laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Payment of Members of Parliament Amendment Bill [B 100—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).
2. (2) Sales Tax Amendment Bill [B 101—86 (GA)]—(Minister of Finance).

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, as we did at the Second Reading we are going to oppose the Third Reading of this measure for the reasons stated both during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. We are unhappy about the Bill, as indicated, because we believe that the measures in clause 3 and clause 7 give the SABC undue preference in competition with private groups, particularly in the video field. I know that the hon the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate indicated that it was not the intention of the corporation to compete with private enterprise in the field of videos but the fact is that we are making legislation and the power given to the corporation in terms of this legislation will enable the corporation to compete with private enterprise in the video field.

We also believe that clause 6 in terms of which tax exemption is granted to the corporation and the companies associated with it, causes unfair competition with the private industry.

For these reasons we sustain our objections and we will vote against the third reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Berea made no contribution to this debate. I should like to come back to the part played by the CP in the preceding debate on this Bill. The destructive part played by the CP and its twin brother, the HNP, really knows no bounds in this House. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill is an exceptionally positive piece of legislation, but the debate on it was horribly abused by the CP and the HNP for their own political gain. [Interjections.]

They prolonged the debate for hours, while it could have been concluded months ago. They made bitter and pointed attacks, mostly without substance, on the SABC and its broadcasting services.

They did this despite the fact that the publicity they receive on radio and on television is out of proportion to their numbers and their newsworthiness. In proportion to their size, the CP’s standpoint is expressed very well by the SABC. If we look at the radio and television renditions of what is said in this Parliament day after day, we find that a larger percentage of CP spokesmen than spokesmen on this side of the House is reflected by the SABC. And then they complain! [Interjections.]

As far as the Parliamentary scene is concerned, therefore, the CP is better off in relation to its numbers than members on this side of the House are as far as the SABC is concerned. [Interjections.] They have no cause for complaint; they should be very grateful for what radio and television do for them. The hon member for Kuruman was on television last night and on the radio again this morning. What are they complaining about? [Interjections.] The hon members of the CP are not newsworthy; they are not even roadworthy, yet they appear on television every day and we hear about them in news broadcasts.

[Inaudible.]

The SABC’s people are definitely no angels. They probably deserve a bit of criticsm here and there, but the reprehensible attack of the CP and the HNP on the SABC during this debate about this Bill is extremely unreasonable and unfair to the SABC, and I am going to point out why.

The SABC has a very difficult task. It serves a large audience, characterised mainly by its variety and differences. The SABC serves one of the most complex communities in the world. In human terms, it is impossible to satisfy everyone at the same time, in this mixture of races, peoples and groups with their variety of cultures, aspirations and views. Yet the SABC is so successful in performing its task in these unenviable conditions that the criticism that is expressed is unimportant, judging by the SABC’s positive contribution to an ordered community.

The SABC’s greatest achievement is undoubtedly the incalculable part it plays in creating and furthering good race and ethnic relations in this country, but the CP and HNP do not take part in this. They are bedevilling race relations from morning till night. I want to tell the SABC they should rather give those parties less publicity, since the more publicity the SABC gives them, the more they bedevil race relations with what they say.

The SABC provides one of the finest and most effective services in the world as far as both radio and television are concerned. It is general knowledge that our radio programmes are of an exceptionally high quality. They cannot deny that.

In the relatively short period of its existence, our television has reached a standard comparable with that of broadcasting services in the Western countries. Foreign visitors who come here tell us how impressed they are with the SABC’s services. Despite what hon opposition members say, the SABC enjoys great credibility among the South African public.

Oh!

What I am saying is not based on hearsay, but on authoritative polls. [Interjections.] The hon member for Langlaagte must listen. He will hear in a moment … [Interjections.] According to a very thorough study by the authoritative All Media and Product Surveys, which was carried out during the final quarter of 1985, radio and TV are the primary source of news for most South Africans of all population groups. This survey shows that more than 70% of the Whites are convinced that they can believe all news or most of the news broadcast by the radio and television and can accept it as being correct.

What do the same people say about the printed media? They say only 40% of the printed media’s news coverage is believed and accepted by the public, whereas 70% of the SABC’s news coverage is believed. That is an achievement.

The HSRC, which is regarded by all of us as being authoritative, also made a countrywide survey to determine which section of the media had the greatest credibility. The HSRC’s finding was that approximately 90% of the Whites regarded the SABC’s news coverage as credible. If 90% of the Whites think that, even the CPs do! In addition, the Whites thought the SABC’s news coverage was reasonable to good.

According to regular surveys, the SABC has a viewership of almost 30 million per week for all its TV news services together, while at least 22,5 million people tune in to the radio’s news programmes daily. These are phenomenal figures. Where can one get a better testimonial for the SABC than this? [Interjections.] Surely this shows that the public likes the SABC’s news services. They watch them and listen to them because they are fresh, factual and correct.

If that were not the case, these services of the SABC would not be as popular as they are. If this is biased brainwashing, as the CP and the hon member for Brakpan said, why are these services so popular among the public? The SABC is no one’s arm; it serves the interests of the general public. It serves the interests of the whole community. That is also the BBC’s point of departure. It is the point of departure of broadcasting systems worldwide.

The SABC has a fine record of objectivity and impartiality, but this does not mean it has to be completely neutral. No broadcasting system in the world is completely neutral. Only a corpse can be neutral. How can they expect the SABC to be that neutral? The BBC’s handbook declares unequivocally that where necessary, the BBC does not hesitate to take a stand. We all know the BBC is one of the best broadcasting systems in the world.

I want to come back to this legislation in a minute. I do not want to enumerate all the positive points of this legislation again, but there is one aspect which I should like to emphasise.

Although the SABC has decided not to proceed with its proposed co-operation agreement with the newspapers, it can now conclude partnerships with outside bodies in terms of this legislation, if it finds it necessary to do so. This gives outside bodies in the private sector the opportunity to share in what the SABC is doing. It means the SABC can move positively on the course of privatisation, something everyone has made passionate pleas for recently.

The SABC is beginning to give more and more contracts to the private sector. Local film producers are being afforded a better opportunity to operate and they can derive quite a bit of benefit from this. The SABC will be in a position to stimulate the production of local film material, because it will be capable of giving local producers better remuneration for such material. This can be an injection for the local film industry, to such an extent that we shall be able to give more consideration to own productions and less to blood-and-thunder films from America, which of necessity we have to fall back on at the moment.

Since this legislation is going to enable the SABC to render an even better service than is the case at present, we on this side of the House have great pleasure in supporting this measure before us.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bloemfontein North is suffering a typical case of delayed reaction. This debate has actually been in progress since March. In fact, it has lasted throughout the session if one takes into account that it was also discussed during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill when the Vote of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was discussed. During those debates, all four opposition parties criticised and attacked certain aspects of the SABC, but that was where the hon member made his first political error of reasoning. Perhaps it is because he is associated with the PFP and the NRP to such an extent by now, that he does not attack them at all.

He casts only one eye at the CP and the HNP, while all four opposition parties together indicated their opposition to certain aspects of the SABC. This also applies to hon members of the other Houses. As a result of the personal prejudice of the hon member for Bloemfontein North against the conservative parties in this country, he concentrated his attack only on the CP and the HNP. He used language which bordered almost on the unparliamentary, and this is an hon member who has always been described in this House as being very conservative and responsible. Yet he used this kind of language in this late stage of the debate and gave completely general replies about specific incidents which had been raised as points of criticism against the SABC throughout this session. Not one of those points of criticism was replied to either by him or by the hon the Deputy Minister, or by the hon the Minister in the debate on his Vote. He merely expressed generalities about the so-called impartiality of the SABC.

I am going to mention a new example to him. It concerns the case of the events at Pietersburg. There we listened to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the NP office for five or six minutes. Remember, it was a political meeting, or was he acting as a Government spokesman there once again? Was he a Government spokesman or was he a political party’s speaker? The hon member does not want to answer me.

Make your own speech!

Very well.

At the same time publicity was given at that stage to the Durban meeting which was addressed by the hon member for Lichtenburg and Mr Marais of the HNP. The SABC’s commentator merely said what had happened at that meeting, while photographs of the hon member for Lichtenburg and Mr Marais were displayed in the background. That is what the hon member called impartial political reporting.

If he says we get much more of an opportunity to appear on SABC-TV in relation to our numbers, I must tell him he has no idea of our numbers. He has been in this House longer than any other hon member since 1910. This Parliament has been in existence for five years without election’s having been held. He has no idea of the support of the various parties, yet he made a general senseless remark here. [Interjections.] Nor is it only the right-wing parties, because the NRP and the PFP attack the SABC and criticise it in the same way, but he does not take that into account.

Why have you not won a by-election then? [Interjections.]

What happened in Soutpansberg? What happened in Waterberg, Potgietersrus and Sasolburg? [Interjections.]

The hon member then expressed the ridiculous statement that 90% of the people who had been questioned regarded the SABC as newsworthy and that so many million people listened to the SABC. Is there anything else one can listen to? Is there anything else one can watch? Does the hon member want to be as intolerant as the hon the Deputy Minister by saying the people can simply put off their sets and need not then pay licence fees? How can he regard that figure as being at all correct and scientific when this organisation has a monopoly? That is the position regarding his argument. As far as impartiality is concerned, if he extols the impartiality of the SABC to that extent, why did the hon member not accept our amendment? After all, our amendment is simply a further accentuation of the request that the SABC should act in an impartial, unprejudiced and balanced way. Why did he and his party not accept that if their conscience was so clear? [Interjections.] I know why that party is coming out in support of SABC-TV. It is because that organisation, with its programmes about contentious matters, supports the NP and promotes the cause of the Government by means of blatant as well as very wise and subtle efforts. It also promotes the cause of this so-called reform and capitulation of the NP. These are the facts. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate that he would not reply to the arguments which were purely political and had therefore already been discussed by the hon the Minister during the debate on his Vote, again. We therefore have a very interesting example here of the phenomenon the English call “passing the buck”.

I want to refer the hon the Deputy Minister to what the hon the Minister said during the discussion of his Vote. He said the following in connection with the SABC on 6 May 1986 (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 5038):

He then repeated the offer. He did not reply to one of the points of criticism. He said we were being unfair and then he said we could meet the board. That was on 6 May this year.

We had met the chairman and the board as well as the director-general and senior members of the top management on 15 April, but once again we got nowhere. We get nowhere with our criticism during the discussion of the Vote, because, in the hon the Deputy Minister’s view, we are being unfair if we criticise the SABC in this House. He says it is one of the forums we make use of to criticise the SABC, but then we are being unfair. We are told to have discussions with the SABC, while we have done so already, but once again without success. [Interjections.]

Surely that illustrates the frustration we as members of the House of Assembly are experiencing in connection with this situation. When one puts penetrating questions, the political head replies that the corporation is autonomous, and if one approaches the SABC, one’s case is adjudicated by the accused. This is a case in which one is sent from pillar to post. If that is the treatment a Member of Parliament receives from the SABC, how much more frustrated would an unhappy member of the public, who might be treated even more badly, not become with this kind of conduct? It is a situation which manifests itself every day.

Nonsense! You are on the screen every day.

That is not the point! [Interjections.] The issue is not whether or not I am on the screen every day! I am not talking so much about news services; I am talking about programmes such as Network, or rather “Natwork”. [Interjections.] None is so blind as he who will not see!

Another aspect I want to point out, is that the SABC is not a member of the Media Council or the Press Union. Those doors are also closed to people with grievances, therefore.

They are not closed.

The hon member says the doors are not closed, but can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us whether there is any method according to which a member of the public or a member of this House can lodge a complaint with a body, in the same way in which one can take action against a newspaper, about an unfair report, prejudice, partiality or any other aspect of the work entrusted to the SABC? One must consider the fact that the SABC has a monopoly in respect of sound broadcasts and telecasts. The inevitable conclusion is that a post must be created for an arbitrator or an ombudsman to whom criticism can be channelled.

Listen to the hon the Deputy Minister’s priceless argument. I quote from the unrevised copy of his speech. He thinks that—

He asks how one person—

These are the exact words used by the hon the Deputy Minister. He then asked:

Sir, but surely that is not the function of the arbitrator or ombudsman! His function is to listen to people’s objections and to give his finding on them. Surely he is not taking the SABC over if he is playing the part of an arbitrator in respect of an objection! We simply want an objective institution. A judge or retired judge from the Supreme Court can fill this post of arbitrator to give his finding on the matter.

An extension of democracy! [Interjections.]

Yes, it would be an extension of democracy.

Does a court become a dictator when it gives judgement on a point of issue? I should be pleased if the hon the Deputy Minister would tell me that in his reply. When an arbitrator gives judgment on a point of issue between a listener and the SABC, according to the hon the Deputy Minister he is being placed in a position in which he alone can determine what may and may not be broadcast. Surely that is not true! That is not the point the CP wants to put in this connection!

What is so interesting, is that the hon the Deputy Minister is part of a new dispensation. He voted for Act No 110 of 1983, which gives one person dictatorial powers in respect of the government of the whole country! He is quite happy with that, but he is not in favour of this in the case of a branch of the national administration, viz the SABC. What logic does an argument of this kind have? [Interjections.]

