Mr. Speaker, firstly I want to express my hearty thanks to the many members on this side of the House who gave their support to this measure in a capable and worthy manner. I think we are all agreed that the speeches made in the course of this debate reflect credit on this House, and for that I thank hon. members. Sir, in saying that, I do not wish to be prejudiced and to exclude all hon. members of the Opposition. There are certain members of the Opposition who from their point of view made good speeches. I have in mind one member in particular who approached this whole question in an honest and worthy manner. I refer to the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) who has apologized to me for his inability to be present here this afternoon. Similarly there are other members who tried to deal with this matter on its merits. I want to proceed now to reply in the first place to a few specific points made here by hon. members. I want to start with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who has also apologized for her inability to be present here.

The hon. member for Houghton advanced a number of arguments and put certain questions which cannot be allowed to go unanswered. If there is one member in this House whose attitude is in contrast with that of this side of the House and who honestly advocates integration and equality, it is the hon. member for Houghton, and that is why I must deal with her attitude, an attitude which is diametrically opposed to ours.

Amongst other things the hon. member began by saying: “None other than the Minister himself was responsible for the bad feeling that existed between Whites and Coloureds in connection with the Common Roll.” The hon. member enlarged on that and tried to suggest that my participation in politics in the past was calculated to misuse the Common Voters’ Roll in order to create ill feeling between the Coloured population and the White population. I want to tell her that I make no apologies for the role I played in the past. It is true that I played a very important role in the struggle in respect of the Common Voters’ Roll for Whites and Coloureds in the Cape Province, and I want to tell her one or two things in that connection.

I made the allegation in my introductory speech that the Common Voters’ Roll had contributed to ill feeling between Whites and Coloureds, but I went on to say that it had contributed to feelings of resentment and bitterness between Whites and Whites, and when I made that statement I was not sucking it out of my thumb. I made that statement on the strength of experience which I had gained in the past. I want to tell the hon. member something about the days when there were revision courts under the Electoral Law and when regular sittings of these courts were held in towns all over the Cape Province every three months, and when the two political parties vied with each other to have persons whose names had been placed on the Voters’ Roll during those three months taken off the list and to have the names of other persons, against whose registration objection had been raised, put back on to the roll. I played my full share in that struggle. As a young organizer of the National Party I walked about with a tape measure, a pencil and a little pocket book measuring houses at Genadendal and Elim and other places to see whether those voters had the necessary qualifications, and what did I find there? At one sitting of the revision court at Caledon the National Party succeeded in having scores of names—I think more than 100 names—removed from the Voters’ Roll on the ground that the persons concerned did not comply with the qualifications laid down for the vote, and three months later all those names were back again on the preliminary Voters’ Roll, in conflict with the law, in Spite of the fact that the voters concerned did not comply with the necessary qualifications. This same process took place not only in Caledon at Bredasdorp and Swellendam; the same sort of thing was rife for years throughout the Cape Province with the result that the number of Coloured voters on the roll was always artificially increased just before elections, with one object and one object only and that was either to shrink still further the small minority of the National Party in the constituency concerned or to increase still further the small majority of the United Party. I personally can testify to the fact that in order to enlist the support of the Coloureds, loads of meal, bags of meal, and slaughter sheep were dished out to Coloureds on a large scale just before election day. The hon. member wants to know from me where bitterness and unpleasantness arose under the Common Voters’ Roll. That bitterness, that unpleasantness, was caused by the fact that the Afrikaner Nationalist viewed this as a corrupt attempt to smother his political convictions, but in the second place the National Party Afrikaner and the United Party Afrikaner and the English-speaking United Party supporter came into conflict over these corrupt methods, with resultant bitterness. It caused such bitterness in the mind of the Afrikaner Nationalist that he was no longer inclined to extend a helping hand to the Coloured; it harmed the mission work amongst the Coloureds; it harmed the social welfare work amongst the Coloureds; it militated against the ordinary Christian duty that rests upon every person to help those who are in a weaker position, because people argued that it served no useful purpose to help the Coloureds because they were simply being used to smother the political conscience of the Afrikaner. Sir, can one imagine anything more damning than this corrupt, iniquitous state of affairs which prevailed under the system of a Common Voters’ Roll, a state of affairs to which I can personally testify?

To this day there are still party officials who do this sort of thing amongst the Whites.

Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member admits that there are malpractices amongst the Whites, and because there are malpractices amongst the Whites we must reintroduce this corrupt system as far as the Coloureds are concerned so that the two races can come into conflict once again. What a ridiculous argument!

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) wants to know whether I believe that the destruction of the Common Roll contributed to better race relations. Of course it contributed to better race relations. Has the hon. member any idea of the bitterness that existed before 1948 between Whites and Coloureds? Has the hon. member any idea of the change which came about in the approach of the Afrikaner Nationalist towards the Coloured and his problems after the Coloured had been removed from the Common Voters’ Roll? Has she any idea how the whole approach of the Afrikaner Nationalist towards the Coloured changed into a positive approach once the Coloured was no longer a political football who could be used to drive out the Afrikaner Nationalist?

Does this Bill prove that?

Order! The hon. member had an opportunity to make his own speech in the second-reading debate.

But then he was dumb. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) spoke in the same vein as the hon. member for Houghton. I do not know whether she did so because the hon. member for Houghton sits in front of her or whether there are other reasons of a feminine nature which I do not want to discuss. She said, “The Nationalist Party’s only reason for taking Coloureds off the roll was to win a number of seats from the United Party”. But is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem? Does she not know that we won the 1948 election in spite of the Coloured vote? Does she not know that in spite of the Coloured vote we won the 1953 election with an even bigger majority? Sir, what does that move? It not only proves that the original Purified Nationalists realized these things but it proves that an ever-increasing number of Whites in South Africa realize these things —and that is one of the reasons why the United Party will always sit over there and we on this side of the House.

For ever?

For ever.

Adolph Hitler.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir de Villiers Graaff) has Adolph Hitler on the brain. Mr. Speaker, in this connection the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) adopted an interesting attitude, and he was followed by other members. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson)—I do not want to do him an injustice—also made this point. They asked what my reference to the Black proletariate had to do with the Common Voters’ Roll and the Coloureds. What did I say in this connection? Let me quote what I said; I said—

I was referring to the statement that the White man’s survival was also the best guarantee of the safety and progress of the Coloureds as a minority group in the area of White South Africa. I said—

That is what I said, and I was seriously taken to task by the hon. member for Durban (North) and I think by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for making that statement. Sir, the Progressive Party and the United Party are opposed in the first place to the principle of the Population Registration Act. They have already announced that if they come into power they are going to repeal the Population Registration Act. In other words, they will have no official means whereby they will be able to identify the Coloured. In the second place the United Party and the Progressive Party are against compulsory residential segregation. In other words, whether we are going to have separate residential areas is going to be left largely in the hands of the people themselves. In other words, they want to give the urbanized Bantu, to whom they want to give the right to own property in the White areas of South Africa, and particularly in the urban areas, the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to live cheek by jowl with the Coloured. In addition to that the United Party and the Progressive Party advocate that Bantu should be allowed on a much larger scale to enter the White areas for the purpose of employment in industry. In other words, they want to destroy the means whereby we can identify the Coloureds and whereby we can prevent miscegenation between the Coloured and the Bantu.

And the pass of the Bantu?

Oh, does the hon. member want to retain the Bantu’s pass? Why then are we constantly attacked about the identity books of the Bantu? What a ridiculous, foolish statement for that hon. member to make! The fact remains that they expose the Coloured to miscegeneration with the urban Bantu. I say that I was fully entitled to make the statement that under the policy of the United Party and of the Progressive Party the Common Voters’ Roll would be dominated by the Black Bantu proletariate and that gradually the urban Bantu would succeed in conquering this Voters’ Roll.

That is Voortrekker blood talking there!

Thank God it is no other blood; I can assure the hon. member that it is pure blood. As far as that point is concerned I am quite prepared to meet his challenge. I say that under the system which is advocated today by the United Party and by its appendage, the Progressive Party, they want to create an opening for the bloodless conquest of South Africa by the Black proletariate masses.

I come to a second point which was made by the hon. member for Houghton and in which she was followed by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). They took great delight in holding aloft the South African Digest and saying that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Information and Tourism, had left me in the lurch. And why did he leave me in the lurch? Because the Digest published a brief summary of the objects of this Bill. The hon. members for Houghton and Peninsula then took great delight, in what I can only describe as a childish way, in trying to create confusion. They did not succeed, however. Sir, I did not think it was possible for the hon. member for Peninsula to be so childish. But let me quote to you what he read out here—

That is the quotation, and the hon. member is very perturbed about it. He says that this is a sly trick on my part, according to the hon. the Minister of Information, “to bypass Parliament”. Sir, can you believe that such a statement can be made here by an hon. member such as the hon. member for Peninsula, a man who has sat in this Parliament for years? [Interjection.] No, I did not interrupt the hon. member; let him take his medicine now. Sir, what is wrong with this quotation? I stand by it. What is wrong with it? The officials of the hon. the Minister of Information were perfectly in order in making this comment. This Bill provides that such laws can only be introduced in consultation with the Minister of Finance. In other words, Clause 21 contains a guarantee that proper financial arrangements will be made. In addition to that the approval of the State President must be obtained, and Clause 25 goes on to provide that such a law may not be in conflict with an Act of this Parliament. What am I doing that is inconsistent with these three guarantees which are embodied in the Bill? I make no apology therefore for that interpretation. All I can say is, “So what!” But why are hon. members opposite so concerned about the interpretation which is placed on this Bill in that article? Why are they so worried? Why are they so worried when they go on to say in the same breath that this council has no legislative powers? Because, after all, they themselves give the reply to their own argument. On the other hand they say that I have an ulterior motive here; that I want to bypass this Parliament; that I want to have laws passed by the council …

She did not say that.

The hon. member for Houghton specifically used the words, “The Minister can bypass Parliament”.

Did I say that?

No, I say the hon. member for Houghton used those words. Has the hon. member no ears? If he has no ears he should go and borrow a pair. If hon. members opposite are so worried about that quotation, what becomes of the argument that this council will have no legislative powers? Sir, do you see what sort of ridiculous arguments have been resorted to in this debate? One hon. member said that this was a “farce”; another said that it was a “travesty”, and another said that it was a “mockery”. They used all sorts of epithets to describe this Bill. But I have a second question to put to them in this connection: Why are they so concerned about this interpretation if this is not the council which the hon. the Prime Minister envisaged? Why are they so perturbed if, as they allege, this represents a change of policy, a departure from the attitude previously adopted by the Prime Minister?

They also raised a further point. The hon. member for Houghton was again followed in this respect by other hon. members, who first listen to what she has to say and then always follow her. The following point which was made by the hon. member was repeated by certain hon. members on the Opposition benches; the hon. member said: “Look at the oath of office that members of the executive committee have to take.” She used these words: “They do not take an oath as legislators; they Only take an oath as advisers”, and that is supposed to prove that we have no intention to give them legislative powers. Sir, look to what lengths they had to go in an attempt to substantiate their nonsensical arguments! Let us look at the oath which is provided for in Clause 18. It reads as follows—

Let us now look at the oath which has to be taken by a Minister of the State. The hon. member says that the oath which members of the executive committee of this council are required to take makes them advisers only, not legislators. How does the oath that a Cabinet Minister has to take read? It reads as follows—

We are legislators and yet we take an oath which is precisely the same as the oath that has to be taken by members of the executive committee of this council.

The hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I leave her for the time being. I want to reply now to further points that were made in the course of this debate, and my reply will at the same time also serve as a reply to certain arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, the hon. members for Florida (Mr. Miller), Durban (North) and Kensington (Mr. Moore) raised another objection; their main objection was to Clause 16. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) dealt very effectively with the point made by both those hon. members, and in spite of that the hon. member for Florida stood up and repeated the same story. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker! The hon. member for Smithfield gets up and corrects those two hon. members; he shows them how wrong they are. What did the hon. member for Kensington say? He said that the members of this council would not be allowed to criticize a member of another council or a member of this House or a public servant. His words were, “You cannot criticize”. The hon. member for Durban (North) then thought that he would water down the hon. member’s statement a little because he might have slipped up again, and he then proceeded to put it somewhat differently. Thereafter, after those two hon. members had been corrected, the hon. member for Florida stood up and repeated the same story; he said, “You cannot discuss civil servants and members of boards.”

Under privilege.

Sir, criticism can be put forward under Clause 16 of this Bill, but there is one thing which this Bill does not provide for and that is indemnity against defamation. I shall tell hon. members why that is so. This council which is being established here is being established for people, 70 to 80 per cent of whom are years and years behind the White man as far as their standard of civilization is concerned. That is my first reason; and in the second place, because of that fact, they have no experience of democratic government. They have no experience of public debate such as we have in this House, and they have to be taught.

What about the Transkei?

The Transkei is something entirely different, and I shall tell hon. members why; I am quite prepared to join issue with them on this point. I have always adopted the attitude that our approach to the Coloureds cannot be the same as our approach to the Black man. I said so in my introductory speech. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition snigger?

You are putting them lower than the Bantu.

I shall come to that remark of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a moment, and there are other things that he will also have to explain, but the point is that I am speaking at the moment, not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the second place I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he has not followed one-tenth of this debate. He was never here; he was helping to resolve a crisis in his party outside of this House.

Where was the Prime Minister?

He was present during a great portion of the debate. Sir, I said in my introductory speech that to begin with the Coloured had no homeland of his own, and that in that respect his position differed from that of the Black man. In the second place I said that the Coloureds constituted a minority group in the White man’s area and that provision must be made for the Coloured as a minority group in the area of the White man. Those are the two respects in which the position of the Coloured differs greatly from that of the Bantu in the Transkei. In the Transkei we are building up a separate State, a State which eventually will have its own public servants and its own State machinery at its disposal. The Coloured population constitutes a minority group in the White man’s area. For many years to come the Coloured, with the assistance of officials who belong to this State and who fall under this Parliament, will still have to undergo a process of emancipation. Moreover, the Transkeian people have no representation in this House while the Coloureds do have representation here and their representatives in this House enjoy indemnity against defamation.

