Mr. Speaker, I move—

INTRODUCTION

At the time the Budget was presented to Parliament last year, the South African Reserve Bank reported that a moderate economic revival was noticeable. The same view was held by bodies such as Die Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch, the Netherlands and the Standard Banks. The Railway Estimates were accordingly framed in the expectation that the growth rate in revenue-earning traffic would be only moderately higher than in 1968-’69.

The economy gained considerable momentum in 1969 and according to preliminary estimates the real Gross Domestic Product in creased by the high rate of slightly more than 7 per cent, as against a rate of increase of just under 3½ per cent during the previous year. It was provisionally estimated that the contribution to the real Gross Domestic Product by the most important sector, namely manufacturing, increased by as much as between 10 and 11 per cent during 1969.

The major factor affecting rail revenues was, however, the increase in merchandise imports. The value rose from R1,930 million in 1968 to R2,200 million in 1969, i.e. 14 per cent, and in the last quarter of 1969 the rate of import reached the record level of R2,456 million per annum. Consequently, the increase in high-rated goods earnings was one of the highest on record.

It was in this context that total revenues from all Services exceeded the estimate by nearly R36 million, and the budgeted deficit of R5,086,000 was accordingly coverted to a substantial surplus of R27.4 million, which I propose to appropriate in toto to the Rates Equalization Fund. This figure is, however, subject to audit.

Mr. Speaker, I would immediately associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the Minister on the retirement of the General Manager, Mr. J. A. Kruger. Mr. Kruger has been associated with the Railways, as the Minister told us, for 40 years, and throughout those 40 years his services to the Railways were able, distinguished and extraordinarily valuable. He has only had two years in the position of General Manager, which is perhaps too short for the Railways to enjoy the full impact of his ability in that position. Yet I am sure that when the history of the S.A. Railways comes to be written, Mr. Kruger’s name will be prominent in that history. I should also like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s welcome to Mr. J. G. H. Loubser as the new General Manager of Railways. We from this side of the House wish him well. We wish him a successful period of office and if there is anything within the limited resources of an official Opposition that we can do to make his task easier, I wish him to know that he can rely upon our cooperation.

I am glad I could begin in this way by finding a point of agreement with the hon. the Minister, because I think the House and the country will agree that the Minister has indeed given us a very strange record for the past year. We are all glad to know that the activities and the earnings of the Railways have increased, and that there was a larger surplus than anticipated as a result of the working of the past year. Those things we find gratifying, but we do find it distressing that these wonderful opportunities which a prosperous, growing South Africa offers to the S.A. Railways are frittered away to a large extent because the Railways are ultimately being governed under the policies of a Government which is effete, which lacks the imagination to seize those opportunities and which, as far as the people of South Africa are concerned, is indeed functus officio. I think, for example, that the Minister himself in announcing the great improvements in the telecommunications of the S.A. Railways is going it on his own, as he has done in the past, but it does show that the Minister does not seem to have much confidence in the efforts of his colleague the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to render these services to South Africa.

That is in passing, Sir. There are more serious matters. There is the supercilious, and I am sorry to say, ungrateful rejection by the hon. the Minister of the work of the Marais Commission. There may be people in this country who see the rejection by the Minister as the dismissal by an efficient organization and an efficient Ministry of a superficial commission. We see in it a government, a ministry, so involved and so committed to its own mistaken outlook on transport in South Africa, that they lack the insight to grasp the sound judgment of this independent commission on the working of the transport systems of South Africa. We shall have to say more about this, but it is a tragedy that South Africa should be saddled with a government so embedded in its own prejudices and preconceived ideas that it cannot grasp the value of this independent and intelligent report.

Then, Sir, I noticed that the Minister referred again and again to the problem of manpower. There the Administration has my sympathy, because it is indeed a dreadful problem. What surprised me was how little the hon. the Minister had to offer by way of suggestions to overcome this problem. In this whole House there is not a man to-day who shares a greater responsibility for the manpower situation in South Africa than that hon. Minister. He has been in the Cabinet since 1948. He has been jointly responsible for the accumulation of mistakes of which the Government has been guilty when handling our manpower situation. He was directly and jointly responsible for the cancellation of the immigration scheme which the previous Government had in 1948. He shared the responsibility as the Minister of Labour, and then again as the Minister in charge of the largest employer of labour, the Railways, for the fact that for 13 years we were starved of immigrants. In that time South Africa probably lost more than one million good White South Africans because of their policy. He is jointly responsible. And I am surprised that he has no more constructive suggestions to make on this vexing and crippling problem that faces South Africa and his railways; than he had in his Budget speech.

We all rejoice because it was possible that the Minister could grant salary increases to the employees of the South African Railways amounting to R60 million in a full year. We are all glad, but I do not think that it has ever been possible in the history of management-labour relations in South Africa for an employer of labour to give away R60 million a year and in the process make more people unhappy than this Minister has done. I do not think that the Minister is aware …

Where do you get that?

The hon. member will learn some more about this. I do not think that the hon. the Minister is aware, just as that hon. member is not aware, of the dissatisfaction about the manner in which this increase has been distributed, or of the injustices which have been done in the process. These are matters we shall canvass when we resume the debate on Monday, and therefore I take this opportunity to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, as the Minister is not present to deal with the Bill, I move—-

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Division called.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the House, I withdraw my motion as the Minister has just entered the Chamber.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the arrival of the hon. the Minister. Clause 2 of this Bill adds to the existing section 3 of the principal Act certain powers …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, are hon. members allowed to talk at the top of their voices while an hon. member is addressing the House?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed new subsection of section 3 of the principal Act reads as follows:

We have heard this provision explained to us during the Second Reading of the Bill. The intention is that the documents which are now kept separately in the Births Registry, the Marriage Registry, the Arms and Ammunitions Licences Registry, the Drivers’ Licences Registry and a host of other places, will be kept together. It has also been indicated to us —I take it that I am correct in referring to this matter now—that it is the intention, from the practical aspect of this matter, to open a physical personal file for each person whose name is included on the register. There is nothing in the Act or in the Bill before us which indicates in what manner that register is to be kept. In order that there should be no confusion in the minds of the public, I think we should get clear in our minds the fact that there are two aspects to this register. The one is the physical keeping together of the duplicates, or the originals of licences issued to the holder. The originals of documents such as birth certificates and marriage licences will be kept together in such file. I think it is important that the public should know that that file is a personal file relating to only one individual who has been included in the register. As I understand the procedure from the officials who have been good enough to indicate how this will work, there will be a second aspect to the register, namely the computerized drum on which will be recorded the information taken from the separate documents which are kept in one file. This information will then be programmed into the computer. That being so I should like to suggest that it is desirable that it should be written into the Act that these documents which are kept should be kept in a file personal to the individual whose name appears on the register.

For those reasons I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the object of this amendment is a perfectly good one, but this is precisely going to be the position in practice. Separate files will be kept for each person. I take it that the separate files which will be kept for each person were shown to hon. members when the officials addressed them. It is therefore really not necessary to embody every administrative act in legislation here. What is here proposed by the hon. member will inevitably be the administrative pattern. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment, because surely one cannot describe every particular administrative action in an Act. The hon. member can be sure that what he envisages here, will be precisely what will be done in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. This is one aspect of this Bill which is causing concern to the people outside. At the present moment if I want to find out details about the marriages or births of an individual or the licences held by him, I have to go to a lot of trouble. I have to go to various different registries. Now if anybody wishes to inquire about some particular of a person, all the relevant documents relating to that person from all registries will be in one file. What I have attempted in my amendment is to stress and satisfy the people outside that this is a very personal record which is kept for them and that persons having access to that file which now contains everything together in one place, the full life story of the particular person, will be limited to certain particular people and for very limited reasons. It is for that reason that I have moved as an amendment that it should be a file personal to the person concerned. If the hon. the Minister gives the assurance that that is what is going to be done, that that is how the files are going to be handled, I think the purpose of my amendment is met and he will see to it that in the handling of this register there is no transgression on the personal privacy of persons as far as those documents are concerned.

I give you that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, we have here a substitution for the existing section 4 of the principal Act by a new section. There are certain interesting points which arise out of this new section. The first is that certain people are excluded. People who in terms of the original Act should have had their names included in the register are now specifically excluded because they are not mentioned in the new section 4. I refer particularly to those persons who are in South Africa temporarily and not on a permanent basis. We are prepared to accept that, especially in view of the fact that they have already been excluded by proclamation in any case. We find on the other hand that certain other persons have been included. We find now that the register is going to comprise more people than it comprised before. In terms of the new section 4 (b) we have added “all South African citizens not permanently resident in the Republic’, and in terms of the new section 4 (c) “all persons to whom identity documents have been issued in terms of the Identity Documents in South-West Africa Act, 1970”. We are therefore now having an extension of the register compared to the way it was in the past.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions in particular in this regard. Firstly, I should like to know the reason why the Government has now found it necessary to include in the register the names of South African citizens resident outside South Africa while this was not found necessary before. Secondly, I should like to know whether there is any possibility of sanctions now being imposed upon those citizens of the Republic who will now apply for registration in the register. I should like a reply to those two questions from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the new section 4 (b) relates to our citizens who are outside the Republic. It is reasonable, surely, that they should also be included in the register. This is aimed at getting them, too, properly on record. The new section 4 (c) relates to the legislation concerning South-West Africa which has still to be dealt with by this House.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. the Minister has not understood me at all. I am not objecting to the inclusion of these names at all.

Then what is your question?

If that hon. member only had some sense and could listen, he might have understood what I was saying, but of course with the sense he has, he cannot understand it. The question I put to the hon. the Minister was the following: Is there any specific reason why these citizens of South Africa are now expressly being included while they were not included before? I think the hon. the Minister will concede the point that they were not included in the register before. Now Parliament is expressly being asked to include them. My first question is therefore: Is there any particular reason why this has taken place? The second question to which I should like an answer is this: Is there any possibility of any sanction being imposed on a South African citizen permanently resident outside the Republic who now applies for registration?

