This particular Vote, where a new Minister is administering a new Department, is one in respect of which we on this side of the House are seeking clarity as to the policy which the Minister intends to adopt in the administration of this new Department. This is an important Department. It is a Department which will look after the welfare of approximately half a million Indians: their welfare will virtually be in the hands of this Minister, the welfare of people who at the present time are politically voiceless but who, the Government has now acknowledged, form a permanent part of our South African population. There are certain aspects of this new Department in respect of which we should like to have further information from the hon. the Minister, particularly in regard to the welfare of these people. One of the gravest problems facing the Indian community is that of poverty. Those who come from the province of Natal will realize that some 400,000 of the Indian population live in that province. In a recent survey carried out by the Department of Economics of the University of Natal it was revealed that a large percentage of the Indian population were living in poverty. This survey showed that the average Indian earner supported himself and 3.6 persons on an annual income of R272. We also see from that survey that with the degree of poverty existing amongst the Indian community other factors play an important part, such as inadequate food, poor living conditions, etc., factors which lead to the high incidence of disease amongst a section of that Indian community. The whole question of the administration of the welfare of these people is one which requires very careful consideration. The hon. the Minister indicated in the Other Place that it was his intention to administer social welfare matters and social welfare services under his Department. This being so there is a vast number of questions which will have to be answered before we will be satisfied that the administration of this aspect of his Department will be satisfactorily conducted. First and foremost, Sir, there are three fundamental necessities to bring about a degree of success in the social welfare services to be rendered by this Department. Firstly, is the establishment of its own field service with the necessary trained personnel. Here, Mr. Chairman, serious difficulties are going to arise. At present the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions carries out the social welfare work. That Department has been fragmented due to previous legislation which has been passed in this House. With that fragmentation, fragmentation which we have consistently opposed, that Department will now have separate departments within in regard to the various racial groups. With the establishment of this Department of Indian Affairs we have a fourth group of social welfare services falling under another Department. One of the difficulties already existing in the field of social welfare is the shortage of trained personnel and the shortage of qualified probation officers and persons who are recognized to-day as social workers and who have gained professional status. The question of obtaining adequate staff for these field services, therefore, is one of paramount importance. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication as to whether he has in mind any facilities for making such courses available. Have any arrangements been made with the University College for the Indians in Durban, for instance, to give courses in social science? I believe the Minister will experience serious difficulty in finding suitable personnel.

The other important aspect in obtaining the highest degree of success in the field of social welfare work is the wholehearted co-operation of welfare organizations. We would therefore like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication as to whether consultations have taken place in regard to this particular aspect. There should be concerted effort on the part of the State, together with private initiative, to bring about a higher degree of results and success in regard to welfare work.

The other item which is a third fundamental necessity, to bring about the successful administration of these welfare services, is adequate financial subsidization of these services. Here, too, the question arises as to what arrangements have been made, if any, in regard to the necessary subsidies which must be given so as to ensure that those welfare services are continued. The other question which seriously concerns the welfare of the Indian community is employment. I realize that the Minister’s reply will be that I should raise the matter with the Minister of Labour, but if he is to be the custodian of the Indian people he must also interest himself in this very pressing problem of unemployment amongst the Indian community. It is estimated that some 20,000 Indians are unemployed in Durban at present. It is difficult to gauge the degree of unemployment from the statistics supplied by the Labour Department, because that merely refers to those who are registered for employment and does not take into account the large numbers of young Indians who leave school and find it virtually impossible to obtain suitable employment. Similarly, the Minister must interest himself also in the establishment of a school of industries for the Indians, although that falls under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but it is something which is seriously lacking at present. So the whole question of social services and the welfare of these people is a matter of grave concern. Another aspect which we have been told it is the intention of the Minister to administer is the pensions for the aged Indians. The investigations which take place through the office of the Protector of Indian Immigrants lead me to doubt the ability of this Department successfully to administer social services for Indians, because the experience in December last year, when the office of the Protector was moved to other premises in Durban, was that there were several hundred Indians, aged and infirm persons, who had to wait in the street in the hot sun for a long time, many of them collapsing, due to the fact that the inefficiency of the office caused unnecessary delay and hardships to these people. So it gives one a certain degree of fear and doubt whether they will be able to administer this Department successfully. The position in regard to the aged Indians and the amount they receive in pensions is another matter of serious concern, because due to the legislation passed by this House the ratio of these pensions is 12 to 6 to 5, the five-twelfths being the Indian pensioners, and that should receive the consideration of the Minister. These people now receive a maximum old age pension of only R9.60 a month. We know that the Budget proposals make provision for an increase in the pensions, but their share of the increase will be only 60 cents a month, or 2 cents a day. So these people who are suffering hardships will now become the responsibility of the Minister and we would like to hear from him what his policy is and what hope he has in regard to the successful administration of these welfare services. As I have said, we believe that the fragmentation of these services is not in the best interests of good administration.

At the outset I want to express my appreciation of the spirit in which this Indian Affairs Vote has been discussed last night and this afternoon. I believe that if we can approach this extremely difficult problem in such a restrained spirit and can succeed in keeping it out of politics, we shall be able to make a contribution towards solving the problem. I have been asked to set out my policy and I want to do so briefly because on another occasion I recently gave a fairly full explanation of it.

I want to begin by saying that the Department of Indian Affairs owes its establishment to the fact that the Government has realized that the Indians are a permanent part of the population of this country. Unlike all previous governments which tried to find a solution in repatriation—hon. members are familiar with the history—it was said for the first time in 1961 that the Indian people would be regarded as a permanent population group. For this reason they have their particular problems and needs which must be provided for. This does not mean that this repatriation scheme has ceased to exist. I have been asked to what extent this scheme is still being used. The scheme remains as a voluntary scheme which can be used with State assistance. This is a scheme which has not in recent years contributed greatly towards sending Indians to India. During the past two years only ten per annum were repatriated under this scheme, but the provision remains for those who wish to use it.

Just like other population groups, such as the Coloureds and the Bantu have their own Departments to look after their interests. I felt, that the Indians should also have a Department to look after their interests. The task of my Department is in the first place to guide the Indian people towards development so that they can have control over their own affairs to an ever-increasing extent and the community can be guided towards achieving a measure of self-government. The pattern which we shall follow will be more or less the same as that envisaged in respect of the Coloureds, but the details and the steps taken in that direction will have to be worked out in consultation with the Indians. That is why the main task with which my Department has concerned itself hitherto has been the establishment of points of contact, of consultative machinery between that community and my Department. For this reason not only have my officials made contact on various occasions with the Indians in the various areas, but I myself have held discussions with the Indians in Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape. Various organizations—and hon. members know of course that amongst the Indians there are a vast number of organizations—have offered their assistance and support to us. Amongst the persons who have offered their support are leading members of the Indian community—various members of the commercial community, various workers’ leaders and various people who are concerned with agriculture who have offered their assistance and support and have promised to build up the necessary contacts and consultation. At this stage I should not like to mention more names than I did on a previous occasion although I can mention far more names than I could at that time because this co-operation is being experienced to an ever-increasing extent. The reason why I do not want to mention the names of organizations or persons is because it has been found that as soon as I mention the names of leading Indians who wish to cooperate with my Department, the Indian Congress jumps in and through its methods of victimization and terrorization, the lives of those people are made difficult. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has referred to the Transvaal Indian Congress. One can of course understand the attitude of the Transvaal Indian Congress, just as that of all the other congress organizations, when one remembers that it is under the leadership of Dr. Y. Dadoo who is a listed communist. I do not want to say anything further about that organization except that in the ranks of the Indian community there is a growing resistance to the reign of terror of the Congress organizations. My experience has been that the influence of the Indian Congress is not really as great as would appear from newspaper reports because it must be remembered that the Congress movement which is well organized, although it has very few members in the country, nevertheless represents the most voluble group who are always running to the newspapers. But there is growing resistance to their behaviour. I can perhaps just refer to one incident to prove this. Recently the president of the Indian Organization, Mr. Moola, who originally was opposed to the establishment of the Department of Indian Affairs and expressed himself as being opposed to it, but who later offered co-operation and assistance on behalf of his organization, held a public meeting of Indians in Durban. There it was publicly discussed whether Indians should or should not co-operate with the Department. At that meeting the Congress was represented by Mr. Meer, one of their well-known leaders, and at that meeting Mr. Moola’s co-operative attitude received a tremendous majority on an open vote. This showed that there is a growing spirit of cooperation amongst the Indians. The experience of my Department and I myself is that the Indians throughout the country are establishing consultative committees which can serve as a mouthpiece of the Indians. Our problem hitherto has been that we have not known whom we could approach to speak on behalf of the Indians. The Indian Organization has on occasion claimed that it is the mouthpiece of the Indians and the Congress alleges that it is the mouthpiece. Thus there are many other organizations, such as welfare organizations, religious organizations, commercial organizations, ratepayers’ associations and tenants’ associations which are not connected with either the Indian Organization or the Indian Congress and they do not recognize those bodies as being their mouthpiece. It is impossible for me to hold discussions with all these hundreds of organizations and consequently I have put it to the Indians that it is their task to appoint representatives from their own ranks in the various areas who can make contact with the Government on behalf of the Indians. I lay down only one requirement, namely that I do not want to appoint those people because then they are immediately regarded as “Government stooges”. They must be appointed by the Indians themselves. I only lay down the requirement that these consultative committees must be representative of the various groups of Indians and their interests. In other words, I am not going to recognize a committee that only consists of representatives of the commercial community and not of the workers, or vice versa. They must be representative of all the various interests. For this reason my Department will become the point of contact between the Indians and the Government. Previously the Indian was in the difficult position that he had to go from pillar to post in respect of his various problems but at the moment the Indians are starting to make use of my Department in ever-increasing numbers as a channel through which they can bring their problems to the notice of the Government, and the extent to which they are already using my Department is shown by the fact that, shortly after I established the regional office in Durban and Johannesburg, I had to approach the Public Service Commission for an increase in the staff of those offices because the number of Indians who came to those offices asking for assistance was so tremendous that the original generous staff provision was inadequate to cope with the work in those offices.

Furthermore my Department has been charged with the implementation of all existing legislation as far as it affects the Indians directly. I do not want to go into that. I just want to refer to one aspect. My Department has already shown that, as regards the implementation of existing legislation, it is also essential that there should be a specific Department of Indian Affairs to deal with the particular problems of the Indians. Take for example the question of the visitors’ permits which an Indian requires to go from one province to another. My Department has now laid down for the first time that it is no longer necessary when a family is going on a visit to take out a separate permit for every member of the family but the head of the family can now obtain a permit on behalf of his whole family. I have also arranged that in the case of Indians who often undertake business trips it will no longer be necessary for them to obtain a permit on every occasion but that they can obtain a permit which is valid for a period. In the past if they had to go somewhere quickly on a Sunday, for example to attend a funeral, they just could not obtain a permit and they had to travel illegally. Provision has now been made so that they can easily obtain the necessary travel documents under such circumstances. Here we have already shown that in our administration we are giving some measure of recognition to the problem of the Indians. It is also my intention to study the existing legislation closely and I hope to amend this obsolete legislation—because in many respects it is obsolete—in the course of next year.

Furthermore it is my Department’s task to act as the co-ordinating organization between Government Departments and it is also the intention gradually to take over certain services which can conveniently be taken over from other Departments. This has had the result for the first time that a particular study is being made of the problems of the Indian people. It is also the intention of my Department to take over welfare services from 1 April 1963. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has certain objections to this, or rather he has asked certain questions to see whether I cannot remove his objections. I want to say at once that we must remember that the Indians constitute a population group with a completely different culture, language and religion to those of the Whites, the Coloureds or the Bantu and when one is dealing with welfare services and with the socially handicapped, the hon. member will agree with me that it is essential that one’s approach to these people should be through persons who are familiar with their religion, language, traditions and circumstances,—people who can understand their circumstances.

Will the staff of Social Welfare be seconded to your Department?

I shall answer that question. It is essential that this work should be done by persons who can understand the language and religion of these people and for us as Whites it is almost impossible to do so. For this reason it is essential if there is to be effective social welfare work that Indian welfare workers should be used. At the moment there are not enough of them and for this reason, when my Department takes over welfare work, officials of the Department of Social Welfare will have to be taken over, particularly those who have worked with the Indians in the past. However we are going to establish a specialized training scheme in order to train workers from the ranks of the Indians themselves and my Department is already engaged on negotiations with the Indian University College to make the necessary provision for this training. I therefore think that this take-over by my Department will in fact be in the interests of the Indian community and for the following reason as well: The close co-operation between the State and the community, and between the State and the voluntary welfare organizations. If a welfare organization wishes to be really effective amongst the Indian groups, then it should really be an organization consisting of Indians and the Indians already have many welfare organizations. That is why it is best that they should be linked to the Department which will deal with all the interests of the Indians. There can therefore be a far better link between the Indian welfare organizations and my Department than other Departments. As regards the provision of funds, I may just say that it will of course enjoy the attention of the Government when we have to make the necessary estimates.

The incident to which the hon. member has referred regarding the office of the Custodian in Durban unfortunately took place just at a time when the offices were being moved to new offices. I can assure the hon. member that the position at the moment is far better than it was in the past and various Indians expressed their appreciation to me when I was recently in Durban for the arrangements which have now been made in respect of this improved service, such as the payment of pensions, as compared with the previous position. This happened unfortunately at that time just before Christmas, and everyone wanted to draw their pensions at the same time, and this was also the period when the change over had just taken place. But I want to assure the hon. member that it will not happen again.

I have also been asked whether it is eventually the intention to take over Indian education. I want to say that my Department and the Department of Education, Arts and Science are engaged at the moment on an inter-departmental investigation into the functions being fulfilled by the Department of Education, Arts and Science in respect of Indian education and whether it will be advisable to transfer those functions to my Department. A decision has not yet been taken. In any case I think that in the course of time Indian education will eventually have to be transferred to the Department of Indian Affairs and eventually to an Indian Council if it is established, so that they can have more control over it themselves and also because I believe that the burden of Indian education is becoming too heavy for the taxpayers of Natal to carry. I think that this is a burden which can justifiably be spread over the entire Republic and I therefore think the time will come when Indian education will also have to fall under my Department and an Education Council.

My Department is also giving particular attention to the whole social and economic position of the Indians. The Bureau for Social Research of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, in co-operation with the Indian University College and my Department, has already been asked to undertake a socio-economic survey of the Indians. In addition my Department is instituting a careful investigation in co-operation with the Department of Labour into the employment opportunities for Indians because this is something which we must do; we must create more employment opportunities for Indians. The rate of population increase amongst the Indians is very high. We estimate that within 50 years there will be approximately 3,000,000 Indians. The possibilities for them to make a living in trade cannot be extended much beyond the present position. An estimate which I personally have made shows that about one-fifth of the Indians, that is to say 100,000, are directly dependent on trade, and the remaining four-fifths or 400,000 are already people which we should classify as falling in the workers’ group. This tremendous increase in the number of Indians means that employment will have to be found and will have to be created for them in other fields than commerce, and my Department is already engaged on this. We believe that one of the best methods of achieving this is to give the financially strong Indian the opportunity to invest his money in industries in the Republic in order thereby to create employment for Indians. That is why we are also investigating the possibilities for industrial investment by Indians. Furthermore my Department is considering the problem of housing and we are consulting the municipality and the Housing Committee in this regard. I just want to mention that many of these tasks which my Department is undertaking are not the responsibility of myself or my Department, but of other Departments, but that my Department forms the link and the co-ordinating factor in initiating these various steps which should be taken in respect of the Indians. For this reason my Department also constitutes the channel through which the Indian can submit representations to the Government.

This brings me to the hon. member for Germiston District (Mr. Tucker). He has referred to the group areas. Group areas are not my responsibility or the responsibility of my Department. My Department and I must accept the group areas legislation just like any other Department must do. But my Department for the first time is creating a channel through which the Indian has the opportunity, without having to appear before a group areas board, to bring his problems in respect of group areas to the notice of the Government. I think it is opening up a particularly effective channel in order to promote co-operation, because it is generally known that when an Indian appears before a group areas board, he appears there with the exclusive purpose of opposing everything while he would be prepared to co-operate in certain respects and in regard to certain plans. But now my Department provides a channel whereby he can convey his opinions to us and I can convey them in the proper manner to the group areas authorities. I just want to give one or two examples here of how my Department has already succeeded in effecting improvements on behalf of the Indians in respect of group areas. There was for example the case at Martindale where the Resettlement Board threatened Indians with eviction and court cases. After they had submitted representations to my Department and my Department had investigated the position, we succeeded in obtaining provisionally a year’s grace for the Indian traders in the Martindale area so that in the meantime other trading premises could be found for those Indian traders in consultation with the Department of Community Development before they were removed from the premises occupied by them at present. In the same way representations were submitted to me for example in respect of school facilities in Johannesburg; the hon. member for Germiston District also mentioned this matter yesterday. It is the position that there is a serious shortage of school accommodation in the Johannesburg area and that some Indian children at the moment are expected to travel 20 miles in the morning and 20 miles in the afternoon by train to schools in the Lenasia area. I made representations in this regard to the Minister of Community Development and a few days ago he notified me that he had instructed his Department to have the position investigated by a senior official of his Department, one official of my Department and one official of the Transvaal Education Department in order to try to find the best possible solution for this problem under the circumstances. As regards the Indian area in Pretoria there were for example transport difficulties. Originally the Indians there were expected to use the White buses, the Putco bus services. They made representations to my Department and asked why they could not have their own bus services there. Within a few weeks my Department had succeeded, after negotiations with the authorities concerned, in having a bus service allotted to the Indians themselves and to-day the Indians have their own bus service. Similar representations were also submitted in respect of clinics and hospital services, liquor licences, firearm licences and farming matters. These are all matters in respect of which the Indians have already approached my Department and my Department has consulted the authorities concerned. I can say that I am convinced that in the very short time this Department has been in existence, it has fully justified its existence. It has struck me from the contact which I have established with the Indians that they are proud of being accepted as a permanent part of the population of the Republic and I have formed the conviction, after discussions with them, that the overwhelming majority of the Indians have only one loyalty, namely to the Republic of South Africa. The Indians have assured me that even if it should come to pass, which they do not hope will happen, that there is war between for example the Republic and India or Pakistan, their loyalty will be to the Republic. I am convinced that the majority of them do have this loyalty to the Republic of South Africa and that responsible leaders in the Indian community will do everything in their power to restrict and to counter the work of the agitators in their own ranks. I have had the experience that various prominent Indians have shown me proof that even abroad they have done much to put the Republic in a better light and I am convinced that through the establishment of healthy contacts, the creation of opportunities for the Indians, we shall succeed in making it possible for the Whites and the Indians also to live together peacefully as neighbours in this country of ours.

I was very pleased indeed this afternoon to hear the hon. the Minister tell us of his efforts on behalf of the Indian community, and of his intention to press forward with the efforts to alleviate the difficult living and social conditions under which these people, who fall under his care, have been living. I am also very glad to hear that he intends to allow his Department to be used as a link and channel with and to the other Departments in order that these conditions can be alleviated. He has mentioned the case of the school-going children who have to travel 20 miles each way from Johannesburg to Lenasia, and I know that this was a particularly sore point with the Johannesburg Indians, and that their children were suffering great hardship as the result of having to travel this distance. Also the threat of existing schools having to close down is a very sore point, so I was very pleased indeed to hear the hon. the Minister say this. I hope that he will be able to use his influence as regards the group areas proclamations. I know he has said that group areas do not fall under him, but under his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, but, nevertheless, the hon. the Minister should be able to use his influence, particularly as far as the group areas of Johannesburg are concerned. The recent proclamations fall very heavily indeed on the Indian population there. Properties worth many millions of rand have now been transferred. …

You had better raise that with the Minister of the Interior; it falls under him.

Yes, I know, but unfortunately I do not have as much influence with the Minister of the Interior as the Minister of Indian Affairs has, and I am hoping that he will apply his mind to this particular subject and use his influence in this regard.

There is one other matter that I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do something about. Here, too, strictly it is not his Department, but I think it is very much his concern, because it concerns the case of an Indian. I am sure the hon. the Minister will not be unaware of this case of an Indian called Desai, who has been trying for the last seven months to get permission for his son, who is a student at Bombay University, who is writing his M A. degree, and who intends to proceed to the London School of Economics to read for his Ph.D. This young man has met a girl at Bombay University who is also writing her M.A., an educated girl, and wishes to marry this girl and bring her back to the Republic. He has been negotiating with the Minister in an attempt to get his permission, which, I understand, has so far been refused. I raise this case because I think if there is anything that the hon. the Minister can do to put himself in a position of, shall I say, well-being with the Indian community, to establish his credentials as far as his concern for this community is concerned, it would be to intervene in this case and to try to persuade his colleague to allow this Indian girl to enter this country after she has married young Mr. Desai. I want to say here that Mr. Desai, his father, his grandfather and his great-grandfather were all born in South Africa and, as the Minister has said, they owe allegiance to no other country and are loyal South Africans. This is a well-educated young couple, and South Africa could gain by the admission of such a couple to this country. Sir, I am no upholder of the caste system, as the hon. the Minister knows well, and I know that the caste system is on its way out in India, but the Government itself does uphold the idea of ethnic groups and racial apartheid. It so happens that the Desais belong to the highest of the castes in India, the Brahmin, and there are only three or four Brahmin families in this country. Under the Act which prohibits him from bringing his wife into this country, the Minister has a discretionary power. Under Section 3 of Act 43 of 1953 the Minister or an immigration officer, acting under directions issued by the Minister, can authorize a wife, in this case, to come into the country.

That is the Minister of the Interior.

I know, and I mentioned that originally, but unfortunately these two Departments are running parallel in the administration of Indian affairs in this particular case. I know that the admission of an Indian comes under the Minister of the Interior.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to refer to this matter, but this is something that does not fall under this Vote.