How long will they still be here?

We are dealing here therefore with two entirely different situations.

But what is the position in connection with Clause 16? Clause 16 has been framed in this way because it provides the best guarantee that this council will not wreck itself in its years of infancy. Because what is going to happen if undesirable elements creep into this council? And they are going to creep into the council; I have no illusions in that regard. The hon. member for Kensington talked about agitators who may creep into the council. There are such people in the present council. In the present council there is a man who until some years ago was a communist.

And in the Transkeian council?

I do not want to make it possible for those councillors to use defamatory language against members of this House, and I must prevent them from using defamatory language against respected and worthy public servants and heads of Departments; I must teach them to behave themselves in such a way in that council that they will not destroy the whole of the machinery. That is the reason for the introduction of this principle, and this principle is going to be retained in this clause, however much hon. members on that side may moan. It is high time the Opposition began to realize that this side is governing the country, not they.

That brings me to a further point which was first raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular, as well as by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). They advanced another argument in this connection; they used the argument that in creating this council we were simply preparing the way for the destruction of the present system of Coloured representation in this House; that the four Coloured Representatives in this House would eventually disappear. Sir, I said by way of interjection while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was speaking that I wanted to give him the assurance that that was not going to be done. But he was not satisfied with that; he wanted an assurance on that point from the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister who was sitting here repeated that assurance. The hon. member nevertheless continued with his story; instead of saying: “Thank you very much; I accept your assurance,” he repeated that story and enlarged upon it. I want to quote now what the hon. the Prime Minister said as far back as 1962. It has already been quoted here but I want to quote it again for the sake of the record. On 23 January 1962 the Prime Minister said (Hansard, Col. 94)—

For how long?

The Prime Minister: I have said that it will remain in existence. Must I say for ever? I repeat that I have no plan at all, that I have no plan in connection with the development already announced which includes the disappearance of the Coloured Representatives here. I am not even considering it.

If they have their own parliament?

The Prime Minister: The hon. member looks surprised, but I have already said it twice. What I said was that when we have that parliament, then in my view the White Representatives will still be here. Is that clear now?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout had this information at his disposal, but for lack of something to say, he again raised this matter. With what object? With one object only and that is to make mischief. The whole career of the hon. member is one of making mischief, from constituency to constituency and from political party to political party. Now he is like a jackal whose tail has been set alight— he races through everything and sets everything alight.

Next I was asked why the same voters’ lists which are used for these four representatives are not used for this council—why we have two separate lists, namely the broad list which is now established for this council, and the other list for these four representatives. I think I gave a partial reply to that in my introductory speech when I said that the Government has no objection to the principle of one man one vote in so far as it concerns a population group in its own circle, but that the Government objects to that principle when it is used to determine the future of another population group. That was the first reason, and I mentioned it in my introductory speech. But there is a second and a practical reason. The existing list in respect of the four representatives in this House is not an unmixed list; it is a mixed list. It is a list of Coloureds and Indians in the Cape. In other words, the interests represented by the four representatives here are quite different. It is a relic from a previous era where provision was made for Indians and Coloureds in the Cape. The list we are establishing for the council is exclusively one for the Coloureds. I think that is a very clear reply as to why it cannot be the same list.

Why did you not say that when you introduced the Bill?

Must I then play the role of teacher also? Surely the hon. member knows that. Before dealing with the points raised by the official Opposition I should like to deal with the display given by the Coloured Representatives. They expressed their opposition to the Bill. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) who made one of his rare appearances in this House, and thereby proved his profound interest in the Coloureds, said nothing more than what is inherent in the point of view of the official Opposition, and for that reason I shall deal with it in a moment.

The speech of the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) consisted largely of three points. The first was that he disagreed with both the Government and the Opposition. The second point was that the bitterness of the Coloureds originates not from their removal from the Common Voters’ Roll, but from the fraud perpetrated upon them during the time when they were on the Common Voters’ Roll. He says he is not here to support the Government and to vote on its side, nor is he here to vindicate the Opposition. But, says he, as a Coloured Representative and one who has experience of them, he knows that their bitterness is the result of the fraud perpetrated upon them. I can state to-day that that is true. Wherever I have been in contact with Coloured leaders—I have an opportunity to come into contact with them in various spheres and to have discussions with them and to meet deputations—the fraud to which they were subjected under a former system always comes to the fore. He made a third point and said that numerous prominent Coloureds would be prepared to serve on this council, and I endorse that. I wish to add to this that hon. members who have raised such a storm and tried to belittle this council will be surprised to know which Coloureds have already intimated their willingness to serve on this council, both as nominated and elected members. I need not go far to produce evidence. Last year, when we piloted the Education Bill in connection with the transfer of Coloured Education through this House, provision was made for the establishment of an advisory council in connection with Coloured education. I gave an assurance that we would pick the best men to serve on that council. We appointed members to that council, and I challenge any member of the Opposition to tell me that the members of that advisory council are not some of the best Coloured leaders in South Africa to-day. Not all of them are persons who agree with me, although some are children too. All of them are not necessarily bad children. That is the reply to the hon. member’s interjection.

There are bad Ministers too.

I am not referring to you. I am really endorsing what the hon. member for Outeniqua said, so I do not know why he is now quarrelling with me. In respect of those two points, I am in agreement with him.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) really behaved himself in a dual manner. In the first place he tried to create the impression that there had been some fraud somewhere between the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), myself and the Department, as regards our versions of what happened in connection with the negotiations in respect of this Bill. He even refered to a commission of inquiry, but it is not necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry. Last Friday I gave the facts by way of a reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I must say she was decent enough apparently to accept those facts, as I gave them.

He does not have that decency.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

This reply was at the disposal of the hon. member for Boland too. What are the facts? The facts are that on 24 February I caused a special meeting of the council to be held—it was not an ordinary meeting, but a special meeting—in order to consider the finally approved draft Bill of the Cabinet. It was entrusted to the officials and the law advisers. I was not present. At the conclusion of the discussions, which according to the minutes lasted for hours, the following motion was passed unanimously by the council—

That was the unanimous resolution of the council passed on 24 February. On 25 February I introduced that same Bill here. It was printed immediately and made available to the public and the Press. A month after the council had passed this resolution, they held their normal sitting here in Cape Town, which I attended, but I did not go there to address the meeting. I sat there and told the council: You may this afternoon raise any matter you wish to raise, and I shall then reply as far as I am able to, and such replies as I am unable to give you now, I shall give at a later stage. The discussions at that council meeting lasted for hours. Towards the end I asked whether anybody would like to raise any further points, and they replied “no”. I then rose and dealt with the points raised by them one after another. But not one of the points they raised related to the Bill which had at that stage been published for more than a month already. In my concluding remarks I said that I had another task to fulfil, and I said this: “On 24 February you conveyed a message to me to the effect that you had unanimously approved the Bill; now I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the council for its co-operation during the last few years, for the fine spirit you have revealed.” We then parted. The next day, when I was about to depart for my constituency, one of my officials telephoned me and said that something had happened and that under the leadership of a certain councillor, one Ahrendse, certain provisions of this Bill were now being objected to and that the vote, after certain councillors had already gone home, was 10 against six, with five abstentions in favour of a proposal that a deputation be sent to me. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! A month after this Bill had been published, after they had passed a unanimous resolution to inform me that they approved this Bill, after I had gone to thank them and had given them an opportunity to raise any matter with me, a night passed and the next day, when I was on the point of departing, I was informed of this by telephone. That is the whole story, Sir. Then that half-baked request, which was suddenly decided upon after a certain night, and after the Bill had been available for a month (and I aver that after there had been some intrigue with some members) was addressed to me in an attempt to sow confusion in connection with this Bill under the leadership of one Ahrendse, who is a member of that council, and to whom I referred just now, and who learned his techniques when he was a member of the Communist Party. [Interjections.] I do not know who all the people are who schemed with him; I merely know that he is from time to time prompted to use his tactics there. Next it has been alleged here that I acted like a dictator and refused to see the deputation from the council. Is that true? It is not true. This is what happened: After the Department had brought this to my notice officially, I sent a note to the Department in which I said this—

Is that wrong? Is that a refusal to meet the deputation, about which I am being attacked? On the basis of this distorted picture the hon. member for Boland thought fit to launch a vicious attack upon me personally—he, who visits me frequently and who is very friendly when he meets me elsewhere and asks me to assist him, which I gladly do, because it is part of my work. He spoke of “the betrayal of the Coloureds”, of “the Minister is a dictator”, of “the Minister has not got the courage”. Sir, he is the last man who should accuse me of lacking courage. I have searched for a reply to him, and I am going to leave him to one of the greatest Jews who ever lived, Solomon. I should like to read to him what Solomon had to say about folly—

Now I come to the United Party and their exhibition here. I wish to say this: What the Opposition did not say is much more important than what they did say, because what was most interesting was the fact that only certain members of the Opposition, and only members of a certain group on the Opposition side, mainly participated in this debate— with a few exceptions. All of us are aware that the United Party have some difficulty in connection with this Bill, but that need not have been the reason why they carried on in such a destructive manner for three days. What did the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) do? In putting his amendment, he chose the amendment which would enable him to run away from the Bill as far as possible, namely that it be read to-day six months; could we not just have the thing postponed for six months, because if we could have it postponed for six months, we might be able to get some advice in the interim! But if you refuse to postpone it, we shall adopt a negative attitude, and the negative attitude we shall adopt is merely to say: No, these things are no good. Now I should like to deal with a few of the points. I have here the speech of the hon. member with which he kindly furnished me. The hon. member used these words: “This Bill is another step on the road of separate development, the policy of this Government is a policy with which we do not agree.”

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) said: “The Coloured people want to be part and parcel of the Western group.” I take it he said this because he agrees with that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said: “The question of the continued existence of the White man is not in question in a discussion of Coloured affairs; they are part of the White people.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further—? not during this debate but some time ago, on 5 November 1963—and wrote an article which appeared in the Star, and in which he said this—

He referred to the “race councils” they intended establishing, I concede, not in respect of the Coloureds—

This is all I wish to quote—“the Cape Coloured people will be grouped with the Europeans”. Here then we have a series of quotations right from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition down to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, which indicate that they regard the Coloured man as an integral part of the Whites. I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will correct me if I am wrong, namely that they regard the Coloured people as an integral part of the White people in South Africa; that the Coloureds must be assimilated; that they are “part and parcel of the White group” as the hon. member for Karoo said and “grouped with the Europeans” as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. I want it to be quite clear that this is the attitude of the Opposition, the point of view they are propagating. As against that this side of the House stands for parallel development which, in the words of the hon. member for Gardens, is rejected—“which we do not agree with; we reject it”. What, then, is parallel development in respect of the Coloureds in practice? I am not going to mention everything; I am merely going to mention a few of the salient things which have come about under this Government on its road of parallel development.

In the first place parallel development in practice means to the Coloured his development and his protection within his own rural areas, in extent at the present time 2,500,000 morgen of land. There are scientific methods of assisting him to advance under protection in those rural areas. Secondly, parallel development means the right of occupation and ownership in his own towns and urban areas, and protection of that against destruction by other racial groups. Towns such as Bosmont, Duinefontein, Square Hill and others bear testimony to this. In the third place, parallel development means assistance and protection in respect of trade and the business life of the Coloured man and a corporation has been established to guide and assist them. In the fourth place, it means training and assistance to participate in their own local governments and that process is in progress. In the fifth place it means control of their own primary and secondary education through their own people. There have never yet been Coloured School Boards. To-day they are in existence. There have never been Coloured school committees on such a large scale; and never has as much been done for Coloured education as is being done at present. Furthermore, parallel development for the Coloured means a separate Department of his own in which his own people may occupy clerical and professional posts, a Department of which half the establishment already consists of Coloured staff. In this regard, let me remind the Opposition of the result of the so-called Common Voters’ Roll in respect of this matter. I am quoting from the “Annual Report of the Work of the Coloured Advisory Council for the year ended 31 March 1946”. That was during the régime of the United Party. This interesting passage appeared in that report—

Those were the sentiments expressed by great men who were members of that party after they had seen what the Common Voters’ Roll had done to 1,000,000 people. And that Department has come into being. At the present time it is a powerful factor in the socioeconomic plan of upliftment in respect of this population group. I mention a further point under parallel development, namely this council we are now establishing, a council for consultation and for contact on the highest level as set forth in Clause 20 (3) of this Bill.

Now I should like to ask this question: Is this humiliation of a racial group, these things I have enumerated here? Is it fraud upon the Coloureds; is it a negation of their human dignity? Mr. Speaker, when will we have the position in South Africa that an Opposition and a Government Party will face the world honestly and sincerely in respect of these basic things? If the United Party rejects parallel development as I have just outlined it, and are sincere, then in my view the following result must follow: If you say to people: “I regard you as part and parcel of my group and I will group you with the Europeans” then you cannot lay down qualifications for them and not for the Whites. In other words, then you must give them equal political rights on the same voters’ list.

But you are doing so now in respect of the Coloureds.

I am not talking to stupid people now; I am talking to people who listen. I am dealing with where the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is leading to …

But you cannot say where your own policy is leading to.

I shall tell you. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be patient for a short while, he will receive his answer. I say that when a political party says “you are part and parcel of my group and I shall group you with the European people”, then you must group him, if you are honest, in such a way that he shares your political rights. I have not come to the policy of the United Party as yet; I am now propounding an honest policy. The Leader of the Opposition must wait a bit; I shall come to his policy in a moment. Mr. Speaker, if I group the Coloureds with the Whites, as part and parcel, I throw open my rural areas to him and I throw open my rural areas to the Whites.

When did the United Party say that?

Wait now; I am talking about an honest policy, not about the United Party policy. If the Coloured people are part and parcel of the Whites, then they are part and parcel of them in the rural areas too. And when I group him with the Whites, then I am grouping him in respect of occupation and ownership in the urban areas also.

Is that your conception of logic?