Mr. Chairman, the first object of this inclusion, is, of course, to get the names of all our citizens on the register. This is also necessitated by the addition regarding births. As hon. members know, we now have to record births, too, in this register, and consequently also deaths, etc. That is why this is necessary. We cannot, of course, impose sanctions on people who are outside the country. We do not have the legal power to do so, and therefore that fear of any sanction being imposed falls away.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister one question for clarification. If a former resident of South-West Africa who has not been given identity documents because there is no legislation applicable to South-West Africa, is now permanently resident in South Africa, in terms of this new section, as I read it, he will be taken up in the South African register. He may be of German origin. He may be a permanent resident of South Africa although he has not yet been naturalized. As he will be included in the South African register, he will then be classified for race and receive identity documents with a race classification. If he then moves to South-West Africa to take up permanent resident there, he will in terms of this new section retain his South African identity documents and carry with him the race classification contained in those documents although he has now resumed permanent resident in South-West Africa. I should like to know whether I am correct in saying that that would be the consequence of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the very first thing we should appreciate is that there is no race classification in South-West Africa. However, if a person takes up permanent residence here in South Africa, he becomes subject to our race classification requirements. In that case he has to be classified accordingly. If at a later stage he should return to South-West Africa, however he may have himself grouped there according to their system. If he is not satisfied with this race classification he may, on his return to South-West Africa, apply to be grouped according to their pattern of population registration. If he takes up permanently residence in South Africa—and that was actually the question—he is subject to race classification.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. the Minister, I, hope that is what is intended, but I do not think it is provided for in this Bill. Clause 4 provides that if a person is, permanently resident in South Africa, whether he be of German nationality or some other nationality, he will be classified because the proposed section 6 (2) (c) will apply to him. When he goes to South-West Africa, having received identity documents in South Africa, he is saddled with those identity documents. They are applicable in South-West Africa. We will deal with it later unless the hon. the Minister will amend the subsequent Bill of which we have had notice because I think this is a matter which may cause considerable difficulties with individuals. I hope that if that is not the intention of the hon. the Minister, perhaps he may be able to give attention to that matter when we deal with a subsequent measure of which we have had notice, namely the identity documents for South-West Africa. As the Bill stands now, that South-West African citizen who has taken permanent residence in South Africa becomes classified and he carries that race classification with him even although he resumes his permanent residence in South-West Africa I think it is a serious matter. The hon. member for Middelland would, no doubt, like to consider that too. It will result in persons who are not South African citizens, but who are permanently resident in South-West Africa, in this way being embroiled in race classification. This may not be general, but it will be so in individual cases if the Bill is passed as it reads now. But I do not think this is intended by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, if such a person has been classified as a White here in South Africa, that is the classification with which he will go to South-West Africa. If, however, he were to object to his classification after he had returned to South-West Africa, they could revise it in terms of the South-West African system. Then his case would be judged in terms of the South-West Africa measure with which we are still going to deal.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the assignment of an identity number and the encoding into that identity number of a lot of details. As I understand the position, each citizen will now get an identity number with 13 digits. Despite the Pelmanism and the abilities of recollection of hon. members on. that side of the House, I can foresee considerable difficulty in trying to recall and remember an identity number with 13 digits. It seems to me that the one matter which can assist considerably in making this a more manageable number would be the elimination of the date of birth. That would re-move six digits from the identification number, The remaining seven digits could be easily remembered by, an individual should be not have his identity document with him. I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to removing from the encoded number of the individual his sex and date of birth which is provided for in the proposed section 6 (2) (a). I should like to apologize to the hon. the Minister that I did not give notice of this, but I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the date of birth is just about one of the most important particulars in both the register and the identity number.

But it does appear on the birth certificate.

If we want to determine, according to this computer system, the number of young men who are liable to military service, this figure in the code is of the utmost importance. If we did not have it, then the computer would not be able to give us the number of persons liable to military service. If, for example, we want to determine how many children have to go to school in a certain area, this figure in the identity number is an absolute necessity. Without it we cannot carry out proper planning which is, after all the underlying principle of this measure. I really do not know why the hon. member has any misgivings in this regard. In general, this whole code is going to be of great importance to us. While I am speaking of the code number, I may, for the information of this House, mention the actual composition of the code number. The first six digits will denote the year, month and day of birth. The following four digits will denote the sex and the day register. According to what has been ascertained 700 children are born in South Africa per day. These four digits are actually required so as to make allowance for a population increase in the future. As I have said and as hon. members can see from the other papers, sex will be indicated as well. All numbers below 5,000 will denote female sex and those above 5,000 will denote male sex. The third group of digits i.e. two digits, will indicate whether the person is a South African citizen and it will also indicate the population group to which he belongs. The 13th and last digit is the control digit which is necessary for the computer to determine whether any errors have been made. But I want to come back to the date of birth again. For the object of this measure, i.e. to have control over persons liable to military service, children who have to go to school, and innumerable other matters, this first group of digits in the identity number is something absolutely indispensable.

Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak on the clause although I will refer briefly to the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Green Point. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood correctly that if those first six digits were removed from the number, the whole automated system will fall down?

It will not totally fall down, but it will deprive the system of a number of its assets and values.

In other words, it would not be possible to obtain this information without having these digits?

As I have explained, we must have those numbers to ascertain the exact date and number of people who are entitled to be called up for service or who should go to school.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation.

I should like to raise another aspect with the hon. the Minister in relation to the proposed section 6 (2) (b). As the hon. the Minister had explained to us just now, a cipher will appear in the number which will reflect the race classification of the person concerned. Now, Sir, as I said in the Second-Reading debate on this measure, I consider that this is a subterfuge to run away from the criticism which South Africa has invoked from overseas over the years in regard to our race classification. It is being done because we all carry identification cards with a W on them. The Government is now planning to do away with that W, or a K or a C, or whatever the number might be, and to replace it with this cipher. So far so good. But, as I also pointed out during the Second-Reading debate, the object behind this population register, is not so much identification of the people of. South Africa, but identification of their racial classification. Now is this code for this particular cipher which will represent the classification in terms of section 5 of the Act to be made public knowledge? Because, if it is not, is this new identity document with this number going to serve the purpose of that Government with regard to race classification?

Are you not rather glad if it does not?

I would certainly be. But I want to know whether it is going to be done. Is every policeman going to be given this code? Is every peace officer and every person who is going to be authorized in terms of another clause with which we will deal later, to be given this code? Is every landlord, every agent of a landlord and every person who might have people come to stay at his home going to be given this code so that he could check to see that the person who is coming to live on his premises is a White person or not? Has the hon. the Minister thought of this aspect? Is this code, whatever it might be, going to be made available to these various people who will require the production of this particular document?

But there is, after all, nothing to hide in this regard. This code is explained in the guide. The guide which will be issued to every person will give the composition of this code. The Government is not going to hide anything in this connection. Neither is this a covert way of race classification. We are merely taking over particulars already contained in the Population Register. What is on the identity card is being transferred. That is why I said in my Second-Reading speech that we must not make a race classification debate of this matter. That is not what this is about. It is merely a transfer of the known particulars we have. In the future every new person who gets an identity document, will be provided with that guide. In that guide the code will be explained. It is not something of which we are ashamed or which we want to hide. Our people will be informed of the pattern.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, the rubric to clause 7 reads: “Notification of change of residence and postal address”. I should like to read to the House what appears in the White Paper issued by the hon. the Minister in this regard. I quote—

Now, yesterday during the Second-Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was really serious when he believed that he could control the notification of change of addresses of the White people in South Africa, let alone of the Bantu people to whom he now intends applying the proposed section. I got no reply from the hon. the Minister. I hope to get a reply from him this afternoon in this Committee Stage. I realize that his time was short last night and that he could not reply to all the points that had been put to him. Perhaps he would do us the courtesy of replying this afternoon on that particular point.

Paragraph (b) of the explanatory memorandum lays down that a person shall now notify a change of postal address as well as residential address. May I say that we on this side of the House do welcome that. But, I am sorry and cannot agree with the cursory manner in which the hon. the Minister in this document of identification passes this off in terms of sub-paragraph (c) which reads—

If ever there was a masterpiece of understatement, and I can almost say a deliberate intention to mislead, it is shown in this statement which is made here. Because what are the provisions which are now being added? The provisions are that any landlord or agent acting on behalf of a landlord, any person who might act as a host to any person whose name appears on the register, who allows a person to occupy premises, now has the onus placed fair and square on his shoulders. He will have to see that this person notified his change of his address.

That is ridiculous.

The hon. member says it is “belaglik”. It is not “belaglik”. I think it is a shame. It is a crying shame. Here we have a Government who over the years have passed legislation in this regard. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that there are at present 14 laws enforced and operating in South Africa.

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to the clause itself and not to all the other laws.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, may I point out to you that with all the 14 laws that the Government has passed they have not been able to enforce it and because they have been unable to enforce it, we now have this draconian measure introduced which now places the onus on a third party to see that that person does notify his change of address. I can see no justification whatsoever for this. I do not hope that the people of South Africa are going to realize what is being done in this measure which in effect is that every single one of us who has any person staying permanently in our private homes, is now responsible for seeing that that person notifies his change of address and postal address. Similarly every person who is a landlord or an agent for a landlord is now responsible for that. This removes responsibility entirely from the person concerned. Further on in this Bill we find another amendment which places a sanction on the landlord or the agent acting on behalf of the landlord, or on the host, that if he fails to comply with this he can be summarily brought before the court and fined up to R100.

Nonsense.