In addition we have the position that people recognise that the SABC is prejudiced and biased. Various bodies have said this. It is only the hon member for Bloemfontein North who still denies it, but he would probably never accept any criticism in respect of the SABC. That is why one should not take his opinion on this matter into account at all.

Do all other hon members admit that there is a measure of prejudice in every news medium? The hon the Deputy Minister admitted that himself. He said that in reality there could not be anything such as an absolutely neutral opinion, as the hon member for Bloemfontein North has also just said, or a neutral person or a neutral institution. The latter was also said on occasion by the hon the Minister of Finance.

The hon the Deputy Minister said at a stage it was nonsense to say the SABC was prejudiced, and at a later stage he said it was true that all media were prejudiced. Yet the hon the Deputy Minister refuses to accept an amendment which proposes in respect of the SABC’s objectives that the SABC be required to perform its task in a spirit of unprejudiced balance, open-mindedness and impartiality. How can one understand the hon the Deputy Minister’s argument?

I want to ask him to review his arguments about the control of the SABC. In the first place he spoke about the market mechanism. I want to repeat that that is not an argument one can advance when one is dealing with the holder of a monopoly over a unique commodity. The hon the Deputy Minister said we should not buy TV sets if we were not satisfied with the SABC. He said in that case one should simply turn one’s set off.

An argument of this kind from the hon the Deputy Minister simply proves the arrogance of an intolerant Government. The person who is not satisfied has to turn his TV set off, but there is a monopoly and one has to listen to the SABC in any case. In addition he said … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, hon members will, no doubt, be delighted to hear that I obviously will not be able to talk for too long.

The Third Reading debate on a Bill, as I understand it, is always to discuss the effects of the Bill. I think this Bill has taught us one lesson, and it has taught us all this lesson. When we have a Bill of this nature before the House and it is one that I would call a “popular” one in respect of the fact that every time it appears on the Order Paper it unlocks afresh the whole debate. We would do well to deal with it at one sitting or certainly just adjourn it for no longer than one or possibly two days, but not handle it the way that this one has been handled. This Bill has been on the Order Paper as Bill No 6 since March of this year and, every time it has been debated through the Second Reading and even through the Committee Stage, people have stood and have advanced a whole lot of new arguments because the SABC, if nothing else, does provide us with an enormous amount of argument and certainly is the source of a lot of controversy.

I think the hon member for Bloemfontein North who is the chairman of the standing committee, will agree when I say that we dealt with this matter on our standing committee in no more than a couple of hours. I understood it to be a Bill that we had all accepted, but by the time it got to this House we found that it was opposed by the Official Opposition, the CP and the HNP. I can see that there is room for a lot of improvement in the SABC, but I think that we have all aired this; we have all had our say in this regard. I think therefore that what we should do now is to support the measure and allow it to go through because there is much in it that I believe is good. I think we have already seen one of the good things and that is the ability of the SABC to make up and market its own programmes. I see that they are already indulging in that with a tape that is now available on the rugby series, which I believe is quite magnificent. They are marketing that, and I hope they do well with it. We have also heard much about what is being done in relation to films such as Shaka Zulu which I hope we will see in this countryere long. I believe it should be shown soon to our local audiences.

Sir, we hope that what we are doing here today will serve the best interests of the SABC in the long run, and I think this Bill is certainly worthy of support at Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, we thank the hon member for Umhlanga for supporting this measure. He stated correctly that this was a popular debate. Quite a few hon members participated in this debate, and you, Mr Speaker, allowed the speakers to cover a wide range of topics in their arguments. The hon members of the Conservative Party in particular spoke very little about the provisions of the Bill itself. They tried to make general politics out of this, but it is in any case a popular subject, particularly after the appearance of the SABC’s annual report. Perhaps it is a good thing that the things that are said in public, should really be said in this House as well.

The Conservative Party, I find, is a very peculiar opposition party. I hope you will permit me to say this, Sir. For four and a half years they have been sitting in the opposition benches, attacking the National Party and maligning its leaders. They vilify us throughout the entire country. After four and a half years, however, they have not yet given a clear explanation of their policy. They have not put forward any policy which could serve as an alternative to that of the National Party. [Interjections.] The hon leader of the CP is too afraid to adopt a standpoint on the AWB.

The AWB forbids him to!

He is too afraid to dissociate himself from the AWB.

That is true!

Now this is the opposition party that uses every debate to make a little bit of political capital out of it. They try to hide their own nakedness by kicking up such a row in public. [Interjections.] They talk about our legitimacy. They detected from the National Party, however, after their hon leader signed the 12-point plan in 1981. In by-elections only two hon members of the Conservative Party returned as members elected by the voters of the country.

You as the member for Pretoria East should resign, and see what will happen!

I also think the SABC gives them far too much exposure. I listened to the parliamentary review this morning. For every one member on this side of the House whose speech was referred to, reference was made to a speech by a member of each of the opposition parties. When one considers that only two of the hon members were actually elected at the polling booth, I think the attention the SABC gives them, is completely excessive.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member for Pretoria East aware of the fact that no parliamentary commentary is broadcasted on Saturday mornings, and that on Monday mornings only a projection of the following week’s activities in Parliament is broadcasted? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am not aware of every programme broadcast by the SABC to that extent. It could of course be the case. I in any case listened to this morning’s parliamentary review, and it is Tuesday today.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House gladly support the Bill under discussion. The hon member for Umhlanga referred to its contents, as well as to the behaviour of the CP, who in the standing committee apparently agreed to the Bill, but veered round here in the House and opposed it. Naturally they only did so for the purpose of making petty politics out of it.

I should once again like to draw the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to certain matters which I raised here during the second reading debate. I referred to the composition of the board. I agree that there are excellent people serving on the board. I can even boast of having one of my voters on the board—Mrs Miemie Ackermann. We are delighted that such people make their services available to the SABC.

The argument which I actually put forward, is that the SABC is a high-technology organisation, and although, due to the mission of the SABC, we should have a balanced average of experts from society, I still ask that we should appoint people to the Board who are trained to be able to make judgements on technology—at least one such a person. The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to my request that people with financial management skills should also be appointed to the board. There are in fact economists on the board, but they are not the only people who are schooled in financial management. I also referred to two other aspects. One should of course realise that the SABC is a financially sound organisation, but one which has cash-flow problems. When one has cash-flow problems, one must take care about one’s income as well as one’s expenditure, because the difference between those two naturally means one’s profit. I also said the SABC should take note of capital expenditure in order to limit the amount it spends. They should also market their services more dynamically to the education authorities. They should take note of transmission time in order to prune their running costs, and they should be careful not to overload us with to many excessively expensive foreign programmes. The programmes which we enjoy the most, are, for example, the rebroadcasting of the soccer match, which hon members could watch on arriving home yesterday evening. I am sure those are not such expensive programmes.

We on this side should like to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pretoria East made the astounding remarks at the beginning of his speech that the hon members on this side of the House malign and vilify the leaders of the Government party. He also alleged that the CP, as a political party, has not yet come up with a policy during the past four and a half years. This simply testifies to complete political naivety. [Interjections.] Why have the majority of those voters in Potgietersrus, Nylstroom, Waterberg and Soutpansberg voted for that policy? [Interjections.] Furthermore, the hon member for Pretoria East made a few proposals in connection with the financial management of the SABC instead of dealing with the Bill.

I want to return to what the hon member for Bloemfontein North had to say. His remarks about the destructive role of the CP and their misuse of this debate for political gain has no basis at all.

Now say something good.

The hon member must just wait a bit, I shall now say something very positive.

The hon member also alleged that we receive coverage out of all proportion to our numerical strength. Here I want to link up with my friend, the hon member for Brakpan. The Government party is in its sixth year of Office. How on earth can the hon member tell us what the support of that side of the House is as opposed to that of the CP? He does not have the foggiest idea.

The hon member also says the SABC serves a large audience and he accuses us of bedevilling race relations. If we in the CP take a stand on behalf of the Afrikaner or the Whites in this country, that side of the House regards it as bedevilling race relations.

The hon member went further and said a survey showed that 70% of the people who watch television, believe what they see. He said the HSRC’s survey showed that 90% of the SABC’s news coverage is credible. [Interjections.]

That is correct.

If this is the case, then we are up against a situation where the major of this population, who believe what they see and are actually misled and brainwashed by it, are being blatantly influenced. This is after all precisely the evidence of the effect that the SABC’s radio and television service has on the major portion of our population. [Interjections.]

The SABC, the hon member says, should serve the interests of the community as a whole. If it does in fact want to do this, the hon the Minister should really have accepted the amendment moved by this side of the House. Then he should not have shied away from it.

We on this side of the House have no objection to one part of this Bill of which we are now discussing at Third Reading, ie clauses 5 and 6, which amongst other things make provision for the staggering of the licensing year. But we have strong objections to the other clauses which further extend the aims and powers of the SABC, because in our view they are meant to further increase the effectiveness of the SABC as a propaganda medium and a medium of influence.

The SABC’s radio and television service is a powerful medium which is being used in a blatant and biased way by the Government to further and to project its political aims and standpoints to a White population, amongst others, which no longer supports the political aims and standpoints of the Government. If the hon members do not want to believe me, they should ask the State President to call an election. Then they will see the real results. Then they will see the extent to which that power-sharing and integration policy is still supported.

Now the hon members have already raised the argument—the hon member for Brakpan also mentioned it—that one should switch off the radio or television if one does not like it. They say that one is not forced to listen to the programmes. The hon the Deputy Minister also raised this argument. That surely is not an argument. All the licence holders of this country do after all have to renew their licences. They are obliged to renew them. Therefore television viewers surely rightly demand that there should be greater objectivity and impartiality.

The hon member for Brakpan proposed that provision should be made in clause 2 for an ombudsman. There should be an impartial watchdog who can deal with complaints and take care that the interests of the public at large and there political convictions also receive fair treatment.

The same principle also applies to clause 3 which concerns audio-visual material, the disposal and handling of it and the establishment of a company of which the shares can also be held by people other than the SABC. Here we have asked that such people or bodies be representative of the broad spectrum of listening and viewing public. In regard to the releasing of material to the retail sector, the hon the Deputy Minister in reply to the second reading debate says (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 5857):

The hon the Minister then says (col 5858):

I immediately want to concede that this is understandable, although we also have serious misgivings about the nature of many of the programmes which the SABC imports from abroad.

This clause also makes provision for the compilation, printing and production of audio-visual material by the SABC itself and the releasing of that to the industries. That is where the problem lies. If a mechanism is not built in here to achieve objectivity and impartiality to a degree, we cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill, because specifically by making that material available to the retail industry the government can influence the public or subject then to propaganda which is disseminated amongst the public by means of the retail industry. The hon the Deputy Minister admitted this in as many words when he replied to the speech of the hon member for Umhlanga during the second reading debate. I quote him (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 5867):

That is true. We argue in regard to this legislation that it is precisely the case to a large extent as far as the SABC radio and television services are concerned.

In this country there is—let me put it very clearly—a growing impatience and dissatisfaction to be detected amongst the public with the activities of the SABC and specifically the television service. This legislation before us furthers those activities and extends them even further. We are therefore opposed to it and cannot vote for it in the Third Reading either.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bloemfontein North proved himself today to be someone who unconditionally echoes everything the NP does. Today he was the perfect “His Master’s Voice”. [Interjections.] This matter has been debated for many months and not only in general terms, specific examples were mentioned. This was not only done by one Opposition Party, but by the PFP, the CP, the HNP and the NRP. This was also done in the other Houses. Dozens of examples were given of how the SABC favours the NP.

I find it interesting that the hon member, who is the NP’s main speaker on this matter, rises here today during the Third Reading debate and does not deal with any of the complaints lodged against them individually. The hon member keeps quiet about this, but with great verbosity says that the opposition parties—it is interesting, however, that he only referred to the CP and the HNP—made terrible use of the debate for party-political purposes. The complaints lodged by us and the examples we gave the hon member, however, did not address.

This only proves one thing: The hon member does not have a case. He has no defence. I think the best thing would be for him to continue taking French lessons and hope that the NP will take the risk of calling a by-election in Bloemfontein North, so that the hon member can go to France at some stage or another. [Interjections.]

It surprised me tremendously that the hon member could ask why we have not yet won a by-election. I think the hon member should change his name to Rip van Winkel. [Interjections.] The support one receives, is very closely connected to the amount of television and radio coverage. I therefore do not blame the hon member for saying the CP should be given little time, because he does not even know that we have already won a few by-elections.

Two!

No not only two! The hon member for Winburg says we have won two, but it seems to me as if the hon member cannot even count. We have won four, which is twice as many.

In the Transvaal the CP together with the HNP received more votes in ten by-elections than the NP. It therefore means that the right-wing elements are entitled to more television coverage than the NP, because the NP is the minority party in the Transvaal. These are after all simple calculations and even the hon member for Winburg can try to understand them.

Where did you people win? Where did you win more than two?

