at the time, could be obtained by means of this identification system. Therefore it is not a question of turning a somersault. If there are people who did turn a somersault, then it is that party and not us. They are rolling all the time. Take the example of the hon. member for Durban (Point). If one were to give him a push, he would roll and one would then be able to play football with him, for this afternoon he was really rolling around. However, I do not want to go into those lesser details. The hon. member for Green Point said that we had to weigh up the pros and cons. Here we have a measure which implies a great deal of benefit for the future of South Africa. We shall eliminate a great deal of duplication and the poor use made of our manpower. In spite of that the hon. member for Green Point is objecting to it. He said that he did not like this idea of pooling registers, for it would cost too much and result in too much work. If one were to combine the machinery and personnel of various subsections into one main section so that there would be centralized control, the expenditure could, after all, not be greater than it was when everything was still scattered over smaller sections. Therefore, this is an argument that does not hold water. If it is not for petty political gain, I cannot understand why the United Party is raising objections here and suggesting that we are going to do something here which is quite contrary to the views of our people. They are pretending that this is not in the interests of our people and that it is something which will give rise to terrible difficulties. It is for that reason that they are now looking around in their handbags for a place to carry this document. As ladies are carriers of handbags, I think they are better equipped than a man is for carrying this document with them, if they should want to do so. I am tempted to agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in saying that if one wants to carry this document in the top pocket of one’s jacket, one ought not to carry it with one. In that case it should rather be left at home. That is the wrong pocket. A man should merely put it into another pocket, and then one would see that it fits better there.

Mr. Speaker, I feel, strangely enough, rather sorry for the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who has just sat down. I look on him as a living example of the utter futility and impracticability of a system of population registration. That hon. member was one of the six Ministers of the Interior under which the old population register, which the Government are now trying to supplant with a new one, finally collapsed completely. Under those six Ministers the Population Registrar and his two assistants and the whole organization disappeared into the rest of the Department of the Interior. None of the expectations of the old population register came to fruition and under him finally it died and was proved entirely impracticable, as I believe the proposed register will also prove utterly impracticable.

I will go so far as to say that at the present moment there is no real population register in this country. Has the hon. the Minister seen the population register? Has any hon. member on the other side of the House seen the existing population register which was introduced in 1950? We hear that there is a population register. I say that there is no population register. All that there is, containing up to date names and addresses, is the latest voters’ roll which was used at the last general election. Apart from that there is very little else except for the addition of a few deaths which are also brought onto the voters’ roll.

And what a mess they are in!

And what a mess, ideed, that roll was! I again ask hon. members on the other side whether any single one of them has seen the population register which we should have at the moment? I asked myself that question when the hon. member who has just spoken was Minister of the Interior, and I approached him. I have his letter here. I asked him whether I could go to the Department of the Interior, Pretoria, to see this population register, in order to convince myself that there was such a thing and discover of what it consisted. The hon. the Minister very kindly arranged the meeting for me on the 24th May, 1968, held in the office of the Under-Secretary of the Interior. They received me very kindly and courteously and gave me tea. We had a long discussion of about an hour and then at 4 o’clock I said: Now, may I please see the population register? I was told that for security reasons the register had to be locked at 4 o’clock every afternoon. I therefore did not see it. I again ask hon. members on the other side whether any of them has seen the population register?

The previous population register was an utter failure and the hon. the Minister has not yet convinced us why this intended one should be a success. He talks about this register probably coming into force five years after 1971 or five years after 1970. I am not quite clear on that.

1971.

After 1971, which means in 1976. Is he sure that he is going to attain that ideal? Ten years after the previous population register was introduced it had only half the names on it that it should have had. The original Population Registration Act promised that a copy of the register would be kept in the area of each magisterial district. In 1960 I asked the late Dr. Dönges, or whoever then was Minister of the Interior, whether this was being done. The reply was affirmative. I repeated the question five years later and was then told that it had never been done, and that no single copy of this population register had been kept in any magisterial office. These facts appeared in Hansard in reply to questions I put to the then Minister of the Interior. Would I then be wrong in saying that this population register was a huge political fraud perpetrated on the ordinary voters of South Africa?

Order! The hon. member cannot say it is a political fraud perpetrated on the voters.

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

A snare and a delusion. How is that?

It certainly was. My hon. colleague for Houghton says it was a snare and a delusion. That population register collapsed. I have the fullest expectation that the same thing is going to happen to this one. It will collapse in regard to administration, staff and expenses. I expect that it can also be misused.

The first problem with which this Minister will be faced is keeping this population register up to date and to reflect therein all the different changes of addresses. I say that he will be unable to do so. He has failed to do so in the case of the voters’ roll in South Africa, despite legislation which empowers him to do so. He has failed to keep that up to date. How is he going to keep this population register up to date? They did not even try to keep the old register up to date. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister of the Interior on 4th March, 1969, when I asked what he had done to ensure that changes of address were made in the old population register he replied: “The manner in which such changes of address must be notified has not as yet been prescribed and the provision has therefore not been enforced”. That was in 1969. Nineteen years after the introduction of the original population register they had not even discovered a method for ensuring that changes of address were notified! Not a single prosecution has been instituted as far as I remember, in that regard.

I put many questions on this population register in this Parliament. In 1960 I asked: “How many changes of addresses, approximately, were made every year in regard to the old population register?” I was told about 150 per month. I repeated the same question in 1968 and was then told that no estimate had been made. There was therefore not even one in 1960. The 1960 figures were therefore false. I should like to know how the hon. the Minister bases his present estimate in regard to the number of changes of addresses. Does he include the changes of addresses announced at a general registration of voters? I should like to know whether those are included in his present figure.