That hon. member must read his Bill. The hon. member for Parow must read his Bill. He is the man who is the chairman of that group. I cannot understand how he can say that. It is exactly the same as the statement he made yesterday. Yesterday he said that I was all “hoog in my skik” over this Bill and that I accepted everything. That is not correct. The hon. member knows that. What I was very enthusiastic about was the operation of the machine in Pretoria, but not over the Bill itself. Mr. Chairman, I think I have made the point that I object most strongly to this and I therefore move—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is becoming excited now about matters of which he should really have an elementary knowledge if he only were able to understand the legislation. He would do better to leave it to the hon. member for Green Point. I think that that hon. member understands more about this matter. If he does not want to do that, he should go and ask him what to say. The hon. member was told by the Minister that all Bantu would now be required to furnish their addresses in the first place, not all the names of the Bantu of the Republic would be included in the register. Only the names of a small percentage of the Bantu, that is. those in possession of firearm and drivers’ licences, will be included. Of course they will have to be included in the register, otherwise we would not have a complete central register. The percentage of Bantu who will be included in the register, will be only a small percentage of the Bantu in the country. Those Bantu who are in possession of firearm and drivers’ licences, are not the unsophisticated Bantu. Those of them who are able to drive lorries and who are in possession of firearm licences, are responsible people.

For that reason this hon. member should not suggest now that we are imposing a burden on people here who cannot read or write. Why should we be imposing this burden on the Coloureds? Why should that obligation be imposed on the Coloureds and not on the better-class Bantu who are included in the register? The Minister went even further and said that these people could be granted exemption under the regulations issued by the State President, which the hon. member will be able to read about further on in the legislation. This was explained by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member must have heard him doing so, but he is one of those who turns his head away although he need not even turn his head away for he is rather dense.

Why are you making a song of it?

But why did that hon. member make a song of it? After all, why did that hon. member raise the matter?

I never …

Very well, that is one version of the story, but the other concerns the enforceability of notification of changes of address. The hon. the Minister mentioned this in his speech and we all admit that in the past we were unable to comply strictly with the law because people did not give notice of their change of address and thus did not comply with the requirements of the law. In many respects the provisions of the law were, on the other hand, complied with. We admit that this may happen again, but for that reason we say that there will be a period of education. The people will be informed as to their obligations by means of a guide which will be issued to them. This system will not be applied immediately. The issuing of the documents will be commenced with in a year’s time, which will be followed by the process of instruction before the system is made compulsory in five year’s time. People will not, as has been alleged by this hon. member, be summarily dragged before the courts and be sentenced to the maximum fine of R100 or R200. The hon. member should also know that penalties of this kind are not imposed in this way. One may be fined R5 or merely be cautioned. The maximum fine is R100. The hon. member made this bare-faced allegation that people who did not comply with the requirements of the Act would be dragged before the courts.

You are rather dense, too. You did not understand either.

In the first instance, this legislation lays down that the person should first be found guilty. I now want to tell the hon. member that he contradicts himself when he says that we shall not succeed with this. On the one hand he says that people have shown the tendency in the past not to give notice of a change of address. Now that the hon. the Minister has included in this legislation a subsection which can be enforced and which compels people to give notice of any change of address, he is opposed to it. Does the hon. member want us to enact legislation here which will not be applied? What is the use of that? This entire systems depends on the compulsory notification of change of address. Does he want to emasculate the whole of this legislation immediately by including a dead clause, which lays down that the Minister has no control over it, so that it cannot be implemented? The hon. member should have more common sense than that.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear the hon. member for Parow speaking as he is this afternoon. My mind goes back to a number of Select Committees and a number of debates in this House where he fought bitterly against proposals to make change of address compulsory.

That is nonsense.

The grounds on which he opposed it were that it is impracticable. On every occasion that it has been proposed that compulsory changes of address to the voters’ roll should be introduced, that hon. member has opposed it. Now he is using exactly the same arguments this afternoon in favour of this measure which we have used in trying to get the compulsory change of address of voters. But when we proposed it he said it is impracticable, unrealistic, that no government would dare prosecute anyone and that no government would make an enemy by prosecuting someone because he did not carry out such a rule. Then the hon. member for Parow found a dozen very good reasons why it was impossible to have compulsory change of address. This is a different measure, but it is still the same principle and concept. Now the hon. member changes his principles and the implementation of this measure becomes something easy. Change the law and change the principle!

Many of the arguments used by that hon. member in the past have been substantive arguments. He used those arguments to prove that it is impossible to apply this principle in practice. I would now like to ask the hon. member, or perhaps he does not have places like that in his constituency, whether he does not know of buildings where there is no caretaker, and where people move in and out and there is no person on the spot who is responsible. The owner of the building may live in a different city. People in Johannesburg may own blocks of flats in Durban …

How do they manage to let the flats then?

By correspondence. Unlike the hon. member they can read and write. They do not need to draw pictures to explain things to each other. The hon. member expects that that absent landlord, living in a different city, is going after 14 days, to travel all the way to Durban to look at a person’s “dompas” to see if such a person has changed his address. I accept that the notification regarding the changing of addresses is desirable and I accept that it will be a good thing, but what I am trying to avoid is making this Parliament ridiculous by passing a law in the knowledge that that law cannot be applied. I accept that it is necessary that changes of address should be recorded for this whole system to work, but the hon. member will remember investigations in which he took part and in which I also took part where we sought measures to ensure having such a central registry notified of changes of address by everybody who changes an electric light deposit with a municipality, by any person who takes out a radio licence, or by anybody who notifies any official, body or authority of a change of address. A third copy of that change of address would be automatically sent to the Central Registry. We had complete co-operation and support from municipalities, electricity departments, post offices, and so forth. That is the practical way of keeping addresses up to date, but for us to say that a landlord should poke his nose into a person’s book of life 12 days after he has moved in, and that if he does not he commits an offence, is just being ridiculous. He has to check after 12 days, and if an address has not been changed after 45 days, he has to do it himself.

Firstly, Mr. Chairman, this is giving a caretaker or a supervisor a legal, statutory obligation. In many cases the caretaker is one of the residents who simply acts as a sort of channel of communication with the owners. My constituency happens to consist 99.9 per cent of flats.

All let by post?

Some of them certainly are. A considerable percentage do not have resident caretakers or supervisors. A considerable percentage of the blocks of flats in the constituency, anything up to 35 per cent, do not have resident supervisors, especially the smaller blocks and the older blocks.

They have agents.

They have agents where they go and pay their rent. Now is the agent, handling thousands of people, going to say every time the person come to pay rent, “produce your identity card”? What I want these hon. members to admit, is that they are spreading the field of people who are now going to have access to the identity documents. Already we have had four new people who are going to have access to it, namely the agent, who accepts the rent, the caretaker, the supervisor and the landlord. Those are four private people uncommitted to the State who are going to have responsibility and access to this document. Let us by all means seek practical ways of carrying out notification of change of address, but I believe that the practical way of doing it is rather to have notification by all those, who have knowledge of moves, to the central registry than passing a clause which in practice is not going to work. Then the argument of my hon. friend from Parow, namely that no government is going to prosecute and make enemies of a vast percentage of the population, which he has used over and over again when we have pressed for compulsory notification of voters’ change of address, will come into force. So let us rather seek a practical way of carrying out what is aimed at in the Bill than this pie-in-the-sky proposal without any teeth, which in fact can bite or make it work.

Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly when this Bill was being dealt with, the whole of this book is going to be kept in a plastic holder. At the back of that holder there will be a loose card for the purpose of notifying the register of any change of address. In other words, the terrible fears conjured up by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in this connection are without any substance at all. There will be no need for the caretaker, the agent or the lessor to handle this document. One will be able to take out the card. The card will be separate from the document. After one has given notice of one’s change of address, the card will be returned. The card will be kept in the holder together with the book and one will be able tho show one’s change of address without handling the document. There is nothing sinister about this. It is not an additional burden which is being imposed on the public. When I move into a block of flats, I have to obtain somebody’s permission at least once or enter into an agreement with him to the effect that I am moving into the premises permanently. In terms of the Bill it will be the person who has given his “consent” to my moving into the premises. Surely I will then be able to make arrangements with him regarding my change of address, or he can satisfy himself on some occasion or other that I have, in fact, given notice of my change in address. Surely our citizens are disciplined people. The majority of them are going to do it out of their own accord.

They do not do it. Surely that is wishful thinking!

I say that our citizens are disciplined people. With a little propaganda and instruction we shall get them to make a habit of it. Or does the hon. member not have sufficient confidence in the people of South Africa to believe that they will exercise discipline? Sir, our people are going to do it, but in the case of those who do not do it, one wants to be able to exercise control in some way or other, and this is what we are concerned with here. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) is conjuring up all kinds of sinister things in this regard; after all, it is not Wednesday night yet, which is when he usually gets up and makes speeches of that kind in this House.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat seems to forget when he says that our people are disciplined

Do you say the nation is not disciplined …

But for 20 years we have had the requirement in the principal Act that people must notify changes of address. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us an indication whether during the last 20 years a reasonable number of changes of address have been notified; I think the position is unsatisfactory. How can we remedy this, Sir? Our complaint is that having done nothing to educate the ordinary citizen—and the hon. member who has just sat down says that it would be so easy with a little education—the hon. the Minister, in terms of these clauses which we seek to remove, is going to employ or engage all the landlords and the controllers of blocks of flats to be the teachers. We feel that this is an unfair provision in this Bill. Surely, the primary responsibility rests on the individual himself and if it is important that this requirement should be carried out, the law as it stands at the moment entitles the Minister to prosecute. He can prosecute now; let him do that. Why load the landlords with the responsibility of doing the job for the individual tenant who does not fulfil his responsibilities?

Because the landlord has immediate knowledge of that person.

But nobody has the knowledge better than the person himself. Why should the landlord be, as somebody mentioned yesterday, his brother’s keeper?

We are all our brothers’ keepers.