I shall tell the hon member which ones we won. I shall just have to coax the hon member out of his hibernation; we must take it easy as far as he is concerned. I now want to tell him nice and slowly that we have won Waterberg, Soutpansberg, Soutpansberg-provincial and Potgietersrus. Is the hon member with me now? Is he now completely awake? For a little dessert I just want to say we also won Sasolburg. [Interjections.] That was a joint effort by the CP and the HNP in Sasolburg. Let me tell the hon member that his chances of returning after the following election—I did after all hold the meeting there—is zero at its best. I held a meeting there for 200 people, but the hon member cannot even hold a meeting where only he and his wife are present, because not even she wants to listen to him. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister why the SABC does not become a member of the Media Council. It is after all an extremely important matter. I now want to refer to what happened when the SABC Board consisting of Dr Brand Fourie, Mr Koedoe Eksteen, Mr Hamman and others, addressed the CP.

It is interesting that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is apparently also suffering from winter sleeping sickness, because he suggested during the discussion of his Vote in the House that the CP should talk to the SABC’s people. At that stage we had already spoken to each other two weeks earlier. They came to see us up here and we had a pleasant discussion.

On that occasion one of them said that they were in fact a member of the Media Council and that is the impression which we are now under. I do not know what is being said by whom, but we should welcome it if that were in fact the case. We could then take every example which in our opinion is wrong to the Media Council. Surely the Government could not lose anything by that.

I now come to my next point. Today a very newsworthy event took place in the House and if the television service is completely objective, I think one will be able to see on television tonight and hear over the radio that the State President raised a point of order during question time here today. What did he say? He said that anyone who alledged inside or outside the House that he ever broke up a meeting, is a liar. I then told him—this evening we shall see how objectively this is reported by the SABC—what Mr John Vorster told me—what did he tell me? He told me that the man in South Africa’s political history, who was responsible for breaking up the most political meetings, is Mr P W Botha. [Interjections.]

I now want to quote a passage, and we shall see whether we are given both sides of the story on television this evening. I just briefly want to read a short piece—P W Botha Vier Jaar by Jan J van Rooyen. [Interjections.]

It is P W Botha 40 Jaar! [Interjections.]

This says “Vier Jaar”. [Interjections.]

No, it is 40.

I do not blame the hon members for laughing. I am also laughing because it is precisely the nil which is the State President. On the cover, his face appears on that number. I also find it very applicable that he is the zero, because I regard him as an honourable zero. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I shall catch the hon member for George in his constituency. [Interjections.]

I just want to explain briefly who said that the State President broke up meetings. It was Senator Conroy! I quote from page 28 of the book I mentioned:

Senator Conroy, Mr Vorster and many others said the State President broke up meetings. I say I believe them, and not him. By standing up here today to assault the truth, the State President simply proved once again that he is the most untrustworthy politician our country has ever had. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I think all hon members will be pleased that we have now come to the end of this marathon debate. As certain hon members have already said, it has taken a long time to debate this Bill but, like good wine, it is the old things which are best.

I think the arguments put forward by many hon members during the Third Reading debate have been very similar to those put forward during the Second Reading debate, but some new angles were advanced and I will deal with them very briefly.

The hon member for Berea on behalf of the other hon members of his party merely reiterated their reasons for voting against this Bill at the Third Reading as well. They feel that the Bill will give the SABC an unfair advantage in competing with the private sector in the distribution of video recordings and other material. They also believe that the tax benefits which the SABC will obtain will work to the detriment of the private sector. Apparently I cannot convince these hon members of the SABC’s good intentions in this respect, so all I can say is that we must agree to differ. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Perhaps the hon member for Berea will tell us next year during the debate on the hon the Minister’s Vote whether he was right or whether we were right. We are going to give the SABC these powers, and we will see what happens.

We believe that it will be to the benefit of the consumer and to television and radio productions in South Africa if we enable the SABC to distribute material through the retail sector in South Africa.

*The hon member for Bloemfontein North acquitted himself well of his task. He replied very well to the accusations and complaints of the CP who repeated the hackneyed arguments they used in the Second Reading debate. I want to thank the hon member for replying to the generalised arguments of the CP in that way.

I also thank the hon member for Pretoria East for his contribution and the proposals he made. The SABC is taking cognisance of those proposals. They will consider them and come back to the hon member. He also raised the very good point that the technical knowledge should be reflected in the spectrum of people who serve on the board. I thank both hon members for their contributions and for their support of a very good piece of legislation.

I want to return briefly to the questions put by the hon members of the CP in connection with the SABC and its so-called partiality. I think there is a misunderstanding between the hon members of the CP and this side of the House concerning the content of this legislation. The legislation concerns the norms and standards that have to be maintained by the SABC. If hon members are dissatisfied or suspect that the SABC is acting outside the scope of the norms and standards determined by this legislation, they have every right to raise those objections in this House. Their opinion can then be conveyed to the general public through the media, because if those people agree with them, they will eventually object to the SABC too.

We are talking about norms and standards, but we are also talking about facts. The generalised objections raised by the CP cannot be measured according to a standard. These objections are so generalised that one cannot get hold of the facts at all to see what their argument is founded on. They talk about partiality and say the SABC gives too little attention to the CP and too much to the Government, but not one of the hon members got up and told me these were the facts, that so many hours or so many minutes had been granted to the Government and only so many to the CP.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North, on the other hand, told us very clearly what the general public thought of the SABC’s broadcasts. He said 90% of the people agreed that the SABC’s broadcasts were balanced and founded on facts. The hon members must produce facts.

I merely repeat that we gave hon members the opportunity earlier to speak to the chairman of the SABC about their objections, but they were not satisfied with that, and we shall now arrange in August or September for hon members also to have discussions with the members of the board so that consideration can be given to whether their arguments for the improvement of the broadcasting service have any merit. We told hon members repeatedly that that was where they should raise their objections about the daily management of the SABC. Then we can see whether there can be any improvement.

I merely want to point out to hon members that the SABC cannot take any notice of the objections of individuals. Nor can they take any notice of biased objections. Objections must be founded on facts which also apply to the general public. I should also like to draw hon members’ attention to the conditions the SABC, as the holder of the broadcasting licence, has to comply with in connection with its services and obligations to South Africa. I have a whole list here of the norms and standards—I shall not bore hon members with that now—a list which is available to any hon member who wants to make a positive contribution to an improvement in norms and standards.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether we can send the Media Council those conditions the SABC has to comply with, and request that they test the SABC according to those requirements.

I am coming to the question put by the hon members of the CP about the Media Council, but I want to tell hon members a Media Council was established for the control of the printed media and there is a control board for the SABC and the broadcasting services in terms of legislation which was submitted to this Parliament. Both have to comply with norms and standards. The printed media have to comply with the norms and standards set by the Media Council, and the SABC with those set by the control board in terms of the Broadcasting Act. Two boards have been established, therefore, one for the printed media and one for the SABC and other broadcasting services. Both boards exist, but why should we combine them? Hon members have a board they can go to to raise objections.

I merely want to warn hon members that they should raise their arguments on the basis of the facts and the realities, and not merely on the basis of their own view of the world, since their own view of the world is very biased too. I shall make the list of conditions available to hon members, and they themselves can test whether the SABC complies with these norms and standards set for them on factual grounds. [Interjections.]

I should like to come back to what the hon member for Brakpan raised here this afternoon. He said I had said no media was impartial—he is quite right—but I did not say the SABC was prejudiced in favour of the NP. That is the part he always overlooks. I said they could not be regarded as completely impartial, since they reflected the realities of society in South Africa. It is because we are aware that people are people and that they can be very subjective in their interpretation of the realities, we have laid down norms and standards. If hon members suspect that the SABC is acting outside the boundaries of those norms, there is a mechanism to rectify the SABC’s activities so that they will once again be within the bounds of those norms. I do expect hon members to quote me fully when they quote my speeches from Hansard.

In conclusion I want to point out that it is simply the CP’s general practice, when they do not have a good argument, to make personal attacks on people. That is proof of the prejudice of their arguments in this House. Their arguments are not founded on the facts at all.

Mr Speaker, I should like to propose that we pass this amending Bill now. I hope the hon members and the general public will benefit from this legislation.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Law and Order, dated 10 June 1986, relative to the Public Safety Amendment Bill [B 80—86 (GA)] and the Internal Security Amendment Bill [B 89—86 (GA)].

Report to be printed and considered.

Mr Speaker, we noted at the beginning of proceedings today that the hon the Minister gave notice that he would move tomorrow that a joint select committee be appointed to investigate the Electoral Act. We are extremely pleased about this development and we welcome the fact that he has taken this step. We will serve on that committee and, as I have indicated previously, our officials in the PFP are already working on submissions because we believe that it is timeous that the Electoral Act should be looked at again.

It is an Act which has served us extremely well over the years. It has been changed as time has passed by and has thus developed over the years. However, with modern developments both here and overseas, there is no doubt that the Act should be reviewed in toto. Over the years developments with regard to electoral matters have occurred throughout the world, and we believe that we should take such developments into account. We will make an input on that committee and we believe that a good, sound Act will come from it to serve South Africa well.

It is appropriate too that the Act be reviewed now because we are in the valley period between general elections. It is therefore the correct time to look at it. There are, of course, some people who believe that there will never be elections again but, be that as it may, let us be optimistic and assume that there will be elections and that it is, therefore, important to review the Electoral Act. So we welcome this and we will serve on that joint select committee.

When proceedings were interrupted on Friday afternoon, I had pointed out that we in this party opposed the Bill before the House for two main reasons. To summarise, I just want point out that the first reason why we oppose the Bill is because of the concept of own affairs which we believe is nonsense. We have made that absolutely clear. We are opposed to the whole concept of own affairs and believe it to be apartheid, 1980’s style. [Interjections.] We believe it should be withdrawn from all aspects of legislation in this country. Our major objection to the Bill is thus that it gives substance, albeit very flimsy substance, to the concept of own affairs. [Interjections.]

Our second objection is to the degree of secrecy which is creeping into the conduct of elections. We are very concerned about that, and it is for that reason as well that we will oppose the Bill.

I did mention on Friday—I simply want to repeat this so as to emphasise the point—that we hoped that the joint select committee would not be hidebound by the decisions taken in regard to this Bill. We are worried about the two matters of own affairs and secrecy, and we hope that the joint select committee will be able to have a look at those two points again with an open mind and with a view to re-examining them and possibly removing them from the Bill which will emanate from that joint select committee.

With those few words, I simply wish to confirm that we will be opposing the Bill.

Mr Speaker, this is the second consecutive Bill which the Official Opposition has used as a launchingpad for its attacks on the tricameral system. Both the hon member for Green Point and the hon member for Johannesburg North have done the same thing they did with the Publications Amendment Bill. They applauded the measure in hand but rejected it because, as they said, it entrenched the tricameral parliamentary system. [Interjections.]

The only objection which the hon member for Johannesburg North advanced against the Bill before us was what he termed “the degree of secrecy” inherent in the provisions of this Bill. The hon member should know that this is a totally unfounded charge. However, it is typical of the approach of the PFP to ascribe sinister motives to whatever legislation comes from this side of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon member knows that there are only two reasons for the provisions which he maintains cast a degree of secrecy over the Bill. Firstly, experience over many years has shown that it is quite unnecessary to put up the names of the election agent and subagent on notice boards in front of the returning officer’s offices because absolutely nobody looks at them. It is just a waste of effort and money.

The second consideration was the fear on the part of hon members of the other two Houses that certain office-bearers in election campaigns for their Houses might be unnecessarily exposed by this advertisement. That was one of the reasons why it was deemed unnecessary to continue with this outdated practice. Surely the hon member for Johannesburg North would not want to suggest that they are indifferent to dangers which our hon colleagues in the other Houses might say are inherent in the advertising of the names of election agents and subagents.

I would like to say to the hon member for Johannesburg North and other hon members of the Official Opposition that if they continue in this vein to contest and doubt the credibility of the tricameral system, they cannot be regarded as democrats because they are deliberately flouting the wishes of the electorate. If they say that the tricameral system is suspect then hon members of that party should not tell us that we are acting undemocratically and that the instruments of Government established by this Parliament do not conform to democratic criteria.

I agree that no opposition party can be expected to accept uncritically measures which its opposition has enacted. It is their right to criticise any law this Government makes until such time as the electorate endorses those laws. Therein, I suggest, lies the crunch, for the 1983 Constitution has been endorsed by the electorate, and overwhelmingly so.

Which electorate?

That is what I wanted to hear from the hon member for Johannesburg North, because they cannot complain because the electorate is all White. After all, they have been elected by that same electorate. It is to that electorate which they owe their membership of this House, [Interjections.] Therefore the choice of the Official Opposition is clear: Either they opt for extra-parliamentary politics as their exleader and Dr Alex Boraine have done, or they accept the verdict of the electorate, in which case we should hear no more of the inane criticism of the tricameral system.

You can have both.

One cannot continue arguing against something one’s own electorate has endorsed. That is the whole point. [Interjections.] We on this side of…

Then why does your party want to change the Constitution?

If the hon member for Greytown tries to argue this point there is no justification whatsoever for going to the electorate in any case. [Interjections.] He is arguing the whole question of the validity of elections if he does not accept the verdict of the electorate.