No, it is my conception of honesty. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is becoming so touchy; I am not dealing with the policy of the United Party now. If I group him with the Whites, then I place him on the same town and city councils with the Whites. Then I do not preclude him from becoming mayor. I elect him as mayor. If I regard him as part and parcel of the Whites, if I group him with the Europeans, I enrol him as a member of my party and I permit him to share the rights and privleges and obligations of my branch organization. And then, if I group him with the Europeans, I abolish the Department of Coloured Affairs and I take those Coloureds who are employed in the Department of Coloured Affairs and I appoint them to professional and clerical positions right throughout the Public Service, on a basis of equality with the Whites.

Is that your policy?

No, that is an honest policy of integration. I could go on in that vein, right up to the Appeal Court.

Is that “leadership with justice” now?

But what is the United Party’s policy? What I have just outlined is the honest policy of integration, but now I come to the United Party’s policy. I shall read to you the policy of the United Party on page 6 of their “Handbook for Better Race Relations” published in August 1963. The printer’s ink has hardly dried on it. I did not listen to the news broadcast this afternoon, but we hope it is still their policy. What is said here on page 6?—

The basic proposition is correct. That honest man’s policy also has this basic proposition. It then continues—

“If elected”. The four Coloured Representatives will no longer be there. Now the Coloureds are dependent on you to come here. And then the following passage underlined—

Some interesting things flow from this. Let us now take a prominent, educated and respectable Coloured man such as Mr. Golding, here in the Cape. As long as he resides in Rondebosch, in terms of this honest policy of the United Party …

You are wearing your ego like a halo.

The hon. member has done so all his life, and in addition he wears a long jacket.

If Mr. Golding continues to reside in Cape Town, he can be enrolled on the Common Voters’ Roll if the United Party gets into power, for he has the experience, but if he becomes Inspector of Schools in the Transvaal, then his experience disappears as soon as he crosses the Transvaal border, and there he will then have to vote for a separate representative because he does not have “previous political experience” there. That is now the pattern of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for South Africa. Let me read to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition something he does not know. A scientific document of the Scientific Research Division of the Department of Education appeared recently, containing the following information—

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that when those people cross the borders to the Free State and Transvaal, they suddenly no longer have political experience and therefore they have to be on a separate Voters’ Roll there.

What about your Union Council?

We treat them alike under this Coloured Representative Council, whether they are resident in the Transvaal, the Free State or the Cape.

The previous council?

But surely we are now dealing with this new council. We are abolishing the previous council. Note this admission. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he has now arrived at the point we have passed already.

What about the Coloured Representatives in this House?

We are giving them the same rights they have at present. But let us examine their policy, the policy of the United Party, more closely. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wishes to admit the Coloureds in the Cape “if they are elected”. But if the Coloured man crosses the borders of the Cape Province, he can no longer vote for this Parliament; then he no longer has political experience. But now the United Party says this on page 10 of the “Handbook for Better Race Relations”—?

Communal councils for each race will control those affairs which intimately affect that race. A communal council will also be established for an area like the Transkei or for a grouping of smaller Bantu reserves.

That now is for the Bantu. But listen to this: For these Coloureds which he now regards as part and parcel of the Whites, he says he will even be prepared to establish communal councils for the Europeans where necessary. But now the complaint has been that our Bill is not limited to an area, that no area is mentioned within which it is to apply. That was the clever argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). He says this: “If you legislate for such a body, there must be an area in which it will perform its functions.” But what does the policy of the United Party say?—

I thought it was “part and parcel”, but now I see it is “different ways of life”. But then they continue—

But for the Coloured people there will be no “communal council”. They do not like “to manage their own affairs”. I repeat: “All people like freedom to manage their own affairs as much as possible” and for that reason he is going to establish “communal councils” for the Black people and he is even going to establish them for the Europeans, but not for the Coloureds. This, then, in reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) who complained that we do not mention an area for this council. And then this is mentioned as the policy of the United Party—

What a fantastically confused business this is! Can you understand now why the United Party has given the exhibition which it has given during these last few days. They had to use words to disguise their lack of policy even more. I ask the United Party: How are you going to establish who is a Coloured person without a population registration? I ask the United Party: How are you going to keep the urbanized Bantu off the Common Voters’ Roll? I ask them: Why does the United Party subject the Coloured people in the northern provinces to this, that when they go there (in increasing numbers according to this research document), they are to be subjected to that which the Leader of the Opposition finds so iniquitous?

Why do you yourselves not give them representation in Parliament?

Because we are very honest as regards our policy, namely that this arrangement may remain. But we are creating their own council for the Coloureds. We make no secret of it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not try to hide his nakedness behind me now.

I have not done with the United Party yet. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Gardens and Green Point and Kensington raised a further point, and that is that they referred contemptuously to this council we propose to establish. I have summarized all the respects where there is parallel development for the Coloureds and I said it culminates in this council which is heading for a further process of growth. But those hon. members of the United Party said it is a “travesty of Parliament”. The hon. member for Green Point said it is a “farce”.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says “Hear hear!” They have asked: “Why bring in this Bill at all?” But what did they say about the existing council? They referred to it as a lot of “stooges”. I have here a whole anthology of expressions that were used, but I should like to read only a couple used by the Coloured Representatives who said of the present council, at the time when it was established, that they were a “lot of stooges”, “a council which will not enjoy the respect of the Coloured community”.

Who said that?

I shall not quote the hon. member for Outeniqua. They said the Minister would appoint to that council only those people who would do his work for him and who would say “yes” to everything he does. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “It is to be a sort of Star Chamber which is going to meet in secret, which is going to consider in what way it can support the Government policy; in which stooges appointed by the Minister are going to consider in how far they can support the things he is doing.”

That is correct.

He was followed by his former hero and supporter, Mr. J. H. Russell, who also referred to “stooges”. Even the Opposition Press wrote as follows about this existing council: The Cape Times said this—

They referred to “this absurd body”. The Cape Argus went further and said this—

And the Argus also referred to them as “stooges”. But what did we have on 5 April 1963, Sir? But, Sir, before I come to that, let me say that before that time already I had to hear morning, noon and night in this House that that council had passed certain resolutions, and I was asked why we did not give effect to those resolutions. The leader of the Coloured group, Mr. Bloomberg, and the other hon. members who condemned this council, rose here and quoted the resolutions of that Union Council and asked when we were going to act, when we would reply to the resolutions of the council. This council of “stooges”! Then they began to quote the council.

I did not think the hon. the Minister was such a fool.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “fool”.

I withdraw.

What did the Cape Times do last year on 5 April? They started off by quoting the resolutions of the council, and hon. members over there began to stress them in this Parliament, and they drew our attention to the resolutions of this council of “stooges”. But what did the Cape Times write?—

Yet with so much against it from the start, this body has shown itself unafraid of independent thinking within the conservative framework which surrounds it.

They then called it an independent council, and they are permitted to be an independent council by this Government!

What does that mean now?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not sit and sing high and low like that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is feeling the blows so much that he has been squealing since I started speaking. He squeals like a child. What did the Cape Times write?—

But after two years, the independence of the councillors is beyond question. They have shown that, far from being the timid “yes-men” their critics thought them to be, they are sincere champions of their people’s cause.

But what did somebody else, who until recently occupied a very lofty position within the ranks of the United Party, say? What did somebody say, who stood very close to the prancing-about member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), and who was held in high esteem by the Leader of the Opposition? And not long ago, but as recently as last year. He then wrote a little book …

Why do you not quote the Ministers who are sitting to the right and to the left of you?

They came here on their convictions. They did not adhere to three or four political parties within a period of five years. But what did this person say? He says he read Lord Bryce’s book, and that he pondered on it a lot, and then he writes—

And let me say at once that he was not a supporter of the Government, but an opponent. That is why I am quoting him. He continued—

Further on in this book there appears this passage—

He then continues and comes to the policy of the Government in respect of the existing Coloured council and he says that Coloured council has its shortcomings. I say the same. He says—

The Council of Coloured Affairs started unpropitiously by being presented to the Coloured people as a substitute for the voting rights which they lost by their removal from the Common Roll. Resentment at this change and at the apartheid policy generally led to a boycott of the elections by important sections of the Coloured people. The result is that the council which, moreover, has a majority of nominated over elected members, cannot claim to be truly representative of the Coloured community.

Its usefulness is also greatly limited by the fact that its deliberations are secret. That means that it can speak only to the Minister and his officials, and cannot—save for such news items as are officially released— exercise the all-important function influencing public opinion.

I am quoting this particularly for the edification of the hon. member for Kensington. And then he says this—

That was written by H. A. Fagan. Look at the discomfiture of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. That is my reply to the Opposition which seeks to condemn this new council. I say they stand condemned out of the mouth of somebody they esteemed very highly, and to-day still esteem very highly.

I wish to conclude. One thing is clear after this debate, as it became clear after so many other debates, that South Africa can no longer look to the United Party for advice and assistence. The United Party have become a negative, cynical relic of petrified ideas and petty politicians. The White people of South Africa and its Brown people and its Black people will only find happiness upon the road of justice in their own circles, the road of diversity and good neighbourliness.

There are many impediments upon that road before us, and in dissolving those, and in the search for the end of that road, South Africa will need all the strength of those who love it. But the National Party, and the young people supporting it, accept this challenge, this glorious challenge, with persevering faith, and in spite of an Opposition such as we have sitting there, we shall surely triumph.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Mr. Chairman, we raised the question at the second reading of the compulsory classification provision in this clause. The Minister gave certain undertakings and in the light of those we do not intend at this stage to move for the deletion of that provision as we had originally intended to do. However, in view of the fact that classification procedure and details which are to come about in terms of the Liquor Act are almost at the point of publication, as I understand, I wonder whether the Minister can give any indication at this stage as to the type of classification envisaged by the National Liquor Board, and whether it fits in with his ideas in terms of this clause?

The hon. member will appreciate that we must await the classification which will be published next month. As far as my own position is concerned, I told the House that I am waiting until the Hotel Commission has reported and has also made its recommendations before I use any enabling powers I have under this section. So I would say that there does not appear to be any reason to be perturbed about the situation. I think it will proceed normally. As I indicated to the hon. member, the Hotel Association themselves are satisfied because they had the assurance from me that I would consult them before anything was done.

Before we pass this clause I should just like to remind the hon. the Minister that there is a degree of uneasiness about this clause. He proposes to impound machinery of all types which really does not belong to the parties for whom it is being impounded. We agree that it is only for a temporary period, but that period may be quite a lengthy one. In view of those facts we should like the Minister to give us some idea of what he intends to do about that machinery, and whether he intends to protect it during that period. As he knows, anything may happen to it. It may deteriorate or become damaged, and who is to suffer? Will the Minister assume any responsibility for that machinery whatsoever? It is extremely important that that item should be considered. The Minister will also know that this is a means of financing which has grown up in the implement trade. Will it not endanger the prospects of future financing between the farmers and the distributors? Most important of all of these factors is the period tof time between the making of the application and the compromise being agreed to. May I ask the Minister whether he will insist that that period will be as short as possible so that it will ease the minds of all concerned.

What I want to say links up with what was said by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). Clause 6 provides that no one may take possession of any tractor or other agricultural machinery or institute an action for the return of such implements. I have received inquiries in this connection and concern has been expressed by dealers in agricultural machinery in connection with the matter which the hon. member has just raised, i.e. the care which will be taken of that machinery during the period before the loan is paid out to the applicant. Concern has also been expressed by dealers in agricultural machinery in regard to the interest to be paid on the money owing to them. They are worried about the interest and they would also like to know whether the hon. the Minister can give them some idea of the basis on which the interest will be determined, if this is actually taken into consideration; and furthermore, they will be pleased if the hon. the Minister can give them some idea as to how long it will take before they can expect payment.

I am aurprised that hon. members are so concerned about this amendment. A dealer may sell an implement or a tractor to a farmer on hire purchase but it usually takes from two to three years for the farmer to pay off that implement and that hire-purchase contract is usually discounted. The question may be asked: Who will see to it that the farmer looks after that implement properly during that period? I simply cannot understand hon. members’ concern. When a farmer applies for assistance or asks for a moratorium, the Farmers’ Assistance Board deals with his application. At most it takes two months, perhaps three months at the outside, by which time the board has decided whether they are going to assist the farmer or not. The Farmers’ Assistance Board will not assist a farmer who in the meantime has left his farm and neglected all his equipment. No normal farmer would do such a stupid thing because he obviously wants assistance and he wants to retain his implements. Why should he destroy them? I cannot therefore understand the fear expressed by hon. members. I really do welcome this measure. Certain farmers have been acutely embarrassed before now simply because, as soon as they have asked for a moratorium, the company has come along and re-possessed its implements, thus making it impossible for the farmer to carry on with his farming operations.

If hon. members will analyse the procedure to be followed on receipt of an application in terms of the Farmers’ Assistance Act, they will find that in the first place the farmer applies to the board and while the board is considering the application it can impose a moratorium. As the Act reads at present, this covers everything that has been bought; it covers all the farmer’s debt, including mortgage bonds, but it does not apply to hire-purchase transactions. The fact that the value of the tractor or implement which has been purchased under hire purchase has depreciated can do no harm because, if the application is not successful, the firm which sold the implement to the farmer can re-possess that implement once the investigation as been completed. But what actually happens in practice? Let us say that a tractor is sold under hire purchase and the farmer buying the tractor falls into arrear with his instalments and interest. That tractor or implement is not re-possessed by the company at that stage nor do they re-possess it when the farmer applies for assistance. They re-possess it as soon as it rains and then the farmer cannot carry on with his farming operations. In the past many companies have made use of that power in order to receive full payment for the tractor from the Farmers’ Assistance Board. They know that the board will not allow the farmer to be without a tractor because otherwise he will not be able to produce. All that we are doing here is to say that while negotiations are in progress they may not re-possess the tractor. Once the negotiations have been completed, if the application has been successful, they can fall in with the agreement and if the application has not been successful, they can re-possess the tractor immediately. The investigation usually takes a few months but why, during this period of a month or two, would a farmer who has applied for assistance to consolidate his position, destroy that implement which he has had in his possession for a few years and over which the company has exercised no supervision at all? It would not be in his own interests to do so because ii he is given assistance he will still need that tractor in order to be able to carry on. Just as little as it will pay him to destroy the tractor before he makes application, so little will it pay him to do so after he has made application. If a company has been prepared to allow the farmer to have the implements in his possession for two years or longer without any supervision, I cannot see why the company should not be able to wait a further month or two. It is impossible for the Farmers’ Assistance Board to keep an eye on the implements. But many of the organizations financing hire-purchase transactions have started misusing their authority. As soon as an application for assistance has been made to the Farmers’ Assistance Board and a certificate has been issued, those organizations have re-possessed the implement, and the farmer has not been able to carry on. That is why we are effecting this amendment. But I can assure hon. members that the Farmers’ Assistance Board will deal with these cases just as they have always dealt with all the other cases; they will do their best for those who have advanced the money because it is in the interests of the farmers and of the country that the man who finances the farmers should not be frightened off. But on the other hand, we cannot permit farmers to be ruined just when they are about to be given assistance.