Why should the landlord notify the tenant’s change of address when the tenant himself should be penalized for not fulfilling the duties imposed upon him by law? At the present moment landlords carry a multitude of responsibilities which concern things that have to be notified to various departments. It does seem to me that this is the wrong way of educating the public. What does every person who is a flat dweller say? He says: “I need not worry about this law; the landlord is the chap who has to remind me to do it. If I do not do it then my landlord is going to send the letter up for me; why should I worry? It is his job.” Surely there could be no more incorrect approach than to relieve the individual citizen of the responsibility of complying with a law which has been in existence for 20 years, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this. I believe that it is the wrong psychological approach if we want to have this Act implemented, it is the wrong psychological approach to relieve the individual himself, who has the primary responsibility of reporting a change of address, of the obligation to do so. Sir, let me repeat, if I may, what is provided for in this clause. The landlord’s position is that he must inquire within 14 days or 12 days as to whether or not a tenant has notified his change of address, and if the tenant has not done so, he cannot say to the tenant that he must notify the Department in Pretoria of his change of address. He, the landlord, himself must do that job for the tenant and if he fails to do it he can be prosecuted. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to accepting this amendment.

I am afraid the Opposition is labouring under a misconception as regards the responsibility of the person himself. The primary responsibility to notify the population register of any change of address rests with the person himself. That responsibility does not go to the owner of the hotel or boarding house. If I have changed my address permanently, it is my responsibility in the first place to notify the population register that I have done so. Therefore the deduction is completely wrong that we are relieving the individual of his responsibility by means of this measure of control; that is not the case, and this is very clear from subclauses (1). The Opposition seeks the deletion of these two subclauses, but practically speaking, the aspect of control in those subclauses is very essential.

If people move into a boarding house or an hotel permanently—not simply for a night— the owner of the establishment is also being held responsible in terms of these two subclauses, which the Opposition wants to be deleted, to ascertain whether the person has fulfilled his primary responsibility of notification. If he has not done so, these two subclauses place the responsibility on him as well, and these two control clauses are going to do a great deal, indeed, as regards keeping the population register up to date. The Committee will appreciate that the address system is one of the mainstays of the entire population register, and it has to be up to date. If in the course of time we proceed to using this population register for our voters’ rolls as well, it goes without saying that the voters’ addresses should be up to date to enable us to produce a fresh voters’ roll; this is the main consideration.

If one has regard to the fact that approximately 80 per cent of the non-Bantu members of the public are living on properties and premises they do not own, one can appreciate how valuable this measure of control will be, and according to our research team this measure of control is being employed by various European countries—this means of control in terms of which owners of boarding houses and of hotels have to follow this procedure, and do so with a large degree of effectiveness.

A moment ago the hon. member for Durban (Point), who is not present at the moment. was very concerned about this House; he allegedly did not want to “ridicule” Parliament. Sir, I hope the Opposition will be equally anxious to see to it that we shall not render the laws we pass here ineffective. If we want to achieve the end contemplated in this Act, this matter of notifying any change in address is an absolute necessity. The primary responsibility rests with the person himself, and this means of control is an essential practical measure for us.

I should like to associate myself briefly with the remarks made by my colleague the hon. member for Green Point. I believe that this whole new system will probably collapse because people will not notify their change of address as prescribed in this particular amendment. Let me give one example, Sir. We have in this House 166 very responsible members of Parliament. During this past year, with two parliamentary sessions, each of us should probably have notified our change of address three or four times for the purposes of the voters’ roll. How many members except myself have done that? I am not quite sure that I did it myself, but how many hon. members did do so? I mention this to indicate the practical difficulties which do exist when it comes to the compulsory notification of changes of address. Sir, let us see how the Act has worked in practice in the past and let the hon. the Minister learn from what has happened in the past. His amendment now provides that any change of a postal address must also be notified. Under the principal Act a change of an ordinary address had to be notified. I became suspicious of this whole system a long time ago, and I am sure that this applies to most other hon. members too; so on the 29th March, 1968, in this House I asked the hon. the Minister whether he had made an estimate of the number of changes of address which takes place annually in respect of the names on the population register and he replied that no estimate had been made. I further asked him—

He replied that statistics were not available. Then I asked him—and, Sir, this is eighteen years after the passing of the original Act— whether any prosecutions had been instituted for failure to notify changes of address, and he replied, “no prosecutions have been instituted”. Sir, that is eighteen years after the introduction of the original Population Register; it failed. Can he explain to us how this small change that he is making in this amendment is going to improve the position? Here I have the reply which he gave to me almost 20 years after the introduction of the original Act. I asked him a number of questions, which I do not propose to read out, about changes of address, and he replied (Hansard, Vol. 25, Col. 1819) —

The one that we are now amending—

Sir, twenty years have elapsed since the original introduction of the Act and this Government of all the talents, this “kragdadige” Government, could not even evolve a system after 20 years for forcing people to notify their change of address. That is why I say that this whole system will fail against the background of the fact that the vast majority of people will fail to notify changes of address. How one can devise a method whereby you can force people to do so, is beyond my ingenuity. It is probably part of the psychology of the South African people, but I cannot see this system working, for the reasons that I have mentioned here.

Sir, I find it astonishing that the United Party keeps hammering on those few minor points. One can understand why that party is so small. If I have understood the hon. member for Orange Grove correctly, he has made the deduction that the 166 members of Parliament who are sitting here have not given notice of their changes of address. Have I understood him correctly?

Quite a few of them have not done so.

One must give notice of a change of address only when one moves permanently. We as members of Parliament only move temporarily. We all have a permanent home.

He has not.

We all have our permanent address where we come from, where people know us and know who we are. The Opposition objects to the fact that the owner of an hotel or boarding house have to give notice of a person’s change of address if the person himself fails to do so. Sir, surely this is the easiest thing in the world, and something which will be accepted immediately. Every owner of a block of flats, hotel or boarding house, is an employer, and an employer has duties which he has to fulfil regularly. The only thing that is happening now, is that another duty is being added. An employer has many duties. He has to submit regular statements in connection with poll tax, sick funds, industrial councils, etc. The employer is simply being given an additional duty, and he will simply have to comply in order to assist the State and the population in that way. The employer will soon learn to accept this duty and to fulfil his duties regularly. No, Sir, the United Party’s objection is so minor and so petty that I do not know why they are wasting this Committee’s time on it.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat says that he cannot understand that we have so many objections to these minor points, but the hon. the Minister has just told us, and we wholeheartedly agree with him, that this notification of any change in address is one of the mainstays of the whole system. The Minister also told us that it is the primary responsibility of the person himself to give notification of his change of address. We also agree with that, and, as the Act stands, this is also the case today as far as the voters’ roll is concerned. But the Minister is going further and is introducing into the Act co-responsibility for such notification of any change of address. Sir, co-responsibility or divided responsibility does not work. The Minister should leave the responsibility with the person affected, the person who has the greatest interest in that matter, i. e. the person himself.

Now I just want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Waterkloof. He says we are disciplined people and that we shall educate the public to notify these changes of address. But for how many years have we not been trying to do so, and for how many years have we not been experiencing difficulties with our voters rolls? In the recent election there were constituencies in which people had changed their addresses, and there were 3,000 to 4,000 voters per constituency who could not be traced, although the law states that they should register their changes of address. Many of them went to the polls and found that they could not vote because they had neglected this duty. How many of us in this House have not had the experience of having given people change of address cards personally, requesting them to return them to us; and one returns two or three times, but they do not do so? We can forget about people doing this themselves without the State taking strong action and forcing them to do so. To divide the responsibility in this regard is to render this system utterly impracticable, and we should not make laws that are ridiculous.

The hon. the Minister, in reply to the amendment I moved, said that the Opposition was under a misconception as to what is entailed here; that we believe that this is going to remove the onus from the person concerned. With respect, this is not what has been said by hon. members on this side, and I think the hon. member for Green Point particularly put the position quite clearly. He did not allege that this removes the onus from the person concerned, but that it is going to be used as an excuse by that person not to notify his change of address because the onus is now placed on a third party and it is no longer necessary for him alone to do it because he is not the only person required to notify this change of address.

Order! That point has been raised several times already.

Very well, Sir. This very point was described by the hon. member for Mayfair as a trifle, a “kleinigheidjie”, whilst this is the same trifle which the hon. member for Parow referred to as the necessity for an “afdwingbare” measure. We have here one of the hon. members saying it is a trifle, while the other says it is essential, and that the Government should have the power to enforce it. Sir, this is the authoritarian attitude we referred to yesterday, to force people to comply, and that is why we are opposed to it. It has been pointed out that the notification of change of address is something which people should be educated up to, and this Government has had 22 years in which to educate them and they have not done so.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments; otherwise I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Then I conclude by saying that I stand by the amendment I moved and I should like to hear something more concrete against that amendment before this Committee decides on the point.

I fully agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that we should teach and educate the people, but he has to be taught in the first place.

Order! We have already heard that argument from quite a few hon. members.

The hon. member does not listen. I did not say that it was a trifle. I said the employer should be taught to do that work if it must be done. That is the trifle.

Question put: That subsections (2), (3) and

1. (4) stand part of the Clause.

Up to this stage we have dealt with what is in the register as such. We now come to what will appear in the book, the actual document which every person must produce on demand and which in practice every person is expected to carry with him, the information which must be shown, in terms of the clause which has just been passed, to a landlord or to a host with whom that person is living. This is the clause which says what the document will contain. I want to start by moving two amendments to this clause. On page 11. under subsection (2), the first item which will appear on this document is his identity number and the date of issue of the identity document. During an earlier discussion it was made clear by the Minister that the identity number, essentially for the purposes of the register, should necessarily include the person’s date of birth. I suggest that it is not necessary to have that number on the actual document carried by the person. If it is necessary for the Department to have the age in the number which is the person’s number in the register, that is well and good, but I suggest that there could be a different number which simply links the document to the person’s identity number in the register. In other words, you have an identity number in the register, but on your document you simply have a reference number which refers you to your identity number on the register. In that way a person could be traced to any information in the register and the register will have all the information the Department requires. However, the book that you carry will not have details of your birth indicated therein. It will then be a reference number and not the full identity number with all the details. In this connection I should like to move as an amendment—

Associated with this is subsection (2) (b) requiring a person’s full name, date of birth, sex and the country in which he was born to be shown in the book. In this connection I should like to move the following amendment—

With a few exceptions, Mr. Chairman, and one sees them occasionally, one can usually identify the sex of a person by looking at him. It seems to me to be unnecessary to have to produce a document to show what one’s sex is. There is to my mind therefore no justification at all for having this superfluous information in the actual document the name, the photograph and the appearance of a person ought to be enough to indicate sex. Moreover, there seems to be no earthly reason why a person’s country of birth should be shown on that document. If a person is a South African, a naturalized South African or a registered South African, why should he be required to show on every occasion he is required to do so that he is not a born South African? Many people are proud of being South Africans and having become South Africans they say, “I am a South African”. Now they have to go and show their documents, when it can be said that they are only “second class” South Africans because they were born in X, Y or Z. There seems to be no object in this at all. What person would require to know the country of birth of a person other than Government Departments?