Mr Speaker, would the hon member answer a question?

Mr Speaker, the hon member has already wasted quite enough of my time.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member …

Ask!

I want to ask him if he agrees that he also wants to change the Constitution, although he says that his own voters also told him that they accepted the Constitution as it now stands, but now he also wants to change it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, firstly the hon member should formulate his question properly, because I do not understand what he means at all. [Interjections.]

Order! This is a case of saying something by way of asking a question. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House accept that there are numerous provisions in the Electoral Act which need to be revised. That is why our representatives on the standing committee also recommended that we informally address representations to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs to the effect that a committee of experts be assigned to investigate the Electoral Act as a whole. Therefore we are also extremely grateful that the hon the Minister announced today that he intended doing so.

One should remember that the Standing Committee on Home Affairs covers a far larger field than merely that of the Electoral Act. The Department of Home Affairs’ field of activity is so extensive that it is quite unavoidable that there will be members on the Standing Committee on Home Affairs who are not experts on the Electoral Act nor do not have a special interest in that Act either. It is also inevitable that other members of that standing committee will be experts in other fields and focus their interest on those areas—all those areas, however, still fall within the ambit of the Department of Home Affairs’ activities. Likewise there may also be other experts on electoral matters who are not members of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs.

Therefore we on this side of the House were satisfied with the reaction to the representations we made. We are also grateful that those representations were successful. Therefore we are not going to raise other aspects in this debate which we believe should be addressed in the Electoral Act. There will be enough time for that at a later stage.

However, there are indeed a few urgent matters which ought to be given priority with regard to the amendment of the Electoral Act, among other things because by-elections may possibly be held before this committee of experts has had the opportunity of presenting a report. It would also not be fair to inconvenience the electorate in such by-elections. Let me just mention some of the things requiring urgent attention. One of those is the provision that the respective administrations of the three Houses will see to the holding of the elections. Another aspect is the fact that references to provincial councils and members of provincial councils are being removed from the legislation. Then there is also the aspect that application for postal and special votes will only be open for inspection by candidates or representatives of candidates, and that applications for postal votes will only be available for inspection the day prior to being issued.

Furthermore provision is also made for voters who accidentally voted for the wrong candidate to vote again, as well as a provision to delete the obsolete provision in relation to providing liquor on polling days. Provision is also made for minimum penalties for any injury to placards.

These are matters of an urgent nature and cannot be left for an investigation of the Electoral Act at a later stage. We on this side of the House concur with that, and we therefore have pleasure in supporting the measure in question.

Mr Speaker, as I proceed I shall react to some of the statements made by the hon member for Umlazi. I wish to open, however, by referring to the hon member for Innesdal’s speech last Friday in which he made an enormous fuss here about the great success achieved in this standing committee concerning consensus on the legislation before us. He was so pleased at that consensus which they had supposedly reached there—according to him, of course—that he even alleged that the system of standing committees should be so idealised—and is actually idealised like this by him—that he even spoke of a future consensus democracy.

Whatever this may possibly mean to the hon member for Innesdal is not clear to me at all. I merely wish to put it to him that, when the democracy in a state has to depend on consensus and consensus alone—to the extent that one has to speak of a consensus democracy—it means the disappearance of all principles and policy and then I do not know how one will ever actually arrive at a point of being able to govern a country or a state by means of stated principles or a formulated policy. It is then purely a question of how people will have to reach consensus and feel about it at a given point. It is our experience as well—regarding consensus in the standing committees in particular—that it is reached as follows: The members of the other two Houses represented on the standing committees perpetually come forward with their demands. They demand this, that and the other in spite of specific Bills submitted to them. And then it is the Government party which constantly somersaults and accedes to all those demands—often in the face of everything which is even logical in a specific Bill. I am now referring to a Bill emanating from a specific department and which seems to include many clear and essential elements. Government members then simply turn somersaults and even fly in the face of all those necessities merely to accede to the demands stated. When one wishes to reach consensus on the basis that one party continually demands and the other continually consents, I wish to say a very evil day has dawned for the government of a state or a country.

The Minister also referred in his Second Reading speech—obviously with pleasure—to the enormous speed at which the standing committee had dealt with this Bill. I do not think that standing committee should be complimented on the speed with which it dealt with this Bill. The fact is the need for a total revision of the Electoral Act emerged very early in dealing with this Bill. This is actually why this Bill did not receive the necessary incisive investigation. It was decided early on that problems were being experienced with the population register which in future would be known by a new name in terms of the Identification Act, 1986.

An impasse was reached at this point in an early stage of dealing with this Bill. It was then easily possible to conclude the handling of this Bill because, whenever we reached a clause or part of a clause referring to the population register or the new legislation on identification, it was merely deleted. It was as simple as that. There was no further debate or argument on it. Each time it was merely deleted because it had been decided on a previous occasion that it should not be there; that is why this Bill was dealt with so speedily.

Even if hon members look at the amendments to this Bill submitted by the standing committee and accepted by the hon the Minister, they will see that all these amendments revolve around the question of the population register, the identity document and the identity number. With the exception of two trifling matters, all the amendments relate either to the population register or the Identification Bill.

I therefore wish to tell hon members that, if this is the way standing committees deal with legislative amendments, that is by merely rushing through them, the result will never be very good and the system never very successful. Consequently, there are deficiencies in this Bill.

Did you object, Frans? Were you there?

I want to tell the hon member for Innesdal—I did not wish to say this to him initially—I attended the meetings on behalf of the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Innesdal, the chairman of the committee, ruled that, as we had to start discussion on a new Bill next year, we should not refer to matters not pertinently included in this Bill. In consequence, related matters were eliminated in this manner. One could therefore not broach very essential related matters because one would then have acted outside the chairman’s ruling.

But you were all in agreement.

The hon member knows full well it happened like this.

But you were all in agreement.

Who was in agreement?

Obviously you all agreed that this matter be referred to a joint committee.

We did not agree that this Bill should be rushed through at such speed. [Interjections.]

I wish to say in addition that, if this Bill is an example of so-called consensus democracy, we should preferably relinquish that approach as soon as possible whatever this might mean to the hon member for Innesdal.

I have a further problem with the system of standing committees; this is a fundamental problem we are experiencing.

This is neither the time nor the place to discuss it.

Of course it is. Of course it is the place to discuss it. What I want to say affects this Bill drastically because it deals with the fact that the Committee Stage of the Bill is dealt with in the standing committee. One then lands in the situation of voting against certain clauses because one is dissatisfied with them or because they are unacceptable to one. When one then reaches the Second Reading debate here in the House, this situation causes one to have to vote against the entire Bill even if there are certain clauses one approves, for which one would like to vote and have passed. That is actually inter alia the problem we have with this Bill: It contains clauses we should like to support because we believe they are essential at this stage and, as the hon member for Umlazi said, urgent. One would then like to support it but, because one is unable to support certain clauses of the Bill, one has to vote against it in its entirety. That is the problem we experience in this regard.

This Bill is first and foremost about amendments to measures which dealt with the election of provincial councils. Obviously one supports those measures because the Government has decided to phase out provincial councils but we are left with the problem that the Government has not obtained a mandate anywhere to phase out these provincial councils.

That is untrue!

It is very interesting that provision remains in the Constitution for provincial councils but now it is said the referendum provided the mandate to phase them out. I should like to know how on earth this works; some people’s logic is simply beyond me and I actually studied logic for three years in philosophy. The fact is that in this Bill we have come face to face with the reality that after 76 years the second level of government in this country is being abolished. A second-level government which could be elected by voters is being replaced by a second-tier government consisting of an administrator and an executive committee to be nominated by the Government. Part of that democracy upon which the hon member for Innesdal sets so much store is therefore being cut away and the voter no longer obtains the opportunity of electing the person whom he wants to see governing in the second tier. A government is being forced on him which he has to obey and to which he has to subject himself. This is not an elected but a nominated government.

And that is broadening democracy!

And that is consensus democracy!

The abolition of provincial councils, regarding which the Bill plays a role because it no longer provides for elections and by-elections of provincial councils, to my mind is an erosion of democracy and not a broadening of democracy at all—as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning likes to boast.

Various clauses in this Bill deal with voters’ rolls which have to be compiled and corrected and these are all measures with which we on this side of the House have no difficulties but actually welcome. Redelimitation is also involved here. Provision is also made for voters’ rolls to be supplemented and adjusted after redelimitation has been carried out. In this respect I wish to say we are faced with a great problem. The current situation, especially in the Transvaal, is that there has been such an explosion of voters that there are almost 30 000 of them on the voters’ roll within one constituency whereas in other provinces, and especially in the Cape, there are constituencies with approximately 9 000 voters. The situation now arises that the vote of one Cape voter is equal to that of 2 voters in the Transvaal.

Three!

The hon member for Bezuidenhout has gone still further and said three. I am prepared to concede this to him. The point I wish to make is merely that, whereas this Bill provides, in the light of provisions in the Constitution, that redelimitation has to take place, it is essential that the Department of Home Affairs force the Government as far as possible to carry out delimitation at the point when it has to be done, according to provisions of the Constitution. This should not be sidestepped by doing it too early so that the movement of voters is not anticipated by the readjustment of seats. At this stage the Transvaal should already have 11 more seats than at present. It should have 87 seats as against the 76 it has now. As we are on the subject of voters’ rolls and delimitation at the moment, I wish to say the situation exists that voters’ rolls prove that delimitation has become a necessity and that justice be done to the vote of a constituent. Consequently we welcome it that specific provision is made here for an immediate adjustment. I think that, upon completion of redelimitation, a period should be fixed within which the new voters’ roll has to be ready according to the redelimitation.

Mr Speaker, I wish to request, if it please you, that you also permit me the opportunity of expanding a little on the question of by-elections held since 1982, such as the hon members for Turffontein and Johannesburg North could also do. In his speech the hon member for Turffontein enlarged on the Government’s success in by-elections since 1982. The hon member then mentioned each by-election won by the NP by name. He lauded the fact that the NP had won an enormous number of by-elections in comparison with the four of the CP and the one of the HNP. The hon member for Johannesburg North on the other hand took pride in the fact that he had won in Johannesburg North whereas the hon member for Turffontein had forgotten that by-election.

I should like to make two brief comments in reaction to this. The hon member for Turffontein prides himself on victories but he omits to mention how those victories compare with their 1981 counterparts. I should like to take the opportunity of mentioning a few figures to the House as the hon member did. In 1981 the majority in Primrose was 4 399 but in the last by-election it was 748. In 1981 the majority in Springs was 2 481 whereas it was only 749 last time. In 1981 it was 3 389 in Parys but only 1 602 in the latest by-election. The majority was only 10 in Parys if one adds HNP votes to those of the CP. The majority in Germiston, which was previously an uncontested seat, was only 308 in the latest by-election. In 1981 the majority in Vryburg was 2 355 and only 1 188 in the most recent by-election.

The hon member for Turffontein takes pride in success in by-elections but makes no mention of how the total of NP votes has decreased since 1981. The by-elections proved that the CP and HNP obtained more votes than the NP in the Transvaal.

When a general election comes up and the CP and the HNP co-operate … [Interjections.] They will co-operate and there is no doubt about it! The NP should not delight in the prospect of its winning seats as there will be no co-operation between the CP and the HNP because there will be. We shall view the spectacle in the Transvaal of a government coming to a fall in a province as it has never fallen before. [Interjections.] If these by-elections are not the writing on the wall to the Government, it means that it goes through the world in blinkers and that it sees nothing as a writing on the wall until it discovers that it has already fallen without realising it.

I now wish to broach a very important matter to us on this side of the House and in this respect we differ radically with the PFP. In terms of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, elections are an own affair for specific population groups—as they should be. It is our standpoint that, when a specific population group has elections as an own affair, they really are an own affair and that population group should have sole control over that matter in all respects.

As is the case in many other matters, our problem is that own affairs at elections are dealt with in terms of general legislation. The Bill before us now is a general Bill; it is not a piece of own affairs legislation but one of general legislation. To make a small concession to own affairs, a few clauses are written into this general legislation to provide for the matter of own affairs. Our problem is that these are dwarfed and remain subject to a mass of provisions of a general Act. This general Act therefore applies to the elections of all three population groups and only a few sections are added to regulate so-called own affairs. We regard this as inadequate and therefore unacceptable. We are convinced that, if there really are own affairs and self-determination in them, each population group should have its own electoral Act—this is not impossible—so that its own affairs may be arranged in complete accordance with it as it wishes them. One would therefore not have to oblige the other two population groups, in terms of the Electoral Act, on some matter or other to be able to reach consensus in passing a specific Act.

We are determined that, if we are intent on own affairs—we on this side of the House are completely intent on them—we shall also have to have self-determination regarding our elections. That is why we demand an Act on the election of members to this House. Every other House will be able to have its own Act to prove its self-determination concerning its elections. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir, I wish to proceed with my argument. [Interjections.] I shall reply to his question in a while. [Interjections.]

I regard the Bill and the principal Act as an intrusion upon the self-determination of White own affairs as regards elections. [Interjections.] Self-determination means that one has the exclusive right of determining, settling and deciding one’s own affairs. Consequently we find it unacceptable that we are dealing with an Act and a Bill which do not clearly distinguish own affairs and maintain self-determination in them entirely.