Sir, I do appreciate the latitude that you have given me. I just want to point out that Indians have to get passports under this Minister’s Department now. They have to apply for passports under the Department of the Minister of Indian Affairs: they no longer get passports through the ordinary Immigration Department, and that is one reason why I hoped to be allowed to trespass on the rules of the House in raising this matter. But I will, having made this public plea to the Minister, carry it a little further and express the hope that he will grant me an interview to see what can be done in this matter.

The hon. the Minister has just spoken about the inconvenience that Indian children have to suffer because they have to travel 20 miles a day to school and back again. In the first instance the Indians themselves are responsible for this. If they had been prepared to negotiate at an earlier stage and to approach the Government with the request that their businesses be removed to a certain area which, as I was given to understand while I was still a member of the City Council of Johannesburg, had been set aside for Indian occupation, namely Fordsburg, then the Indians themselves would voluntarily have gone to Lenasia, and that would have meant that their children would have had a school close at hand. I should like to hear from the Minister whether there is any intention of setting aside that portion of Fordsburg between Bree Street and Commercial Street in the future for Indian occupation.

That falls under the Minister of Community Development.

That is precisely the point; the hon. the Minister deals with Indian Affairs, and another Minister deals with another portion. …

The hon. member is now pleading for something with which this hon. Minister has nothing to do.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

We know that the electoral machinery of any country is a very important instrument that is used to assist those who are entitled to vote to send their representatives to the legislative organs, because in practice it is impossible, of course, for all those who are entitled to the franchise to govern the country. The electoral machinery is very important therefore and it is based on a few important fundamental principles; in the first place it is designed to ensure that all those who are entitled to vote are enabled to cast their vote. At the same time it must ensure that persons who are not entitled to vote will not be able to cast a vote. In applying these principles, there are quite a few problems which arise, and I want to mention just a few of them. The first is to determine who is entitled to vote; the second is how the names of the voters are to be registered; the third is where and when the voters’ names have to be registered; fourthly, where and when and how they have to cast their votes, and fifthly, what arrangements should be made to ensure that there are no dishonest practices. In the first instance, of course the responsibility rests on the voter to ensure that his name appears on the list of the constituency in which he resides and that his vote correctly reflects his choice. But it is a fact, in this country as in most countries of the world, that in this respect the State has to assist the voter, and assist him to a very great extent, and see to it that he fulfils the correct function. It is the duty of the Government therefore to ensure that the electoral machinery functions so smoothly at all times that the best possible results can be obtained. In order to bring this about various meetings have been held during the past two years between officials, representatives of political parties as well as the manufacturers of office equipment. In addition to this a very thorough investigation was instituted by a team of Organization and Method experts, under the leadership of a Public Service Inspector. Last year a Bill containing the acceptable results of these investigations and discussions was introduced in this House and referred, after the second reading, to a Select Committee which, owing to lack of time, unfortunately could not complete its report. This year a further Bill which in the main, with only few exceptions, contained the same provisions as the previous Bill was referred to the Select Committee before the second reading, and this Bill which is now before the House is the outcome of the Select Committee’s deliberations. At this stage I want to make use of this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the members of these Select Committees but particularly to the members of the last Committee which completed this task. I want to thank them specially for the very good work that they have done, of which this Bill is tangible proof.

I believe that as the result of all the negotiations and discussions that took place, and the opportunity which hon. members on the Select Committee had, to discuss and to investigate matters, most of the provisions of this Bill will meet with general approval. The provisions of this Bill deal with a great variety of matters, which I can divide into three main categories. The first category consists of proposed amendments which are necessary in order to mechanize certain processes in the electoral offices. The second category consists of proposed amendments which are calculated to obtain fuller results at elections and the third category consists of proposed amendments which are calculated to bring about improvements generally and to eliminate certain obscurities.

I propose to deal briefly now with the first two categories together. The Organization and Method officials co-operated with the representative of political parties and of manufacturers of office equipment, and they came to the conclusion that certain processes connected with the compilation and the reproduction of voters’ rolls could be performed more efficiently and economically by mechanical means. This will not only bring about a considerable saving of money but it will also be possible to place the voters’ rolls at the disposal of the political parties much sooner and in greater quantities than in the past, and they will also be much more up to date. Although the acceptance of these mechanization proposals will entail an initial capital expenditure of approximately R54,000, it is estimated that it will be possible by means of mechanization to bring about a saving of possibly R600,000 within the first five years after the introduction of mechanization.

The main aim of certain provisions of this Bill, with which I shall deal shortly, is the introduction of mechanization. At the outset, however, I want to say clearly that although these amendments are being brought about mainly with a view to mechanization, the Bill has been framed in such a way that it is not imperative to introduce mechanization at this stage already. If mechanization is introduced, it is the intention to make a start with it at the first general registration which may take place this year in terms of the provisions of the Act. The object of a general registration of voters is to draw up an entirely new voters’ roll containing the latest information concerning every voter. The only source where this information can be obtained is from the voter himself, and that is why it is proposed in Clause 4 of this Bill that when the voters’ roll is compiled after the general registration there will be no transference of names from the old voters’ roll to the new voters’ roll, with this exception, however, that this clause protects the vote of certain voters in Natal against any possible interference. All persons entitled to vote will have to fill in and complete a new application for registration as voters at this general registration.

The amendments contained in Clauses 4, 5 and 9 clearly bring to the fore the important proposal in Clause 9, that is to say, that a general registration of voters must take place on a specified day such as 1 June 1962 for example (just as in the case of a census the registration has to take place on a specified day) instead of the 90 days, period for which provision is made in the present Act. All persons who are entitled to vote have to furnish details in their application for registration as to their position on that particular day, and the applications have to be submitted within 30 days after the specified day. Voters will then be registered in the constituency in which they actually resided on the specified day, so that it will not be possible for voters to register twice or more than twice, as they were able to do under the 90-day period.

What do you mean by “actual place of residence”?

The place where the voter is resident on that day, not where he is visiting but where he is resident

Clause 6 contains the provision that failure on the part of a person entitled to vote to fill in the full particulars on the form will not disqualify him. We must take into account the possibility that the form may not be completed down to the last detail, but the voter will not be disqualified as long as the main particulars have been indicated clearly on the form.

In their applications for registration voters will also be expected to furnish their identity number for identification purposes and for the purpose of inclusion in the voters’ roll, as provided for in Clause 10. I am not going to explain that here now. It is quite clear to me from the report of the Select Committee that as far as this matter is concerned there was a difference of opinion in the Select Committee and we will probably still have ample opportunity to discuss this matter across the floor of the House. Voters in South West Africa will not be required to produce identity numbers. As a matter of fact they have no identity numbers because the Population Registration Act of 1950 is not applicable to South West Africa. These identity numbers are absolutely essential for the mechanization process, and this system is being introduced mainly so as to be able to establish a voter’s identity beyond any doubt and to fulfil the fondest wish of both parties, and that is to eliminate phantom votes.

In Clauses 25, 35 and 62 it is provided, however, that voters may be called upon to produce their identity cards on polling day and for postal votes as from a day determined by the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette. These provisions do not come into operation immediately therefore because at this stage it is not possible to determine when the appropriate stage will arrive, but as soon as the Government deems it desirable it will be brought into operation. Here I want to issue the warning in advance that hon. members must not look for sinister motives behind this provision. The position is simply that it is necessary for the process of mechanization. If the proclamation date affects any party adversely, then it will affect all parties in this country equally adversely, and it would be very foolish on the part of a governing party to proclaim a date which is inoppotune and before the system has been tested out. I do not think that this need be much of an obstacle. Clause 16 of this Bill provides that the maintenance of a central index for the comparison of voters’ rolls is left to the discretion of the chief electoral officer. The reason for this is that it may be possible, as the result of mechanization, to do away with this index, which will mean a considerable saving in money and manpower. But this is something which we cannot apply immediately; we cannot lightly do away with the index until such time as we know to what extent the new process of mechanization that we are going to apply is going to be a success.

It is always the aim to create the opportunity for as many voters as possible to cast their vote, but at the same time, of course, no opportunities must be created for abuses. In this way fuller results can be obtained at elections, and for this reason it is proposed in Clause 19, read in conjunction with the definition of “public means of transport” in Clause 1, that persons who have reason to believe that they will not be able to visit a polling station on polling day because of the fact that they are employed on public transport services, will have the right to vote by post. There are many people employed on trains and on municipal and other buses conveying passengers, who are not more than 10 miles away from a polling station on polling day, but as the Act reads to-day they cannot vote by post. Although they are less than 10 miles from a polling booth they do not have the time to visit the polling station. This amendment is designed to come to the assistance of this type of voter. Then again, the voters on Bird Island and in the Caprivi Zipfel, because of geographical factors, find it difficult to get to a polling station, and that is why it is proposed to extend the same concession to them.

In Clause 25 (h) voters who are registered in rural constituencies and who are staying at some other place on polling day are authorized to have their postal ballot papers delivered to the nearest presiding officer in the constituency concerned if they have to vote by post because of the circumstances in which they find themselves on polling day. Unless this provision is inserted, the voter would have to have his postal ballot paper conveyed over a very long distance to have it delivered to his returning officer. In this way we will be saving a great deal of trouble and expense, particularly where the polling booth is a long distance from the office of the returning officer.

This Bill contains 62 clauses and so far I have only been trying to deal in broad outline with the effect of most of the clauses which fall under the first two categories that I mentioned, namely those which are calculated to introduce mechanization and to bring about fuller results at elections.

I should like to refer now to the most important provisions in the third and last categories, that is to say, those clauses which are designed to eliminate obscurities and to bring about general improvements. It will be appreciated that most of these clauses deal with isolated matters, which have nothing to do with each other really but which are all equally important. There are many such provisions, of course, and perhaps they can be dealt with most fruitfully in the Committee Stage where we can then go into the details. But I do want to mention just a few. In Clause 3 it is proposed that six persons who were found guilty of high treason before 1950 and were therefore disfranchised for the rest of their lives, will again be offered the opportunity to take part in elections. This is nothing new. The same opportunity was offered during 1931 to all persons who had been found guilty of similar acts before 1930, and the community has never had cause to regret the fact that their franchise was restored to those people, and I do not think that it will have cause for regret in this case either.

Clause 3 further provides that a person who is given a suspended sentence because of the less serious nature of his offence and who is disfranchised for the duration of that suspended sentence and for a period of three years thereafter, will only be disfranchised for the usual period of the duration of the sentence and three years thereafter if that suspended sentence is actually put into operation. We feel that that is the reasonable and the correct approach to this matter, because as this section now reads it hits people unnecessarily hard.

A further amendment is that contained in Clause 58, which deletes all the relevant sections in the principal Act and which now eliminates statements and returns with regard to election expenses and other statements and returns. Hon. members all have experience of this. We know that in many cases it is doubtful whether one can give an amount which is even approximately correct. We who have had experience of fighting elections know what happens. The relevant sections probably served a good purpose in their time, but I think that under present-day conditions they are absolutely redundant.

Clause 41 also contains an amendment of importance. There it is proposed that the returning officer must count every ballot paper as long as there is some clear mark or writing (except the voter’s signature) to indicate for which candidate the voter has voted, except on a postal ballot paper on which a vote in favour of one candidate cannot be altered into a vote in favour of another candidate.

I think these few explanations will suffice. It is unnecessary to deal with this Bill at greater length. I think I should rather leave it to hon. members themselves to mention difficulties or to raise objections where they differ: I think we can spend our time more usefully by dealing with the matter in this way. Before I conclude, however, I just want to say a word or two with reference to the report which has now been submitted. I have great pleasure in saying that the Government has decided to accept the second report of the Select Committee, namely that a commission of inquiry consisting of members of this Select Committee be appointed in due course to inquire during the recess into the postal voting system—the thorn in the flesh of elections—and then to submit a report, we hope next year, when Parliament meets again. In view of this request which is now being granted I propose to move in the Committee Stage that Clause 25 be amended by the deletion of the provisions in terms of which we were going to do away with the two witnesses who are required at present to sign the declaration of identity of an absent voter. In view of the fact that the whole of the postal voting system is going to be inquired into, I propose to bring about an amendment in this respect therefore. The Commission can then put forward its proposals after having gone into this matter. As the result of this I shall also propose in the Committee Stage that Clause 29 be deleted and that certain adjustments be made in Clauses 61 and 62. In connection with Clause 61 I want to save hon. members some time by announcing at this stage that for reasons of clarity I also propose to add a provision to Clause 61 to the effect that the definition of “European” in Clause 1 (e) will not be applicable to South West Africa because the Population Registration Act is not applicable there.

I shall also move that Section 80 of the principal Act be amended further than is proposed in the present Clause 38. The amendment will have this effect that a person will be able to prove his identity in any way to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, not only in the way which is prescribed there. This provision is necessary to enable the presiding officer to cope with what may be large-scale objections on polling day, particularly since it will now be possible to submit objections by way of a whole schedule of names.

Having given these few explanations, I do not think I need take this matter any further. I shall place the amendments which I have mentioned on the Order Paper as soon as the second reading has been passed so that hon. members may study them.

I should like to express appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the announcement with which he concluded his speech and also for the manner in which he presented this Bill to the House. He has in the last few minutes of his speech dealt with many of the objections which concerned those who have had to deal with the Electoral Act.

The hon. the Minister started by emphasizing the importance of electoral legislation. I would like to support him there, and I go further, because this Act which we are amending now is the last bulwark between a free people and totalitarianism, and therefore is the one weapon which the Minister and this Government has to defend itself against any attacks of failure of democracy. This Electoral Act must ensure for those people of South Africa who are voters their right to a free choice of a free Government. Therefore I want to approach the measure not in a party spirit but in a spirit of seeking the best possible machinery to give us the freest and fairest elections which our people can enjoy. Now even with the amendment which the hon. the Minister has indicated there still remain a few aspects about which we are not happy.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the measure under three headings. He dealt with the opportunity to vote, the secrecy and freedom of the vote and the elimination of abuses. I would like to look at it from the aspect of the four fields with which it deals. Those are: (1) The registration of a voter, (2) the identification of voters, (3) voting by post, postal ballots, and finally (4) the administration of elections themselves. I feel that those are the four categories into which this measure can be divided, and in order to pinpoint the difficulties which we have on this side of the House, I want to move an amendment. I do so with this clarification. We are dealing with the measure as it is now presented to this House. The hon. the Minister has announced that certain changes will be made. Those changes do not appear in the Bill before us as yet; therefore our attitude to this measure must necessarily be based upon what we are being asked to vote for. Therefore I move—

1. (a) it will result in the large-scale disfranchisement of voters;
2. (b) it lends itself to the packing of constituencies;
3. (c) it extends the possibilities for abuse of the system of voting by absent voters; and
4. (d) it extends the application of the Population Registration Act, 1950, to the registration and identification of voters”.

I move this in order that we may pinpoint those issues which concern us. I come first to registration. In regard to the question of registration our first objection is to the provision which re-enfranchises persons who have been sentenced for treason in South Africa. We object to this in principle, because we believe it is wrong to say that because you have changed a government, therefore people who committed treason against the state should be forgiven and re-enfranchised. “Treason” is not committed against a political party, or a government, but it is committed against the state. We do not believe that because there is a change of government, you should then forget acts against the state as such. Just as little as we believe that you should change this provision now as little do we believe that a person who commits treason under anti-communist legislation or other legislation against South Africa should be re-enfranchised by some future Government because there is a change of government. So we object to this provision in principle and we will move for its deletion when welcome to the Committee Stage. I will give an example, Mr. Speaker. This Government will remember that it had in its own Senate last year a person who under the current legislation to-day could be had up for treason. But because he was a Nationalist member I never heard that raised as an objection. But when a person is in conflict with the Government, then you should not hold a different point of view. The law is clear and should remain as it is.

The second aspect is that of Coloured voters, which I will deal with as a group. There we welcome the provision in this Bill which provides for a guarantee in respect of the rights of Coloured voters in Natal, who otherwise would be disfranchised. One point which will be dealt with by other speakers, and which therefore I will not elaborate upon, is the position of voters who are on the voters’ roll today as White voters and who are subsequently reclassified. That important matter will be dealt with later and therefore I will not go into details now, other than to bring the matter to the Minister’s attention as one of the issues which will require reconsideration. The other changes are welcome—those changing the wording of “wages and salaries” to “income” as a qualification, which is reasonable, and the provision that Senators, Members of Parliament and Provincial Councillors may act as commissioners of oaths for the registration of Coloured voters… Those are two provisions which we accept.

The next provision which we accept as well is that dealing with imprisonment and suspended sentences. That too will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and will eliminate a tremendous amount of administrative work where in fact no real offences have been committed, such as we had the other day when a person was sentenced to suspended imprisonment unless he removed a lavatory which was in his backyard before a certain date. That is no cause for a person to be removed from the voters’ roll for a suspended sentence and we agree with the alteration that persons should not be removed unless a sentence is actually applied.

But now we come to the real meat of the registration system, and that is the system of general registration. Here again in principle we agree with the Minister’s approach, his approach that you require a clean voters’ roll, and therefore the only way to get a clean voters’ roll is to ensure that you have a complete registration of persons on a particular date. But flowing from that we believe there are two evils which can result and which must be countered. The first is, Mr. Speaker, that by selecting a specific date and registering people on that particular date only, many tens of thousands of voters will be disfranchised.

Why?

I refer for instance to all those who are overseas on business or on holiday and who on that date are not available and cannot state that their residence was at a particular address on that particular date. Should they return and there should be an election before the next supplementary registration subsequent to their return, then those tens of thousands of people would be disfranchised. There are people who are travelling, people who go on a motoring holiday, people who are in the Game Reserve.

People who are ill.

People who are ill could be found. But people who have no fixed address on the date on which a general registration takes place, would subsequently not be able to vote. Through no fault of the electoral office or of the voter himself, there would be a large number of people disfranchised. Secondly, we feel that the period of 30 days which is allowed for a general registration will be insufficient to do a complete general registration, to visit every single person in South Africa, to test whether he or she is qualified as a voter and to get their cards completed. But assuming that that would be possible to superficially cover every voter, there will inevitably be tens of thousands of people whose registration cards will not be completed. By tradition people in South Africa have become used to the fact that provided they are on the voters’ roll, they will find their name there next time they come to vote. They have not had to re-register unless they moved their address. This Bill provides that the old voters’ roll disappears completely and that every single voter will have to complete a new registration form. We will suggest in the Committee Stage proposals which we believe can counter those two possible evils which might flow from the Bill. The first would be to lay down in this measure, in the clause being amended, that if an election should be held before the coming into force of the first supplementary voters’ roll after a general registration, the old roll should be the roll in force. In other words to give an opportunity for people missed at a general registration to be registered at the next supplementary registration before they are called upon to vote on that particular voters’ roll. In practice it would ensure that no election were held in between a general registration and a supplementary registration.

There won’t be an election so soon.

The hon. Chief Whip can’t be so confident. I have seen many of his members kicked out by the leaders and put on some ash heap somewhere. It may happen to him. He may be made Commissioner-General of some Bantustan, and then there would be a by-election. He cannot say that there won’t be an election. There can always be elections, and we want to be sure that if an election is held in between a general registration and before the first supplementary registration, you will not have disfranchised voters.

But the other aspect, and a far more serious aspect, is the possibility under the procedure laid down now of packing a constituency, of a political party packing a constituency.

What do you mean?

Oh, the innocent hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling)! That smile on his face gives him away. Let him ask the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) and others. It is possible under this legislation to register people legally and quite correctly under this law at an address which is going to be a temporary address, and those people can then move the day after the general registration. They can then remain on that voters’ roll for five years to come, or until the next general registration. And there is no compulsion for those people to notify their change of address. We want to ensure that all possible abuses are eliminated. Because this is not an abuse that only applies to one party. It can be exploited by any party, by any group, and we don’t want to have machinery capable of exploitation. It is the same with the other issues with which I am going to deal later. It is not a question of which party can abuse the law more. It is a question of eliminating the possibilities of abuse. That is the issue to get rid of abuses or potential abuses, and not who can find a loophole and use it to the best advantage. In this particular case it would be equally possible for us or for the Government side to abuse this provision. The answer to that and the only answer is to make it compulsory for a person who has moved from a fixed address at which he was registered to register at his new address. It is the only way of dealing with it. The hon. the Minister cannot say that he wants a clean voters’ roll—with which we agree—as long as this provision that a person may remain quite legally registered for five years at an address which is no longer his address, stays. It would enable a group of people moving into an area to register legally there and then to remain registered there until the next general registration in five years’ time, and vote there in a general election or in a by-election. All we are asking, and we have asked for this before, is that it should be compulsory for a person to give notice of his change of address after he has left for a fixed period. Now the hon. the Minister will say that that would re-introduce the old objection system and all the abuses that flow from it. That is not so. You would only re-introduce that system if you made two amendments, one making it compulsory to give notice of a change of address and the other making it compulsory for the electoral officer to remove the name of a person from the roll if he had left his address. If you make it compulsory for a person to give notice of his change of address and you retain the provision that a name may not be removed from the voters’ roll unless the person has left the country permanently, or has died, or has been registered in another constituency, then you eliminate the objection system with the abuses that flow from it. But you lay a compulsion upon the voter, just as it is compulsory to register as a voter, to give notice of his change of address. It is no argument to say that people are not prosecuted if they don’t register, and therefore what is the use of making it compulsory to give notice of a change of address because they will not be prosecuted. The point is that you place a legal obligation on a person and if a canvasser of either party goes to a person and says: “You have changed your address permanently; you are obliged by law to change your address” then that person will have a legal compulsion to change his or her address. So we ask not for the re-introduction of the old system, but for compulsory change of address when a person has left his address permanently.

