Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

With the exception of clause 8, this Bill deals with a number of technical and administrative amendments to pension laws, amendments which are necessary for the smooth functioning of pension funds and schemes administered by the Department of Health and Welfare. These amendments refer to different matters and can be debated, if necessary, in the Committee Stage. Consequently I do not think it is necessary for me to give an exposition of every one of the provisions of the Bill at this stage. For the benefit of hon. members, however, it would perhaps be proper for me to explain some of the clauses.

Any member of Parliament, except a Minister or a Speaker, who becomes an ambassador or an envoy is regarded for pensions purposes as a Commissioner-general at present. In terms of the amendment provided for by clause 2, the said member will henceforth be regarded as an Administrator for the same purpose. We have found subsequent to the publication of this amending Bill that the pension of the Leader of the Opposition, if he should become an ambassador, has not been taken into consideration. I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage to rectify this situation in case he should wish to become an ambassador.

*Sir, when a person’s disability for the purposes of the Military Pensions Act has been determined at less than 20%, he is entitled to one of the gratuities for which section 5 of that Act makes provision. It is R300 in the case of disability determined at not more than 10% and R600 when disability has been determined at more than 10%, but less than 20%.

Like any pension benefit these gratuities, too, have to be revised from time to time. Up to now we have been unable to do this as the amounts of R300 and R600 are maximum amounts prescribed by the Act.

The Military Pensions Act is now being amended by clause 3, however, to empower the Minister to determine the amounts of the gratituities, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, by notice in the Gazette.

The amendments for which provision is being made in clauses 4 and 5 seek to amend the pension scheme for judges in such a way that it makes provision for widowers’ pensions as well. This means that the pension rights of all judges, male or female, will henceforth be exactly the same. During 1979 widowers’ pensions were fairly extensively debated in this House. There is probably no need for me to repeat all the arguments advanced at the time as I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who has any objections in principle to widowers’ pensions. Permit me, however, to say a few words about this pension. A widower’s pension is only one of the possible rights which may be awarded to members of the pension fund. As in the case of other pension rights, the Government of its own accord gives consideration to these matters from time to time as a result of representations received. Each case is considered on its own merits.

Section 12 of the General Pensions Act, 1979, regulates the pension rights of employees of local authorities who are transferred to the central Government because of the transfer of their activities and functions. At such a transfer the pension fund of the local authority concerned has to compensate the Government pension fund of which the employee is to become a member on the same basis as the basis on which the pension fund of the local authority concerned would have compensated the pension fund of another local authority upon such transfer. This basis is known as the “normal transfer value”.

Transfers at the normal transfer value are fair only in the case of reciprocal transfers between pension funds. In other words, what the pension fund loses in the one case, it gains in the next case of an employee being transferred to it. Section 12, however, provides for one way traffic only, i.e. from the local authorities to the Government. Section 12, as it is to be amended by clause 6, will provide for transfer on the basis of the so-called “actuarial interest”. This will bring about a much fairer dispensation for the pension funds of local authorities.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. the Minister will be surprised to hear that we are supporting this Bill. As he pointed out, it is very much a technical Bill. There are a few points, however, which I should like to raise and which I think should be raised in the Second Reading as it will perhaps shorten the Committee Stage.

We shall support the amendment in terms of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he sees fit to become an ambassador will qualify for the increased pension.

It sounds very unlikely.

My colleague says that it sounds unlikely, but as we are living in a period of political change in South Africa, one must make provision for any eventuality! [Interjections.] If I could express a personal preference, if I were in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s position like that, I would rather go to London or Washington than to KwaZulu or somewhere else.

Clause 1 of the Bill really rectifies an omission in the Act. Members who hold a special position, i.e. Whips and so forth, receive a slightly higher pension than ordinary members. I do not want to debate the merits of this now because the principle has been accepted, but in the past it did not apply to the gratuities. Therefore this is a logical amendment and we have no problems with it.

Clause 3 amends section 5 of the Military Pensions Act. I think this matter of military disability pensions is actually a very important one. When people are disabled during a war, there is a significant difference between that and the position of old-age pensioners in that a person who is disabled during war is normally disabled when he is young. Therefore his disability is going to affect him for a long part of his life. So I think that anything that is done to improve the position of people who have been disabled in the military service of the State, should be welcomed. At some time, however, we are going to have to look at this whole question of military disability pensions because it is not something that one can provide for. Normally any person can save money for his old age, but one cannot make provision against being disabled during military service. Here we are looking purely at the gratuity and not at the actual pension, and quite obviously a gratuity of R300 or R600 is out of date in the present inflationary period.

Clauses 4 and 5 are perhaps an indication of the fact that the day of the woman has arrived. I am only sorry that the hon. member for Houghton is not here because I know that she enjoys amendments of this nature. We obviously have to make provision for the fact that we have female judges. I am also just wondering when the wives’ benches in the gallery are going to be changed into the spouses’ benches. I just hope that when we do effect the change to things such as manholes and that they will remain manholes rather than become people holes.

Clause 6 deals with the transferability of pension rights for the employee of a local authority which is transferred to the Government. This is obviously a very important provision, and there are many of us who feel strongly that this sort of provision should apply in respect of all pension funds. Meanwhile it is a good thing that it applies to State pension funds. I should also just like to comment on subsection (2)(a) relating to what should be transferred. Lines 17 to 22 of this paragraph deal with the concept of transferring a member’s pension from one pension fund to another pension fund and the question then arises as to what sort of value should be transferred. I think the principle here is a good one. Sir, I am a little concerned when we talk of future pension rights. It is very easy to promise people an improved pension and then not to make the financial provision for it. Whether we like it or not, we will in the future have to look at this concept of the transferability and preservation of pensions, and I think the concept that the actual value is transferred, is in fact a good one in that it will be the member’s share of the fund that is transferred and not some hypothetical or theoretical figure.

There is a very good article in Time magazine which I would recommend hon. members to read. It deals with the American social security system and the tremendous problems that they are now experiencing under that system because of the increase in the number of aged people in the United States. They point out that the stage is going to be reached where for every one retired person there is going to be only two people working, while, when they drafted the legislation, the ratio was something in the order of 16 people working to every one retired person.

Sir, we will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Edenvale, because he made a few positive and meaningful remarks.

In the first place, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the amendments to this Bill he has placed before this House.

I have two general remarks to make in connection with this legislation. In the first place logical, consequential and fair corrections are being effected here. In the second place, these corrections result from principles already accepted by the Government in connection with pension funds. In the first place it must be ensured that pensions are transferable. In the second place, every economically active person ought to be compelled to belong to a contributory pension fund and—perhaps even more important— employees should not be allowed to terminate their work, and thereby their pension contributions, with the aim of receiving a cash sum. This will prevent people from going from one profession to another without making provision for the necessary pension protection. In principle this is also being made applicable to Ministers and Administrators when they accept other posts, as well as members who accept posts abroad, as defined in the legislation. Particularly in clauses 1 and 6 provision is now being made for pensions to be transferable, for people who change jobs to be protected in their new posts as far as their pensions are concerned, because pension contributions will not be terminated.

In brief, this legislation contains everything necessary to give security to a number of hon. members of this House. Because those members do not, however, meet certain requirements and because the principles of the Act are not yet broadly applicable, their next-of-kin are not protected or insured if those hon. members were to die of natural causes, such as an accident, illness or the like. In addition, if, owing to circumstances beyond their control—an election or any other occurrence—they cannot complete the required period of service to qualify for a pension, namely eight years, they are also not protected. If, therefore, we accept the principle in this Bill, we must also apply this principle to members of this House who are not protected, because there are many hon. members who only recently—in 1981—entered politics from the private sector and whose pensions were terminated or who forfeited their pensions, although they had already paid money into other funds. It is therefore not their fault that they are being penalized. I therefore want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter, in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I have a few more remarks to make in this connection. In the first place I should like to refer to service by Administrators, etc. dealt with in clauses 1 and 2. In passing I want to ask that this piece of legislation not be committed. I also want to thank the department and the hon. the Minister for the fact that payment can now be made for these people. We wholeheartedly support this.

The hon. the Minister remarked that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now qualifies to be appointed as an ambassador. I should like to suggest that he be appointed an ambassador to the President’s Council. Perhaps he will be influenced for the better if he sees what good work is being done there, and then his party may even co-operate in the future! [Interjections.] In the second place I want to refer to pensions for the widowers of female judges. This means that female judges will not only be attractive to the male sex; they will also be a financial asset. I therefore feel this is a very good measure.

This brings me to the amendments to the General Pensions Act of 1979. It is as well that this alteration is being effected because there will now be a transfer of work between the first and the third levels of Government. It is as well that any surplus which may exist must be transferred to the employee. I think this is a very positive change in the existing legislation.

On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I should just like to say that we are delighted that provision is being made in this legislation—as it was in previous legislation—for pension payments to be made in cases of military disability. If a member suffers from a pensionable disability, and that disability has been determined, in terms of the provisions of the Act, at less than 20%, he is paid a gratuity which is subject to certain restrictions. It is a good thing that the hon. the Minister will now have the authority, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, to rectify certain matters, and that this is not a once-only event but may be done from time to time by notice in the Gazette. I think that the general public, and in particular national servicemen and the parents and families of national servicemen, as well as persons in the Permanent Force, the Police Force and other services, will be delighted with and grateful for this provision. It gives me great pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this amendment. As everyone in this House is so unanimous about these amendments I am afraid we shall begin repeating the arguments already advanced in order to motivate our support for the Bill. However, pensions are of great interest to all people, or at least to most people, and these statutory amendments are all important to the people who will benefit by them.

In the first place, most of these amendments are of a technical nature. They comprise rectifications and the elimination of defects. One of the important amendments, as I see it, is the amendment relating to military pensions in terms of which the amounts for which the Act makes provision are now being increased, and the Minister is to have the opportunity to grant higher gratuities in accordance with the current standard of living with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. In any event, we trust that the relevant Minister will convince the Minister of Finance to agree to grant a higher gratuity to people who are physically unable to do the work they were called to do.

Clause 4 involves judges, and I believe this is a step in the right direction and that progress has been made in this connection. In a certain sense this is something new that is being introduced here. I do not want to use the word “unique”, but in order to do away with this uniqueness, I suggest that the hon. the Minister considers making provisions for female MP’s such as my benchmate, so that the husbands of female MP’s can also benefit from such a pension.

In my opinion a very important principle was introduced in clause 6 in connection with the transfer of pensions. I believe that this measure in the Bill ensures a much fairer dispensation for local authorities and also for the person involved in the transfer. I believe that in this way everyone will get their fair share.

In conclusion, I want to refer to clause 9, in terms of which certain provisions are made retrospective. This is a technical measure and I believe it is important to the people who will benefit by it.

With these few words we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting the measure before us. As we see the legislation, clause 1 and 7 merely serve to correct errors of om-mission when the original legislation was drafted. Clause 2, we understand, clarifies the position as regards pensions of members who become ambassadors.

I am just wondering whether the hon. the Minister could tell us—in view of his proposed amendment—whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has applied for the job of ambassador to KwaZulu. [Interjections.] I have just been wondering whether that has happened and whether that is the reason for such amendments being proposed!

Mr. Speaker, the amendment in clause 3 is a very welcome one since the amounts to be deleted date back right to 1967 and are way out of touch with today’s living standards. I believe everybody concerned will be grateful to learn that these amounts are now being amended.

Clause 4 is, I believe, a victory for women’s liberation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We welcome the provision which will include the spouses of female judges.

Clause 6 is a little more complicated. It is pleasing, however, to note that the department has seen fit to accommodate the requests of local authorities in so far as pension funds are concerned. I think that the use of the actuary in this regard is going to make it far more acceptable to local authorities, and will also, I believe, give them the protection for which they have asked. Local authorities have long feared that their funds would be depleted, especially those local authorities with small pension funds.

I should also like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether he does not believe the time has come now to rewrite in a concise form all pension legislation so that everybody will be able to understand it. I doubt whether any hon. member of this House who has read section 9 of this Act will be able to understand it, let alone interpret it. I am sure even the hon. the Minister will have problems understanding this section. I suggest that all pension fund schemes should be covered by legislation. I am thinking here, for instance, of the pension schemes of provincial councils, the Indian Council, the Coloured Representative Council and the President’s Council as well as our own pension fund scheme. The legislation will have to be rewritten. It should be redrafted properly in order to make it clear and concise so that everybody who reads it will be able to understand it. I respectfully request the hon. the Minister to look into this matter and to see whether his officials cannot do something about it.

With these few words I am delighted to express our support of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the four hon. members who have expressed their party’s support of this amending Bill. I think it is very clear that all the amendments contained in this Bill are of a technical nature on the one hand, and are necessary, on the other hand, in order to rectify certain aspects. It is clear that certain provisions of the existing legislation have become somewhat obsolete. The hon. member for Eden-vale, and also one or two other hon. members, referred to the question of the gratuity in respect of which the amounts have undoubtedly become completely obsolete. Instead of having every future increase ratified by Parliament, we are trying to find a new way of expediting matters. However, the hon. the Minister of Finance will never allow excessive amounts to be paid out. I am very sure of that. That is why I should suggest it could be done more efficiently in the way provided for in this Bill. I think the hon. member was very quick to grasp the advantages of the new way in which the actual value to be paid out will now be fixed. Pensions are not static. They change all the time. That is what I have learnt during the time that I have held this portfolio. That is why legislation has to be changed from time to time in order to keep pace with new developments, and of course also to improve certain aspects. In this respect I can refer hon. members to the new formula which we are employing as from this year in respect of civil pensions. The new formula of 10% plus 1% is of course one that we have taken over from the private sector. It is a formula we have never used before, but everybody seems to be quite happy with it.

The hon. member also referred to an article that was published in Time magazine. I have not read that article. When I visited America, however, last year I had long discussions in connection with the social security system. I came back with certain ideas on a Government-sponsored national pension scheme. I think the hon. member mentioned in an earlier debate that he thought it desirable that there should be a pension scheme for all, preferably run by the private sector and with some central form of co-ordination. I quite agree with the hon. member that, with the prospect of an ever-increasing number of aged people and with the whole population pyramid about to turn upside down, we will ultimately reach a stage where old people will outnumber young people, something which is, of course, likely to have a seriously adverse effect on a civil pension scheme such as the American one.

*The hon. member for Brits summarized the legislation very neatly by pointing out that the rectifications being effected in the legislation were logical, reasonable and consequential. I also believe that he made the aspect of the transferability of pensions quite clear. I just want to mention here that when the hon. the Minister of Finance made a speech at a recent function, he said that this question of transferability would soon be taken into consideration again. I think malicious people made so much propaganda against this idea that the previous legislation had to be withdrawn. However, this is one of the most important aspects of our total pension set-up. The hon. member also referred to hon. members of this House who previously occupied other positions. When they resigned from those positions they had their pension contributions paid back to them instead of their being able to enjoy the benefit of transferring those pension benefits. Had the pension benefits been transferred, their pensionable service would have been uninterrupted, but instead they merely had their contributions paid back to them. I think this is something we have to investigate specifically. The hon. member also raised the question of military gratuities, but I think I have already dealt with that.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for his contribution as well as his support of this legislation. He raised an interesting point concerning female MP’s. As the hon. member knows, there is a qualifying period of 7½½ years. If the lady on that side manages to reach the qualifying period and representations are made that we should deal with the matter on merit, we shall probably be able to do something in that connection. In my Second Reading speech I made the point that one cannot accept that as an immutable rule. I suppose we shall have to start with the exceptions. That in itself will not require a lot of money, but to do that throughout the Public Service and everywhere will be virtually impossible. However, when we look at the statistics we see that unfortunately, the number of men who have reached the age where they can draw a pension is decreasing in comparison with the number of women and that that is particularly the case in the high age groups. I sign the certificates for the centenarians, and in every 30 or 40 that I sign one is a man and the rest are women. So, as far as the transferability of pension benefits is concerned, I think the men will perhaps not be as fortunate as the women! Whatever the case may be, this is a matter we shall have to investigate, and because the hon. member raised the matter here I should just like to give him the assurance that that matter will indeed by looked into.

†The hon. member for South Coast asked me whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had applied for an ambassadorial post in KwaZulu. I want to tell him that I do not know because that has to be done through the office of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not here just now when attention was drawn to an anomaly in this legislation that made it necessary for us to provide for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in an amendment in the event of his accepting an ambassadorial post. The hon. member for Edenvale said that he thought that if he did accept such a post, he would rather accept one in Washington than in KwaZulu. I do not know why he said that and I would rather not comment on it.

That is my personal preference.

The hon. member for South Coast also mentioned the interesting point that he thought that this legislation should be consolidated. I want to tell him that we will give attention to this matter but I do want to say that it is not an easy matter to consolidate legislation of this nature in a clear and concise fashion. However, with the new dispensation coming into being where a large number of the terms in the current legislation will become outmoded and outdated, we shall follow his suggestion and, as in the case of other pieces of legislation, see what the department can do to get this legislation reasonably up to date. I thank him for that suggestion.

In conclusion, I want to thank all hon. members who spoke very much indeed for their contributions. I have not devoted very much time to my reply because I believe that we are all in agreement as far as this legislation is concerned and so I shall leave the matter at that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment is merely a consequential amendment. It has always been the intention that a person who, before his appointment as ambassador, did not occupy a position which was at least equal to that of Commissioner-General, is deemed to occupy that position. A person who occupied a higher position had to retain that position for pension purposes. The amendment I am now proposing has the effect that “Administrator” is substituted for “Commissioner-General”. Unfortunately, when the Bill was originally drafted we did not notice that point, and that is why I am proposing this amendment in order to set the matter straight.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains amendments to six Acts administered by the Office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, namely the Insurance Act, the Stock Exchanges Control Act, the Pension Funds Act, the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act.

I want to explain briefly the more important amendments contained in the Bill and shall start with those pertaining to the Stock Exchanges Control Act.

The amendments proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 5 relate to the minimum membership of a stock exchange. It is essential that this minimum be reduced in order to avert a position where the only stock exchange in the Republic will be compelled to close its doors on account of non-compliance with the minimum membership requirement of the Act. This minimum was increased from 20 to 40 in 1971 when no less than 85 stock broking firms were carrying on business on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Since then, however, mainly as a result of amalgamations of one-man businesses and small partnerships, this number has dwindled to 41 with the expectation of a further decline in the near future. The committee of the Exchange accordingly requested that the minimum be reduced, and it is proposed that it be set at 30 members. The reduction will not affect competition on the Exchange.

Another important amendment to the Stock Exchanges Control Act is contained in the new section 7 proposed in clause 6. The new provision confers corporate status on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. It was always generally accepted that the Exchange was a jursitic person, but recently it transpired that the institution was in fact an unincorporated association of persons. A financial institution incurs liabilities and obligations to the public and in order to safeguard properly the interest of clients in investments made with it or through its mediation, it is highly desirable that such an institution should have the necessary legal status to act in its own name. For this reason financial institutions not incorporated and endowed with full legal powers under the Companies Act, e.g. pension funds, friendly societies and building societies, are explicitly granted corporate status by their respective controlling Acts. It is deemed in the interest of the public that the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, which is the only licensed stock exchange in the Republic and which plays a key role in the economy of the country, should be a corporate body. When the Johannesburg Stock Exchange has obtained corporate status, it will be necessary to transfer certain assets into the name of the corporate body. The costs in respect of the transfer of the institution’s fixed properties only will amount to between R1 million and R2 million. As there will be no actual change in the ownership of the assets, provision is made for the transfer of the assets free of official charges. The principle of allowing the transfer of assets free of official charges in the case of mergers of financial institutions or the transfer of the assets and liabilities of one financial institution to another, is well established.

The amendments to the Stock Exchanges Control Act have the support of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

*Mr. Speaker, I now wish to discuss the amendments to four of the Acts, viz. the Insurance Act, the Pension Funds Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act. All these amendments deal with those provisions in the Acts relating to investment in Government stock. In terms of the provisions of the relevant Acts, financial institutions have to invest certain portions of the funds they receive from the public in stock of and loans to the public sector. Futher-more the Acts require that a certain portion of those funds have to be invested in stock issued by the Government. The objective of the latter requirement is the acquisition of funds for the general financial needs of the State, i.e. funds obtained by the Treasury in terms of the provisions of section 19 of the Treasury and Audit Act. Since certain State undertakings, e.g. the S.A. Transport Services, are authorized to enter the market themselves with their own stock issues, it has become necessary to provide unequivocally in the various Acts that only stock issued in terms of section 19 of the Treasury and Audit Act will qualify for the purposes of the said requirements. However, stock held by an institution on the date that the amendments come into effect will not be affected by the amendments as far as those institutions are concerned and all stock of these undertakings will continue to qualify as prescribed investments.