Now answer that stupid Prog’s question!

The hon member for Randburg may now put his question but I also want to raise a further point. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether—according to his approach of separate voters’ rolls for each group, as own affairs—the various groups would be free to place members from another group on their voters’ rolls as well? If not, will this not require a general Act to prohibit it? [Interjections.]

Bull’s-eye!

No, Sir, it is not necessary, because that prohibition may be written into the group’s own electoral Act. It may be written in there that only a group’s own people may be included in its voters’ roll. [Interjections.] A general Act is definitely not required for this. [Interjections.]

Full marks! [Interjections.]

The other two Houses may also have that provision included in their own electoral Acts if they wish. If they do not want it, it is their own affair.

You have not replied to the question. [Interjections.]

Of course I have answered the question! What does the hon member for Bezuidenhout understand about it? [Interjections.]

I understand sufficient to know that he has not replied to the question!

Clause 51(c) provides that, when a special voter inadvertently spoils a ballot paper by voting in error for the wrong candidate, he may receive another paper. Clause 57 provides that, if a voter votes for the wrong candidate by mistake on polling day, he may also request another ballot paper after showing the spoilt paper to the presiding officer and returning it. This measure is to be welcomed as we are aware that some voters are nervous and confused—especially the aged—and may make a cross in the wrong place by accident, which they cannot undo. The voter then has to spoil his ballot paper deliberately by drawing another cross against the name of the candidate he wished to vote for originally and nullify his vote in this way. Provision is now made for the special voter and voters making such a mistake on polling day but I have a problem here in the case of postal or absent voters. It seems to me no provision has been made for them. If this should happen with a postal vote, to my mind we shall land ourselves with a rough passage. We are then looking for trouble as we shall be creating the possibility for fraud and so on.

Koos will find it a paradise!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Koedoespoort said the possibility for fraud would be created if this method were also made available to absent voters. The hon member for Kroonstad then said Koos van der Merwe would find it a paradise. He was therefore insinuating that the hon member for Jeppe would perpetrate or perpetrated fraud.

Order! What did the hon member for Kroonstad say?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Koedoespoort did not use the word fraud (“bedrog”). He said it would land us in trouble. I referred jocularly to the hon member for Jeppe and said he would find it a paradise. I did use those words and I withdraw them if they hurt the hon member.

Order! The words have been withdrawn and the hon member may proceed.

My problem with this matter is that discrimination is now taking place in this respect. Certain voters are given the opportunity of using a second ballot paper but those who necessarily have to use postal votes do not have the same opportunity. That is how I understand it and I regard it as discrimination against certain voters.

Perhaps this is proof positive that we should abolish postal votes as soon as possible because we are convinced that, in isolated cases in which a special vote cannot be used, a solution may well be found between the candidates and the presiding officer concerned. It has always been my conviction that that solution is possible but I do not wish to discuss it incisively now. We should not, however, discriminate against voters—as I understand it.

If I have misunderstood it, although to me it is very clear this deals with special voters and voters on polling day and not absent voters, I should very much like the hon the Minister to put me right. I think discrimination is being built into this provision and, as this Government is so dreadfully intent on the abolition of discrimination and wishes to remove all laws from the Statute Book which have the least whiff of discrimination, even if it is differentiation, we should not build discrimination into legislation while we are opposed to it. In addition, it is actually discrimination against our own people; our own voters. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister justifiably illustrated a few advantageous clauses in this Bill; these are clauses we welcome. Firstly, there are the polling stations for separate electoral districts. We welcome that amendment because we think it is essential and good. Secondly, we welcome the provision that only candidates and their representatives may inspect certain documents related to elections. We also regard it as unnecessary to reveal to the public what should otherwise be kept confidential. Only those who are directly involved, that is candidates who are standing and their representatives, should be able to inspect ballot papers and other documents related to an election.

There is a further matter we welcome but which could create a problem for us if a delimitation took place meanwhile, enabling us to have smaller electoral divisions with smaller numbers of voters. This is the provision laying down that contents of ballot boxes are not to be counted separately but put together and counted together. This is possible, but once one has thrown the whole lot together, it is more difficult to count the votes and to balance them than it would be in counting the votes from each ballot box separately. I assume, however, that we shall have a delimitation in future and then not have such clumsy constituencies as is presently the case in the Transvaal with those enormous numbers.

Another matter we welcome—I think the Government had better tackle its own people about this as it provided us with many problems during by-elections—is penalties which are now prescribed for damage to bills, placards and posters. We welcome the penalties prescribed for the destruction of these objects. [Interjections.] It is hoped NP members will be curbed by this so that this misdeed may be combated.

I wish to refer very briefly to a matter which also emerged during Friday’s debate. The hon member for Rissik referred to the action of non-White members of the SA Police Force at White elections. This is at variance with the principle of own affairs. The hon member who raised that matter, however, was the hon member for Gezina who wished to make petty political capital out of it by purporting that CP members were such racists that they wanted nothing to do with Black people—not even Black policemen. [Interjections.] We believe Black policemen should work at their own people’s elections, Brown policemen at those of their own people and Indian policemen at the elections of their own people. We further believe that there will be White policemen at White elections according to the principle of own affairs. In the light of this, we retain our standpoint that White policemen will act at White elections as the security people ensuring that elections proceed correctly.

In these few words I wish to say that, especially in view of the fact that own affairs do not come into their own here in a general measure, it is impossible for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to oppose the Bill and we are going to vote against it. Parliament itself and the Constitution are general affairs, and members of Parliament should not be elected through an inferior sector of the Constitution—that is an own affair. Therefore it is unbecoming that elections should be an own affair whereas duties thereunder are a general affair.

The hon member for Randburg asked the hon member for Koedoespoort whether the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates could put members of other races onto their voters’ rolls. He never answered the question. I believe that they could, if they so wished, if the hon member for Koedoespoort’s point of view could become effective through the Constitution. As far as the hon members on this side of the House are concerned, I can say that everybody knows our attitude towards that. We would have no difficulty saying who should be on the voters’ roll because everybody would be on the voters’ roll.

The hon member for Umlazi raised a very strange point. He said we had no right to criticise the tricameral Parliament because it had been accepted by the voters through a referendum. The hon member for Umlazi knows as well as I do that the State President intends to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a national statutory council on which Blacks will serve, for the very purpose of considering a change in the Constitution. [Interjections.] Therefore the present tricameral Parliament is not a holy cow. The system could be changed. We may even have four Houses, and we may also end up with one House with White, Coloured, Indian and Black members. Who knows what the situation is going to be within four years’ time? With the state of confusion that exists in South Africa, it might come sooner than many hon members think, particularly those who belong to the CP. Therefore, members of the opposition, and any hon member of this House is able at any stage he likes to say whether he wants the Constitution to remain as it is, the status quo to be retained, or to plead for a change in the status quo. The hon member for Umlazi, as a good politician, knows that that is everybody’s right, and the point was not well taken.

I would like to deal with quite a number of points this afternoon. I particularly want to deal with clauses 5 and 6 of this Bill. It says in clause 5 that the Director-General shall draw up a list of persons who at the commencement of section 13 of the Population Registration and Elections Amendment Act shall be entitled to be registered in a particular division as voters. The present situation is this: I have in front of me the voters’ roll as at 31 December 1985. I have been able to do some work on that particular voters’ roll. We in this House, whether we like it or not, have to take into consideration the voters’ rolls of the other two Houses as well. I have here the voters’ roll of the House of Representatives, the House of Delegates and the House of Assembly, respectively. Although all members of Parliament are supposed to be equal, when one considers these voters’ rolls, it is clear that there is no equality whatsoever. There is a famous quotation which says that “all men are equal but some are more equal than others”. That is precisely the situation that has arisen out of this tricameral Parliament. When one looks at the numbers of registered voters in South Africa as at 31 December, one finds that in round numbers there are 833 000 White, 1 252 000 Coloured and 19 000 Asian voters in the Cape Province. In Natal there are 348 000 Whites, 59 000 Coloureds and 485 000 Asians. In the Orange Free State there are 232 000 Whites, 28 000 Coloureds and, I believe, 77 Asians; and in the Transvaal there are 1,5 million Whites, 141 000 Coloureds and 84 000 Asians. Therefore, the total number of voters for the House of Assembly is just under 3 million. In respect of the House of Representatives the figure is 1,5 million and in the case of the House of Delegates it is just under 600 000. [Interjections.]

The situation is that when one considers the provinces themselves, one obtains a surprising result. The Cape Province leads. There are 2 100 000 voters for the three Houses of Parliament in the Cape Province, there are 890 000 in the Natal, 260 000 in the Orange Free State and only 1,79 million in the Transvaal. Those are the figures pertaining to voters who vote for this tricameral Parliament of the hon member for Umlazi.

The hon the Minister himself has just had the experience of a by-election and I want to say that there is a reason why the polls are getting lower and why the number of postal votes and special votes has been increasing at such an alarming rate. The voters’ rolls are in a complete and utter mess and the whole system of the population register is responsible for this.

In this particular Bill mention is made in clause 5(a) of—

I want to ask one question. A man’s name was entered on the voters’ roll of the Bezuidenhout constituency when the Population Registration Act came into existence some 20 odd years ago. He has since lived outside the constituency for 20 years—he was only there for six months—and I therefore ask whether he is entitled to be registered as a voter on the Bezuidenhout voters’ roll. I say that he is not entitled to be registered as a voter there and the reason is that the Act is wrong in stating that a person whose name is on the voters’ roll of a particular constituency is entitled to vote there. The fault does not lie with that person, however. It lies with the hon the Minister’s department and the manner in which it administers the Population Registration Act. I have made numerous appeals in this House and the previous hon Minister promised to do what I asked of him, but it has not been done.

The Population Registration Act stipulates that a person must give notice of a change of address, but no one will ever be forced to do so. [Interjections.] Therefore, the only way a voter’s particulars may be altered, is by him giving notification of his change of address. I believe there should be one month a year in which the department should advertise on TV and in the newspapers and various other media that everyone should fill in the form in his identity book so as to notify the department of his change of address. I know, for example, that in an average election it is impossible to obtain a poll of more than 60% today. To get more than that is almost a miracle, and now we have reached the stage where there are 2 000 to 3 000 postal votes, and the total number of votes cast in an election is 10 000. It is absolutely absurd that this amount of work should have to be done by political parties. After all, they have to search for voters to come and vote in those elections. The fault does not lie with them, however. The fault lies with the department and the way in which it administers the population register.

I appeal to the hon the Minister to introduce a system whereby everybody will notify change of address annually. In the USA, for instance, everybody knows that the period between Labour Day and a month later is the time to register as a voter or notify the officials of any change of address. That is done throughout the USA. That is why one finds that in the USA they probably have the cleanest voters’ rolls anywhere in the world. I appeal to the hon the Minister to do something about the situation here because there is not a single hon member in this House who is not having trouble with his voters’ rolls. [Interjections.] I have just been involved in a municipal by election—no postal votes are allowed in a municipal election—based on the voters’ rolls in my constituency. Every single person who could vote came to vote but we had a 20% poll because 50% to 60% of the voters on the roll were no longer living in that particular area. Therefore, I appeal again to the hon the Minister to arrange a reregistration of voters. [Interjections.]

The other point I want to come to has to do with clause 6 of the Bill which deals with the question of the redelimitation of electoral divisions. This was also dealt with by the hon member for Koedoespoort. In this regard I want to refer particularly to section 48 of the Constitution. Before I do so, I want to stress that in my opinion we need to appoint another select committee. When we debated the Constitution in this House, I think we had only got to clause 34 of the Bill at the Committee Stage when the guillotine came into operation and so we did not have the opportunity to discuss some of the most important provisions of the Constitution.

That was shocking! It was a disgrace! [Interjections.]

It might have been a disgrace but it is past history. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, I want to say that sections 41 to 49 of the Constitution should be dealt with again because they deal with the Constitution of each of the Houses, the number of seats in the Houses, delimitation and the question of elections. [Interjections.] Yes, I see that hon Minister is pointing to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Wait, I am perfectly innocent!

No, the hon the Minister is not innocent; he is the culprit! He never gave us the opportunity to discuss anything beyond section 34 of the Constitution! [Interjections.] He is the gentleman who was responsible for the guillotine.

Was I responsible? [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon the Minister and his party. They introduced the guillotine with regard to the discussion of the Constitution, and I am not talking about the French Revolution; I am talking about this House! [Interjections.]

I was not the Leader of the House! I am a totally innocent party in this. Please do not attack me! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister might not have been the Leader of the House but he acted in collusion with him. [Interjections.] The situation is that the voters’ rolls are not up to date at all.

I want to come now to section 45 of the Constitution which deals with the question of delimitations. In terms of section 48 one has to have a delimitation at intervals of not less than five years and not more than 10 years. As far as the House of Assembly is concerned, we last had a delimitation on 3 October 1980. Section 45 of the Constitution reads as follows:

The last delimitation was proclaimed on 3 October 1980. It is now more than five years later and, therefore, the time has arrived for a redelimitation.

