Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

1. (1) Resumption of Second Reading debate,—Electoral Act Amendment Bill [B. 89—’82];
2. (2) Second Reading,—Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Bill [B. 90—’82];
3. (3) Second Reading,—South African Indian Council Amendment Bill [B. 91—’82],

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like at this stage to thank hon. members who have participated in the Second Reading debate of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill for their contributions. It has been customary for many years that proposed amendments to the Electoral Act be referred to a Select Committee on which all parties in the House of Assembly are represented. It is a custom which will be continued. The Second Reading of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill was moved last night to give hon. members an opportunity to state their standpoint for the information of the public. The standpoints adopted confirmed that the subject of this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. In the light of the fact that the subject of this Bill is now to be referred to a Select Committee, it will be necessary to introduce a Bill before the end of this session so as to prevent voters from being disfranchised as from 1 July 1982 if they are not yet in possession of an identity document at that stage.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Population Registration Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1950, the objective was to establish a population registration system the underlying fundamental principle of which would be that—

1. (a) the most important facts relating to the life of each individual of the population would be recorded on a national register; and
2. (b) each individual whose name is recorded on the population register, would be issued with an identity document which could serve at all times as proof of the holder’s identity.

The facts relating to the life of everybody whose name appears on the population register, are utilized for various purposes in his own as well as the national interest. I am convinced that the benefits afforded by the system of population registration and identification make it essential that the system be at all times maintained as effectively as possible, utilized and, if necessary, adjusted in order to keep pace with the demands set by changing circumstances.

The main objective of the Bill at present before the House, is just that; to operate and utilize even more effectively the population register and the system involved. The aims this Bill seeks to achieve are, inter alia—

1. (a) to introduce measures whereby to make the register as complete as possible and keep the contents up to date as far as possible;
2. (b) to use it to compile voters’ rolls in future; and
3. (c) to issue a uniform identity document to all population groups.

Before dealing with the principles embodied in this Bill, I should like to begin by briefly sketching the background against which these proposed statutory amendments should be seen.

In 1970 the Population Registration Amendment Act, Act. no. 29 of 1970, was placed on the Statute Book in order to provide for the recompilation, extension and maintenance of the population register on a computerized basis as well as for the issue of identity documents—books of life—to replace the identity cards which preceded them. In spite of determined efforts which have been made since, the population register is not yet complete and the address register is only partly up to date. There are practical bottlenecks which complicate the effective compilation and maintenance of the population register.

One major bottleneck which has been identified is the fact that the link between the department and the individual who has to be identified and registered and whose changes of address have to be kept up with, is too distant and impersonal. Consequently a large number of incomplete applications are received, while the holders of identity documents often fail to report changes of address.

In contrast to the position in this country, in Western European countries the gathering of personal information, the notification of changes of address and the compilation of voters’ rolls is effected for the most part on a decentralized basis by way of local authorities. These decentralized systems of service to the citizen work well.

In the light of the findings and recommendations of a departmental committee of inquiry the following, inter alia, has been approved—

1. (a) the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs should be decentralized and additional regional offices established;
2. (b) more use should be made of local authorities to carry out decentralized functions on behalf of the department, the local authorities to be reimbursed accordingly;
3. (c) a network consisting of Government departments, provincial administrations, statutory bodies, local authorities, enterprises in the private sector, agricultural associations and co-operatives, etc., should be created for the collection of applications for identity documents and changes of address in respect of their clients, whose identity and address is of importance to them, as well as in respect of their employees; and
4. (d) Parliamentary, provincial council, Coloured and Indian voters’ rolls are to be compiled from the population register as soon as the population register has been completed and after it has been established on the basis of trial runs, that relatively complete and up-to-date voters’ rolls can be produced in this way, in which case the updating of the existing voters’ indexes will be discontinued.

In conjuction with the above-mentioned decision, the Government also decided that—

1. (a) a uniform identity document for all population groups, including Blacks, be introduced; and
2. (b) in the case of new applications for identity documents, the fingerprints of the applicants be taken as from a particular date.

Since the draft amending Bill on population registration was published for general information and commentary in then Gazette in January 1981, it has been adjusted in the light of the few items of commentary received, and the Bill at present before the House is the final result.

I now wish to deal briefly with the main principles embodied in the Bill.

The Bill has been drawn up in such a way that the provisions of the principal Act are being made applicable to all population groups. Up to now the Population Registration Act applied to Whites, Coloureds and Asians only. As far as the compilation of a population register for Blacks and the issue of identity documents to Blacks are concerned, it is provided in clause 9 that the State President may by proclamation assign the administration of the Population Registration Act or any provision thereof to the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

A second principle embodied in the Bill is that the format and contents of an identity document that has been issued may be changed as required. An amendment to this effect is proposed in clause 4(i).

The issue of a uniform identity document to all population groups is at present being investigated by an interdepartmental committee, and the findings of this committee will be submitted and considered in due course with a view to a final decision on the format and content as well as the safeguarding of this uniform identity document.

A further important principle for which provision is now being made is that as from a particular date the finger-prints and signature of a new applicant for an identity document has to be incorporated in the population register. However, the State President will have the power to declare by proclamation that palm-prints should also be taken, and that the measures as contained in the Bill should only be applicable in respect of certain persons or categories of persons in the population register. In this regard I refer to clauses 4(c) and 11 of the Bill. Such exceptions with regard to these measures will not be made on a population group basis. Accordingly there will be no connotation of colour.

Although the identity document containing the photograph and full personal details of the holder is an adequate means of identification which the holder, in the normal course of events, could submit as proof of his identity when required to do so, the only irrefutable proof of identity is the finger-prints of the person concerned. In order to combat subversion it is essential that it be possible in future to prove the identity of individuals beyond any doubt by means of finger-prints, so as to counteract the forging of identity and other documents such as driver’s licences, as well as the infiltration of subversive elements into the Republic and into sensitive buildings, key points or areas.

†A fourth principle embodied in the Bill is contained in clause 5, in which it is proposed that employers and the owners of land or premises shall be required to ascertain within 14 days whether new employees or tenants (a) are in possession of identity documents, and if so, (b) whether they have given notice of recent changes of address; or (c) if they are not in possession of identity documents, whether they have applied for such documents.

A number of bodies and persons have raised objections to this proposal. They argue that an unjustifiable burden will be placed on employers, hotel-owners, flat-owners, etc., and also that the violation of privacy is involved. Whereas employers and landlords will only be called upon to perform this public service in respect of new employees and new permanent residents, and whereas the service will contribute immensely to the establishment and maintenance of an up-to-date population register and voters’ lists, I cannot agree that what will be asked from employers and landlords is unreasonable. Furthermore, employers and landlords will in such cases merely be acting as agents for the State in its registering function, and the information they will have to ask for, will not be of a confidential and personal nature at all.

With regard to the existing authority to demand the production of identity documents, further provision is now being made in clause 7 for certain persons or classes of persons—for example, officials of State departments, provincial administrations and local authorities forming part of the countrywide network for the collection of applications for identity documents and notices of change of address—to be given the necessary powers and functions for the performance of this task.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I wish to refer to some of the provisions of the Bill. A new definition of “ordinary place of residence” is being inserted into the Act. The aim is to bring the Act into line with the Electoral Act as voters’ lists will in future be compiled from the population register.

In clause 2 it is proposed that the reproduction of existing registers, forms, certificates and other documents included in the population register may be effected by means of microfilming, or a similar process, and that such reproductions or copies thereof may for all purposes be deemed to be the original documents.

At present there are approximately 8 million files in which documents of individuals are kept. Microfilming of these documents will hopefully save manpower and storage space, facilitate the tracing of documents and result in a more efficient service to the public.

Mr. Speaker, the population register which a State keeps in respect of its citizens should not be a contentious matter under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, however, it is something which, because of its political and racial overtones, has become a sensitive matter in South Africa. Every politically sensitive Coloured, Asian or Black person will be able to testify to the fact that his classification as a member of a specific race group is of enormous significance to him. In the vast majority of cases, it has a negative meaning or a problematical meaning.