For the same reason as that which applies to the amendments to which I have just referred, the definitions of “liquid assets” in the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act are being amended so that Government stock other than that issued in terms of section 19 of the Treasury and Audit Act, which is obtained by an institution after the amendments have come into effect, will not qualify as liquid assets.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill, but there are a number of matters I should like to raise in order to get a response from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Firstly, it has almost become a customary, annual event to have amendments to the legislation relating to financial institutions. As a matter of fact, the nature of the omnibus legislation has become a general practice in this House. I want to draw attention to the fact that, undoubtedly, South Africa is entering into relatively difficult economic times, and at a time when the economy takes a downturn and things are not as good as they have been at other times, I think the financial institutions need to be watched even more carefully. If one looks back at the history of the last few decades, the periods of down-turn in an economy have also been accompanied by periods where there have been problems with certain financial institutions. I want to say immediately that I believe that the state of our financial institutions now is much healthier than it has been for a long, long time, and the control measures are in fact far more effective than they have been in the past. Therefore I doubt whether we shall have the same kind of problems in future as we have had in times past. However, I want to get an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that this factor is being taken into account, in other words, that, when we are entering into a difficult economic period, the extra degree of caution and the extra degree of control which are required are in fact being exercised. That assurance I ask from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

There is a second matter on which I should like an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister, and that is that the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions has got adequate staff in order to exercise the control and supervisory measures which have to be exercised, and that if there are shortgates of staff the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing the necessary in order to remedy such shortages, because this is an institution where we cannot afford to have a shortage of staff. I do not ever want to experience a situation where the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister gets up in this House and says that he does not know about a particular occurrence because they did not have enough people to carry out the regular checks that have to be carried out. I should like to have not only that assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister, but also an assurance that he and the hon. the Minister will watch this office and will see to it that there is no cause for concern in so far as staff is concerned. Over the years, this office has acquired a very high reputation. In fact, the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions is one that is an extremely important one in the community and it has so for always been filled by people of distinction. But let me point out that even if you have the most outstanding man in charge and one does not give him the staff in order to do the supervision, one is actually being unfair to him. To my mind this is a most important matter which needs to be attended to in regard to this particular piece of legislation.

The third matter I wish to deal with is the question of the legislation relating to the Stock Exchange. I do not want to touch on any matters which are sub judice—there are certain matters which are presently under appeal—but there are issues which need to be dealt with. In legal proceedings a statement was made by the president of the Stock Exchange to the effect that he regards the function of the committee as being primarily the function of regulating the affairs between the various members inside the Stock Exchange. I am not using his exact words, but am paraphrasing it. He says that the question of protecting the public is to some extent, in that context, regarded—as his words have been interpreted, rightly or wrongly— as being a secondary function. I believe that that is not the view of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, and I do not believe that it should be the view either of the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister. If that were the situation in fact, then certainly action would be required by this House to change the legislation in order to ensure that the function of the Stock Exchange committee is, to look after the interests of the public. That does not mean that it will not be necessary to regulate the affairs between members of the Stock Exchange. Nor does it mean that one does not have to have an effective organization to control the Stock Exchange, or that one does not have to have rules that regulate the conduct of members of the Stock Exchange. It means in fact that the public of South Africa who invest in shares should in fact know that the Stock Exchange committee is there in order to protect their interests. I regard the existence of the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions as evidence that the public is being protected, because in my view his presence there is a safeguard for the investors of South Africa. I would therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to respond to this debate and to tell us how he sees the functions of the committee of the Stock Exchange, how he sees the role of the Registrar on that committee, and to give us the assurance that if, in fact, there is any legislation needed in order to ensure that the public is protected by this body, that such legislation will be introduced.

I do not intend touching on matters that are sub judice, but our view, and the view that I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that when there are takeovers of companies, and where there are different classes of shares and where, for example, the take-over of a company is effected through the medium of a take-over of a pyramid company, whether a quoted, a private or any other company, then the law should provide that the minorities are given the same offer and are given the same opportunity to sell their shares as the other people are given. There must be that protection of the investor. I believe that that protection of the investor, irrespective of the lawsuit, does not at the present moment exist in adequate form, Therefore there should be changes in our law to ensure that in regard to public companies this is, in fact, an infallible rule or, alternatively, by amending the Companies Act. Of course, the hon. the Deputy Minister wears two hats, because he is to some extent also in charge of company law legislation. He can therefore speak with either mouth or with either hat, whichever metaphor he prefers to use in this House. However, as far as we are concerned, we believe that there should be protection for people who buy shares to ensure that when the control of a particular companies changes, by whatever means it should happen, the minorities should have the same opportunity as the majorities have to be taken out.

With the present means of pyramiding, it is today easy to get control of a massive public company by taking control of a second or a third pyramid where one does not have to make any offer to the minority shareholders in the public company at all. One can exercise control through the medium of a relatively small investment, and I do not believe that we should allow that to happen in South Africa.

In the same way, I believe that we need to look at the whole question of partial offers for shares where, there is not a total offer to take over a company. If the hon. the Deputy Minister, for example, has 1 000 shares in a company and somebody offers to buy 51% of it, I think he would say: “I want to sell all of them or none of them”. As I have already said: I believe that this whole question of partial offers needs to be looked at as well.

In addition to that, one also knows that if one builds up a 30% shareholding on the London Stock Exchange one is obliged to make an offer, whether one has a controlling interest or not. Control, as we know it, does not necessarily have to be exercised through the holding of 50% or 50,01% of the shares. In the major public companies one can exercise control with a very much smaller shareholding. I think that both that concept and the concept of dawn raids, which has not yet become quite the fashion in South Africa that it has become elsewhere, need to be looked at to ensure that investors are protected. There is no better time to do so either than in the present economic climate, because it is in this sort of economic climate that more take-overs occur and more concentrations of economic power are built up. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is our view that in the same way as concentrations of political power must be subject to public scrutiny, concentrations of economic power should also be subject to public scrutiny. [Interjections.] I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that those principles are applied and that the public has the necessary protection in this regard.

This brings me to the question of the Stock Exchange being made a corporate body. I must tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that many people share my surprise at the fact that the Stock Exchange is not a corporate body. One does, of course, support the concept that the Stock Exchange should become a juristic person. Again we are not opposing that, but the principle of allowing the transfer to take place without the payment of any costs would create a precedent, perhaps a precedent that we shall be quoting in future. I say this because there is no doubt that the Stock Exchange is a body of persons who are all there for the purpose of making money. None of them is there for any altruistic or charitable motives, as far as I am aware. Some of them may be very nice people, but the reality is that they are all there for the purpose of making a profit. Here we are now creating a precedent, and no doubt we shall be reminding the hon. the Deputy Minister of this in the future. We do not oppose the provision, but I give the hon. the Deputy Minister notice of the fact that we shall regard this as a precedent.

That is a dirty one.

A dirty one perhaps, but I think a good one. [Interjections.] Another aspect that gives one some cause for concern is the fact that in order to preserve the existence of the Stock Exchange it is actually necessary to reduce the minimum number of members to 30. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that that is not going to reduce competition. Well, what does he actually mean by competition on the Stock Exchange? The charges, of course, are all the same. So presumably competition on the Stock Exchange relates to the quality of the service that can be rendered, the ability to perhaps get into the market when somebody else cannot get the shares that are required, and perhaps also the quality of the research that is done in that context. In other words, it is competition based on service. If one has concentrations of power, however, as one will now apparently be having because there are more mergers, it appears that the whole concept of having more firms in South Africa and of expanding—something that is an economic concept—will be working in reverse in the Stock Exchange, because with more mergers, more one-man businesses will be out of existence. In our economy in general—not just in the case of the Stock Exchange—I for one regret the passing of the age of the small man. On the one hand we talk about the Small Business Development Corporation, established to encourage small businesses, but wherever one looks in South Africa, one sees ever-increasing concentrations of existing economic power. I am not just talking about Stock Exchange membership now, but instead of using their money to start new businesses, to create new job opportunities and to create a healthier climate for investment in South Africa, in fact to expand the economy in South Africa, people seem to be playing a kind of monopoly game of buying each other’s shares and businesses. By taking over another company one does not, in fact, create more productive facilities. The same money could in fact be used to create a greater productive capacity in South Africa and to create more jobs in South Africa; and if there is anything we need in South Africa it is the creation of jobs. I should therefore like to see somewhere along the line that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister himself take some kind of line to encourage the use of money for the creation of new business as opposed to merely the taking over of old businesses. That does not mean that I want the hon. the Minister to introduce another law to stop people from engaging in takeovers. I do not mean that there should be greater control. There should, however, be encouragement and incentives to use money for the creation of new business in that context. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take that line.

There is another matter I should like to touch on in regard to the question of the creation of the Stock Exchange as a juristic body. It is not mentioned in so many words, but I assume—the hon. the Minister will be able to assure us of this—and I think it is correct that there will be no effect whatever as regards the existing fidelity fund arrangements and the protection that exists for the shareholders. I think that it goes without saying that that should in fact continue.

In that connection there is another matter I have a problem with. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can clear it up. It is stated in the Bill that the relevant provisions “shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette”. Presumably there is no intention for this to be made retrospective, because there is litigation pending. This point has apparently also escaped the scrutiny of learned counsel until fairly recently. I would not like to have that litigation affected in any way by any degree of retrospectivity. I think litigation must take its ordinary course and I hope that that is what will take place in the circumstances.

Then I should just like to touch on the question of the building societies and their investments. In the Bill there is an amendment to the Building Societies Act. Many hon. members in the House—not only members of the official Opposition, but also some in Government benches and in the benches of the other Opposition parties—are very concerned about the situation as regards building societies. I think that the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the point that the Minister made a mistake in regard to the subscription shares which resulted in an outflow of funds so that funds were not available for housing loans. He said that in fact this had led to a drain of funds. His point was absolutely valid. I think something needs to be done to make investment in building societies more attractive so as to have more funds available for housing for the public of South Africa. It may mean that we are going to have to look at new forms of tax-free investment and new means of attracting investment for housing loans, because the present situation as regards building societies cannot be allowed to continue. Housing is fundamental for the stability of the country. I see that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is looking at me. I would rather have the building societies enabling people to build than have that Minister having to build houses. I think he would also like that. He should therefore just turn around and give the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance a nudge to see to it that his task as Minister of Community Development is made easier through the fact that building societies …

But they do not build for the very poor.

They do not build for the very poor, but the problem is that, if one does not encourage building societies, more and more people are going to become poor and more and more people are going to have to turn to him. That is the problem and that is the tragedy. I think that what has to happen in South Africa is that the building society movement must be given some injection to let it take off and provide the housing which is needed by the middle-income group and the people who do not qualify for housing from the Department of Community Development. I would appeal to the Cabinet to look at this in a very serious light, because we cannot leave the position as it is at the present moment.

One last matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with this legislation is the following. The hon. the Deputy Minister really gave the game away when he said—

In other words, he admits absolutely and frankly that he is forcing the institutions to invest, not because it is a competitive investment but because he actually needs the money and he needs to compel them to do so. I believe it is a very honest and a very fair admission of what we have argued for a long time, something which has until now been avoided for quite a while.

I am delighted to hear you suggest that I am honest.

Oh yes, I have never suggested that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not honest. I am prepared to go on record as saying that he is honest. I should also, however, like to believe that one of the reasons why financial institutions are forced to invest in certain of these assets is because these are safe investments, which, to a large extent, secure the pensions and the investments and the insurance policies of numerous South Africans who rely on them. I think therefore there is a dual purpose. It is not only the admission that the Government has to force people to invest because it very often does not offer the right kind of interest rates, but also because it provides a safe investment. The reality is, however, that we should not have a repetition of what happened towards the end of last year when the Government did not want to enter the market with really market-related rates, and then went to the banking sector instead, causing inflationary pressures and increasing the money supply. What I should like to see the hon. the Deputy Minister do, is give a commitment that he will go to the market in order to see to it that market-related rates are offered when people are compelled to invest in Government stock because when one compels someone to invest in one’s stock, one has at the same time a moral obligation to see to it that the rate that one pays is a market-related rate. One can only compel people when one is prepared to accept one’s commitment. That is the commitment that I seek from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has been honest enough, as I have said, to admit that that is really why he is doing it. I want him to be frank enough now to say to us that he will in future always offer market-related rates and that he will not use these powers in order to make people invest at rates which are not market-related rates.

I have expressed my support of this measure, but I have also, I believe, given the hon. the Deputy Minister a fair amount of food for thought in relation to matters which affect the financial institutions of South Africa, of which, I believe, we can be proud when we compare them with those in other countries. We can also be proud, I believe, of the control that is exercised over our financial institutions. The reality is, of course, that one can invest in the financial institutions of South Africa in the normal course and with a high degree of safety. There are exceptions. I accept that. There are things that go wrong everywhere. If we take the picture as a whole, however, and compare our financial institutions with those in other countries of the world, I am sure that our legislation is effective. We have good and dedicated staff, and that is why one can look to the financial institutions of South Africa with a high degree of confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his party’s support for this legislation. The hon. member dealt with quite a number of matters. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to his questions.

The hon. member made a remark in connection with the staff of the department, and I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the Director of Financial Institutions, Mr. Van Staden, and his staff for the excellent work they are doing. They are in a profession in which there is a tremendous demand for expertise of the kind they possess, and I am sure the State has to overcome very keen competition from outside in order to retain people of this calibre in its service.

I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the Stock Exchange. The fact of the matter is that the Stock Exchange has had to endure a great deal of criticism recently, particularly in the financial Press. This criticism was aimed in particular at decisions which at first glance did not subscribe to the interests of minority shareholders when it came to the take-over or amalgamation of listed companies. The hon. member for Yeoville also discussed this in detail. I believe this criticism is being viewed in a very serious light by the Government, and I am sure that these matters will receive the necessary attention. Possibly changes can be made to the legislation by means of the Companies Act to protect these minority shareholders adequately on such occasions if this appears necessary after an investigation.

The Johannesburg Stock Exchange has served South Africa well for many years. This institution is known throughout the world, and is also recognized by other exchanges and is known to be an organization which to date has done its work thoroughly and well in the interests of everyone in South Africa. I want to convey my personal thanks and those of this House—and I feel that many hon. members will agree with me in this regard—to those persons who are involved in the affairs of the Stock Exchange.

In the legislation there are certain measures affecting the Stock Exchange. These are logical measures and are aimed at making the functioning of the Stock Exchange more effective. We endorse these measures wholeheartedly.

I now come to an interesting measure. Investors sometimes need to deal in notes, or securities such as bonds with fixed interest rates, and no provision is at present made for this in the existing legislation. Provision is now being made for transactions involving this kind of paper as well. We feel that there is a tremendous need in the market for investors and other people holding such bonds to surrender them for cash. We therefore believe that this measure will also be welcome.

Next I should like to make certain observations about the measures pertaining to insurance institutions and pension funds. In the measures provision is made for a certain percentage of the so-called Part I assets— these are prescribed assets of the institutions—to be invested in a certain way. All this means is that the proposed legislation defines the measures in such a way that insurance institutions have to invest 15,5% and pension funds 20,5% of their investments in Government stock. The measures merely give a clearer definition of this kind of investment.

The hon. member for Yeoville pointed out that the hon. the Deputy Minister had put all his cards on the table when he said that these measures were aimed at mobilizing capital for the Government. I should like to elaborate on this. It is true that this is a way in which the financing of the State can also receive attention so that State funding can take place in this way. One can easily voice the criticism that the State is prescribing the investments insurance companies and pension funds have to make. I am now referring specifically to long-term insurance companies.

However, when one considers the tax concessions such institutions enjoy, one finds that insurance companies, for example, pay tax on only 60% of their profits, while pension funds do not pay tax on profits at all. In addition profits made on the handling of money by the insurance institutions for pension purposes are not taxable. If one bears these facts in mind one realizes that there is justification for the State to channel a certain part of this capital formation towards the financial needs of the State.

The entire matter pertaining to investment in this manner is at present being investigated by the De Kock Commission and we are awaiting its report. I personally feel that in the past insurance companies have shown that they have a tremendous sense of responsibility towards the community. In this sense one can refer to major projects financed by them and there is also the classic case of two of South Africa’s leading insurance companies which, in the early ‘sixties, entered the Stock Exchange and started purchasing shares, thereby propping up the Stock Exchange, which was of great importance to the economy of South Africa at that stage. For this reason we may justifiably say that in the past these institutions always acted very generously in the interests of South Africa.

However these institutions are also faced by the problem that they must utilize the premiums of people who contribute to pension funds or pay insurance as profitably as possible. They are also experiencing problems with inflation and protection against inflation. These measures sometimes make it a little difficult for them to keep pace and when the findings of the De Kock Commission are known we might be able to give further attention to this matter because we know that these are responsible people. Perhaps they can then be given a little more freedom to utilize their investments to the advantage of the whole of South Africa.

Insurance companies and pension funds in South Africa handle an important part of the public’s savings and for this reason investments must be secure but, as I already mentioned, a good return is also of great importance.

As a mobilizer of capital the insurance industry in South Africa is an extremely important factor. For the year ended 31 December 1981 a sum of R1 585 million was collected in long-term insurance premiums. A sum of R1 160 million was collected for pension funds. This gives us a total of R2 745 million or R7 520 000 per day. When we add pension funds which are not underwritten by insurance brokers to this amount, we have a further amount of R1 590 million per annum, a total therefore of R4 335 million per annum which is being mobilized in this way as capital. On 31 December the industry’s reserves totalled R14 540 million. Of this amount R6 349 million was invested in prescribed assets of which R2 445 million or 16,81% was invested in Government stock. This industry therefore forms an important part of the financing programme of the Government. The remainder of the prescribed assets were invested as follows: Coins, banknotes and deposits, R1 327 million; loans to local authorities, R724 million; stocks of public corporations, R1 424 million; loans to universities, R355 million, and other Part I assets, R74 million. Within the framework of the South African economy this industry therefore plays a very important role as a mobilizer of capital.

Mr. Speaker, the measures before us are measures to regulate the entire economic programme in South Africa more effectively and I therefore take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the CP also supports this Bill. I do not want to repeat all the arguments already advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville, because we do not regard anything in this Bill as controversial. However, I should like to refer to one or two points. ‘

The first point I want to raise concerns the prescribed portion of the assets which insurance companies and other financial institutions must invest in terms of section 19 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, from which the stocks and loans of the Administrations of the South African Transport Services and Post Office are excluded. I do not know why they are completely excluded, because the point I want to make is that the S.A. Transport Services is controlled by this Parliament and the hon. the Minister. It is not entirely an autonomous body such as the control boards, for example. It is also not entirely autonomous because it is controlled and regulated by outsiders. The same applies to the Post Office. The budgets of these two institutions are submitted to this Parliament and approved by it. Those funds and loans come directly from the Government, although the S.A. Transport Services and the Post Office do have the right to negotiate their own loans. It is not clear to me why this distinction is drawn and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to spell it out for us. If there is a good reason for this, we shall accept it, but at the moment it is not clear to me why this should be so. As far as the matter of building societies is concerned, I associate myself with what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say. Only a minor amendment is being effected to the Bill, and I may be speaking more widely than the scope of the amendment. However, I feel we in South Africa must give urgent attention to the position of our building societies and their funds. I wholeheartedly support the hon. member’s argument in this connection. If building societies in South Africa do not have sufficient funds to make loans to people, we are going to encounter difficulties. The first problem in this connection is, of course, the tremendously high interest rates in this Country. We are aware that money is scarce and expensive. This is the case not only locally, but abroad as well. However, it is the duty and responsibility of the State and the Government to do something about the building society sector so that prospective borrowers can be accommodated. Hon. members may ask me what should be done. The problem must be considered carefully. However, something will have to be done. On behalf of the CP I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he cannot give a reply in this regard today, to give serious attention to this aspect. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether any hon. member who has been listening to the debate so far could not have been affected by the importance of the kind of legislation that we have before us. I think the hon. member for Yeoville made an excellent speech and he gave all hon. members a very clear understanding of exactly how important this financial legislation really is.

The Bill before the House can basically be divided into two areas. The first area concerns the so-called prescribed investments which certain financial institutions such as banks, building societies, insurance companies and pension funds are required to make, and the second area concerns the Stock Exchange Control Act and the Stock Exchange itself. We on these benches go along with the redefinition of what a prescribed investment should be. The Registrar of Financial Institutions has made it very clear to me as to exactly what this is all about and we therefore go along with that.

It may be of interest to hon. members to know that such investments can include very broad forms of investment such as Government stock. It also includes the Rand Water Board, the IDC, the Post Office, the S.A. Transport Services, Escom, etc. I believe it also includes the Housing Commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister will recall a speech I made during the debate on the Community Development Vote when I tried to give the hon. the Minister of Community Development some idea—I am pleased to see his Deputy is present in the House—as to how we could increase the number of houses in South Africa by developing what was termed “village housing schemes”—this is the village concept—by using funds which have been designated as prescribed investments so as to overcome the problems which we have been hearing about, such as, for example, high interest rates which at the present time are acting as a disincentive to people to build houses. This is the major problem today, namely the actual construction of houses. I just wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance might reconsider the points which I raised at that time. Maybe some of these prescribed investments for which allowance has already been made could be channelled into the sort of building scheme to which I was referring. This would result in a recycling of money invested at an interest rate which would enable the economically viable construction of housing.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us just one assurance and that is that the amendment in the Bill which redefines prescribed investments will not place any additional liability on the financial institutions concerned. In my own mind I do not believe it will but I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister just to give us that assurance.