I move—

Section 84 (1) (h) of the Constitution gives provincial councils the power to make ordinances in connection with roads, outspans, pontoons and bridges, except bridges connecting two provinces. The question has now arisen whether a provincial council, in terms of this authority to make ordinances in connection with roads, can make provision for the purchase or expropriation of the remainder, or a portion of the remainder, of a piece of land which is partly occupied by a road. The legal advisers doubt whether this authority will be adequate to cope with all the problems in this regard.

It often happens that as a result of the expropriation of land for road-building purposes, small pieces of land are cut off from the rest of the property. As a rule these pieces of land are of no use to their owners because they cannot be properly cultivated. This often impedes farming activities. In order to enable the owners to reach pieces of land which have been cut off, it is necessary to give them access to that land. Moreover, in many cases provision also has to be made for the supply of water to pieces of land which have been thus cut off. It is also necessary to fence off the road reserve over the relevant portions of land.

The provision of access to such land is sometimes an extremely expensive process, particularly if access has to be given by means of a bridge or subway. The cost of providing such access alone also usually exceeds the total value of that piece of land, quite apart from the cost of fencing and the provision of water.

In view of the throughway policy of restricting access to such roads and even to other public roads as far as possible in the interests of road safety and for the protection of such throughways, as well as from a financial point of view, it is considered desirable that the province be given the necessary powers to purchase or expropriate such remaining pieces of land.

A further important consideration is the combating of undesirable strip development. Where such a piece of land is cut off from the rest of the property, the owner usually adopts the attitude that because that land cannot be usefully employed for farming purposes, it can only be used beneficially if he can set up some kind of business on that land. If such a business is then set up beyond the statutory building line limit of 300 Cape feet, the controlling authority is not able either to prevent it or to exercise any control over it. In order to gain access to the business, use is then made under the old set-up of an access which is intended for farming purposes. This undoubtedly leads to undesirable strip development. The obvious solution to the problem is to purchase or expropriate these pieces of land. Such pieces of land can also be utilized for the planting of trees or the setting up of road, camps, resting places and so forth. If it can be disposed of in order to be consolidated with an adjoining property, the full expenditure originally incurred can be recovered and the province will suffer no loss. It may also be possible to consolidate one such piece of land with others and then dispose of that land as a whole for the benefit of the provincial revenue fund.

The Bill therefore proposes to give Administrators the power to be able to purchase such land on the recommendation of the various executive committees on behalf of the State or, if necessary, to expropriate such land. This power is similar in principle to the power contained in Section 4bis of the National Roads Act of 1935, as amended by the National Roads and Co-ordination of Transport Amendment Act, 1962, and no new principle is therefore involved.

This Bill is essentially a permissive measure which will enable the Administrators to acquire small bits of land which are more or less waste land, which the Deputy Minister has described as “useless”. It is a commendable Bill and it is acceptable to this side of the House and we will support the second reading.

But I wish to raise with the Deputy Minister the question of the extension of expropriation provisions for land in Bills of this nature. Here the landowner will be deprived of his rights by expropriation procedure merely because he cannot come to terms with the Administration. We have had such legislation extensively over the years, and I do not single out this Government for it. It has happened fairly frequently throughout the years. On the very day that this House adjourned for the Easter Recess the Minister of Lands, while speaking on a private motion moved by the hon. member for Parktown, explained that South Africans were very land conscious people who placed great store on the security which a duly registered deed and diagram to land gave them, and that is quite right. But serious inroads into the security of registered title to land are all too frequently being made by powers of expropriation which are granted to the Government, the Railways, to local authorities and to other bodies in terms of statute or by provincial ordinances which are to be found scattered throughout the Statute Book. These inroads are seriously eroding the rights of the landowner and the security on which he is entitled to rely. By 1945 the list of expropriation laws permitting this right of depriving the owner of his rights numbered something like 21 statutes. The first law on the subject goes back to 1872. But the law which is most prominent in most of this legislation is the Transvaal Expropriation Proclamation of 1902, which is referred to also in this Bill. Not only is this proclamation long out of print, but in legal circles it has been described as being riddled with ambiguities. The position of course has become much worse since 1945. I can add quite a long list of statutes to those 21 statutes I mentioned, and the Minister will realize that the most recent cases are the Expropriation Amendment Act of 1958, the Universities Amendment Act, No. 82 of 1939, and the Roads Amendment Act of 1962, which the Deputy Minister referred to just now. My plea to the Government then is, firstly, that there should be a halt to the granting of further patchwork expropriation powers and, secondly, that a proper revision and consolidation of existing powers should be made so that the holder of land under registered title can know where and in which direction his security has become vulnerable on this front. Expropriation of land is an extreme measure which is really only justified in extreme circumstances, and as the powers become extended by Parliament, so does the protection to the landowner of a registered diagram and deed become correspondingly less secure. As I say, I do not single out this Government in regard to this matter. I look upon it not so much as a landowner but from the point of view of those who have to advise landowners what to beware against. I believe that there is a very grave need for this revision and consolidation of the law on expropriation, and there is a need to get rid of all the patchwork legislation on this subject. There is a need for ensuring uniformity of protection and uniformity of procedure in the expropriation of land in the case of both present and future landowners. Sir, this is a plea which I have made before in this House and I repeat that plea to-day. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister who is concerned with expropriation here but who might not be concerned with the general law of expropriation will bring this to the notice of the Government so as to get rid of what I call this patchwork legislation of a very extreme type of power. But so far as the Bill itself is concerned I have already indicated to the hon. the Minister that on its merits it is acceptable and we support the second reading.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that this power of expropriation will be exercised with the utmost discretion. It will only be exercised when the executive committee is convinced that it is really in the public interest to act in this way. When an executive committee decides to expropriate we must bear in mind that the provincial councillors in whose area that expropriation will take place will have every opportunity of making representations to the executive committee, and if any evidence that that expropriation has perhaps been resorted to unjustly, then those provincial bodies will have every opportunity of making representations. But I think the hon. member will concede that this power of expropriation, which will be used with the utmost circumspection, is necessary in certain cases. When it is considered to be in the public interest to exercise this power of expropriation, I do not think that we should try to deprive the executive committee of this power. We are all worried about the large number of road accidents that are taking place to-day and since this measure seeks to combat strip development— the development of small pieces of land alongside our national roads—which does give rise to a large number of accidents, I think this power which will be given to the provinces and which I trust will be exercised by them with the utmost circumspection will, I am sure, be accepted by all of us as a very positive step in combating these serious road accidents. I want to ask the hon. member to view this measure in that light—that is to say, as a measure which will be applied with the utmost discretion and only in the public interest.

I move—

For some years now the Cape Provincial Administration, as well as various State Departments, particularly the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Community Development, have been saddled with a very difficult problem in connection with Jan Kempdorp which is situated on the boundary line between the Cape and the Transvaal. This problem has its origin in the fact that the provincial boundary cuts the town in two with the result that the largest portion of the developed White area lies in the Cape whereas the commonage and the extension area lies chiefly in the Transvaal. Because the setting up of local authorities is a matter which is entrusted to the provinces, it is impossible to set up an efficient local authority for the town with the result that health conditions particularly are deteriorating by the day.

The main problems which are experienced by Jan Kempdorp in connection with the provision of public services are as follows: During the development of the Vaalharts Settlement the town came into being as a residential area. As a result of expansion it consists to-day, amongst other things, of 257 houses, Government offices, business premises, waterworks with water towers, three churches, two schools, an ammunition depot and a location with 10,000 inhabitants. Some of these buildings are on the Transvaal side and others have been erected on the Cape side of the boundary line.

In the absence of a local authority all public services which are usually supplied by a local authority are provided by State Departments which are not equipped to perform these services.

A serious health problem has arisen as a result of the inefficient “french-drain” sanitary system, and this problem can only be solved by the installation of a durable suction pump system. But because town developments is the function of the Provincial Administrations, the State Departments are not in favour of incurring further expenditure.

The Valspan location is at present being run by a body composed of public servants, but the officials will be relieved of these duties once a local authority has been set up.

Some of the Coloureds live in the Bantu location but others live practically in the White area. Nobody is prepared to accept the responsibility for a residential area and this matter has been shelved pending the setting up of a local authority.

The only solution to all these problems is to set up a local authority. In 1951 it was decided to build a town on the Cape side of the boundary. But the desired progress could not be made because the inhabitans on the Cape side of the boundary were not in favour of the building of such a town. They opposed it for a number of reasons, some of which I want to mention here. In the first place, it was felt that such a local authority would have no control over the portion of the town situated on the Transvaal side, and, in particular, over the waterworks and the cemetery situated on that side. Secondly, it was felt that although the inhabitants on the Transvaal side would have to make use of all the facilities they would not have to pay rates to such an authority. Thirdly, it was felt that the sewerage problem could only be solved if the homes on the Transvaal side were included in the scheme. It was further realized that the only land for expansion was situated on the Transvaal side.

It is clear that the problems to which I have briefly referred cannot be solved until a local authority which will accept responsibility for the whole town is brought into being. In the meantime, the Department of Lands is being held responsible for the problems that arise and that Department is expected to solve these problems in spite of the fact that village management is not a function of the Department of Lands.

The Transvaal Provincial Administration was originally approached to consider the possibility of moving the provincial boundary so that the whole area would then fall within the Cape Province or within the province of the Transvaal, but the Administrator of the Transvaal was not in favour of this. Further negotiations were then entered into and the Provincial Administrations of the Cape and Transvaal are now in favour of an arrangement whereby the relevant portion of the Transvaal will fall under the control of the Cape for local authority purposes. The State Departments concerned in this matter support the legislation and the Government law advisers are of the opinion that petitions in terms of Section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act are not required by law from the provinces for the proposed Bill.

Hon. members will realize that a host of legal provisions would have to be made applicable and the only way in which effective action can be taken is to empower the Minister, at the request of the two administrators, to apply the legal provisions, which are necessary for the functioning of the local authority, in the area or part of the area where those legal provisions are not at present applicable.

This side of the House supports the second reading of this Bill. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, this Bill deals with the administration of Ian Kempdorp which at the moment falls into two provinces. The Bill appears to be simply an administrative measure and we on this side have no criticism of their measure.

I think we are faced here with a real problem which has existed for many years in connection with these two towns, Jan Kempdorp which falls into the Cape and Andalusia which falls into the Transvaal. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us, an attempt was first made to change the boundary-line, but the Administrator of the Transvaal was not in favour of this. In principle there can be no objection to this to-day although I think that up to the present the provinces have continually refused to allow any of the provincial boundaries to be changed. The four provinces, however, form one Republic and accordingly there cannot be very much objection in principle to changing a boundary-line. A great deal of publicity has been given from time to time to the problem which exists in these two towns, where we find that people living in one house fall under two provinces and that a school falls under two provinces. I think that is a less important aspect of this matter; there are a few other aspects which are more important. It is true that each of the provinces has its own ordinances which differ widely from one another. In the Cape, for example, there is the system of divisional councils while the Transvaal is rather allergic to the system of divisional councils. This question of divisional council rates therefore will always remain a problem. I think I am correct in saying that the divisional councils are entitled to levy rates on town properties. One of the first problems in this regard is therefore that the people living in the Transvaal section of Jan Kempdorp will not be prepared to pay divisional council rates. I accept that this measure has the approval of the two administrators concerned in this matter. In all probability, therefore, this problem will be overcome but it will be very unreasonable to make the owners of property in the Transvaal section of the town pay divisional council rates for the building of roads in the Cape. In the Cape the children pay school fees and they pay for their books and so forth, but this is a problem that we have managed to overcome up to the present; it has caused no trouble. At present the Transvaal children are all in Cape schools. They are taken across the boundary to school by buses belonging to the Cape Administration—and we greatly appreciate this—but the Transvaal maintains those roads. Sir, I do not know whether the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) will contradict me, but I contend that at present the roads on the Transvaal side of the town are better than the roads in Jan Kempdorp itself. The Transvaal Provincial Administration has undertaken to maintain the roads over which the school children are conveyed.

Apart from the problem of divisional council rates to which I have already referred there are various other problems which will have to be solved administratively. For example, there is the question of the collection of motor-car licence fees which are usually collected by the local authorities. I take it that these taxes will also be collected by the local authority but there will have to be an agreement between the two provinces in terms of which the Transvaal will receive its share of the tax and whereby the Cape in turn will receive its due share of motor-car licence fees.

I think the authorities have been rather tardy in their efforts to accelerate the full development of this area. About 300 plots have been proclaimed in Jan Kempdorp but I do not think very many more than 100 have so far been sold. Actually the remaining plots have not yet been offered for sale. In actual fact the Transvaal section of the town consists only of administrative buildings, offices and the homes of officials. There is no private property in the Transvaal part of the town except for certain homes occupied by officials of either the Department of Lands or the Department of Water Affairs. Where the usual taxes are not levied, the Departments of Lands and Water Affairs will probably have to call upon their tenants, who are officials, to pay increased rentals. The administrative offices which are situated mostly on the Transvaal side of the boundary, will probably, as usual, be exempt from tax. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an effort to try to solve the problems that exist in this town but this whole matter is going to remain a difficult problem which will not easily be solved. This is probably the best way to tackle the problem at this stage. Very difficult problems will arise in the future development of the town but those problems will have to be tackled as and when development takes place.