The Population Registration Act is the Act in terms of which people are classified into several racial categories for purposes of the implementation of a multitude of other laws which in many cases are of a discriminatory nature. The Government has committed itself to moving away from race discrimination, and the Bill which is before the House contains a few aspects which, on the face of it, would appear to constitute an attempt to remove discrimination by introducing a more uniform system. This is especially applicable with regard to a uniform identity document. As part of the attempt to move away from race discrimination, it would appear to me— I want to emphasize that this is what appears to me to be the case—that finger-prints and palm-prints will henceforth be required for Whites, Coloureds and Asians as well. I know the hon. the Minister has also advanced other reasons for this step, but I also see it as an attempt to bring about greater uniformity, perhaps, instead of this being required only of Blacks in certain cases. If a uniform system is in fact what the Government is aiming at—and I suspect that it is— one finds it regrettable that it has not been possible in the past to dispense with the system of finger-prints in respect of the general public, rather than to make finger-print requirements uniform for all race groups. I can understand that this could create temporary problems with regard to illiterate persons in particular, but I believe that those problems can be surmounted and that they will become less important as time goes by.

With regard to the requirement that finger-prints, and later on perhaps palmprints as well, can be incorporated into the population register and can eventually become part of the information contained in an identity document, I believe that the public will find this irritating. I have little doubt in my own mind that the public will not react favourably to this. In fact, I believe there have already been indications that the public reaction to this is not favourable. And I can quite understand it. It has been described by some commentators as a kind of violation of their privacy and as something which has a criminal connotation, and that is in fact true. This is the kind of thing which is going to irritate people. I believe that the legislation which we have in South Africa at the moment shows a reasonable sensitivity to this element. Hence perhaps the requirement in the Criminal Procedure Act that when it becomes apparent that a person has not been convicted or that he does not have any previous record, his finger-prints must be destroyed. In other words, the impression is created by the Criminal Procedure Act that the moment it is clear that a person has not committed any crime, or has not been convicted of an offence at that particular stage, no finger-print of his must be preserved in any record. I am saying that this may be an indication of the degree of sensitivity which does exist with regard to this matter in our present legislation, specifically because people feel that it has a criminal connotation. Of course, it is also a practical problem. One must always weigh things up, and that is what we shall try to do in discussing this Bill, to see whether there are such important advantages attached to the implementation of a finger-print system in our population register that the general public will simply have to put up with it, although they may find it irritating, or even insulting in some cases. Allow me to say at once that we on this side of the House are by no means convinced that the potential advantages of this system can in any way compensate for the irritation and the potential administrative disadvantages involved. In fact, I believe that this fingerprint system will create an administrative nightmare for us. It is true that this measure will come into effect at a later date, at least, some of its provisions. But I do want to say that the department which is going to be forced to implement these measures has suffered a very great deal in the past as a result of all kinds of new systems and innovations that have been incorporated into our population registration system. Apart from the fact that there is a rapidly increasing population, and apart from the fact that there is a staff shortage, these changes in the system have caused enormous problems, which in their turn have irritated members of the public, because they really tried to send in their changes of address and to apply for identity documents. However, the department finds itself in a situation where it cannot respond to these applications quickly enough and cannot supply this documentation to the public quickly enough.

I can only foresee, therefore, that the new measure which is outlined in this Bill with regard to finger-prints can only aggravate the position. In spite of the fact that finger-prints are going to be required only to those persons who do not yet have identity documents, or who have to obtain a new document for some reason, I submit that it will take years before this sytem can be regarded as at all effective for any security purposes whatsoever, not only because people who have to obtain new identity documents have to provide their finger-prints, but also because of the processing of these prints. If one could obtain statistics regarding the exact number of finger-print experts there are in South Africa, I would say that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order could supply the statistics. I would not be surprised if there were a shortage of these people in his department as well, and I am not aware of any other department or any private body in South Africa which employs people who are able to deal with this aspect. Very great skill is required for comparing finger-prints in a proper and meaningful way, so I want to say that the mere development of a system within the population register of which finger-prints will really form an essential part will in itself cause enormous administrative problems.

We must also ask ourselves what the effect of this finger-print system is going to be. The hon. the Minister has told us that it is necessary for security reasons. He also mentioned the influx of people who come to this country for evil purposes and said that this had a bearing on this matter. We must ask ourselves to what extent the Department of Internal Affairs is going to be dragged into this kind of situation in future. The question may also be asked: If one is dealing in this connection with a highly sophisticated operator, with a spy or someone of that nature, will they have any difficulty in forging documents on which their own finger-prints are supplied? I want to make the point at once that if a person knows that he has evil intentions in South Africa and that he is engaged in subversive or insurgency activities, and if such a person is required to have his finger-prints taken, surely he will know that a comparison is going to be made which will create a problem for him sooner or later. Unless the department already has a set of finger-prints in its office, which is supposed to be that person’s own finger-prints, such a comparison of finger-prints would not make any sense, unless the department had information available to it which indicated that a person who went by a certain name had provided a certain set of finger-prints. Under those circumstances, this information would be totally useless. That is where I foresee a problem.

We recently became aware of the Dolin-chek case, where two different passports were issued to a certain person. This happened merely because a false name was supplied. I believe that merely by means of a photograph and merely by means of the man’s signature, etc., matters could be more carefully checked when a passport is issued to a person. Therefore, if one does not have the staff or the ability at this stage to make use of that available information in order to regulate the issuing of passports and the issuing of identity documents, I really do not know where the department is to get the staff and the time to organize a finger-print system for purposes of comparison in a practical and meaningful way. I know that when this possibility was raised some time ago by way of a Press statement by the hon. the Minister, mention was also made of the fact that one of the problems facing the department was forged drivers’ licences. Once again, I am afraid that the forging of drivers’ licences is a problem which cannot be solved in any way by a finger-print system. The position is quite simple. A person applies for a specific job as a truck-driver, and he is asked to produce his driver’s licence. I am convinced that no more than 5% of those employers would go to the trouble of comparing, on the basis of finger-prints, the person’s driver’s licence and the information available at the head office. I repeat, therefore, that I am surprised at the fact that a requirement in respect of finger-prints is being laid down here and that it is expected to make a material contribution. I want to say that information contained in the population register at this stage already appears in identity documents. For the general public, for the private sector and so on, this is sufficient for purposes of comparison, which is in any event the reason why the department is performing its duties in this connection. In so far as criminality and security matters are concerned, a system of finger-prints can be used on a limited scale, as is being done at the moment.

It would be interesting to draw comparisons and to ascertain exactly how many sets of finger-prints are being kept by the Criminal Bureau in Pretoria at this stage and how much work was involved in building up that system alone. This could then be projected onto the total South African population. On the basis of this, a study could be made of the administrative nightmare we would be creating for ourselves by introducing such a system for the general public.

There are a few other aspects that we find problematical. In the first place, there is the extension of the obligation imposed on certain people to assist in carrying out the department’s function in the sense that identity documents have to be issued and applied for. Furthermore, the information they contain must be kept up to date. In this connection I am referring to clause 5, in terms of which a duty is being imposed, not only on landlords or on persons who provide accommodation for others, but also on employers, not only to ascertain, as in the past, whether the person concerned has notified the authorities of his change of address, but indeed whether that person is in possession of an identity document. In that way, the department has to be assisted in keeping its system of identity documents and the population register up to date.

We on this side of the House are very pleased about the fact that the activities of the department have been decentralized in recent years. We think this is a good development in its activities and a sensible course to adopt. I believe it will make a contribution, in so far as this has not already happened, towards enabling the department to organize its activities more effectively and to serve the public in a more meaningful way. We also believe that it is a good thing that the activities of the department should be localized to a larger extent, for example by involving local authorities and even other bodies, so that they may help to keep the population register up to date.

I must point out at once that in my opinion, it would be a mistake to overdo this, and when we begin to talk about banks, building societies, farmers’ associations, people who provide accommodation and employers, we must be careful, or we shall get into trouble. In the first place, I think that from the department’s point of view, this could lead to an enormous duplication of information, that is to say, if the public on whom this duty is being imposed is largely co-operative. If people do not co-operate—I suspect that this is more likely—it would actually make little difference to the system as it functions at the moment.

I do not think it is justified that this duty— it is actually a legal duty—which already rests on certain people should be extended to employers. It is a fact that people regard certain information as private and do not like to be policed in the sense of constantly having to show their reference books to somebody or other. I think this is something which people find irritating and which will not make them feel inclined to give their cooperation.

Something which could in fact help to keep the population register more up to date is the fact that the voters’ roll will now be based on it, for as a result of this, the hon. the Minister will have the co-operation of the various political parties. I do not think he could conceive of a better supporter than the political parties when it comes to keeping the population register up to date. Naturally, it is in the interests of the political party to ensure that voters are registered, and if the political parties have to do this by ensuring that the voters are in fact in possession of identity documents and that information regarding their places of residence reaches the department as soon as possible, I am sure that the political parties will make an enormous contribution towards keeping the population register more up to date than has been the case in the past.