As far as the clauses concerning the Stock Exchange are concerned, there is the provision that will enable the number of members to be reduced from the present 40 members to 30 members. Much has been said about competition and I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that it is a sad day when one finds that the number of members of the Stock Exchange is being reduced. I am aware of the fact that for many years there were only 20 members but then the number shot up—as, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister said—to as many as 85 members. Now it is coming down to possibly below 40 and is heading towards the 30 mark. I sincerely hope that in the future there will not be a further reduction in this number—I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to comment on this.

There is also the other provision which will now result in the Stock Exchange becoming a corporate body. I must say that I too was rather surprised that this was not the fact today. However, one lives and learns. Nevertheless we shall be supporting these provisions.

I now wish to refer to the comment the hon. member for Yeoville made in respect of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I do believe that this gentleman has an extremely important role to play. When one considers the tremendous number of companies and financial institutions throughout South Africa, his task is indeed a very, very heavy and difficult one. I too want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is really satisfied that the Registrar of Financial Institutions has sufficient staff to be able to monitor correctly exactly what is going on. The hon. member for Yeoville said that he believed that one of the functions of the Stock Exchange Committee should be to look after the interests of the public. This is something I have spoken about on a number of occasions in this hon. House and I have a matter here of great concern which I have discussed with the hon. the Deputy Minister before as well as with the hon. the Minister of Justice. I believe that unless the authorities which monitor the activities of financial institutions and companies have adequate staff, we are not going to see the practical effect of the legislative processes which this hon. House in its wisdom and justice passes in order to protect the public. The hon. the Deputy Minister is also the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and as such one of his duties is also to monitor the Companies Act. I believe that there have been many loopholes in the Companies Act which have allowed people to do certain things to the detriment of the whole financial state of certain sectors of our economy. In some cases they have not even been able to monitor these activities sufficiently enough in order to give the public the assurance that their interests are being adequately protected.

In order to give the hon. the Deputy Minister some idea of the sort of things that we as public representatives have presented to us, I should like to quote from a letter that I received in January this year. This letter is not written by a nonentity; it is written by a retired advocate. His degrees are a B.Com., B.Econ. (Hons.) and LL.B. He is a man who knows finance and law. He says the following—

This matter was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. This particular gentleman went on to say—

I shall not mention its name—

In the reply it says that there is no record of this company holding these mining shares. May I have your indulgence to quote a little further, Sir? This person says further—

I merely quote this to the hon. the Deputy Minister as his portfolios cover the Stock Exchange Control Act as well as the Companies Act.

Finally, I should like to give an indication of the difficulties that I believe the executive is experiencing under these circumstances, difficulties which I believe emphasize the ideas and thoughts that have been put forward by the writer of this letter. If we had a Shareholders’ Association that had the wherewithal to act as a watchdog, it might relieve tremendously the heavy task that the Registrar of Financial Institutions on the one hand and those who administer the Companies Act on the other hand have at the present time in dealing with these problems.

I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister of Justice is here because I want to raise a matter that I have also raised in the past, that of National Fund Investments. Hon. members have heard me speak about this before. Many years ago we had a case where something like 200 000 investors are reputed to have lost R20 million on the Stock Exchange. The controversy of the collapse of NFI has been going on for many, many years but somehow or other these allegations have not been answered satisfactorily in the view of those people who are informed about these matters, including the gentleman I have just quoted who is a former advocate and who has written at great length about this matter to me. I have with me here a draft indictment on 19 allegations of fraud. The hon. the Minister of Justice knows about this because the Attorney-General is at the moment investigating it. The point I am trying to make, however, is that if we have a watchdog group like a Shareholders’ Association with real muscle and bite to look after the interests of shareholders it may greatly relieve the task that the hon. the Minister of Justice, the Attorney-General and the Registrars of Financial Institutions and of Companies and others have in ensuring that there is fair play. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take some of these problems to heart, problems that are certainly bothering me as an elected representative of this hon. House. I therefore certainly hope that he, his colleagues and his officials will give this matter their serious consideration so that we can perhaps have before this House, some time in the future, legislation that will afford the investing public greater protection.

In conclusion let me just say that I believe that our present legislation is amongst the best in the world. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that we can be proud of what we have, but as I said yesterday—I think it was yesterday—free enterprise being what it is, there are always people who are looking for loopholes. Unfortunately there are, in every society, those unscrupulous operators who will use any and every loophole to defraud people—if I may use so strong a word—or take advantage of those who are not in a position to protect themselves adequately.

Having said that, let me just repeat that we shall be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for contributions of a very high standard indeed. Quite a large number of points were made by various hon. members, and I shall try to reply to them as fully and satisfactorily as possible.

I should like to start with the hon. member for Yeoville. His first two points involved the fact that it is during a downswing in the economy that financial institutions should be watched more closely than under normal economic conditions. I want to give him the categorical assurance that we shall increase our vigilance as much as is humanly possible so as to ensure that nothing goes wrong during the down-swing phase of the economy. I quite agree with him that this is indeed the time for a very close watch to be kept so as to ensure that nothing goes wrong. I agree with him and want to give him the unqualified assurance that we shall do our utmost to see to it that that objective is achieved.

He then referred to the Registrar of Financial Institutions having adequate staff to fulfil its control and checking functions. I want to agree with the hon. member that it is of the utmost importance—I emphasize “of the utmost importance” for the Registrar of Financial Institutions to have an adequate, well-trained staff to fulfil those very functions. The hon. member said that I am an honest man, and for that I thank him. I look forward to reciprocating in the future. We really do have a staff problem, in fact a serious staff problem. On that score I certainly do not want to mislead the hon. member and this hon. House. We do have a very serious staff problem in the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we are doing everything in our power to rectify the problem. As a matter of fact, we had very lengthy discussions, lasting the whole morning—in fact, up to 14h00—to see what the problems were and what steps we could take to solve those problems, not only on an interim basis, but in fact on a long-term basis, because we do not think that interim solutions can ever be ultimate solutions. We must solve this problem on a long-term basis. I therefore do agree with what the hon. member had to say.

*The hon. member also referred to the Stock Exchange and in particular to the committee of the Exchange and to the interests of the public. As regards the committee of the Exchange, I should like to state that the primary function of this committee is to control and carry out the daily managerial activities. This is its primary function, just as it is the primary function of the board of directors of any company to look after the interests of the investors in that company. However, I want to add at once that they have another function as well. In the whole process of management over which the committee has to exercise control, they also have the task of looking after the interests of the investor, for after all, the investor is the heart of their enterprise. If the interests of the investor in the Stock Exchange are not taken care of, therefore, the Stock Exchange cannot remain a viable industry, if I may put it that way.

Then I come to the final authority in respect of the protection of the interests of the investor. This is an aspect which is regulated by law. I just want to refer briefly to the protection of the public interest, of the public sector, as far as the Stock Exchange is concerned. The Stock Exchanges Control Act, No. 7 of 1947, contains no fewer than four sections, i.e. sections 4(1), 8(l)(n), 8(8) and 8(10)(vii), which basically provide that the Registrar may do certain things—I could read them all for the purposes of the record, but I do not think it is necessary. They provide in effect, that the Registrar shall take only certain actions, or shall take certain actions if it is in the interests of the public, or shall refrain from taking certain actions if the interests of the public are not protected by these, I can quote an example, Section 8(8)(n) reads as follows—

In other words, the Office of the Registrar and the Registrar himself are the people who are specifically instructed, in terms of the Act which regulates the activities of the Exchange, to look after the general and specific interests of the public and of the investor.

If there is any doubt about whether the interests of the public are being properly protected in terms of specific rules and specific sections of the Act, I think that instead of making general statements about the interests of the public, it is important that we should rather point out the specific shortcomings to the Registrar, so that the Registrar of Financial Institutions may then examine these specific shortcomings and may ascertain whether it is necessary to rectify these by means of a statutory amendment or whether they should be rectified by means of an amendment of the rules of the Stock Exchange. Then this can be done and we can give attention to the matter. I believe that attention will certainly be given to it in that case.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the representation by the Registrar of Financial Institutions on the committee of the Exchange. Of course, we regard this as a very important link between the management organ—the body whose function it is to manage the actitivites of the Exchange—and the protective watchdog, the legal requirements. I believe, therefore, that it is important that the management aspect—the primary protection of the interests of the investor—and the public aspect—the protection of the interests of the public in terms of legal requirements and rules—should be brought into contact. I believe that the purpose of the representation by the Registrar of Financial Institutions is in fact to bring these two aspects as close together as possible so that there will not be any gaps between the two. I also believe that the important function of protecting the interests of the public is already being strongly highlighted in the functions of the committee in this respect.

The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the protection of the interests of the minority shareholders. The hon. member for Springs also referred to this. The Department of Finance, together with the Registrar of Financial Institutions, regards this as an extremely important aspect. We believe it is an aspect which requires the attention of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. I therefore want to assure hon. members that we are giving attention to this aspect, as has also been made quite clear by the hon. member for Springs. We recognize the problem involved in protecting the minority shareholder, and I believe that we are also prepared to include under this the partial redemption of shares or of assets for purposes of control. The Registrar of Financial Institutions is to have talks in the near future with this committee and with the Registrar of Companies, and this aspect will receive special attention during those talks. I believe this is an important aspect. My personal feeling is that the interests of the minority shareholders should also be protected. I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. members who spoke about this. I can assure them that we are already giving the necessary attention to this matter.

†The hon. member also referred to the matter of the transfer of assets by way of which the Stock Exchange will now become a corporate body with juristic powers. The hon. member regards this as a precedent, and says he believes it will be repeated in future. We do not regard this as a precedent, but I believe the hon. member is welcome to refer to it again in future should he want to.

Do you regard it as an exception?

I will not refer to it as an exception.

It is not an exception nor it is the rule.

I think it was generally accepted that the Stock Exchange had juristic powers or juristic status. That was generally accepted until certain incidents took place. It was then decided to state beyond all possible doubt that the Stock Exchange had juristic powers. That is why this clause has been introduced. It is in order to eliminate all possible doubt in this regard.

*I believe, therefore, that it is no more than right, since it was generally supposed in the past that such a body had juristic status and since we now want to confirm this beyond all doubt, that it should be exempted from all transfer costs with regard to its assets.

Is it not a different legal personality which is being created in this way?

I suppose it is a different legal personality, but it remains the same institution. The personality is simply the status which it enjoys, but it remains the same institution.

Is it going to pay tax?

If it makes profits and if it is registered as a company, it will have to pay tax. [Interjections.] Actually, the hon. member has got me stumped. I shall have to go into the question of whether it will in fact have to pay tax.

†The hon. member also referred to the existing Guarantee Fund of the Stock Exchange. At this stage I want to give him the assurance that this Guarantee Fund will not be affected in any way by the change in the legal status of the Stock Exchange as proposed in this Bill. I want to give him that assurance. I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that this Bill will not be made retrospective. It will come into operation on a date in the future to be determined by the State President.

*The hon. member for Yeoville as well as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the building societies. I agree with the hon. members that this is really a serious problem which requires urgent attention. The hon. member for Sunnyside also referred to this matter. I think the housing problem in South Africa is a serious problem. We have two reports available in this connection at the moment. The one is the Du Plessis report. This is a one-man report which was compiled by Dr. Du Plessis, and that report has been completed. I must say it is a very bulky report which I have just worked through. Then there is the De Kock Commission, which is giving attention, in the course of its investigations, to the question of the building societies. We asked Dr. De Kock whether his commission could not submit an interim report to us dealing only with the building society part of his inquiry. We have received that report from Dr. De Kock, but unfortunately I have not yet had an opportunity to work through the entire report. However, we are giving very thorough consideration to the Du Plessis report and the interim De Kock report at the moment, and we hope that we shall be able to discuss our findings on the basis of these reports with the building society industry within the foreseeable future, and that this will give rise to certain proposals which will help the building societies to find solutions to this problem they have to contend with at the moment, because of the shortage of funds which is to a large extent responsible for it. There are other reasons as well, of course, one of which is the very high interest structure we have today.

Could we possibly have copies of the Du Plessis report?

I cannot see why not. If the hon. the Minister decides to release it, I have no objection to copies being made available to hon. members.

The last point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville—that was where he got onto the subject of my honesty—was that I had said in my Second Reading speech that we had virtually rewritten the clauses of this amending Bill relating to the financial institutions in this particular way because we wanted to make sure that we could obtain funds from that source to finance the Treasury. That is true. It is one of the reasons, but I want to agree with the hon. member that there is a second reason. The other reason is to ensure some protection for investors in those organizations. Therefore I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member.

He also referred to the question of market-related interest rates as far as Government securities were concerned. This is a matter which we shall certainly investigate. Our approach is that attention will certainly have to be given to more market-related interest rates in future. It will be remembered that we offered securities on tender. The securities we offered exceeded the demand. The securities were in fact offered and issued at market-related rates. I think the principle of market-related interest rates is something we shall have to accept.

†I wish to side with the hon. member and fully support his statement when he said that we could really be proud of the quality of the financial institutions of South Africa. I want to add that the level of our financial institutions and their quality are respected not only in South Africa and by other institutions in the country, but just about world wide. I thank the hon. member for his kind words and I fully support them. I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made the same remarks.

*The hon. member for Springs did something which was very gratifying. He took into consideration the fact that they were working under tremendous pressure as a result of a staff shortage, so he paid tribute to the Registrar of Financial Institutions and his staff. I should like to associate myself with this, and I believe that I do so on behalf of this House. I ask the Registrar to tell his staff that this House takes cognizance with great appreciation of the outstanding work they do in that office, in spite of the fact that they have a serious staff problem. I thank the hon. member very sincerely for his kind words.

The hon. member supported me when he said that we were giving attention to the protection of minority shareholders.

He also referred to the Stock Exchange. In this connection, too, I want to associate myself with him. Once again, in making the following statement, I believe that I am speaking on behalf of the House: Our Stock Exchange is really an outstanding exchange, and it is recognized not only in South Africa, but elsewhere in the world as well. One could say that it enjoys international recognition and is held in very high esteem for the standard which is maintained.

I thank the hon. member for an excellent contribution, a contribution which showed that he had really done his homework, that he had made a thorough study of the clauses of the Bill and understood them very well.

I also thank the hon. member for Sunnyside for his support. He asked a question about the prescribed assets and said that the South African Transport Services, the Post Office and similar bodies should not be excluded and that their investments in Government securities should form part of prescribed assets. The assets prescribed by law constitute only one part, but within the framework of those prescribed assets there is—if I may put it this way—a kind of captive portion. When one studies the clauses concerned, one sees that the percentage of that captive portion is mentioned in every case. The S.A. Transport Services, the Post Office, the National Housing Commission and similar institutions are only excluded from the captive part of the prescribed assets. The investments in Government securities made by the S.A. Transport Services, the Post Office and other bodies such as Escom and the IDC still form part of the prescribed assets, per se, or at least, a large part of it. It is only excluded from that captive portion of the prescribed assets. We find it essential to protect the captive part, because that is the part we want to use to help finance the Treasury. If we distribute that captive portion among too many borrowers, the Treasury will be faced with a problem and we shall eventually have to make use of bank and Reserve Bank financing, and this is something which the hon. member for Yeoville does not like. We do not like it either, and that is why we would prefer not to make use of it. It is inflationary.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also referred to the building societies, and I believe I have already dealt fully with that aspect.

†I wish to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his party’s support of the Bill. I agree with him that we must appreciate the importance of the financial institutions.

I have already referred to prescribed investments. The securities given by the National Housing Commission will be regarded as prescribed funds but not the small portion of it, which is also being dealt with in this Bill. The hon. member also asked that I must give him the assurance that no additional liabilities will be introduced because of the securities which are being held and which are to be excluded in future. I wish to give him the assurance that will not be increased at this stage. What will happen next year, I do not know. I cannot give him any assurances in that regard now.

*The hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Yeoville were concerned about the fact that the membership of the Stock Exchange was being reduced from 40 to 30. Hon. members will recall that in 1971, the membership was 20. In fact, we increased the membership at that stage because there were approximately 85 separate brokers at that stage.

Are we going towards or backwards?

It is true that we are dropping back a little, but the hon. member for Yeoville will know very well that a country’s economy does not follow an even course. In fact, nothing is even. Everything happens in terms of a business cycle. We find ourselves in downswing at the moment, but in five years’ time we may have an upswing again, and then we shall again increase the membership to 40 members. However, we shall keep an eye on this aspect at all times. I have already said that there will still be competition. Basically the competition revolves around the quality of service, and in this connection I agree with the hon. member.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about the Shareholders Association as “the watchdog for shareholders”, and he quoted a few examples. I should prefer not to say anything about this, because I think it is a matter for that association. We have a law and we have the Registrar of Financial Institutions, who acts as a watchdog. The Act confers certain powers on the Registrar of Financial Institutions to act as a watchdog. Our feeling is that if specific incidents can be pointed out where the function of watchdog as laid down in the legislation and in the rules of the committee is not sufficient, this should be pointed out to the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I am sure that if the legislation or the rules have to be amended subsequently in order to make those functions more effective, this will in fact be done, and it will receive the necessary serious attention from the Registrar of Financial Institutions.

With these ideas, I have discussed almost all the questions put to me and all the assurances I was asked for. I thank hon. members once again for their support of this very important legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, may I react firstly to the hon. the Deputy Minister by indicating our appreciation for what I think is a very full and detailed reply. I think he has dealt with matters in great detail and we are appreciative of the trouble that he has gone to in that regard.

Secondly, may I just come back to the question of the staff and the problems that he had in this regard which he indicated quite fairly and openly. One of the strengths of the office has been the fact that people have stayed there for a long time and have had long experience. One could single out the Registrar himself to indicate to hon. members the amount of experience that he has had in working himself up right to the top over a long period of time and in the end getting to know all the tricks that people are up to. That is the kind of staff that the office needs and that is the kind of people that the office needs in senior positions. One of the things that one has got to do is actually to look to the long-term position to see who is going to succeed the senior people who are in office in order to make sure that they have the same experience. One should not merely have a situation where one is putting staff in the office to act as stopgaps and to do inspections. One has to give them an incentive to stay there because the tragedy is that the kind of dedicated senior public servant that one has seems to be disappearing from the scene. They leave too quickly; they do not stay long enough and they do not stay long enough in the same positions. This is what this office actually needs: It needs people who start at the bottom; who know they can get to the top and who have this long-term experience in that office itself. This is what I want to appeal for. I want to appeal for something to be done to try to ensure this because this is really the way in which one should deal with that situation.

I would like now to come back to the Stock Exchange position. I am concerned about the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has used virtually the same words that were used in the litigation concerning the primary function of the Stock Exchange Committee. I do not dispute that the function of the Stock Exchange Committee is to supervise the administrative work. They have staff, they have a manager who is very efficient, experienced and able and they have people who deal with the routine day-to-day running of that office as between broker and broker. That is fine. However, I am not sure whether the use of the word “primary” is the correct terminology in this respect. As far as I am concerned, the primary function of a stock exchange is to ensure that there is a medium for the buying and selling of stock, for the raising of new capital and for the control in respect of new issues, mergers, take-overs etc. That is how I see it. Every new issue, every take-over, every merger and, in fact, almost all the transactions involve a protection of the public. As far as I am concerned, the primary function actually is to ensure that there is a market in existence in which those who deal within that market are protected. I do not think that the administrative function of running the Stock Exchange is the primary function. It is like saying that the primary function of a business, for example, a business marketing food, is to see that the office organization runs well whereas the actual primary function is to market the food and to see that the consumer gets the product he wants and that he is protected in that regard.

With great respect, the stress on the word “primary” is something which I think is causing the public concern. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to assure the public that they are going to be looked after and are being looked after.

The other thing I want to stress is that I think it would be a mistake to take one lawsuit and one situation and try to use that to show that there is something wrong with the system of the Stock Exchange in South Africa. There is not. I think the Stock Exchange functions well. I think the people who run it are honourable people. However, it is necessary to convey to the public that there is a committee there on which the Registrar of Financial Institutions is present and where the primary function is to see that the market operates fairly, correctly and in an efficient manner.

With regard to the argument about the powers the Registrar has, that he can intervene and that that is a protective function, hon. members must bear in mind that those are things which can happen after the event. What is important is that when the occasion arises where the public needs to be protected then one must ensure that the rules are right. Then the Registrar is present there as the watchdog. Then in fact the job is done correctly. That is how we see the situation. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister used the term “primary function” in regard to the administration of the Stock Exchange itself.

I appreciate the fact that the Du Plessis report will be made available to us and I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for it. However, I think there ought to be some interim measures to deal with the building society situation. We cannot wait for all these things to be studied and for things to happen next year and the year thereafter. There is a problem now. Now is the time that we have to deal with it. There are simple things that we can do. Let us take the example of subscription shares. We are unable to move an amendment to the Income Tax Bill because of the technicalities of the law but why not go back to the levels that we had in order to attract that capital? Why not take that as a simple example? Why not deal with the question of encouraging a greater degree of saving in regard to housing instead of promoting a scheme that has virtually become archaic and which now needs to be revised? Those things can be done now. There are also other methods by which money could be made available to the building societies. I therefore say that something be done on an interim basis to deal with what we all agree is a serious situation confronting the building society movement in South Africa.