I say that this register and this new system will fail for the simple reason that there is not sufficient staff. The hon. the Minister said that there will be a saving in manpower. I challenge him to prove that. I say to him, and I have this on reasonably good authority which I am not allowed to divulge, that he would probably have to get 500 additional staff members in his department to do this work. With the country suffering under a huge telephone shortage, a manpower shortage on our Railways and in our businesses, the hon. the Minister now comes with this fabulous system which will make these huge demands on technical and administrative staff. The hon. the Minister told us that he was sure that there would be a saving in staff and that this system would need less manpower. How did he establish that? I am asking him this because I challenged him to deny that he at one stage said that he did not know how many people were employed on the old population register. If the hon. the Minister does not know how many were employed on the old register, how can he know how many of those people will be supernumery on this new register? Surely that is a logical question to ask. In reply to my question as to how many members of the staff of the Department of the Interior had been engaged in the population register each year since 1957, the hon. the Minister replied on 29th March, 1968: “As the population register is completely amalgamated with other divisions of the Department of the Interior and the maintenance thereof is being regarded as part of the normal functions of the department, no separate records as regards members of staff engaged is maintained”. He does not know how many members of staff he used on the old one. How can he say that he is going to use less on the new one?

What sort of a department is this?

As the hon. member says, what sort of a department is this? I say that the expenditure in connection with this new system is going to be totally out of proportion to any value that it may have. I believe the hon the Minister mentioned a figure of R3½ million which could be saved; it might be annually or over a longer period. How does he know that amount is going to be saved if he does not know the amount which is being spent at the moment? I am telling him right now that he does not know what amount is being spent at the moment on the old system. How can he possibly know what is going to be saved on the new system? I want to read what his predecessor said on the 29th March, 1968. I asked him what the capital expenditure was, and the other expenditure including the salaries and wages of the old population register staff. One should know that before one can say that it is going to cost R3 million less. Does he know what the answer was? Does he know what the old one cost? His reply two years ago was—

We are hearing about wonderful machines which are going to be used this time for this new register. For the old register, they were going to have a magnificent Hollerith machine, but he does not even know what the capital cost of that was. I want to tell him that that old register has probably cost the country up to now more than R12 million. That register which has failed, that ghost register, has already cost the country more than R12 million. I believe that he has estimates saying that this new one might cost between R7 million and R8 million. I am telling him that those estimates are nonsense. It will be in the vicinity of R20 million before this system comes into operation in 1976. My words will be taken up in Hansard and I am prepared to challenge the hon. the Minister on that.

Where is this new register going to be housed? I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister, as a responsible Minister, has already discussed with his Department whether there is sufficient office space for this huge new system which they are about to introduce. I am quite sure that he has done so. I tell him now that his department has most probably told him that there is not sufficient space. It could be that what I have heard is not without some truth, namely, that there were plans at one stage for a huge new building costing R3 million to house this new register. Will the hon. the Minister tell us what his plans are in connection with housing this register? I want the hon. the Minister to tell us this, because new capital costs will have to be incurred.

Has the hon. the Minister given any consideration to the huge costs which will have to be incurred by the ordinary citizen; that he will have to have two new photographs taken again which will cost him about R1 per person. What will happen in the case of a family of seven or eight members? They are usually the poorer families and they will have to pay R7 or R8 for their photographs for this new register. In the end this will add up to tens of millions of rand for the whole country.

I do not regard this system as necessary. I regard the old system with the card as reasonably efficient. If the hon. the Minister has the manpower, and if he can raise the funds, there may be some justification for a central register, but not when containing all the particulars asked for here. I accuse him of making an utter failure of the old one. He has to justify himself before this House that he can make a success of this new one. Every day we are living in a more and more regimented society. We fill in forms for our licences, forms for our insurance, forms of application whether it be for a telephone or for anything else. Dozens of forms containing information about us are being distributed throughout the whole country in different pigeonholes. It is time that we stopped this regimentation; it is time that we reversed this trend; it is time that we give greater attention to the freedom of the individual as asked for in our amendment.

When the hon. the Minister introduced the Second Reading of this Bill he said that he did not like the words “identity document”. He said it would probably be called I.D. I think it is quite an appropriate name. Let us call it the “Id”. I say so for a certain reason. Hon. members will remember the great psychologist, Sigmund Freud, who gave one of his most famous books, written about 40 years ago, the title of “The Ego and the Id”. The Ego was man as he appeared to his fellowmen and the Id denoted his secret and his private life. This is the card of the Id, this is the card which will expose the Id of every citizen in South Africa to any official who might ask for it. [Interjections.] Yes, I am quite sure that the Id of the hon. the Minister has told his Ego what to do in this case.