Then there is the right which is being conferred on the State President to transfer the population registration system for Blacks to the Department of Co-operation and Development. Another hon. member on our side will go into this matter in greater detail. Of course, we regard it as a senseless measure. We realize that a large amount of work is already being done by the Department of Co-operation and Development. We cannot deny that if this measure is put into effect, it will cause some duplication in the sense that the expertise which is concentrated in one department at the moment will to some extent have to be transferred to another department in order to keep the system up to date in a meaningful way.

As far as we are concerned, it is also a retrograde step politically speaking. Discrimination is being eliminated in this legislation in other respects, but in this case, discrimination is being reintroduced and the line is being drawn ever more clearly between Black on the one hand and White, Coloured and Asian on the other. After all, hon. members know that we do not care for this. It makes one think more and more that a line is being drawn between those who are regarded as South African citizens and those who are not.

This brings me to the final point I want to deal with. I am referring to the discretionary powers which are being conferred on the State President by several provisions in the Bill. It is understandable, of course, that discretionary powers are often appropriate in legislation and that on some occasions, it is in fact necessary to confer such powers on the executive, because it is not always practical to have to resort to the legislature in order to effect changes. Here, however, there are a few things which in my opinion amount to serious discretionary powers, and in these cases we cannot approve of these powers being conferred on the State President. I say this because we believe that in the past, the Population Registration Act was strictly implemented. I am referring, for example, to the power to include further information in the population register.

†Let me just mention that the first paragraph of section 7 of the Population Registration Act reads as follows—

Then comes the operative part—

Then the particulars are listed. Clearly this indicates “no other particulars whatsoever”. There is consequently the clearest of indications that the information that is to be included in the population register is jealously guarded in the Act because, as it stands, the Act is very specific about what is to be included and what is to be excluded. I believe that the relevant portion of the Act I quoted is made ridiculous or pointless if one includes a subsection granting anybody any discretionary powers at all in this regard, whether it be the hon. the Minister, the State President or anyone else.

To which subsection are you referring?

I am referring to section 7 of the Act.

Clause 4 deals with section 7 of the Act.

Yes. [Interjections.] I am referring, in particular, to clause 4 on page 9 of the Bill, line 43, where it is stated—

That is what I am talking about.

What paragraph is that? Just give me the line.

It is clause 4, paragraph (h), starting from line 43 on page 9 of the Bill. The paragraph to be included starts in line 45. That is the one I quoted.

Then there is a similar provision in the clause dealing with the identity document. Once again it provides that certain information will be included and “no other information whatsoever”. Once again, this indicates that the present Act jealously guards the kind of information that should be allowed to appear in an identity document and therefore should be allowed to be seen by those people empowered to ask for the production of the identity document. Once again a provision is introduced in this regard which in my view makes that part of the heading pointless, because it gives the State President the power to determine, by proclamation in the Gazette, that any other information stipulated by him may be included. This is the kind of thing to which we object.

There is also the discretionary power given to the State President to empower people other than the presently empowered peace officers to demand to see the identity document of any member of the public. Once again, I believe that this is the kind of thing that may well lead to irritation on the part of the public. I think that the fact that this right is now granted to other individuals is not a good thing, particularly if it is done in a way which does not bring the matter back to Parliament so that we can decide to whom we should grant this right. The State President is also empowered to confer on certain people power to achieve the ends of this legislation, i.e. not only to ask for the production of the identity document, but perhaps also to insist that a person should apply for an identity document, to insist that he’ should notify those concerned of his change of address, or to insist on any other personal particulars. This is the kind of thing to which we object. For that reason I move as an amendment—

1. (1) introduces the offensive and unnecessary taking of finger-and palmprints into our population registration system;
2. (2) imposes unduly onerous obligations on employers and landlords to carry out functions of the Department;
3. (3) creates unnecessary and wasteful duplication by referring the administration of the Act in respect of Blacks to a different Department;
4. (4) confers upon the State President discretionary powers in respect of matters which were previously strictly regulated by the Act.”.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Green Point, I almost gained the impression that his party would support this legislation after all. In any event, it did not appear as though hon. members of the PFP could be having such tremendous problems with it. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. What the four aspects he puts forward in his amendment amount to, firstly, is that the Government is supposedly introducing measures whereby people would be slighted in that their finger-prints would be taken for the issuing of new documents. Secondly, the hon. member claims that we are placing an onus on certain bodies to assist the Government or the Department of Internal Affairs. According to the hon. member, this is an unfair provision. Thirdly, the hon. member mentioned the fact that we could again be making provision for the administration of the identity documents of Black people to be transferred to the Department of Co-operation and Development. Finally, the hon. member’s objection concerns a number of regulations which may be dealt with by way of proclamation by the State President.

The hon. member for Green Point went on to say that the Population Registration Act had been a contentious measure in South Africa over the years. According to him, it has concerned sensitive issues, and has also had a racial connotation. We do not dispute that. The difference between hon. members of the NP and hon. members of the official Opposition lies in the very fact that the Government is prepared to acknowledge and accept certain factual situations, and to make provision for them. This, I believe, is why we cannot conduct a constructive debate with one another on this aspect. Hon. members of the official Opposition apparently refuse to accept certain realities.

The hon. member for Green Point has also claimed that it appears that the Government is now moving away from racial discrimination. It is the standpoint of the NP that where at all possible, it will remove all hurtful measures, measures which may hurt people simply because they belong to a particular race group. If hon. members of the official Opposition are so overjoyed about the Government’s standpoint in this respect, I wish to request hon. members of the official Opposition not to make sarcastic remarks, for example, that it appears to them that the Government now wishes to adopt certain standpoints.

The hon. member also referred to the old pass system, which has given us so many problems and which has also been crudely abused by the enemies of South Africa. We all know that one of the main reasons for the pass system—and a Black man also had to have his finger-prints taken for this—was just that thousands of those Black people were illiterate, and were therefore unable to sign their names. That is why their thumbprints had to be used. What is so dreadful about that, I do not know.

I wish to agree with the hon. member when he says that the programme for which the present legislation makes provision, is a long-term programme. Of course, there is also the problem of staff shortages. That is precisely why this measure makes provision for more use to be made of other Government institutions to assist the department in putting this long-term programme in motion as soon as possible. As far as population registration or identity documents are concerned, we have, of course, followed a long process. In 1970, the old and well-known book of life was introduced in terms of legislation.

Never mind, they are still going to take your thumb and palm-prints as well!

The hon. member for Langlaagte can talk if he wishes; we shall have to take his thumb and palm-prints in particular, so that next time we can tell the voters to remember that they voted for a Nationalist and that they should take cognizance of what he is doing now. [Interjections.]

In 1976, the Act was amended once again and the old book of life was replaced by a new identity document. In point of fact— and I believe the hon. the Minister will also see the matter this way—hon. members on this side of the House accept the fact that hon. members of the Opposition concentrate more on the negative aspects and place less and less emphasis on the positive aspects. I wish to point out that a number of tremendously positive provisions are contained in the present legislation. The underlying principles of this legislation date back to 1950, when the Population Registration Act was adopted. That Act embodied two objectives. Firstly, it is important that every country record the particulars of its citizens in a register and that every country should have such a national register. Every citizen of this country should also possess a State identity document. That is why it has been necessary over the years for such a system to be implemented in practice and maintained. However, over the years experience has taught us that there are many administrative problems in keeping the population register up to date, not so much as far as population figures are concerned, but particularly with regard to changes of address.

Furthermore, it is necessary that adjustments be made from time to time to keep abreast of changing circumstances, and all the hon. members in this House, as well as the general public, could make a positive contribution towards assisting the Government and the department to make a success of this system.

One of the aims of this legislation is to keep this population register as fully up to date as possible. However, one extremely positive aspect of the legislation, in my opinion, is that it will contribute to our having better voters’ rolls at our disposal in future on the basis of which to fight our elections. I do not think there is a single member in this House who cannot bear witness to the problems we encountered during the recent election. We had to turn literally hundreds of people away at the polls because their names did not appear on the voters’ rolls. This, then, is one of the main problems. The most positive aspect of this measure is the very fact that in future we shall be able to draw up the voters’ rolls on the basis of the population register and that in that way keep them up to date.

It is also the Government’s aim to introduce a uniform identity document for all its people in South Africa, and I believe that this is an extremely positive approach. All over the world we are ‘accused of discriminating or, in other words, that we distinguish among races simply on the basis that a man’s skin is not white, or because he has a brown skin. If we could issue a uniform document, we could perhaps succeed in depriving our enemies of that weapon.