The other issue flowing from registration can be dealt with better in the Committee Stage. I think the main issue which we have to consider in principle is the issue, firstly, of the packing of constituencies, and, secondly, of the people who will inevitably be missed at a general registration, and who will, therefore, be disenfranchised until such time as a new supplementary voters’ roll comes into force. I do not want to deal with the voters’ roll in detail, except to say that it will be difficult for political parties to work without the Christian names of voters. I realize the mechanical problems, and I realize that it may create tremendous problems in the administration of mechanization if you do not have that. But I do feel that some regulations will have to be introduced to deal with persons with the same initials in the same constituency. At the Committee Stage we will go further into the possibility of some sort of supplementary list giving the full names of people with the same name and initials in the same constituency.

Another matter about which we are not entirely happy is the abolition of the central index. Duplications are quite easy to control when they occur within one constituency. Even if you can eliminate them within one electoral office area, it is the duplications in. say, Johannesburg and Cape Town which are more difficult to control. The only way we can see of controlling that is the retention of the central index. Unless there is some type of machine which will be able to sift and control every voters’ roll in South Africa, it will be necessary to retain the central index and to use it for the elimination of duplications.

I want to deal with the second aspect, and that is the aspect of identification which ties up closely with registration. Here again we feel that the introduction of the Population Registration Act is something which will create hardship for the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, that hon. member will experience a hardship when his voters come to vote and they say: “I cannot find my identity card”, and they have to go home without having cast their vote. Our interest, like the Minister’s, is to ensure that every person entitled to vote will be able to exercise his or her democratic right. We believe that, although identification is necessary, the rigid use of the Population Register is a system which will not meet this need. It is essential that we have proper identification of voters, but this measure, the Population Registration Act, is a measure which we believe to be impractical and unreasonable. We cannot be party to applying to our electoral system a measure which we believe to be a bad measure. Therefore, to taint the electoral machinery of South Africa with a measure and with a system which has in itself a political flavour, and therefore automatically becomes a matter of contention, and which, secondly, can be claimed, because of its political flavour, to be a one-sided measure forced upon the country without the cooperation of both sides of the House, is something to which we cannot agree. We would like to see the Electoral Act free of any issue which is going to be a matter of party political contention and which will, therefore, give to our electoral machinery as such a party political flavour. The Electoral Act should be, as far as it is humanly possible, an agreed measure, a measure which both sides of the House can accept fully and wholeheartedly and without question. The introduction of this Population Registration Act and the identity cards into the Electoral Act is not something which will instill the confidence in the electorate which is so essential.

Why not?

Because on 13 February this year the hon. the Minister himself said that there were 49,000 White people in South Africa without identity cards, that only 2,026,000 Whites had received their identity cards, and that an estimated 49,230 had not yet received their cards. But not only that, Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister’s Department stated that 8.9 per cent of all registration cards sent out from the Department did not reach the recipient and were undelivered by the Post Office. Up to last year the figure was 2,066 cards undelivered, amounting to 8.9 per cent of the cards sent out. I understand that many of those 2,066 have been traced, but the percentage of 8.9—somewhere in the vicinity of 10 per cent remains constant—of all cards sent out are undeliverable to the people concerned. So immediately you are going to disenfranchise 10 per cent of the electorate of this country. 10 per cent merely because of the non-possession of their identity cards. If that is not so, then I hope the Minister will explain how it is that, in reply to a question, he should have given those figures to this House. But there is another group who will be disfranchised, and that is those who lose their cards and cannot trace them on election day. The Minister said that he would introduce an amendment, but he did not tell us what the terms of that amendment would be. But the only amendment which he can introduce is to provide for some form of temporary system of identification instead of the identity card. If that is so, if the Minister is prepared to accept an alternative form of identification, then there is no need for him to make the identity card compulsory. Those who wish to use it to identify themselves can produce their cards, and they will be accepted as identification. Those who have not got their cards, or those who, on principle, do not wish to use their cards, should be permitted to present an alternative form of identification acceptable to the electoral officer. The Minister said he was going to amend Section 80, but then he would have to amend other sections as well in order to eliminate this problem. I hope, in his reply, that he will tell us that he is going to amend all those sections where the production of an identity card is obligatory and to provide for an alternative form of identification.

Section 80 has nothing to do with identity cards.

The hon. the Minister said he was going to provide in Section 80—that is why I query it—for proof of identity. Section 80 deals with declarations in respect of objections to voters. I know that, Sir. But I am questioning the Minister’s words during his introduction of this measure. I am saying that if, as I hope I understood him correctly, he means that there should be alternative identification possible, then it is not necessary to make this obligatory, and one of our strongest objections to this measure will have been eliminated, and we will have gone a long way towards finding common ground. Because there is nothing to stop anyone from using his identity card as a means of identification if he so wishes, but in respect of the 49,000 who do not have them, for the 10 per cent whose cards have not been delivered, and for the unknown percentage who do not know where their cards are on election day, there must be some alternative method of identification, and also for those who are reclassified. While dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister stated—and I go back slightly here, since it ties up with the question of registration—in his address when questioned that “werklike verblyf” meant “waar hy is op die oomblik”. That, Sir, is not my interpretation of the wording of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will clarify that. Because he will find that the original Bill, before it went to the Select Committee, used the word “reside”, and when it came back the word “actually” was added; so it read “actually reside”. The whole purpose of that amendment was to make it clear that in that clause “actually reside” meant the person’s permanent place of residence. There are court judgments which make that clear. [Interjections.] The hon. Minister said “waar hy is, waar hy bly op daardie oomblik”.

“Waar hy bly”, not where he is visiting.

The Minister said “waar hy is”.

Where he lives.

You might be living in Cape Town for two or three months either on holiday or on duty, but your permanent place of residence must be the place where you are registered. If he is visiting that would not apply, but if he was on duty, say, he is sent for two or three months to a place to do a particular job … [Interjections.]. Yes, a Member of Parliament is a perfect example, a Member of Parliament who retains a permanent home somewhere comes here for six months, and if a general registration took place he would have to register at his Cape Town address. Whereas the intention is, as I see it and I hope I am correct, that a person must register at his permanent address, in other words, where his home is and not where he happens to be even if he is staying there for two or three or four months; it is where he actually resides. I hope that is clear and beyond any doubt.

The third group of items covered is that of postal votes. Here I do not intend going into any detail because of the hon. the Minister’s assurance in regard to a commission and an assurance which I can tell him this side of the House welcomes very sincerely. Neither side is innocent and I cast no stones, but there is no doubt that this is where the greatest abuse of the Electoral Act takes place. I say I cast no stones and I cannot say that we do not live in a glass house. Mistakes are made by everyone, mistakes sometimes genuine and often deliberate. Everybody who has ever fought an election knows about it. Hon. members need not look so expectantly at me; I am not going to give them any tips. We welcome very sincerely the appointment of this commission which will be able to deal with the one really serious evil, the evil of intimidation, the evil of the alteration of postal votes and the evils of impersonation. If those three evils can be eliminated then we will really have done something valuable to our electoral machinery. I think there will be one or two people on that commission who will have some experience. Provided they are prepared to give each other lessons it might be possible to find some way of dealing with those problems. The other amendment in regard to postal votes are mainly administrative and I won’t deal with them now. Naturally we are very strongly opposed to the provision that there should be no witnesses and until that provision is removed, as the Minister has assured us it will be, we must be opposed to that. We will support him most heartily in his removal of that provision.

The final aspect of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, is that of administration. Under administration we have a variety of issues dealt with. I would like to touch on one or two of them. One is the raising of the candidate’s deposit which we welcome. We would have liked to see it go higher. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the deposit is R300. We would have liked it to go higher to deal with the crank candidates, those crank candidates who come forward with no intention of fighting an election, with no party or organization behind them, they come forward merely to have their name on a ballot paper and to create unnecessary expense to people and to the State. We hope that the raising of the deposit will make it possible for our elections to be fought by people who sincerely and genuinely stand as a candidate with principles which they ask people to support and not people who are simply cranks. In regard to the removal of expenses, the Minister did not mention—and I think it is important to have it on record—that whilst he is removing the limit of the expenditure which may take place at an election, the items on which money may be spent remain restricted. That is an important aspect, namely that we are only amending the limit and not the items on which one can spend money. That will restrict the possibility of abuse because it still prevents and prohibits the expenditure of money on items and on issues which could lead to bribery and corruption. Another point which the hon. the Minister did not mention and which I welcome, is the fact that in by-elections the liquor provisions have been reduced to a five mile radius of the nearest polling station. In terms of the existing legislation an election could be held at one end of Johannesburg or Cape Town and the whole of the municipal area was forced to close, not only bars but bottle stores, but all liquor trading. This amendment is a reasonable one. It retains the provisions for general elections, but it reduces the distance in the case of by-elections.

I will not at this stage deal in detail with those items affecting the conduct of an election itself on election day. I do feel that a number of good changes are being made, changes which will facilitate and smooth the operation of the election itself. I think it was necessary and advisable that we should close the poll an hour later because of the rush which inevitably takes place when people go home from work between 5 and 8 o’clock. The administration system for the issuing of ballot papers, the count, polling agents, control of disorder and matters of that kind are all points which have arisen from experience of working with the Act and which will, I believe, greatly facilitate the task of returning officers, candidates and their agents. Taken all in all, Sir, with these amendments we should provide a better electoral machine, provided the hon. the Minister can eliminate those points to which we have raised objections—the possibility of packing, the possibility of disenfranchisement and the possibility of hardship from identification. Those are the three basic issues. Postal votes will be dealt with separately. When we have completed the postal votes investigation and we have an amending Bill next year I also hope that the hon. the Minister will consolidate this legislation, because it is something which is dealt with by laymen year in and year out. If our criticisms are accepted in the spirit in which they are offered and if we can thrash out our differences and reach agreement, it should then be possible to produce a consolidated measure which will give a smooth and efficient and as far as possible, a fool-proof electoral system which will ensure to the people of South Africa a system of democratic government under which, if they wish, they can change the Government when the time comes, as I hope they will do when we have this perfect machine. I move.

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down we immediately saw the advantages of a Select Committee which knows how to do its work. Here we have the case of a cat that wished to scratch but which no longer has claws with the result that instead of scratching it is purring now.

I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the Select Committee in expressing our appreciation to him for the friendly words that he addressed to the Select Committee for the work done by it. In our weakness we simply did our best and we are glad that the degree of confidence, which we have found here, is placed in the recommendations of the Select Committee, and that the hon. the Minister has even gone so far as to accept the recommendation in connection with the appointment of a commission of inquiry into postal voting. Of course, anybody who believes that he can solve all the difficulties in connection with postal voting by means of a commission of inquiry, must be a super-human individual. But with expert advice such as that of the hon. member who has just spoken I think such a commission of inquiry may well achieve something.

Mr. Speaker, a Bill containing 52 clauses was referred to this Select Committee; it came back with 62 clauses. Something like 40 amendments in the Bill were accepted. Mr. Speaker, to show to what a large extent there is agreement between the parties, I want to mention the fact that there were divisions on only eight of the 62 clauses. As far as these eight clauses are concerned, quite a few of them were concerned with one particular matter, and that is the identity card. If we exclude the question of the identity card, there was actually a difference on only four or five matters of principle.

As far as these points of differences are concerned, I just want to say that last year the second reading of the previous Bill was adopted in this House, and on that occasion each of these points of difference was very fully discussed in this House; the second reading was put to the vote and this House adopted it.

May I ask a question? Did you not accept some of the proposals of the United Party last year?

I did not pay sufficient attention to the proposals put forward by the United Party last year to be able to remember them this year. The hon. member can read them out to the House in a moment, because I understand that he also wants to talk on this Bill but he does not know what to say about it; it will at least enable him to speak for a few minutes then. The fact remains that last year this House, in adopting the second reading, accepted all these principles in regard to which we had differences of opinion in the Select Committee and in regard to which objections have been raised in this House by the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. I want to say a few words now with regard to some of the matters which the hon. member mentioned and on the strength of which he moved an amendment.

The first point that the hon. member made was in connection with the six people who were found guilty of high treason and to whom we now want to restore full citizenship rights. I want to say to him, as I also said last year, that it is a great pity that the United Party is adopting this attitude. Mr. Speaker, after World War I and during that war we had armed rebellion in South Africa. It was much worse than we had in the last war. Generals Botha and Smuts granted those people amnesty, and later on Gen. Smuts sat with some of those people in the same Cabinet. In those days it was not regarded as such an unworthy thing to restore their citizenship rights to those people, and I am sorry to find that the United Party adopts this attitude to-day. They are opening up old wounds which they ought to allow to heal. Mr. Speaker, they must remember one thing and that is that that is a game that both sides can play. If one side opens up old wounds, the other side can do the same thing.

The other point which the hon. member raised was in connection with the question of general registration which can now take place on one day only and the result of which, he says, will be that many people may be disfranchised, people who are overseas to-day and who cannot be traced. He also says that the period of 30 days is too short for people to send back their cards. If the regis is held on, say, 8 May 1962, you have 30 days in which to search for those people and to ask everyone where he was on 8 May. That is how the census is taken. The position will now be that you will also have 30 days to trace those people and to ask everyone what his permanent residential address was on 8 May, that is to say, on the date of the general registration. You have 30 days in which to look for these people and to check where they were on that date. If my hon. friend has friends overseas who have to register, he can send cards to the whole lot of them by airmail; they can complete their cards there, showing their South African addresses, and send them back to arrive here within 30 days. I can give him the assurance that in my constituency there are between 200 and 300 people who are permanently overseas in the employ of the State, and I am going to register the whole lot on that one day. If he does not know how to do so, he can go and ask the electoral office for guidance. It is not such a terribly difficult thing to get people registered.

But I want to take the hon. member to task for his theory or story that we are going to pack constituencies. I want to say a few words with regard to this matter. In 1952 we amended the Electoral Laws; we amended the provision to the effect that all changes of address “shall” be notified by the voter by substituting the word “may” because that provision was being grossly abused and thousands upon thousands of people were disfranchised. In one constituency alone there would be as many as 1,200 objections in one day on the ground that the people concerned were no longer living there, and it was then demanded that their names be removed from the voters’ roll. The electoral office had part-time officials going about from place to place to see whether people were still living at their old addresses, and in that way the names of thousands of people were struck off the rolls. The political parties did the same thing. The hon. member said a moment ago that we want to have the maximum number of people on the voters’ rolls so that we can have the maximum poll at general elections. How can we have that if the names thousands of people are going to be struck off the voters’ rolls? Let us assume that we do not want to strike the names of people off the voters’ rolls; the hon. member says that that is not what he has in mind; be simply wants to compel them to register again in the new constituency to which they go; in that case I want to say to him that in terms of the present Act he can compel voters to register again. The legal position is that if a voter has changed his address and you discover what his new address is, you can go to the electoral officer and say to him, “This voter, who is registered in this constituency, has the following new address and I ask you to take the necessary steps—I do not know under which section it is but I think it is Section 30—to have this voter re-registered at his new residential address.” The electoral officer then sends a card to the person concerned and he gives him three weeks within which to fill in and return the card, and if he fails to do so he commits an offence. But the hon. member wants us to say that it is an offence for people not to re-register, without first having to take up the matter with the electoral officer. Where does that get you? He wants us to say that it is an offence for the voter not to re-register of his own accord. I wish the hon. member would listen instead of talking now. He wants to compel these people to go and re-register of their own volition. Why? Because as a member of Parliament he is too lazy to see to it that the people in his constituency are registered. If we make it an offence for people not to re-register, then there must be a penalty attached to it, but how are we going to set about it; what is the procedure going to be in prosecuting that person, and who is to prosecute him? If the hon. member discovers that a certain person has changed his address and he wants his name taken off the voters’ roll, does he want to go to the police and say, “Mr. So-and-So has moved and has failed to re-register; I want you to trace him and prosecute him?” Is that what he wants to do?

Of course he must be prosecuted.

Does the hon. member want to go to the police and say, “That man has moved; trace him and prosecute him?” Or does he want to trace the man and then go to the police and say, “This man has changed his address, but here is his new address; I want you to prosecute him because he has failed to re-register?” Which of these two procedures does he want to follow? Does he first want to get the man’s address and give it to the police, or does he want to report the matter to the police without getting the man’s address? He cannot reply to this question, because if he wants to get the man’s address before he reports the matter to the police, then surely it would be much easier to take the name to the electoral officer and to say, “This man has changed his address; let him have the necessary documents so that he can re-register at his new address.” Then it is not necessary to prosecute him.

And if he does not reply?

My reply is that only one out of a hundred would perhaps fail to reply. The hon. member talks about “packing constituencies”. To-day there are hardly any seats in South Africa which are border-line seats. The seats held by the National Party are becoming more and more pro-Nationalist, and those which are held by the United Party, it seems to me, are becoming more and more Progressive. Generally speaking a few odd votes here and there are no longer decisive at an election. But if a person is a Member of Parliament and his organization in his constituency is so weak that there are hundreds of people on the roll whose whereabouts are unknown to him and he is unable to make some plan to have them registered at their new addresses, let him lose his seat then. The trouble is that hon. members opposite want the State to run their party organization for them. I say that a party also has a certain amount of responsibility and that the individual also has a certain amount of freedom. I want to say to the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member sitting next to him that they would not register in their constituencies a person who has shifted to Queenstown [Interjections.] Under the present Act they can do so, but we allow the voter that freedom.

Is a voter left free to register or is he obliged to do so?

The Act says that every person who has the necessary qualifications must register, but once he has registered, and that is what the hon. member does not realize.… [Interjection.] No, hon. members opposite are not being logical. They want to create an offence where it is not necessary to do so. After all, it is perfectly clear that you have to trace the man’s new address in order to hand it over to the police, and then you might just as well go to the electoral officer and say, “Send this man the necessary documents in terms of Section 30 so that he can register at his new address”.

But he is under no obligation to reply.

He is obliged to reply within 21 days, otherwise he is guilty of an offence. There is one thing in regard to which I agree with the hon. member and that is that I do not feel happy about the abolition of the central index. I said so last year and I say it again, but the Department and the O. and M. officials assure us that they will not do this unless they can prove to us conclusively that it works 100 per cent. We are now making provision for this in the Bill, but I must say in all honesty that I doubt whether it will ever work.

Then the hon. member talked about the identification card. That is one of their great objections to this measure. Let me say that if this Bill provided that the identity card will have to be produced by every voter on polling day in order to be able to vote, I would vote against it if it was the intention to bring it into operation immediately. But here too we have the assurance of the Minister and of the Department that these amendments are not being introduced to make things difficult for the public but to facilitate matters on polling day. If we wanted to make it difficult for people to vote, it would be easy to introduce measures which would cause people to turn back at the polling booth on a large scale. In terms of the last clause of this Bill the Minister may proclaim different dates on which the various clauses, in terms of which the identity card is being introduced into the electoral system, are to come into operation. I want to say in all honesty that I do not believe that it will be possible within the next five or ten years to make it obligatory for every voter to produce his identity card on polling day, because it is simply not feasible. But we can make it obligatory in the case of postal votes and in the case of persons in connection with whose identity there is some doubt. We can introduce it gradually in that way. As far as I personally am concerned I want to say that if I have anything to do with elections in the future I shall ask every voter to bring along his identity card to the polling booth in order to save time. We should educate people to accept the proposition that the identity card is one of the documents which one should always carry with one. It will take a long time, and until such time as we have educated people to accept this, it will not be a practical proposition to introduce this clause; I concede that to the hon. member, but the introduction of the identity card is practicable in the interim in those cases where there is some doubt as to the identity of a person.

What about alternative proof?

That is not relevant at the moment. I want to say a word or two in connection with Clause 80. The Minister has said that he will move an amendment in the Committee Stage. I just want to put the position to the House. Clause 80 provides that if a candidate or his agent has a list of names of people whom he cannot trace and whom he has reason to believe cannot be reached and will not vote on polling day, he has to take that list to the electoral officer and declare on oath that those people have died or are unable to vote for some other reason. If one of those people then comes along to vote, he is required to sign an affidavit, after this statement has been read out to him, to the effect that he is the person concerned and then he may vote. The Minister is now going to introduce an amendment which I think is a very good one, and that is that that person will not necessarily have to sign an affidavit again but that he may prove his identity in some other way. That is essential in view of what has happened in the past. The Supreme Court has held that in terms of Section 80 it is not necessary for you to sign a separate affidavit in respect of every person to whom you object; you can put all their names on one list and object to them. The position is that at the last election, they placed the names of more than 4,000 people on one list and said that these people were away, that they would not be able to vote and that they could not be traced, and this caused a chaotic state of affairs on polling day. It was not possible to read out that affidavit to all those people and to get them to sign an affidavit to the effect that the objector had made a mistake. That is why I feel that it is essential for the Minister to provide for some quicker method whereby this can be done; to allow the person to prove his identity by producing his identity card, and thereafter he can be given his ballot paper; I am glad that the Minister is bringing about that amendment. I just want to explain that this specific incident which happened at the last election was not brought to the notice of the Select Committee timeously, otherwise we would have rectified the position in the Select Committee. We only heard about it after the Select Committee had reported. I do not want to detain the House any longer. It seems to me that the cat no longer has claws and I hope that we shall dispose of this measure quickly.

It is not my intention to comment much on what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has said. Most of his time was taken up in answering points raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). But it is rather interesting in passing to note that on one of the objections we mentioned in our amendment, the application of the identity card for identification purposes, the hon. member seems to be with us, and although he has said it must be used in the case of postal votes and in cases of doubt, he must realize that if you cannot use the identity card throughout the whole picture of registration and identification its usefulness falls away, and I should say it is just as well to leave it out.