Lastly—and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will forgive me for this—there is a point which I overlooked. I wanted to raise it at the Second Reading but did not do so. It relates to the provisions of clause 7(a) which amends section 8 of the Stock Exchange Control Act.

Is it one of the major’s problems.

Yes, it is one of his problems.

†This clause relates to the creating of jobbers and the dealing in certain securities which can be dealt in by the stock-broker as a principal. The London Stock Exchange has a very involved system of jobbers and they operate in a particular way. However, is the hon. the Deputy Minister satisfied that by allowing broking members to deal as principals the possibilities of abuse are not open? Are we sufficiently sophisticated now to actually introduce a jobbing system into the market? I should like to get the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction to this because it is an important problem. Again, I want to make it clear that I do not doubt the integrity of firms that are dealing as principals in regard to certain stocks at the present time. I do not doubt their integrity for a moment but I think there is a possibility in regard to which additional safeguards are required where people really act as principals as opposed to acting purely as brokers. That is all that I should like to say on this particular issue now. I want again to echo our thanks for the thorough way in which this matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. First of all, I too want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his very thorough reply. I want to comment on the final remarks he made in regard to the Shareholders’ Association and its relationship to the Stock Exchange itself. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Stock Exchange Committee has as a major interest its members’ own interests. Members of the Stock Exchange are members of the Exchange because they want to make money out of the Stock Exchange by means of trading in shares. Their interests are not necessarily the same as the interests of those people who are investing their money in shares that are traded on the Stock Exchange. I want to make it quite clear that I hold no brief for the Shareholders’ Association but I have been involved in one or two matters that have caused me to exercise my mind in this regard. The problem is, however, that while the Shareholders’ Association may be recognized by the Stock Exchange, it has no real legislative whack behind it. If, for example, there was a very small levy—percentage-wise—on each share traded on the Stock Exchange and this money was paid to the Shareholders’ Association, that association would be in a position to employ the necessary technical expertize that is required to solve some of these problems.

No, that is not the answer. One cannot use tax money to finance a private association.

This will not be a tax; it will come from the Stock Exchange itself and paid for by the purchasers of shares. That is what I am suggesting. I should like to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that for nearly 15 months I have been trying to get answers from this hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice on the matter of National Fund Investments. The problem is the considerable amount of time taken by their officials to investigate this.

Your man had the nolle prosequi to prosecute and he did not use it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that shareholders are getting the type of protection they could get from the Shareholders’ Association if it was properly structured. I have read to the hon. the Deputy Minister one shareholder’s plea, and this is not an ignorant man but one who understands both law and finance. He found that he and other shareholders who have lost money did not get a square deal despite repeated appeals to those Government departments that are dealing with this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not feel like reacting to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said, because I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that one swallow does not make a summer. We cannot single out one matter and then contend that the public doing business on the Stock Exchange is not being protected, and by so doing try to ruin the image of the Stock Exchange. I should like to support the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville that our Stock Exchange is one of the top institutions of its type in the world, and I believe that we should not use an exceptional case to try to create the impression that there is something wrong with that institution, because in my opinion it would be wrong to do so. The matter to which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred is already receiving intensive attention. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister of Justice made a comment by way of interjection which will suffice in this case. I have nothing further to say about the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville once again referred to the staff position. I agree with him that continuity and follow-up ability are of cardinal importance. I also believe that we should not seek short-term solutions, but should rather concentrate on long-term solutions to ensure continuity in a highly specialized field. However, this aspect is already receiving attention and I want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for the interest they have shown in this problem we are facing. Today I also want to give the public the official assurance that their interests in the Stock Exchange will be duly looked after, that their interests are being protected and that this will continue to be the case in the future. This is probably the third time I am saying this, but if it is necessary for certain deficiencies to be submitted to us—either legal deficiencies or deficiencies in connection with the rules of the committee—which we can rectify so that the interests of the public can be protected to a greater extent, the Registrar of Financial Institutions and his office are prepared to go into the matter and to effect the necessary corrections or improvements. I want to give this assurance.

This brings me to the matter of building societies. The hon. member for Yeoville must understand that one cannot make a prognosis if one does not know what is wrong with the patient.

You know what is wrong.

Yes, we know what is wrong. The building societies have too little money, but we do not know exactly why they have too little money. We know the patient is suffering from anaemia, but we do not know why. I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that we view this matter in a very serious light. If interim measures have to be taken, we shall do so, but that does not fall under this legislation. This will have to be done in terms of another piece of legislation.

I want to thank hon. members most sincerely once again for a debate of high quality and for their support for this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I just wish to add that this is the result of representations made by the Press Union and negotiations we had with them. Their argument was that the scope of the clause was too wide, and we think we can satisfy them by removing the words “or may be” from the clause concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment to clause 4 is an improvement and we therefore support it.

As the hon. member for Pinetown indicated yesterday, the information or material referred to in this clause could include information which is absolutely harmless or which may have been obtained quite innocently. In a certain sense it is comparable with the kind of information referred to in clause 3. In our argument on this matter, when clause 3 was being discussed, the hon. the Minister alleged that the courts would differentiate between information which needed to be protected and information which did not. This was in fact the way he put it. In the course of his argument, however, the hon. the Minister only referred to one consideration which would apply in such a decision, namely whether that information was already general knowledge or not. Consequently he only referred to one consideration which could be taken into account when a court decided whether information needed to be protected or not.

In this connection I want to put two specific questions to the hon. the Minister. These are two specific questions I feel he will be able to reply to. In the first place I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he concedes that there may be information which is not general knowledge but which is nevertheless not of a sensitive nature, in other words information which need not be protected in the general sense of the word, information of which the availability or disclosure cannot cause any problems, and, although it is not general knowledge, still falls within the definition of this clause. Does the hon. the Minister concede that such information could exist? My second question is whether the hon. the Minister expects the courts to take any other matter besides the fact that the information is general knowledge, into consideration when deciding whether information should be protected or not. I think these are important questions in the sense that they can clear up the question of how the courts will interpret this relatively wide terminology.

The hon. the Minister and, I think, several other hon. members as well, referred to the fact that in general the PFP and hon. members on this side of the House usually allege that only the courts should have the right to deprive a citizen of his freedom and that the executive should not have this right, but that in the discussion of this Bill we do not want to entrust the interpretation of the Bill to the courts. I want to make it quite clear that our objection is that the courts cannot and ought not to be given an impossible interpretative task. We ought not to give the courts legislation which expects them to go beyond the scope of normal interpretation to give substance to legislation. One cannot create incomplete legislation and then expect the courts to make sense out of it.

Of course it is interesting to compare this argument with the argument the NP has used over the years that in terms of security legislation the executive may take action against certain people without the courts being involved. In other words, the executive can take action against people in terms of security legislation, inter alia, because, according to them, only the executive has the necessary security information and other sensitive information to be able to decide what the interests of the Republic amount to and therefore what can harm, prejudice or endanger the interests of the Republic. Now those same hon. members on that side of the House want the courts to give substance to the same impossibly vague concept of “interests of the Republic” as defined in the clause.

There are other vague areas in clause 4 with which we have problems. In paragraph (cc) reference is made to when a person acts “contrary to his duty”. Is this a legal duty being referred to here or merely a moral duty to which we must now give legal force? It is this sort of wording which makes it that much more difficult to make sense of the Bill before us.

†To sum up, I believe it is necessary that I should state that this clause is probably the most obnoxious one in the Bill before us, in the sense that it can prevent the disclosure of any corrupt practice, any improper behaviour, in fact any illegal behaviour, as long as the information that is withheld relates to defence, to security, to a prohibited place, or to any one of this long list of things contained in this clause. For those reasons we are very strongly opposed to this specific clause. The correlation between the prohibited information and concepts such as defence, security, prohibited places, etc., need not even be close at all. It can in fact be quite remote and still create extensive difficulties for the individual who discloses such information. I should venture to say that Mr. Justice Mostert, when he made his dramatic revelations about the misappropriation of State funds and the abuse of State funds for, among other things, the funding of The Citizen, would have committed a crime in terms of this provision, specifically in terms of clause 4(l)(b)(iv). I cannot but believe that this provision will still cause very unfortunate situations to arise. Let me add immediately though that I realize full well that this clause has been taken over from the Official Secrets Act of 1911. It is therefore indicative of the types of legislation that we have had on the Statute Book before. I believe nevertheless that that is no reason why one should allow this kind of prohibition to be perpetuated in our legislation. I believe it is necessary that we should conduct our affairs of State in the most open way possible, that the maximum amount of information should be made available to the public and to public representatives in order that they can make sensible decisions in regard to the politics of this country.

Mr. Chairman, as we have by now grown accustomed to, the hon. members of the PFP have once again asserted that the offences being created in terms of this measure, are too broadly defined. What is the object of this clause? What is the object of that particular aspect of the clause in terms of which existing provisions are being amended? It is to narrow the definition of the offences. Every reasonable person who has read the report of the Rabie Commission—chapter 12 of that report in particular—should concede that the whole intention is to narrow the definition of these offences. Almost every proposed amendment in this clause—whereby, at the same time, it is being distinguished from all other previous legislation on this particular subject—is aimed at narrowing the definition of these offences so that it will be applicable only to extremely sensitive information. For example, I could refer in this respect to clause 4(l)(b)(i), in which the qualification is clearly stated that the person involved should reasonably know that the document or information he discloses, is in connection with a prohibited place, etc.

The same requirement appears in clause 4(l)(b)(iv) and (v). In fact, this is a powerful restriction, so stringent that it only has a bearing on sensitive information. However, when it is read in conjunction with the requirements set out in paragraphs (v)(aa) and (bb), it is undoubtedly true that this clause only has a bearing on extremely sensitive information.

As far as the qualification which I have already referred to is concerned, viz. that a person should reasonably know that a document or information only has a bearing on a prohibited place, on armaments, etc. I wish to emphasize that this is not a provision which was simply conjured up from nowhere. It is very similar to the provision in the Crimes Act of Australia where that information is qualified by the following words—

In other words, this is an extremely wide provision and, in fact, a very much wider provision than the one before us. I therefore wish to emphasize very strongly that this clause as it stands here, only has a bearing on extremely sensitive information.

As far as the second amendment of the hon. member is concerned, I wish to suggest that this matter has already been discussed at inordinate length in connection with other amendments, and that a person cannot be left unpunished if he discloses extremely sensitive information with a purpose other than acting in a way that is prejudicial to the security of the State. For example, if he sells plans for aircraft or armaments or makes these available to others for his own commercial gain, this could be prejudicial to the security of the State and simply cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

As far as his amendment concerning the words “interests of the Republic” are concerned, I wish to suggest that it is not necessary to argue about this, since it has already been argued ad nauseam.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Pinetown have already indicated the very wide powers that are provided for in terms of this clause. The hon. member Mr. Schutte has suggested that the provisions of this clause will only affect those aspects which relate to the revealing of very, very sensitive information. I wish to put an example to him in this regard and suggest that this example may be one in regard to which a journalist who reports upon it may well be prosecuted in terms of this legislation.

Let us take as an example a recent bomb explosion outside Durban in which the main water pipe for a very large Black township, Umlazi, is hit. Let us assume for the purposes of this example that that is the only water pipe supplying water to Umlazi, which, as I say, is a major Black township in Natal. If a journalist reports that incident as well as the fact that the only pipe supplying water to Umlazi township has been damaged and indicates in that report where the pipe is, it could be argued that what he is disclosing may be prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. That journalist would therefore fall under the provisions of clause 4 in that he has published information relating to the prevention or combating of terrorism in a manner or for a purpose which is prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. I accept the fact that when something is prejudicial to the interests of the security of the country, the onus that the State has to discharge is a very heavy one, but I am not dealing with that. I am concentrating on the concept “interests of the Republic”. The hon. member for Green Point has already pointed out that it is virtually impossible for the courts to define that concept without this Bill providing a definition for it. What will the attitude of the court be when the question is posed whether or not the disclosure by the journalist that this water pipe is the only water pipe supplying Umlazi township with water is in the interests of the Republic? It could be argued that it is not in the interests of the Republic for the public at large and possibly too other terrorists to know that this is the only water supply.

That was argued in detail yesterday. Was the hon. member not here?

That is the reason why we object to the wide ambit of this clause. The words “or interests” are not defined and therefore the courts have no standards to go by. If this Bill is enacted, it will place a risk on the Press, because every time they look at incidents which could come into the ambit of the legislation it will be necessary for them to evaluate the risk. The result could and will be that they would rather withhold publishing that information than taking the chance of perhaps falling under the wide ambit of the legislation.

At this stage I move the following amendment—

I accept that the first and second amendments on the Order Paper have already been dealt with in great detail, and I do not wish to repeat what has been said in that respect. I believe—I was not here when the other aspects were discussed—that the question as to whether the words “a purpose prejudicial to the security of the Republic” should be included has been discussed as well. Nevertheless, if those words were to be inserted in this clause, it would have the effect of eliminating the risky area in so far as the publication of information is concerned to which the public is entitled.

I also move the following amendment—

The amendment is aimed at reducing the sentence of imprisonment from 20 years to 15 years. It is not necessary for me to enlarge to any great extent on that, but I should like to point out that in our view the sentence of 20 years is excessive, particularly if one takes into account that it could happen, as the hon. member for Green Point pointed out, that someone who unintentionally passed on documents or information which could fall into the ambit, would then be faced with the possibility of a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. Obviously that is not a sentence which will have to be imposed, but the fact that the maximum is so high will have the result that the courts will place far more serious weight on this offence than ought to be the case.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate that I am not going to accept the amendments for reasons already argued previously.

I should like to return to the example the hon. member has offered us. I think he has made out a very good case for prosecution. As a matter of fact, I think he has done so admirably well. I think prosecuting counsel will also agree that it will be most difficult to discharge the onus, which he himself has pointed out. The document in question must of course be in relation to the prevention or combating of terrorism, and unless it can be brought into the ambit of that provision, there cannot possibly be a prosecution. Furthermore the onus will also have to be discharged by the State to show that it was done in a manner prejudicial to the security of the Republic.

Interests. It does not have to be security.

I am coming to the concept of “interest”. The fact is that the state will have to produce evidence to show what “interest” is at a given moment. This also applies to the argument of the hon. member for Green Point. I argued yesterday extensively that the Chandler case is very clear on this, namely that what the State has to prove in such an event is what “interest” is at a given point in time. But that “interest” is defined by the policy-maker of the day, whether one likes it or not, and the policymaker is the State. As indicated in the Chandler case the State will probably call as witnesses State officials to testify as to the policy and to what “interest” might be at a given point in time. I say that in response to the hon. member’s argument.

*Mr. Chairman, I could not follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Green Point in the second part of his argument. It seems to me that Official Secrets Act has such a hold on the hon. member that he even kept his arguments a secret by veiling them in obscurity. In any case, the hon. member asked me whether I would concede that information could exist which was not general knowledge but which could not be prejudicial to the interests of the Republic either. But surely there would not be a prosecution under such circumstances. It is as simple as that. The hon. member reminded me of what I had said about clause 3, but there is a vast difference between clause 3 and clause 4. Clause 3 deals with espionage, the obtaining of sensitive information with a specific aim, namely to divulge it to a foreign State and clause 4(l)(a)(iv)—this is the subparagraph the hon. member had in mind—read in conjunction with subparagraph (bb), deals with the manner of the publication of known information. I want to agree with the hon. member that under certain circumstances a publication on, Cape Town harbour, for example, may have no significance, but the moment it is prejudicial to the security or interests of the public—“or may be” now falls away—it could become a matter which could be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General to ascertain whether or not criminal proceedings should be instituted. It all depends on the context in which it is done. As the hon. member for Durban Central pointed out—he did so very briefly, but it is nevertheless important—there is a very heavy burden of proof on the State. My reply to the first question by the hon. member is that there is information which is generally known. However, because such information cannot be classified as secret in terms of clause 3—it is not secret—it is possible that if it is used in such a context that it could be prejudicial to the security and interests of the Republic, it might justify a prosecution. I want to make this quite clear. However, there is a very heavy burden of proof on the State, As has already been pointed out it is the easiest thing in the world to decide when information is prejudicial to the security or interests of the State because there is good communication between the Press and the Government, and this is improving steadily. Consequently I cannot understand the hon. member’s problem in this connection. I hope the hon. member now sees matters more clearly and understands the difference between clause 3 and clause 4.

The hon. member also asked whether the courts would apply any other standard. I do not know in what connection he asked this question and whether it was in connection with the specific clause under paragraph 4 or whether he was referring to paragraph 3 again. If he was referring to clause 4 I want to point out to him that in the Rabie report only one criterion is laid down when a distinction is drawn between information which needs to be protected and other information. In this connection the following is said in the report—

In other words, for purposes of the distinction drawn in the report and for purposes of the qualification added in clause 4(l)(b)(iv), what is involved is prejudice to the security or interests of the Republic. The hon. member asked me whether only the State could decide what the interests of the Republic are. I honestly feel we have debated this matter very extensively during the past two days. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but it is nevertheless quite clear that the Canadians extended the scope of their legislation to cover more than military security aspects only, for the reasons they mentioned. Since 1911 the British have had the concept “or interests of the State” in their law. They also argued intensively about this matter in the case of the Chandler report.

We came to this House and said that in our case it also went much further. For example foreign exchange matters and trade links with overseas countries surely cannot be classified as security matters in the strict sense of the word. That is why we refer to “or interests of the State”. I feel the hon. member will agree with me on this. If he were now to ask me who must decide on this and who to suggest that the Government is not capable of deciding on this, I would tell him that the Government represents the public. The Government is the Government of the day and to gain support for its policies it must be candid with the public. That is why there is a regular flow of information. However, where information must be kept confidential in various phases, it may in fact be in the interests of the public to be able to do so more effectively at a later stage. Allow me to give an example. To be able to put the Government’s standpoints clearly in this House as a Cabinet, it is necessary that there be working documents in front of members of the Cabinet at some stage, that there be negotiation and that they be assisted by their advisers with documents. I am referring specifically to clause 4 now. What would happen if we had to disclose these documents every day and there was no protection for these documents? The hon. member— the hon. member for Durban Central had the same problem—argued as if this clause only involved publication by the Press. To a great extent this clause deals with the protection of documentation and the people involved here are Government officials, Ministers, etc. If the hon. member were therefore to ask me who should decide what the interests are and what should be published and what protected, I would say it is the Government of the day through its Public Service, etc. This entire system, this place, also has its confidential information. In addition I want to point out that the ordinary citizen is to a greater extent expecting the State to be able to preserve specific confidentiality regarding the ordinary citizen’s personal information. We need only think of income tax or the entire process of computerizing of information on the individual and what affects him. There is an increasing demand for privacy, etc. These are all matters which are at issue when we deal with this clause.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. H. P. Gastrow negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. P. H. P. Gastrow negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Pinetown on the Order Paper, as follows—

I am told that this matter has been discussed before and that the hon. the Minister does see his way clear to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, as in the case of the previous clause, I move the first amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Pinetown on the Order Paper, as follows—

I assume that that amendment will be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, we cannot support clause 10 as it stands at the moment because of the wide-ranging provisions contained in subsection (2). As the provision stands, it directly affects foreign correspondents or foreign academics who do research work in South Africa or in foreign research institutions. I should like to give a summarized version of the wording to indicate the effect of the provision—

If such a person publishes the information, it will be assumed that it is prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. There are, however, many foreign research institutions or bodies which have an interest in South Africa and do research work in South Africa. They often send scientists to South Africa to investigate every possible aspect of South African life, social, economic, political or whatever the case may be. They go into great detail and try to be as open and forthright as possible in order to present a balanced and valuable report. One can take the example of the research work done not so long ago by the Ford Foundation in America. A lot of money and effort was spent in going into great detail about every possible aspect of the South African way of life, e.g. the economy, defence, the race problems, etc. If the individuals engaged in that research project, or foreign correspondents doing similar work, were to publish the information, in terms of this legislation it would be presumed to be prejudicial to the security or interests of the State. That presumption, however, is too wide. It could have the effect of discouraging open, critical investigation by foreign organizations, correspondents or other individuals, and that is the last thing one wants to do. It is absolutely essential that foreigners, for whom provision is specifically made in clause 10(2), should not be restricted or inhibited by the wide presumptions contained in this legislation.

As I indicated a few moments ago, one accepts that the concept “the security of the State” is a much clearer concept, because in that case one knows what one is dealing with and the courts would also know what they were dealing with. The concept “the interests of the State” is not, however, easy to define. For those reasons we cannot support this clause.

I move only the fourth amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Pinetown on the Order Paper, as follows—

The other amendments we will not proceed with.

Mr.