A concerted effort was made with regard to the population register in the amending legislation of 1970, to reconstruct, extend and maintain the population register on a computerized basis. The old identity card was replaced by what was then called the book of life. However, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the department could not issue an identity card with the book once again. Nowadays, if one loses one’s identity book, it causes a lot of trouble to replace the book together with all the documents concerned. If, therefore, one could carry an identity card in one’s pocket while awaiting a new identity book, it would eliminate a number of problems. Therefore I think that the hon. the Minister should seriously consider issuing an identity card once again.

Then you will have more place in your pocket for your red handkerchief.

Yes, that is true, but my red handkerchief does at least have another connotation. If that hon. member were to wear a red handkerchief in his pocket, I would be concerned about him. [Interjections.] The fact is that at the moment, we do not have a complete population register in South Africa, and the address register in particular is only partly up to date. This is cause for concern, and in this regard, too, this measure will be of great assistance.

We recognize that there are practical problems. The hon. the Minister referred to one this afternoon, viz. that the department is far removed from every individual in South Africa. We should therefore try to bring the department closer to the individual. We should try and create a mechanism whereby there could be direct contact between the individual and the department.

As far as changes of address are concerned: This is something which many people neglect to report. The hon. the Minister stated, inter alia, that in Western Europe in particular, local authorities are used more productively in assisting their departments in this respect. I am therefore pleased that this measure specifically makes provision for other bodies and authorities in South Africa also to be involved in assisting in this regard.

The departmental committee carried out certain investigations and proposed that the activities of the department be decentralized. The hon. member for Green Point welcomed this step and said that he was of the opinion that this would work in practice. We on this side of the House also believe that this is one of the positive aspects of this legislation. We should then make use of local authorities and other networks, as the hon. the Minister spelt out this afternoon. Duplication of the population register and the voters’ roll, will, it is true, occur when assistance is provided by various bodies but I have no doubt that with the computers and other mechanisms at our disposal today, it will be possible to overcome the problem of duplication. I do not think this is an insurmountable problem. However, the positive aspect is that we are combining the population register and the voters’ roll.

The Government has decided to introduce a uniform document. The fact that people’s finger or palm-prints may be taken, is a matter in respect of which the hon. member for Green Point is experiencing problems. This is perhaps a matter which could cause people problems. We accept that this is a problem. However, the draft legislation was published in the Gazette as long ago as 1981, and the Government invited all interested bodies to comment on this. I do not know whether the official Opposition made use of the opportunity to make positive suggestions, instead of submitting a negative amendment now. After all, the Bill was at their disposal as far back as 1981. Perhaps in future the official Opposition should consider making use of such opportunities to comment in advance.

The main principles of this legislation apply to all population groups in South Africa. Therefore the old story about discrimination can now be discarded. I wish to point out once again to the hon. member for Green Point that the mere fact that the legislation provides for the State President to be able to transfer the administration of the identity documents for Blacks to the Department of Co-operation and Development by way of proclamation, is an administrative arrangement. It is quite possible that it is easier for the Department of Co-operation and Development to deal with identity documents through all its Administration Boards and the national States. The diversity of population groups in South Africa makes such an arrangement necessary.

The Bill also provides for the format and contents of this book. I do not think we should accept the latest identity document as the be all and end all. We should make provision—this is what the Bill determines—for the department to be able to alter the document when circumstances require. An interdepartmental committee of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Co-operation and Development are at present investigating the matter.

As far as finger and palm-prints are concerned, the hon. member for Green Point says this is an irritating measure. I agree with him. I am not going to argue with him about this, but I do not think we should emphasize the matter to such an extent by maintaining that there is a criminal connotation to taking a person’s finger-prints. I think this is unfair. One should rather request the co-operation of the population in this regard, instead of casting the matter in a negative light. A finger and palm-print, in contrast to a signature, constitute the only really irrefutable proof of a person’s identity. After all, we are all aware that an identity document lends itself to abuse, in that a photograph may simply be altered. Certain other alterations, too, could very easily be made. That is why we should sympathize with the department’s standpoint on the taking of finger-prints.

I do not yet know what the standpoint of the CP is going to be, whether they are going to oppose this legislation or not. However, I have an idea that when the draft Bill appeared in 1981, the hon. member for Rissik was the chairman of the study group of the NP. He should therefore take careful note of the contents of this legislation. It will therefore be interesting to hear this afternoon whether the hon. members of the CP are going to support the Bill or whether they are going to oppose it. Of course, I think that they are going to oppose the Bill. I have problems with the hon. member for Rissik, since it seems to me that his signature has not meant a great deal recently. He signed his name in favour of the establishment of the President’s Council, as well as being one of the required 300 signatories for the Electoral Act.

What are all the things that you have signed?

I was out of active politics for 18 months before I joined a party again, and then I fought and won in my previous constituency, but for another party this time, with a majority in excess of 4 000. The hon. member for Barberton should not speak too loudly. The core of his supporters in Barberton are all “bloed-Sappe”. I know them all, and he is aware of this.

With regard to the statement of the hon. member for Green Point, viz. that a photograph or signature is sufficient, the hon. member ought to accept my argument that this does not constitute irrefutable proof, since signatures and photographs still lend themselves to forgery.

The question which arises is: How is a complete and up-to-date register in respect of the population of South Africa to be drawn up? A practical approach is embodied in this legislation. Firstly, the legislation requires of the employer, in respect of each person he employs, and bodies which perhaps leases a house or a flat, to do a few things. For example, people have to remain in contact with their local authorities to pay their water and electricity accounts in any case, because if they do not pay their accounts, the water and power are cut off. In other words, they are compelled to report any change of address. It is not at all an unfair burden, as the hon. member for Green Point wishes to suggest. All that is required, is to ask someone whether he is in possession of an identity document. After all, a person has to fill in his identity number on the income tax form for income tax purposes. Is it too much to expect an employer to ask his employee: “Are you in possession of an identity document? Have you notified the department of your change of address?” After all, it is made easy for us. A form is sent together with the identity document to a person, which he simply has to fill in and return. However, people do not do so. We are all aware that voters move to a constituency and that it is necessary for a representative of a political party to contact them to fill in a registration certificate. We must not be like the Progs who register our people and then tear up the cards! We are simply requesting the employer, when someone comes to work for him, to forward any change of address.

There speaks the voice of experience!

If such a person does not possess an identity document, the department will leave forms with every employer so that the employer can ask his employees to fill in the forms and forward them, so that they may obtain their documents. I do not think this is an unfair burden, On the contrary, I believe that this will also be to the advantage of the employers of South Africa. It will be to the particular advantage of lessors of flats. People move and no one knows what has become of them. However, if there is a central register of addresses, it could be of tremendous advantage to such people.

The hon. member for Green Point said that we want to impose a duty on these people. However, I really think that the hon. member would accept that this involves more advantages than disadvantages for the employer and for lessors of flats.

I wish to conclude by saying that we are aware that this register, and the voters’ rolls in particular, are causing problems, that there are people who do not have identity documents, people whose identity documents are drifting between them and the department. As I requested at the outset, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister once again whether we could not consider reintroducing the old identity card, so that during the period in which those alterations have to be made, one can at least carry one’s identification.

As far as voters’ rolls are concerned, hon. members will agree with me that particularly in the urban areas, where there are many flats, there are between 30% and 40% voters who have moved whom one cannot trace and who cause problems. If one could possibly keep a central address register up to date, this figure of 30% or 40% would dwindle considerably, and then I think the majorities of the NP would also be much higher! [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this measure. We see this as a positive effort, firstly, to introduce a proper population register, and secondly, to introduce a proper address register. We look forward to the day when we can use this information so that we may eventually be able to keep our voters’ rolls in South Africa up to date.

Mr. Speaker, in a Bill such as this, one is dealing with individuals within the State community. If one goes back in the history of mankind to the earliest times and the most primitive communities, one finds that it was important to the chief or whoever was in control to know who the people were that were living in his community. On this was based the way in which one group was treated by another group and this was the way in which people were known, and so on. As the size of the community grew it became ever more difficult for a modern State, even a State like South Africa where there are not so many people compared with other States, to keep pace with the movements of people and I think it is essential that a community should be regulated in this way. I think any Government must keep abreast of the movements of its citizens. There are various ways in which this can be done, various methods which can be used, but it is absolutely essential for orderliness, particularly in our modern community, for the State to know who its citizens are, where they were born, where they live, when they die, etc. In certain western communities there is a tendency among some people, when the State takes steps to identify its citizens, to place too much emphasis on the freedom of the individual and to react unnecessarily and object to a government taking steps to identify its citizens and to deal with their citizenship.