Then there is the question of age. Hon. members opposite pooh-poohed this question and the Minister made light of it in his reply to the Second-Reading debate. But I have yet to meet a lady who does not want me to fight against this. Why, after all, should we go around divulging our age to everyone? Hon. members opposite can go and face the ladies; I would like it on record that the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Rissik are particularly enthusiastic to require every woman in South Africa to disclose her age to every person to whom she has to show her identity document. I want it on record that those two hon. members are particularly anxious that women should be required to divulge their age and I want it on record that they are supported by the whole of the Nationalist Party—that they feel it is essential for the welfare of South Africa, for the discipline and regimentation of South Africa, that every person who has to produce his identity document to, say, a post office clerk, or bank clerk, to any policeman and to any official should also disclose his age. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof does not worry me with those inane noises he makes. He used to make noises like that in the Herstigte Party and now he cannot get over it. So frustrated is he that he can only make unintelligible noises because he thinks he is not where he should be.

Mr. Chairman, I have moved these amendments to put it on record that we see no object in the document of identity disclosing information on age. We have no objection to it being shown in the register. We have no objection to your identity document identifying you as a person, i.e. by having your name and a reference number and your photograph. More than that is not necessary and no argument has as yet been put forward to convince me that it is in fact necessary. Instead of giggling like inane schoolgirls, let hon. members opposite get up and say why they consider this to be necessary.

To-day, and yesterday as well, the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke as if he wanted to give us the impression that he was a very scared man. Actually one gets the impression, looking at him, that he is not a person who scares easily. Is the hon. member so afraid of people asking him to show them his booklet so that they can take a look inside? After all, that booklet remains the property of the possessor. But in any case, what is inside that the hon. member does not want disclosed?—the name? the number? the sex? The hon. member said that one could in most cases determine the sex of a person by looking at him. To-day one cannot always do that. The age? What woman is going to show her booklet to the hon. member for Durban (Point) if he wants to know how old she is? No, Mr. Chairman, I think it is petty to argue like that. It seems to me the United Party is trying to scare people, that they are making election speeches and trying to bring the public under the impression that a terrible thing is going to happen to them now, that a terrible burden is going to be imposed on them and that everybody’s private life is now going to be thrown open to general scrutiny.

But why is it necessary?

Surely the hon. the Minister has already explained it. After all, we want to get as much value out of this document as is needed, and all the particulars which have to appear in it, are of value in some way or other. We already have all these things at the moment; all that we are doing now, is to combine them into one document. For that reason I cannot understand the objections of hon. members opposite. What do they have against the document having to indicate that I am a citizen of the country? What harm can that do?

I accept citizenship.

These particulars are, after all, not something of a harmful nature; nobody can be harmed by them, but they are in many respects of value.

Clause 9, as we have indicated in the Second-Reading debate, is one which concerns us greatly. Before dealing with the details of the clause, I should like to refer to the proviso to subsection (1) of the proposed new section 13. This proviso is to the effect that no identity document shall be issued to any person to whom a certificate of citizenship has been issued in terms of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970. The query which comes to mind is the relationship of the register which will be used for the Bantu by the Department of Bantu Administration and the register we are dealing with now. If a Bantu is taken up in the register in terms of this Bill, because he is in possession of a driver’s licence, where will the cross checking be done to determine whether or not he has received an identity document under the Bantu Citizenship Act? One can imagine the trouble that is going to arise because if a Bantu is in possession of a driver’s licence, he will be picked up in the general register with which we are dealing with here and he will normally be issued with a certificate unless he appears on the other register. Are we to understand that in the Department of Bantu Administration there is going to be an equally complex and expensive set-up of a computerized register to deal with the Bantu as there is going to be for the Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics under this Bill? And, moreover, where does the cross-reference come in? We should like the hon. the Minister to explain how this clause is going to work in this respect. One can understand it if the registration of the Bantu is run conjointly with the maintenance of the register for the other population groups; then I can understand that there can be an easy cross-reference. However, this may be difficult where there is to be a physical separation between the two registers.

Let me now deal with the contents of this clause. This identity document is neither one thing nor the other. It does not contain only the essentials for identification and if it is in tended to serve as a means of keeping together licences and other documents, then it does not nearly go far enough. So, we are in the middle with this. Let me give you an example. This House last year passed the Anatomical Donations Act, in which provision is made for donors to be given some means of identification, in the form of a tag or something to wear to indicate that they are potential donors and that they are agreed that, on their death, their organs may be used for transplant purposes. That is the type of thing one would like to see, if there is going to be a complete record. One find here the omission of such things as radio licences. If you are going to have a gun licence or a driver’s licence included in this book, why should you not have a radio licence in it as well?

What about a dog licence?

Sir, that hon. member becomes quite ridiculous at times. One can go further. If one has to have a radio licence mentioned here, why not have compulsory vehicle insurance shown as well? Surely one of the most important things to know about a person is whether he is covered and what insurance he has. Why is that information not included? One can go on and on talking about what can be included.

Do you want the bank balances indicated as well?

Mr. Chairman, toe hon. member is being facetious. I am saying that no principle has been applied to determine what should be included in this document, because already it does not include certain essential licences. Certain licences have been picked out here and there for inclusion. I can see no principle how these licences were selected. We have already said during the Second Reading that we believe in simple means of identification there is no need to issue to every citizen a miniature filing cabinet in which he can keep his licences. That is what it amounts to. This is a miniature filing system in which citizens can keep all their licences which the law requires them to keep in any case. We have agreed that the idea of a central register is correct. We have agreed that identity cards are necessary but why must every citizen be issued with a miniature filing system? This booklet, as it is proposed now, is in any event incomplete. I therefore move as an amendment—

This will, in effect, together with the amendment moved by toe hon. member for Durban (Point), mean that an identity document will be issued which will contain a reference number, the date of issue, the full name of the bearer and an indication whether the person is a South African citizen, as well as a recent photograph.

Mr. Chairman, the way in which the United Party is conducting this debate is rather interesting. On the one hand they are dissatisfied because too many particulars are being required in this document, and on the other hand they are dissatisfied because there are not enough. The pendulum is swinging between these two extremes. We will probably have to conduct this debate between those two extremes to-day. The hon. member for Green Point referred to the Bantu, who in terms of the homelands policy can obtain their own documents in their own homelands. He wanted to know how this system was to be applied in the case of Bantu who had driver’s licences here and who therefore had to have an “I.D”. here. He wanted to know what control measures would be applied in such cases. Thorough control will in fact be exercised over this, but this will be prescribed by way of regulation. From the nature of legislation we cannot include these administrative matters in a Bill. The hon. member can rest assured that these matters will in fact be regulated administratively.

The hon. member also expressed concern regarding tissue donors. It is the intention to include the necessary particulars in one of the “multiple” pages in the “I.D”., to which the hon. member referred the other day.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) suggested that there should be another identity number. It would entail tremendous duplication if we were to have one identity number in this booklet and another in the register. This is completely unnecessary duplication, which is quite unpractical. The hon. member also expressed his concern about people having to indicate their country of birth. I think most people in the world are proud of their country of origin. We are all proud to indicate our country of origin. Why should one be ashamed of one’s country of origin?

What is the reason for that?

It is required for our population register. We must have such basic particulars. In regard to the furnishing of a woman’s age the hon. member simply showed once more what kind of debating we are dealing with. I can but call it cheap politicking. The hon. member’s attempt to upset women because their dates of birth will be indicated is nothing but cheap politicking. This booklet is not shown to just anybody, as the hon. member said. The hon. member fried to suggest in a dramatic way that every woman would now have to show everyone her date of birth. What nonsense is this? Who would walk around with this book, thrusting it under everybody’s nose to show him what it contains? This is a per son’s private possession which will be used on suitable occasions.

Sir, I am afraid I cannot accept any of the amendments moved by the Opposition. These amendments are not intended to make this Bill function effectively. These amendments have one purpose only, and that is to render this legislation as ineffective as possible. Consequently I am not prepared to accept any of them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has misrepresented what I said a moment ago. I did not say that everyone had to show the book to everyone else. I said that the book would have to be shown to every one entitled to see the book. I went on to mention post offices, banks, etc. Now the Minister gets up and pretends that I said that women will have to show the book to everyone. Sir, he has not yet answered the question I asked, and neither has any hon. member on that side. My question was: Why should the document you carry contain all this information? I can understand why they want this information in the register. We accept that this information should be in the register. What we want to know is why this information should be contained in the book which one has to present whenever one is asked for one’s driver’s licence or one’s change of address, or when one goes to a bank or whenever one draws money from a building society, or whenever one does any of the things for which this book will be necessary. Why does one need to have one’s age, date of birth and country of birth mentioned in this book in order to identify oneself? Surely the purpose of this is to serve as an identity document and not a historical document. It is not an autobiography. It is an identity document. Why turn it into an autobiography? Nobody on that side, from the Minister down, can tell us why we should carry this information around with us. That is what we want to know. We are not querying the fact that this information should be in the register. We want to know why it should be on a document which one would have to carry with one. None of those hon. members has any idea why this should be the case. They say: “Because the Minister says so; Yebo, baba ’nKosi”, and they will vote for it, but nobody will give us any idea why this should be done. The Minister has not done so and neither has any hon. member on that side. They are not interested. They just do what they are told. Can the Minister tell us why this information, which we have proposed should be deleted, is required to be in the book and why we cannot have a simple identity document.