The point on which I wish to speak is just one particular aspect of this Bill. It does not deal with the mechanics of it, which I will leave to others who were on the Select Committee. I want to deal with Clause 4 (2) only. Here it is obvious that it is the intention of the Bill and of the Minister to protect the rights of those Coloured people or non-Whites who are on the roll at the moment, but I wonder whether in fact it gives them the degree of protection that the Minister thinks it does. I have consulted with his Department on this, so he will know something of the problem I am going to deal with. I accept immediately that there is one group of persons who are covered by this, the group which appears on the Natal list as Coloured persons. I would remind the House that in Natal our list is divided into two parts, one for Whites and one for Coloureds, and the people whose names at present appear in the Coloured section, I accept, are covered by this provision, and they will remain on the roll. But there is another type of person in Natal, who over the course of time has been listed in the White section. I am a little bit afraid about what will happen to these people, and I want to ask the Minister this question. There are those people who before the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act was passed, and before the Population Registration Act was passed, appeared on our voters’ roll in the White section. I believe that many of these people just by usage have remained on the White voters’ roll, but now that the Minister is changing the electoral law so that we will start with a clean list, I fear that all their names will be erased. Each name, before it is replaced on the roll, will be checked with the population register, because even if no identification card is issued a number must appear, according to this new Bill, and when that number appears it will not only give the population registration number of that person but it will also indicate whether he is classified as White or Coloured. One of my worries is what will happen to a person who has appeared on that roll before and whose name will not now be automatically carried forward on the White section, when he applies for re-registration on the new roll, and his number comes forward and it shows that he is a Coloured person? Will he be removed from the roll, or will he be moved from the White section to the Coloured section of the roll? I believe he must stay on the roll, in whichever section he is, because I think that the intention is made quite clear in Section 13 of the Separate Representations of Voters’ Act, which says that any non-European or Native in the Province of Natal who is registered as a voter on the date of the commencement of this Act shall continue to be so registered, and as long as he retains his qualifications in terms of Sections 5 and 6 of the principal Act and remains resident in the Province, he will remain there. Before the referendum it was provided that only White persons could vote, and the Coloureds in Natal are not allowed to vote. I would like to know, first of all, what happened to those people after the referendum? Were their names restored to the roll? I think that can perhaps give us a lead on the procedure here, and whether my fears are well-founded or not. I do not know whether, having been removed from the roll for the referendum, their names were restored again, and I would like the Minister to deal with that aspect because I think that if they have not been restored, they should be restored immediately. I know that under the Population Registration Act people who are now on the White section of the list probably should not be there, but I want to know what will happen to them. Will they be removed entirely from the roll, or moved across to the Coloured section? Because the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act also says that the Coloured roll may not be added to, and that is where my problem comes in. It also says that when once a Coloured person has been removed from the roll, he may not be put back on it. These are all questions which are tied up with the subject I am dealing with, and I want to get the position of these people quite clear. In Natal, under the old classification in terms of the Population Registration Act, many people appear on the White roll who, under the new classification, are obviously going to be disqualified from the White section of the roll, and what will happen to them? What will happen to these people who are going to be classified under the new definition, where appearance and acceptance are brought more on to the same level? Will they be removed from the roll entirely? I want the Minister to tell me, because I think we have to clear up this point for the benefit of these people. They must not lose their rights altogether, and I do not think it was ever the intention of the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act that they should do so, and I think the Minister indicated that again by introducing sub-section (2) of Clause 4. But I think there is a great danger that these people will lose their right to vote, because instead of being transferred from one section of the roll to another, I believe that they will be removed altogether, and that will not only remove people from the roll, but it will do them an injustice which was never intended. The Minister gave an undertaking in a recent debate that no witch-hunt would be started, and that no people would be re-classified, but he must realize that in its actual provisions the Population Registration Amendment Bill, if applied to the roll in Natal in the form in which it was passed, will add many more names to the list of people I am talking about. If he applies the new definition now to the existing voters’ roll in Natal, it will disfranchise a number of people, or move them from the one section of the list to the other. My concern is not just for a few people. I believe it is a matter which will concern many hundreds of people in Natal where we have this peculiar situation of the dual roll. It will not affect the Cape at all. My purpose in raising this issue is to give the Minister an adequate opportunity of consulting with his Department and giving us a reply to these questions. I want the position of all Coloureds in Natal set out quite clearly, not only those who appear on the Coloured portion of the roll, but also the others, and I want to protect their franchise rights which they have enjoyed for many years. I also want to ensure that in the case of re-classification under the new definition in the Population Registration Amendment Bill, those people who are reclassified will still retain the franchise to which they are entitled.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has admitted that this amendment Bill considerably tightens up and improves the present electoral machinery, and yet he moves an amendment the effect of which will be to throw the whole of this Bill into the wastepaper-basket.

Rubbish!

That is the implication of his proposal. This whole question of compiling fresh voters’ rolls and the provisions in connection with general registration go hand in hand with the proposal to bring about partial mechanization in the electoral office. That aspect was gone into thoroughly. We were told by the O. & M. officials of the Public Service that they had made a thorough study of this matter and had even been overseas to study the election systems of other countries and the use of mechanical processes at elections. Conferences and discussions were held with the political organizations and eventually it was decided that certain processes could be mechanized. There are many factors in favour of mechanization in our electoral system. I want to mention a few just briefly. The first is the advantage which the Minister has also mentioned, and that is that it will bring about a great saving. Our elections cost a very great deal, and by means of mechanization we can eliminate a great deal of manpower and the services of a host of typists. It has been mentioned that the introduction of this system will cost about R54,000, but it is estimated that thereafter we will save R600,000 every five years. That is why it is essential to mechanize. But mechanization will also mean that we shall have better, more reliable and more up-to-date voters’ rolls. To a large extent mechanization will eliminate the human factor—the typists who have to type and re-type rolls. Photostatic copies will now be made of the rolls and we can assume therefore that they will be more up to date and accurate. But an important factor is that by means of mechanization it will be possible to compile voters’ lists much more expeditiously and to make them available much sooner to the political parties. It is important that party organizations should be able to get hold of the voters’ rolls as soon as possible before elections. The Select Committee had the opportunity last year of questioning the O. & M. officials, and it was perfectly clear, and they were able to convince the committee, that the proposals put forward by them were sound and practicable. In order to be able to introduce mechanization it is necessary to have an entirely new general registration. A new set of RV1 registration cards which are specially designed with a view to mechanization, will have to be filled in by every voter, and I hope that these new RV1 cards will be a good deal simpler than those which have been used hitherto. The samples shown to us seem to point that way. The hon. member for Durban-Point now comes along and says that as the result of these amendments the names of many people will be left off the voters’ lists if we destroy the present voters’ rolls, if we remove all the existing names and compile a brand-new voters’ roll. He almost argues as the former member for Pinelands did here last year, that is to say, whichever way suits him best for the moment. He says that in the past the position used to be that once a person had registered, an obligation rested on the electoral officer to keep on him the roll for an indefinite period, and then he turns round and says, “But you are now going to throw away these lists and you are going to disfranchise large numbers of those people.” And then he comes along with another argument. He says it will only be possible now after every five years to bring the roll completely up-to-date. In the first instance he says that people’s names will only be able to remain on the roll for five years before the rolls are destroyed, and then he turns round and says that a full five years will have to elapse before it will again become possible to bring the voters’ rolls up-to-date, and in the meantime we will allegedly pack the rolls as much as we please. One cannot have it both ways.

You are missing the point entirely.

You should have made that speech last year.

I do not take any notice of those interjections. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has already stated here that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wants to make a speech and now he wants other people to tell him what to say in his speech. Sir, it is essential that the old rolls should lapse, and I shall tell you why. By transferring all the old names on to the new rolls the position in the past was that a lot of inaccuracies in the old rolls were transferred on to the new lists. Here I want to repeat the very argument which the hon. member for Umlazi used a moment ago. In the past the names of people who should never have been on the voters’ rolls were automatically retained on them. I checked the position in certain areas of the Cape Peninsula and I found that in one street there were 80 to 90 voters registered on the roll; those people were living there but I did not come across a single person in that street who was qualified to have his name on the list as a White person. There were literally thousands of people whose names appeared on the White voters’ roll and whose names should not have appeared there. In terms of the old procedure the names of these people were simply transferred always from the one roll to the other. It is essential therefore to discard these rolls and to compile brand-new lists. I believe that by means of this compulsory house-to-house registration we shall be able to get a much fuller and more up-to-date registration than has been the case in the past. You know, Mr. Speaker, what the procedure used to be in the past. An official is appointed to check the names in a certain ward; he is given a packet of cards containing the names of the voters presently registered on the list. The less conscientious official—and there were many of them—simply entered the first house in the street and asked the occupiers whether they could tell him whether Tom, Dick, Harry, etc., were still living there, and if they said “Yes” he wrote on the card, “Correct: still living there.” It was not necessary for him to see these people personally; it was not necessary for him to go to every house to see whether there were lodgers or whether possibly there was a young man or a young woman who had become entitled to vote in the meantime. If it was necessary to do so he simply went through the ward and ascertained whether those people were still living there; he could get this information from any source he liked, and he then proceeded to hand in his packet of cards and he received his fee. I do not say that all the officials did this but I can assure you that there were many officials who did and there was no control over the way in which they did their work.

What is the position to-day? The official will now have to go from house to house in every street and he will have to account for every voter. He will have to have a new card filled in for every voter. I believe that this new house-to-house registration is likely to result in a much fuller and a much more accurate voter’s roll than in the past. Hon. members on the other side often used to complain in the past that after a general registration there were hundreds and thousands of voters whose names had disappeared from the voter’s rolls and of whom no account could be given. That is because the old system lent itself to the registration being done in such a way that the names of many thousands of people were not registered at such a general registration.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) now comes along with the following argument; he says. “What about the person who has no fixed address on the fixed date?”

No. You cannot understand English.

Did the hon. member not ask what was going to happen in the case of a person who did not have a fixed address on the specified day?

No, a person who is on holiday and who is travelling.

No, the hon. member specifically said here that there was a certain number of persons who had no fixed address.

No. Look at my Hansard.

In that case I shall not pursue this point but I am sure that that is what the hon. member said.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also says that this period of 30 days within which the registration has to take place is not long enough to enable the officials to do it properly. It was explained and proved to the Select Committee that by means of this new process of mechanization it would be possible to complete a house-to-house registration within 30 days. There is a great deal to be said for doing away with the old 90-days system, because what was the implication of the 90-day system? The implication was that if on the day of the registration I had resided for two months at a certain address, I could have myself registered at that address; I could then change my address and go and live for two months, that is to say 60 days, at a different address and I could once again register at the new address. You know, Mr. Speaker, what happens here in the urban areas in the case of flat-dwellers. I came across numerous persons, after a general registration who were registered in two different constituencies in Sea Point and in the Gardens and in Rondebosch and in Constantia. That sort of thing was possible over a period of 90 days, but now that we are reducing this period it will be impossible for duplicate registrations to take place.

By doing away with the residential qualification when it comes to a general registration, it will now be possible, when the general registration takes place, to register voters who in the past were included amongst those thousands who were not registered and of whom no account could be given. In terms of the old provision a person might have resided for six weeks, for example, at a certain fixed address at the time of the registration, but unless he had resided there for at least 60 days he could not have himself registered at that address at the general registration, nor could he have himself registered at his previous address, because he was no longer resident there, and in this way thousands of people, who under this Bill will be registered at a general registration, were disenfranchised at previous general registrations. The residential qualification of two months still remains, of course, in respect of interim registrations.

Because of the introduction of mechanization, there will now be a slight change in the entries on our voters’ rolls. Because of the introduction of the identity number it will no longer be necessary for all the Christian names of a person to appear on the roll. I believe that the argument will again be used, as it has been used in the past, that there is going to be confusion because there are numbers of people with the same Christian names and the same surname. But I want to say in advance that that is not an argument which holds water. The identity numbers will distinguish these people from one another because there are no two people who have the same identity number, and even if a father and a son with the same Christian names lived at the same address their identity numbers would be different. In the past the position was more difficult because the father and son may have had the same Christian names and the same address and very often they also followed the same occupations. The identity numbers will now clearly identify them and clearly distinguish them. I want to say in particular that the fact that the Electoral Laws now provide for the printing of separate voters’ rolls for separate electoral districts, is a great concession. It will be of considerable assistance to us if we can get separate voters’ rolls for the separate electoral districts here in the urban constituencies where 8,000 to 9,000 voters have to cast their vote at one polling station on the same day. Another important provision that we have not heard much about so far is that contained in Clause 4 (1), which now makes it possible for a supplementary registration to take place within 180 days after the date of a general registration. In the past the position used to be that after the date of a general registration at least 180 days had to elapse before there could be a supplementary registration. Even though the voters’ rolls were proclaimed a month or six weeks previously and were actually in operation, the supplementary registration could not be held until 180 days had elapsed after the date of the general registration. The Act is now being amended in this connection and it will now be possible, as soon as the voters’ rolls have been proclaimed, to hold a supplementary registration immediately and to supplement the voters’ lists. It is essential to have the supplementary registration as soon as possible after the general registration. That becomes possible now under the new provisions of Clause 4 (1); in the past it was not possible to do so.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has referred here to the fact that objections were raised to the fact that the central index may possibly be done away with. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not enamoured of the central index. I have regarded it for a very long time as a stumbling-block, and although title hon. the Minister has said that we are going to retain it in the meantime for what it is worth, I want to say that in my opinion it is worth very little. It is not only an extremely expensive system and it is not only a time-consuming and cumbersome index to keep going, but it is of very little value. In spite of this central index we find at every general election that our voters’ rolls are literally cluttered up with duplicate registrations in every constituency. There are hundreds and hundreds of voters who can vote in two constituencies if they wish to do so.

Is that what you do?

No, we do not allow them to vote there; I do not know what the hon. member does.

How can it be prevented?

The identity number is going to eliminate it because there are no two persons with the same identity number. My argument is that in view of the great fallibility of this central index it is not worth the trouble to keep it going at such great expense.

The main objection of the other side of the House is that in this Bill no provision is made for the compulsory notification of changes of address. As far as this matter is concerned we shall not be able to convince hon. members on that side, because here we are dealing with a fundamental difference of opinion between this side and that side of the House. We on this side of the House believe that this system was tested before 1952 and that it failed hopelessly. In 1952, when we did away with it, hon. members on that side did not raise many objections. Here and there some hon. member advocated something else in its place, but as the hon. member for Turffontein said in his last speech in this House, there was very full consultation before 1952 between the Party officials and the Minister with regard to the amendments to be effected, and there was no large-scale objection to the retention of the principle of compulsory notification of changes of address.

No, we opposed it. You are entirely wrong.

I do not want to waste my time by quoting what the hon. member said; I have it here. He can go and read his Hansard. Perhaps he has forgotten what he said, because he says so many things that he cannot possibly remember everything he says. This system gave rise to a great many misuses and, apart from that, if you want to have compulsory notification of changes of address, there must be a penalty attached to failure to do so, and I want to ask whether there is any hon. member in this House who is going to tell me that it is possible to prosecute a person under the Electoral Laws if he does not notify his change of address. It is simply not feasible under the Electoral Laws to prosecute a person even if he fails to register. Who would prosecute him? It is the duty of the Party organizations just as much as it is the duty of the State to see that the registration takes place and that the supplementary registrations takes place from time to time, and if the supplementary registrations are properly done they immediately do away with the necessity of notifying changes of address, because the name of a person who is registered in a constituency at a supplementary registration immediately comes off the old list. If the supplementary registration is properly done therefore, there is no need to have compulsory notification of changes of address. All that hon. members have to do is to make use of the periodic supplementary registrations to register people at their present residential addresses. But apart from that, no obligation that was imposed on a voter to register, or to notify his change of address, had any effect on him. Only a small percentage of the voters who are obliged to register, do so. They are only registered when the State registers them at a general registration or when the Party organization approaches them at a supplementary registration. The percentage of voters who go to the electoral officer themselves or to a post office or to a magistrate’s office to get a card to fill in with a view to registration is minimal; it is not 1 per cent. That was admitted here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He stated here in 1952 that it did not even help to have compulsory registration, let alone compulsory notification of changes of address. According to Hansard, col. 6769, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

And if you cannot even get your voters’ rolls up-to-date by means of compulsory registration, what sense is there then in having compulsory notification of changes of address? But as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has said here in passing, the Act does make provision for machinery to achieve the aims which the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to achieve, and that is under Section 30. I think so much is still going to be said on this question of compulsory registration that I should read out this particular section to the hon. member. Section 30 reads—

And that could be an RV1—

Now he says that it is not compulsory. But that is followed by Section 32 which makes provision for penalties where a person fails to furnish information to the electoral officer. Section 32 reads—

(1) Any person who—

(a) fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) … or with any notice under Section 30 …

The hon. member can always get what he wants therefore if only he will take a little trouble; all he has to do is to furnish to the electoral officer the names and addresses of the people, and the electoral officer has sufficient powers under the Electoral Laws to put the names of those persons on the new lists when they complete the forms, and they must complete the forms otherwise they are punishable under the Act.

I still have to deal with the provisions which introduce the principle of making use of identity cards and identity numbers in the electoral system. That is one of the evils which the Opposition sees in this Bill. There is a great deal to be said for introducing the principle of identity cards and identity numbers into the electoral system. In the first place it is unquestionably the best form of identification that one could possibly get, particularly as far as elections are concerned. When a person’s registration number appears on a roll or on a postal ballot application form; one can ask him all sorts of questions when one is face to face with him and yet one can still be in doubt, but when a person takes out his identity card and says, “This is my number, and here is my identity card,” then it is not necessary to ask him any further questions! I just want to illustrate briefly how conclusively the identity card identifies a person. On a certain morning there was a knock on my front-door. The servant went to the front-door and came back and said, “Master, there is somebody outside who is collecting for the church.” It happened to be a Coloured person who was collecting for some church society or other. He handed over his collection list to me, to which his identity card was attached with a clip. I saw at once that there was an endorsement on the list to the effect that “the holder of this list is entitled to collect for this church,” and that the endorsement had been signed by the Rev. Pietersen. Just to hear what his reaction was I asked him, “What are you doing with this thing attached to the list?” His reply was, “Sir, this is a wonderful thing; I have been collecting for the church all these years and in the past people used to say to me at every second house, ‘How do we know that you do not keep this money for yourself?”’. This person’s name was Van Rooi. He then went on to say to me, “Sir, with this identity card people can see at once that I am the man in question; look, he is just as ugly as I am.” The identity card therefore is conclusive proof of identification; it simply cannot be disputed. There is no more effective method than the use of identity cards to combat abuses such as phantom votes and false postal votes. If hon. members on the other side say that they would like us to use every means at our disposal to combat abuses which may take place under the Electoral Laws, then it is not necessary for them to try to find other means because here we have an effective means; they are morally bound to support us on this point. These identity cards are also necessary if we want our voters’ rolls to be kept up-to-date. In one electoral district I came across quite a few names which appeared twice on the same voters’ list. You find, for example, that an unmarried woman’s name appears on the list; when an interim registration takes place her name is again placed on the list under her husband’s surname. Of the face of it there is nothing wrong with the roll; nobody would discover it; but that will no longer be possible under this system if the voter has to produce his or her identity card. Identity cards are necessary therefore in order to eliminate duplication registrations. But it is also necessary to have identity cards so as to keep people who are not White voters off the White voters’ rolls. It has happened in thousands of cases that the names of people who had identity cards in their pockets showing that they were non-Whites appeared on White voters’ lists, and their names continued to remain on those rolls for a few years. I am not expressing any opinion here with regard to the people in Natal. I leave that to the hon. the Minister. I am talking about the people in the other provinces. I say that this is the only way to exercise control, because the identity card of a non-White will indicate immediately that he is not entitled to have his name on the White voters’ list. Moreover, it will also be possible now to keep off the list the names of other people who are not entitled to have their names on the list. We have come across numerous cases from time to time in the past where, in some inexplicable way, the names of unnaturalized citizens, of foreigners who are in this country on temporary permits, have appeared on the voters’ rolls. That will no longer be possible in the future if people have to produce their identity number. I say that it is essential to insert the identity number of the voter on the roll if we want to have accurate voters’ rolls. It was also admitted by the former member for Sunnyside at discussions that were held previously that it was necessary for the Chief Electoral Officer to make use of identity numbers in order to ensure that the lists were accurate. And how can you make use of identity cards and identity numbers to ensure accuracy as far as the voters’ rolls are concerned unless they are used in the way that we propose to use them? Let the United Party tell us what the former member for Sunnyside meant when he said that they could be used and in fact that it was essential to use them. How are they to be used unless they are used in this way?

That was not how he put it.

Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member go and read in col. 6462 what the hon. member said. The hon. the Deputy-Minister who handled this legislation last year asked the then member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) whether that was not what he meant and he replied, “Yes, that is what I meant.” No, Mr. Speaker, it is essential to introduce identity numbers and identity cards into the electoral system, and it is also essential for the purposes of mechanization. This system is already being used in many countries of the world. We were told last year by the hon. the Deputy-Minister that it was being used in France, in Italy, in Belgium and in Austria, and the tendency in all the Western countries to-day is to introduce this identification proof into the electoral system for the purposes of identification.

Suffice it to say that the Opposition is not opposing this principle of introducing identity cards and identity numbers into the electoral system because they believe that it is wrong and impracticable. No, they have a different motive in opposing it and that is because they are against the Population Registration Act. As a matter of fact, the then hon. member for Sunnyside said so last year and let the cat out of the bag. I quote from Hansard (col. 6333) where he said the following—

But here comes the point—

That is their attitude. But why then do hon. members opposite not tell us candidly that they have no objection to the insertion of identity numbers and that this is a practical and useful thing, but that the only reason why they do not want it is because they were against the Population Registration Act? Let them say so honestly. They must not come along with the hypocritical statement that Oom Jan, who lives on some remote farm in Buchuberg …

Order! The hon. member must not use the word “hypocritical” in respect of hon. members.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but they must not come along and make the pious statement here, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) did—and it is very difficult for him to play the saint, because that would be far from the truth—that a person will now have to travel miles and miles, and that, when he is asked for his identity card at the polling booth, he may not have it in his pocket, and then he will not be able to vote. Let him get away from those childish arguments, and tell us that they do not want to accept the principle of identity cards in this Bill, because they are against the Population Registration Act.

We did say so.

Why does the hon. member for Durban (Point) come along with all those childish arguments then?