If one is reasonable in a society where one has normal, fair and responsible citizens, it ought to be that much easier for all opposition parties to render assistance in this connection as well. For this reason I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the CP supports this Bill. When we say we support it we also want to add that these matters are very easy to discuss. However, it is not so easy when a public service or officials are directed to perform these activities in a community. On behalf of our side of this House I want to express our thanks and appreciation to the officials who have to perform this task, particularly with regard to the additional activities for which they will now be responsible because we want to identify a larger group of people in South Africa in such a way that people do not feel that they are being discriminated against because of the card or emblem or book they have to carry. For this reason we not only want to pledge our support to the hon. the Minister in our speeches, but we should like to help and support the hon. the Minister when these things are to be implemented in practice in the community.

In respect of the voters’ lists I believe that we would all like to help ensure that voters’ lists are brought and kept up to date more effectively. Having said this, I also believe that there is a general tendency that people want the State, the Government and the officials to do all the work. The Government is held responsible for everything. When there is an election and one finds that one’s name is not on the voters’ roll, it is very easy to blame the Government and party officials for this. Since we are discussing these matters today we must say that the ordinary citizen, the father or mother of the household and other persons as well have a responsibility to ensure that the wonderful ideals in this Bill are realized. It is not only the responsibility of the State or the officials.

This brings me to the second point in the hon. member for Green Point’s amendment. It reads—

I do not altogether agree with this. I feel that the owner of a rented accommodation unit in which many people live could also benefit if he helps the State in such a way because it is after all to his advantage if he knows who the people are who are living in his building. It could facilitate his task when he collects the rent or has to discharge other responsibilities in regard to the people living there. For these reasons he might as well accept this additional responsibility.

I also think it is a good thing that the hon. the Minister will ask other Government institutions such as our local authorities to help him and that they will be given the necessary compensation for services rendered. When electricity or water is connected I think it is quite simple for the local authorities to give notification of changes of address. I do not think this will lead to all that much additional work and trouble.

As far as the provisions pertaining to finger-prints and palm-prints, it is true that there are people who believe that the taking of such prints applies only to criminals. These people believe that when one’s fingerprints are taken one has committed a crime other people do not know about. I think we should now reach the stage where we need not be ashamed to leave our finger-prints somewhere. If this is not done because one has committed an offence, I feel one need not mind. I think our people will simply have to become used to this. Many of our young people are in the habit when they go out to eat for example and the young lady accompanying them is very attractive, to leave their mark there so that she can plant a kiss or two on it. However, I do not think the hon. the Minister will want lip-prints.

I have had no experience of that. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon. the Minister is too old to appreciate or remember this kind of thing.

I do not think these provisions create all that much of a problem, and I do not think our people should object to this.

There is a further point in the Bill. If my interpretation of it is correct, I should like to support the hon. the Minister. In clause 1(h) reference is made to students at our universities. If I interpret the Bill correctly this means that students, high school pupils and the like may be registered at the address of the residences where they live. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister has had this placed on record in this way. Sometimes there were objections to this being done. I still remember that when I was a member of the NP the old United Party in particular objected to the large concentration of student voters in specific constituencies. I feel it is quite correct for a person receiving tertiary education to be registered as a voter at the address where he resides while he is receiving such training. I want to give a few reasons for saying this. It is the first step in the life of a young man or woman when they leave their parents home on their way to their own home as adults. Such a student becomes part of a university community and part of the local church congregation, and is also under the control of a new local authority. I am therefore grateful that it is so clearly entered in the legislation that students may be registered at their places of abode.

In passing, I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that one will also have to give particular attention to people employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs. One frequently finds that some of these people move from one place to another. The Department of Internal Affairs must therefore, in co-operation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, see to it that it accommodates our citizens working elsewhere in the world so that it will still be easy for them to vote.

Another aspect involves the fact that we are also providing Black people with identity documents in a far more sophisticated way. When a new State becomes independent— for example in the case of Ndebele—I assume that there will be a change-over, so that every national State will identify its citizens in its own particular way.

The citizens there?

And the citizens working here as well, for example the people of the Ciskei or Transkei who are working here.

I do not know what they are going to do, but the legislation makes provision for this.

Yes, but I am just mentioning this to the hon. the Minister. No matter how sophisticated a community may be—and this is the final aspect I want to refer to—there are always new citizens being added. People attain their majority, and they have to be registered and receive their identity documents. I therefore feel that the Department of Internal Affairs must have a constant process of education for our people. I know this is difficult. One does not want to burden the department with additional work, but in co-operation with education institutions and the high schools—for example when the child is 16 or 17, in standard 8 or standard 9—the functions of a citizen, particularly with regard to this matter, can be brought to the attention of pupils in a specific way. At this early stage the State should undertake far more effective education so that the generations after us—in 10 or 20 years time— will quite simply consider this part of their normal behaviour. We must educate our people to help the State in this regard.

We support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Rissik for the support that he and his party have given this Bill.

Are we going to refer this Bill to a Select Committee?

No, we shall not refer this measure to a Select Committee, in spite of the attitude of the hon. member for Green Point.

This amending Bill is intended to effect further improvements to the process of population registration. It is also aimed at introducing certain new aspects. Here I am referring in particular to the introduction of a uniform document for all population groups in South Africa. The object of this is to ensure that what we call the “book of fife” will in fact be a book of life. Because of the problems that have been experienced in the past, in the sense that all the administrative work had to be done at one central point, there were many delays. If all the work has to be concentrated at one central point, this will inevitably lead to a number of additional problems such as delays, for when a form is submitted without all the necessary information, it takes a long time before the form can be sent back. Often the forms are set aside, with the result that the finalization of the application is delayed. The establishment of seven regional offices to assist in the implementation of this system has already brought about a considerable improvement. However, I want to ask whether this is not perhaps the time to think of more processing points than there are at the moment. We know that in addition to the identity number and a photograph, the present identity document also contains the name of the owner and his address on a separate slip of paper at the back of the book. It also contains particulars concerning the person’s driver’s licence and firearm licence. It also provides for a person to use his book for election purposes. The book can therefore be stamped when he has cast his vote in an election.

Now that we have automatic telephones almost all over the country, it has also become possible through the use of computer terminals to include information in documents immediately throughout the country. I have here the book of a building society in which it is indicated that at any of its thousand branch offices throughout the country, information can be placed in any terminal immediately, and it can be obtained a minute later at any of the other terminals throughout the country. The terminals have been programmed for this and they are connected by means of an automatic telephone system all over the country. So this can be done if the terminals are made available.

At the moment we have seven regional offices. In Natal, where my interests are, we have two regional offices, in Durban and in Pietermaritzburg. It is true that these are the two biggest cities in Natal, but there are hundreds of thousands of people in Natal who live quite a long way from Pietermaritzburg and Durban. One of the most important reasons for delays and for the fact that for fairly long periods, the books of life or identity documents are not in the possession of the owner, is that for every entry that has to be made in that book, except for changes of address, the book has to be sent away. I want to raise the possibility of making a terminal available at all offices where people are tested for drivers’ licences—there are not so many of these—so that when a person has passed a test for a driver’s licence and qualifies for a licence, his book can be processed by the terminal at that test centre. Then that book of life does not even have to be sent away to Pretoria. If a terminal could be installed at every magistrate’s office, for example, and someone applied for a firearm licence, the police could ensure that when the entry had to be made in the applicant’s book of life, this could be done immediately at the magistrate’s office, where the terminal is situated, except, of course, if it were possible to install terminals at police stations as well. However, there are fewer magistrates’ offices than police stations, and I think something like this could be organized by way of co-ordination between magistrates and the police. Then the information concerned could be entered in the book of life immediately by a terminal at the magistrate’s office, by means of an intaglio printing process. If it is done in this way, it will not be possible to erase or forge the information in the book of life, and in addition, the information will be entered in that book at once. The same applies to changes of address. If a terminal were installed at every post office, it would be possible for all the auxiliary services, such as banks, schools, municipalities, etc., to issue the instruction that a person only has to bring his book of life or other identity document to a post office in order to have his change of address entered in it at once. This could be done throughout the country without books of life or identity documents having to be sent to Pretoria, and without first having to complete the forms and send them to Pretoria. This is one of the main reasons why people do not have their changes of address entered in their identity documents. I want to allege that at least a third of those people in South Africa who already have books of life—if not more than one third—did not have their latest changes of address entered in those books. The problem is that the identity documents have to be sent to Pretoria. In any event, this is a very time-consuming process.