Furthermore, in terms of section 45(b) of the Constitution there need not be a redelimitation in the case of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates for a period of 10 years. That is even worse. I believe the time has come for us to have simultaneous delimitations for all three Houses. These stipulations should be done away with, and I shall give reasons why I say this.

By fixing the number of members per House, we have created tremendous anomalies. In the House of Assembly, for instance, the Cape had 690 000 voters for 55 seats at the time of the delimitation, whilst the House of Representatives had 853 000 voters for 60 seats and the House of Delegates three seats for 12 311 voters. This is absolute nonsense! In the House of Delegates they have three members from the Cape Province for only 12 000 voters while in the Assembly there are 695 000 White voters for 55 seats and 853 000 Coloured voters for 60 seats. This is not a constitution. It makes nonsense of the whole question of representation.

That is consensus in democracy.

In the Transvaal, for instance, there are 1 172 000 voters for 76 seats in the Assembly while for 10 seats in the House of Representatives there are only 107 000 voters. This is not fair representation. It might be possible to have members representing parties, but to base an election of members to a particular House of Parliament on this sort of basis is nonsensical.

We can even take the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. I pleaded at the time when the principal Act was changed that the Government should not have an election on the basis on which they used to have it. The delimitation had been done according to the population register whereas the election took place on the voters’ rolls, and one had the absolutely absurd situation where a member was elected with a 5,52% poll. The worst of all, I think, was the Tafelberg constituency where 114 to 118 was the final election result. It makes a mockery of democracy for any House to have this sort of election. [Interjections.] The time has come to change all these things radically.

I should like to deal with the present voters’ rolls and the absurdity which is apparent when one has a look at these things and the differences that exist among the various provinces in South Africa. Let us discuss some of them. Let us take the House of Representatives as an example. In the seat of Gelvandale there are today 31 055 voters. In the delimitation there were only 16 000 and by the time the election took place there were 22 000. On the other hand, let us take Daljosaphat. At the time of the delimitation there were 14 000 voters but by the time the election took place there were only 5 000 and today there are only 7 000 voters in the constituency of Daljosaphat. I should like to mention another example. At the time of the delimitation there were 16 190 voters in the Tafelberg constituency, based on the voters’ roll, but what they forgot about…

Order! Hon members must moderate their voices. They are conversing too loudly.

What they forgot about was that District Six had been removed in the meantime. There were no longer any people living in District Six although they were there at the time of the delimitation. This makes nonsense of all our legislation and today the total number of people in Tafelberg is some 12 000.

There are some more surprises as far as the House of Delegates is concerned. The biggest constituency in South Africa happens to be in Natal under the House of Delegates. When we look at the constituency of Phoenix it appears that at the time of the last delimitation there were only 10 000 voters, while there were 23 000 at the time of the election. The total number of voters in that constituency today is 39 555. One cannot run voters’ rolls like this. We do not even know whether there are 39 000 voters in Phoenix today because a large number of them might have registered since the Population Registration Act was promulgated, although they may no longer be living there. Something must be done about cleaning up our voters’ rolls as quickly as possible.

Let us look at the highest and lowest number of voters per constituency for the Assembly in each of the four provinces. When we do this we find another most absurd situation. In the Cape Province the constituency of De Kuilen has 19 000 voters, while Prieska has 9 500 voters. In Natal the constituency of Port Natal is the biggest one with just under 20 000 voters, while Umfolozi has 14 000. In the Free State there are 21 500 voters in Welkom, and in Fauresmith there are just on 10 000. The White constituency with the most voters in South Africa is that of Pretoria East with 27 260. The constituency of Schweizer Reneke has just on half of that—15 000 voters altogether.

In the case of the House of Representatives the situation is even worse. Gelvandale has 31 000 voters while Daljosaphat has7000. In Natal the constituency of Wentworth has 17 622, and Durban Suburbs has 8 700. In the Free State the constituency of Southern Free State has the grand total of 6 740 voters and Heidedal 4 800. In the Transvaal Eldorado Park has 33 000 voters, while the constituency of Northern Transvaal has 3 450 voters on the voters’ roll. This is absolutely absurd!

In relation to the House of Delegates the same terrible situation applies. What is the number of voters in the Cape Province? Rylands has the highest number of voters— 7 700—and North Western Cape has only 5 000 whereas Phoenix in Natal has 39 000 and Durban Bay has 11 000. In the Transvaal the constituency of Central Rand has 15 000 voters and Lenasia Central has 8 000. Sir, one simply cannot run a Parliament on such an absurd basis. There is absolutely no proportional representation of voters …

One man, six votes! [Interjections.]

Therefore, I want to say that I agree with the change which the hon member for Koedoespoort put forward. He says we must have an equality of votes, and for that reason I should like to deal with the question of the loading and unloading of constituencies.

When one looks at the present voters’ rolls one finds that, as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, the number of members representing the Cape Province in that House, in terms of the present Constitution, is 60. When one now takes the number of voters and the existing quota and divides the number of voters in the Cape Province by that particular quota, one finds that there should actually be 68 constituencies in this province. In terms of the Constitution Natal has five representatives in that House, whereas, on the strength of the same calculation, that province should only be entitled to three. In the Free State they have five constituencies while they should actually be entitled to one only, and in the Transvaal the Constitution stipulates they must have ten constituencies, while they should actually be entitled to eight only.

In the House of Delegates the Cape Province has three representatives but should actually have only one. Natal has 29 members in the House of Delegates but should have 33 while the number of constituencies in the Transvaal should drop from eight to six.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member tell us how many seats the House of Delegates should have in the Free State?

Mr Chairman, that is a very difficult question to answer. I do not believe one can give a seat in the Free State to only 77 people. Therefore, that is also a question that will have to be decided by the select committee which is to be appointed.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member tell us how many seats there would be in the House of Assembly if only pure White people were allowed to vote? [Interjections.]

If only pure White people voted? Very few, I guess. However, I think there are two hon members in this House who will be able to answer that question much better than I could ever hope to do it. I do not want to become involved in what are no longer immoral questions. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal now with the number of seats each House should really be entitled to. Assuming we use exactly the quota for the House of Assembly we are using now, the House of Assembly would be entitled to 165 seats, the House of Representatives to only 82 seats, and the House of Delegates to 33 seats. Let us deal, however, with the House in which we are really interested.

According to the current voters’ roll, the Cape Province presently has 55 seats, the Orange Free State 14, Natal 20 and Transvaal 76. If, therefore, a delimitation took place tomorrow on a provincial basis, the allocation of seats would be as follows: The number of seats in the Cape Province would drop from 55 to 46, the Orange Free State from 14 to 13, Natal from 20 to 19, and Transvaal would increase from 76 to 87. [Interjections.] Those are the correct figures. This entails a provincial quota of approximately 18 000. How would South Africa be affected if this were to take place?

In my view, the whole system of loading and unloading should be done away with and that allocations should be made on the following basis—I quote:

I am saying, in other words, that we must adopt the same system used in the USA. The United States Supreme Court has held that there is no equality even if there is less than 1% differentiation between seats since every individual’s vote should be the same. What, then, would be the situation in the Transvaal if we operated on that basis?

At the present moment the Western Transvaal platteland has seven seats. It will remain with seven. The Northern Transvaal platteland has six seats. It will remain with six. The central Transvaal platteland has six seats. It will get seven. The Vaal area, that is, the South-Western and Southern Transvaal, will enjoy an increase in seats from eight to nine. The number of seats on the West Rand would increase from nine to 11, the Central Rand from 13 to 15, the East Rand from 14 to 16 and Pretoria would increase from 13 to 16. [Interjections.] In effect, Pretoria is the most underrepresented area in South Africa, and it is followed by the Central Rand. [Interjections.]

Now the question has to be asked: If we have the present loading and unloading it means that the Central Rand, the East Rand and Pretoria and the West Rand are each going to lose one or two seats to the platteland. Is it right that our urban areas should be underrepresented in this modern age when we are talking about an urbanisation policy and the growth of our urban areas? One of the problems of this particular House is that there is an imbalance between urban representatives and rural representatives, and the time has come in the new South Africa for more attention to be given to our urban dwellers. That, after all, is the place where most of our problems are. The urban areas are the places where interracial conflict is taking place, and it is from these areas that we should have correct representation, not only as far as this House is concerned but also as far as the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates are concerned for as long as the tricameral system operates.

Mr Speaker, we have had an opportunity to listen to the hon member for Bezuidenhout, who is apparently a great expert in the field of delimitation, for some time now. We also know him as someone who regularly, during elections, submits memorandums and gives evidence. In a later debate, which will deal more specifically with delimitation—I do not think the intention is to speak specifically about delimitation today—he will probably be in a position to make a very sound contribution. What the hon member has brilliantly succeeded in doing was to point out the fiasco prevalent in the sphere of democracy. He called it “a mockery of democracy”. It was with resounding success that he used the other two Houses to illustrate what democracy was not.

I sat here recalling what Dr Denis Worrall said on television after the results of the Indian and Coloured elections. He acknowledged on British television that those elections had no legitimacy. No one had voted and there were distortions and many other things involved. That is why there is such a hollow ring to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s statement about our being involved in a process aimed at broadening the democratic base. That is ridiculous.

I should like to refer to remarks made by the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member is not here today, because he is fittingly busy with the city council elections in Johannesburg. We cannot simply allow his statements to go unchallenged. He said the CP ought to apologise for its attitude to each and every Black policeman. [Interjections.] Hon members are now saving “yes”, and I should like to speak to them about that. The reason why the hon member for Turffontein was unhappy, was because we had said there should not be any Black policemen present when Whites are holding elections. But that is the truth, is it not? We objected to Black policemen being present at White elections. The hon member used certain adjectives and said we should apologise to each and every Black policeman for that statement. [Interjections.] The hon member for Springs will get a turn.

The hon member for Turffontein, who is not here today, is either being wilful or he does not know what is going on in South Africa. All of us sitting here this afternoon know specifically that a very emotional atmosphere prevails when White elections are held. How often do people not almost come to blows? In the South African context one is looking for trouble if one expects a Zulu to try separating two of us when we do want to come to blows. There is a ten-to-one chance that the two Whites would give the Zulu policeman a thrashing.

The fact that the hon member for Turffontein does not understand this extremely emotional situation shows that he is either uninformed or wilful, or it proves—I think that is it—that there is a tremendous chasm separating people like him from people like us. I should like to refer him to Die Transvaler of 29 October 1973—and I do hope he gets to see this information. We take note of his reaction in the light of the statement he made. Let me quote what Die Transvaler reported him as having said: “Dit is volkome verspot. Dit is belaglik. Ek het met die Nasionale Party niks gemeen nie.” That, as far as I am concerned, is what the hon member for Turffontein’s statements are worth.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether the allegation is true that during the referendum in Johannesburg he brought Blacks in off the streets to vote?

Mr Speaker, I should like to reply to that question. What happened was that I was standing on the city hall steps addressing probably about 200 Blacks. I asked them whether they thought it was fair for the NP to have Indians and Coloureds voting with the Whites, whilst the Blacks were not included. [Interjections.]

I still adhere to that standpoint, because at the time we gave warning that this would give rise to very dangerous polarisation. And that is what happened. I told them it was the greatest possible discrimination. The NP had previously said that Indians, Coloureds and Blacks could not participate in White politics, but then the NP also involved the Indians and Coloureds. At the time I asked them what was wrong with the Blacks.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is opposed to our involving Blacks now, because he did, after all, want to have them involved?

I am opposed to Coloureds, Indians and Blacks joining us. Surely the hon member knows that.

And Nationalists and Progs too!

At that stage it was a question of the principle involved. I told the Black people that the NP was including the Coloureds and Indians and that they should exert pressure on the NP to include them too. It worked, because the Black people are now being included. [Interjections.] To such an extent that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says one of them is going to become State President. Things are in such a state that no one here wants to say that a Black man will not be State President.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how this accords with his 1977 standpoint when he was, in fact, prepared to accommodate people of colour?

I am only going to answer this one further question, because my Whip tells me I should not allow myself to be sidetracked. [Interjections.]

I would very much like to argue the 1977 proposals with hon members. In accordance with those proposals, the decision-making powers were to be vested in the State President, and the Coloureds and the Indians would not share power with us. That was a self-determination situation that did not involve power-sharing. [Interjections.] If hon members want proof of this, they should read what the hon the Minister of National Education said in the scare-mongering stories he told and what the hon the Minister of Finance wrote. They said there would be no power-sharing, but today they say there is.

But that is how our policy has changed!

Oh, I see.

The hon the Minister of Finance says they have changed their policy, but when did they do so? It was after they had won a referendum and told people their policy was not changing. It was after they had hoodwinked the people on a gigantic scale. [Interjections.] The voters of this country have discovered the NP’s political deceitfulness, and that is why the hon the Minister of Finance had to advocate to the people in his constituency that they should remember to be good to the Black people, because when the Black people come into power, they should also be good to the Whites.

That is not true!

I held a meeting in that hon Minister’s constituency and addressed eight times more people than he can assemble at a meeting.

My people enjoy going to a circus!