I believe that this new register can be open to abuse. I do not want to go into the details of race classification. That has been dealt with very often in this House. I want to mention one other respect in which it can be abused. This register is going to be run on a computerized system. Your computers can get you the most amazing information on all topics in a couple of minutes, depending on the information you feed into them. One interesting thing that is being fed into this computer and which appears perfectly innocent, is asking each person in what official language he wants correspondence to be conducted. That sounds very innocent. Let us analyse this. All our great cities, for example Johannesburg, will be cut up into city blocks, or couples of blocks. According to that question it will be possible to say what the percentage of basically Afrikaans-speaking people or basically English-speaking people is in each block, in each area, in each ward and in each suburb, much better than you can do at present with any voters’ roll. How can that be misused? We know that it is generally accepted that if 65 per cent of a constituency’s inhabitants is Afrikaans-speaking, it tends towards the Nationalist Party. If there is for example, 40 per cent English-speaking voters in the constituency, it tends towards the United Party—it is one of the facts of politics, although we should like to change it. The Minister will be able to press a button on that computer and in a minute or two the computer can supply a list of, say, 14,000 names of adjacent blocks containing just the right percentage of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking voters so as to ensure a Nationalist constituency with a majority of, say, a thousand. He can press another button and then the computer can come up with a series of adjacent blocks containing, say 90 per cent English-speaking people and then he would be very happy to make that a constituency at a delimination for the United Party. I am mentioning how at the press of a button an analysis of the language and the racial composition of the voters of this country can be used as a basis for delimination to harm an opposition party. It can be done. So I can go on; I can mention many other examples.

The first population register was a half-baked attempt. This population register is going to be another half-baked attempt. The first one was an utter failure. We do not know where it is and within another ten years in this same House hon. members on that side will have to admit that there has been another failure. What we will have will be a terrific loss in funds, the misuse of staff, the frustration of a last part of the Public Service and another collapse of the type of policy that side of the House has been giving us. The only saving grace is that in ten years’ time that party will no longer be in power, and that is the only reason why I hope and expect this population register not even to approach any measure of success, not nearly that which the hon. the Minister is hoping for.

Mr. Speaker, I wondered why the United Party were now opposed to the system of population registration, whereas they had initially been in favour of such a system. Hon. members opposite are afraid that the voters will return the hon. member for Houghton with an increased majority. The arguments used by hon. members on the opposite side are the same they used in the past, i.e. that of a police state, of restrictions on freedom, the arguments involving women and the privacy of the individual which would allegedly be interfered with.

This legislation is for the convenience of the citizens of South Africa and for the administration in general. These are the two real reasons for this legislation. It must be done in this way, because we have a heterogenous population, in contrast to the homogeneous population of Europe. We cannot compare South Africa with Europe. In the 1950 debate on the question of population registration it was said that it was very easy to distinguish in South Africa between Bantu, Coloureds and the Whites, but that it was not so easy to distinguish between a Belgian and a Frenchman. That was to be the reason why there could be a population register in Europe, but not in South Africa. I should like to know from hon. members on the opposite side whether there is a difference of opinion among them. Are they in favour of the register, or are they opposed to it? It seems to me as if the hon. member for Orange Grove is opposed to the population register and so, too, the hon. members for Green Point and Maitland. The hon. member for Durban (Point) states however, that he is in favour of the population register, but that he is opposed to the necessity of carrying a booklet. It seems to me therefore as if there is a difference of opinion in the ranks of the United Party as far as this matter is concerned. I should like to hear from the hon. member for Maitland whether he is in favour of the population register.

Were you here yesterday?

I am asking the hon. member a direct question.

I am asking you a question too.

Yesterday the hon. member for Maitland spoke about regimentation. The hon. member for Green Point also raised reservations in regard to the register. Hon. members on the opposite side have stated that with the implementation of this Bill there will be interference with the private life of the individual. That is completely untrue. There is no question of interference. The facts about a person appearing in the booklet, are public facts which cannot be prejudicial to the individual. Nor is the freedom of an individual being interfered with. A person must have himself registered on a voters roll in any case, his birth must be registered, etc. In this way the entire registration system has already been in operation for years.

Mention was also made about the embarrassment of women. We are no longer living in the Victorian Age, but in the age of the emancipation of women. As the hon. member for Oudtshoorn has already said, women to-day are no longer ashamed of their age. When women go out to work, they must in any case furnish their marital state, age and so on. Mention was also made of facts, and that all the facts concerning a person would be made known to them when the booklets were produced. This will not make any difference, because banks deal with everyone, whether they are Whites or non-Whites. They will not be interested in whether a person is white or non-White, just as long as he has the security. In any case, I have never heard of anyone being ashamed of his race. If a Coloured person should require the facilities offered by a bank, and if he has the security, I do not think that he would be ashamed of his race.

I do not intend discussing this matter for much longer, but I just want to say that the arguments of hon. members on the opposite side have already been used. Hon. members on the opposite side are to-day prepared to accept the present identity card, to which they were opposed in 1950. I cannot understand this difference in attitude on the part of hon. members on the opposite side between 1950 and to-day. All the hon. members on the opposite side are now praising the present system, but in 1950 we also heard accusations in regard to regimentation, police states, and all the others. Just as they have changed their views now, they will change their views in future in respect of this new system.

Mr. Speaker, a brand new argument was raised in this debate yesterday, i.e. that the force and serious intent of an Opposition’s objections should be measured against the length of its speeches. We were reproached for having speakers on our side who only spoke for 20 minutes instead of the full 30 minutes. It is a simple fact that Bills differ vastly from each other. Against some there is a wide variety of objections which could be elaborated on at length, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, we in fact have only basic objection. Our objection is to the contents and comprehensiveness of the reference book. We are of the opinion that this is unnecessary, that it could cause people embarrassment, and that it could also be abused.