It is not necessary to send your book of life away for a change of address.

That is correct. It is not necessary to send the book of life away for a change of address. However, a form has to be sent to Pretoria. A form has to be taken from the book and sent to Pretoria. However, if a change of address could be entered immediately at a local post office, it would greatly facilitate matters. With the aid of a terminal in a post office, the change of address could then be entered immedately at the central office in Pretoria.

In addition, the administrative handling of books of life would be decentralized in this way. It would mean that all the administrative work would not have to be done in one single office or at one central point. This in itself would mean that identity documents and books of life could be used in a much more modern and efficient way.

Where will we get married? In the post office? We may as well have terminals installed in funeral parlours too! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Umhlanga intends to get married again somewhere. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member lives near a magistrate’s office, which he can notify of the altered particulars.

Brian, it seems to me that you do not want to appear in church! [Interjections.]

With the modern computer system and terminals which can be distributed all over the country, I believe it is possible to decentralize the administration to a much greater extent than is the case at the moment. This can be done effectively in the sense that forgeries can also be eliminated by means of an intaglio printing process. At the moment, one of the biggest problems is the fact that there are at least 100 000 forged drivers’ licences in South Africa, licences which have been pasted into people’s books of life, but which are by no means genuine. It is not easy for the traffic police to ascertain whether the particulars on people’s drivers’ licences are correct and genuine. Naturally, the relevant information will not be available either from the central office in Pretoria, where the population register is being kept at the moment. However, if the relevant particulars could be entered in a person’s book of life immediately by means of a terminal at the test centre where he applies for a driver’s licence—which would mean that nothing would have to be pasted into his book of life—the problem of forgeries could also be removed to a large extent. All this would be made possible by the use of the computer system, a system which is being used by many institutions throughout the country. The banks and building societies are using it at the moment, and there is surely no reason why Government departments should not also introduce a computer system which would bring about country-wide co-ordination. This would undoubtedly contribute a great deal to the effective utilization of this document.

I accept that the suggestions I have made could only be implemented after the identity document had been issued for the first time. It could be used, therefore, for the entering of additional information, changes of address, and so on. The initial issuing should in my opinion still be done on the basis of a form which has to be completed, on which full particulars have to be supplied and which has then to be sent to the central office. Whether it is sent to the central office by a regional office or from one of the other terminals is of less importance. Excellent work is being done by the schools in this connection, because they obtain the basic information from pupils who have attained the age of 16 and then send the completed forms to the central office in Pretoria. Most pupils are still at school at the age of 16, and the teachers can very easily make a point of impressing upon the pupils once a year that it is their duty to complete the forms and to send them to the registration office.

It is now being provided in this Bill that people have to report a change of address within 14 days. However, there are many things which are obligatory in terms of our law and which are nevertheless ignored by many people. It is possible, of course, that many of them are not aware of such obligations. A good example of such an obligation is the fact that one has to report any change of address so that voters’ rolls may be kept up to date. It is clear, however, that a general registration of voters every five or 10 years is still essential, because experience has shown that between 40% and 60% of the voters change their address during that period. People who have changed their address simply fail to report this, although they are required by law to do so.

When there are more points of contact where this matter can be dealt with, it will undoubtedly be easier for people to obtain their identity documents, and I trust that they will make use of this in their daily activities. The identity document, the book of life, must indeed become their book of life.

The hon. member for Turffontein suggested that an additional identity card be issued. To me this seems like a practical suggestion, because one could keep such a card with one at all times. Although the present identity book consists of only 16 pages, as against the 48 pages of the previous one, and is actually easier to handle, it is not used every day. However, an identity card could be valuable in the sense that it would be easier to handle and that one could carry it with one every day. However, I do want to ask that we should not dispense with the booklet containing the basic information. This booklet is particularly important for election purposes. After all, hon. members know that during an election, people often do not know in which constituency they are registered. During the past election, the microfiche system was used, but in spite of that, a large number of people were not on the voters’ roll. If we could use the identity document as proof of the address at which a person is registered, this would greatly facilitate matters. Then we would at least know that the name of every person who is in possession of a book of life also appears on the voters’ roll, and if he has changed his address and has not reported this, he will still be registered at the address which is entered in his book of life. This would therefore eliminate the uncertainty which exists in respect of the present system of registration of voters.

Many other countries do not follow a system of separate registration of voters, and voters are simply registered on a national basis by virtue of their identity documents. This greatly facilitates the administration of elections.

I should like to endorse the idea contained in the Bill that voters’ rolls should be compiled from the population register twice a year and made available to political parties. This would eliminate a great deal of trouble and administrative work.

In clause 4(2) of the Bill, it is proposed that certain information in respect of educational qualifications be omitted. I know that this kind of information is not used very frequently. It does not appear in the book of life either. But information used to be available in the central population register in Pretoria concerning the educational qualifications of citizens. I believe the idea at the time was that such information should be kept in the central register so that when it was necessary to make use of the skills or knowledge of citizens, the necessary information would be available. That information is probably no longer considered essential; hence the provision in the Bill that the information be omitted. However, I believe that we should have as much useful information as possible in the central register, and such information must naturally be confidential. It should be kept in one central office and should not be entered in the book of life or made available to other terminals. The use of computer terminals could cause information to be blocked, and for that reason I propose that such a system be incorporated into the further expansion of the administrative handling of the system.

I take pleasure in supporting the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River seems to have a terminal problem. As a matter of fact, it seemed to go right through his speech. I hope I do not have quite the same sort of problem. I might finish up sitting where he is.

Hon. members on the Government side indicated that they did not feel that the Opposition members had taken sufficient note of the positive aspects of this legislation. I believe that one must obviously take note of the positive aspects of this legislation. The positive aspects that immediately come to mind are to the effect that although we have had a Population Registration Act since 1950 the hon. the Minister is making a determined effort to get the whole situation consolidated and up to date. Furthermore, another positive aspect is that there will be one population register involving all communities. I believe that is an important positive aspect. Again, another positive aspect is the fact that in future all will be having the same identity document. This has been a sore bone of contention with many people over a long period, but in the future we shall all be going around with “dompasse” or none of us will be going round with “dompasse”. That, again, is a positive aspect. The intention of getting the population register up to date and in such condition that it can be used adequately to produce voters’ rolls for all those communities that require them, is again a positive aspect. However, it does rather worry me that there has been talk of this for quite a long time and suggestions have been made. In fact, it has gone further than first suggestions. For some time now voters’ rolls have had the identity numbers of voters on them and, to a very large extent, they have not been as effective as they might have been because of the difficulties that the department has had in keeping up to date with the work that they have had to do. Nonetheless, it is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister wishes to get this work up to date.

At this stage I should just like to make the point that we have had a population register for 32 years, during which period we have had identity cards, the larger books, the smaller books that are coming out and generally we have not achieved much success. I am sorry to say this because I believe it is essential that we do have a population register, that it is up to date and that the maximum co-operation must be given by all and sundry to achieve what I consider to be a laudable objective. I am also sure that the hon. the Minister considers it to be a laudable objective. But why has it taken so long? Why has it cost such a great deal of money? And we still have to have additional legislation, much of which I can see may well be necessary. But why are we in such a mess after all these years? If I may cast my mind back a little, I can remember that at the beginning of the Second World War—I happened to be in England at the time—they did not have identity documents in Great Britain at that time. Within six months, however, they had identity documents issued to a population in excess of 50 million people. The information that was on those documents was to a very great extent similar to the information which is in our existing identity document. They had two types of identity documents. One was a general document which was issued for the information of all and the other was for those in sensitive areas, i.e. the type where one was going into the docks, munition factories and places like that. The general document contained one’s photograph and all the information that was required. The other document which was required for the sensitive areas contained one’s photograph, the information and one’s finger-prints. The people there realized that there was a certain sensitivity in this regard and that they had to check from time to time. Documents could be misused and so on and so forth.

However, the point that I want to make is that those documents were issued in that country with a population in excess of 50 million people within six months. How did they do it? They did it by means of decentralization. It could not have been done from London. Apart from anything else, at that stage London was receiving a bit of a hammering. They could not have done it from London in any case. It would never have been their intention to do so. The distribution was regionalized. All the major towns in every country were issuing points with properly trained people and all the necessary documentation to handle the affair. I should also like to say that those documents were not at all flimsy. After all these years I still have the document that was issued to me when I arrived in the United Kingdom just after war was declared. They were not flimsy documents but durable ones. The photographs that were taken were taken at Government expense and not at the expense of the individual. I am not suggesting that the Government should pay for the photographs here. I merely make that point in passing. I say, therefore, that it is possible to do this within a reasonable space of time. I believe that it is important to have identity documents. We have a computer set-up today which did not exist at the time to which I am referring. We have everything going for us here. We can have photographs taken and developed in five minutes. In fact, when we had our photographs taken for our parliamentary passes, it only took a few minutes. That sort of situation did not prevail at the time to which I am referring and yet, in spite of that, those documents were issued to everyone within that short space of time.