Before I sit down I just want to touch upon another aspect—and here I am on common ground again with the hon. member for Durban (Point)—and say that, as far as the ordinary electoral machinery on election day is concerned, this legislation contains a number of very good amendments which will greatly facilitate the work of the officials of the State and of the party organizations, and which will also make the electoral machinery function much more smoothly on polling day. For example there is the provision that, until such time as the identity card is introduced as proof of identification so that the voter will be able to prove his identity at the polling booth, the returning officer will now have the right, in addition to the two questions which he could formerly ask a voter in an attempt to establish his identity, to put any further questions he likes to a voter to make sure that he is the voter whose name appears on the roll. There is also this concession to the parties that presiding officers will now be obliged to furnish the serial numbers to the various parties. In the past it was optional for them to do so. But there is also another provision which I welcome very much and that is that a blind person and a person who cannot read will now also be able to vote openly; that is to say, in the presence of the agents of the two parties, in the presence of the returning officer, without first having to go through the whole rigmarole of completing forms and signing statements. It will now be possible for a blind person or a physically disabled person, accompanied by somebody else, to walk into the polling booth, and the person attending to him will be able to assist him to cast his vote without having to fill in forms and without having to sign statements. The filling in of these additional forms was very unpractical, particularly when it came to postal votes, and I am pleased, therefore, that the Act is also being amended in this respect.

In my opinion this Bill will greatly facilitate the electoral procedure, and it will contribute a great deal towards its smoother and more efficient functioning.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) won’t mind if I don’t follow up the arguments he used because I want to try to confine myself to that aspect of the Bill that affects the Coloured people.

I hope the hon. the Minister will help me because I find it difficult to ascertain whether the Coloured people have to re-register as a result of this Bill. It seems to me that there is a diversion of opinion, but I hope that the information that I have received from this side of the House, will coincide with the expert opinion of the other side, viz, that they will not have to re-register as a result of this Bill. But in the Bill I cannot find anything to help me in this regard. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister why I will feel happier if they don’t need to re-register. Sir, we are very worried, those who represent the Coloured people, about the disappearance of thousands of Coloured voters from the roll. We have not been able to ascertain the cause. We do not blame anybody, but it is a mystery. For instance when we first stood for election in 1958 there were some 40,000 Coloured voters on the roll. In my own constituency there were just over 8,000. Between 1958 and 1961, when we had another general election, in my own constituency well over 2,000 voters disappeared from the roll. But they did not disappear in person. Hundreds of them came to me and asked: Why am I not on the roll? I have lived in this same house for years and I have always been on the voters’ list, I have still the same qualification, but I am no longer on the roll. As I say, I don’t want to blame anybody. I simply don’t know how it happened. It is not possible of course to go through the voters’ list every day to see whether the people are still registered. The hon. the Minister may be able to tell me what the reason is. If there is anything in this Bill that requires re-registration, then I would ask the hon. the Minister to seriously reconsider the application of re-registration in regard to the Coloured people. I am raising this publicly because I want the Coloured people to know that it has been raised. As I said, we cannot find the reason for the disappearance of these voters.

I am first going to raise some of the disappointing features of this legislation and then I will come to the more pleasing aspects where the Minster is amending the 1951 Act in certain respects which will be of assistance to us who represent the Coloureds and also to the Coloured people themselves. I am now speaking purely personally. But one disappointment in regard to this Bill is that the hon. the Minister has not taken the opportunity in this amending Bill to also further amend the 1951 Act under which we are elected to give us full powers. You see, Mr. Speaker, the members of this House who represent the Coloured people have the same powers and privileges and rights as any other member, save in respect of the election of Senators. I cannot see why we should not vote for Senators. I cannot understand why the Coloured people who had the right before, cannot through their representatives vote for Senators. We were told that there would be no diminution of rights under separate representation. Nevertheless we are precluded from voting for Senators if an election for Senators takes place.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far away from the Bill.

Sir, it is only next-door, the Senate. But I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to some aspects and I was hoping that before the end of the second reading debate the hon. the Minister might consider bringing in an additional amendment or amendments to remove some of our objections. But, Sir, I will obey your ruling and if I am not allowed to raise these matters I will not do so. I would like to impress upon the hon. the Minister, however, that the hon. the Minister has the opportunity now of removing some of the shortcomings of the 1951 Act which we find mean in fact a diminution of rights.

Order!

Am I not allowed to discuss that, Sir? Sir, I felt that I might perhaps refer to the question of the large constituencies, but apparently I cannot do that either. Unfortunately I cannot deal with the fact that only two provincial councillors are elected to represent the Coloured people.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Sir, as you know, I always obey your rulings, but it is obviously very difficult in an amending Bill such as the hon. the Minister has brought forward to deal with our complaints under the old Act. I am afraid that now I will have to raise these matters on the Vote which deals with Coloured Affairs, and I hope I will have an opportunity then. Then of course I run the risk of being ruled out of order because you, Sir, may say that I should have dealt with the matter under the Interior Vote, but I will take a chance when it comes under discussion.

We are grateful that the term “income” is now used also in respect of the Coloured man. That I understand is the effect of Clause 2 of the Bill. I then come to Clause 6 which contains an amendment which we particularly welcome because it does remove one of the most hated provisions in the previous law that a Coloured man could only register if he signed before a policeman. That was regarded as humiliating and degrading and I am very happy indeed to see that provision go. I am glad that the Select Committee has seen fit to remove that embargo upon the rights and liberties of the Coloured people and that they can now register before a member of this House or of the Provincial Council or any commissioner of oath.

There is just one other small matter which I would like to mention and that is the colour of the registration cards. The hon. the Minister should try and help us by arranging that the cards which are used are not brown cards. Let them use also white cards for the Coloureds. It does not affect the position as far a; the European people are concerned, but the Coloured people regard it is humiliating that in their case a brown card is used and they feel that there is no reason for it.

Mr. Speaker, you know, you have spoiled a really good speech I was going to make today. I am afraid I cannot take this very much further because I cannot deal with the particular sections in the Act I would like to deal with, but I hope that an opportunity will be afforded to us to bring to the notice of the Minister some of the omissions in this Bill. Before I sit down, I should like to say that if the hon. the Minister can unravel the mystery of the missing voters, it will not only be of assistance to us, but it would also set at rest the minds of the Coloured people that they are not deliberately overlooked when registrations take place.

It is not necessary to reply to the hon. member, because the speech he tried to make cannot properly be made under this Bill. All I can say to him is that those Coloured voters who have disappeared and in respect of whom he wants the Minister and the Department to report, have disappeared because they were never really interested in their registration and in politics and since the United Party is no longer registering them their numbers have dwindled.

No, they were on the voters’ roll all the time and are off it to-day.

Mr. Speaker, after the amendment which has been moved and the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) I seriously doubt whether I did the right thing when I supported the recommendation that a commission should be appointed to inquire further into the postal vote system in particular, because it is clear to me from that amendment and from the speech of the hon. member that the Opposition is not prepared to have the inconsistencies removed from the Electoral Act. We had the O. and M. officials of the Department before the Select Committee and those officials convinced us that they required these amendments to the law for the purposes of mechanization, in the first place, but they also convinced us that they would be able to carry out the new provisions of the law. It is a pity, of course, that there has been a general election in the meantime and that 50 per cent of the Opposition members who served on that Select Committee were not returned and that new United Party members had to be nominated to the Select Committee. If that had not been the position, I think we would have made much better progress.

I just want to deal with a few aspects, Sir, particularly in reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) who has objected to the fact that it will no longer be necessary to render returns in respect of election expenditure.

I did nothing of the sort.

If the hon. member says he did not object to it I accept it. Throughout the years that has been ridiculed. You know, Sir, that under the old Act the position was even that an unopposed candidate had to render a return of his election expenditure and if he did not do so he could lose his seat. That was one of the aspects which had to be cleared up.

It became clear in the Select Committee that the greatest dispute was in connection with the postal votes. I do not want to say anything about it because we are grateful that the Minister has accepted our recommendation in respect of a thorough investigation. We all asked for that because we realized that there were many inconsistencies in that connection. As far as that is concerned I just want to say that that ought to prove to the Opposition that the Government and members on this side of the House are extremely anxious to remove inconsistencies from the Electoral Act and from our voting system. This recommendation proves that fact because the majority of the members of the Select Committee could have turned it down. The fact that the Government has accepted it also proves that the Government is seriously trying to place the Electoral Act on a sound basis. But in view of the attitude which certain members of the Opposition have adopted I doubt the wisdom of that recommendation. Do you know, Sir, that the Opposition complained last year and said that the second reading of the Bill at that time should not be passed, that it had to be referred to a Select Committee. Eventually the present Bill was referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. I want to make this prediction to-day that the commission will be appointed and that it will conduct its investigations but that it will be this side of the House and the Government who will have to decide, because as it has become clear in this House, and as it became clear in the Select Committee, so it will become clear to the Commission that every member of this House wants an Electoral Act for his own constituency and I do not think the hon. member for Durban (Point) will be satisfied with less than two Electoral Acts for his constituency.

What is really your point?

I will come to that in a moment and the hon. member for Turffontein will regret it. Mr. Speaker, the main objection is to the method of registration and the identification of voters. The Opposition objects in particular to the fact that there will in future be a general registration every five years and that a new roll will have to be compiled de novo and that the period has been reduced from 90 days to 30 days. Mr. Speaker, the department assured us that with mechanization they would be able to do this registration within a period of 30 days. What I find particularly satisfactory, Sir, is the fact that in future the officials who will be responsible for this registration will not be paid per day or per month or per mile, but they will be paid according to the number of voters they register. I am convinced that the person working in an area and who is paid per voter will see to it that every possible voter in that area is registered, because the more voters he registers the higher his remuneration. But the fact remains that in the past when there was a general registration, whether it was after two years or after three years, the parties have always found that the most unsatisfactory lists were those which had been compiled immediately after a general registration. The tragedy of the situation was that the parties could not immediately step in so as to register those voters who had been left off the roll. They had to wait 90 days and more, because the period was as long as that. The parties will benefit by the fact that a general registration will only take 30 days and consequently the parties will be able to get to work very shortly afterwards. The Department has assured us that we will have the preliminary voters’ rolls very soon after the 30 days and the parties will be able to get to work immediately and register those people who may perhaps still not be registered.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has raised an argument which I cannot understand very clearly. He has referred to the packing of constituencies under this new method of registration. As far as I can remember I know of only one case, and that happened before the Electoral Act was amended in 1952, where a constituency had been packed and that happened in the old constituency of Hottentots-Holland, at Hermanus. It was not this side of the House who was guilty of that. That argument of the hon. member simply does not hold water. The fact of the matter is that the official who does the registration must register the person where he finds him, but the person who is given a card must fill in the address where he lives and not the address of the place where he is a visitor. The hon. member argued that persons who were visiting a certain place would be registered at that place. It is true that he will be registered there but he has to fill in his permanent address on the card which is then forwarded on to the constituency where he resides permanently and he gets registered there.

Mr. Speaker, having heard the Department and having heard what the O. & M. Officials had to say, I for my part want to give this experiment a chance. We are also in politics and we are also practical people. We too have to ensure that our voters are registered and that they come to the polling booth. I think hon. members opposite should be prepared to accept the assurance on the part of the Minister and on the part of every speaker on this side of the House that if this experiment which we are prepared to give a chance, does not succeed, there will be an opportunity of amending the Act again and we want to give them the assurance that we for our part will also see to that. Hon. members must forget about this story that there will be a snap election. That is wishful thinking; and even if we were to have one it would not help them. The National Party will only be returned with a greater majority than before.

Mr. Speaker, I can well understand there being differences of opinion in connection with an Electoral Act, there being differences of opinion as to methods, the one thinking that this method of registration is not a good method and another one thinking that that method is a good method. You can understand that, Sir, but what I cannot understand is the strenuous objection which the United Party and members opposite are making to the use of the identity cards as a means of identification. That is beyond me and I will tell you why, Sir. Before the referendum, during the referendum and after the referendum allegations were made, amongst others by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), if I remember correctly, and also by the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the voters’ rolls had been packed. The allegation was made and people were led to believe that this Government had packed the voters’ rolls in its favour in order to win the referendum. And to-day it is this Government which is coming forward and saying: Very well, let us try to find a water-tight method to combat the ghost vote, and this is the only water-tight method. Mr. Speaker, you can hardly believe it, you cannot believe your own ears, that the people who accused us of that, that the people who accused the Government and this side of having packed the voters’ rolls, of having misused the postal votes, refuse to accept this good method which the Government is introducing to eliminate the ghost vote once and for all. You ask yourself this question: Who are the people who are guilty of having used the ghost vote? The reply is a counter question: Who are the people who wish to retain the ghost vote, or the use of the ghost vote. And it is clear who they are.

I maintain that the ghost vote is a real danger. It does exist. Even the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) nods his head.

He knows them.

Yes, I know them.

The ghost vote exists and I will tell you, Sir, what my experience has been with the ghost vote …

We admit that you are an expert in that respect.

We had experience of the ghost vote particularly when the Coloureds were on the common roll. Let me tell you, Sir, what happened once at Paarl during a general election. Let me first say this: The position has always been that 98 per cent up to 99 per cent of the Coloureds have voted at every election. It all depended on how the ghost vote operated.

You have had a great deal of experience.

It happened at Paarl that a Coloured came to a certain polling station and he was told by the presiding officer that that number had already voted. They had phoned from another polling station that that person had voted there by means of a declaration. That person was asked what his name was and when they asked that he immediately ran away from the polling station. He was given that number outside so as to go and vote in the name of that other voter. When he had voted and the electoral officer asked him his name he ran away. That was the ghost vote which was organized by the United Party at the time. The Coloureds were given their election numbers at the tables of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I wish to give you another example. During the general election in 1948 there were 1,100 Coloureds registered on the common roll at Malmesbury. 98 per cent voted. At the time of the provincial elections in 1949 the Coloured voters had increased by 500, namely from 1,100 to 1,600. The United Party tried at the time to regain certain constituencies with the assistance of the increased number of Coloured voters. They succeeded at Bredasdorp and Paarl. They could not succeed with the 500 at Malmesbury. I want to give you an example, Sir, of what happened. I got people to check on all the Coloured voters in the whole constituency and we found that approximately 400 had left. Some had been dead for years, but the vote was passed on from father to son. Some could not be traced; they did not exist. Our agents were armed with that information and we made it known through medium of the Press that we had that information and that if those people came and voted the electoral officer had been instructed to ask them who they were and that they would be prosecuted. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, not one of those 400 came forward to vote at that 1949 Provincial election. 98 per cent of them no longer voted; they did not succeed in getting 70 per cent to vote. [Interjections.] It is happening every day and it happens often, and when it was discussed at the Select Committee some hon. members opposite also raised the matter and said, particularly in respect of the postal vote, that somebody often voted in the name of another person, and when the person arrived at the polling station somebody had already voted on his behalf. That happens. I am now asking the United Party this: Here they are being given the chance of a lifetime to eliminate that sort of thing. They are being given the chance of eliminating the very thing of which they have always accused us. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: When anyone of us, for example, who has organized for his party in the past, gets up in this House they point an accusing finger at him. I just want to say this, Sir, that you can check on it and find out who the members of the Select Committee were who wanted to retain these things in the law. Most of the members who sat on the Select Committee were National Party organizers, the people to whom the United Party have always pointed a finger and the people who have always been accused of so-called deception during elections. They are the people who want to eliminate this sort of thing. We are now giving the United Party an opportunity, by means of a method of identification, of eliminating the ghost vote, if it does indeed exist, at elections, of eliminating it in respect of registration; and it will not only apply to Opposition voters, it will not only apply to the United Party or to the Progressive Party or to the Liberal Party or to the Coloured voters, it will apply to everybody. This Government and this side of the House are prepared to prove to the electorate of South Africa that they are not prepared to have anything to do with deception at elections, if that does take place, as alleged by the United Party. I ask the United Party this: Why are you not prepared to accept this offer to the National Party Government, the offer to eliminate deception? We are accepting it and let me tell you, Sir, that our voters will also accept it. The problems and difficulties which you envisage that the voters will throw away their identity cards …

They may lose them.

That may happen, but those will be odd instances. The people of South Africa have always been law-abiding and prepared to carry out the law. They have shown at every election that they were prepared to comply with the Electoral Act. Because I can tell you, Sir, that in spite of the allegations that are continually made there have been very few prosecutions in South Africa for a contravention of the Electoral Act, a fact which can be proved and which is not mere nonsense which is being whispered around for propaganda purposes. That is why we are not afraid to introduce the identity cards as a means of identification in order to eliminate the ghost vote and the alleged deception from our voting system.

We are now discussing one of the pillars of a fair election system, one of the pillars which ensures fair elections in the country. Another most important one, of course, is a fearless public service. There are others which are not to be discussed here to-day. I think we are fortunate, confining ourselves to this particular pillar, to be able to say that our Act has always been a good one and in many respects this Bill will make it a better one. We are particularly glad that the hon. the Minister has agreed to appoint a commission to inquire into the whole postal vote system. There is no doubt that the postal vote system, as it stands, has served certain purposes, but equally it is the one aspect of our electoral system which is in danger of bringing the system into disrepute. I think, therefore, it is very timely that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to accept the recommendation of this all-party Select Committee.

I would like to touch upon a few of the changes which will be taking place and make certain comments upon the remarks which hon. members have made this afternoon. One of the biggest and most important changes concerns the provisions governing those whose names will come on to the roll. The existing provision is Section 8 (2) (b) and an important change is to be made there. Hitherto all persons whose names were included in a roll automatically were taken over into a new roll. That is not to occur in future. That amendment has been supported by both the parties in this House; that is not, however, to say, that we on this side of the House certainly, and I think to judge by speeches, hon. members opposite also, do not have certain reservations about this particular provision. Indeed it has been said that we are embarking upon an experiment in accepting this method of procedure. More particularly a great responsibility will be placed upon the Department to ensure that within this period of 30 days complete registration takes place. I think it was the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), possibly the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who said that in the past the experience had been that voters’ rolls compiled after general registrations had been less satisfactory than those compiled after further supplementary registrations. I think that we on this side of the House will watch anxiously to see what success the Department has in its new method. We trust that they will ensure that a very complete job is done. That will in turn depend upon the thoroughness of the enumerators. The hon. member for Malmesbury said that this thoroughness was likely to be advanced by the fact that the enumerators would be paid per registration. There is a lot in what he says. Equally, Mr. Speaker, I think in the past, too, enumerators were paid on that basis. I think it is correct to say that it is intended, in carrying out these provisions, to follow along the lines of the census. That certainly gives cause for hope, and I would be very glad to hear from the hon. the Minister whether that is in fact the intention. I think it will be valuable to the country to know roughly what in fact the steps will be which will be taken to ensure that people are enrolled. I do not think that has in fact been put across to the people yet. Perhaps the Minister will deal with it in his reply.

This side of the House has focussed attention on the fact that this method will undoubtedly disfranchise people. This attitude of ours is based upon the fact that hitherto a 90 day period has been allowed for registrations during a general registration, whereas in future it will be reduced to 30. A very real fear is that a number of people may be out of the country, whether on holiday or business and that they inevitably will not be included in the roll. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has said that he personally intends seeing that such voters of his as were overseas will receive registrations forms and will be able to complete them. I do not know whether that procedure will in any way be assisted by the Government or whether it will be left entirely to the party or constituency concerned to carry out his suggestion. I will be very glad if the hon. the Minister could add anything to that point.

It has been pointed out that one improvement introduced in this Bill is that it is no longer necessary for a period of 180 days to elapse from the date for registration until the new supplementary registrations can be taken. The provision in the present Bill does make it possible to commence new registration for a supplementary roll before that 180 day period has expired. That is certainly to be welcomed. At the same time, whether there will be any real improvement there, will depend upon the speed at which the Department can work. It is to be hoped that the Department will set itself the target to get the new general registration rolls into operation as soon as possible. We realize that they must give the parties one month’s notice before they bring them into force, which inevitably cuts down their time. The hon. member for Malmesbury did say that with mechanization it was thought by the Department that it would not be difficult to complete the registration in 30 days. With great respect I think that the period of 30 days relates almost solely to the time which the enumerators will be busy. The Department will thereafter, presumably start working with the cards and its time will be quite some other matter.

This side of the House welcomes the fact that people who have been given suspended sentences will not be disfranchised. We feel that where the courts take the attitude that such a person should be given a chance to prove himself, it would be inappropriate for the electoral law to take a different view. We equally are glad that in cases where a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine is imposed, no change has been made in that regard. A certain amount has been said on the question of the alteration to the date concerning persons convicted of high treason. It is true that with the passage of time one may wish to adopt a conciliatory attitude and let bygones be bygones, but I think that it must be remembered here that the nature of this crime is such that a citizen from whom loyalty is due, has wilfully sought to overthrow the State. And I hope that it will impress itself upon hon. members opposite that they are introducing a new principle here. The principle seems to be that from time to time this date will be moved forward. Consequently people who may be convicted of high treason in the present period or in the ensuing period will, with the passage of time, presumably be given the benefit of this new approach to the question of high treason and will therefore become capable of being voters again.