My Whip says I must get round to discussing the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! Since the hon member has now decided to discuss the Bill, I expect hon members to give him a hearing. The hon member may proceed.

The Electoral Act largely determines the rules governing the political game. It is an extremely important Bill we are now discussing, because it relates to who will obtain political power in this country, in other words who will eventually control the State and govern the country. Certain important elements of these important rules governing the political game are not included in this amending Bill, and in a certain sense that makes this Act incomplete.

The hon the Minister of Home Affairs announced that steps would, in fact, be taken to revise the Electoral Act as a whole. It would have been a good thing, however, if we could have embodied everything relating to elections in the same Act. If we were to do this, it would grant the voters, amongst others, a measure of certainty and eliminate confusion. It would promote singleness of purpose, and be to the advantage of the voters.

I should now like to refer to clause 1(e) which deals with delimitation. Delimitation is embodied in the Constitution, but it is inextricably linked to elections. The question that now arises is why it should be contained in another Act. Delimitation specifically defines the area of operations of an election. As in the case of a rugby field, it precisely defines the area in which the game must be played. It cannot be separated from the question of elections. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister what exactly the position in regard to delimitation is.

The hon members for Koedoespoort and Bezuidenhout said that delimitation takes place at least five years and not more than ten years after a previous delimitation. Our last delimitation was in 1980. So the next delimitation should take place before about 1990. I recall that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs said last year, during the NP Congress in Pretoria, that he would announce the date on which a delimitation commission would sit. I am not sure whether I remember correctly; the hon the Minister will have to tell us. We were therefore under the impression that the Government had, in fact, decided that delimitation should take place. That was last year. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister why that delimitation is not being done.

Not this year—next year.

I did not know that that hon member had suddenly acquired Ministerial status. I put the question to the hon the Minister. As far as I know, the hon the Minister is Mr Stoffel Botha. [Interjections.] I want to know why the delimitation is not being done now. We should like the hon the Minister to explain to us why that delimitation is not being done. May I suggest … [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Kritzinger is saying something over there. I am sure that he, who is also an expert when it comes to elections, will in fact be taking part in the debate. When he does, we should like to listen to what he has to say.

I want to ask whether the reason why the delimitation has not yet been done is not perhaps because the Government is afraid of having an election.

No, why?

The hon the Minister says no. [Interjections.] Let me now tell him something. If one just looks at the election results which the hon member for Koedoespoort so neatly outlined here, it is clear that in the Transvaal the National Party enjoys less support than does the right wing element. [Interjections.] The hon member for Parow is having a good laugh now.

The charming hon member for Parow!

What happened, of course, was that in the elections that were held about 46 000 votes were cast in favour of the CP, with the National Party obtaining 53 000 and the HNP a total of 8 000. So the National Party is clearly the minority party in the Transvaal. So much so that on 17 April this year The Star published an article—unfortunately I do not have it here with me—in which it is stated that the National Party has now got its own opinion poll. I take it hon members sitting here are not aware of that appalling result, because they ought not to be informed about these things. The Star says, however, that the National Party admits that if an election were to be held today, it would lose. Is that the reason why a delimitation is not being carried out? [Interjections.]

What is very interesting is that whilst the election results—which are, after all, the best barometer—now indicate that the right wing element in the Transvaal enjoys the majority of the support, on Sundays the hon the Minister of National Education’s little brother says in Rapport’s “Marken Meningsopnames” that the right-wing element only has 15% of the support.

And nowhere in an election is their support less than 30%!

Right! That is so ridiculous! [Interjections.] At a later stage, however, I shall be saying more about “Marken Meningsopnames”. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister for a clear delineation of his plans in regard to delimitation. Perhaps he has an announcement ready at hand. He must tell us when the delimitation is going to be done.

There is a further point, however, that greatly disturbs me. I am referring to the question of the present distortions to which the hon member for Bezuidenhout also referred. I am going to present hon members with the best possible example of such distortion. In Walvis Bay, for example, there are between 3 000 and 4 000 voters. We have now learned, however, that there are 27 000 voters in the Pretoria East constituency. If one divides 27 by three, the answer is nine. That means that a voter living in Walvis Bay and voting there has a vote which is worth nine times more than that of a voter voting in Pretoria East. [Interjections.]

You yourself were a member of the National Party that supported the Bill!

Then we had it wrong then too. [Interjections.] I do admit we also had it wrong then. The hon member for Bezuidenhout says I was still a member of the National Party when that legislation was passed here. I now admit that I was wrong about that at the time. What happened was the following: We caused one vote in Walvis Bay to be worth nine times more than a vote in Pretoria East. I am now asking the hon the Minister whether it is not possible to correct this distorted pattern.

Koos, Walvis Bay and Pretoria East are both National! Leave them alone! [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Pretoria East speaks of two constituencies. I notice he is sitting there reading a newspaper. Perhaps he should worry more about the 27 000 voters of Pretoria East whilst he is still the temporary hon member for that constituency, to be replaced in the next election by a CP member. [Interjections.] Yes, since this is his swan song, perhaps he should pay a little more attention to what is really going on and spend a little less time sitting there reading a newspaper. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to another newspaper report.

Koos, you are not allowed to read a newspaper in the House!

In The Citizen of 12 February 1986 we get a correct version of how the seats should actually be divided up. The figures at my disposal differ somewhat from those of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. According to The Citizen the Transvaal ought to have eleven more seats and the Cape ten, with Natal remaining unchanged and the Free State losing one. I hope that will be the seat of the hon nominated member for Sasolburg—the former hon member for Sasolburg. What I just want to know now is what the Government’s projections are about distortions. Does the Government intend to correct this distortion so that the votes of all the voters in the country carry equal weight?

I am not in favour of the loading and deloading and constituencies based on surface area disappearing. That is not necessary. What is necessary, however, is that these serious distortions be corrected.

Surface area has nothing to do with it!

Then, of course, a further question arises. If it should now happen that certain seats must disappear—for example if there must be ten fewer seats in the Cape—there have been rumours about our having to relinquish the system of indirectly elected members of Parliament and having to give those seats to the Cape, for example.

What does your Cape leader say?

My Cape leader will reply to the hon the Minister.

But that is not democratic. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am now merely asking what projections one can make regarding indirectly elected members? [Interjections.] Are they going to remain a permanent part of the parliamentary set-up? Are they going to phased out so as to eliminate distortions? What is going to happen? [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member for Kuruman is creating problems for the hon member for Jeppe. The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

Talking about distortions, I must say that the indirectly elected members are, in fact, the worst form of distortion. The hon members nominated by the State President have only one voter, and that is the State President, whilst the hon member for Pretoria East has 27 000 voters. So there is excessive distortion there.

Now you are talking nonsense!

The hon member says I am talking nonsense. The hon member for Middelburg never speaks in this House. One never hears him speaking, because he is apparently so on edge about what Mr Pikkie Coetsee and others are doing to him in Middelburg that he cannot even make a speech here, but he does make inane little interjections. [Interjections.]

I want to mention a second aspect which relates to something that is not in the Electoral Act at the moment—I think it falls outside the ambit of the Electoral Act—but actually ought to be included so that we can, for the sake of convenience, try to have everything under one roof. I am referring to the provision in the Constitution for elections to be postponed by the State President on occasion. At present the situation is such that our five-year term expired on 29 April of this year, because we had an election on 29 April 1981. The State President, however, has extended the term of this Parliament to 1989. This provision was, of course, part of the “fine print” in the referendum, and there the guillotine was applied in the debate about this, because when there was the so-called broadening of the democratic base, we could not even discuss the Constitution, could we? So hon members think they are safe until 1989.

I now want to ask a question that I have previously put to the hon the Minister of Finance, but which he has not answered. I asked whether it was true that the Government was again planning, in about 1989, to extend the parliamentary term by another five years when the Blacks become members of Parliament. This would mean that we only vote again in 1993. [Interjections.] I find it very significant that hon members are having such a good laugh about this, but the State President was not prepared to say no to my question. The State President was not prepared to say that he was not again going to postpone the election until 1993. Let me now ask those hon members who are laughing so heartily: If the State President now postpones the election by another five years, are they going to resign? [Interjections.]

What I find interesting is that the hon member for Maraisburg is having such a good laugh over there. I think it is now time for me to tell hon members that the hon member—who is now laughing at me—and I appeared on the same platform in his constituency. There were 400 people present there. A motion of no confidence was moved in the NP. He drew 12 votes and I drew 388. [Interjections.] I think that that laugh of his is his swan-song, his good-bye giggle on the way past the cemetery. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon the Minister to answer an extremely important question when he gets up to speak. Would he tell us whether it is the Government’s intention to postpone the general election after 1989 by another term? There is something else I want to ask him too. We hear that the system of by-elections is also going to disappear. We hear the Government wants to save itself the embarrassment of holding by-elections. We are also going to abolish by-elections. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether that is true or whether it is perhaps a rumour, or merely CP gossip. [Interjections.]

Both these matters are of fundamental importance. Whether the country is going to be totally transformed into a banana republic, which it is already 90% of the way towards … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I know when I have lost.

I want to ask the hon the Minister just to react to these two points. Is there any truth in the rumours, or is it mere gossip, that the system of by-elections is going to be abolished and that the parliamentary term is going to be extended by another five years? At the same time I also want to give him the fundamental reason why right-wing groups attend NP meetings and why they try to prevent NP members from holding meetings. I want to give him the reason for that.

The NP ceased to have the moral right to govern this country on 29 April. [Interjections.] It consequently has no moral right to govern this country any longer. The NP does not even have the right to hold meetings, because its time has expired. [Interjections.] What they must do now is hold an election. If they do not do so, we shall hound them from one meeting to the next—if they have the courage to persist—and introduce one motion of no confidence after another. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs thus far holds the record as far as this is concerned. He had two motions of no confidence moved in him in one evening. [Interjections.] We shall go on doing that until an election is held. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member is alleging that we are all undemocratically occupying our seats in this Parliament, why do all the CP members not resign? [Interjections.]

The answer is that the hon member should perhaps take the sawdust out of his ears and listen carefully. I said nothing about anything being undemocratic. [Interjections.] I said the NP did not have the moral right to govern. I shall now tell the hon member why I am not resigning. The mandate that my party and I obtained from the electorate in 1981 was a mandate involving separate development and we are adhering that policy. [Interjections.]

The NP rejected 1981 power-sharing and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at a time that it would destroy South Africa.

Mr Chairman, would the hon member tell us whether the mandate he received in 1981 did not perhaps also, on the basis of his argument, end on 29 April of this year? [Interjections.]

Let me conclude an agreement with the hon member. Let us solve the problem by holding a general election. [Interjections.] Hon members of the NP are now so afraid of by-elections that they even appoint soldiers as their Ambassadors! An MPC, for example, has now also become an Ambassador. The poor hon member for Bloemfontein North learned French, and all for nothing! I really do not know, but it seems to me he and I should practise our French together! [Interjections.]

The next point in my argument involves the provision, in terms of the memorandum, that references to provincial councils be deleted from this Bill. The Bill that envisages abolishing provincial councils has surely not been promulgated yet. So provincial councils still exist. Let us suppose that the debate on abolishing the provincial councils took place later this week, or at some other time. What would happen if it were decided that they should not be abolished? Let us suppose we again have the problem of the other two Houses—as in the case of the security legislation—refusing to pass the Bill. What would happen then? Supposing they refer it back to the standing committee, what would happen then? So in my opinion it is premature to attempt to amend this legislation now. After all, provincial councils have not yet been abolished.

That is a typical example of the arrogance of the Government in simply assuming that it can take a certain step. Influx control measures, for example, have not yet been abolished either, but the Act is no longer being implemented. We are therefore dealing with a kind of Government by decree. It is actually a kind of panicky form of Government. It is an entrenchment of autocracy and an attenuation of democracy. I do not know what the other parties intend doing, but we are going to vote against the legislation in connection with the abolition of the provincial councils. Abolishing provincial councils is simply going to get rid of 160 representatives, people who were elected in elections. [Interjections.] The 160 representatives elected by the people must therefore go, whilst one man, Pieter Willem Botha, is simply going to designate certain people, and this is called a broadening of the democratic base! If there was ever devastation or an attenuation of democracy, it can be found in this decision.

The provisions relating to own affairs are also being amended by this amending Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kroonstad speaks about people being stupid, there on the other side of the House. I just want to congratulate him. That is the very subject in which he is a past master. [Interjections.] I have a problem with own affairs and elections. The Government is hereby professing that elections—White elections, for the sake of argument—are a White own affair. Then, however, the Government finds fault with our objecting to Black policemen being present at our elections.

I also want to speak about the provision about postal vote applications having to be open to scrutiny. Hon members will find it in clause 36 of the Bill. I agree with this new arrangement about these applications being open to scrutiny, but in such a way that other parties do not have access to them, because it would seem as if one party’s voters would then intimidate those of another party. The CP also figured prominently in this as a result of the methods of intimidation adopted in the past, something for which the NP is well-known. We are therefore glad that this measure will now be coming into force, because it protects the most energetic party which gets to the voters first. It also protects the voters themselves and eliminates malpractices.