Chairman, I should like to indicate that I am prepared to accept that amendment as it is an improvement. As regards the hon. member’s argument on the other issues, I should like to refer him to the case of Nieswand which we discussed at length previously. That case was in 1972-’73 and, although it is a Rhodesian case, it covers the whole issue. I may perhaps conclude by quoting that the effect of that measure, which is the equivalent of our measure, is—

In the same case it was pointed out that embarrassing a Government is not synonymous with endangering the safety of the State. Embarrassing the Government does not fall within the ambit of any of these provisions. The hon. member is not taking the matter any further, but I should just like to place that on record. As I have said, we are prepared to accept the fourth amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 13, after the second “place” to insert:
   if he is satisfied that information with respect of that place or area, or the loss, damage, disruption or immobilization thereof could be of use to a foreign State or a hostile organization
2. (2) on page 15, after “organization” to insert:
   if he is satisfied that that association of persons, movement or institutions incites, instigates, commands, aids, advises, encourages or procures any person in the Republic or elsewhere to commit in the Republic an act of violence for any purpose prejudicial to the security or interests of the Republic

The amendments are self-explanatory. I may just add that during the Second Reading debate the hon. member for King William’s Town indicated that he believed that these clauses contained authorization which was too wide and, in fact, too vague. Consequently we had a look at it and that is why I am moving these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister. During the Second Reading debate he indicated that he would be prepared to accept an amendment to clause 14. Our reason for not coming with an amendment is that, during the process of preparing it and researching this matter, we discussed it with the law advisers and in fact preferred the amendment they were preparing to our own. Accordingly we did not proceed with our own. However, I thank the hon. the Minister for moving his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, in our opinion the amendments of the hon. the Minister are certainly an improvement of the clause as it stands in the Bill at the moment, particularly with respect to paragraph (a). The problem which still exists, is that even after this amendment has been accepted, the executive powers which the State President will have, will still be extremely wide, and not subject to scrutiny by any body or institution either. One of the amendments which I am going to move will have the effect that a body will be set up for scrutinizing the decisions of the State President. In my amendment I propose that Parliament itself should fulfil that function.

†We are not dealing here with sensitive security matters that should not be discussed and dealt with in public. If an organization or an institution is to be declared hostile, it is not a security matter which is only to be known within the Cabinet or in Government circles. It is a public issue which should therefore be discussed and dealt with in Parliament.

Even with the improved suggestions by the hon. the Minister, the unfettered powers of the State President remain unchecked, and a check by Parliament would, in circumstances such as these, be the best check. The best forum to analyse and discuss the question of whether an organization should indeed be classed as and declared a hostile organization is this Parliament. Parliament will be the forum where one could establish whether the interests of the State, the security of the State, are being affected by the continued activities of such an organization. There would be opposing and different points of view which would be taken into account and as representatives of the voting public, hon. members of this House could then come to a fair and correct decision on such matters. One has to assume that Parliament will act in the interests of the public, and therefore, if the hon. the Minister or the State President should suggest that a particular organization be declared a hostile organization, Parliament will take the interests of the country into account and will deal with such matters objectively. The powers given in terms of this clause are so wide that one cannot go along with them. We can therefore not support clause 14 as it stands, not even with the much improved safeguards which the hon. the Minister has now put forward. I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 16, to omit “in like manner”;
2. (2) on page 15, in line 16, to omit “or amend”;
3. (3) on page 15, in line 17, after “proclamation” to add:
   Provided that a declaration under paragraph (b) shall only come into operation if and when approved by a resolution of the House of Assembly

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that after having moved an amendment, which, I believe, improves the clause, I would not be prepared to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central. I believe that in general, it is inappropriate, when the State President is granted powers, to subject those powers to inspection by the House of Assembly each time. It is simply not customary.

Furthermore, if we were in fact to grant such powers to this House, it could happen that we could in that way be putting a delaying action into operation, something which would limit the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole, particularly in view of the fact that the House of Assembly may not be in session at a given juncture. I shall let that suffice. However, I just wish to point out that I think the hon. member for Durban Central had good intentions in this regard. Unfortunately, they are not acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister would perhaps be prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that such a proclamation by the State President could be valid until the matter concerned could be submitted to the House of Assembly, or that the State President could perhaps be required to submit the matter to the House of Assembly at the earliest possible opportunity. What I have in mind, is an amendment to the effect that a proclamation by the State President would only be valid until the House of Assembly has had an opportunity of deciding on the matter; of giving a final decision on the question of whether a particular organization should be declared a hostile organization or not. This would not counteract the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, but whould eliminate the delay or possible delay, to which the hon. the Minister objected. Would such an amendment be acceptable to the hon. the Minister?

Does the hon. member have an amendment in mind with regard to the question of a prohibited place, or is this merely concerned with a statement in this House?

Mr. Chairman, I mean an amendment as far as both are concerned.

Mr.

Chairman, the hon. member said as far as both were concerned. In this regard, I should perhaps refer him to the legislation concerning national key points. In terms of that legislation it is possible—the hon. members opposite supported this—to declare such a point to be a national key point merely by way of notice. In this regard, it is not deemed necessary in the national interest that the matter be referred back to Parliament. We are dealing here with a proclamation in the Gazette and not with a regulation which could have the effect that, if Parliament were not in session, it would have to be laid upon the Table within a fortnight after the commencement of the following session. Consequently, I cannot comply with the hon. member’s request. As I have said, we are dealing here with a proclamation, not with a regulation. If this had been concerned with a regulation, the interpretation legislation would have become relevant, but not in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I should at least point out to the hon. the Minister, now that he has made it very clear that he does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, that the declaration of a key point is one thing, while the declaration of an organization to be a hostile organization is something completely different. I would say that a step taken by the State President to declare an organization to be a hostile organization, is extremely serious. If we take note of the original purpose, in terms of the legislation, for which this is being done, we find that the organization is being placed in the same category as those foreign countries which we regard ipso facto as being hostile. Any information which is divulged to such an organization, would be treated as information which has been divulged to a foreign country. The hon. the Minister must therefore concede that it is a serious matter when an organization is declared a hostile organization. It is therefore an extremely important power which is being entrusted to the State President. On this basis, I wish to address a serious recommendation to him to give further consideration to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central.

Mr.

Chairman, there is nothing to prevent this House from debating this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. There is nothing to prevent the Opposition from bringing this up during a general budget debate or during the discussion of a specific Vote. I cannot therefore understand what the hon. member’s problem is, unless he wishes this House to place its stamp of approval on this again. If this is what he wishes, my reply is that there are a number of situations in respect of which we have granted powers of proclamation to the State President. In such cases, we did not enact it in such a manner that the House of Assembly had to place its stamp of approval on the matter afterwards. However, there is nothing to prevent the House from debating this at a later stage. As I shall indicate during the Third Reading, we shall of necessity have to listen to sound arguments.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to.

Amendments moved by Mr. P. H. P. Gastrow negatived (Official Opposition dissenting) Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that I listened very patiently to the speakers on the Government side, the hon. the Minister, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and the hon. members for Pretoria West, Ventersdorp and Klip River, in the hope that I could perhaps be persuaded, against my initial will, of the necessity for this measure. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that at this stage I am less convinced of the necessity for this measure than I was at the outset. I shall explain why. My main objections to the Bill were based primarily on two grounds, in the first place the absence of an acceptable reason for the proposed secrecy clause and, in the second place, the vague and indeterminate nature of precisely what will be covered by this contemplated secrecy procedure. I have not been satisfied on either of these two points. I just want to point out in passing that I stated that this commission had been functioning for 60 years, since 1920 in fact, and that during all that time it had never needed this kind of protection. I was then told that owing to the consolidation proposals of the Government a new situation had arisen which justified this measure. I just wish to point out that the commission has since 1936 been charged with the purchase of 5¾ million morgen of land, to use the old term. Even with the most optimistic view of consolidation, it does not seem to me as though that consolidation can ever approach anywhere near that area of land. All these years, while the commission was implementing the 1936 Act and negotiating with people and so on, it never considered the granting of this kind of protection necessary. Under these circumstances the argument that a new programme of consolidation has now been launched, is not convincing. What really worries me is the veritable Babel of confusion which prevails among hon. members on the opposite side of this House on the precise reasons for this measure. I shall begin with the hon. the Minister. He said in his Second Reading speech that all he wanted to achieve by means of this measure was the preservation of secrecy and the protection against unauthorized disclosure of the commission’s documents. That is all the hon. the Minister said. Those were his reasons. Subsequently he enumerated no less than four reasons in addition to his original one. He said that what was really involved was the preservation of the secrecy of the commission’s report to the Cabinet. In this connection he associated himself with the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. In addition the hon. the Minister said that the commission had a say in the preparation of the budget of the S.A. Development Trust, in its formulation, and that the leaking of information in that connection, prior to the approval of the budget by the Government—which should be able to do its financial planning in an impartial way—would be extremely undesirable. But every Government Department is involved in the preparing of budgets. If existing legislation does not cover this aspect, why should this kind of protection be requested only for the participation by this commission in the budget of the S.A. Development Trust? That is after all, what the hon. the Minister said. It makes no sense at all, for every other body involved in the preparing of budgets must then also experience the need for special legislation in order to ensure the preservation of secrecy.

The third argument which the hon. the Minister used was that the commission was from time to time involved in investigations and the formulation of legislation long before this was considered in principle by the Cabinet. The leaking of information in this connection would then be highly undesirable since the Government was at that stage still not committed to anything. But why the commission should be entitled to the preservation of secrecy owing to the investigations which it carries out is equally inexplicable to me.

In the fourth place the hon. the Minister said that it could happen that matters which were contained in a classified document, for example a Cabinet or State Security document, could be referred to the commission for consideration of certain aspects and that such a document should obviously be treated as confidential. But there are many such documents which are prepared and made available by many bodies. In this connection, for example, I can think of all the advisers to the hon. the Prime Minister, and other persons and organizations as well. If we should ask in each case that those persons and organizations should be protected by means of special legislation with the view to the preservation of secrecy, it really does not make any sense to me. The hon. Member Mr. Van der Walt, on the other hand, said—and this is why I spoke about a veritable Babel of confusion—that all he envisaged was a measure which made it possible to keep the report of the commission to the Cabinet a secret. That was all. He stated this clearly. As far as he was concerned, he envisaged nothing else. He did not mention all these other things. He did not mention the commission which was ostensibly involved in the budget and all these other things.

I am also mindful of the reasons which some of the other hon. members advanced. I am thinking for example of what the hon. member for Pretoria West said. He said people were in a process of negotiation …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Brits read Die Patriot here in this House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member Prof. Olivier may proceed. [Interjections.]

In connection with the activities of the commission, the hon. member for Pretoria West said that these people were involved in a process of negotiation with leaders of communities, and these were delicate negotiations. This appears in Hansard, 1982, columns 5624 and 5625. He said that those delicate negotiations and discussions which were being held, should be kept secret. But I am absolutely flabbergasted by such a statement because other Government Departments, too, are constantly engaged in any number of negotiations. Should these negotiations also be kept secret? Consequently the hon. the Minister can understand that that line or distinction which he drew between the proceedings of the commission and matters which they were dealing with simply cannot be substantiated, unless of course he wants to repudiate the hon. member for Pretoria West.

The hon. member for Pretoria West advanced a further reason for the necessity for secrecy, namely that the commission frequently had to rely on expert evidence. He argued that these experts appeared before the commission and submitted documents and that it was essential for this evidence to be protected. The Office of the Prime Minister and other Government Departments as well constantly receive expert evidence and particulars, but there is no request for legislation to be introduced to keep such evidence secret. I think that the hon. the Minister should rather prepare his people better than to expect that we should accept legislation of this nature on the grounds of such arguments.

The hon. member for Klip River said that the report to the Cabinet should be kept secret. In that sense his argument tallied with that of the hon. the Prime Minister and that of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Klip River went on to say that an investigation was being instituted into the declaration of certain areas to be areas for inclusion in or excision from Black areas, and that this would have financial and economic implications. He also said that these aspects had to be kept secret to prevent individuals from enriching themselves as a result. But the commission has, since 1936, been engaged on a large-scale in doing precisely this kind of thing, viz. negotiating on the purchase and sale of land, and legislation of this nature was never previously necessary.

The hon. member for Klip River also said that documents of a confidential nature were submitted to the commission. I have already asked what kind of documents must supposedly be protected, and the hon. the Minister did not reply to me, except to say that particularly those documents which the commission submits to the Cabinet should be protected. The hon. member for Klip River, however, referred to all kinds of documents of a confidential nature. He also said that many of the functions of the commission were of a confidential and secret nature until a certain degree of finality had been reached. What he is actually trying to imply, therefore, is that all the functions of the commission are of a confidential and secret nature, and consequently legislation is necessary to protect such activities of the commission.

In Hansard, 1982, col. 5638, the hon. member for Ventersdorp said the following—

Once again the distinction which the hon. the Minister draws between the proceedings of the commission and matters dealt with by them, does not hold water. After all, evidence given by the South African Agricultural Union before the commission does form part of the proceedings of the commission.

There are numerous bodies which are constantly receiving representations and which have to give consideration to a diversity of matters, but they are not asking for legislation to ensure the preservation of the secrecy of their proceedings.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also said (Hansard, 1982, col. 5638)—

He said that evidence had to be heard and that there were letters and documents which were circulated and which could in some way or another find their way into the hands of the irresponsible Press. There is an interaction of ideas, but what the hon. the Minister wants to tell us in actual fact is that that interaction of ideas must be protected by a secrecy clause in a law. Surely this is the greatest absurdity under the sun. Under these circumstances the hon. the Minister cannot take it amiss of me when I say that there was utter confusion in the motivation as to why this measure was necessary. The hon. the Minister must not blame me for saying so. He shared some of the guilt himself. In his first speech he emphasized only the one point. Subsequently a lot of other things were said which made it even more difficult for us to accept this measure. For this reason I am sorry to have to say that we cannot accept this legislation, and consequently this provision in clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I shall really try to convince the hon. member, and I shall do so in as simple a way as possible. All the speakers on this side of the House emphasized—I also did so on two occasions, during my Second Reading speech and when I replied to the debate—what the position was, and I shall quote what I said (Hansard, 24 May)—

That is what this measure is concerned with. It is concerned with classified reports of the commission. I emphasized this, and all the hon. speakers on this side of the House also emphasized it. However, the hon. member does not want to understand. That is when all the confusion begins. But the confusion is not to be found on this side of the House. With all due respect, I say that the confusion is to be found on that side of the House, for this is all that this measure is concerned with. Consequently, I repeat once again that this measure is merely concerned with classified reports. My argument—and those of other hon. members—was aimed at giving hon. members on the opposite side a motivation for this measure, and for that reason I said, inter alia, that we should consider a few functions of the commission. I then quoted the matters which the hon. member had mentioned in connection with the buying out of land, budgets, formulation of legislation, security reports, and so on. All that I was doing was to indicate to hon. members on the opposite side that the commission does deal with sensitive matters, but, and I say this with all due respect, the hon. member does not seem to understand how the commission works. The commission collects information on all these sensitive matters. I also mentioned the enlarged commission in connection with Black people outside the National States. In the end the commission produces a report. Then the commission has to decide whether the report in which these sensitive matters are contained is of such a nature that it should be regarded as “classified”. If they conclude that the report should be classified, it is provided by way of regulation that the report shall be a classified report, and the regulation is tabled in this House. It is also explained why the report should be a classified report. It may perhaps be found that the report is considered to be classified as a result of some diversity of sensitive matters with which the commission works and to which several hon. members and I referred in our arguments. In the final instance, however, what is at issue here is solely a classified report, because that is the working document of the commission. With all due respect, I wish to say that the procedure at meetings—I said this repeatedly— is not in any way relevant here. All that this measure is concerned with is the report. If the Cabinet has not taken a final decision on that report and it falls into the hands of the Press, or anyone else for that matter, and is used speculatively—we have had experience of this—then it causes problems. That is the last point I want to make in this regard. I hope I have convinced the hon. member, because these are the facts. If the hon. member wants to understand, he now has a good opportunity to do so. After all, the matter is now on record.

What must finally be understood is that what this measure is further concerned with is solely to empower the State President to make regulations. In such a regulation, all the aspects pertaining to the preservation of the secrecy of a specific report which we want to have classified, will be spelt out. We are therefore dealing here with an authority granted by Parliament, and nothing more than that. With that I think I have replied to all the points raised by the hon. member, as simply as I could.

By way of summary, I can say that what we are concerned with here is solely, as I have emphasized, the contents of a report which are classified as secret. Such a report can only deal with specific matters. Yesterday I also emphasized the word “matters” very strongly. Therefore, if it is classified by the commission as secret on the basis of diversity of sensitive matters which were mentioned here and which the commission worked with but which ultimately find expression in the report, the regulation is tabled and it will be indicated in the regulation what the diversity of reasons is as to why the commission is of the opinion that it is in the interests of the public that the specific report should be classified as secret and dealt with as such.

I wish to emphasize again, as the hon. the chairman of the commission did here yesterday and which I fully endorsed, that it is not the intention at all to turn this commission into a secret commission, and not as far as its procedures are concerned either. Nor is it in any way the intention to have the proceedings of the commission classified as secret. That is not the intention at all. However, it has been our practical experience that before the Cabinet has taken any decisions on a report dealing with a diversity of sensitive matters, that report has found its way into the hands of the Press and the public. On the one hand, we wish to keep the proceedings of the commission absolutely open. The chairman of the commission said yesterday, and I wish to repeat, that if hon. members of the PFP, the NRP or the CP wish to attend meetings or proceedings of the commission, they are welcome to do so.

And to publish them, or whatever?

When the commission subsequently puts forward its findings, these are summarized in a report. What has suddenly been happening recently is that certain parties have been getting hold of that report and presenting it to the Press and others as though it was an official document which the Cabinet had approved of and which therefore bore an official stamp of approval. Then people get the impression that this is an official document and they buy or sell land because they are being hoodwinked into thinking that this is official, which the Cabinet has not decided on the matter at all. We are adopting the most moderate course of action possible here.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great respect to what the hon. the Minister said. I do not think there is much sense in taking the debate further as far as this aspect is concerned. I just wish to confirm once again that the hon. the Minister has really not convinced me of the necessity of this provision. If the hon. the Minister had stated in the Bill that the intention was to preserve secrecy only in regard to those documents which the commission had classified as confidential, it would have been much easier than it now is, with all these vague general provisions that we have in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. the Minister, when he spoke before proceedings were suspended, wove a web of words around what is contained in the blue report to which he referred. That, of course, did not make things any clearer. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not agree to reply to our questions in stages so that we lesser mortals can understand the process that is involved here. The hon. the Minister spoke about confidential and sensitive information from other departments being received by the commission. If such information is already confidential or of a classified nature, it should obviously have been handled as such right from the beginning. Such information is then dealt with by the commission and, after deliberation, included in its final report which is then submitted to the Cabinet.

Somewhere along the line, however, the hon. the Minister finds that the danger exists that sensitive and important matters contained in the report could be leaked prematurely or that people with a knowledge of the contents of such a report could use it to their advantage.

We believe that right up to the stage where the commission has drawn up its final report the taking of evidence from people and the discussion of matters can obviously not be secret in that context because it is too wide. When the final decision is ultimately taken, however, only the members of the commission are involved. They are dealing with sensitive material and their task is of a serious and important nature. In the case of consolidation, for instance, they are dealing with the changing of this country’s boundaries. They are creating new boundaries, as it were. I am quite sure, therefore, that the commission does not need a secrecy rule to prevent its members from divulging sensitive or classified information.

Once that report is submitted to the Cabinet, where is the possible leak and who are we actually protecting? Who is likely to perpetrate an offence of this nature?

Yes, good question!

It seems to me as though the problem lies with the commission itself. It does not appear therefore that the simple passing of legislation will solve the sort of problem that may arise here. If this is in fact the only object of this measure, I believe it is going to do much more harm than good as far as the commission itself is concerned. It is only going to harm the commission by importing to it an image that is far more sinister than it need be. The commission is already dealing with matters which have given rise to unfortunate circumstances among farmers in South Africa whose farms have been bought out. This is in itself a very sensitive matter. I believe therefore that the granting of the power to act in secret in respect of its final report is going to make it appear to the people concerned that their wishes and their interests are not being properly catered for. I think it is a dangerous precedent to bring it about in that context. We cannot quite see why the protection is needed if it is at the stage where only the commission is dealing with it. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would take it further and describe the various phases or the exact phase where that secrecy is required. If the commission does not have the normal powers of a parliamentary committee then perhaps it might be necessary to give it those powers.

That is a very good suggestion.

If it is given those powers then we shall not make it appear as though we are giving secret powers to the commission. I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s reply to this suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment for supper I explained the entire matter very patiently to hon. members, but I shall try once more. [Interjections.] I shall try to explain it on the basis of an example, because I say again that what we are concerned with here is merely to try to prevent the contents of reports of the commission, which are classified as secret, from falling into the wrong hands and being misused. We shall try to do this par ticularly when it comes to sensitive matters. This is essentially what this measure is all about. All the members of the commission said so and I confirmed it, but apparently the hon. members do not accept it.

We do not want to keep the business of the commission secret, and for that reason we say that the Opposition, if they so prefer, may be present at the proceedings. To tell the truth, any person may be present there.

Take King William’s Town as an example.

Yes, I shall do so.

Let us consider what happened in the case of the Eastern Cape. There was a regional committee and serving on that regional committee were Black people as well as Whites, including members of the commission. They investigated the entire matter pertaining to consolidation. The proceedings took place in public and that did not cause us any problems. Evidence was heard. We do not want to change any of this. We want to try to keep it like this, and that is what we hope will happen.

Try and hope.

Yes.

Operative words.