I would like to say a word or two about identity cards. This side of the House certainly stands by what the former member for Sunnyside said in regard to population registration and identity cards. Indeed that attitude is maintained in the amendment which has been placed before the House. But this side of the House also objects to the use of identity cards for the reason that it will lead to a burden upon voters. The correctness of the attitude has been proved, I suggest, by the hon. the Minister’s remarks here to-day. He said that in fact he will move amendments which will modify that attitude. The amendments will be that people need not produce identity cards but may produce some other proof of identity. In this attitude there it can clearly be said that he has appreciated the burden and the disadvantageous effect of this provision standing as it does. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central), while not entirely happy about the introduction of identity cards at an early date, expressed the hope that they would at an early time be made obligatory in the case of postal votes. With great respect, I would suggest that this is a sector of this Act where these provisions can least of all be introduced with advantage. Before I deal with that, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will tell us in his reply whether his amendment, so far as concerns the production of identity cards at the polling stations themselves and the permission which the Act will give the voter for other proof of identity to be furnished, will also cover the position in the case of postal votes—whether the same provisions will apply in that case. In other words, as the Bill stands, a person, having completed an application for a postal vote and having obtained his postal vote ballot paper, will be obliged to produce his identity card to the commissioner of oaths when making his declaration as to identity. Will such absent voter be allowed to prove his identity not only by means of his identity card but also in some other way? As far as the general question of identity cards and postal votes is concerned—this ties up with what I have just said—it is particularly in the case of an absent voter that there is a large possibility that he will not have his identity card with him. People may in the course of time come to make a habit of carrying their identity cards with them, but I will be very surprised if 20 per cent of the hon. members of this House carry their identity cards with them. If that is so and if that continues, the person who is away from home will not have his identity card with him. Consequently I trust that in that case too it will be possible to prove identity in other ways. I think there certainly remain very large spheres where dishonest practice is possible so as far as postal votes are concerned even where the identity card is used. I will not enlarge upon that seeing that the whole matter is being referred to a commission. But I think that must be stated, particularly in view of the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) to the effect that he would like to see identity cards introduced and made compulsory at an early date for postal votes.

I would like just to touch upon the question of the compulsory notification of change of address, where the place of residence changes. Here I think there are very strong grounds for an amendment to be accepted in the Bill, and it is indeed our intention to move such an amendment. Various arguments have been advanced by hon. members opposite to answer the strong case which exists, but I suggest that they do not in fact destroy its validity. You already have compulsory registration at a general registration and it is an offence not to register. What logic, therefore, is there in not making a change of address compulsory? It is said that the great advantage of the compulsory registration on the new system every five years, is that you will get a clean roll. That virtue remains desirable in the intervening period. Indeed it is a great nuisance to the State, let alone the political parties, to be coping with people who move out of a particular constituency.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5. p.m.

Evening Sitting

My last point concerned the question of compulsory notification of change of address. I was directing almost an impassioned plea to the hon. the Minister to consider this seriously and to accept our amendment at a later stage. In fact, already there is compulsory registration at the general registration, and failure to register is an offence. It seems only reasonable and consistent that where you are considering the supplementary registration following a change of address, you should also make that compulsory, and failure to do so an offence. Some objection was taken to its being an offence. But it is a great convenience to the State, as well as to political parties, that a person should be registered at his proper address. If a person is registered at an address for the general registration and thereafter he moves, then at an election a postal vote is necessary, with all the expense and trouble involved, not to speak of the trouble for the parties in canvassing retracing these people. It is urged that the new system will give us a clean roll. Well, we will keep it clean if there is compulsory registration of change of address. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) said that he stood for the voter to have the right to be registered where he pleases. That is consistent with this idea that he should not have to re-register when he changes his address. But the whole of our electoral system is based on the idea of one Member of Parliament representing people in a defined area. Our attitude on this side is that a man should be registered where he lives, and in pursuance of that we ask the Minister to see the good sense of ensuring that people vote where they live, which of course involves compulsory registration when they change their address.

It has been argued that if this idea of ours were accepted, it would lead to difficulties and to the disfranchisement of many people. Previously it was compulsory to notify one’s change of address and there are other provisions which, together with that provision, did lead to certain people being taken off the roll wholesale. But the amendment we move simply requires a compulsory registration and does not re-introduce the provisions which would enable people to be taken off the roll wholesale. Therefore I suggest that a strong case has been made out for accepting the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has again pleaded, in the first place, for compulsory registration. I have no legal training, but if I read the law correctly, it does provide for compulsory registration also in those cases of change of address. If anybody moves from his present address, he must re-register within three months.

May he?

No, I think he must. But to return to the question of compulsion, in the past the law has contained a penalty clause and no previous Government has seen its way clear to apply it. In other words, why does anybody plead for something which no party has ever deemed fit to apply?

There has not been a penalty clause.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I just want to reply to that, Sir.

I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to reply.

They plead for a penalty clause and no Government has ever seen its way clear to apply such a penalty clause. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) alleges in his amendment that this legislation will disfranchise great numbers of voters. Before I say anything in that regard, I wish to point out that the O. & A. team who investigated this mechanical system, not only investigated mechanization but also a more effective system of registration, and that was actually what they recommended. I may also state that the leader of that team was an inspector of the Public Service Commission and he went overseas to make a study in other countries of their mechanical systems, and after all those investigations had been conducted they recommended this new system, not only with a view to saving but with a view to introducing a better system of registration. It surprises you, Sir, when hon. members opposite say that it will disfranchise a large number of voters. I know that the hon. member for Pinelands did not serve on the Select Committee last year but the hon. member for Point was there when the members of the team appeared before us. I am sorry that an hon. member like the hon. member for Point should come forward and cast suspicion beforehand on the system which has been recommended, a system which is very well intentioned, and on the registration and on the mechanization. I repeat that it is quite clear that this system will not only effect a very big saving, but that it will mean a much more effective system of registration. I wish to remind the hon. member for Point of what the O. & M. officials told us. They told us how they wanted to apply the system and that they wanted to appoint a greater number of enumerators, enumerators who would be paid according to the number of voters they registered and that they recommended the appointment of control officials who would exercise control over the registration in the various areas. In other words, they recommended an entirely new system which would be a better system than the one which had operated in the past. I cannot understand how hon. members can maintain that it will disfranchise a large number of voters. I cannot understand that.

May I ask the hon. member how those officials will register a person who is not at his home during the month when the registration takes place.

It is very clear from the legislation before us that it is provided that the real place of residence of the person should be filled in on the form and not the address where he is spending a holiday or where he is residing temporarily. That is why I cannot understand the difficulty of the hon. member.

I want to say something in connection with the 30 days. My experience has been that if you allow a person a shorter period within which to do his work he does it very much more efficiently than in the case where you give him a long period. When you have 90 days instead of 30 days in which to do your work you are inclined to postpone doing it. The fact remains, as the hon. member for Parow (Mrs. S. F. Kotzé) has pointed out, that the longer you make that period, the greater the number of voters who will not be registered, because they can change their address within the 90 days. If I tell hon. members that over a period of five years between 7,000 and 8,000 persons changed their address in my constituency and left my constituency, they can work it out for themselves, how many move over a period of 90 days, and if they multiply that with the number of constituencies, they will see how many people will move in those 90 days from one address to another and how great the number is who will not be registered. That is why I am of the opinion that by allowing 30 days for registration the effect will be that a greater number of persons will be registered and that the work will be done very much more efficiently if we introduce this system which the O. & M. officials have suggested.

Hon. members also objected to the fact that the suggested five yearly registration would take place de novo; in other words, that the voters’ roll will not be based on the old voters’ roll.

I want to say this in connection with using the existing voters’ roll as the basis for future voters’ rolls: In the first place it has the effect of lulling the voters into a sense of false security, because hon. members of this House will be able to testify to it that at every election people come to the polling station only to discover that they have not been registered and then they say that they were registered and could not understand why their names were not on the roll. If we have a new registration every five years, we will train the people to do their duty and to see to it that they are on the roll.

I want to mention something else. Hon. members say that it will be possible to pack certain constituencies. I want to point out that those abuses do take place under the existing system. If certain officials wanted to practise those abuses, they could register persons who ought not to have been registered. They did do that in the past. I do not want to mention the names of the constituencies, and I do not wish to single out any one party, but that was done in the past under the existing system. There was, however, a tremendous amount of dead wood on the voters’ rolls under the existing system. We originally had a system of continuous registration, and in every constituency a great number of voters had moved and it required a large organization to trace those people in order to get them to vote. Even under the biannual registration which was then introduced, you had the position that there were still a very large number of people, although not as many, who had to be traced in an attempt to get them to register their vote, either by means of postal voting, or bringing them to the polling station. Postal voting is an expensive business. If we wish to eliminate malpractices in respect of postal votes, one method of doing so is to reduce the number of postal votes, because in that event each party will be able to exercise much better control on the other party. If my opponent only has 300 postal votes, it is much easier for me to control the position than it would be if he had 1,000. If there were fewer postal votes it would be much easier to control malpractices. Every party will welcome it if a system were introduced under which there were fewer postal votes and this system of de novo registration is the only system under which you will really have fewer postal votes. I can only think of one improvement to this system and that is to provide that on election day the people must vote where they are. However, I do not think we can recommend such a system.

We are not apologizing for the fact that the Population Registration Act is being invoked in this legislation. I think hon. members opposite forget that many prominent members on their side have recommended population registration during their régime. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you will allow me to do so, but I wish to remind them once again that it was nobody less than the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who as Administrator …

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

I want to deal with the benefits which will flow from utilizing the population register at an election, Sir. That is why I say that that was the specific object why those hon. members recommended it. It was the hon. member for South Coast, as Administrator, who recommended such a population registration. We should also remember that it was the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who, as chairman of a Select Committee in 1946, recommende a population register.

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

Although it was not the same population register, it was one nonetheless, and it has many benefits. Hon. members would like to see malpractices eliminated at elections. Every party wants to see that and one of the ways of eliminating it is the application of the Population Registration Act and showing your identity card at an election or when you apply for a postal vote. That is why I say we are not apologizing for the fact that provision is made in this legislation for the application of the Population Registration Act at elections. What I am pleading for is that at the next election it must be applied 100 per cent because that is one method whereby we can force every person to carry his identity card in his pocket and many of the malpractices will be eliminated, such as the problem of impersonation.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

I want to conclude by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for having agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee, or rather a commission, to go into the question of postal votes. The object of our legislation is to get the largest number of voters to exercise their vote. That was why the postal system was introduced, but it lends itself to all sorts of malpractices. That is why I am pleased that there is to be a thorough investigation into that system. I also wish to express the hope expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Point) namely that once the entire system has been investigated and the legislation has been smartened up, we will have consolidated legislation to apply at elections. The various amendments make the task of the parties very difficult.

Mr. Speaker, …

There is the biggest old rogue who has ever obtained a postal vote.

On a point of order, may I ask whether the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) can be called by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) “the biggest old rogue who has ever obtained a postal vote”?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

I withdraw it.

I am sorry, the hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) and Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) are not here to-night. I am sorry that they have seen fit to engage in the debate and launch attacks on this side of the House, and made serious and wild allegations, and then disappear when we wish to reply to those allegations. I hope, Sir, you will permit me to say this. The hon. member for Parow alleged that when the amending Act of 1952 in regard to the change of address was before this House, I supported the principle that there should be no compulsory notification of change of address. When I interjected during the course of his speech, the hon. member said: “Why do you not look at Hansard?”. Well, I looked at Hansard, and it stands perfectly clearly in Hansard that I voted against the proposal of the Government at that time that it would no longer be compulsory to notify changes of address, and my words were quite clear. I say here in Hansard, Col. 6832—

If the hon. member for Parow alleges that we took that stand at that time, I wonder why he did not tell the House that when the original Act was passed in 1946 it was a prominent member of the Nationalist Party who in the Committee Stage in the course of that debate moved in this House that there should be compulsory notification of the change of address of any voter, and that amendment was accepted by the Government of the day. And what is more, they did not only move for the compulsory notification of the change of address of White voters, but they moved that there should be compulsory notification of the change of address on the part of Coloured voters as well. So the hon. member for Parow told nothing but a palpable untruth for the purpose of making political capital.

I come back to the hon. member for Malmesbury and his “spookstories”. He seemed to have a remarkable knowledge of the subject when he discussed the matter of ghost votes this afternoon. I certainly learned a great deal from him. When the Act was passed in 1946 it was described as the Magna Charta of the voting public and at that time it was accepted unanimously by both sides of the House, and it was described as the Magna Charta of our electoral rights because, as was stated then, both sides of the House wished to create the impression that election machinery was being established which was so devised as to be beyond manipulation and to give a complete and true reflection of the views of the nation in any election. Now, since the passing of that Act the principal Act has been amended no fewer than four times, and this is the fifth time. It was amended in 1948, in 1952, in 1957 and in 1958, and I can recall no single instance, other than on this occasion, where the Government had met this side of the House halfway in respect of any proposals of a fundamental nature respecting our voting procedure or any procedures which would facilitate a voter being able to bring out his vote. There has been no attempt in regard to any fundamental change since 1946 on the part of the Government to meet the Opposition halfway in regard to this matter, and now we have the extraordinary exhibition of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) starting his speech by saying that we now see the advantages of sending a Bill of this nature to a Select Committee before the second reading. I want to remind the hon. member that this very same measure was before the House last year, and it was that hon. member, when this side of the House moved that this very same Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading, who objected and was very vociferous in opposing the motion moved by this side of the House. [Interjections.] But this afternoon he says: Look at all the wonderful improvements in this Bill because it went to a Select Committee. One has to doubt the sincerity of hon. members when they change their attitude from one year to another, and whether they really want to co-operate in setting up proper electoral machinery.

Now I wish to deal with some undesirable aspects of this measure, particularly where new principles are introduced which in my view can lead to malpractices. Before I do so, may I just say this in passing, that I share the views expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in respect of those provisions of this Bill which seek to restore the vote to those who were found guilty of treason in the past. I think it is a bad thing to do at this time. Let me remind the Minister that any man in terms of our law who is found guilty of treason is liable to the death penalty. The fact that there are these particular gentlemen who to-day are disfranchised and are not able to exercise their vote, is only because of the attitude, the lenient attitude, adopted by the Government of the day when they committed the act of which they were found guilty, the treasonable acts of which they were found guilty. I think it is a wrong principle that when you have a change of Government from time to time that those acts can be viewed as but political acts, acts against a particular Government, rather than treasonable acts committed against the safety of the State. And if those persons committed those acts and were found guilty, they must pay the penalties laid down, and one of them is that they lose their right to vote, and what assurances have we got for the future when we know the background? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is acting in a treasonable manner in this House to-night.

Order! Hon. members must please keep quiet.

I would say to the Minister these are acts against the security of the State and not against the Government, and when those acts were committed at the time those people were fully aware of the penalties which they would incur and of the privileges as citizens which they would lose. In my view, I can see that the people can have no guarantee whatsoever that those persons will not even exercise their votes in a reactionary fashion and to the detriment of the true interests of our country, having once committed a crime against the State and the people of our country. I am afraid I can feel no sympathy for this proposal and I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in the views he expressed.

I now come to some of the malpractices that I can see arising under this Bill, such as, e.g., under Clause 10 which amends Section 15 of the original Act and which now makes it unnecessary for certain particulars to be furnished in voters’ lists—one of those particulars being that is now not necessary to have the Christian name in the lists. There is another proposal coupled with the non-provision of the Christian name, namely that there will no longer be a separation in the voters’ roll. I took the trouble to look up what the possible consequences would be of this proposal. I leave the identification card aside for the moment, but I will come back to it. I took the trouble to look up the voters’ roll of my own constituency at the last election and in a mere random check I found these names where you get similarity of initials. Take people with the name of Wilson. There are no fewer than 37 Wilsons with precisely the same initials. Take the name Williams. There are 50 persons with the same initials. There are 69 Venters, 69 Van der Merwes, 43 Van der Walts, 39 Steyns, 133 Smiths, all with the same initials, 39 with the name of Pretorius and 105 with the name of Botha. That is but a random check, but it is obvious what can happen if there is no adequate means of checking the proper identity of these persons. The Minister has said that because he has doubts about the efficacy of applying the identity card, he will come in the Committee Stage with an amendment to Section 80 to make it possible for a voter about whose identity there is doubt to exercise his vote. I took the trouble to look at Section 80, and the only possible amendment the Minister can bring in is to include a provision in the last paragraph to say that a voter can offer any other form of proof of identity. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister. Say for instance, one of the Smiths in my constituency, of whom there are 133 with the same initial, want to vote and he is challenged and he has not got his identity card with him, if his Christian names do not appear on the voters’ roll, or at least one of them, as suggested by the Select Committee …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Can the hon. member for Turffontein …

Order! Is the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) prepared to have a question put to him?

No, Sir, the hon. member will have an opportunity of addressing the House.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has heard that the hon. member for Turffontein has exercised his right not to reply to questions. The hon. member should not remark upon it.

If the hon. member for Langlaagte disputes my figures, I will make the roll which I have with me available to him and he can count them himself, if he can count that far. Section 80, to which the hon. the Minister has said he will effect an amendment, merely states that in certain circumstances a ballot paper may be refused by a presiding officer. It is obvious that the Minister will introduce an amendment to that Section or give some other reason so that that person will be able to exercise his vote. But that is only on the basis of an objection. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider that. The Minister has laid the emphasis on mechanization. If three or four initials of a person can be included, I cannot see why means cannot be devised to include at least one Christian name as a means of identification. It is unreasonable to think that with 133 Smiths on the roll all 133 of them will have the Christian name of John. You will at least have a variation which will make identification possible as has been the case in the past.

In dealing with a Bill of this nature, Sir, we are discussing electoral machinery to make our democracy work. We are trying to devise electoral machinery that will permit the voters of South Africa to give expression to their will, on the principle that every member in this House truly represents the constituency which has sent him here. We should do so, Sir, on two principles. We should do it without any possible system of abuse in that electoral machinery and that the electoral machinery so devised should offer the greatest freedom and convenience to the voter in exercising his right to vote. In this regard I agree with the hon. the Minister’s observations which are contrary to the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). I agree with the Minister that the Government have a responsibility in this. There is a measure of responsibility on the State to see that those two principles are observed. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) says no, there is no responsibility as far as the electoral officer or the Government is concerned, it is the responsibility of political parties.

That is not true.

If the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) does not even know what arguments he used when he spoke he should study his Hansard speech. The whole import of what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) said this afternoon was that there was no responsibility as far as the Government was concerned that it was the responsibility of political parties and organizers to see that people are registered.

That is absolutely untrue.

You will have an opportunity later to argue that point. If it is our desire to devise electoral machinery to carry out these two objectives and if there is a responsibility on the Government, then it is my contention that, if we are to operate as a true democracy, that responsibility should be carried out even if it involves extra cost and even if it involves extra work and administrative responsibility as far as the Minister’s Department is concerned. The hon. the Minister talked this afternoon about mechanization. His predecessor, the Deputy Minister, in introducing the Bill last year also had a great deal to say about mechanization. In fact, Sir, the hon. the Minister made a point this afternoon that the system of mechanization was related to the introduction of the identity cards. He said that the introduction of the identity cards was a reason for mechanization. He said if we wanted more effective voters’ rolls the identity cards should be used for identification purposes and that mechanization made the use of identity cards in itself necessary. The point which arises is this: Are we legislating in this measure for an easier administrative system in the compilation of voters’ rolls or are we legislating to obtain for our democracy a more true reflection of the will of the people? That to me, Sir, is the issue when we discuss the possible objectionable aspects of the Bill which is before us. No member who has participated in this debate has advanced one argument or has even pretended that in the last three general elections the true will of the people has not been reflected.

Where do you get that?

Is the hon. member for Somerset East now alleging that the last three elections did not reflect the true will of the people? [Interjections.] If it is alleged that they did not reflect the true will of the people, that there was fraud, that the votes were not brought out as they should have been and that the constituencies do not reflect the true position, then I can understand the basis of the arguments of some hon. gentlemen who have participated in this debate. Not one of them has proved that the present system of identification of voters has been unsatisfactory. Not one of those hon. gentlemen has indicated that our present system of identification at the polling booths has resulted in large-scale impersonation of voters or in large-scale fraud. Does the hon. member for Somerset East allege that?

We are now being asked to amend the principal Act to the effect that in order to prove his identity a voter must produce his identity card. He is being asked to use an instrument which many thousands of people find distasteful, an instrument which they find an infringement of their dignity as South African citizens, quite apart from the inconvenience to which the voters will be put by having to produce an identity card at the time they want to exercise their democratic right. It is obvious, Sir, that at a time of an election you will probably have to handle hundreds of voters who are unable to vote because they have either mislaid that piece of paste board or because they do not have it readily available when they are called for by a motorcar to take them to the polling booth. Let me tell the hon. members. Sir, that this is not going to be a one-way traffic; it is going to be a two-way traffic as far as the production of the identity card is concerned. The hon. member for Prestoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) is a very active party organizer. He has taken many thousands of voters to the polling booth in Nationalist motorcars, not only in his own constituency but in other constituencies as well. What does the hon. member think will his reaction be when he gets to the door and he is told by the voter: “Well, I am sorry, I cannot go with you in the motorcar because I cannot find my identity card; I do not know where it is”? What will his feelings be?

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Somerset East says it is nonsense, Sir, He has not even read this Bill; he does not know what is in it. I want him to read Clause 35. It is perfectly clear and straightforward. The hon. member can understand English. I will read it in English to him—

Read Clause 62.

Does the hon. member find his consolation in Clause 62? Clause 62 gives the Minister the discretionary power to bring this provision in when and how he likes. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) said to-day that if this were brought in he would never have accepted this amendment in the Act. Sir, I wonder whether hon. members realize that they are arguing against the Bill and against this provision? What on earth is the use of using the identity card system as a means of identification at a general registration if you do not bring it into effect immediately ait the time you have an election?

Are you proposing it?

I am not proposing it; I am against it. The hon. member for Somerset East is in favour of it but the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) says he would never have voted for this proposal, he will not vote for this Bill, if the Minister stands up and says he is going to introduce it immediately. Sir, let me take the argument a little bit further. Let us assume, Sir, that the Minister uses Clause 62 and brings the identity cards into operation. In terms of the law as it stands we will have a general election in 1967. Assume the Minister has brought it into operation and we have to go and vote. Let us deal with this matter in a practical manner. Let us choose a good example; let us choose an hon. member with whom we have a long association. Sir, I am sure you will recall the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) ten years ago. I admit that there are marked changes in his appearance due to the ravages of time. Imagine for a moment, Sir, that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) exercised his privilege of stature and prestige and he grew a beard. You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that we will have an unrecognizable picture of the member for Pretoria (Central) with a beard compared with his identity card issued in 1953.