Compared to other parliaments, and I am thinking in particular now of parliaments in Europe and that of America, we have a serious deficiency in the process of legislation. I do not want to discuss it but I would be grateful if I could be afforded the opportunity of making the one point which is relevant here. For that reason I will not elaborate on this. In most European parliaments the parliament is divided into communities. With few exceptions all legislation which is introduced is referred to some committee or other for study, and that committee then has the right to call upon the Government to explain the legislation and to submit a memorandum to them.

Order! I think the hon. member is criticizing our Parliament now.

I am not criticizing Parliament; I am merely comparing two systems. I want to make brief mention of a point here which I feel is a direct deficiency in regard to this Bill.

It is a deficiency in the procedure of the House. I will not allow the hon. member to pursue this argument any further.

I do not want to make an argument of it, but I do think that a member is probably entitled to say that there is a deficiency in regard to this Bill which can be supplied by the Government within the rules of our Parliament.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue the argument any further.

Very well. The point I want to make is that the Government has in respect of this Bill afforded the public no opportunity whatsoever, either in an organized form or as individuals, to express an opinion on this matter. I am not simply speaking of the White members of the public only. As far as I know, the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians were not consulted through their channels in regard to this specific Bill. Now I feel that if there is one matter in regard to which the Government ought to have taken the initiative and referred the matter to a parliamentary committee for study and for evidence from outside, then it is this Bill. Here we have a Bill, more so than any other Bill of which I know, which is going to affect every single citizen in South Africa intimately and directly. I cannot think of another Bill which so directly affects every citizen of South Africa. We on this side of the House should very much like to know what the public reaction is, for or against a Bill of this nature. We should very much have liked to have had the opportunity of ascertaining what criticism, positive or negative, people had in regard to it. In particular, we would have liked to have heard evidence, if there are countries in the world which have this reference book system or something approaching it, in regard to how such a system was accepted and was operating in other countries where it was being applied. We received no information from the hon. the Minister in this regard. We did not receive any information from him in regard to what the public of South Africa think of this matter, nor any evidence in regard to what the experience has been in countries which know more about the practical side of these matters than we do. As far as we as Opposition can judge, there is uncertainty and reservation among our own people in regard to the measures contained in this Bill. There are various reasons for that, of which I want to mention only three.

The first reason is—and I may as well say this without beating about the bush—that there is a widespread lack of confidence in the motives of the Government. For that it has itself to blame. It has given itself the image of a government which likes to control and to compartmentalize people to an excessive extent. As it is the population of South Africa is overwhelmed to such an extent by permits, passes, licences, etc., that one must expect no great enthusiasm for further official classification as is being proposed here. Secondly there is a difference between the concept of “identification”, as this is to be found in European countries. and the concept of “identification” and “identification documents” as we have it. The premise of the process of identification in European countries is positive, but among us identification has, since the time it was introduced, always been closely associated with the concept of race and colour. In addition it has been admitted time and again in this House that this is in fact the basis of our entire identification system. For this reason there are misgivings in regard to the Bill, and obviously there will be, since identification is in fact being expanded here.

But then there are the practical objections as well. Most of the practical objections have already been mentioned here by hon. members. I just want to add a few to the list. It is true, and we concede this, that at some time or other just about every person deems it necessary to introduce themselves. Call it identification, if you like. That is the reason why the goodwill cards issued by the banks are usually so popular. But in most cases the citizen needs nothing more to introduce himself or to identify himself with than a card on which his name and his signature appears. My own experience has been that that goodwill card issued by the banks, on which a number, name and signature appear, is the most effective way of introducing and identifying a person, because one’s signature must correspond to the one on the card. Photographs become dated, which is not the case with one’s handwriting. I have seen that in a country like America one finds that almost every American has a wallet of standard size. In that wallet there is a whole series of cards. It contains, for example, his driver’s licence, medical card, insurance card, identity card and various others, all in standard format. I do not necessarily want to advocate this method, but the difference is that with a system like that it is not necessary for a person to have an entire book for the specific matter for which he requires it. He need only produce that one card which is relevant in order to identify himself for the specific purpose.

Do they always carry it on them?

Yes. It is not that I am advocating this; I am simply mentioning that at least they have overcome the problem with which we are faced. We are offering here a comprehensive book which contains everything. It will happen when one has, for example, to identify oneself to some or other establishment or business undertaking, and one has to make use of the book, that one will in practice have to hand the book across the counter, say, for example, to the manager. It will leave one’s possession. In practice one will not be able to keep certain pages covered and ask the person to take a quick look at the particulars concerned, because it will have to go from the counter to the manager. So one does in fact have the problem that in practice, where one has to identify oneself, one will have to hand over the entire book and in that way forego the protection which one would like to have in regard to one’s private affairs. Every time one now has to produce one’s card for one single form of identification the whole picture is available. One’s age is there, one’s country of origin …

Order! I have heard this argument already. The hon. member must please raise new arguments.

And, apart from the particulars mentioned, we will eventually, in terms of the Bill, reach a stage where the book will indicate whether one has voted or not. The last page of the reference book contains a record of whether a person has voted. Within a few years we will reach that stage. I think one must accept that to refrain from voting is also the right of a citizen. It is an important right. I can think of situations where it would be very vexatious if one’s book indicated whether or not one had in fact voted. I do not think that this is something one would want in such a book. One has the right to refrain from voting. I can think of various circumstances in which a person would not like to reveal that he had refrained from voting. It is obvious that we want to support everything which will make life easier for people. We support any step which would entail a saving in the public service, which would lead to greater efficiency and which would eliminate unnecessary duplications, but our principle objection to the Bill as it stands at present—and I want to let this suffice—is that the reference book envisaged by the Government is too comprehensive; it contains too many particulars; to a large extent it is unnecessary. We feel that there is too much invasion of the rights of privacy. For that reason we support the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point.