What happened then? The matter was discussed, as one can understand, but no one could deduce from the discussions that a definite decision on consolidation in the Eastern Cape had been taken. Anyone who arrived at a different conclusion would in any case have been stupid.

[Inaudible.]

I would have been right here, and I am normally right.

What happened then? The commission then sat, and considered the inputs made by the regional committee and everyone else, and drew up a report on them. That report was then submitted to the Government for its decision. This is the report to which I refer as the blue report. In that blue report there was a map to indicate what could possibly happen. The next thing to happen was that certain parties got hold of that map and parts of the report. Who gave it to them— well, those people of course do not exist anymore.

But how did they get hold of it?

The fact of the matter is that they did. If the hon. member could establish for us how they got hold of it, we would really think he was one of Agatha Christie’s detectives for although we tried to establish how it happened, we were unable to do so. However, it happened, and that is precisely what we are dealing with now.

What happened next? Wilful parties began to go about with a map, telling people that they could point out what was going to happen. They went even further by putting questions to one or two of the people who had served on the regional committee. Their answers were then corroborated and in that way the parties then ascertained what had really happened at the meetings. Without the report it was of course mere hearsay and gossip-mongering. This always happens, and we accept it as normal. In this case, however, some people saw that there was a map and a report. Bear in mind now that the Government had at that stage not even had the report before it yet and had not been placed in any position at all to consider it in any way. In the meantime what we experienced in practice was that certain parties stated that they could demonstrate to those people precisely what was going to happen, and then they showed them a map. This led to a great deal of unpleasantness. People suffered losses—I can discuss this aspect for a long time—and it all led to various other bad implications as well. And when the Cabinet was ultimately able to consider that report, it arrived at decisions that were completely different to those that had been recommended in the report.

That was a pity.

That may well be, but that is not what we are discussing now. All that we are trying to do here—and I have said this repeatedly—is to prevent the contents of a secret, classified report from falling into the wrong hands and being misused. The chairman of the commission, as well as all the other hon. members serving on the commission, asked for this. We want to prevent such a situation. We are not saying that we wish to keep all those reports secret. We are only asking that the relevant provision be amended so that when the commission is dealing with a specific matter, in regard to which its report may possibly be misused to the detriment of sound relations and to the detriment of people who could lose money and who could be exploited, we may feel ourselves at liberty to come to this House with a regulation in which we spell out in detail why we wish to have a certain report declared secret. We are compelled to introduce legislation in this connection. We are sorry that we have to do so because we do not want to keep the business of the commission secret. Nor do we intend to keep it secret, because it is not in our interests to do so. However, the State has the responsibility of ensuring that this kind of exploitation and abuse is eliminated in the interests of the public. We foresee that the same kind of thing is going to happen in other situations which we have to deal with, and then we will have problems. Yesterday I reprimanded the hon. member for Greytown for rattling off a whole list of place-names in this eminent assembly. I shall not even repeat the names of those places here.

I shall state them again.

The hon. member must not do that again, for if he did he would be proving his irresponsibility all over again. One can just imagine how much uneasiness that back-bencher, if he had been speaking with authority, could have sowed among the people living in the places which he mentioned. If people had believed him, some of them would already have been selling their possessions because they believed that what the hon. member said was in fact going to happen. Is that not true? That hon. member understands nothing about this matter. He is simply sitting their as a back-bencher, and talking nonsense. [Interjections.] But we have to bear the responsibility. In the department we always say: “The buck stops here”. Someone has to bear the responsibility. All that we are asking for in this measure is what I have just explained as simply as possible. We shall try to declare a few reports as possible to be secret reports. However, if circumstances occur in which the commission is of the opinion that it is essential to declare documents to be classified as secret, we wish to adopt the golden mean here by dealing with the situation in the most moderate way possible—after all we are not coming to this House with a Bill to declare all reports secret. We shall determine by way of regulation which reports are going to be declared secret, and for what reasons.

Can the people who misrepresent the intentions of the Cabinet not be dealt with on the grounds of misrepresentation and laws relating to fraud rather than the Government having to declare reports secret?

We tried that, but we came to the conclusion that that was not going to assist us in this regard. We felt that this was a much easier and better way—in fact the best way—to deal with this situation. [Interjections.]

*That hon. member, who comes from that part of the world, understands these things very well. I think that if those hon. members are still not convinced, they will, so help me, never be convinced this side of the grave.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has really been tugging at my “beard-strings” now. Since the hon. the Minister has been so patient and so calm, as he said, I shall also remain calm. Possibly, I shall also use an example and I should like to move an amendment in this connection. The Minister has now been trying, at length, to tell us that they only want to try to keep a report secret. Sir, that is precisely where our difficulty begins. Hon. members on the opposite side mentioned about 12 other reasons for secrecy. For example they said that people who came to give evidence, should be protected. That sounds as though they should be there in secret.

I did not mention any people who should be protected.

Then the hon. the Minister must please arrange his affairs in his caucus better, so that we do not have to listen to 12 reasons here which are apparently not applicable. If all kinds of reasons had not been mentioned from the Minister’s side and there had only been one reason, viz. to protect a report, there might not have been any problems. Consequently I wish to move the following amendment—

That meets all the requirements. If the hon. Minister does not want to accept it, then we cannot believe it, because he also said—and I shall continue to remain calm—that it is at this stage an open meeting, and that he was “hoping and trying” to keep it that way. Those are dangerous words, Mr. Chairman; they are not definite words at all. As the legislation reads at present, those very things in connection with which he was “hoping and trying” so hard, could in fact happen. In terms of it he can simply come back to us and say: “No, now the Opposition and the Press are no longer invited. We were hoping and trying, but now even that does not help any more.” Therefore if the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, then we do not believe in his bona fades in this connection, i.e. that he does not want to keep matters secret.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong the discussion unnecessarily. The main point of the matter is that we must find a remedy, which we did not have in the past, for cases in which contraventions occur, so that we can do something about them. I said repeatedly that what was at issue was reports, but I also added that since we had been compelled to introduce this measure, we would, in the process, have to deal with the matter as we are trying to do so here, with a view to other areas in which contraventions could also occur, but with the intention, which I have placed on record, that what this measure is concerned with, basically and solely, is reports. In my humble opinion, that object is covered very well by using the word “matters”. Then we have, as I have said, the necessary authority to deal with the matter by way of regulations. I hope that it will not even be necessary to do so, provided these people and outside parties as well want to co-operate with us, especially in view of the debate which has taken place here.

I want to repeat that this legislation is merely enabling legislation, and nothing more. I say with all due respect that this legislation means absolutely nothing except that we wish to be able to come to this House with a regulation. It merely enables us to come to this House with a regulation. If we see that we are able to solve the matter by appealing to sensible people, and that this matter is not being misused, what will happen? In the first place it will not be necessary to apply this legislation. I want to emphasize this point again. Surely the hon. members are all rational people. They ought to realize that there is no more moderate way of dealing with this matter than the course of action we are adopting.

I think that it is a little unfair of the Opposition to keep on nagging at us as though we were introducing total secrecy here. It is altogether unnecessary to do so. If the attitude of hon. members in this House would help prevent people from exploiting the situation in future, it will not be necessary at all to implement this legislation. Consequently I hope that that will be the position. For these reasons the hon. member’s amendment is not necessary, and is not acceptable to me either.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak to the amendment as such but I should just like to say to the hon. the Minister that I think he is doing himself an injustice. I also think that he is doing the commission an injustice by bringing this sort of legislation into being. The hon. the Minister says that this provision is purely to enable them to make a regulation which the Government can use if necessary. Without being derogatory, what this looks like is that the commission needs something to protect it from itself. They are the people who draw up the final report. They are all responsible people and at that stage they must surely know the secrecy of the matters contained in the report and that it should be handled with great care and security on its way to the Cabinet. As the report reaches finality and the final decisions are taken, that attitude must be heightened in those deliberations.

The regulation which provides for secrecy in matters dealt with by the Commission for Co-operation and Development does not only relate to the report; it covers quite a wide field. I really think that the hon. the Minister should give the commission another chance to see whether they can get a report out without somebody leaking information. Really, protecting the commission by means of a secrecy clause when the people who are dealing with the matter at that stage should be able to cope with the matter in the normal administrative way, and giving the legislation wide powers to do so, is going to bring about the situation that I described to the hon. the Minister where people will begin to look upon the commission as a bogeyman. The commission’s own image will be harmed because the hon. the Minister is doing something here that is quite unnecessary.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 21, to omit “R1 000” and to substitute “R200”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 22, to omit “one year” and to substitute “six months”.

These amendments are concerned mainly with the penal provision, for in the nature of things I asked myself how the amount of R1 000 or imprisonment for one year, as we have in clause 2 of the legislation before us, was determined. Since the hon. the Minister referred on more than one occasion to the fact that what he really had in mind with this provision was the Commissions Act, I consulted the Commissions Act to establish what the penal provisions in the Commissions Act, No. 8 of 1957, as amended, actually were. The Commissions Act contains two kinds of penalties. The one is a fine not exceeding R200 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, while the other penalty was a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. For the contravention of the provisions of the Commissions Act pertaining to secrecy, the first penal provision applies, viz. that of a fine of R200 or imprisonment for six months. Since we are also concerned in this case with secrecy, it would to my mind seem only logical that we should follow the example of the Commissions Act in this connection. In other words, the same penal provision as the one contained in the Commissions Act should be made applicable in this piece of legislation. I do not think that any further explanation is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to argue the point raised by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The penal provision which appears in the Commissions Act was inserted by section 13(b) of the General Law Amendment Act, Act No. 80 of 1964, and read as follows—

This was in 1964—

In 1967, four years later, the provision was amended by means of section 3(2)(a) of the General Law Amendment Act, Act No. 102 of 1967, and the penalty for the contravention of a regulation in regard to secrecy was amended to read as follows—

This is either an amount of R200 or imprisonment for a period of six months. There are three aspects which are of importance here. One hundred pounds or R200 in the year 1967 is definitely not the equivalent of R200 in the year 1982, because there has been inflation, and the hon. member himself knows how the value of money has changed. 1967 was a long time ago. Secondly, the present pattern of penal provisions in legislation is to make fines higher for that reason. The proposed penal provision in the Bill is therefore according to the present pattern R100 or one month, R500 or six months, R1 000 or 12 months. It has been adapted as a result of inflation and other factors.

A third factor—and this is apparently being overlooked—is that there is another fundamental difference between the provision of the Commissions Act of 1947 and this Bill, because the provision in the Commissions Act reads—

A court of law may therefore impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine. This Bill, however, provides for—

In the case of this Bill a court may therefore impose imprisonment only as an alternative penalty in default of payment.

In view of the fact that it is a maximum penalty which is being laid down and not a minimum penalty, there is, to be honest, when viewed objectively, no real merit in the amendments moved by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I am saying this with all due respect for him.

Just accept my amendments now.

Because I do not want to be unreasonable, for all kinds of good reasons and for the sake of emphasizing what we said earlier in our discussion of clause 1 and during the Second Reading debate, I am quite prepared to amend the provision, and I therefore move as amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 21, to omit “R1 000” and to substitute “R500”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 22, to omit “one year” and to substitute “six months”.

At the same time this fits in with and brings the matter into line with the Commissions Act, as I have explained to hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I shall accept the hon. the Minister’s amendments. I am sorry that it is not linked to the Commissions Act, but the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister, contain a measure of logic. [Interjections.] With the leave of the Committee, I therefore withdraw my own amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

There are three separate Electoral Acts at the moment for the White, Coloured and Indian population groups, the provisions of which are substantially the same in certain respects. For practical purposes, and in the light of the Government’s decision concerning the rationalization of legislation, it has been decided to introduce amending proposals in this House in order to consolidate the three separate Electroal Acts into a single uniform Electoral Act for all three population groups.

A uniform Electoral Act, as envisaged in terms of this Bill, will simplify the implementation of procedures, since it will be possible to use and maintain only one Act, one set of regulations, one procedural guide and one set of forms during elections. It is bound to cut down on labour and printing, as well as simplifying the training of officials, which will naturally be conducive to greater efficiency.

The Select Committee on the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act, 1946, recommended in 1976, among other things, that voters’ lists be compiled from the population register, since compiling voters’ lists and keeping them up to date by means of the population register would be more efficient and would involve a considerable saving in labour and State funds. There are several advantages attached to compiling voters’ lists from the population register, one of the most important being that it will be possible to produce voters’ lists which are more complete and more up to date.

In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that already, more potential White and Coloured voters, i.e. South African citizens who are 18 years of age and older, have been entered in the population register than the number of White and Coloured voters accounted for in the respective voters’ indexes at the moment. To prevent voters from being disfranchised during the change-over to voters’ lists based on the population register, provision has been made in clause 6 for people who are not yet in possession of identity documents and who furnish proof that they have applied for such documents, or that they were registered at the same address on the previous valid voters’ list, to have their names added to the relevant voters’ list for the election concerned.

Provision is also being made in clause 7 for voters’ lists compiled from the population register to come into force on a date fixed by the Minister in the Gazette. At the moment, the Electoral Act provides that as from 1 July 1982, no-one will be entitled to be registered as a voter or to remain registered or to vote if an identity document has not yet been issued to him by that date.

Since voters’ lists are going to be compiled from the population register in future, special measures must be taken to prevent disfranchisement, and for this reason it is being proposed in clause 85 that the date on which voters must be in possession of identity documents will be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. As far as the nomination of candidates for election is concerned, the Select Committee on the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act, 1946, recommended unanimously in 1976 that a candidate for election who is not registered as the official candidate of a registered political party, and a candidate of a registered political party who at the date of proclamation of the election concerned is not represented in the House of Assembly or in a provincial council by at least one person, elected as a representative of the said registered political party, should lodge with the returning officer, on the prescribed form, at least 300 signatures of voters whose names appear on the voters’ list of the constituency concerned which is in force at that time. In motivating this proposal, the said Select Committee remarked that the proposed additional requirements with which candidates had to comply upon nomination were intended to prevent elections, which are held at great cost to the State, being necessitated by the nomination of candidates who do not even have nominal support in a constituency, but are only using the procedure of an election either to draw attention to themselves or to cause inconvenience and expense to another candidate or candidates or party and to the State.

The Committee furthermore emphasized that it had no wish to remove the right of any person who wanted to have himself nominated for the purpose of being elected and who could reasonably expect to receive at least some degree of support.

The provision concerning the 300 signatures gave rise to problems during the general election last year.

One of the major problems was that it was alleged that the 300 voters whose signatures had been appended to the prescribed form had not been confirmed as witnesses by the candidate or his authorized representative, i.e. prima facie, the voter did not sign the nomination form in support of the candidate’s nomination before or in the presence of the candidate or his authorized representative.

In order to remove these problems, it is now being provided in clause 27(b) that the 300 voters supporting the nomination of the candidate must sign the prescribed nomination form in the presence of the returning officer.

At the moment, it is not possible for the returning officer to ascertain whether each candidate for election qualifies for nomination as such, with the result that in most cases, he has to accept the particulars on the nomination document as prima facie correct.

In order to facilitate the work of the electoral officer and to ensure that the prescribed requirements are met, it is being provided in clause 27(a) that candidates for election must confirm in writing that to the best of their knowledge, they are not legally disqualified from being a member of the assembly concerned. This proposed amendment places a greater onus on the candidate, therefore, to ensure that his nomination complies with the legal requirements.

At the moment, a forfeited deposit is paid into the State Revenue Fund, and such deposit is only forfeited if the defeated candidate has received less than 20% of the number of votes which the elected candidate polled.

The deposit of R400 no longer has any relation to the cost involved in an election. Nor can it compensate for the trouble and inconvenience usually caused by an election.

Today, the fact that a deposit has to be paid by a candidate and that such a deposit can be forfeited because of a relatively low percentage of votes received by a candidate in an election can at most be regarded as a gesture to discourage irresponsible candidatures.

In the light of this, the forfeited deposit of R400 should be paid to the candidate who has been elected, and for this reason, an amendment is being proposed in clause 28 which will provide for this.

†Mr. Speaker, as far as the registration of political parties is concerned, the said Select Committee in 1976 recommended, inter alia, that an application for the registration of a political party should be accompanied by the constitution of the party, including a declaration that the constitution had been accepted by at least 50 persons at a congress or other gathering. This recommendation was accepted and is presently embodied in section 36(1) of the Act.

In the light of the fact that certain candidates for election can only be nominated if at least 300 voters support their nomination there is all the more reason why a political party should be able to prove at its foundation that it enjoys a reasonable measure of support from the voters. In view of these considerations it is proposed in clause 26 that the number of founder members be increased from fifty to one thousand.

Mr. Speaker, at a symposium of electoral officers, returning officers and representatives of political parties held after the last general election, there was consensus that the issue of ballot papers to applicants for postal votes should be restricted in order to prevent as far as possible the likelihood of malpractices and confusion on the part of those voters who have already applied for postal votes and who are then approached at a later stage to vote as special voters.

An amendment by means of clause 36 is therefore proposed to provide that the issue of ballot papers for postal and special votes should commence on the same day, i.e. seven days after nomination day, and close at the same moment, i.e. at 21h00 on the day immediately preceding polling day. In clause 32(d) a further amendment is proposed to provide that applications for postal votes should not be signed before proclamation day.

Mr. Speaker, amendments are proposed in clauses 74 and 75 that are intended in the first place to protect voters against undue influence and in the second place to ensure the free progress of an election by prohibiting certain printed matter.

In terms of the present provisions of the Electoral Act, monthly lists of insertions in and deletions from the voters’ index have to be printed and made available to political parties. This means that twelve lists of insertions and deletions per year in respect of each electoral division have to be released. However, as soon as voters lists are compiled from the population register, it will be possible to reprint electoral rolls in their entirety.

Consequently it is proposed in clause 15 that voters’ lists be compiled from the population register on the first day of January and July of every year in respect of the various electoral divisions of the Republic and that they be made available free of charge to political parties and for public examination. This will obviate the many and confusing monthly lists of insertions and deletions of voters.

*Mr. Speaker, the Bill contains 88 clauses in all, and therefore it is not possible for me to explain each of these clauses in the time available to me.

As a result, I have concentrated only on the more important new principles contained in this Bill, although there are further proposals embodied in the Bill which are intended to enable us to conduct elections more efficiently in future. Most of us sitting in this House today have endured the trauma of elections and know how much trouble and inconvenience they involve.

I believe, therefore, that it is the wish of each of us that elections should take place in the most orderly manner possible and with the minimum of disruptions, and this is indeed the underlying principle on which this Bill has been based. Consequently it deserves the support of all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, this is a complex Bill, as may be expected of a measure dealing extensively with the regulation of elections in South Africa. It is a Bill which should preferably be the product of consensus among the political parties, specifically because it lays down the rules which must apply in the struggle between the parties. This ought surely to be the ideal, and it is important that when different individuals, bodies or parties are engaged in a game or a struggle, the various participants should be satisfied with and agreed as regards the rules in terms of which the game is played or the struggle fought. Therefore it will be as well if all participants in politics are consulted and their agreement obtained on every occasion that amendments to the Electoral Act are effected or when a new Electoral Act has to be placed on the Statute Book. In pursuance of this idea, an effort has been made over the years to obtain consensus, particularly by way of referring legislation to Select Committees, where evidence is heard and discussions take place. I want to say here and now that it is a pity that this has not been done in regard to this Bill as well. Requests have been made to this effect, but they have not been complied with.

Particularly as far as the technical aspects of this Bill are concerned, I am convinced that a large measure of agreement could indeed be reached in the atmosphere of a Select Committee among hon. members of this House who are experts in this field and who know how important it is that a sound set of rules in terms of which elections are held should be incorporated in the Electoral Act. Now, however, we are compelled to discuss the technical aspects in this House and try to obtain finality on them here.

Let me say at once that there are also aspects relating to principle in this Bill which we on this side of the House cannot agree with under any circumstances unless those aspects are drastically amended. We feel so strongly about these matters that we have decided to oppose the Bill even during the Second Reading debate. Let me now deal with some of these matters which we regard as matters of principle and which we feel to be so unacceptable to us as to compel us to oppose the Bill as a whole.

†Mr. Speaker, there are mainly four aspects of this Bill to which we object. The interesting or rather disturbing element about these four aspects is that they have something in common, namely that they tend to favour the status quo. In the first two instances they favour the status quo in the sense that they make it more difficult for prospective candidates and smaller or new political parties to oppose sitting members or established political parties. The third and fourth clauses to which we object favour the status quo in the sense that they discriminate grossly in favour of the person who is already elected, either to Parliament or to a provincial council. These clauses not only favour the status quo; in other words, they do not only favour the present Government but in fact they also hamper the democratic process. They hamper the democratic process in the sense that they create difficulties for the smaller and newer political parties, difficulties which are totally unrelated to the suitability of those political parties or their candidates to stand in elections. They also create difficulties which are totally unrelated to their individual and collective merit to be represented in a House like this or in the provincial councils in South Africa.