What did they do after the war?

I do not know. I am a South African now although I was not one at that time. As I say, the situation was that those documents were issued in good time.

In so far as this Bill is concerned it is obvious that there is a great deal in it that we can and would like to support. However, there is one emotive issue in it which is very upsetting to a large number of people. To be quite honest, over a number of years I have had my finger-prints taken on a few occasions for different purposes. [Interjections.] I want to say immediately that they have not yet been taken by the S.A. Police! I have had my finger-prints taken by the Spanish police in Spain and I have had them taken in Britain because of the sensitive areas to which I had access. Therefore, I am not particularly concerned about the criminal aspect of having finger-prints taken. However, in the majority of Western countries, for some reason or other, this is an emotive issue. People are prone to equate finger-printing with criminality and criminal activity. For some or other reason it is also looked upon by people as an infringement of their privacy. That being the case, I believe it is being somewhat insensitive to say that because we are bringing everyone into the same identity system, it is essential that for tracing purposes, for proper identification and for the avoidance of malpractices and so forth in respect of documents we must have a finger-printing system. I do not think this is necessary and I believe there is an alternative that would be less objectionable and would to a very large extent meet the problems of the hon. the Minister.

In so far as this clause to which people are objecting is concerned—clause 4(c)—one could effect an amendment. I shall move the necessary amendment at the Committee Stage but I should just like at this stage to give the hon. the Minister an indication of my thinking in this regard. I want to suggest the insertion between the words “signature” and “finger-prints” of the words “and, if illiterate, his”. One has the signature which is satisfactory in almost every instance. It is satisfactory in the case of most people. A signature is something which is not easily forged. I know it can be done, but there are also ways and means of playing around with finger-prints, especially if a person is really determined to do so. Assuming that this Bill does pass the Second Reading stage—I know that for various reasons it is being opposed by hon. members of the PFP—I am going to suggest an amendment in the Committee State.

This brings me to the question of the responsibility of employers. I am not going to quarrel unduly about this aspect, but I do believe that various State departments are placing increasingly more burdens on employers in regard to their labour and the odd staff subsidies that have to be paid for this and that. I do, however, believe that it is important to have these documents issued to everybody. I believe it is essential to get the population register up to date. I must emphasize, however, that it is not the responsibility of the employer to do this, and I do not believe that it should be his responsibility. It should be the responsibility of the individual. There should be a fine for failing to carry out this responsibility, and that fine should be imposed if a person does not notify the authorities of a change of address or if he fails to register. Let me mention, just in passing, that one of the reasons why the population registration in Britain at the beginning of the war was so successful, was because one could not get one’s ration books unless one had an identity document. Consequently people preferred getting identity documents to going hungry.

So if we issued ration books, we could get the system to work?

Well, there are indeed certain things that a person should not be able to get without an identity document.

For example, petrol.

Or whatever. It should not be too difficult to evolve a system to meet that sort of situation. I do believe, however, that the suggestion that employers or landlords should provide the names and addresses of new employees or new tenants is somewhat onerous. I do believe that it would present certain problems. What about a landlord, for example, who has agents to rent out his flats? Would the agents be responsible, or would the landlord himself be held responsible? Neither have I seen what stricture would be applied if the landlord failed to do so. I do not know what fine or other punishment would be imposed. I do not find that in the Bill at all. Perhaps I have given the hon. the Minister a bad idea.

Another aspect of this legislation that does somewhat intrigue me is the necessity, in the future, for women to record all their previous names. Being a typical male chauvinist, I do not particularly mind about this, but I rather suspect that some of the ladies who have had three or four goes at marriage might feel a little unhappy about this.

Why? It is good advertizing.

Yes, good advertizing! I wonder, however, whether it is really necessary. I believe that in South African law a woman does not have to take her husband’s name when she gets married. I believe she can still continue using her maiden name. I therefore just wonder at the necessity for this. It could be embarrassing for certain people.

I am sorry to have to say that although there is much that is positive in this Bill, the very fact of the finger-print issue—which is such an emotive issue—in the Bill, precludes the hon. members in these benches from being able to support it.

Mr. Speaker, both the official Opposition and the NRP—the latter through the hon. member for Umbilo—indicated that they had serious objections to the taking of finger-prints. I think it has already been emphasized this afternoon that this is the only workable way—I am sure this is also the approach of the S.A. Police—in terms of which one can identify a person beyond any doubt. For this reason I do not believe that the identity document will be of much value unless it also has a finger-print on it.

In the times in which we live, which are in many respects dangerous times, it is necessary for us as individuals, as citizens of this country, to make certain sacrifices for the sake of our own security. With the application of this legislation a great deal can be achieved through the identification of undesirable elements. I am therefore sorry that the Opposition does not want to support this matter. I feel that no law-abiding person is in any way afraid or sensitive about giving his finger-prints. I think it is only people who are afraid that those finger-prints could lead to their being exposed who can really have any objection.

In the legislation on identity documents exceptions are made for certain professional groups. It is probably unnecessary for me to mention them, but there are certain groups, inter alia, clergymen and other professional groups, who may be exempted from this obligation. I request the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. I do not think it is beneficial for this matter for exceptions to be made, for by implication this could be a reflection on other professional groups. For this reason I am asking that, if it is possible, absolutely no exceptions should be made in this connection.

Today is actually a happy day, because we are aware that this matter has been investigated for many years now. There have even been missions abroad in this connection. I think I can justifiably say that at one stage our people were rather confused about this entire matter. Some people’s identity documents were in Pretoria for months and there were many other problems. I hope we have now reached the stage where the hon. the Minister and his department will deal with this matter and the application of this Bill in such a way that it will also lead to greater satisfaction among the general public.

This is an important matter. It is of great importance to everyone affected by it, including the provincial administrations that have to apply the law as far as road traffic is concerned. Drivers’ licences are also contained in this document. In passing I could say that some provincial administrations already apply the practice of taking fingerprints when people are issued with drivers’ licences. The taking of finger-prints is therefore not a foreign concept.

We welcome this measure, for after innumerable investigations and consideration of alternative systems, a uniform population registration system will now come into existence. A uniform identity document for the various population groups is definitely a step forward. As has already been emphasized here, I feel in this way a certain stigma is being eliminated as far as the various population groups in general and the Blacks in particular are concerned.

I also want to refer briefly to the advantages of the new system and emphasize what has already been said in this connection. As far as decentralization is concerned I feel that we could also apply this approach very successfully to many other services. I do not think it is necessary for all the administrative functions affecting the general public to be centralized in Pretoria. Where the public is involved, and we can decentralize to the local authorities, we can render a much better service to the general public in that way. The services are then more readily available. As a matter of fact, in my own area we found, during the last election when a regional office was established at Kroonstad, that it was much easier to deal with these matters because it was not necessary to try to eliminate problems over long distances.

I also want to refer to the voters’ lists and the fact that the voter’s electoral division as well as his polling district will be indicated. I think this will have many advantages, and that the deficient voters’ lists will to a great extent be obviated by this.

As far as the finger-prints are concerned, I simply cannot understand why the Opposition and particularly the NRP are going to oppose this legislation merely because the one principle of finger-prints—or did I misunderstand them and are they only going to oppose that specific clause? In any case, if they are going to oppose the legislation in its entirety, it will be a pity because I feel that this legislation is definitely a step forward in this connection. I also hope that the microfilm system which will make the documents and data more readily available, will also have benefits with regard to drivers’ licences. In the past the present system was frequently misused and many offenders got away owing to unlawful behaviour and the forging of drivers’ licences. I really hope that this system will also make a contribution towards combating these evils.