Order! Before introducing the next member, I just want to point out that I have now been listening to constant repetition. I am not going to allow any further repetition. Unless new arguments are raised, I shall ask the member concerned to resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one measure …

Now you must be original.

Order! Is the hon. member making covert allusions to the Speaker’s ruling?

No, Sir.

I want to ask him not to do so again. The hon. member for Waterkloof may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one aspect of this matter which deserves to have been accepted unopposed at an early stage in I this Session, particularly in view of its long history of development and the long struggle and the fierceness of the dispute which centred around this Population Registration Act in the past, then it is this population registration measure. We on this side of the House have since 1968 in fact been expecting the Opposition to support this measure if it ever came before the House; there were all kinds of pointers in this regard. The way in which the hon. member for Green Point had to justify himself yesterday, with a degree of embarrassment and in a halting manner, and explain why his side of the House were now opposed to this measure, indicates that they initially intended supporting this measure, and now I must tell him that if I heard a poor argument yesterday then it was the argument that because the passport section of this book had now been removed, they would not be able to vote for this measure.

In 1968 that was the most important section.

Sir, everything in that book has remained the same, but a section has been removed; the book has been made less bulky. Hon. members on that side have complained about the bulkiness of the book, but they would apparently have accepted it if the passport section had remained intact in it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said that the book is too comprehensive, but the hon. member for Green Point has said that if the book had been more comprehensive, if it had contained the passport section, they would probably have accepted it.

The principle has changed.

Now they are saying that the principle has changed. In other words, they all wanted us to carry a passport with which we could leave or enter the country. But I shall leave it at that. I just want to say to the Opposition that the only reason why they are now opposing this measure is, I think, that they see in it an opportunity to exploit the measure in the coming provincial elections.

Order! That argument has already been used.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, but they raised this argument again subsequently. I just want to emphasize that I agree with the argument.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that no one was consulted in advance in regard to this measure. I do not know on what side of the House the hon. member for Bezuidenhout found himself in 1949, but the 1949 provincial election was fought over a passbook. Yesterday the hon. member for Parow showed them another one of the remnants of that passbook over which they fought the election. They fought this last election over this. Their allies raised the matter in their little newspaper, the Afrikaner, and this was said to them yesterday as well, but now the hon. member is again stating that nobody had been consulted. Apart from that, we all know that there have been numerous radio talks on this matter recently, and I believe that the public has been fully informed in regard to the matter.

Sir, I cannot see why the hon. member for Houghton, who is not present at the moment, opposes this measure. She said that she had grown fond of her little green card; all that she does not like about it is what appears on it, because she does not want it to be shown on her identity card that she is a White person. Sir, her race is being entrenched in this new book; it is not so easily decipherable; the W falls way. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is afraid of this booklet because in South Africa it is always associated with race.

Sir, this identity number which we are now going to get, is meaningful in its composition if one is equipped to decipher the number; then there is significance in the number. The hon. the Minister explained it to us and I think it has been explained to the United Party caucus. But it does not occur to just anybody what that number means unless he knows how to read it, because first one has the year. If one was born in 1933, then one has the figure 33 there, then the month of one’s birth, then the date of one’s birth, four figures, which indicate whether one is male or female, and one’s day number; then two other figures from which one’s population group can be deduced and whether one is a South African citizen or an immigrant, and then a code number. Unless somebody is equipped to do so, nobody can decipher this. One’s constituency is the code number at the end. In the end, this number is therefore going to consist of thirteen figures.

I should just like to say that as far as I, personally, am concerned, I welcome this measure. I think it is meaningful; I think it will promote order. What I welcome in particular is the fact that since we are still a state with a relatively small population, we are beginning with it at this stage, so that we will not perhaps subsequently find that we cannot do so because the population has become too large.

Mr. Speaker …

Ohh!!

Sir, it is nice to get such a welcome back to the House. I must admit that there are a number of my friends on that side who are missing, and I have missed them.

Is this your first speech?

No, it is not a maiden speech—not quite. As I was saying, I have missed a lot of my friends, but I am so glad to see a few of my colleagues occupying some benches on the other side. Their sojourn here will be short, but I am glad that they are here to talk to us to-day.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

The hon. member for Waterkloof has advanced arguments which have been answered by this side of the House in the debate which has gone before, and it would be no good my trying to answer him because I would then be infringing the rules. I will therefore leave him, but from what I have to say he will pick up answers to certain of the points that he did raise.

So you will always be repeating arguments?