Mr. Chairman, this document is not only an identity document. It is also an abridged birth certificate. This is the reply to those hon. members’ repeated questions. This document is also an abridged birth certificate, and because this is the case, the data included in it are absolutely essential. It is not intended for identification only. These essential data which the register will show, are also necessary for the country’s planning in general.

i

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we had another example just now of the hon. the Minister clutching at straws and not understanding the questions that are put from this side of the House. I want to deal with the first amendment put by the hon. member for Durban (Point) concerning the necessity for having this identity number which in code has the race classification, date of birth, sex and all such details about the person concerned. The hon. the Minister himself has just replied that there is no necessity to produce the book on every occasion and that an extract from this identity document will suffice. Is there going to be no cross-reference between some document which is to be added to this book and the register itself? Is that number not going to appear on every marriage certificate, driver’s licence and firearm’s licence? Is it not going to appear on those documents? If it does appear on them, the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) is correct and the hon. the Minister’s argument in rebuttal of this point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point), is completely worthless. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if that number is not going to appear on the other documents, they are worthless because there is no way of tying it to the book to see that it is in the correct person’s book. That will be the case if there is no cross-reference between a marriage certificate, a driver’s licence, a firearm licence and various other documents which will be pasted in the book and the book itself. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can now see that point.

I want to deal with another aspect of this clause. I want to deal with the new section 13 (3) which refers to the Bantu and the details that the identity document of a Bantu may contain. I want to refer specifically to paragraph (c) of that new subsection, which states: " … if he is not a South African citizen, his fingerprints”. In the Second-Reading debate on this Bill yesterday, I asked the hon. the Minister about this requirement. Is it really the intention of the Government to put in the identity document, in this book, a complete set of fingerprints—eight fingers, two thumbs and two palms?

And 10 toes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter. That is just as ridiculous as my hon. friend makes it. It is ridiculous that it should be a requirement that a full set of fingerprints should appear in an identity document. As I explained yesterday, we on this side have no objection to the recording of thé fingerprints of an alien when he comes to the Republic. We accept the fact that those fingerprints should be recorded in the register. We accept all that but we do not see the necessity for recording a full set of fingerprints in an identity document such as this. For that reason I wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I think that the inclusion of fingerprints applies only to Bantu who were not born in South Africa, i.e. the Bantu from Malawi, or wherever, who are in this country and have no documents. I do not know what the hon. member can object to in this case. Fingerprints will not be taken of all the fingers either, but only of the customary one finger. This will also be illustrated for him in that book. This is a ridiculous argument and I do not want to dwell on it.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is a more practical man, and I want to address myself to him. This hon. member objects to the inclusion of the date of birth in this document. He says there is no one on this side of the House who knows why it should be required, and that we are now following the Minister like parrots. I am addressing myself to the hon. member for Durban (Point) now, because he is a practical man at times. In the first place he knows that if anyone applies to the Public Service, the Police or the South African Railways for employment, the very first thing he is asked at the employment office is: “Bring me your birth certificate”. If he does not have that document with him, he has to ask for an extract to be made for him from the register in Pretoria. All he would have to do now, would be to show his identity document to the employment officer, who would then satisfies himself as to his date of birth. Secondly, a person wants to take out a driving licence for himself, but he knows that someone under the age of 18 years cannot get a driver’s licence. He goes to the traffic department and applies for a driver’s licence. The very first thing they ask him is his age. He says he is 18 years old. Then they say to him: “But you still look like the hon. member for Florida. You do not look 18 yet. What proof do you have?” Then he has to write to Pretoria to get an extract from the register. The practical value of this identity document is that he will have it with him. Another very serious matter would be if the hon. member wanted to get married. When he goes to the person who will solemnize the marriage, that person must complete certain documents. The idea is that he will simply complete it in that book. The essential fact the person must know is how old he is. because a person under a certain age may not get married without obtaining certain permission. It is only practical that the date of birth should appear in it.

Then the hon. member also objects to the identity number. He wants to replace it with a reference number, but this again makes the whole matter impractical. He knows that the identity number, as it appears on the identity card he now has in his pocket, is used for the voters’ roll to-day, and it is an essential factor too. This must in due course be replaced by the identity number. How is one to draw up one’s voters’ rolls properly if one does not have that number? In this case one surely cannot use the reference number of your identity document.

Will that number appear on the voters’ roll?

Yes, the identity number will appear on the voters’ roll instead of a person’s present identity card number. The hon. member must now be consistent and just think a little. This House has accepted the principle that there will be such an identity document in the future to replace the identity card. Even though it may take five or six years, the identity card will eventually be replaced by this identity document. Then something must be used on the voters’ roll in place of the present identity card number. It could be nothing but the identity number. Surely it is unpractical that one first has to obtain one’s identity number from Pretoria when one has oneself registered. We on this side of the House are, in fact, of the opinion that this identity number can be of so much practical use. One of its advantages is that a Citizen Force trainee will not get another number when he is called up for service. This identity number will eventually be used for that. The Electricity Supply Commission could also use this identity number instead of their own number. The hon. member for Green Point objected to the 13 figures. However, this identity number is considerably shorter than the number under which a person is registered with the Receiver of Revenue, and in future the Receiver of Revenue will be able to use this identity number. A person will therefore have only this one number for all Government purposes. That is the practical purpose of it. At present a person’s race is indicated on his identity card. The fact that a person is white is indicated by a “W”. But on my identity card, which was one of the first to be issued, the word “White” still appeared. On the non-white’s identity cards the word “non-White” is also written out. If one shows one’s identity card to-day, the person to whom one shows it immediately knows what race one belongs to. It is necessary that there should be some indication on this identity document of the population group to which the holder of the document belongs. This is necessary in the case of marriages. It is also necessary when a man is run down in the street and eventually lands up in hospital. It is also necessary for the enrolment of children at a school. If a light-skinned child from a mixed residential area arrives at a school, surely it is desirable that his race be determined? Surely it is necessary to be able to deduce in some way or other what the person’s race is? These are only a few practical reasons why all these data are necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with the proposed section 13 (2) (k), which provides that, after a date fixed by the State President, the electoral division and polling district of the person concerned shall also be recorded in this booklet. The hon. the Minister represents an urban constituency, and as we realize only too well, he too will realize what an infinite number of changes there are, not only of polling districts within a constituency, but also of constituencies. Is it the intention that a person must return the book every time he changes his polling district or constituency? The arrangement is that there will be a small pocket at the back of the book in which a small card with the changed address can be kept, and any change of address will therefore merely mean that the card will be changed. But must the book be returned when a person changes his constituency, so that this fact may be indicated in the book? If not, will the change of constituency be recorded when a voter changes his address? If the book must be returned, an infinite number of problems can arise in connection with the return of the book to the holder. Administrative chaos will develop if thousands of books have to be sent back and forth in this manner. It happens every day that people change their constituences. It could then also happen that a person’s book is not returned in time before an election. I should very much like to have some information from the hon. the Minister in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the very last question, I may just tell the hon. member that it is not the intention that the identity document should be sent in when there is a change of address. The person must only send in the notification card which is kept in the back of the book. The change of address is then noted down in a register and the card is sent back to the person with his new constituency recorded on it. He therefore keeps the book and does not send it in. His new constituency is only recorded in the register. When the voters’ roll is printed at a later stage, the information is obtained from the register.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) referred to the question of the foreign Bantu—I emphasize, the “foreign Bantu”—who will have to furnish their finger-prints. He was very upset about the fact that they will have to furnish their fingerprints. I just want to call the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this is the provision under the existing Act. No amendment is being made in this connection. Section 13 (5) (d) of the existing Act contains this very provision. It is regarded as essential for the identification of foreign Bantu. The Department of Bantu Administration also regards it as an essential measure. There is therefore no reason for us to deviate from a system which already exists in the Act and which has been tested.

Mr. Chairman, now that the Second Reading has been concluded, I think we should have more particulars in connection with proposed amendments and certain proposals in regard to this clause, particularly as far as expenses are concerned. I think we expect more information from the hon. the Minister in this connection. The proposed section 13 (1) (b) provides that the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the receipt by him of an application for an identity document in the prescribed form, together with two copies of the photograph referred to in section 16 (1), issue an identity document to such person. The hon. the Minister is making this proposal, but has he investigated what expense this will involve for the ordinary citizen and also for the country as such? Firstly, there is the cost of the two photographs which every citizen will have to have taken of himself. Secondly, there is the cost to the Government itself, which is probably going to issue the identity documents. I hope this will be done free of charge, and that no extra payment will have to be made for it. Can the hon. the Minister tell us how many of these documents will eventually be issued, what the cost to the State will be and what the cost will be to the individual, who will have to have these particular photographs taken of himself? I hope he will investigate this thoroughly, because unnecessarily high costs may have to be incurred. I have here an extract from an American magazine in which it is stated that one can obtain a colour photograph on one’s identity document at 30 cents. This includes sealing and everything. I can let him have a copy of this extract. I therefore hope that he will also see to it that the cost will not be too large for the ordinary citizen. This is something that will run into, not millions, but tens of millions. Before I shall vote for this particular clause, it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what it will cost the ordinary citizen, and what it will cost the State, to get these identity documents into the hands of the ordinary citizen eventually.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I may just say that this identity document will be supplied to the public free of charge. They will have no costs in connection with the document itself. As far as the question of photographs is concerned. I may just say that if the identity card, on which there is in any case a photograph of the holder, is returned, it will not be necessary for photographs to be taken again.