I do not want to follow my hon. friend in discussing the difficulties which he raised here. It is quite likely that difficulties will arise, but the difficulties that we have at the moment are of a very serious nature and they hamper the expansion! of Jan Kempdorp.

Let me deal for a moment with the history of this town. Hon. members will remember that during the war years—during the Second World War—a large concentration camp known as the Andalusia concentration camp was set up in the vicinity of Border station. After the war, in 1949, the late Mr. Strijdom, who was then Minister of Lands, gave permission for the laying out of a town in that area although at that stage no name was given to it. In 1950 this House decided that the name of that town should be Jan Kempdorp and plots were sold there in 1951. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are acquainted with conditions as they existed there during and just after the Second World War. A large number of difficulties had to be overcome but notwithstanding those difficulties considerable expansion has taken place there and I imagine that the two provincial administrations concerned—the Cape and the Transvaal administrations—will do everything in their power to reach agreement so that the expansion to which Jan Kempdorp is entitled can take place. I do not want to discuss the question of divisional council rates at this stage. This Bill provides that the whole area of Jan Kempdorp will now fall under the Cape Provincial Administration. In those circumstances, I think a great deal of progress has already been made in promoting the expansion to which Jan Kempdorp is entitled and for which it is so excellently situated, and I say that we in this House, who will not be administering Jan Kempdorp, dare not do anything to impede the development to which Jan Kempdorp is entitled and which is going to take place. I want to express the hope that the two provincial administrations concerned will be imbued with only one idea and that is to do everything in their power to make possible the development to which Jan Kempdorp is entitled. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances that prevail there at the moment, tremendous expansion has already taken place. Modern shopping centres have already been erected; a modern church has also been constructed; there are great development possibilities which will be translated into reality once an agreement has been reached regarding the administration of the town. Under these circumstances I repeat that we dare not do anything to impede that development. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has already said, one portion of Jan Kempdorp is situated in the Transvaal but the largest portion of it is situated in the Cape. These two sections have a common cemetery. When people living in the Transvaal section of the town die they have to be buried in the Cape because they have a communal cemetery. I am sure that it is not desirable to have two towns on either side of the boundary, two towns which practically form one town and for which there is no local authority. Up to the present, the Department of Lands has been responsible for the town. I know that there was a time when the Cape Divisional Council in question was approached to take over the administration of the Cape section of the town but this did not work out either because there were constant clashes with regard to this. The Jan Kempdorp water supply has its source in the Transvaal. The people in the Cape section of Jan Kempdorp become annoyed with the people living in the Transvaal section of the town because they contend that the Transvalers do not exercise proper control over the water and that that fact is responsible for the erosion of the streets in the Cape section of Jan Kempdorp. That is the position which exists there at the moment.

This Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister is introducing here cannot but receive the support of this House. I am pleased that the Opposition support this Bill. But we have nothing to do with the administration of Jan Kempdorp for which provision is being made here. That will be the task of the village management board under the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Administration, in consultation with the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Mr. Speaker, when we think of the possible industrial expansion that can take place in this town we realize how important it is that every possible step should be taken in the interests of Jan Kempdorp as such to link up these two towns. The officials of the provincial administration are people with a sound common sense. I do not think they will allow trivialities to drive a wedge between them with the resultant delay in the expansion of Jan Kempdorp. On behalf of the Cape section of the voters of Jan Kempdorp I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this measure. It is legislation which should have been introduced years ago. The development of Jan Kempdorp would have been far greater if this legislation had been placed on the Statute Book vears ago. I think the purpose of this Bill fully justifies its passing and I am pleased that the Opposition support it.

I think the inhabitants of Jan Kempdorp will be very grateful when they learn of the unanimity which exists in this House in regard to the welfare, development and progress of their town. It is a gesture which I am, sure they will appreciate very much indeed.

I should also like to express my appreciation of the support given to this measure by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I should also like to thank him for the fact that he expressed his appreciation in Afrikaans. I think that was a very fine gesture and I would recommend that he continue that very good practice. I should not be surprised if the few remaining “boere-Sappe” in Jan Kempdorp decided to invite the hon. member to come and address them in Afrikaans in the near future.

There are no provisions in this Bill which need give cause for alarm. On the contrary, the aspects to be covered will be covered by agreements between the two Executive Committees. As far as the question of divisional council rates is concerned to which the hon. member for Kimberley (North) referred these rates will only be levied to the extent agreed upon by the Executive Committees of the two provinces.

In conclusion I want to draw attention to the fact that sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill provides that—

This is a very important provision, Mr. Speaker, to which I want to draw the attention of hon. members. It amounts to this: If it appears that any provision applied to this town in terms of an agreement is not having the desired effect or it is not fair in its application, then that provision may, whether it deals with taxation or anything else, be amended again or even repealed if the two Executive Committees agree to do so. In any case, I appreciate the support which hon. members have given to this Bill because their support means only one thing and that is progress for a town in which we all want to see progress.

I move—

This Vocational Education Amendment Bill has been drawn up mainly to bring the provisions in regard to the transfer, secondment and suspension of staff at vocational schools and part-time classes into conformity with similar provisions for the transfer, secondment and suspension of officials in the Public Service. In the existing Vocational Education Act of 1955, no provision is made for the secondment of staff to other institutions, Departments and so forth. Before explaining the provisions of this Bill I want first of all to refer to the deletion of Clause 12 which was effected in the Other Place. The reason for that is that it has been learned since the introduction of this Bill that it is proposed to amend the Government Service Pensions Act of 1959 which may bring about a change in the definition of “pensionable age”. If that is the case then consequential amendments to Section 27 of the Vocational Education Act may become necessary. On the recommendation of the legal advisers therefore Clause 12 was deleted in the Other Place.

In explaining the provisions of the Bill I want to start with Clause 13 which deals with suspension. Since there is no provision in the Act for the suspension of an official before a charge is brought against him, as there is in the Public Service, a provision to that effect is proposed to be inserted here. It sometimes happens that an investigation in situ is arranged before a charge of misconduct can be drawn up against such a person and, in order to prevent the continuation of malpractices in the meantime, the power to suspend such a person is obviously necessary.

In connection with Clause 14 I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the provisions of the Act dealing with misconduct and the procedure to be followed in connection with a charge of misconduct in the case of staff employed by vocational schools and in part-time classes, also apply to staff employed by State-aided vocational schools and continuation classes. The powers that are vested in the Secretary of the Department in respect of the first-mentioned group are vested, in respect of the last-mentioned group, in the chairman of the executive body concerned. The Bill now makes an instruction by that body a pre-requisite if the chairman charges a member of the staff with misconduct or demotes him.

The reason for the insertion of Clauses 2, 3 and 8 is that in giving State recognition and subsidies to continuation classes, the test has always been whether the purpose of such classes is to provide recognized courses of education and training intended for persons who are no longer obliged to attend school or who have been exempted from school attendance. As you know, in practice, continuation classes sometimes also provide children of school-going age with full-time vocational education, and for administrative purposes therefore it is necessary for these continuation classes to be authorized by law to provide vocational education where necessary, and to provide that attendance at continuation classes on a full-time basis will be sufficient for the purposes of compulsory school attendance.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 deal with the conduct of examinations. Experience has taught us that in order to be able properly to control examinations prescribed by law, it is necessary to make regulations in regard to such examinations and related matters. Provision to authorize this is now being specifically made instead of it being done under the general provision and, for disciplinary purposes, the places for the conducting of such examinations are now being laid down, this is sometimes necessary if no vocational school or part-time classes are available. They are now being declared to be part-time classes in terms of the Bill so that they can be dealt with as such for disciplinary purposes. Effective control can be exercized over all the examinations in this way and irregularities can be combated and punished. The penalties for offences in connection with examinations, certificates and diplomas are being increased so as to combat offences of this kind which are increasing and this Bill specifies in detail how offenders at examinations can be dealt with.

Clause 10 makes provision for the protection of certain persons on the establishment of vocational education schools who are appointed to posts in the Public Service so as to ensure that such persons can be graded according to merit. For the rest, Mr. Speaker, useless provisions are being deleted and obsolete provisions are being brought up to date.

In conclusion, the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1945 is being amended by Clause 18 in order to make it clear that courses, such as ballet, for example, can be offered as higher education at a vocational school.

There can, of course, be no question of opposition to a Bill of this nature. On the contrary, any Bill dealing with vocational education should receive very sympathetic treatment. Because the problem in South Africa has always been, as it is to-day, and as I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister has found in his experience, what kind of education is vocational? We have succeeded in South Africa in finding a definition of what vocational education, is. I think the best definition I know is one given by a prominent South African educationist who said: “All education is vocational education, either at long range or short range.” And that is very true. A doctor going to a university for six or seven years has vocational education at short range. A man who studies the humanities at a university has vocational education at long range because he is studying to prepare for the greatest function of all in life, namely, to be a good citizen.

Now, Sir, we treat any Bill of this kind most sympathetically. To illustrate the great difficulty we have had in defining “vocational education” I need only go through Act 70 of 1955. Here we get the definition of vocational education. Definition number 1 is the definition of “commercial vocational education”. It says here—

Then it describes what commercial vocational education is. Then we come to another definition—

and they define it. Then we come to No. 3.

“Handicraft” means a course of instruction and training in woodwork, etc.

Then we come to No. 4—

Finally we get No. 5—

Why is it necessary to do all this? At one period in our history we defined vocational education as an education where certain subjects were taught for not more than eight or 12 hours a week. In. other words, we have always had artificial definitions and the reason is, as I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree, that we have not a well-organized system of education in this country. We should not have this artificial separation between academic education and vocational education.

We shall therefore assist the Government as much as we can in improving this Bill. I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for introducing it in the manner he did. Clause 12, being deleted, makes our task very much easier. When it does come up, as I assume it will in the future, we shall have to discuss it very carefully.

I have a few remarks to make about the clauses. Clause 11 (a) reads—

I assume this has been taken from the Public Service regulations. Now, Sir, I do not think that is fair to the public servant or to the teacher.

Order! Does the hon. member not think that can more appropriately be dealt with in the Committee Stage?

I am quite prepared to consider it in Committee, Sir, but what I should like to do, with respect to you, Sir, is to notify the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Minister of Education, before to-morrow, so that he will perhaps be able to make some gesture. I should like to give the hon. the Deputy or the Minister that opportunity. I am not going to discuss the clauses in detail. I have a suggestion to make and it is this: Where a man is transferred to a higher post we should not say he will not receive a higher salary, but we should say that after a period of, say, three months he will receive the higher salary attached to the post. I shall deal with the matter in detail to-morrow and quote examples from another Public Service, not that of South Africa.

Take Clause 13 (2)—

I think that should be a senior officer in the Department; the Secretary, yes; perhaps an inspector of education or a deputy secretary but not “any officer in the Department”. I think that is going too far. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give that his consideration.

In view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into the details of the Bill except just to refer to the reference to examinations. It appears that there has been some difficulty in conducting examinations. I have read several reports in the Press and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a little more information about that. Where have leakages taken place, if they have taken place? The suggestion is here that the regulations have had to be tightened up and in tightening the regulations there are, of course, heavier penalties. I should like to have some more information about that to-morrow or whenever we do discuss this Bill in Committee.

Finally, in referring to what I said at the beginning, here we come to another definition which is necessary in vocational education. In Clause 18 we now talk about ballet. Formerly we spoke of “art” only. However, I have an expert on this side of the House who will be able to deal with this subject thoroughly and exhaustively.

I am not quite sure whether my hon. colleague said thoroughly and exhaustively or thoroughly and exhaustingly—but I want to deal quite briefly with Clause 18 of this Bill. I must say, when I read the title “Vocational Education Amendment Bill, 1964” and the first 17 clauses, I had no reason to suspect that, hidden in this very necessary but rather pedestrian piece of legislation, there was in fact a gem—and that gem is in Clause 18, where for the first time, as far as I know, “art”, as far as education is concerned, now also describes the art form of ballet. Sir, this is calculated to make of ballet a respectable vocation for which those who are interested in ballet will be very thankful. More than that, Sir, for the first time in South Africa each of those beautiful ladies in the ballet, like Giselle, Aurora or Les Sylphides, has been made an honest woman by the Minister, with this legislation. They need no longer hang their heads in shame in the world of education, as has been the case up to now, because ballet was something for those who liked it, it has no educational value as far as the Department of Education is concerned, it is not entitled to direct financial assistance from the State because it is not educational. I wonder whether it was a grudging admission, but the hon. the Minister said very little about ballet in his second-reading speech, but we have the admission in Clause 18 that ballet is, in fact, educational, and should form part of the educational structure in South Africa. I hope that the new definition of “art” which includes both ballet and music, has done something similar for music, because apparently in the old definition, where art was separated from music, the impression was created that music was something apart from art—or from the arts, at any rate. Here we have a case where, with perhaps a natural degree of reluctance, I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister on having acceded to the request made through the years, particularly the request of those who foster ballet in South Africa, to adopt this particular policy. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister, certainly the Secretary for Education, will know that those bodies, with which I, for one, have been closely associated—in some cases I was not only the founder but the instigator, like the Johannesburg City Ballet, Ballet Theatre, and so on—have always tried to urge upon the Department, directly and indirectly, the desirability of supporting this particular art form, ballet, directly under an educational grant or vote. Although we have made considerable progress in developing ballet in South Africa with the Performing Arts Council policy which the hon. the Minister has so far fostered in three of the four provinces— and which I hope will grow—that was done rather for cultural and artistic reasons than for educational reasons. Now, Sir, it is in fact conceded in this Bill that ballet has a tremendous educational value and it is recognized for what it is worth in our educational system.