I notice that liquor may now be freely available, the reason for this being “life as it is today”. But what has changed as far as liquor is concerned? [Interjections.] Why must we now have liquor being used at the polls? I think it is an unnecessary risk, and we could preferably maintain that prohibition on polling day.

As far as placards are concerned, we are now very glad about the stricter measures, and we hope it will frighten hon members of the NP off sufficiently to put a stop to their malpractices in this regard, because it has specifically been the CP which has, in the past, suffered tremendously from the malpractices perpertrated by the National Party. Interjections.] Let me ask, however, what happens in the case of contraventions by parties displaying, for example, too many placards during elections. There are cases, for example, in which local government ordinances make provision for one to put up say 100 placards. Then along comes the NP and puts up about 3 000 photographs in the town. That is what they did in Rosettenville. They put up about 3 000 large, lovely photographs of that beautiful Mrs Sheila Cameron—she is lovely just to look at—in the town. There was not a single pole to which a photograph of her had not been attached. And one cannot object, because the local authority in Johannesburg is in the hands of the NP and that local authority does not want to act. What must a small political party like ours then do? We do not have the money that the NP has at its disposal. We do not have the millions of rands that the NP gets from its left-wing supporters.

You are mistaken; we are no longer that small.

Yes, as far as support goes, we are no longer all that small. In that respect we are a big party. I meant that we were a small party when it came to finances. [Interjections.]

Another aspect that I should like to point out is that of doing away with the custom of making the names of agents and sub-agents public. These people’s names will no longer be made public, and the reason for doing away with this is that it is not necessary to have their names made public. I should like to know why. After all, it is a practice that has worked well all these years. It also granted people status. We have always come together in groups of a few hundred and the names were made public. What I am now asking is why the NP wants to do away with this practice. I think the real reason is that the NP does not even have enough supporters who can come together—probably only two or three supporters will get together—to cheer for their sub-agents. [Interjections.] It is apparently just an attempt on the part of the NP to extricate itself from yet another embarrassing situation.

I want to conclude by asking the hon the Minister please just to answer two extremely important questions for me. Firstly, does the Government intend to postpone the election by another five years—or perhaps a longer or shorter period? Secondly, is there any truth in the contention that the NP wants to abolish by-elections? [Interjections.] In conclusion, Sir, let me now resume my seat. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Jeppe today made one of the most dangerous admissions which have ever been made by an hon member in this House. He admitted here that he had addressed 200 Black people from the steps of the verandah of the Johannesburg City Hall and invited them to vote in the referendum of 2 November 1983. [Interjections.] I do not think there is any fault to be found whatever in talking to Black people; in itself it presents no problem at all. I merely find it strange that an hon member of a rightist radical party could bring himself to do this.

Koos does not believe in own affairs.

He speaks scathingly of the fact that hon members of this side of the House and especially hon Ministers negotiate with and talk to Black people but he is prepared to address Black people in the streets of Johannesburg. I wonder whether rightist radical voters of this country would appreciate his being prepared to address Black people in public and in addition invite them to vote in a referendum involving only Whites. I repeat that his talking to Blacks does not matter but I regard what he imprinted in the hearts of those people as important. He admitted this himself. Did it not represent a blatant incitement of Black people against a dispensation for which Whites were still in the process of voting? South Africa is burning in many places today. How many of his utterances on the steps of Johannesburg City Hall verandah contributed to what we are experiencing in South Africa today? I ask this because an hon member of this House was inciting Black people to revolt against the system.

Order! The word “incite” (opstook) in this connection is unparliamentary. The hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

The hon member may proceed.

An hon member of this House was encouraging Black people to revolt against the system. He admitted this himself in this House. I ask hon members whether this is not exactly the same as ANC tactics. We hear accusations every day when we compare techniques of hon members of the rightist radical party with those of the ANC …

Mr Chairman, is the hon member entitled to say that an hon member of this House uses ANC tactics?

Order! What tactics do you mean in speaking of ANC tactics? What do you mean?

Mr Chairman, by that I mean that by way of intimidating people in the country and otherwise, the ANC is busy …

Order! The hon member must withdraw that. If that is what you mean, you must withdraw the expression “ANC methods”.

You are a disgrace!

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

You are a disgrace!

Order! I cannot accept the hon member for Kuruman’s interfering while I am giving a ruling. I gave the ruling, it was accepted by the hon member, and the hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Jeppe admitted today in this House that he had encouraged Black people to revolt against the system and to undermine it by whatever means they saw fit. [Interjections.] He is an hon member of the House of Assembly and a party which is attempting to clothe itself in sanctity.

Koos Steps!

On the steps of the Johannesburg City Hall in full public view he encouraged Black people to overthrow the present system, because what did he tell those Black people? He asked them whether it was fair that the Whites of the country were giving Coloureds and Indians the vote while Black people could not vote. [Interjections.] The slogan uttered by the Tutus and the Boesaks in this country today is that Black people are in revolt because they have not vote and political rights in this country.

I ask today: What did that hon member’s speech to Black people in front of the Johannesburg City Hall contribute in encouraging those matters about which Black people are in revolt in South Africa today? [Interjections.] Those hon members are playing a very dangerous game—as we know them. [Interjections.] It is essential that we monitor the conduct of members of the rightist radical party in South Africa a little as well. [Interjections.] They are the AWB squatters in the House and the AWB advocates certain methods—specifically those of intimidation—in forcing people to accept its standpoint. [Interjections.]

They are only doing what PW did! [Interjections.]

We shall have to make very certain of the actions of hon members and what they are doing.

What does their leader say?

They are not interested in participating in democracy and they are opposed to the system.

What does Andries have to say? [Interjections.]

Because they are opposed to the system, the hon member for Jeppe sees fit to incite Black people to oppose the system as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Koedoespoort is making continuous remarks and talking. The hon member must stop this.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member Dr Odendaal permitted to say the hon member for Jeppe is inciting people? [Interjections.]

Did the hon member say that? I did not hear it.

Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge I said “encouraged” but, if I used another word like “incited”, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member used the word “incited”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member said he was not certain whether he had used it but, if he had, he withdrew it. The hon member Dr Odendaal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to use the word “encouraged” with your permission. [Interjections.] To the best of my knowledge it is a parliamentary expression which may be used. The hon member for Jeppe encouraged Black people and they are also encouraging Whites to rebel against the system.

I now want to ask the hon member for Waterberg something: Is he satisfied with what one of the members of the House of Assembly of his party did on the steps of the verandah of the Johannesburg City Hall?

He is the chief of information!

Your leader undermined and disparaged the entire system in the speech he made. [Interjections.]

What a pathetic performance!

The hon member for Waterberg knows the hon member for Jeppe adopted a very dangerous standpoint in this House tonight. He admitted what he had done outside and it was a very dangerous act but the hon member for Waterberg continues refusing to repudiate or even reprimand him. [Interjections.] I again wish to ask the hon member for Waterberg whether he is satisfied with the conduct of one of the members of the House of Assembly of his party.

Are you satisfied with the action of the State President in speech after speech? [Interjections.]

He gives me question for question.

Evasive!

He is evading the question entirely. [Interjections.] I want to ask him, if he is not prepared to repudiate the hon member for Jeppe now, whether he will be prepared to repudiate him in the next speech he makes in this House. [Interjections.] I think it very important that we know where the hon leader of the rightist radical party stands regarding this.

He is afraid Koos will defect to the AWB.

I want to know whether he condones it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is there a rightist radical party present in the House?

Yes!

There are three of them! [Interjections.]

Order! I am addressing the hon member for Greytown! Far too many interjections are being made here and hon members will now limit their interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman …

Order! I have listened to the point of order and my ruling is that the hon member may proceed.

In my opinion the hon member for Jeppe did something which was very, very dangerous to South Africa and I want to know whether the hon leader of that party is responsible enough to … [Interjections.]

Order! I requested hon members to limit their interjections. The hon member may proceed.

I was trying to say that the hon member for Jeppe had done something very dangerous. If this is done by an individual in a party, I think it right that he be repudiated by his leader because this can have a very important calming effect on circumstances in South Africa today. I ask the hon member for Waterberg whether, for the sake of peace and calm in South Africa, he will reprimand the hon member for Jeppe in the next speech he makes in this House for the methods he uses.

Order! I cannot prescribe to the hon member how to make his speech. The hon member has made his point. He has asked that question a number of times. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I was under the impression that so many interjections were being made because I was not putting the point well enough. [Interjections.] The fact remains, however, that the hon member for Waterberg has still not replied to me. I asked him numerous times, until you called me to order, and he has still not replied to me; nor will he do so in future. The reason is that the members of that party are AWB squatters; they have no choice; in this House they have to say and do what the AWB prescribes to them. That party, the rightist radical party itself, does not have a policy. The AWB will prescribe its policy to it as regards elections too—and I am getting to that. We are discussing the Electoral Act Amendment Bill and, as regards clause 1 of this Bill in particular, hon members of that party will have to echo AWB promptings like parrots in this House. Meanwhile hon members of that party themselves are involved in extremely dangerous acts in this country of ours.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Dr Odendaal is almost 20 minutes into his speech and he has not spoken on the Bill at all. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Dr Odendaal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, that hon member is speaking so softly now but in addressing Blacks he is probably able to speak loudly enough. [Interjections.] I should like to refer to clause 1 of the amending Bill. Clause 1 of this amending Bill provides that the holding of elections is an own affair and that own administrations of the various Houses of this Parliament are to make their own election arrangements. The Van der Merwe twins are attempting to persuade hon members in this House to vote against this legislation. I am now referring to the hon members for Green Point and Rissik. I consider it the duty of every hon member in this House to consider whether he should not perhaps vote against this legislation. If we vote against it, however, we have to know what we shall then actually be voting for. We shall then have to ascertain what we are actually voting for.

I first wish to examine the point of departure of the hon member for Green Point. That hon member’s standpoint is that there should be only one administration arranging elections in this country. In consequence, there should also be only one voters’ roll, which the hon member for Bezuidenhout confirmed this afternoon. There may be only one voters’ roll and then there will only be one House as well. The hon member for Bezuidenhout said so this afternoon. There will be only one legislative body—one House like this. I think this will incontrovertibly—without anyone having to argue about it—lead to a system of one-man-one-vote with a common voters’ roll in South Africa, which will mean that domination by one group over another will take place. The trifling veto rights which hon members of the PFP are attempting to build in in an effort to maintain Whites’ minority rights in this country will be worth as little as those of the Whites in Rhodesia. [Interjections.] Surely we have no doubt on this whatsoever. This will definitely be so. It will mean absolutely nothing to a minority group like the Whites in this country of ours. Therefore I say that, if that is the option the PFP advocates and if that is the reason why it wishes to vote for this legislation, we reject it with contempt.

The hon member for Rissik also attempted to persuade the House to vote against the legislation because of clause 1 of the amending Bill. He is opposed to each population group arranging its own elections, as the hon member for Koedoespoort, and other hon members, said repeatedly this afternoon. They are opposed to each House—the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates—arranging its own elections. They put forward as a reason that there might be all kinds of strange occurrences in such a situation. The CP is a proponent of only one aspect and that is that the Whites should arrange their own elections.

Now my question is, if the Whites are to arrange their own elections, who is to arrange the franchise of other groups in the country? The rightist radical party has refused up to today to tell us more about its policies except that each group will have a say within its own sphere of jurisdiction. Even today we do not know whether this means Black people will be removed from the White homeland, heartland, or whatever one wants to call it. If they are not to be removed, what will this mean? Will hon members of the CP accept Black people as permanent inhabitants of those areas or will it mean that the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians will not have any political rights? It is important to obtain clarity on this.

Events in South Africa today are exactly the same as those which took place approximately 40 years ago and earlier, during and directly after the Second World War. At that stage so many small parties sprang up out of nothing that they ultimately confused themselves. The Ossewabrandwag was also founded at that time. This movement later revelled to such an extent in the execution of acts unacceptable to people that it also finally split up. Dr Malan was the man with the courage to tell the Nationalists they had to choose between the Ossewabrandwag and the NP. The hon member for Waterberg would not dare, as he did here this afternoon, to tell the AWB to choose between democracy and the one-party dictatorship it advocates.

In the light of this, the same is happening. A small new party has popped up in the Transvaal; its members call themselves the Transvaal Separatists. Permit me to furnish the hon member for Waterberg with the address of the Transvaal Separatists; it is P O Box 878, Naboomspruit. [Interjections.] To the best of my knowledge Naboomspruit is in the constituency of the hon member for Waterberg. [Interjections.]

It is in Potgietersrus and you do not even know it.

All right, it is located in the Potgietersrus constituency. My thanks to the hon member for Waterberg for putting me right so speedily. [Interjections.] When I put a very important question to him a moment ago, he was not as quick off the mark. So the head office of the Transvaal Separatists is situated in Naboomspruit in the constituency adjacent to that of the hon member for Waterberg. I should like to quote what that party says about the hon member for Waterberg’s party. The Transvaal Separatists say of partition:

This is the meaning of partition according to the Transvaal Separatists; it is not I who say so. I shall quote further:

That is the policy of the Transvaal Separatists. [Interjections.]