The old one?

Yes, if the identity card is returned and the photograph is accepted, it will not be necessary to have new photographs taken. In connection with the hon. member’s concern about the cost. I may just tell him that if a person takes out a driver’s licence he must in any case have photographs taken. On the whole, this document will cost those who do have to have new photographs taken, much less than they have to pay at present for the large number of loose documents. I also referred, inter alia, to the cost in connection with the application for an abridged birth certificate. This is now being eliminated by this identity document. On the whole, therefore, this identity document should be much cheaper for everyone in the long run, including those who will in fact have to have new photographs taken.

First amendment proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and negatived.

Mr. Chairman, when hon. members on this side of the House, and particularly the hon. member for Durban (Point), made reference to the publicity which would accompany the use of these identity documents, it was suggested that they were exaggerating. Clause 10 indicates exactly the necessity for wider publicity of the nature of the document which is now to be issued. Hon. members will be aware of the fact that the principal Act as it stands confines to peace officers and persons authorized thereto in writing by the Secretary the right to call for the production of identity documents; a very limited and restricted field of persons. We can see that this is not going to be sufficient for this document. There must be a wider field of persons who are entitled to call for these documents.

Thus we come to subsection (4) which reads—

Having regard to the contents of this identity document and the terms of clause 9, one can appreciate the vast area which will be covered by this clause. This will have to be done if this book is to be effective. Instead of being confined to an identity document which must be produced on demand to a police officer, it will now be necessary to produce it to all traffic constables. They must have the right to see it because the driver’s licence will be in that document. It cannot be produced separately in the event of an accident or an investigation. When it come to the school-going child every principal of every school in South Africa will now be entitled to call for identity documents, because that is the only means whereby the child’s age can be indicated to the principal of the school. So one can go on to universities, to all educational institutions, to all employment boards or wherever it may be necessary to prove your age. Is this what we are going to have instead of an identity document which must be produced to peace officers and to all persons authorized thereto in writing only?

This is what we on this side of the House have been attempting to indicate to hon. members. This is no longer a private document. This cannot remain a private document and must now be laid open to a large number of people, as laid down in subsection (4). We believe that this is wrong. The hon. the Minister has not seen fit to accept our suggestion that there should be a simpler form of identity document. The consequence of this proposed clause will be that a wider group of persons will be entitled to see a person’s document. Accordingly I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has two objections. One is that a school-going child will have to show his identity documents to the principal. What is wrong with that? The document a school-going child has will be different from the one he will obtain at the age of 16 years. The only information on a child’s document, will be his name, address, sex and date of birth.

What about a 16-year-old who wants to go to a secondary school?

What will appear in that document includes his photo. After all, people who are married or divorced do not attend school. What is the hon. member looking for? As an Englishman would say, he is looking for a nigger in every woodpile. The hon. member also maintains that a number of people to whom these documents will have to be shown is being increased, but the number is, in fact, being decreased. The hon. member will notice that subsection (1) (b) is being deleted in the new section 14. In the past, any person authorized thereto in writing by the Secretary of the Department could request a person to produce his identity card. In that case such a person could see all the particulars on that card. That provision is being deleted now, and consequently the Secretary will no longer be empowered to do that. In the place of that provision another provision is being inserted which, in fact, curtails these powers, i.e. the provision that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette authorize persons to demand the production of identity documents. On the publication of such a proclamation, hon. members opposite wil be able to criticize specific cases. In that case they will be able to object with reference to a proclamation in the Gazette to the authority given to certain persons to request identity documents. In the past the hon. member had no knowledge of all persons who had been authorized by the Secretary to inspect identity cards. For the very reason that more particulars regarding a person will appear in this new document, the number of persons who may inspect those documents is being decreased and not increased, as the hon. member maintains.

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that we have the hon. member for Parow arguing on behalf of this side of the House, but he has just done so. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that in the past a person authorized in writing by the Secretary may ask any person for the production of his documents. The hon. member for Parow says, however, that this field will now be narrowed down. I do not agree with this and I do not think the hon. the Minister will agree with it. By proclamation in the Gazette a number of people will be involved and not only a few individuals who will get authority in writing from the Secretary. Why I say that the hon. member for Parow has argued on our behalf is because the very argument that he has raised is what strengthens the argument of the hon. member for Green Point, namely that it is only right that such a person should have some certificate of authority to say that he is empowered to demand production of this identity document. Section 14 (4) provides that—

In terms of section 14 (2) every person who fails to present to such a person the necessary particulars is subject to a maximum fine of R100. In terms of this new section, any person demanding the production of this document is not going to have any authority to show to the person that he is in fact authorized to demand the production of that document.

Why not?

Because he is going to be authorized in terms of the Gazette. He is not going to have a certificate from the Secretary.

It is easy to show the person the proclamation in the Gazette as proof of such a person’s authority. There is nothing which prohibits that.

There is nothing to prohibit it, but there is nothing to say that he shall have such a certificate as is provided for in the Act as it stands to-day. I am sure that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members in this House are aware of the cranks that exist in this country and throughout the world to-day. We all know of the people who pose as meter-readers or electricity inspectors to gain access to homes and flats. We also know of cranks who pose as police officers. Once it appears in the Gazette that a certain class of person may demand the production of this identity document, we are going to have cranks who will demand the production of these documents for various reasons, if only just to be cranks. It is not really for us to assist the hon. the Minister out of the difficulty he might be in, but I am prepared to say that this side of the House would consider the retention of the words in the old section 14 (1) (b) which are proposed to be omitted. But we do oppose the introduction of section 14 (4), which empowers the State President by proclamation in the Gazette to authorize a person whom I assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, will not have any certificate or identification to produce to a person to show that he is in fact authorized to demand the production of the identity document.

Mr. Chairman, when a child goes to school he is expected to show his birth certificate. The document he will get will be an abridged birth certificate. If such a child has to get a compulsory inoculation, it is necessary for the doctor to whom such a child is sent to have the particulars of such a child. Therefore it is being provided that the State President may prescribe what persons may request that document. I have already mentioned other cases. Marriage officers, for example, must have the particulars of a person before they can judge whether or not a person may get married. If a person wants a licence for a firearm, he also has to show his documents. The only thing stated in section 14 (4) is that the State President may specify that marriage officers, medical men, principals of schools, and others, may request these documents. The subsection clearly provides “classes of persons specified in the proclamation”. In other words, this means marriage officers, principals of schools, licensing officers, etc. This subsection also provides “and under the circumstances specified therein”. The proclamation is not issued for just any absurdity, but specifically for the purposes to which I have referred. This subsection is absolutely essential for the implementation of this section, and for that reason I cannot identify myself with the plea for the deletion of this essential provision.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, clause 14 is the clause which deals with offences and penalties in terms of the principal Act. Under clause 7 this Committee has already argued the question of whether the onus should be placed on a landlord, the agent for the landlord or a host to see that any person who occupies premises controlled by him, shall notify his change of address to the Secretary of the Interior.

In this particular clause with which we are dealing now, we find in subsection (f) that the Minister proposes to delete the words “subsection (1) of", that being of section 10. The effect of this is to make it an offence punishable by a fine of a maximum—for the benefit of the hon. member for Parow—of R100 payable by such a landlord, the agent for the landlord, a host or any person in charge of the premises, if he omits seeing to it that the person whose name appears in the register notifies his change of address. During the discussion on Clause 7 we, the official Opposition, expressed our opposition to the whole principle of placing the onus on a third party to see that a person notifies his change of address. This Committee has accepted that principle now. That clause has been accepted, so we are not permitted to argue against that principle now. But we intend now to move that the words “subsection (1) of” remain part of the subsection, notwithstanding the fact that this onus on a third party has now been established. We are doing this to lighten the burden on that third party. Once again I must refer to the attitude of the hon. member for Parow who used the word “afdwingbare”, this being the type of power which is necessary to enforce the measure. I want to bring once again to the notice of the hon. the Minister the attitude of this side of the House, namely that we feel that it is wrong that the onus should be enforced upon a third party. If the Government has failed in the past 20 years, the period during which it has had control of this Republic, to educate the people to notify their change of address, it is no good coming now with this sort of authoritarian measure to compel a third party to take the responsibility for somebody who has just not notified his change of address.

Mr. Chairman, I accordingly move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) made it perfectly clear that what he was concerned about was a penalty or criminal sanction being placed on persons for the failure of another person to comply with the Act.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan is now trying to escape from something which I should like him to notice to-day. I should like his people to know what his attitude towards third party responsibility is. When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) was complaining and asking “Why should the landlord be subject to penalties and criminal prosecutions when the tenant has failed to comply with the law”? the hon. member said “why not”?

Why not?

He continues to ask “Why not”? I think his constituents should know that that is his attitude. The amendment which has been moved is a simple amendment which means that the penalty and criminal sanction will only apply to the person himself whose address has been changed and who has failed to notify that change of address.

I am concerned about one other aspect which is high-lighted by this amended Bill, namely the consequence of the procedure now that an identity book will be issued automatically on birth to a person and that that book then lapses on the boy or girl attaining the age of 16 years. I wonder whether the criminal sanctions concerning the person who fails to apply for a new book are not too severe? The hon. the Minister will know that at the present moment—I am not thinking of the penalty—the procedure required by the Act as it stands, is that application should be made—

That means that the parents of a boy under 16 held his identity card. They will probably keep it and look after it. It lapses when the boy turns 16 years of age. If there is no new application the responsibility, criminal sanctions and penalty fall on the youngster of 16. The difficulty can be obviated in two ways. The one is by inserting into the law the safeguard that no juvenile of that age will be prosecuted unless he fails to complete the necessary application after having received a registered letter or notice from the Department. Although I had proposed to move an amendment which will indicate my intentions in this matter. I have some doubt whether it is an admissible amendment in that it deals with words in the Act as it stands at the present moment, except that the Bill before us introduces a substituted and not an amended section 18. To indicate what I have in mind I propose to move in line 39, page 19, to delete the words “became known to him” and to substitute “the receipt of written notice addressed to him by registered post informing him”. In other words, the provision will now read in this way—

What I am trying to ask for is that there should be provision for notification to that 16-year-old informing him what he is obliged to do, before he is made subject to the penalties prescribed in the Act. If the hon. the Minister will give an assurance that that will be done by way of regulation, then, of course, an amendment to the Act will not be necessary. Before I formally move this amendment I would like to have the Minister’s reaction to this safeguard. I am sure he will agree with me that we do not want to have youngsters subjected to prosecution when perhaps the fault lies with the parents in failing to draw their attention to the fact that they must apply for new documents.