I do not think many members in this House realize that when this recognition becomes known it will give considerable encouragement and pleasure to thousands of people all over South Africa, who have had a very difficult task in fostering ballet as an art form—and this against all the facts, because in South Africa we have developed ballet to a level where certain companies and certainly some of the individuals in them have in fact held their own with the best in the world. I have had the pleasure from time to time, Sir, of seeing South Africans dance in different parts of the world in ballets, like the New York City Ballet, or the Royal Ballet of Covent Garden or the Ballet Monte Carlo or the Ballet Russe. The fact is that in South Africa the same people and their endeavours receive less recognition than in the outside world. That has been the position for many years. I think the time has now come, in terms of this clause of the Bill, when it is open to the Minister and the Department to give the maximum amount of support to those thousands of parents who wish their children to take an interest in ballet, and to those hundreds of teachers all over South Africa who have dedicated themselves—because it is that sort of a vocation—to the teaching of ballet, and also to all the young people who are very anxious to adopt it as their calling.

Finally, I want to make this point. It may be a curious attitude elsewhere, but it is almost normal in South Africa to regard a male dancer as being somebody who is, shall I say, “ambisextrous”. The difficulty with many ballet companies has been that although they sometimes have a plethora of female dancers, they can hardly find enough young men to provide the principal, the male dancer. The moment dancing as such, and more particularly ballet, can be taught in a vocational school where such very ordinary vocations and every-day jobs of work are taught, as we know are being taught to-day, it may make dancing, and ballet particularly, respectable in the minds of the male youth of South Africa, so that they need no longer be ashamed to join a company, no longer be ashamed to take part in this wonderful art form which gives as much pleasure to the audience as it does to the performer; and that they, too, like their female counterparts, will be able to take their place and play their part in comparison with the Russian Rudolf Nureyev or the danseur nobile, the Russian Sergelifar. Unfortunately, from our point of view, most of them are Russian, and I do not want to drag their political affiliations into the picture. But I hope the time has now come when we shall be able to produce as many principal male dancers not only for the pleasure of South African audiences, but to carry, through this art form, our good name and prestige beyond the borders of South Africa, to many countries of the world as we have already succeeded in doing in regard to our female dancers, our ballerinas.

As I have said, I am very happy that in this rather inconspicuous way, the Minister has chosen to establish ballet as part and parcel of the educational system in South Africa; I sincerely hope that it will be developed, and that it will play a considerable part in educating those young people whose tendencies are rather towards the artistic, than towards the routine, the mundane.

I appreicate the enthusiastic support that this measure has received from hon. members on the other side. The support for this measure indicates that the good intentions of the Bill are well understood. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) raised a few matters which, as he correctly observed, Mr. Speaker, could perhaps be better dealt with at the Committee Stage. I have made a note of those matters. I take it that he has actually given us notice in regard to what will be discussed to-morrow.

Not necessarily.

Then I shall make use of this opportunity to reply to the points raised by the hon. member. As far as Clause 11 is concerned, the question of the seconding of an official to a senior post, the hon. member asked that after, say, three months, that official should be paid the higher salary attaching to that post. This would, of course, be in conflict with the practice followed in the Public Service. The practice in the Public Service is not to pay such official the higher salary although such official is entitled to the increased allowance payable in the case of a more senior post. This has been found to be quite justified in the light of the fact that a person may be seconded for a year or sometimes even longer, and in this way have the opportunity of showing what he can do and drawing attention to himself.

In connection with the request that the authority for which provision is made in terms of Clause 13 should only be entrusted to senior officials, I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that this is indeed the practice and that we shall continue in this way. The hon. member also asked me to give examples of malpractices in connection with examinations. I really do not think that it is necessary for me to do so. We have read about these malpractices in the newspapers; we are all aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there have been malpractices in connection with examination papers. This measure now makes provision for additional restrictions in this regard. We are trying to close these loopholes in order to avoid malpractices of this nature in the future.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), the art expert on the Opposition side, discussed the question of ballet with great enthusiasm. I appreciate the interest that has been shown in this matter. But I want to draw attention to the fact that this does not mean that we will now for the first time be acknowledging ballet as a high school subject. It has always been one of the recognized educational subjects. The only difficulty was that the position was not sufficiently clear. The legal advisers felt that there was some doubt as to whether ballet could also be considered to be part of art training for higher education purposes. All we are doing now is to put the matter beyond all doubt. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that for some time now ballet has been taught at the Johannesburg School of Art up to standard X and also at the Natal Technical College. Therefore, we are not introducing anything new. All we are doing is putting the existing practice beyond all doubt.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have answered all the queries that have been raised.

I move—

Most Bills are born from the thinking of officials and Ministers in their offices, but this Bill really originates in this House. For a number of years mention has been made from both sides of the House of all kinds of malpractices and abuses which exist, and as the result we first appointed a select committee, and some of the members of that select committee were appointed as members of a Commission of Inquiry, and they have submitted a report, and before dealing with the Bill I should like heartily to thank the Chairman and the members of this Commission of Inquiry for the very thorough work they did. It must be clear to everyone who reads the report of the commission that the commission consisted of members who were thoroughly acquainted with electoral matters in the Republic, and that the defects in our electoral system, and the concomitant abuses, were analysed very honestly and objectively. The whole report speaks of a sincere desire so to tighten up the electoral system that it will be able to give expression to the real will of the electorate and that it will be decisive in every election without affecting the principle of secrecy and without influence or coercion of any kind being applied to any voter to vote otherwise than according to his convictions.

In this regard I refer with understandable pride to the commission’s report, and particularly to paragraphs 96, 97 and 98, which I want to quote in full because of their importance. Paragraph 96 of the report reads as follows—

Paragraph 97 reads as follows—

And paragraph 98 of the report says this—

These are three very important paragraphs in the report of this commission which will surely be subscribed to by any right-thinking person who has the right approach to the electoral system. These unanimous conclusions arrived at by the commission also served as a guide for their further report and for the Bill which is presently before the House. In considering the proposals made by the commission, the tightening up of the electoral system was therefore thoroughly considered.

The proposals of the commission in regard to the tightening up of the registration of voters were accepted by me to the extent that in the proposed legislation it is provided that the place of study of a student will be regarded as his address for purposes of registration as a voter, while civilians who receive military training will remain registered at their civilian addresses. It is an unsound state of affairs for concentrations of students to be used, with an eye to delimitation, to load certain constituencies and then after delimitation again to register these students at the address of their parents. A student usually very seldom goes back to his parental home after completing his studies, and therefore it is no more than right to think realistically in respect of students in regard to the electoral laws. While every realist will admit that a student seldom returns to his parental home, it must also be admitted that a civilian who receives military training is generally absent from his civilian address temporarily only.

In both cases there will be exceptions, but I believe that these proposals are more in line with the realities than the existing arrangements.

Provision is further made that anybody can notify an electoral officer of the change of address of a voter if that voter has already lived at his new address for two months. On receipt of such a notice in which the new address of the voter concerned must be given, the electoral officer must request that voter at his new address to complete a new application for registration as a voter, and if he is personally satisfied in respect of the relevant facts, he must transfer the name of the voter to the Voters’ Roll of the constituency in which he ought to be registered as a voter. I want to state very clearly that no disfranchisement will take place as the result of this arrangement, because if the electoral officer is not satisfied that a change of address has in fact taken place, the voter’s name will be kept on the list of the constituency in which he is registered. I want to say immediately that although we want to avoid postal votes, and particularly unnecessary postal votes, as far as possible, I repeat that disfranchisement is a very serious thing and it cannot be allowed to take place easily.

The commission made recommendations in respect of the sources which may be used to trace the new addresses of voters who have changed their address. Those are very sound recommendations. These recommendations of the commission are being investigated by a team of organization and method officials, the O. & M. officials, in order to determine to what extent use may be made of certain sources to keep the Voters’ Rolls clean between general registrations. The commission suggests certain sources which may be used. After studying the sources indicated, it was found that some were practicable and others not, and that it would quite possibly be incomplete. In fact, the commission itself said that they did not want to allege that they had mentioned all the possible sources, municipalities and other bodies, which could assist in tracing addresses, but that it was being investigated. Firstly, a survey will have to be made of all the sources which regularly come into possession of changes of address, and secondly, it will have to be determined which sources and information may be used for this object.

Will you be able to apply it administratively, or will it require legislation?

It can be done administratively. As soon as the investigation is completed, the recommendations in this regard will receive further attention.

Now I come to the real thorn in everybody’s flesh, the so-called postal votes. I have already referred to the commission’s conclusions in this regard, but I now want to draw attention to the qualification to these conclusions contained in paragraph 140 of the commission’s report. It was unanimously supported by all members of the commission and it amounts to this, that the commission does not accept the proposal that only public servants should be used as presiding officers for the existing system of voting by absent voters. With these findings in mind, it is proposed that an absent voter, in his application for a postal vote, should indicate the address of a presiding officer for postal votes to whom that postal vote should be sent. In the past such a voter could have had his vote sent to any address he himself decided on, but now he can only have his vote sent to a presiding officer, but he himself can choose which presiding officer his postal vote should be sent to.

The electoral officer then sends the postal vote, if the application to vote as an absent voter is accepted, to the presiding officer concerned and at the same time notifies the voter of the date on which, and the address of the presiding officer, to which the postal vote is sent.

The voter concerned must then go and cast his vote with the presiding officer to whom the ballot paper, properly sealed by the voter after he has voted, is handed back together with the properly completed declaration of identity. The presiding officer then hands the postal vote over to the electoral officer.

Now it is very important to note that the ballot paper is always under the control of the presiding officers who, as will appear from the proposed definition of a presiding officer for absent votes, will be persons in the permanent employ of the State. The only exception in this regard is justices of the peace who may also act as presiding officers. That is very important. After thorough consideration it was considered necessary also to make use of the services of justices of the peace in order to ensure that in some areas of the Republic where possibly there are not enough State officials, voters will also have an opportunity to vote by post. This is an important provision because one may sometimes find that in sparsely populated areas where these people and State officials are not plentiful and there is a shortage of staff, there may be a great flood of such votes, and steps have to be taken to deal with that. I do not think any objection can be raised to this, because we all know that justices of the peace are appointed by the Minister of Justice and that they perform important functions in their areas. It is something quite different from the ordinary appointment of a commissioner of oaths. The importance of their functions and the standard maintained by our justices of the peace are quite obvious from the respect the community has for its justices of the peace, and it is a respect which emanates from a confidence in these people which has been built up through many years of experience.

It is further proposed that a voter in his application to vote for an absent voter must initial the reason for his application and that an electoral officer, after consultation with the candidates or an agent of each candidate, can reject such an application if the reason advanced is too vague to convince him that the voter is entitled to a postal vote. I do not want to drag in everybody who has been intimately concerned with postal votes here, but they know that the reasons are often filled in for the voter, and now the voter must himself initial the reasons.

The grounds on which one can apply for a postal vote remain the same as in the past, except it is recommended that if any portion of a municipal area falls within a constituency, or is nearer than ten miles from the nearest polling booth in a constituency, it should be considered that the whole municipal area falls within the ten-mile limit, and that nobody in that municipal area can vote by post because of his absence. If an application for a postal vote is accepted by an electoral officer, he issues the postal vote, as is the case at present, not later than the day after the day on which the application is received. That is the present position. In this regard it is, however, now being proposed that an electoral officer must immediately issue postal votes to applicants who are entitled to them and who personally hand in their applications for them during his office hours during the postal vote period which ends at 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the fifth day before polling day. Clause 9 provides that this proposal is made to give voters who, owing to circumstances over which they have no control, have to depart suddenly, an opportunity to cast their votes without running the risk that their ballot papers reach them too late for them still to hand them back to the electoral officer. In addition, provision is also made to enable an absent voter, who has already left before his ballot paper has reached the presiding officer, to cast his vote. Clause 12 provides for this. Such a voter can go to another presiding officer, and after he has proved his identity, request that his postal vote be sent to that presiding officer. Because of the time factor which is at stake here, the new presiding officer informs the electoral officer telegraphically of the application, and thereupon the electoral officer issues a new postal vote in respect of that voter to the new presiding officer, and cancels the former ballot paper.

As I have already indicated, this procedure is adopted in order to save time. It is possible that the first postal vote has not yet reached the first presiding officer, and although it has already been sent off by the electoral officer, it perhaps does not reach him for another few days. These few days may make all the difference in the world. Therefore there cannot be a re-addressing of the first ballot paper. It is further proposed in this regard that an electoral officer, when he is of opinion that an issued postal vote will not or cannot be returned to him within a reasonable period from the day on which it was issued, must accept and consider a new application for a postal vote which the voter concerned hands to him personally during his office hours, as if no previous application was received. Such an application can be made up to four o’clock on the afternoon of the day immediately preceding polling day, and the electoral officer must immediately make it possible for the voter to vote. In order to do this the voter must indicate the electoral officer as the presiding officer before whom he wants to vote. The proposed Section 15ter in Clause 15 refers to this. This provision is made in order that a voter will not be prevented from casting his vote due to delays caused by the death of or injury to the presiding officer he indicated, or due to other causes, such as that he may have become lazy or negligent. This is an important point. By means of this we want to try to avoid a large accumulation of votes. His keenness to vote appears from the fact that he takes the trouble personally to apply to his electoral officer for assistance. Therefore it is no more than right that the electoral officer should then have the power to assist such a voter.

It may happen that a presiding officer is not able or prepared to act as such. Where a presiding officer is not able to fulfil the prescribed functions, provision is made that in the case of electoral officers, election officials, magistrates and Bantu Affairs commissioners, officials on the permanent establishment may perform these duties under their control and guidance. If there are no such officials, or in the case of other presiding officers, a magistrate may, on request of that presiding officer, appoint another presiding officer to take over these duties. Where a presiding officer is not prepared to act as such—and that will apply only in the case of justices of the peace and nobody else—a magistrate will have the same power. Section 56nov in Clause 15 provides for this. This provision is made to prevent ballot papers accumulating somewhere and voters forfeiting their votes because of the incapacity of a presiding officer.