No, I will not repeat arguments already advanced. I want to go back to what the hon. the Minister said when he introduced this measure. Sir, I can still picture the relish with which he detailed all the additional information which is now going to be recorded in this identity document which we are going to be compelled to carry. It is because of this attitude that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Maitland, said that this was what arose out of an authoritarian State. That is why he said it, not because of arguments raised by hon. members on that side about a police State. Sir, no member on this side has called this country a police State. This has been denied over and over again and evidence has been produced that we have not done so but hon. members opposite continue with this although they know that this is not true. It was brought to light by the attitude of the hon. the Minister. It was brought to light by the obvious relish with which he introduced this additional information. Sir, the concept of a population register or of an identity document stems from that sort of State, from an authoritarian state, and, of course, from national emergencies. I do not believe that we have a national emergency here. When hon. members on the Government side raise the argument that certain countries overseas—not all of them—have documents of identification, they tend to lose sight of the primary object of this identity document, and it is no good their denying it. Their primary object is race classification. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Houghton takes exception to the W which appears on her card, notwithstanding the arguments raised by the hon. member for Waterkloof I am certain that even in this particular Bill … [Interjections.] Sir, it is no good that hon. member making a noise over there.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

We have in this Bill a subterfuge to get away from the obviousness of the race classification on the little green card that we carry today. That subterfuge is by putting the classification into the identify number. They are running away from it, and why is this Government running away from that classification? I wonder whether it is because of pressure from outside.

Order! I have already given guidance to the hon. member by saying that it has nothing to do with race classification.

With respect, Sir, there is provision in this Bill for an identity number which will include, in code, the classification of the individual, and it is to this that I am referring. It is the letter which has appeared before in our identity numbers; the documents carried by each one of us in this House have indicated the race classification.

Order! That is already the law of the land.

This is going to be removed and substituted by a number which, in code, will carry the classification. That is what I am referring to, but I will abide by your ruling and leave the subject.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing the measure, mentioned the advantages which he and his side of the House claimed would flow to the people of South Africa through this measure. The first and the prime advantage he put was that there would be the necessity for only one notification of change of address. But I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this new clause 10 (1) is completely impracticable and that he will never implement it; that we already have in South Africa 14 different laws compelling people to notify change of address, not one of which can be implemented. Not one has been implemented. Why does the Minister think he can implement it now? And even when he goes as far as to delete the previous provision which exempted the Bantu from the operation of this Bill, does he think he can now keep track of all the Bantu who will be on the register? And let me hasten to say I know it is his intention— he has told the House so—to exempt Bantu from the operation of this register, and that they will not be compiled into a register at this stage; that it will be delayed. But in his own words certain Bantu are going to be included (and I wonder whether he knows how many Bantu will be included) —all those who have drivers’ licences and firearm licences. And then he has to get all this information which he anticipates with such relish, and he will have to keep track of those Bantu. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of Bantu will eventually be included. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us that he has investigated this matter and that he does know how many Bantu are the holders of drivers’ licences and firearm licences.

But the new addition to this clause—10 (2) — now places an onus on a landlord or the agent for a landlord or a host—and I want this House to take note of that—on somebody who takes somebody else in to live with him, even as a guest, to ensure that that person has notified his change of address. And this onus is also placed on a landlord or his agent or the host of a Bantu whose name is included in the register. How are we going to know whether those Bantus’ names have been included in the register? Why is the Minister now placing this onus on a third party? Because he has been unable to implement it up to now. I will accept that it is essential, if the plan of the Minister and of the Government is to succeed, that changes of address should be notified. I will accept that, but I submit that the Government must find some other way of carrying this out and I would like to suggest to them that rather than coercion, it should be done by persuasion and by education of the public. We should educate the public to notify changes of address rather by the simple expedient of having every person hold a notification of change of address card. In terms of this new provision, the Minister will insist that a landlord, agent or host will take the prescribed steps. We do not know what steps will be prescribed, but I want to ask the Minister whether one of the steps prescribed will be to demand the production of the identity document, because once again this will be an infringement of the private rights of the individual, if the individual is going to be compelled to produce his identity document to the landlord. I know of the argument of the hon. member for Parow. There will be a card which I think is called B.13. But once again we do not know what the Minister will prescribe.

When we look to section 18 as it is amended in this Bill, we find that failure on the part of a landlord or an agent acting on behalf of the landlord or of a host to check to see that this person has notified his change of address, renders that person liable to a fine not exceeding R200, or to imprisonment of six month, or to both. It is not quite clear from the legislation whether both parties will be punished, i.e. both the person who has not notified his change of address or the landlord or his agent or the host. I would remind this House that this applies also to the landlords of those Bantu whose names will appear on this register. I want to repeat a question which has been asked before and which appears in the Good Book: Am I my brother’s keeper? I want to say that this Minister is making me my brother’s keeper, and he is making each and every one of us the keeper of our brothers; and if I fail to keep my brother I am going to be punished by this Minister and his Government. [Interjections.] Sir, I hasten to say to the hon. the Minister that I want to remind him of what he said when he introduced this measure with regard to this question of the notification of change of address. He told us then that the sanction was in clause 2 and that the provision was in clause 10 for persons to notify their change of address, but that this had not been applied because there was no staff. There was also a provision for district registers which has not been applied because, according to the hon. the Minister, there was insufficient staff to do so. How will he control or implement this to-day in this age of manpower shortages and staff shortages that we hear so much about in this country? The hon. member for Orange Grove made this point clear, but does the Minister believe that this staff position has improved to the point where he will be able to carry this out and to implement the provisions of this Bill?