It is our intention to do what the hon. member is asking for; it is an administrative necessity. As soon as a boy or girl has reached the age of 16 years, the Population Registration Office will address a circular to him or her to draw his or her attention to the fact that a new identity book must be obtained. This will be done.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who was again so concerned about the third party people and pleaded that punitive measures should not be applied to them, that, although it is the primary function of the person himself to give notice—we dealt with this point in a previous clause a while ago—this is a control measure, but hon. members know that if some penalty provision is not attached to a measure, whether it be a control measure or otherwise, it is an ineffective measure. In actual fact the hon. member’s proposal is therefore aimed at nullifying this provision. The hon. member is trying to achieve in another way what he could not achieve a while ago. I am very sorry but I cannot accede to his request. If one is given a task as a matter of responsibility by an Act, it is natural that there must be penalty provisions, and that is why it is inevitable that they must remain in this case as well.

Sir, the hon. the Minister’s closing words were exactly what we expected from that side of the House; they show the authoritarian attitude that we have been talking about all along. If the Act places an onus on a person, it places an onus on him and he has to pay the penalty; that is the hon. the Minister’s attitude. That is exactly what we are objecting to.

That is the way legislation works.

Yes, that is the way legislation works but what the hon. the Minister is doing in this case is that he is applying that type of legislation to an innocent third party, a third party who has not done a thing, a third party who has nothing to do with the offence which is being created. That is what the hon. the Minister is doing.

But we are living in an orderly country.

Yes, an orderly country, but how long is it going to be orderly if you place this sort of sanction on an innocent third party? It is the same as saying to an innocent bystander who witnesses an accident that he is as guilty as the person who caused it. That is what is happening here. I am sorry, Sir, I cannot accept this attitude on the part of the hon. Minister. It is typical of the attitude of this Government; this is exactly what they are doing and I want to stress the point that here we are placing a sanction on an innocent third party who has had nothing to do with the commission of the offence. I will accept that it is an offence if you fail to notify any change of your address, but we on this side of the House completely reject the proposal here to place this sort of penalty on an innocent third party who has nothing whatsoever to do with the commission of the offence, and we will vote against the clause.

I cannot quite follow the hon. the Minister’s reasoning in this matter. The hon. member for Orange Grove has made it clear this afternoon that the penal provision dealing with the individual who is required to notify his change of address has been on the Statute Book for 20 years and that nothing has been done to enforce that provision, up to a year ago. We do not know whether there has been a prosecution since then; I am not aware of any. The hon. the Minister says that we must do things in an orderly way. Why put this further provision on to the Statute Book if what has been there for 20 years has not even been tried? There has never been a prosecution for failure to notify changes of address. By all means, Sir, seek the co-operation of other people to prod the individual who fails to notify his change of address. But, Sir, if there are penalties to be borne, surely those penalties are penalties to be borne by the individual who has neglected to notify his change of address. I do not quite follow the hon. the Minister’s explanation when he says that this is necessary for orderly and effective legislation, because it has not been effective in so far as the individuals are concerned. I would appeal to the Minister not to impose these criminal sanctions against landlords. It is no good his saying to me, “We won’t prosecute the landlord”. If a landlord does not do this within 12 days and 45 days he is a law-breaker subject to prosecution. He is a law-breaker, whether he is prosecuted or not. I think it is highly undesirable that these penalties should be imposed when we seek the co-operation of the landlord for the benefit of the individual who has failed to fulfil his duty and for the benefit of the State’s records, because that is what it in fact is. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

Clause 16 deals with the power to make regulations and there are one or two aspects of this clause which we do not like and to which I would like to draw attention. Firstly one finds in the new subsection (1) (d) again this tendency to open the door in so far as the extent to which matters can be covered by regulation rather than by legislation. This is an occurrence which we find over and over again now with this Government. Matters which in the past have traditionally been settled by this House by specific legislation are now matters which they take unto themselves to do by regulation. Subsection (1) (d) as it now stands in the Act deals with the surrender or seizure of identity documents, which is limited in the case of deceased persons or persons who have left the Republic permanently or persons who have been exempted under section 21 from those provisions in regard to the production of identity cards. Clearly and concisely there are three instances where the cards could be called in and for which regulations can be made, namely death, on leaving the Republic permanently, and where persons have not previously been exempted from the necessity of showing their identity cards. But what does the Government do now? The Government now wants to leave out all those restrictions and to leave it solely in the hands of the Minister by way of a proclamation through the State President to regulate the place, the time and the method of the surrender and seizure of identity documents. Now, either these are important documents or they are not, and throughout this debate there has been stressed the great value it will have to the individual to have this identity document. Now the power to say that that document can be taken out of the hands of the individual is no longer as set forth in an Act of this House and approved by this House but can be done purely by way of regulation. In that regard I therefore move—

While on clause 16, I should also like to refer to the new subsection (1) (k). Here the power is to be given, by way of regulation, to deal with the issue of certificates of particulars contained in the register or in an identity document, the purposes for which those certificates may be used, and the evidential value of such certificates. I hope that hon. members will consider to just what extent this clause is now going, because it now deals with the issue of certificates of particulars contained in a register or contained in identity documents which have been issued to an individual, the purposes for which those certificates may be used, and the evidential value of those certificates. By regulation it will now be permissible, if we pass this clause, to say that a certificate produced by the registry, and containing information about a person which has been extracted from the register, shall be conclusive evidence of the facts contained in that certificate. That can be done, and one knows how dangerous such a procedure would be. In the first place we are starting a new register, a new system, and secondly, none of these systems can be totally infallible. I believe that this House should jealously guard against such a provision, where such a certificate, produced by a State Department, will have evidential value. I think we have to jealously guard the control over such a provision so that there will be no injustices at any time, or so that there will be no possibility of such injustices in the administration of our laws. This goes far too wide when a regulation can determine the evidential value of a certificate. Therefore I move further—

In other words, those certificates will then purport to be solely extracts or copies without any prescribed or predetermined evidential value in a court of law or for any other purposes. They then need be nothing but what they are, namely copies or extracts.

Mr. Chairman, the actual purpose of subsection (1) (k) is only to give legal force to excerpts made from the identity document. It is actually meant to be of use to the public. After all, it is no use excerpts being made to be handed in to the bodies concerned if those bodies do not have clarity or the conviction that these excerpts are correct and certified documents. This is the only object, and this will really be of assistance to the public.

The remark which the hon. member made in respect of paragraph (d), in connection with the surrender of documents, rather surprised me. It seems as if the hon. member wants to see something sinister in every line of this measure. The surrender of these identity documents, which is being asked for here, is only intended for correcting the identity document if it contains inaccuracies. If the Population Registrar were to discover inaccuracies in an “I.D.”, he should have the power to call for the surrender of that document in order to have it corrected. This is also a service to the public. Because these are the objects of these two provisions, I cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has in the first place missed the point of my second amendment. I quite agree with him that there must be regulations as to the production of copies of documents, but he misses the whole gravamen of my amendment, and that is: Why should the regulations determine the evidential value of those certificates? Whether this power is going to be used or not, Parliament is giving the Minister, by way of regulation, the power to say that a document shall be incontrovertible as to its contents if it has been signed by the Secretary and extracted from the register. It may, for instance, be said that I was born on the 20th of the month, even though I may in fact have been born on the 21st of the month, because of some error in the records. That is what I am complaining about. I am complaining about the evidential value, the weight which may be given to these documents. I should therefore like the words relating to this aspect of the matter to be deleted from the clause.

Regarding my other amendment, the Minister says that we are looking for something sinister in this particular clause. Sir, we look for something sinister in legislation of this Government which deals with the individual and the individual’s liberty. That is why we look at this matter not in the context of this Bill particularly, but also in the context of the attitude towards the increasing powers the Government is assuming to rule and govern this country by regulation. We shall oppose any effort to give power to govern by regulation more than is necessary for the efficient administration of a particular law. Sir, these provisions are not necessary solely for the administration of this Act. They go much wider than the necessity for administration and for that reason we are opposed to these provisions. and we should like to see them removed from this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member does not want to see the light which is shining here. These provisions are intended to be of real service to the public. Let me just mention an example. If a dealer requires a firearm certificate, the abridged excerpt which will be used must be able to satisfy that dealer that it has legal force. Then he will not be able to demand to see the identification documents, the book itself. The excerpt which is to be made must have sufficient legal force, so that it can satisfy such a dealer. On the strength of that alone, the dealer will then be able to serve a member of the public. For this reason I cannot accept the hon. member’s objection. I think that this measure is, in fact, meant to assist the public.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly in support of the contention of the hon. member for Green Point. Our objection does in fact relate especially to the use of the words “evidential value” and “bewyskrag” in the Afrikaans text. This touches a legal concept. It touches something which is very dear and precious to the courts and the rule of law in this country. It is perfectly clear to me what the Minister has in mind, and I think his intention is quite straightforward. The difficulty lies, I think, in the words themselves because, as the Minister has explained, he is really trying to establish the official validity of these documents. That is perfectly understandable, but “evidential value” means something different. Our objection lies precisely in tile words which have been used. I think that if the words were improved, the meaning would be clearer, and the danger which is inherent in this clause would be removed.

First amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).