Now I briefly want to deal with the position of those absent voters who for some good reason will not be able themselves to visit a presiding officer and to cast their postal votes there. In order to meet these voters it is suggested that certain categories of voters, who are mentioned in the proposed new Section 56quat in Clause 15, may apply to their presiding officer for postal votes to vote at home or at any address which they indicate at times which suit them best, i.e. to vote as an immobile absent voter, as I call him for the sake of convenience. The following voters fall within these categories—

1. (a) Voters who have reason to believe that by reason of their serious illness or infirmity or, in the case of a woman, her advanced pregnancy or her confinement within 15 days before the polling day, will be unable to attend before a presiding officer for absent votes;
2. (b) voters who have reason to believe that they will be unable to attend before a presiding officer for absent votes at any time during the hours from eight o’clock in the forenoon to six o’clock in the afternoon on any day except a Sunday or a public holiday; and
3. (c) voters who have reason to believe that they will at all times during the period during which they will be able to vote as absent voters be outside the area of any municipality and not within ten miles by the nearest practicable route from the office of a presiding officer for absent votes.

Apart from these three categories of absent voters, or immobile absent voters as I have called them, the chief electoral officer may still prescribe further categories of absent voters who in his judgment must also be visited at the addresses indicated by them in order to enable them to vote.

The principle proposed here is that the State should make arrangements to allow those voters who are entitled to vote by post, but who for good reasons cannot visit a presiding officer, to vote. These voters are either ill or infirm or cannot get away from their work, or live so far away that it would demand great personal sacrifice to go to a presiding officer. It is therefore possible that many of these voters will not be able to vote, and in view of the fact that it is in the national interest that as many voters as possible should cast their votes so that it may really be determined what the will of the people is, it is the responsibility of the State—that is my honest view—and not that of the political parties, as in the past, to do everything reasonably possible to give as many voters as possible the opportunity to cast their votes. In order to avoid misunderstanding, I want to repeat that in order to qualify to vote as an immobile absent voter, a voter must first qualify to vote as an absent voter. When a presiding officer receives an application to vote as an immobile voter he appoints, in consultation with a magistrate, an electoral officer and an official witness, both of whom must be in the service of the State, to visit that voter for the purpose of allowing him to cast his vote if he is satisfied that that voter is in fact an immobile voter. If he is not satisfied that this is in fact the case, he does not reject the application before having consulted with the representatives of the political parties. That electoral officer and the official witness visit the voter who must vote immediately on receipt of the ballot paper envelope containing the ballot paper, and must immediately thereafter hand over the properly sealed ballot paper to the electoral officer, who in turn will hand it to the presiding officer.

Provision is made for political parties continuously to be kept au fait with the position so that they may act as watchdogs. Then accusations cannot be made that there was connivance in regard to that postal vote which was cast at home. The agents of the political parties will always be able to attend presiding officers if they want to, and they will be able to accompany electoral officers if they wish to do so. In fact, they can demand it, and transport will be provided at the expense of the State. The ballot paper will continuously be under the control of people in the service of the State whose careers will depend on the way in which they act. The slight exception to this is the justices of the peace but, as I have indicated before, I do not think anyone will make so bold as to cast doubt on the integrity of these persons. I believe that where officials in the service of the State will now fulfil these functions, the wish of the political parties, as recorded by the Commission of Inquiry, namely to be freed from that aspect of the postal vote system which rightly or wrongly cast suspicion on them, will be fulfilled, and that the inherent defect in the present system, as was also found by the commission, namely that the ballot paper leaves the control of the responsible electoral officer for an appreciable time, is being eliminated as far as possible. I believe that the persons who are in the service of the State will be able not only to perform their duties, but to do so faithfully and objectively. If, however, some of these persons were to act detrimentally to the good repute of the Public Service, I also know, as the Minister under whom the Public Service Commission falls, that their colleagues and chiefs will inexorably take action against them. If an electoral officer does not succeed in tracing an immobile voter at the times and at the address indicated by that voter, the presiding officer keeps that voter’s postal vote until four o’clock on the afternoon of the day immediately preceding polling day, when all uncompleted postal votes are sent back to the electoral officer concerned, who will then be able to account for every postal vote or to trace every outstanding postal vote.

When controlling the postal votes an electoral officer will be able to determine the names of all voters who voted more than once and will institute the necessary action against offenders. Duplicate votes or ballot papers which were cancelled because other ballot papers were issued, will be traced and rejected.

In this regard it is proposed that an electoral officer, after consultation with the Candidates and their agents, must accept a declaration of identity if it contains a defect which is due to the negligence of a presiding officer. We all know many votes were rejected in the past merely because of technical mistakes made by presiding officers, mistakes which were really trivial. The candidates will also act as watchdogs here to ensure that a voter’s vote will not be rejected summarily.

The controlling of the declarations of identity accompanying the applications for postal votes can be done as from the time voting starts on polling day, but as the position is at present the envelope in which the ballot paper is sealed may not be opened until just immediately before the counting of votes takes place after voting has been completed. Here a change is now being proposed, viz. that the postal votes will be counted separately and the candidates will be informed of the result, quite apart from the final result. There is no reason why this information cannot be given. The separate counting has the advantage that the postal votes are all together and that falsifications can therefore much more easily be traced.

During 1962 a provision was inserted in the electoral laws in terms of which the State President may at any time by proclamation make the production of an identity card compulsory when casting a postal vote as well as when casting a vote at a polling booth. It is now proposed that this provision be amended by adding to it, as a transitional provision, that if a voter is not able to produce his identity card, i.e. after it has been made compulsory to do so, the presiding officer may accept any other proof which he regards as sufficient instead of the identity card. It must be clearly understood that the identity card will be sufficient proof of identity, which the presiding officer must accept, whereas the other forms of proof may be rejected by him as being inadequate. It is therefore still in the interest of the voter to ensure that he obtains his identity card as soon as possible in order to avoid being disappointed, because this concession will be valid merely in the transitional stage, after which it may at any time be repealed by this House.

Apart from the proposals of the commission which I accept and have incorporated in this Bill, there are still various other proposals which I intend adding by way of regulation or putting into operation administratively, such as, e.g. the designs on the surface of the ballot papers which must be printed in fugitive ink, better gum on the envelopes, the form of the declaration of identity, the simplified application form for a postal vote, etc. I can only give the House the assurance that all those sound suggestions can be dealt with by us administratively.

There is one recommendation of the commission which I cannot accept at this stage without more ado, and that is the special voting system or the blank ballot paper system, which really amounts to blank ballot papers being made available throughout the country, which can immediately be issued to a voter on application, and who can then simply vote. There are many advantages connected with this system, but it also entails problems. My main objection at this stage—and I emphasize, at this stage—is firstly that the watchdog function of the political parties in regard to the issue of postal votes will be lost. Here I agree with the two members of the commission that this is an important basic principle in our electoral system. This principle has been borne in mind in regard to the proposals contained in this Bill. My second objection is that the two systems next to each other, as proposed by the commission, will confuse the voters in a constituency and they will consequently very easily be able to vote with a blank ballot paper after having already arranged for the issue of a postal vote, but before the postal vote has turned up.

A further recommendation in regard to the blank ballot paper system, Which I cannot support, is in regard to the so-called “foreign” vote. It was recommended that this sytem be used for all voters who vote as absent voters outside their own constituencies, and that they should be allowed to vote, inter alia, at Government offices abroad. At present only Government officials serving abroad can vote by post. One reason for this is that when there are contraventions, such persons can be called to account, while that is not so in the case of private persons. In addition, it should be borne in mind that only persons who happen to be in countries where the Republic has foreign missions will be able to vote, and others not. Further, it will not always be possible to determine which persons are only on a visit overseas and which persons have left the country permanently, or decided to leave the country permanently after having left on a visit overseas. In saying this, I do not wish to intimate that I reject the system entirely, but only that I cannot accept it at this sage. So many other changes have to be made and so much other tightening up has to be done that we must first see whether this is not the solution to our problems. Therefore I have asked my Department continuously to bear this in mind in their future planning in regard to the electoral system, because it is clear that no electoral system is perfect. I am the last one to allege, when introducing this Bill, that we have now eliminated all possible malpractices and offences. Sooner or later some clever interested person will evolve a plan to find a loophole. One of the chief future functions of Members of Parliament will be continually to be on their guard against such things happening and to draw attention to them timeously so that the loophole may be closed before political parties, rightly or wrongly, are suspected.

Finally, I once again want to express my thanks and appreciation to members of the commission for the valuable service they rendered and for having sacrificed their valuable time in producing this report. I hope that herewith we will reach a new phase in our political fight outside this place, and that we will be able to tell the world that we have evolved a system which is as wateright as possible, and that we can eliminate malpractices and offences. I move.

We on this side of the House support this Bill and welcome it, particularly because as the hon. the Minister has said, it was the result of many, many hours and weeks of joint effort in the select committee and on the commission, where the amazing situation arose that in the very field where we fight the hardest we were able to get almost complete agreement between the parties. That agreement was based, I believe, on a sincere determination that the machinery under which the Parliament which governs South Africa is elected should be in every possible respect above any suspicion or reproach. Both parties and the witnesses who gave evidence approached the problem from the aspect of trying to eliminate, wherever they were found, any possible abuse or malpractice. I will not say "hat perhaps quietly at the back of their minds sometimes there was the little thought: I wonder whether we can beat them on this little point, but no, probably they do it better than we do and therefore let us close the gap. So I think that perhaps through mutual suspicion of each other we found every possible gap that had to be dealt with. I believe not only has the Minister sought in this Bill to close the door against abuse, but I believe that the amendments in regard to the registration of voters are vitally important for a clean Voters’ Roll. It is essential, not only that the machinery should be smooth and efficient for the holding of an election, but that the people who are going to cast the votes should be the people entitled to elect a Member of Parliament for their particular area. Together with delimitation, the cleanness—to use the common expression used—of the Voters’ Roll is essential if we are going to get true representation of the electorate of South Africa in this House. Let us face the fact that in many constituencies in the past high percentages of the voters on the Voters’ Roll for a particular area were no longer resident in that constituency, and therefore you got people who were no longer on the list there and had no interest in that constituency playing the decisive role in many cases in selecting a Member of Parliament who would in practice not be representing them. In seeking an answer to that problem—and it is a difficult problem—I believe that this Bill goes a long way towards a solution. Nothing can ever be perfect, and I think the Minister would be the first to agree with me that no matter what sysetm we have, no matter how perfect your system may be, it can only work because of the political parties and their organizations. You cannot have a registration system which will work unless the political parties make it work, and its success or failure will depend on the efforts of the parties in persuading people to register.

The change made in this measure Whereby it will be simpler for people to be transferred to their new constituencies, and the efforts the Minister is making administratively to trace changes of address, are vitally important. Although in the past many of us have tended to feel that if a person has left a constituency he should be taken off the roll for that constituency even if he was not re-registered elsewhere, it is true that abuses and mistakes and hardship resulted. It is to be hoped that although that power is no longer there—the returning officer must have the new address of a person before he can take his name off the roll and transfer him to another constituency—we hope that this amendment will deal with a large number of these cases which worried us before. We had examples, e.g. of having 16 station masters registered in a little village with one station—people coming in, registering and moving off without bothering to register again. Here we now have new machinery whereby, provided the new address of a person is known, he can be transferred to his correct constituency by the electoral officer.

The Minister mentioned that he was investigating the extent to which he could get information from other organizations and that it would require no legislation to put that recommendation of the commission into practice. I assume then that the Minister means that the information obtained from, say, a city council or a post office or other source, will be handled in exactly the same way as the information given to the returning officer by a political party; that a notice will first be sent out and the person will then have to react to that notice and only then can the returning officer deal with it. The Minister confirms that that is the position, but I should like to ask him to consider whether it would not be better, where you have a responsible, official organization such as a city council or the Receiver of Revenue or other body providing positive information as to a change of address, for that information to be sufficient for the returning officer to act upon. He will then have the positive information that the person had paid a deposit and was receiving electricity at a certain address. On that information, if there is no amendment of the Act, the electoral officer would still have to send him a notice and get the notice back, and only then could he act. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it will not be possible to streamline that procedure both for speed of dealing with it and from the departmental point of view to reduce the flood of work of dealing with thousands of changes of address which they will have to do monthly.

From the aspect of registration, as on the other aspects, we have numerous minor points, one or two of them very important, which we will deal with in detail in the Committee Stage and therefore I will not go further now into the registration question.

I should like to make one or two remarks in regard to the postal vote provisions of this Bill. Here I hope the Minister will forgive us if we have a little quiet chuckle to ourselves when we think of the number of times over the years that we have been told that this is not a practicable system. We are very glad indeed that by agreement of both sides of the House, and I believe with departmental backing, at last we are at one on the vital question of who should handle a postal vote. There is no doubt that the old system was open to carelessness and suspicion. The change now proposed to make a State official, whose future depends on honestly carrying out his duties, and who is unlikely to jeopardize his future by trying to do anything which is not permitted, and who is under the discipline of the State, responsible is, we believe, a very excellent step which we can support unreservedly. The Minister referred to justices of the peace. We should like to deal with that in the Committee Stage. The principle of the control of the ballot paper never being in the hands of a political partisan is vital to the security of the ballot and the confidence of the public in the system which is followed. The Minister said it himself, and we agree with him, and he ‘has our fullest support in carrying out that principle. We believe it will eliminate the abuse of indirect intimidation which was inevitable merely through the presence of the person before whom the voter passed his vote. If a political party organizer or a Member of Parliament or other person partisan in the election happened to be an employer of that person, and that person was obliged to vote before his own employer, there was immediately implied influence. Now people voting by post will vote under exactly the same conditions as those who vote on polling day. I think the Minister accepts the principle that a person voting by post should vote as nearly as possible under the same rules and free from any other influences as would apply if he voted in person on election day. Towards that end we have one or two amendments which we will move in the Committee Stage. For instance, there are certain offences which are listed in regard to a polling officer in a polling station on election day. We believe that the same sanctions which apply to a polling officer should apply to a presiding officer for absent votes, because the circumstances are exactly the same. We will suggest to the Minister that he should go further and that a specific provision be introduced in the Bill, which we will move, making the act of intimidation or attempting to influence a voter whilst he is casting his vote a specific offence. There are already rules in regard to the voter voting in a polling booth, and we feel that there should be a clear provision that whether it be a postal vote or in the polling booth, any attempt to intimidate or influence the voter should be a criminal offence punishable in the same way.

We have a suggestion which the Minister has already refused in advance, but which we hope he will reconsider, in regard to overseas voters. Again I feel it is a matter which should be dealt with in the Committee Stage and I do not intend arguing it now, except to give notice to the Minister that it is one of the points we intend raising.