Let us look first of all at clause 27. Clause 27 aggravates the already unsatisfactory situation where 300 voters are required to declare their support publicly for a particular candidate before that candidate is allowed to be nominated as a candidate in an election. It is understandable that there must be some discouragement of so-called freak candidates, freak candidates meaning people who wish to stand as candidates in an election either as a joke or to promote a political lie, which is so ridiculous as not to be taken seriously by anybody in an election. However, when such form of discouragement becomes a substantial interference in the democratic process, then I believe we should call a halt; then we should examine our consciences to establish whether the principles we profess to believe in are not being violated by that form of discouragement. I believe that the form of discouragement that we find in clause 27 falls into that category. There is already discouragement in the form of the deposit which has to be paid in order to enable one to stand in an election, but to insist that a candidate must obtain the signatures of 300 voters before he can be nominated is a violation of the democratic process. Of that I have no doubt. To insist that those 300 voters should be carted to the electoral office to sign statements before the returning officer is to push that violation to the point of the ridiculous.

This measure is a major nuisance for the prospective candidate and it is a denial of the secret nature of the vote in respect of every one of those 300 people who have to sign that statement, particularly where they have to go to the returning officer’s office to sign in his presence.

Let us look briefly at how the provisions of this clause will operate in practice because obviously one must examine it to see whether it has some kind of beneficial function in practice or to what extent it will have a detrimental effect. Obviously the requirement of 300 signatories applies only to independent candidates and to candidates representing a political party which does not have representatives in Parliament or the provincial councils who have been elected under the banner of that particular political party. If the effect of his measure was merely to eliminate truly obscure political movements one could at least say that it makes some form of crude sense, but this is not the case in practice let us look at the situation even before the 1981 election and at the situation immediately after it. Time and again opinion polls have shown very clearly that a party like the HNP in fact commands more public support than, for instance the NRP. Yet this stipulation applies to the HNP but it does not apply to the NRP. I say this merely to point out that this is in fact a ridiculous stipulation. It does not operate sensibly because we do not have a system of proportional representation in this country. A political party which may command just under 20% of support countrywide will have to obtain those 300 signatures in every single constituency if it puts up candidates while another political party that may command support in excess of 20% but only in a limited number of constituencies and which may command a majority in two or three constituencies and therefore have members in this House, will not be required to produce those signatures. Therefore I say it is a ridiculous measure that really makes no sense.

Let us look now at the hon. members on my physical left and my political right, the hon. members of the CP.

We shall speak for ourselves.

The hon. members can certainly speak for themselves. Much as I dislike the political line taken by hon. members of the CP, it cannot be said that it is an obscure political party. Nobody can therefore claim that they have to prove that they are a political party by producing 300 signatures before they can nominate candidates in an election. Nobody who professes to believe in democracy in any sense of the word can claim that the application of this clause or the application of the section as it appears in the Electoral Act makes sense in respect of the CP. This is therefore a ridiculous situation, Sir. [Interjections.] The obligation actually to cart 300 potential signatories to the returning officer so that they can make their statement before him can in a sense be compared with carting 300 people along to cast special votes. Hon. members who have been involved in elections will know that that is quite a substantial job and, in relation to rural constituencies where one has to travel considerable distances, this job becomes a very daunting one indeed. If at the same time one exposes those people to some kind of social or maybe economic pressure, most certainly political pressure, that stipulation can in fact be described as disgusting, and this is how I certainly view it. [Interjections.]

Our second difficulty is in regard to clause 26 in terms of which it is now required for purposes of registering a political party that 1 000 instead of 50 signatures be produced and that 1 000 people attend a particular meeting. In the first place, what is the relevance of 1 000 people at a particular political meeting? Surely that is not a test of one’s political support. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs himself, who perhaps should have introduced this Bill, could not attract a single soul in Port Elizabeth at the height of a high-powered election campaign. Does that indicate that a candidate of the NP is required to produce 300 signatures in order to allow him to stand? This, surely, is ridiculous, Sir. It is nonsense.

I do not believe that by drawing arbitrary lines in these matters one will in any way arrive at a fair and equitable electoral system and that one will be serving the cause of democracy, however much we differ on political principles. I do not believe that clause 26 is going to make any contribution to more orderly and better election procedures in this country or that it is going to help South Africa in any way whatsoever.

It is also noteworthy that neither of these two clauses that I have just dealt with, applies to Coloured and Indian people who are also dealt with in this Bill. What is the effect of this? I thought we were moving away from discrimination. What is the effect of this kind of nonsense? Why should it be applied selectively? Does the Government not expect to get political parties to participate in its new schemes, parties which can command a meeting of 1 000 people or which can obtain the signatures of 300 people? What are we talking about? What is the rationale for this strange form of discrimination?

The third clause I wish to deal with is clause 28 which deals with the election deposits. Listening to the hon. the Minister of Finance during the course of this session, I have not gathered that the Government is very keen to give away money. I did not gain the impression that there was a need for them to give their money away.

Have a look at Soweto.

This is a completely new idea that the winning candidate in an election should walk away with the deposit of the losing candidate. What good reason is there for such a provision. We all know that a candidate fighting an election, regardless of whether he wins or loses that election, incurs considerable costs. We all realize that, but if a deposit is paid to discourage independent candidates from standing, and somebody is to benefit from the loss of that deposit, surely it should be the fiscus or the Government. Surely the Government, which has to go to the immense expense of running the election, should get that benefit. How does the hon. the Deputy Minister think he is going to defend this particular clause to the voters of this country? I think it is a absolutely crazy.

The NP must be short of money.

It is, in fact, a rather unsubtle system of syphoning off public funds into the coffers of the NP. I cannot believe that hon. members on that side of the House—particularly the hon. the Deputy Minister—have no sensitivity about the question of deposits at this point in time, because many of the political structures they have created for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in this country have given rise to elections in which nobody would have been able to retain his deposit if it had been calculated in accordance with the number of registered voters. There were cases of people who were willing candidates but who obtained only 20% or 10% of the votes, or even less. How can the Government now come along and tamper with the deposit in this way? I mean, has the Government no sensitivity about this matter? If I were in their shoes, I would be too ashamed to even talk about election deposits in this House at this stage.

*It is interesting to note that we are supported in respect of the three aspects to which I have objected, and that support is expressed in an editorial in Die Vaderland of Friday, 7 May 1982. The editorial refers specifically to these three elements, firstly, the fact that 300 people have to be brought before the electoral officer to furnish their signatures, then the fact that the signatures of 1 000 people have to appear in a party’s deed of foundation, and finally, the fact that the election deposit is forfeited and paid to the winning candidate. Several arguments are advanced in this editorial, but I just want to quote one paragraph to sum it all up—

I could not have put it better myself.

The fourth element to which I want to refer briefly is contained in clause 74 of this Bill. [Interjections.] This is truly a remarkable clause. In clause 74(b) a new offence is being created, and the hon. member for Mossel Bay should listen, because he himself could fall into that trap. The provision reads as follows—

Where do hon. members get hold of this kind of rubbish? How is it that they incorporate this kind of rubbish in legislation? Since when is it necessary to create a special offence of slander to protect politicians? I thought politicians were relatively tough people who could endure criticism, people who are prepared to take and hand out criticism. How can we in this House shamelessly insert a clause in a Bill to create a protective provision for ourselves, protection which we begrudge our opponents in an election?

Where do you find that?

It is in clause 74. The hon. member would do well to go and read it. He must not blame me if he has not finished reading it. I know it is a bulky Bill, but he should read it from beginning to end. [Interjections.] Surely this is a ridiculous situation. Surely it is totally unjustifiable from the democratic point of view to make it a special offence to slander a member of the House of Assembly or a member of a provincial council during an election while the candidate standing against him who, incidentally, is not a member of the House of Assembly or provincial council at that stage, does not enjoy the same protection. How are hon. members going to justify this kind of discriminatory treatment? I should be ashamed to resort to this sort of protection if an opponent of mine ever insulted or slandered me. This kind of measure is no credit to democracy. It certainly does not become hon. members of this House to support this kind of legislation.

There are several positive aspects in this legislation. It is a great pity that they should be overshadowed by all these aspects that one finds so irritating and so undemocratic, and that force one to oppose the Bill. I refer, for example, to the fact that ballot papers for postal votes and special votes will now be issued on the same day. Every hon. member who has taken part in an election in which postal votes have played a major role will know what gave rise to these dates being a week apart. While some people handed in applications for postal votes, others rushed around in order to bring in the voters who had cast special votes. These are, of course, entirely justified political tactics, but the point I want to make in this regard is that in fact it has nothing to do with democracy. What is more, it creates a tremendous amount of additional work for the electoral officers in any constituency. Accordingly, I think that this is most definitely a plus point, particularly since the adjustment of the dates has not brought the time closer to the day of the election, but has instead pre-dated it. Therefore there is a week more time for voters who are going to be absent on the day of the election, to cast their votes. We appreciate this kind of measure. It helps a great deal.

Then, too, I just want to refer briefly to the fact that the position concerning the people who at this stage do not yet have their new identity documents, is now being clarified. This is an improvement, but during the Committee Stage we should like to point out other areas where there may be room for improvement. There is just one aspect I wish to point out which cannot be embodied in this Bill but which the hon. the Deputy Minister who is responsible for that department would do well to bear in mind. If the fact that a person has applied for an identity document is to be regarded as relevant in future in determining whether he is entitled to be registered, I think it would be as well if the department were at all times to issue a receipt in any case where application has been made for an identity document, so that a voter or potential voter would not have to struggle to prove to anyone that he was entitled to be registered as a voter. He would then merely have to produce the receipt.

I am not going to deal with any of the technical aspects. Other hon. members will do so. All I want to say is that it is a pity that one is unable to achieve consensus as regards a Bill of this nature. However, I fear that as long as the four elements to which I have referred remain part of the Bill, we, as people who truly believe in democracy, are unable to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point raised a number of matters relating to this amending Bill and in the course of my speech I should like to react to several of them. In the nature of the matter, virtually every election results in political parties and the officials gaining experience which points to the desirability of certain amendments. After all, an election procedure comprises the machinery whereby the voters of a country are afforded the opportunity to cast the sovereign vote, as it is called; to give expression to the national will. Basically, this is the approach of all democratic political parties. Here in South Africa, as far as the Whites are concerned, we have a long tradition of democratic elections. As far as the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned, the situation has not yet stabilized to the same extent, with regard to the political tradition, as is the case with regard to the Whites. However, the point of departure of this legislation, and one of the basic principles of this Bill is an effort to introduce, as far as is practicable, corresponding administrative procedures as regards the holding of elections for White, Coloured and Indian voters. That is why one of the premises of this Bill is to strive to incorporate the basic administrative approach in one piece of legislation, because this can also eliminate many problems, particularly as regards the handling of affairs by the officials. For the political parties, too, this can facilitate matters considerably.

One of the most important aspects that comes to the fore in this matter is, as the hon. member for Green Point mentioned, the point that we must seek to eliminate as far as possible candidates who do not really have an interest in an election. The object has never been, and never will be, to deprive any candidate of his democratic right.

And what are you doing now?

I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point that he sat in a Select Committee that endorsed the principle that …

[Inaudible.]

That is correct. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point endorsed the principle …

At that time my proposal was 100 signatures.

The hon. member for Durban Point endorsed the principle. I want to emphasize that again. He was in favour of the principle that at least a certain number of signatures must be obtained to allow a candidate to qualify to be registered as a candidate in an election.

The hon. member for Rissik and the former hon. member for Maraisburg, Mr. A. C. van Wyk, were both members of the then Select Committee. The hon. member for Durban Point was also a member of that Select Committee. It is true that there was a difference in approach as regards the number of signatures that had to accompany a nomination list. I, too, was on that Select Committee, and I remember the hon. member for Durban Point saying that it should be 100 signatures. I think the hon. member for Rissik said that it should be 500 signatures. [Interjections.]

What you are saying is untrue! [Interjections.]

No, Daan said it should be 1 000 signatures! [Interjections.]

Tino, what you are saying is really not true!

If what I am saying now is untrue, then I should like to hear from the hon. member for Rissik what figure he did in fact propose at that time. However, what is indeed true is that the hon. member for Rissik also endorsed the principle.

He also attached his signature to it.

He did endorse the principle. [Interjections.] As often happens when there are differences of opinion on both sides, negotiation and consultation takes place and an agreement is eventually reached. When an agreement was eventually reached—I think the hon. the Minister of Community Development was the chairman of the Select Committee at the time—it was achieved after thorough consultation and deliberation. I think that at the time the hon. the Minister of Community Development also held long discussions with the hon. member for Durban Point on this point. Eventually it was agreed that the figure should be put at 300 signatures.

Before the electoral officer?

At that time it was not before the electoral officer, but I am coming to that.

What this, then, amounts to is that the previous Select Committee, which consisted of all the political parties in this House, accepted the principle …

Where is the Select Committee now?

Because the point of departure was that we were not dealing with a change in principle in this regard but were in fact retaining the principle, it was recognized that ia method should be determined in accordance with which candidates who are nominated should at least give an indication that they have some degree of support. In that Select Committee we deliberated at length and considered several different possibilities. There was no alternative method whereby we could limit “freak candidates”, in the phrase of the hon. member for Green Point. The Select Committee was unable to propose or agree on any alternative method as a better method of eliminating “freak candidates”. However, we can accept that there was agreement as to the principle that that kind of candidate should be excluded.

In the past, in by-elections in particular, we have had cases where elections have been necessitated because some person, as an individual, felt that he wanted to stand as a candidate, but in one case such a person only obtained 30 votes. I am referring to the fellow who promised boreholes and dry pumps. [Interjections.]

Order!

What this amounts to is that a democratic system is made into a farce. I believe in the maintenance of the democratic system in a fair way, but it must not be made into a farce. If any political party in this House or outside it can come forward with a positive proposal to eliminate this kind of farcical candidate—I am not referring to candidates who do indeed have a certain amount of support; I have no objection to them …

Some candidates are farcical candidates, but they get 6 000 votes.

If such proposals are made, they can be considered.

Since the situation of the HNP has been broached, I wish to refer to it. When the Select Committee considered this matter at the time, the situation was entirely different. For the 1977 election the HNP had put up 40 candidates in Transvaal. Of those 40 candidates, 38 lost their deposits: only two succeeded in retaining their deposits. However, it is also a fact that in the subsequent election in 1981 the situation had changed. The HNP put up 41 candidates in Transvaal, and not one of them lost his deposit. In that way the HNP gave a practical indication that they enjoyed a greater degree of support in the election.

I have briefly analysed the situation as regards forfeited deposits and have found that in 1981 the situation had altered considerably. There were far fewer forfeited deposits than in 1977.

What do you ascribe that to?

I ascribe it to the fact that there was less rigidity in politics, that there was political uncertainty and that people voted tentatively. In the democratic process this is logical. However, I am not suggesting that any political party is guilty of this. I wish to quote statistics to show that no NP candidate forfeited his deposit in the 1981 election. In no single constituency did an NP candidate forfeit his deposit. In contrast, the PFP put up 27 candidates in the Cape, two of whom lost their deposits. In the Transvaal the PFP put up 38 candidates, six of whom forfeited their deposits.

One of them was Langlaagte.

Yes, Langlaagte was one of those constituencies. The PFP therefore put up a total of 78 candidates, eight of whom forfeited their deposits.

The HNP put up a total of 87 candidates, ten of whom forfeited their deposits. The HNP put up 13 candidates in the Free State, one of whom forfeited his deposit. In the Cape 28 candidates were put up, nine of whom forfeited their deposits. Therefore, altogether ten candidates forfeited their deposits.

The NRP put up 38 candidates for the 165 seats, seven of whom forfeited their deposits. [Interjections.] One of these candidates forfeited his deposit in Natal, while six of the 15 candidates who stood in the Transvaal forfeited their deposits.

Apart from that, one independent candidate forfeited his deposit, as did two candidates of the NCP.

As regards the requirement of 300 signatures, I do not think that this number is the law of the Medes and the Persians. This figure was decided on by a Select Committee on which all parties had representation, and that principle is being upheld here. However, when the system was implemented for the first time during the 1981 election, it was evident that malpractices were occurring. Bit by bit these malpractices were exposed in the courts. Some candidates were totally disqualified because their opponents succeeded in calling for court interdicts in time. Evidence of malpractices was submitted. Now, when a principle is accepted and incorporated in legislation passed by Parliament, and malpractices occur in that regard, it is surely the task of the Government to attempt to design a system to eliminate those malpractices. I, too, am not married to the idea that everyone should submit a sworn statement before an electoral officer. It is true that this is the proposal in the amending Bill, but I am not married to that idea. Let the other parties come forward with alternative proposals to eliminate malpractices and dishonesty.

Appoint a Select Committee.

I agree; this could perhaps be done by a Select Committee. But must it necessarily be done by a Select Committee? After all, many Bills are dealt with in this House by proposing and discussing amendments across the floor, and it often happens that a Minister accepts amendments without the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. After all, a principle is not at issue here; what is at issue is the elimination of a specific malpractice. Why should the elimination of a malpractice be referred to a Select Committee? Surely all parties are fully entitled to come forward with proposals in this House when we deal with the Committee Stage of a Bill.

The other clause about which the hon. member for Green Point complained and which he objected to is the one which provides that at least 1 000 signatures must be obtained for the registration of a political party. In 1977 a Select Committee accepted the principle that political parties must be registered. In other words, registration is not a new principle. What is new is the provision relating to the number of voters required before a party may be recognized as a political party. Previously we had no such provision. We looked at what was done in other countries and studied the electoral acts of other countries. Documents in this regard were submitted to the Select Committee. It was found that the registration of political parties was not an unusual phenomenon. As a Select Committee we recognized at the time that the registration of political parties was desirable because we thereby prevented people who did not really have a political party behind them, from putting up a kind of deceptive name in an effort to sow confusion. Individuals are not being prevented from standing as candidates. If they are not representatives of a registered political party, they stand as independents and cannot therefore make themselves out to be members of some party. For example, the name “Conservative Party” can be touted. It is not a new concept in politics.

You tout the concept “National”.

There has already been a Conservative Party in the past. Mr. Bailey Bekker had a Conservative Party, Dr. Connie Mulder had a Conservative Party and Cor du Preez had a Conservative Party. The term “conservative” has been used several times.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

By all means.

Can the hon. member tell me what inference he draws from the fact that this Bill provides that Whites must obtain 300 signatures, whereas this is not required of Coloureds and Indians?

I shall reply to that and then come back to my argument. At the beginning of my argument I said that over the past 72 years, viz. since the days of the Union of South Africa, White politics has developed a definite formula, stability and foundation. Political parties have stabilized. There is constancy. [Interjections.] Their political pattern has crystallized. The NP was founded in 1914 and still exists. Incidentally, the NP has been in power for 34 years today.

Hear, hear!

Other political parties have come and gone. Years ago there was a South African Party, which eventually became the United National South African Party. That dwindled and was later dissolved. The NRP came into being as a result and is today sitting here with a mere eight seats. In 1958 the Progressive Party came into being. For a long time they had only one representative in this House. They were eventually strengthened by splintering in the UP and became the Progressive Reformist Party. Subsequently they changed their form and name and called themselves the Progressive Federal Party. However, my point is that the political parties in South Africa have developed in a certain pattern and that the situation has definitely crystallized. As far as the political situation among the Indians and Coloureds is concerned, a definite political orientation has not yet taken place.

Why not?

It is because for years the Coloureds lacked any representation in any council chamber apart from representation by Whites in this House. The Indians had no representation whatsoever. [Interjections.] I said absolutely nothing about the reasons for that. I was speaking about the circumstances, and why political parties had not stabilized among the Coloureds and Indians in such a way that one could expect at this stage that they should comply with the same requirements of constancy and stability as the Whites. We had the situation in the Coloureds Representative Council that there were fluctuations in the political parties. We also had the situation in the latest election for the Indian Council that many of their candidates stood as independents, and when they had been elected, they re-orientated themselves into various political parties. In other words, it is clear that as yet there is no political stability in the pattern of political parties among the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] That, quite simply, is the reason why one cannot set the same requirements for Indian and Coloured political parties as for White political parties at this stage. However, that is not to say that we shall not introduce similar measures for them in the years ahead.

I now wish to come back to the situation in which we are increasing the present minimum of 50 names for the registration of a political party, to a 1 000. [Interjections.] I am of the opinion that the privilege of standing as candidate for a specific political party requires that that political party should have a broad foundation. In my opinion, registering a political party with only 50 votes does not establish a broad foundation. Even with a 1 000 names one can always succeed in establishing a kind of farcical party, but that will not prevent candidates from being nominated if they can still obtain their 300 signatures. I am of the opinion that no political movement in South Africa worth its salt ought to have trouble obtaining 1 000 names for the founding of a party. [Interjections.] I think that even the CP would have been able to obtain 1 000 signatures, or should I say paw-marks, at the Skilpad Hall to register as a political party. [Interjections.] In other words, the principle has been accepted.

Order! I shall be obliged to take disciplinary steps if hon. members do not wish to maintain order. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The principle of the registration of a political party was accepted by a Select Committee on which all political parties in this House had representation. This provision now means that fundamentally a political party must have credibility before it can be registered. This does not deprive any individual of the right of standing as candidate, but it is subject to the same conditions that we debated before in connection with the possible elimination of farcical candidates who enjoy no broad support whatsoever. In my opinion, therefore, this aspect need not necessarily be referred to a Select Committee either, because the detail could be debated here by way of a sensible proposal, and an amendment could be accepted.