Read the Act.

Sir, in those circumstances can it possibly be expected of a polling officer, in applying the provisions of this Bill, to allow the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) to vote? Obviously the mere production of an identity card is no proof in itself that the person who produces that identity is the person who is depicted on that identity card. Obviously with the passing of the years the resemblance is going to change in respect of many people. Can you imagine the chaos and the arguments at a polling booth when inexperienced Government clerks acting as polling officers, have to carry out the onerous job of having to identify every individual voter by looking at their picture and then looking at their faces? Can you imagine their predicament, Sir? And then, the Minister says: “Don’t worry about that; I am going to amend Section 80” because in terms of Section 80, if there is any objection to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) with his beard, he will be able to produce other means of identification. But what other means of identification can the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) produce in 1967? He cannot come along and say “My Christian names are Jan Hendrik” or whatever it may be, because there is no proof. His Christian names will not be on the voters’ roll. He has got a bit old and lost his identity card; he does not take that piece of paste board with him when he goes to exercise his vote, he has become a bit absent-minded, so he cannot exercise his vote. You see, Sir, I can enumerate a host of possible malpractices; I can show how the whole system in itself will break down. Not by any stretch of imagination will it be possible to think that this was a measure which Ministers of this Government declared in 1948 to be a charter in order to facilitate voting on election days. What is being done here, Sir, is to create an irritation and what is being done here is to deny, in fact, the people the facility of easy voting. We are making it more difficult for the individual voter to bring out his vote, quite apart from the other malpractices which will arise through the application of this system of using only a piece of paste board with a number on it to identify the voter concerned.

I want to deal with that part of our amendment which deals with those provisions of this Bill which can lend themselves to the packing of constituencies. Bearing in mind the fact that general registrations only take place at five years intervals, in terms of Clause 4 of this Bill, when a new general registration of voters takes place, the old roll will be abolished. Let me point out to you in passing, Sir, that Clause 4 (1) (a) deletes that provision in the original Act which requires an electoral officer for the purposes of a general registration to prepare a list containing the names of persons enrolled on the existing voters’ list. In terms of Clauses 4 and 9 the general registration will take place of all persons who are actually resident at a certain place on the day the general registration takes place—one day in the year. The Minister said it would be done on the census basis. I want to make this quite clear. In terms of the existing Act no voter can register unless he has fulfilled a residential qualification of two months. The effect of this amendment, Sir, will be that any person can claim his residence at any address. Who is to dispute any voter if he says “for the purposes of my business and for the purposes of my registration, have this place as my residential address” postal or otherwise? Who is to dispute that person’s claim? Let me illustrate what can happen; it may make hon. members think It affects them as well as it affects us. It is estimated that not more than 10 per cent of the entire 1,750,000 voters are members of a political party. What can happen? An unscrupulous party organizer has only to select a number of addresses—let us call them addresses of convenience—where he will be able to register party supporters. Let us take the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who has wide experience of how to carry out those practices effectively. I say that on the strength of every close association with the hon. member in this party over many years. Now he is an organizer. He is enthusiastic about Vereeniging because he knows it will be a shaky seat in the next election with his bare majority. He is worried about the future. But he has a good party organization in Vereeniging. He says to himself: “I have a large number of supporters, personal supporters, supporters of my party, in the constituency of Heidelberg, the Prime Minister’s constituency. He has a vast majority. He does not need all those voters”. What does the law say? The law says he can give his actual address. That is the wording of the Bill. So the hon. member for Vereeniging gets hold of his party organizers and says to them: “Look, I have 20 good party members here. They are quite prepared to allow people, for the purposes of their businesses or as a convenience because they live on plots outside Heidelberg, to use their town addresses in Vereeniging as their actual address”. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it is no good the hon. member saying it is illegal. I will show him how it will work through experience with the hon. member for Vereeniging.

What are you insinuating?

Order! Does the hon. member think he is being fair in giving such personal examples and making insinuations?

I am using the hon. member for Vereeniging as a party organizer of long experience for the purposes of my argument.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is insinuating that under this Bill certain illegal things can be done. He said “I mention the hon. member for Vereeniging by long association with him as party organizer”—which I have never been—insinuating thereby that I have always been doing those things illegally.

Mr. Speaker, I have not said that the member for Vereeniging has done anything yet.

The hon. member is insinuating it.

I withdraw any insinuation, Sir. But I have not said that the hon. member for Vereeniging has done anything illegal. He must be seeing the matter further than I am.

Order! The hon. member must not be personal.

Well, Sir, instead of referring to the hon. member for Vereeniging, I will say “any political organizer”. Now, Sir, we have had it explained to us by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that this enumeration which is going to take place on a certain day, will be done by people hired by the Minister’s Department who will be paid on a card basis, and that they will carry out this enumeration during the 30 days set down. What happens in practice, Sir, on the basis of a census. Do these enumerators see every single voter at every single address? Obviously not, Sir. The enumerator knocks on the door, the owner is not there on that particular night. His wife or some member of the family may be home and the enumerator leaves a certain number of cards for the persons who are there. He asks them to complete the details as for a census. The enumerator says “I will call in a week’s time”. He comes along at the end of the week and collects the cards. He may have left seven cards. All that is required to fill in those cards is the insertion of the identity card number, the person’s occupation, his initials and his address. Unless he sees the individual voter himself, how is any enumerator to know that he has not told a story? Therefore, Sir, is it not possible for an unscrupulous party political organizer who selects 20 addresses of trusted party members to say: “Look, the general registration is on 1 October and when the enumerator comes round you tell him that there are 20 people residing in this building”. [Interjections.] I am trying to tell you what will happen, what can happen, and you talk about a fool-proof system to protect the voters of the country! Do hon. members realize that just 20 selected addresses who give 20 additional names will mean a loading of 440 voters in that particular constituency? If you took 10 addresses with 15 people each you will have a loading of 150 voters. You can go on ad lib. like that. What hon. member opposite has not got at least 50 tried and trusted members in their constituencies who will be prepared to lend their names and addresses for the purpose of registering five people at a time. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that they will do it. The fact of the matter is that it can be done. The whole fact of the matter is that the door is open for malpractices and that is what we want to stop. If hon. members are sincere in their desire, as announced by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and others, that we should cooperate in this House in order to prevent any malpractices as far as our electoral machinery is concerned, let us work together to achieve that. Let us accept the security that we on this side of the House have suggested to prevent anything like that. Because it is possible under this system to load one constituency from another one. It can be done. Hon. members know it can be done, and there is only one way to stop it and that is to make the notification of a change of address compulsory. It is the only way to stop it. The onus is then on the voter himself. [Time limit.]

In view of the fact that the hon. member who has just sat down is the second biggest crook when it comes to the handling of postal votes, I will not react further to his speech.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, may I say he is the biggest crook.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that. He must not play the fool with the Chair.

I know you will not allow me to say that he is the biggest liar in this House …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) gave an example to this House and tried to make the House believe that there was a certain polling district in Turffontein where there were 133 Smiths with the initial “J”. Here I have the voters’ roll for Turffontein. I challenge him to show this House to-night that the example which he has given us is correct. What is more, Mr. Speaker, I think he said there was a polling district where there were over 90 van der Merwes. Here I have the voters’ roll for, Turffontein. What is more, he can take any other name and I challenge him to prove to this House to-night that the example which he has given to this House is a true example. Here I have the voters’ roll; I can give it to him. If the hon. member has any sense of honour he will get up and apologize to this House for the example which he has given us. [Interjections.] I want to leave the hon. member at that.

I want to say this that I am very pleased that in spite of the remarks made by the hon. member for Turffontein, and to some extent by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), I detect an underlying desire on their part to try to find a better Electoral Act in the shape of this legislation, the best Electoral Act for this country of ours. That desire could be detected in other speeches from that side of the House. When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I must also say that I do not believe we will ever succeed in producing a perfect Electoral Act. In discussing this legislation I took the trouble of ascertaining what the position was in other democratic countries; how the electoral laws operated in those particular countries. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot but come to the conclusion that basically South Africa has one of the best Electoral Acts of all democratic countries. I forget for the moment the few weaknesses which we are discussing at the moment. But basically South Africa has one of the best Electoral Acts to-day. If you study the electoral laws of Australia, Canada, and those of an old established country like England and even those of America, you will realize that there is much to be said for our Electoral Act. When you think of it that during the past four years we have had more elections in South Africa than during any other similar period in the past, and when you think of it that in 1960 during the referendum our Electoral Act was put to the test as never before in the past, and when you bear in mind that we have had the position in the past in South Africa that we were sharply divided as far as politics were concerned, that there were many emotions, and when you think of it that other than in the case of many other Western countries, we in South Africa have the position that our political parties keep an active party organization in force throughout, not only before elections or during election, but throughout, you come to the conclusion, or indeed it is a fact when you think of the years that have gone by, that our electoral machinery has functioned particularly smoothly and that it has been a credit to our country’s electoral laws. The hon. member for Turffontein referred to it sneeringly, but I think we can accept it today that South Africa’s Electoral Act is indeed a charter for the electorate of this country. There is one aspect of our Electoral Act, however, Mr. Speaker, which leaves much to be desired at this stage, and that is the aspect of the postal vote system. Our entire postal system shows that there is a great defect in our Electoral Act. Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker, that during the past it appeared as though this system was on the point of getting out of hand completely. I want to give you the example of the Queenstown constituency where we have been fighting very hard battles during the past four years and where the two political parties have been standing like two rams with their horns interlocked. It is remarkable that this system failed completely there where we had to do with highly specialized party-political organization. During the last election at Queenstown there was a 97.2 per cent poll. 11,121 votes were cast. Last year at the time of that election the National Party handled 2,019 postal votes in those circumstances. The United Party handled 1,653 postal votes, giving a total of 3,672 postal votes in that constituency. Expressed in a percentage it means that 33 per cent of the voters in the Queenstown constituency exercised their vote last year through the post. If you take this analysis further, Sir, you will see that, whereas the borders of that constituency have remained precisely the same and where the electorate corps have remained more or less constant, during the preceeding three years there has been a fantastic increase in the percentage of postal votes on each occasion. That proves that it has practically become the fashion to-day, that it has become easy to vote through the post. That places an almost unbearable financial burden on the State and on our political parties. I want to give the example of the referendum. During the referendum in 1960, 271,418 republican votes were cast in the Cape Province, and 51,400 of those republican votes were cast through the post. In other words, approximately 20 per cent of the people who cast their vote in favour of the Republic in the Cape Province had voted through the post. When we go further and analyse the position in constituencies with a stable population, where there is not such a great movement of population, it is noticeable that from year to year, from election to election, the system is getting more and more out of hand on every occasion. I think the hon. the Minister showed the right approach when he announced this afternoon that he was prepared to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee, that not only should the postal vote system be investigated, but that there should be a thorough general investigation. I think the hon. the Minister’s approach is the right one there and that only good will come of it. I am not saying that we will succeed in devising a system which will be above all suspicion. However, it was noticeable that when the hon. the Minister made that announcement this afternoon, both sides of the House shouted “hear, hear” which is clear proof that it is admitted throughout that this system is on the point of collapsing. One of the reasons why the system is on the point of collapsing, particularly when you analyse the position further, is the fact that in the past our voters’ rolls have not been what they should have been, and the main reason for that was the system of general registration. The system of registration was wrong. The work was not done properly. Without being too candid I want to say this to-day: I am aware of the fact that numbers of numerators were appointed off the streets. They know “Oom Jan” or “Oom Koos”—he is an elder or deacon living in that street and they happen to know him. They sit with him with their packet of registration cards and they ask him whether this person or that person still lives in that street and if “Oom Koos” knows that person the enumerator simply marks that card as being correct. There has never been a proper house-to-house registration with a general registration in the past. We are now introducing this new system which I predict can be only beneficial to any political party. If you have a good party policy in conjunction with such a system, it is as easy as pie for any political party. We will have the voters’ roll at our disposal much sooner, those voters’ rolls will be fresh in future, more up to date and it will do away with the necessity of having the great number of postal votes in future which we have had in the past. That is one factor which will combat this system. As far as the interim registrations are concerned there is only one matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I am pleased that the State has seen fit to assume greater responsibility at a general registration and that it has guaranteed that there will be better registration. As far as the interim registrations are concerned, that onus will continue to rest mainly on the political parties. It will remain our duty to see to it at interim registration that our people are registered from time to time. We require the hon. the Minister’s assistance in this regard. I think that in practice it ought to be made easier for the individual to become registered. Let me take the complex of the Cape Peninsula as an example. Take the case of a contentious citizen of 18 years of age who chooses to register himself; he does not want to look for a political party, but he is willing to go to the trouble of having himself registered. What is the position in such a case? He finds that it is just not possible for him to lay his hands on that R.V.-l form, that registration card as it is commonly called. He is told that they are available at the police station or at the magistrate’s office but there are only two or three magistrate’s offices in this big complex and those forms are usually not available at those offices, and unless it is absolutely necessary the ordinary citizen is not very desirous of going to a police station. I think the solution lies in this that administratively the post office should be designated as the place where such a person ca. n be registered if he chooses to register himself. If we can bring it home to the general public by means of the radio and the press that the actual place where he should register is the post office if he wants to do so himself, I think we will rectify the position to a considerable extent. At one time or another everyone of us go there to buy a stamp or to post a letter and the registration cards should be available with an envelope to be addressed to the returning officer, at the counter at the post office where you fill in telegram forms and every person should know that he can get that form at the post office and complete it. He can immediately place it in the envelope, address it, and post it to the returning officer.

What about the witnesses?

He can get the witnesses there. This matter was brought to the notice of the Minister who dealt with the Bill last year, and I gathered from the reply of the Minister concerned that arrangements had been made in that connection with the Postmaster-General. I took the trouble this morning of telephoning ten post offices in the Cape Peninsula and in spite of the assurance which the Minister had given at the time, these cards were not available at one of those ten post offices. As a matter of fact in the case of five of those post offices the person who answered the telephone did not know what I was talking about. I want to request the hon. the Minister kindly to give his attention to this matter. I think this is a practical suggestion which will be of great assistance in the case of interim registrations. For the rest I just want to say that I am of the opinion that as far as interim registrations are concerned, we should, when this system proves a success in practice, move in the direction of the American system where they have completely done away with interim registrations. I know the immediate objection will be: What about by-elections? The solution in the case of by-elections will be that there will be no interim registrations at all; when a vacancy occurs and there has to be a by-election, the State will have to undertake to have a prior general registration in the constituency concerned. I am perhaps anticipating events. I think that if this system proves to be a success in practice—and I do not doubt that the amendment which is before this House will bring about greater efficiency-time may show that we should move in that direction because after all said it should be the task and ideal of everyone of us to give South Africa the best Electoral Act of all democratic countries.

Earlier in this debate it was pointed out to us here in this House that we are not here dealing with only an overhaul of the electoral machinery of South Africa, but that we are in fact devising a system that will make democracy work, a system that will permit the wish of the nation to be expressed. I believe that when we have to establish such a system, it should in the first place give the voter of South Africa the assurance that if he is entitled to it, he should be able to register himself. And once he has been able to register, he should be able on the polling day, to cast his vote in secret freely and without any compulsion, and he should be able to cast his vote without any unnecessary bother. But I believe that there is one requirement above all with which an Electoral Act should comply, and that is that the citizens of the country should have the necessary faith in that Act. In this connection I should like to say that I personally am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister has decided to appoint a commission in connection with the system of postal votes, because I am of the opinion that the postal vote system as it has worked during the past few years, has had the effect that the citizens of the country no longer have had the necessary faith in it. I think the facts that have been stated so clearly by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) clearly indicated that such a system could very easily become suspect in South Africa, and that is why I am glad that a commission will investigate the whole matter. And although I agree with the hon. ‘the Minister that we shall probably never be able to perfect the system, I do believe that the commission might produce good results with its inquiry.

There is an amendment of the United Party before this House, because the United Party believes that those particular rights to which I have referred, should be safeguarded as far as the voters are concerned. In moving the amendment, we are moving it because we believe that the Bill now before the House is to a greater or lesser degree abridging those rights. We may be wrong, in which case the hon. the Minister could very easily correct us, but if we are not wrong, and if we are able to make out a case, then I believe that hon. members opposite should be prepared to help us to eliminate such defects. Indeed I believe it is necessary that we should make out our case chapter and verse. As I see it, if we only realize that there is the slightest possibility that a voter may lose his vote, that he may not be able to cast it, or even that his vote may be neutralized, then I believe it is the duty of this House to eliminate that particular defect. I believe we should give the benefit of the doubt to the electorate of South Africa. It is true, admittedly, that the defects to which I have alluded, will possibly not be discovered by 999 out of 1,000 people. Those people are honest and sincere, and will not search for loopholes in the Electoral Laws. But it is that one black sheep for whom the matter should be rectified so that he is unable to abuse the law. I should like to say in all modesty that this is the background against which the amendment of the United Party should be seen. If we can prove what the amendment says, namely that a large number of people may be disfranchised as a result of the Bill, if we can prove that there is the possibility that a constituency may be loaded, if we can prove that there are abuses under the system of postal votes, or that there are problems in regard to the use of the identity cards, even if there is a possibility of problems in this connection, then it is the duty of this House to look at the matter objectively and if possible to rectify it.

The first point made by our amendment, is the fact that people may be disfranchised. Now thus far no member in the House has tried to prove that it is not so. As a result of the monthly period for registration under the new Bill, it is a fact that there will be people not in South Africa, and I believe it will be a considerable number. Those people will not be registered during that month. But now the counter-argument is a sound one: Hon. members say: Yes, but when the people return they can be registered under the supplementary registration, and so they will in any event come upon the voters’ roll. That is quite correct, but I think we should also see the other side of the matter. When will that supplementary registration take place? That seems to me is the crux of the matter. The general registration comes into operation 180 days after the proclamation of the general registration, or it comes into effect 30 days after the voters’ lists have come into the hands of the party officials. I think I am putting it correctly. Now hon. members opposite say that in terms of the amendment we shall not be able to do the supplementary registration much quicker, for if we can complete a general registration sooner, and the voters’ lists can be available quickly, we shall be able to do the first supplementary registration very soon. That is so. But I should like to say in all humility that at the Act stands now, 180 days may elapse before any person may come onto the voters’ list. The effect of that is this, that if for argument’s sake, we were to have a general registration from 15 September to 15 October, any Government could proclaim an election on 29 June of the following year, and during that period of approximately eight months no additional name could be added to the voters’ list. I think this is something that could easily be rectified and it can be rectified if the amending ideas aired by the hon. member for Duranb (Point) to-night, were to be followed up. There are other ways also in which it could be rectified, but I believe that we cannot permit such a state of affairs to arise where eight months may elapse, an election may take place, a by-election may take place, and there will literally be thousands of people who normally would be entitled to vote, but will not be able to vote in those circumstances. I think that matter should be put right, and it can be done easily.

Then I come to the loading of constituencies. That has a special significance to me. It is not only a question of one man voting in the constituency while he does not reside there. Every time a person living in another constituency votes in this constituency he is neutralizing the vote of a person in this constituency. The vote of that person living in the constituency in this manner has a reduced value. To me it amounts to this, that we are permitting, as a result of the position that arises, that we as it were emasculate the particular right of one voter, and his vote does not mean much to him. I think it can arise under the new Bill, can arise more easily.

You see that even in this honourable House there is some doubt as to the meaning of the term “permanent residence I am happy about it, I am satisfied with the expression, but when there is doubt in this House, how much more uncertainty will there not be outside the House on the question of permanent residence. I can in fact conceive that there will be many people throughout South Africa who will simply say: “Look, I reside here,” while the man may only be visiting there. Such a man may find himself registered in a constituency where he really does not have the right to be registered. And nobody has the right to say that he should get out and have himself registered in another constituency. He may remain there if he wishes until the next general registration, and in the mean time he can continue, in my view, quite unlawfully to neutralize the vote of other people. I do not think that ought to be permitted. There is the other aspect of the matter, namely the question of demarcation that will be influenced by such a position. But I shall rather say a word or two about the identity card matter. I should like to say clearly at once, that this side of the House has not disguised the matter: We do not like the idea that the identity card, which has acquired a political flavour, should be dragged into a Bill such as this, a Bill in relation to which the entire matter of the franchise should be considered objectively because party politics should have no part in it.

Why is it a matter of party politics?

I do not think it is necessary to reply to that question, for heated debates have already occurred here on the matter. Over and above that, the fact remains that if you incorporate the identity card into the electoral machine on the polling day, you are going to have trouble. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) put it this way: He says: It is childish, it is nonsense, the fact that the old lady or the old man left her or his card at home and cannot vote. But I should like to remind him of the words of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). He says he can readily foresee the possibility that almost a civil war could break out over such a matter. So therefore it is not a childish matter. There are thousands of people in our country whose vote has great value for them, and even if he, through his own negligence, by leaving his identity card at home, cannot vote, I can tell you that this House will definitely be blamed because we, the voter will say, piloted such a childish law through Parliament.

In my view these are the main objections this side of the House has raised: The fact that in our view the identity card should not be dragged into the matter; the fact that the possibility of loading constituencies is present—we are not blaming anybody, it is a quite objective view—and the fact that we could have the position here that a large number of persons possibly may not be able to vote as a result of the implications of the Bill. We are dealing here with a matter of the greatest importance, and that is why I personally should like to urge the hon. the Minister to co-operate with us to remove these few loopy-holes from the Bill.

I should like to reply briefly to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but by way of introduction, I have to say that it has been a pleasure to listen to the hon. member who in a comparatively short time spoke about the subject of the debate in contrast with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who spoke for a very long time, without anybody being able to understand what he was talking about.