We have proposals for adding Defence Force officers above a certain rank to the list of those who may act as presiding officers. That is another instance where we feel that a solution is required for a particular problem. [Interjection.] We believe that in a military camp special arrangements must be made.

Then it will be the same as in the 1943 election.

Sir, the hon. member talks about 1943 …

Order! I do not think the hon. member should take notice of that interjection.

When that member talks about the 1943 election, I will not favour him with any sort of answer. We believe that in addition to one of the powers the Minister is introducing, the rejection of a postal vote on the ground of vagueness, there should be added to that an untrue or false statement as being a ground for rejection. Under this proposal the returning officer shall have the right to reject an application for a postal vote if he considers that the grounds for it are vague, but he should have the same power if the statements made are untrue. That sort of improvement, we hope, will enjoy the support of both sides of the House. We do not intend dealing with all the other minor points. We have suggestions in regard to the itinerant presiding officer, which is an essential aspect of these proposals. We believe that that is a necessary innovation and it is one which we support and which can be slightly improved.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider, when this measure is passed, consolidating this Act as soon as possible. We will now have five separate Electoral Acts with which to deal, and as this is a matter of vital importance in the running of any election we trust that the Minister will consolidate as soon as possible and have the Bill reprinted in order that it may be available to the parties.

Subject, therefore, to the points which we intend raising in the Committee Stage, we on this side give our full support to this Bill. We welcome it, and are proud to feel that we have asked for many of these improvements, and that we are now in agreement thereon. We are happy that the Minister and ourselves are at one on the basic principles upon which this Bill is based. Therefore we will give our full assistance in improving it further and helping the Minister to carry it out.

I want right at the outset to assist the hon. the Minister in regard to one matter in connection with which I think some misunderstanding exists and that is in connection with the blank ballot papers for voters abroad. The Act states very clearly that only Public Servants abroad may vote and the idea of the blank ballot papers was not that anybody else should be allowed to do so. I think that a misunderstanding has arisen from the report of the commission and I just want to make that point clear.

It is a pleasant privilege for me on behalf of the members of the commission to thank the hon. the Minister for expressing his gratitude to us. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) asked that we should thank him particularly for the great task that he has performed, and I think that we shall do so.

Is that so?

The Electoral Act is an Act which affects every South African citizen. Every person in and outside this House who is qualified to vote is directly affected by this Act and for that reason it is important that an Act of this nature should not be dealt with on a party basis. I think this has been the practice in South Africa generally in connection with our electoral laws. There has never been any political strife in the past in regard to amendments to our electoral laws, except in 1952 when we abolished continuous registration. That was a party-political matter and the parties opposed one another in that connection. For the rest, we can generally feel very satisfied because this has never become a political matter in South Africa.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) mentioned a few matters in regard to which they will move amendments at the Committee Stage. He was not sufficiently clear on those points to enable us to discuss them now and so we shall have to wait until the Committee Stage. But the hon. member raised one important matter. He said that voters should be able to be re-registered at their new addresses by the electoral offices without themselves having to fill in forms. I just want to say that in this regard he is going a little further than we on the commission wanted to go—indeed, than he himself wanted to go on the commission. We cannot give an electoral officer that right unless the voter makes the necessary application or unless, as is here provided, the voter obstinately refuses to comply with the request of the electoral office that he should fill in his form. That is what is now provided for in the Bill and I cannot see how one can take that point any further.

This Bill has two basic aspects one of which is in connection with the registration of voters. We are now making an effort to bring the voters’ list closer to reality, as far as the addresses of voters are concerned, from interim registration to interim registration; in other words, every four months. From the nature of the case this is a very difficult task because we have about 2,000,000 voters who are always on the move and who do not inform the electoral office of their new addresses. I think that the recommendations made by the commission in this connection have been embodied in the Bill. Those recommendations that are not embodied directly in the Bill are embodied there by implication. The most important recommendation is that the electoral office has to take action in regard to every new address which it is given. It is provided in the Bill that the electoral office has to take this action. I just want to tell the House that last year, before the general registration took place, the Johannesburg Municipality of their own volition tried out the idea that the electoral office should take the necessary action to record new addresses. Any changes of address which the Johannesburg Municipality received in connection with electricity accounts were sent to the electoral office in Johannesburg. The electoral office then sent registration cards out to those people and the reaction was so favourable that I foresee that if we can apply this system throughout, if we can be supplied regularly with addresses by the Broadcasting Corporation, the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and city councils, it will never be necessary for us to have a general registration of voters because when we receive the addresses from these organizations, we will be able to keep the lists completely up to date.

What about those reaching the age of 18 years?

We shall contact those who have reached the age of 18 years; almost all of them are Nationalists in any case; the Nationalists will ensure that the names of those people will be entered on the Voters’ Roll. Our difficulty is not the registration of new voters; our difficulty is to trace the new address of somebody who has moved and to have his name enrolled on the list for the area in which that person now resides. In connection with this matter I just want to tell the hon. the Minister in passing that, as he knows, the identity number now forms an integral part of our registration system. Certain city councils have introduced a system whereby the identity number has to be furnished by any person being supplied by them with water or electricity. I think that the time has come for the Government to instruct the Commissioner for Inland Revenue as well as the Broadcasting Corporation to insist on identity numbers being furnished by taxpayers and radio licensees. We will then be able to obtain full information from these sources. It will not cause any extra trouble and it will enable these bodies to exercise far better control over their accounts in the future. At the same time, it will be of inestimable value to us if that information can be given to the electoral office.

Mr. Speaker, the most difficult task with which we had to deal was, of course, the question of postal votes. I must say that when the commission started its work, the members of the commission could see very little daylight in this regard. After chatting with people—we held a large number of meetings—we investigated the matter from every angle, discovered what took place in other countries and eventually arrived at the recommendation contained in this report. There are hon. members in this House who have doubts in regard to the amount of work involved in getting people to vote by post in future. But I want to point out that this easy system in terms of which one signs before a commissioner of oaths is not an old system in South Africa; it is only 20 years old in South Africa. We did not have that system previously and yet we succeeded, with a little more trouble, in collecting all those postal votes. So many people have attained their majority over the past 20 years that I think it is necessary for us to tell them how the system worked previously. I am referring to paragraph 25 of the report of the commission. There hon. members will see that in terms of the original Act of 1926 only a magistrate and an electoral officer and a special justice of the peace or a justice of the peace and a police officer not below the rank of sergeant could act as presiding officer. During the 1929 election this system did not work satisfactorily. The Act was then amended in 1931; the electoral officer and the registration officer were then added to the list of officials and the rank of the policy officer was lowered to the rank of any police officer in charge of a police station. Only in. 1943 was an ordinary commissioner of oaths allowed to witness postal votes. From then on, of course, the whole matter got out of hand and there was so much suspicion in regard to this whole question of postal votes that the commission was eventually appointed. In this connection I also want to refer to paragraph 31. The provision in the Act of 1926 was strict but in 1931 it was made even stricter. The Act was amended in such a way that even the application for a postal vote had to be a sworn declaration, the persons who could act as presiding officers had all to be Public Servants and their numbers were extremely limited. Well, we managed to get by. I fought elections before 1943 and I assisted many other people to fight elections before 1943 and we all managed to get through our postal votes. But the less strict practice which arose during the war years arose in connection with both the military vote and the civil vote. Twenty years have now elapsed since the war and I think that the time has come for us to review this whole matter and place it on a permanent basis.

The commission laid down certain fundamental principles on which our postal vote system should be based. Although the hon. the Minister has not accepted our recommendations in connection with the blank ballot paper system, we feel that in this Bill he has complied with those basic principles. The basic principles are that there must be a free vote, there must be secrecy and that the temptation which exists to make misuse of the vote should be removed. I do not want to deal in detail with the malpractices that can arise but I just want to quote paragraph 72 of the report to indicate that there have been malpractices in this regard. Pursuant to the 1961 general election one electoral officer wrote as follows to the commissioner—

It is very clear that something strange happened here, something which no one could understand. And even if we did understand it, the Act does not make provision for it. In pursuance of what the hon. the Minister has already said, I just want to quote paragraph 108 of the commission’s report to indicate what the basic attitude adopted by the commission was when it made its recommendations and then the Bill before us can be put to the test in this regard. The commission stated (translation)—

I think that the provisions of this Bill comply fully with this principle. And for that reason as far as this matter is concerned, we must be satisfied with the Bill. The commission stated further (translation)—

1. (2) That the presiding officer for absent voters will be a person who will be under the control of the electoral officer or his representative, act in close contact with him and be responsible to him; and
2. (3) The circumstances under which the postal vote will be cast must, as far as possible, be in conformity with the circumstances prevailing at the polling booths.

These are the basic principles. As far as I can see, the Bill complies with all these requirements.

I have only one difficulty and that is in connection with justices of the peace. I feel that a justice of the peace can perform a very great service in the district in which he lives because all. the people there know him. But you yourself, Mr. Speaker, if you are in Klerksdorp, will not know whether the Jan van Zyl of Cape Town who handles a postal vote is a justice of the peace or not. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider making it compulsory for these persons to be specially sworn in for this task and to use an official stamp. If this is not done, they must be directly responsible to the local chief magistrate of the district in which they are serving. All the postal votes which they handle must be sent back to the office of the chief magistrate. I feel that we cannot permit a person to sign as So-and-so, Justice of the Peace, in connection with a postal vote for another constituency. Nobody in the other constituency will know whether that person is really a justice of the peace or not.

Hon. members will see from the recommendations of the commission that we have drawn a clear distinction between “local postal votes” and “distant postal votes”. In connection with local postal votes, we say that the services of people who are not public servants can be used but that those people must be under the strict control of an electoral officer; we also say that their services should not be used at all in the case of away postal votes. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he consider restricting the services of persons who are not public servants to voters in that constituency only or, if this is not possible, that those people only be allowed to perform their duties on the instruction of the magistrate or electoral officer of the constituency concerned.

I just want to say this in conclusion. I think we are dealing here with a piece of legislation which is a very great step forward. I think that in the future we will have a far better voters’ list. Our voters’ list will be up to date and will reflect the distribution of population throughout the country. In the second place, on polling day, we will find that we need not be afraid that there will be any tampering with the votes. Everything will be under proper control. There is only one difficulty and I think it is going to cost the State a great deal of money. If the hon. the Minister finds that it is too expensive then I hope that he will consider the gradual introduction of this idea of the blank ballot paper in future because I feel that it will be able to do the same amount of good work at perhaps a quarter of the cost.

I had the pleasure of serving on the select committee which made recommendations in this matter in 1962. When it came to appointing members of the commission, however I was not included in the team. But far from being bitter about that, I believe that that commission did such good work that there is no justification to study its report with any suspicion at all. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) indicated, it is apparent that there was the most cordial co-operation between members of the commission. We are very glad to say that the Minister has been big enough to adopt certain suggestions which have been pressed for by this side of the House for some time, and to have included them in this Bill. We are glad about it.

It has been said that this Bill contains provisions which will improve the registration of voters. For that, too, we are thankful. The Minister has shown that he attaches importance to postal votes and to make it possible for such voters to vote to the extent even of making provision that the State will, to a certain extent, bear the cost involved. This is a view which is shared by this side of the House. I wonder whether this is not the appropriate time for approaching in an equally generous spirit the work of the political parties to help maintain the roll up to date. There is no doubt that they fulfil a great function in this respect, which at present still goes unrewarded. Perhaps some scheme can be worked out in this regard. I do not know whether that would be possible. However, it just occurs to one that the parties are rendering an important service in this respect on behalf of the State and should be placed in the position where they can continue rendering that service.

Another question which, to my mind, merits consideration relates to the time when application forms for postal votes may be completed. I think one often finds that application forms for postal votes are completed a long time before an election and, indeed, in some cases well before nomination day. The relevant section of the Act is Section 43 (3) stating—

The Act is careful not to stipulate when the application must be completed, or, rather, to stipulate a date before which it may not be completed. I think an unfortunate practice has grown up for these applications to be completed extremely early. This was clear especially in the case of the recent by-election in the Karoo where there were slightly different provisions which obtained in regard to the grounds upon which you could have a postal vote. One of these grounds was that a voter must live more than five miles from the nearest polling station. But the siting of polling stations is determined on or shortly after nomination day. Consequently, any application for a postal vote completed before that date is likely to contain an erroneous statement. To challenge such an application is a complicated matter, involving as it does recourse to the courts. Such recourse might be entirely justified because, if a voter does not know until shortly after nomination day where his polling station is going to be, he cannot possibly make a solemn declaration at an earlier date to the effect that he in fact lives more than five miles from that polling station. This ground was one of the grounds which was used, doubtless by both sides, to obtain nostal votes. The practice of accepting application for postal votes extremely early is one which is not in accordance with the improved arrangements proposed under this Bill. I am not sure at this stage how best to set it right, but I have no doubt that it can be done.

Furthermore, I think the points on which this Bill can be improved can best be left over for discussion in the Committee Stage. I hope that the Minister, on the grounds of his attitude at the time of the 1962 Bill and his attitude to the commission’s report, will then approach the suggestions which we will make with a fair and open mind also. The points which we will bring forward, will be brought forward in the same spirit as the suggestions •which we made before the select committee and the commission. I think it was then accented that a genuine attempt was being made thereby to improve the electoral machinery.

I think this legislation is a definite step forward with a view to having better control over our postal system. We who have to deal with these matters every day welcome the fact that the suspicion which has always existed previously in regard to candidates and their organizations will now be removed by means of these proposed measures. But we must not imagine that this is the ultimate solution to the problem and that by means of this legislation we will now be able to eliminate all the abuses of this system or close up all the loopholes in this regard. I think we will find that this legislation will also have its shortcomings. We may perhaps have to deal ?with new problems. One of these, I think, ?will be that the number of postal votes will increase. The number of postal votes has already been high in the past and this has been ?one of the matters that has given cause for concern. Electoral officers also complained about this fact before the commission. There is no provision in the proposed legislation which will in any way reduce the number of postal votes. On the contrary …