To come to the hon. member for Parow, I did mention briefly the question of the attitude adopted, but he read newspaper comments, particularly from Die Afrikaner and the English language press. I want to ask the hon. member why he is so sensitive; what worries him so much about this? Is it because he is the chairman of the interior group on the other side, and the Minister will agree with what I said in my opening sentences, that there is hidden in this Bill a subterfuge? Is that why he is so sensitive to this? Because the identity card, as we know it now, has been an embarrassment to the Government and to the hon. member for Parow, and that this is now a subterfuge to hide that? We also found in this Bill that the Government has now given up all idea of applying this measure to South-West Africa; in the light of the changed relationship between the Republic and South-West Africa and other legislation which is before the House it is quite clear that we are not going to apply the population register to South-West Africa. I wonder once again whether this is not because of pressure which has been brought to bear from outside, because we find exceptions in clause 3 and in clause 7 of the Bill. An interesting point arises here. Why has the hon. the Minister applied certain parts of the Bill to the Bantu and then exempted them from the provisions of the Bill in other parts? He did, of course, make the comment, when he introduced the Bill, that it is his intention, in terms of clause 21, to exempt most of the Bantu. But he also told us that when a register of Bantu names is to be compiled, that register will be kept by the Minister of Bantu Administration. I want to ask under what provision the Department of Bantu Administration will compile this register. Will it be under the provisions of this Bill? As far as I can see, there is no provision in this Bill to allow the Minister of Bantu Administration to do so. It is quite clear from the Bill that there will be one register for all permanent residents in South Africa. These permanent residents will include something like 4 million Bantu people to-day. Then we find the anomaly that any Bantu who have been issued with a certificate of citizenship by a Bantu homeland will be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. Sir, how is this going to work? The hon. the Minister will be replying to the debate shortly. To me this is confusing. Either these provisions apply to all permanent residents in South Africa, which include these 4 million Bantu, or they do not apply to them. There is a further provision that those who have documents of citizenship of a Bantu homeland will not be affected by this law.

There is one final point I want to raise regarding the provisions relating to foreign Bantu. I can accept that, as in the case of all aliens entering the country, a record of their fingerprints will be kept in the register, but I cannot accept that a record of their fingerprints should appear in the documents of identification. Is there any particular reason why a full set of fingerprints should appear in the document itself? This is, in fact, the case if I have read the Bill correctly. If provision is made for a thumb-print in cases where persons are illiterate, I can accept such a provision, but I cannot accept the necessity for a full set of fingerprints in this document. Apart from the impracticability of such a provision, I feel that it will be an infringement of the dignity of any person to have that in a document which is going to be open to the scrutiny of various people, including clerks in banks. [Interjection.] Sir, this noise in the corner here makes no difference to me at all, but it is really annoying to have to speak above this continual noise in the background. I was asking whether there was a particular reason why a full set of fingerprints has to appear in this document. There is a last point I want to raise. When a Bantu is given documents of citizenship of a Bantu homeland, will he then be considered a foreign Bantu?

Mr. Speaker, the trivial arguments we have had from the Opposition, probably prove more than anything else how sound and well-considered a measure this Bill is. I was astonished at the triviality of the arguments advanced. Really, Sir, when one has brought these points together, as I have now done, one has to search for substance in them. Hares were flushed in regard to the most trivial, nonsensical points. I want to point out that my predecessors and I myself took the trouble to inform the Opposition on this matter on various occasions, and that we afforded them the opportunity to ask questions on how this measure would work. But let us look at the attitude even their own Press adopted. I am now referring, inter alia, to The Star of 9th July. That was before they decided to make this about-face. This is what appeared in an editorial in The Star—

These are, of course, the same identity cards about which the hon. member for Houghton and others are so ecstatic today, having previously fought them tooth and nail in this House. This brings me to my replies to some of the questions raised here.

The hon. member for Green Point, who launched the offensive, referred, inter alia, to the fact that the original concept, i.e. the one that was drafted in 1968, also made provision for the inclusion of a passport. After very thorough consideration by the Government and on the basis of the experience of other countries as well, this was abandoned. We found that it would not be expedient to include the passport in this document. It was purely as a result of practical considerations that this was abandoned.

The hon. member for Green Point also referred to clause 13. He said that the Secretary could now disclose all the particulars of every person. One finds it surprising that the hon. member, who is generally speaking a rather well-balanced person, can come to this House with such an absurdity. He ought to know, surely—this is very explicitly stated in the Bill—that the Secretary will only disclose such information to the organizations concerned and for the purpose for which it is required. For instance, if the Department of Social Welfare wants to know the age of a person because that person applied for an old age pension, all the information about that person would not appear on the “screen”, to which the hon. member referred so dramatically. Only the information in question will be given to the Department. In the same way this also applies to any other organization. I have already stated explicitly that we shall not release this information in such a way that it may be detrimental to any person. The information will only be furnished if it is in the interests of the person himself. Is this not a matter which hon. members may confidently leave to us, in the light of the way in which we have handled the present identity card up to now?

The hon. member for Green Point also wanted to know what the meaning of clause 3 was. This is the clause which refers, inter alia, to the question of the inclusion in the register of persons resident in South-West Africa. The proviso, as I put it to the House and as it is also stated in the Identity Documents in South-West Africa Act, provides that the classification of residents of South-West Africa shall not be included in the register, because of the reasons which have already been mentioned and which I shall mention again in a moment in introducing the measure in respect of South West Africa. The provision to which the hon. member is objecting, only has the effect that the name of a person who is permanently resident in the Republic and then moves to South-West, will not be included in the register again. Hon. members may perhaps find the wording a little obscure. This is the way it is worded by the legal advisers. The meaning of the provision is as I have now explained it to the House.

The hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Orange Grove expressed doubts as to whether this new system would result in a saving. Doubts were also expressed by certain other members on that side. One does not have to be a wonderful computer to work out for oneself that, if we now combine the large number of registers in one register, and if a computer is used, it must result in a saving. It is so simple that even I, who am not a technical person, can understand it. This is quite consistent with the findings of the scientists who investigated this matter. That is why I think hon. members might as well trust me. In the years that lie ahead hon. members are welcome to compare the estimates, and if we presented the matter incorrectly, they would have every reason to criticize us.