As regards the points mentioned by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, he began by saying that the Electoral Act is an important instrument of our whole democratic process. I agree with him, but I should like to remind him that the culmination of the democratic process is here and that we should not unnecessarily talk merely for the sake of talking, and it is something also of which we have made ourselves guilty in this House today, that we have discussed a bill that actually is not contentious, without putting relevant matters. So I am going to confine myself to relevant matters. The hon. member contends vaguely that many people may be disfranchised. Now the question is whether under this amendment of the general registration, more people will be disfranchised than under the previous set-up, in the transfer of voters’ names. The hon. member is quite correct that under the previous set-up where voters’ names were carried over from one general registration to the other, people who were overseas at the time of the general registration, would not be disfranchised and now there is a danger that such a person may be disfranchised. But at the same time, as a necessary counter to that system of the carrying forward from one voters’ list to another through the period of the general registration to the next one, there was that qualifying period of two months “permanent residence at one place”, and that disqualified many young people. At the time when he became entitled to vote, the person was 18 or 21, and he was not yet at a place where he had resided for two months, and because he did not comply, he was virtually disfranchized. There is no conceivable method of registration in which you will not miss certain people if you were to have a general registration at a given moment. The question we should ask is whether this is an unreasonable process. The hon. member then proceeded to express his misgivings as to whether in fact the supplementary lists will open much sooner than 180 days after the general registration. That we shall have to see. The evidence of the officers who investigated the system of mechanization, was quite optimistic that they could do it in a considerably shorter time than 180 days, and that the supplementary registration therefore could commence soon. So to make a point of amendment of this point, that the legislation should be rejected for this reason because it will lead to voters being disfranchised on a large scale, is an exaggeration, and the weak and courteous criticism of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is confirmation that this point in the United Party’s amendment has no substance. It was merely a small defeating point.

Now I come to the second point on which he hammered, and that is the loading of constituencies as a result of the provisions of Clause 9, which requires that the voters should actually have resided in the constituency on the date of the general registration concerned. How can there be abuses on a large scale of this provision in contrast with the old provision? A person had to be physically present. He cannot go and lie that he was physically present in a constituency. And how can there, in the words of the amendment, fee large-scale abuse on this basis? Surely a person cannot, with a view to a future election, on a large scale convey people to be present in a wrong constituency on the registration day. And if that were done, surely you could object. Surely a person does not qualify under the Electoral Act if he qualifies under a pretence, but actually does not qualify in fact. A person who is present in a wrong constituency on the registration day, and actually lives elsewhere, no more qualifies that person who under the old set-up stated that he had lived for two months in a constituency whereas in fact that was not so. So this matter also has no substance at all.

What steps would you take in this connection?

You could lodge a complaint with chief electoral officer that a person has been registered under an unlawful statement, an untrue statement.

That is in the Act too.

Yes, it is not an ordinary common law objection, but a specific objection you may lodge. Then the hon. member came to the identity card about which so much has already been said that I do not wish to go into that. However, I should like to deal with one small point raised by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) and that is the point that under Clause 59 of this Amendment Bill we are now introducing an aggraveting definition of “White person” by saying that people who are registered as White persons now have to comply with the Population Registration Act. This is a false representation. I hope it was done through ignorance and not with malice. The old Act referred to a White person, and then you bring into consideration the question of descent only. It has been held time and again that a White person is a person of European descent. Then you have regard only to the question of descent, whereas the Population Registration Act does not limit “Whites” to those of European descent, but also includes European appearance. In other words, this is actually a widening of the idea of “White person” in the Electoral Act. And now the hon. member for Umlazi comes along and he puts it as if it is the very opposite. The hon. member went further, and he attempted to couple the very illogical things to this Act, that should have been coupled to the debate on that population registration, and he said: What now about the case of a person who may be reclassified under the new definition of “White person” as a non-White? Will such a person, he asks, retain the franchise? Surely that is quite elementary. It is not a debating point that should have been raised here. It is a complaint that could have been made when the other Act was discussed. Surely this Bill after all only deals with the question of how White voters shall be registered and cast their votes.

Mr. Chairman, the weak opposition we have had here is great praise for the amending Bill of the hon. the Minister; perhaps it also redounds to the credit of the Select Committee he appointed and which deliberated on the matter. The whole mood and atmosphere during this debate, indicates we have here a series of minor technical improvements to our already good electoral system, and that we may congratulate the hon. the Minister with having agreed to the appointment of a commission of enquiry into the postal voting system, and I should like to express my personal appreciation of that. I do not know what the Commission will produce, but I should like to express the faith that if the Opposition co-operate wisely, and there are great elements among them who are able to do so and are inclined to do so, then I believe the Commission will be able to come back to the House with a sound new line of thought which will be to the good of our country and our electoral system.

The discussion to-day has once again shown how important the Electoral Act is to all of us who are concerned with Parliamentary institutions, for in the Electoral Act the processes that make our parliamentary life possible are embodied. The constitution of our Parliament, the type of man and woman who comes to Parliament, and also the thoughts that prevail in this House are all to a large extent governed by our electoral laws. What is interesting to me, is how the two big parties in the House watch each other in such a discussion. The one is as vigilant as he can be to see whether the other cannot possibly outwit him by means of the Electoral Act. At the same time this very vigilance is a very important sanction upon the people who administer the electoral laws, for whomsoever may be in power—it was true when we were in power and it certainly is true to-day now that the hon. members opposite are in power—when you try to dig a hole for another person, you yourself frequently fall into it. Here it is truer than in many other spheres. The only real opportunity there is to act dishonestly on a large scale, under an Electoral Act with one exception to which I shall return, is if you have a corrupt administration, if the Public Service and your Department are corrupt; and in South Africa all of us can be thankful that no such state of affairs exists, that the officials who are charged with the administration of our electoral laws are above suspicion. That is perhaps one of the most important guarantees we have for the democratic processes in South Africa.

We on this side of the House are very anxious to co-operate in order to create an Electoral Act that will give satisfaction to all, for we believe that the institution of our Parliament depends upon the public having faith in Parliament and having faith also in the process which brings the members of Parliament here to hold their offices. For that reason alone we should like to co-operate in every possible manner to make the Electoral Act a thorough Act, to make it an irreproachable Act, an Act that is above suspicion. I should like to say at once that our task in that regard has been facilitated by the attitude of the hon. the Minister when he in his second reading speech announced that he would not proceed with certain amendments, that he would omit some of the things that were strongly opposed in the Select Committee at the Committee Stage, and also that he would refer the question of postal votes to a commission of inquiry. It is a great pity though that the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to go further and to remove all the contentious matters. But we are hoping that at the Committee Stage our arguments will be such that the Minister will be persuaded further on the road to reasonableness and understanding. In this connection I hope that the hon. the Minister when he replies to the debate just now, will be so kind as to make one thing very clear for the record. I have listened to his Second Reading speech, and I do not know whether my attention might have been diverted, but I did not hear him placing it clearly on record that no voter will be disfranchised at registration if he cannot produce his identity number. I heard that there is a plan in fact according to which such people’s names could be put on the voters’ list if they are entitled to it in other respects. That means that a person will not be disfranchised because of the absence of an identity card. It will be a good thing if the hon. the Minister would put the matter very clearly in this regard so that arguments may be avoided hereanent in the future.

The hon. the Minister referred to three very interesting and correct principles at principles that should prevail in the Electoral Act. The first of those is that all people who are entitled to vote should be helped in every possible way to cast their votes; secondly, that all people who are not entitled to vote, should be prevented from voting; and thirdly that people who are entitled to vote, may al-enabled to cast their votes freely and voluntarily. Now the hon. the Minister should note that people who are entitle to vote, may already lose their vote in an unfair manner at registration, while people who are not entitled to vote, may acquire a vote in a dishonest manner at registration. We must not have regard only to what happens on the polling day if we wish to stop malpractices. We should also note very carefully what happens at registration.

That is why I think the hon. the Minister ought once again to think about the point of permanent residence that will apply on the day of registration without any prior qualifying period of residence. I am convinced that, as we who participate in politics know the nature of human beings there is indeed an opportunity for malpractices in this respect. The question is what can be done to combat malpractices at registration, which sanctions can be applied? Once a person has been registered it is a very difficult thing to have the registration altered unless the political parties are going to do over all the work done by the State to bring about a general registration, and thereby treble the work. In addition to that, clumsy processes will have to be gone through if you want to prevent malpractices. I shall be glad therefore if the hon. the Minister will give an indication of what his Department has in mind to prevent the kind of malpractice which hon. members on this side have mentioned to the House. It is in the interest of all of us—irrespective of the party to which we belong—to see to it that such malpractices do not take place. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in the absence of any residential qualification, malpractices may take place. Indeed, it does happen at the present time under the two months qualification, that false statements are made. How can one determine that a person claims a residential qualification that he does not possess? If it happens under the present provisions, what cannot happen under circumstances where there are no residential qualifications? It is necessary that at the Committee Stage we should confer to see whether we cannot insert an effective sanction here in order to prevent false registrations.

In the same manner we should ensure that we shall not make it difficult for people who are entitled to vote, to vote at the poll. I honestly believe that if a person has to produce his identity card before he will be able to vote, it will mean that thousands and thousands of people will be deprived of their vote.

How will that come about?

Because we are dealing with people here. The identity card will have to be something that one will have to produce every day—almost like the pass of a Native. [Interjections.] I am glad there are hon. members who are disputing it. Let me assume therefore that it will not be so. But then the identity card will be something that one will very seldom need—something you will keep in your drawer until you will require it once every five years, when you go to the poll. And because people are just people, we know that thousands upon thousands of those cards will be mislaid because they are used so seldom.

Nonsense.

One merely requires a knowledge of people to appreciate that and I know there are members opposite who will agree with me when I say that if you have a document that you require only once in five years, that document will not be available when it really is needed. If one considers that in a constituency in the heart of Johannesburg 80 per cent of the voters move every two years, what will the position not be over a period of five years, and how much greater is the danger that thousands of people will in that way lose their identity cards? That will assuredly happen. The hon. the Minister should consider very carefully whether as a result of his attempt to combat impersonation, he might not be doing something that will deprive thousands upon thousands of their franchise.

The hon. member contends that thousands of the identity cards will be mislaid. Now I should like to ask the hon. member how frequently he uses his railway pass and whether his pass has ever been mislaid yet?

I regret to say that my railway free pass has already been mislaid once. I then had to make special application for another and I had to wait a long time for it. So I am glad the hon. member has put me this question. I am almost willing to bet that he has also mislaid his railway free pass already.

Order! Hon. members cannot bet here.

I merely wanted to ask that we should bear in mind the principle referred to by the Minister himself when we deal with the details of this Bill at a later stage. I agree with the three principles the hon. the Minister has laid down. However, what has disappointed me is that he did not mention a fourth principle. I think I can say that it was not deliberately suppressed. This fourth principle in my view is even more important than the three that have been mentioned. This principle, without which the third principle of the hon. the Minister, namely a free vote, definitely cannot be applied, is the principle of secrecy. It is a necessary and essential principle. When I said earlier that we have a good Electoral Act with one exception, I was thinking of the exception that completely destroys the provisions relative to secrecy, namely the system of postal votes. The postal vote system as it is applied at the present time, is a system that in practice completely destroys the principle of secrecy. I feel very strongly on this point, and that is why I should like once again to express our appreciation that a commission will be appointed to investigate this system. However, I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give an indication that there are certain important matters the Commission will have to investigate and that the most important of these is that the principle of secrecy in any postal voting system existing in South Africa should be recognized. It is not done to-day. I do not wish to dilate upon this, and I do not wish to reproach anybody. It will be difficult for all concerned to say that they could put their hands in their own bosoms. What happens in practice to-day is that if the organization of the one candidate commits malpractices, the temptation for the other candidate’s organization to do the same is almost irresistible. There are constituencies in which dishonest practices are common; to such an extent indeed that the dishonesty of the one side cancels out the dishonesty of the other side, and all that remains is the undermining of the morality and character of our public life. Therefore I do hope the hon. the Minister will support us when we ask that it should be a special instruction to the commission to devise a method that will preserve secrecy, and thereby to render impossible the main malpractice that occurs under the present system of postal voting.

Mr. Speaker, those are the only thoughts I wish to express on this matter this evening. I want to let the hon. the Minister appreciate that we are grateful for the concessions he has made. There is the hope that before the Bill is placed on the Statute Book, he will have arrived at other and better views.

Mr. Speaker, if anything has been proved by the discussions on this Bill to-day, it is that the Select Committee which was charged with the consideration of this Bill has done good work. A second thing which these discussions have shown is that it is after all possible for two parties to find common ground when their own interests and their own election to this House are at issue. As a matter of fact, when I look at the position as a whole, I think that the two parties have found common ground to a greater extent then they realize or want to admit. I want to congratulate them on this and also to thank them for the admirable attitude which they have adopted towards this matter. One can understand that there are differences and also that there will always be differences. This is a Bill which should not be approached as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has done. I want to congratulate other members who were members of the Select Committee for rejecting his approach with the contempt which it deserves. The hon. member for Turffontein almost succeeded in spoiling the spirit of this Bill. I am very sorry about the attitude he has adopted and that is all I want to say as far as the hon. member is concerned. I want to congratulate all the other members of the Select Committee, and also the hon. member for Umlazi who was not a member, but who has put a reasonable question, for their contributions to this debate.

Another matter which has become clear to me is that this Bill is one which really should not have had a second reading. All that was necessary was that the Minister should have put his case and that one speaker on the opposite benches should have put his party’s ease and we should then have gone into Committee to consider the Bill. The Bill is so full of details which can only be properly discussed at the Committee Stage that a second reading does not have much value. However, there was a second reading debate and we must accept the position. In my reply to the various matters raised, I want to point out in advance that I myself served for a very long time in the organization of a party, that I was connected with a party for a long time and often fought against the Opposition. From the experience I acquired in this way, I can say that I do not consider we shall ever have an Electoral Act which will make it impossible for the crook to cheat. I do not think that can be achieved. One can do one’s best to remove a loophole, but one cannot force someone to be honest by legislation. If that could be done, the prisons would be empty to-day. However, it is our duty to co-operate sincerely in order to give the country the best possible product because what we actually want to see expressed through such a product is the true will of the people. That is why I have also listened with an open mind to criticism and to praise, and I want to give the assurance that at the Committee Stage I shall continue to listen with an open mind to convincing arguments which may still be put forward.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) for the fact that he has praised the incorruptibility of officials in the application of as difficult a piece of legislation as this. I can also state that I myself as a party secretary found that officials acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act irrespective of whether they supported one politically or not. I am in the fortunate position that I learnt to know these people well during those years. A question has been put to me which I want to answer unequivocally, namely whether a voter will be disfranchised in the absence of his identity number. The hon. member for Yeoville has put this question to me. My reply is a definite “no”. There is the one day on which the voters are registered, but there are 30 days for its completion. It is the easiest thing in the world for a person to obtain his identity number. I myself tested this when I visited the Population Registrar for the first time. Without our giving the officials an advance indication of what we wanted, we gave the lady in the office our names and asked for our identity numbers. It took her less than 30 seconds to find my number. It is therefore quite easy for a person who does not have his identity number to obtain it. In other words, there will be no disfranchisement in this regard.

As regards the proposed investigation of the postal vote system, I have not yet had time to consider the terms of reference of the commission. I do not intend actually giving the commission specific terms of reference. I should like to support what the hon. member for Yeoville has said about the postal vote system. If complaints such as those he has mentioned had not existed, it would after all not have been necessary to investigate the postal vote system. It is therefore the position that the present system lends itself to abuse and that the principle of secrecy can be violated. As a matter of fact this is the most important principle. It is most important that any person should be able to exercise his vote free from compulsion and fear and under conditions of secrecy. If the postal vote system does not lend itself to such a guarantee, then such a system is something evil. I want to go so far as to say that I hope the commission of inquiry will take this principle as its basic premise, and will emphasize it. Secrecy must without doubt be maintained and there must never be any suspicion in this regard. I feel so strongly in this regard that I want to say that in my opinion it is the only right which a postal vote system has to exist. I wish the proposed commission all success in this matter.

I do not intend discussing the individual points raised by hon. members. On the contrary I want to confine myself to the dominant principles which underly the Bill and which have elicited discussion. One of these matters is disfranchisement and linked with that, the general registration. In this regard I want to point out that the reason why a person can be disfranchised must be sought with the voter himself. This can only happen as a result of his own negligence. In my second reading speech I pointed out very pertinently that the duty to register rests in the first place on the voter himself. What the State must do is to facilitate the carrying out of this duty for him as far as possible. The result has been in South Africa that we do have compulsory registration but that we nevertheless go after a man and beg him to allow himself to be registered. One must, as it were, take him by the hand. If one gives him a card to-day to fill in, one perhaps has to go to him two or three times to get the completed card! This is an unfortunate business. The system which we propose, namely of having a general registration on one particular day, will not disfranchise people to any greater extent than the old system. In this regard, however, I want to point out that one can do what one likes, but that one will never achieve complete success with a general registration. For this reason it is necessary to have supplementary registrations. I want to say here that I simply cannot see how an election can ever be held after a general registration without a supplementary registration. Experience has taught me that the paid officials who visit the voters simply cannot find all of them. It is impossible. Consequently there will have to be canvassing.

As far as identity cards are concerned, I do not know whether there is much point in saying anything in this regard, because there has been a difference in principle between the parties right from the very outset. Nevertheless I want to say that whether hon. members like it or not, there is such a population register and linked with that, an identity number, and that eventually it will be laid down by proclamation that this identity card must be taken into use and be shown by persons whenever the law or other circumstances require it. It is after all a very simple thing. Who wants to expose himself to suspicion at a polling booth and be looked at with suspicion by the officials concerned? After all the parties all stand to gain or to lose under such a system. Everyone after all has just as much to lose if it should be proclaimed to-day that all persons must carry their identity cards from to-morrow on! If there is a party who will lose more than any other party, then I think it will be the Nationalist Party on the platteland. It will be more detrimentally affected than the United Party in the cities. It is after all not right to think that we would be so stupid as to defeat ourselves by not giving people the vote when they arrive without their cards, if we did not have the certainty that such a person will be educated to such an extent in this regard that we can expect it of him. Hon. members must however not ask me when we shall issue such a proclamation or how it will be done. Clause 62 gives the Minister the right to proclaim different provisions, and not necessarily all the clauses as here amended. I therefore consider that we can rest assured in this regard. We differ once and for all in principle on this matter; hon. members opposite will probably vote against this particular clause. The Nationalist Party is convinced that such a system is essential. Why can we not introduce it, particularly if it does not have to harm anyone? If there are disadvantages, no Government would introduce such a system as long as it knows that it is going to harm itself by so doing. Let us be honest in respect of the matter. The hon. member for Yeoville has already pointed out that this is a matter in respect of which the parties are always watching one another. And that is the position.

What about an alternative identification?

I said that I shall discuss that at the Committee Stage. When there is doubt, the person in respect of whom such doubt exists, can make a declaration on oath in terms of Section 80. In addition provision will now be made that apart from such a declaration on oath, such a person can produce any proof of identity—perhaps his driving licence or a letter addressed to him, etc.—which the returning officer is prepared to accept as proof of identity.

Allow me to make the position as regards residence quite clear. The original Bill merely laid down “residence” as a requirement. I have been informed that United Party members particularly on the Committee lodged very strong objections to this provision. Inter alia they ask what would happen at a holiday resort like Hermanus. An amendment was then introduced which defined “residence” as the place where a person has his actual “residence” on the day of registration. In other words, this is exactly the same as the provision in the existing Act with the exception of the two months’ period. The present provision lays down that if a person does not actually reside there, he must indicate his home. I can therefore not see how hon. members can have difficulties with this matter.

As regards the initials on the electoral roll, the hon. member for Turffontein has referred to a certain matter. I do not know what truth there is in it or whether he is wrong. Allow me to say this: If the initials are the same, then the address perhaps differs; if the initials and the address are the same, then the calling may differ; and if the initials, the address and the calling are the same, I want to ask hon. member what it would avail to give the full names? What difference would it make if there are three people with the same initials, address and calling? Anyone can delete a name after all. Nor does it matter which name he deletes. I can therefore not see the validity of the objections raised in respect of this point.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has raised the question of the Mauritians. The position here is that when a Mauritian is classified as a White and is on the White voters’ list, he remains there. However, if he is later reclassified as a Coloured, he has only himself to blame seeing that he gave the incorrect information when he was originally classified. If he is reclassified as a Coloured, he thereby loses his opportunity of getting onto a voters’ list, because the registration of Coloureds in Natal has been frozen. This to me is therefore not a “hard luck” case. All we are doing here is to embody in this Bill what was done under the Separate Representation of Voters Act.

As regards the question of high treason, I think we shall also have to agree to differ in this regard. I have already pointed out that in 1931 we restored the franchise to all persons who had been found guilty of high treason. All we are now doing is to shift the date to 1950 in the belief that persons who have been found guilty of high treason in the interim period—who only number six —have served a sufficient punishment. But, as I have said, we shall have to agree to differ. As regards the central index, I have been most emphatic. There is no question of immediately abolishing this index. If, however, the mechanization process proves to be a success and can eliminate the private one—something we shall watch very carefully—then we shall abolish the index in order to save time if there appears to be duplication. However, this is not a mandatory provision and I want to repeat what I have already said, namely that we shall be very cautious. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), namely to make the place of registration a post office, is one, so it seems to me at first glance, which has some substance. I shall discuss it with my colleague to see what additional work it will entail. As regards his suggestion aimed at eliminating interim registrations, I want to say the time is perhaps not ripe for that.

I want to thank most sincerely all members on both sides of the House who have made a positive contribution to this debate and have done so in a restrained way. As I said at the outset, I shall not at this stage discuss all the details of the matters which have been raised seeing that that can be done more satisfactorily at the Committee Stage. And then once again I want to place on record my appreciation of the good work done by the Select Committee. After two years they have succeeded in submitting a good piece of work. I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that we shall have an electoral system which, if we can also rectify the position as regards the postal vote system, will compare favourably with the rest of the world. I say this because it is our earnest desire to eliminate any malpractices where that is at all possible.