A further aspect is that the deposit of a losing candidate could be paid to the winning candidate. This is quite an interesting innovation. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point argued that a deposit which was declared forfeit should rather go to the Treasury.

It should rather go to old-age homes.

In the past it went to the Treasury, but the expenses incurred by the State in regard to elections are a given figure. If the Government calls an election, they adopt the standpoint that if there are 165 constituencies, elections may be held in 165 constituencies. The State budgets for the expense of holding an election in each constituency. It is not, therefore, the State that loses when an election is held in a certain constituency.

Oh, come on! [Interjections.]

The State budgets for an election in every constituency. [Interjections.] What does happen, however, is that candidates or political parties can be inconvenienced to a considerable extent if a farcical candidate comes forward.

Then you lose your seat!

I am not talking about the Van der Merwe candidates now. Apparently there are certain Van der Merwes who have already caused a political farce in the course of history. [Interjections.] I am not against the Van der Merwes. Besides, on 23 February this year the Van der Merwes split in half; three remained in the NP, while three left. [Interjections.] However, I just want to say that Van der Merwe who has just made the interjections, that he can make interjections if he likes, but he really must not come along with such efforts to deceive people—or is it to deceive newspapers?—by sticking two photographs together. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have now had the opportunity to listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister delivering his Second Reading speech and to the chief spokesman on the Government side, the hon. member for Klip River. I want to begin by also referring to the Select Committee of 1976, and in this regard, two interesting aspects have come to the fore this evening. However, I think it was very unfair of the hon. member for Klip River to say that I had asked for 500 votes to be stipulated in that Select Committee. I do not think it becomes the hon. member to have said such a thing.

I shall accept that if you say what the true state of affairs is.

After all, a certain attitude or atmosphere, in which one can discuss matters, is created in a Select Committee, and therefore, to make such a categorical statement after a number of years is in my opinion not worthy of that hon. member as chief spokesman of that party. [Interjections.] What I find so amazing is the fact that the hon. member and the hon. the Deputy Minister have kept referring to the Select Committee of 1976. However, when this Bill appeared on the agenda, the CP asked that a Select Committee be appointed, because this has been the convention or practice of this House, at least as I have come to know it over the past 16 years.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. Chief Whip must please give me a chance to put our side of the matter. The Select Committee is being referred to over and over again, and my name is also involved. The convention of this House is that when the subject at issue is the Electoral Act, viz. when we discuss the rules of the game, everyone who is interested comes together and discusses those rules. [Interjections.] That has always been the convention of this House, and I think it was a very good convention, a convention that we should have retained. [Interjections.] Accordingly, it was some weeks ago that this party called for a Select Committee. However, the request came from a party which was in the minority on the Opposition side, and I accept the fact that the request to have a Select Committee was not accepted. When we asked for it, however, there was sufficient time, because a number of Select Committees were appointed even after we had asked for a Select Committee. If we were really interested in thorough, neat, scientific rules of the game, and in the spirit laid down by convention, we should have appointed that Select Committee. [Interjections.] As I have said, several references have been made to the Select Committee of 1976. I just want to say to the hon. member for Klip River that in our discussions in that Select Committee I said that I was not really sure whether the idea of 300 signatures was a fair arrangement. That is my standpoint.

What did Connie say? [Interjections.]

At the time of that Select Committee, Dr. Connie Mulder was a Cabinet Minister. [Interjections.] I think it is very unfair to shift everything on to a specific Minister. After all, the Government appointed the Select Committee at the time. [Interjections.] However, as soon as one tackles those hon. members, they cast back to the past. When it suits them, they cast back to the past, but when it does not suit them, they do not do so. I think we could have discussed this Bill in a very calmly and orderly fashion if we had had a Select Committee.

Surely you can discuss it calmly here, too.

I think the hon. Chief Whip knows—I think he will agree with me—that the convention was that we had to discuss these matters as political parties in a Select Committee. [Interjections.] However, the hon. member keeps referring to the principle. He says that the principle was laid down at that time. However, how many years have passed since then? What is more, we have had an election since then.

Two elections.

Surely, then, many practical problems have cropped up in the interim. [Interjections.] Therefore I think it would have only be fair to have had a Select Committee. For example, since 1977 a new party has taken its place in this House, a party that is growing, but that has not had a say in the proceedings of the Select Committee in question. I should therefore have thought that at this time in particular we would have wanted to give the officials an opportunity to testify before us, as well as the public, people who voted, and also the HNP, that attracted far more votes in 1981 than did the NRP. In a constituency like Ermelo—and many other constituencies as well, of course—it attracted approximately 4 000 votes. [Interjections.] These are all matters which in my opinion we could have discussed very calmly in this way. I still cannot understand why it was not referred to a Select Committee, but I shall leave it at that. I just wish to add that the spirit and attitude in 1976 was that we wanted to keep out those people who wanted to make a farce of an election, people like Mr. “Boorgat” Botha—there are many other Bothas that cause problems—the cranks and the people who really wanted to cause us problems. However, it has never been the spirit and attitude at that Select Committee that we wanted to interfere with democracy. That was my standpoint at the time, and it is my standpoint again this evening.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member who stood against “Boorgat” Botha? [Interjections.]

That hon. member is a relative novice in politics. I want to say to him that I am still going to come to Bloemfontein to discuss the whole principle of justice. Mr. “Boorgat” Botha stood against Dr. Connie Mulder at the time. [Interjections.] The attitude and spirit in all the Select Committees over the years has been that we did not want to interfere with the essence of democracy. At the time this Act was by no means aimed at keeping out of the election people who really had a chance as independents in specific seats. In the second instance, it was also not aimed at preventing people from founding real political parties in South Africa. It was in that spirit and atmosphere that we discussed matters in 1976.

I want to say that I have now gained the impression that the governing party is really making matters increasingly difficult, specifically as regards the rise of parties that are not yet represented here. [Interjections.] In the case of the HNP, for example, one of their candidates was ousted for a technical reason at Rustenburg, so that the people of Rustenburg were in fact unable to vote. This also applies to Pretoria Central. I wish to state very clearly that the essence of the standpoint of the Select Committee in 1976 was not one of seeking petty technical points whereby to disqualify candidates at the ballot box. People who are contending that this is so were not quite fair or honest at the time when they were on the Select Committee, or else they really did not understand it. Accordingly, I move as an amendment—

Now there are a few points I want to raise briefly, which hon. members on this side of the House will refer to again later. I do not think anyone will take it amiss of this party if we cast a hypercritical eye at the governing party, since it is a party which has changed its principles with regard to power-sharing and also with regard to its view of nationhood in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] We therefore consider this Bill, too, in the light of the attitude of the governing party that the Brown people, the Indians and the Whites are relatively one nation.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member said on one occasion that I had no “kennis van die dag” and still less “kennis van die aand”. I want to tell him that we shall see what happens after the next election. [Interjections.] The sooner that election comes, the better. However, in the light of this, we shall scrutinize all this legislation carefully, because the NP is on a path with which we no longer agree in principle.

The NP’s nerves are finished. [Interjections.]

It seems so, yes. However, if they do not hold an election, we shall see to it that it is done.

The Progs will take Stellenbosch, in any event. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to explain to us far more clearly why the Brown people and the Indians … [Interjections.]

But I told you the Nats’ nerves are finished. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister will have to explain to us very clearly why he found it essential to involve the Brown people and the Indians, too, in this legislation with regard to a voters’ roll which formerly was meant exclusively for Whites.

I now also wish to remark on clause 26, in which it is provided that the signatures of at least 1 000 people will in future be required for the foundation of a new political party. Previously the number required was only 50. I must say once again that in my opinion this amounts to interference with democracy and freedom, about which this party feels very strongly. In this regard I seek a better answer than that provided by the hon. Member for Klip River as to why this provision applies to the Whites but not to the Coloureds and the Indians.

It is discrimination against the White man!

Mr. Speaker, I wish to state clearly that the nature of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Klip River are totally acceptable to me as a White person. When I imagine the hon. member for Klip River, with his approach of a relatively unified nationhood, approaching the Brown people and repeating those arguments to them, I do not know what they would do to him.

They would lynch him!

And if he advanced the same arguments as he advanced here earlier this evening before an audience of Indians, I believe I could say with certainty that the CP, which is a so-called ultraverkrampte political party, is a party with far more understanding of the political aspirations of the Coloureds and the Indians and of ways in which they will be able to conduct their politics. [Interjections.]

And then on top of that they discriminate against the White man! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared not only to put my case before an audience consisting of voters of hon. members of the NP but also to do so before an audience of Brown people and Indians. Hon. members of the NP can go and put their standpoint there, and we shall put ours as well. I would not be at all ashamed to do so. [Interjections.]

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

No, the hon. member for Klip River had a whole half hour to state his standpoint. I believe he wasted his time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Klip River must please resume his seat.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I now wish … [Interjections.]

Yes, be quiet over there in the kitchen!

I now have a few words to say to the hon. member for Brits.

Order! Which hon. member referred to hon. members in the kitchen?

It was the hon. member for Waterberg, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brits referred to me as “bang Daan”. I just wish to point out to the hon. member that as far as the Brits constituency is concerned, he may be sure that he is serving his notice in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brits might as well take note of the fact that we are ready to fight an election in his constituency at any time. I invite him to share a platform with me there so that we can both state our cases there. [Interjections.]

Jan was only able to attract an audience of 19 people at Brits the last time he spoke! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Brits should rather be quiet when it is a question of being afraid. His reputation in this regard leaves a great deal to be desired. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Kroonstad would also do well to be quiet. He, too, is serving his notice. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as the question of the 300 signatures is concerned, I just wish to point out that it was accepted at the time in order to exclude certain elements from elections. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, over the past few years it has become very clear that these 300 signatures simply do not serve a practical purpose. [Interjections.] Particularly during the election of 1981 it was clear that this requirement of 300 signatures simply did not meet the need for which it was introduced at the time. I therefore believe that if it pleases the Government at some stage—I just hope that the NP will no longer be there then—and a Select Committee is again appointed to deliberate on these matters, other ways and means of doing these things will have to be investigated. I hope that at that stage, without detracting from democracy or the freedom of people, we shall indeed find a method whereby we can control people with regard to their participation in elections.

Do not forget that you voted for it, Daan!

Order!

As regards the provision that the forfeited deposit should accrue to the winning candidate, I do not believe that there has ever been such an absurd proposal in this House. If that is an unparliamentary expression, I withdraw it. I cannot understand the principles on which such a proposal is based. Nor can I understand how it could be accepted by a Cabinet after having been submitted by a study group. Nor can I understand how a caucus could accept anything of the kind. I should very much like the hon. the Deputy Minister, or any hon. member on that side of the House who is going to take part in the debate after me, to tell us where it comes from, what its advantages are and why it is so. Let us take it that three candidates take part in an election and the one who fares worst forfeits his deposit, while there is only a one-vote difference between the other two candidates. Why should the forfeited deposit go to the winning candidate? [Interjections.]

Ask “Flinkdink”; perhaps he will be able to tell you.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications would perhaps be able to tell us. I think the proposal is absurd and not worthy of Parliament. [Interjections.] The Coloureds Representative Council was dissolved a year or two ago, but in terms of legislation that council could be re-established. We are now passing legislation here with a view to drawing up a voters’ roll and the holding of an election. Why has the Government not yet restored or reestablished the Coloured Representative Council? Now we have to do and arrange everything with a view to an election, but there is no Coloureds Representative Council. I should very much like to have an answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. I should very much like to see the final proposals of the Government with reference to the recommendations of the President’s Council, to enable us to have some idea of where the NP wants to go with South Africa in the political field.

What do you say, Daan?

Yes, I can understand that the hon. member would very much like to know that. In the days when he was on this side and I was over there, I often told him which path to take. Now he is provisionally on the other side, but the day will come when that hon. member will sit here again, because at the moment he is only really sitting in the old United Party. [Interjections.] I want to be friendly towards the hon. member—I shall not be nasty to him—because the day will come when he will come back to this side.

Therefore I say that we cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that the Bill which is before the House should have caused us to descend to a personal level in this debate.

That is an old story.

I shall try, as far as I am able, to ignore the hon. member for Jeppe.

Because I used to be in your constituency.

I shall make it clear why I want to ignore that hon. member tonight. What the hon. member says outside is not the same as what he says in this House, and he knows it.

You are lying. However, I withdraw that, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Jeppe allowed to shout at the hon. member for Witbank that he is lying?

I have withdrawn it.

Has the hon. member for Jeppe withdrawn it?

I have, Sir.

I take it from whom it comes, Sir. I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppe that in the time I have been in this House, I have never once heard him accuse an hon. Minister in this House of being arrogant. Why does he do it outside the House, then?

I do it in this House as well.

That hon. member used to sit on this side of the House. I had not intended in my speech tonight to descend to the level to which some hon. members have descended tonight. Such was not my intention. I want to tell that hon. member tonight that there is a saying: “Man is master of the unspoken word, but the spoken word is master of man.” The hon. member can reflect on that when he goes home tonight.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member used to sit on this side of the House, and now he is …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must please contain himself now.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to spare him this, but there are a few things that I do want to say.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is not speaking to the Bill.

The hon. member for Witbank may proceed with his speech.

Reference has been made tonight to the various political parties in this House. When the hon. member for Jeppe is addressing an audience outside this House, he says that no one need be ashamed any more, as a White Afrikaner, to be known to be a member of the Conservative Party.

I still say that.

I should prefer to leave the matter at that and to come to the legislation.

I am deeply disappointed in the conduct of some hon. members in this House tonight. In the first place, I want to refer to the performance of the hon. member for Green Point. I am only a junior member of this House, and I still have a great deal to learn. In spite of that, I want to say to the hon. member that he should seriously reflect on his performance in this House tonight. One has only to think of the road which the hon. member’s party has already travelled. The hon. member for Klip River has pointed out tonight how many times that party has already changed its name. The voters were not consulted when they did that. Some hon. members of that party who are sitting there now used to belong to the United Party and to the Reform Party.

I come now to the CP, and I do not wish to be unkind to them. The hon. member for Rissik was a member of a Select Committee in 1976, as was the hon. member for Klip River, so they are aware of the fact that the Select Committee completed its work in 1976, and that its recommendations were tested for the first time in the 1981 election, and that they gave rise to problems. Surely hon. members on that side of the House know this.

I come now to the provision regarding the 300 signatures and the comparison which has been drawn between the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. We must be mindful of numbers, and I do not have to tell hon. members this. It is important. The hon. member for Rissik referred to the number of signatures which is required. In preparing this speech, I took the trouble of consulting the report of the Select Committee concerned. We must not engage in any recriminations tonight. As political parties we can reach accord in this House. If it appears that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, if this is practicable and if time allows it, taking into consideration the emergence of a new dispensation, it can in fact be considered.

[Inaudible.]

I wonder why the hon. member for Barberton does not rather ask for a turn to speak. [Interjections.]

I wonder why I did street work for you in the past.

Yes, I know the hon. member did street work for me, but tonight he is not behaving like the man I used to know. In any event, a proposal was made by the hon. member for Durban Point on that Select Committee. He said that to him, it was the principle that was important, and thereupon he proposed that the number be reduced to 100. We voted on that. It is not a secret document. Hon. members should go and see who was in favour of the number being reduced to 100, and they should also go and see who was in favour of the number being 300.

But I was still a member of a caucus at that time. [Interjections.]

It is very clearly recorded here who voted for it and who voted against it. [Interjections.]

There is something I want to say in all kindness to the political parties in this House tonight, and I am not referring only to the Conservative Party. I find that there is a shortcoming in this Bill which is before the House. We must protect the voter. I want to ask a question tonight, and I am putting it to the representatives of the Conservative Party as well. [Interjections.] The members of the Conservative Party came to this House under the banner of the National Party. [Interjections.] I do not want to be unkind, but I think it is time we made provision in our legislation for the voters to be protected against this kind of behaviour. [Interjections.] After all, this is not the first time that such a thing has happened. [Interjections.] I want to say to the CP in all kindness that when one is elected under the banner of a specific political party, and one subsequently has a change of heart, the voter has the right to demand that one should come back to him. The hon. member for Simon’s Town took that course. He went to his voters. [Interjections.] Is that not the course one should take? [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us go back to the voters. I think this is what we should do. I think we should ensure that our politics in this House does not descend to a low level. I think we must prevent that. I am sorry that I have to differ with the members of the CP tonight, but why have they not gone back to their voters? [Interjections.] I think this is important.

As regards the problem surrounding the 300 signatures, surely hon. members know about the problems that were experienced with nominations. It is my belief that prospective candidates should not be disqualified at nomination. That is why it is now being provided that when the nomination court is sitting and there are mistakes on a nomination form, the candidate concerned will have the right to correct these. It is not the intention of this side of the House to get rid of political parties. People have the right to form political parties. When we come to the 1 000 signatures which are required to form a political party, we must also bear in mind, however, what the cost of an election to the State is.

I think we should look for a moment at the legislation which is before the House, at what it is intended to achieve and what the Government has in mind with regard to political parties. In the few minutes I have left, I just want to say that I am very grateful that the Act is now being amended. Bearing in mind the cost of elections, the staff problems in the light of the manpower shortage in this country, this means that we are now consolidating three Acts into one.

And eventually one mixed Parliament!

I take no notice of the hon. member for Sunnyside. The rationalization of laws forms part of a programme of rationalization which the Government is carrying out.

You mean a programme of integration!

If the hon. member for Sunnyside sees any form of integration in this Bill, he is free to do so, but I do not find it there. A further matter which I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister is the practice of voting for the House of Assembly and the provincial council on the same day. This creates problems for many of our people. I think this is a matter which we shall have to examine once again. When one looks at the number of spoilt ballots which were found during the past three elections, it is important to note that most of them were caused by people who did not vote because they were not clear about the two votes. In 1974, there were 20 723 spoilt ballots, in 1977 there were 15 980 and in 1981 there were 24 190. I request the hon. the Minister to consider that matter with a view to perhaps providing for it in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik moved an amendment to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee. I understand that that is the usual procedure in Parliament on electoral matters. Therefore at the outset I want to say that I am prepared to support the hon. member for Rissik’s amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The problem, of course, as I see it, and I think the hon. member for Rissik will also see it, is that it would appear that the Government is in a great hurry to get this legislation through this session. Quite frankly I am at a loss to know why it is so essential to get the legislation through this particular session. Possibly in due course the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to explain the extreme urgency which precludes the desirability of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

There are a number of principles in this Bill to which one has to give consideration because, as hon. members are aware, when one approves a Bill at Second Reading one has to give consideration to principles only. It is very, very difficult to deal with half a dozen different principles, as is the case here, and not get oneself involved in details while discussing a Bill such as this. The debate that has taken place so far this evening on this Bill is a clear indication to me as to what will happen and what does happen when the processes of democracy are tampered with. This is in fact what happened in the previous electoral Bill and what is likely to happen in this Bill to an even greater degree. The biggest sufferers, if this Bill comes into being, will quite obviously be the hon. members who are sitting in this House representing the CP. They obviously were participants in the first tampering with the Bill to protect the status quo.

That was before the 1981 election.

Yes. It is a fact that they were party to the original amendment that necessitated there being 300 signatures. I think the reason behind that was fairly obvious, namely to make life a little difficult for the HNP. I do not think that there can be any argument about that. However, what I am trying to illustrate is that once one is on the slippery road of tampering, one may quite likely finish up by being hoist with one’s own petard, and that is in fact what is happening here.

Let us develop that argument a little further. It seems to me that as a consequence of changing political dispensations and possible power-sharing, it may well be that there are still hon. members sitting with the NP at the present moment who may feel rather unwilling to remain there after a new dispensation is put to the public. They too will then find themselves in a very invidious position. If they find that it is untenable to remain with the NP after a new dispensation, they will either have to sit as independents, establish a new party or join the CP or some other party. They will then be in the position of sitting in this hon. House, not having been elected in the capacity in which they are then sitting. As I said before, Sir, they may also then find themselves in the same most individious position in which the hon. members of the CP now find themselves. They will, however, be in a worse position and hoist even higher with their own petard because when the CP were responsible with the NP for the 300 signatures to keep out the HNP, they at least did not have this extraordinary clause …

What did Vause Raw say?

I will come to that in a moment. At that time they did not have such an extraordinary clause as we now have in the Bill, namely clause 27(b)(ii)(cc), in terms of which one has to go through the rigmarole of taking every one of one’s supporters for nomination before the returning officer. I have never heard of anything so preposterous in my life! If we pass this Bill and still have the effrontery to say that we run a democratic system then we must be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. [Interjections.] If anybody can tell me of any other country in the Western democratic system where they have such a pernicious system, I would like to know where it is because I have never heard of such a thing.

One of the hon. members opposite raised the issue of the hon. member for Durban Point being a member of the 1976 Select Committee. Much has been made of the 1976 Select Committee but it has been said that in the life of politics six months is a long time. Six years have elapsed since 1976, there have been two general elections since then, and the parties represented in this House are in totally different array to the position that prevailed in 1976.

What amendment did he move in 1976?

In so far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, he was even at that time not happy about this concept of 300. [Interjections.] He told me so, and I must take his word for it.