Will you reply in the House of Assembly to questions on the cost of this system?

Certainly, hon. members may ask questions on this matter.

In that case, why did your predecessor refuse to reply to questions in that regard?

No, he did not refuse. It is just that the Controller and Auditor-General finds is difficult to separate the various costs involved here.

But I am still referring to the hon. member for Green Point. He does not believe that fewer certificates and loose documents will be issued. I just want to mention two examples to hon. members. Every year, when the school year starts, a very large number of abridged birth certificates have to be furnished by the department in respect of children who have to go to school. Once they have the identity document which they must have if they are under the age of 16, that work which has to be done by our department, will be eliminated as well.

How would this help the school-children?

The school-children are expected to produce their birth certificates so that the school concerned may know how old they are when they go to school.

Will they also receive this booklet?

After all, they do have another booklet, as we have explained to you. This is the booklet they receive when they are 16 years of age, and then there is another booklet which a child will have from birth. When he is 16 years of age, that booklet is replaced. The first booklet will be used in the case of the birth certificates, which we have to issue now.

The hon. member for Maitland also saw all kinds of spectres. With him it is a question of the private individual being affected by this. He quoted Gen. Smuts’s speech to demonstrate the struggle between freedom and what they are advocating. We are allegedly the people who believe in regimentation. That is merely the old U.P. story once again. Whereas the hon. member wants to link this to the so-called authoritarian countries, I want to say that what one finds very striking, is that ten of the Western countries which can definitely not be regarded as or associated with authoritarian states at all, are countries to-day which have adopted this system in some form or other. This system which we have here is the result of the inquiry conducted in those ten Western countries. Those hon. members know this, for this has been said to them on numerous occasions. It has also been explained to them by our officials. These are the countries which, by implication, are begin represented to-day as authoritarian states.

As regards the disclosure of this information, I want to say that this information will not simply be disclosed arbitrarily. It will only be disclosed to that official body which is entitled to it and then, as I said in my previous reply, only when it is relevant. I think enough has now been said about it.

The hon. member for Witbank raised the question of the staff that would be required. It is true that there will be staff problems in the transition stage. I readily grant that. In the five years in which we are going to try to get this identity system going properly, it is going to present us with very great problems. But the very reason why this change-over is being made, is the manpower shortage. This new computer system is going to bring about a tremendous saving of manpower for us.

And of money?

Yes, it is going to bring about a tremendous saving for us.

I want to give the hon. member for Durban (Point), as well as the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who spoke about the carrying of this identity document, the assurance that it will not be necessary to carry the document around. The hon. member for Houghton need not empty her handbag of all her cosmetics in order to put this document into it. There is no need for any hon. member to carry it around. One merely has to produce it within seven days of being asked for it. It think this is a very reasonable request which ought not to inconvenience anybody. If one is asking for accommodation, it is not necessary to produce the identity document either. If a person is not married, it has absolutely nothing to do with this identity system. Some hon. members made a fuss about this. If two persons are not married and are living together, it has absolutely nothing to do with this system. We cannot try to reflect the social behaviour of other people in this system.

But the tenant will have to produce it.

He will handle that booklet with a great measure of discretion.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was very upset about the fact that it would be indicated in the booklet whether or not one had voted in an election. I may just tell the hon. member that so far no decision has been taken in regard to an entry to that effect. The hon. member also said that the matter had to be referred to a Select Committee, and that the public knew too little about it. This matter has been announced very thoroughly. In my introductory speech already I referred to all the announcements that have been made in advance. Amongst other headings, the following heading appeared in our own newspapers recently: “Pretorians like identity booklet (kenboekie) ”. This is another name they have given to it. I also read out to hon. members what had been said by The Star. This matter is known, and I can assure hon. members that in the years ahead we shall certainly harness the radio and our other means of communication in order to inform the public fully and to educate them in regard to the use of this booklet.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) referred to the Bantu. In terms of the Bill this identity document will be given to those Bantu who must have drivers’ licences, and not to the other Bantu. This is being eliminated by regulation. They will be controlled by my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The manner in which they do this, is the affair of the Department of Bantu Administration. They may follow this pattern, but to a large extent it is going to be their responsibility.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about accommodation. I may just tell him that we are erecting a large building in Pretoria.

Another building?

Yes, in an expanding country such as this one, many more buildings are going to be erected in order that this country, the benefits of which you are enjoying, may be served properly. This section will be housed there; the present building will be let. Then there was a question in regard to changes of address. The question was why changes of address were not recorded on the identity card. To a large extent this was because of a shortage of staff; hence the fact that through this new, mechanized system, it will to a large extent be possible for us to surmount that staff problem. The hon. member also said that he visited the office and could not see the register. It is a pity that he did not go there again on another day. The hon. member should visit the office again. I cannot arrange the hon. member’s programme for him.

In conclusion I just want to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Rissik made an appeal to the young people in the country to make use of this identity document, and asked that they should also take the lead in asking for them. I want to give my full support to this. I am convinced that this identity document system will seize the imagination of our people. Its practical value will be so great that all the spectres chased up here by the United Party to-day, will disappear like darkness before the light of day. This scheme will stand out in the future as one of the great pillars of South Africa.