As I stated at the beginning, in this country and in the times in which we are living, we must of necessity make sacrifices in our own interests. I hope the day will arrive when we will find a system by means of which the citizens in this country will carry their identity documents with them. This will lead to far greater security and in many respects because the driver’s licence is contained in that document, it will improve the application of the law as far as drivers are concerned. In this sphere we are at present experiencing many problems, particularly with regard to the drivers of commercial vehicles. The officials who have to apply the Act are experiencing tremendous problems; so much so that many of them no longer ask the drivers of commercial vehicles for their licences. Such driver simply gives a fictitious name and drives off. When one subsequently tries to trace him, he has simply disappeared. One finds that his employer knows nothing about him and that there is absolutely no way in which one can trace him. Those officials are simply wasting their time. I trust that this entire exercise will contribute to eliminating many of these problems and for this reason we on this side should like to give the hon. the Minister our wholehearted support in the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that one can damn something with faint praise. I believe some hon. members opposite have done just that this afternoon—they have damned this Bill with faint praise. The hon. member for Welkom, who has just resumed his seat, went so far as to say that we must make sacrifices in order to achieve certain advantages. By saying that he made it clear to this House that he viewed the provisions of this Bill as indicative of the sacrifices which the voters of South Africa, the population of South Africa, were going to be called upon to make. I think that this Bill represents one further step against the private citizen, the little man. This Bill seems to me to be a Big Brother Bill. George Orwell, in his book 1984 outlines a nightmarish society in which the State completely overwhelms the little man, and I believe this Bill is a step in the direction of Big Brother control. [Interjections.]

Sit down! You have nothing more to say about this Bill!

Just you wait, I shall motivate everything I say about this Bill. [Interjections.] I believe we are on the road to 1984.

Broederbond, that is what it is!

Big Broeder, yes! I am going to motivate what I am saying now. This Big Brother Bill does three things which take us along the road to Big Broeder. Firstly, it introduces the taking of fingerprints. No matter what hon. members opposite might like to say, the fact remains that fingerprints are associated in the public mind with criminals and criminal activities. Fingerprints are associated in the public mind with disreputable activities, with disreputable people. The reaction of hon. members in this House just a few moments ago when the hon. member for Umbilo admitted that he had had his fingerprints taken, revealed exactly that. Hon. members became excited and shouted: “What have you been up to?” [Interjections.] That reaction identified the underlying emotional attitude of people to the concept of the taking of fingerprints. Apart from everything else, it is a degrading thing to do to anyone.

It is also seen to be a violation of privacy. People regard their fingerprints as very personal. We can ask anyone who has had his fingerprints taken and he will bear out what I am saying now. In a strange way it is also something which cannot be grasped by the ordinary person. The hon. member for Welkom says this is the only absolute evidence of the identity of a person, and the average man in the street has no way of knowing that a particular fingerprint belongs to a certain person at all. Fingerprints belong in the realms of microphotography, computers, etc. Even if he is told so, the little man will not be able to recognize his own fingerprints. It is disadvantageous for the little man. He can recognize a photograph in a way in which he will never be able to recognize a fingerprint.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what other civilized Western country demands that all its citizens have their finger-prints taken? I do not believe this information has been given. I also believe the public will want to know this. This puts us into a different category altogether. [Interjections.]

The second reason why I say this is a Big Brother Bill is because it increases the monitoring of the activities of ordinary citizens. We are now going to have the situation in which every employer will have an onus placed on him to report the movements of his employees to the State. It is an onus to which a penalty is presumably attached. This onus is also going to apply to local authorities, landlords, etc. That means that every little man in the street will be in the situation in which information about him will be fed back to Pretoria by certain agencies, for example, his boss, his landlord, his local authority and the like. In other words, this Bill will serve to co-opt a whole number of Little Brothers in the service of Big Brother against the little man in the street and all his movements. Again I should like to ask what other society goes that far to place an onus on every employer to report whether his employee has an identity document or not.

A really sinister aspect of this Bill is that it introduces the concept of discretion on the part of the Government as to what to enter in the register in regard to an individual, and what information will be provided in the identity document itself. In the principal Act it is specifically stipulated what information will be entered in the register in regard to an individual and what information will appear in his identity book. It is even provided that “no other particulars whatsoever” will be included in either the register or the identity book. However, this Bill now provides that the State President can by proclamation in the Gazette declare what particulars are to be entered in the register or in the identity document. In other words, the South African citizens are at the mercy of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and his successors in regard to what will be placed on the register, what will be fed into the computer and what they will have to carry in their pockets as a “dompas”.

Yes, even every visit to a clinic. [Interjections.]

I think it is extremely objectionable that we should give the Government a blank cheque simply to declare by proclamation in the Gazette what records they are going to keep about the citizenry. That is a potentially major step on the road to Big Brother.

There is another side to this Bill, Sir. The hon. member for Turffontein, the hon. member for Welkom and also other hon. members suggested that this was a move away from race discrimination. I want to put it to the House that this Bill in a small respect replaces discrimination by legislation with discrimination by proclamation because clauses 4(i) and 6(h) provide that the State President—and obviously therefore the Minister of Internal Affairs—can by proclamation in the Gazette exclude any particular individual or category of people from the provisions of this Bill. In other words, we now have a situation where the hon. the Minister can decide—and the hon. member for Welkom confirmed this—that he is not going to take the finger-prints of, for example, dominees.

Oh, that is all right! [Interjections.]

The logical extension of this principle is that the hon. the Minister can decide that he is only going to take the finger-prints of Indians or Blacks and he can do so by proclamation. [Interjections.] By doing this we are opening the door for discrimination by proclamation.

If one takes the hon. the Minister’s finger-prints one would find that they are all thumbs.

Furthermore, the Bill also provides that there can be different dates for the commencement of the provisions. The hon. the Minister can take palm-prints from Coloureds, thumb-prints from somebody else and from another category he need not take any prints at all. On what basis should one discriminate between the citizens of the country? Why should this House give the hon. the Minister the right to decide to whom he is going to apply the provisions of this Bill? Why should he have that right? I have not heard the hon. the Minister motivating a case for that right. Why does he himself want to decide to whom these provisions should be applied?

Something else that I find rather objectionable is that it is suggested that we are moving away from race discrimination but the Population Registration Act is one of the most objectionable race discriminatory Acts on the Statute Book of South Africa and this amending Bill does nothing to amend the black heart of race discrimination in this country. Section 5(1) and (2) of the principal Act which specifies that every citizen of the Republic must be classified into White, Coloured or Black is left unaltered. In what way are we therefore moving away from race discrimination if we leave those provisions intact? One can take a rotten apple, paint it fancy colours and call it by other names, but if the black heart remains intact, it is still a rotten apple.

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick now.

We have had the suggestion that because we are going to do away with the “dompas” supplied to Blacks and because every South African citizen will have a book of life, we are now taking a significant step on the road away from race discrimination.

Surely we cannot make Black people white by means of a book. [Interjections.]

It is not a question of a book. The point I want to make is that it is not so much the fact that everybody is going to carry a book of life, it is the content of the book of life and the implications thereof that is the problem. Everybody is going to have a book of life, but if the one book of life states that the owner is a White person and another book states that the owner is, for example a Black …

Yes, why not?

The White person does not have pass laws or influx control laws applied to him and the Coloured man’s book of life has other implications for him as to where he can live, and so on. With this measure the Government is taking no step whatsoever away from discrimination. It is a facade. There can be one book, but the content and usage of that content is what really counts. The Population Registration Act which asks South Africans to accept repugnant definitions of themselves is one of the most offensive Acts on our Statute Book. This latest Bill changes none of that. For all those reasons; because we are on the road to Big Brother and because of the discriminatory implications of the Bill, we oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, by this time we have grown accustomed to the fact that the hon. member for Constantia can only make emotional and inflammatory speeches.

I have become convinced that the hon. member is not capable of making a positive contribution to promote any matter. Every time he speaks he only emphasizes negative aspects in the most emotional language possible.

The hon. member for Constantia—like other hon. members of the PFP and the hon. members of the NRP—referred particularly to the question of finger-prints as a form of identification. In agriculture recently a system was designed in terms of which animals can be identified by their nose-prints. This is the only infallible way of identifying an animal. All I can promise the hon. member for Constantia is that we are not going to take prints of his nose or any other part of his anatomy except his finger and palm. The object of this provision in the clause is to identify the individual. There are certain ways in which this can be done. It has been stated repeatedly here this afternoon that the only other way of identification which still remains is the taking of finger-prints. The only people who ought to object to this system— and who do usually object to it—are those people who do not want to be identified. What the hon. member said here earlier is quite true, namely that there is a stigma attached to finger-prints because they are associated with criminal offences. However, I feel that it is time this stigma which is attached to finger and palm-prints ought to be eliminated. Which one of us, besides the hon. member for Constantia, is worried about having our finger-prints taken?

Another aspect to which the hon. member for Constantia referred and which is very definitely relevant in this legislation is the fact that one of the objectives of this legislation is to be able to apply influx control effectively. This aspect has already been mentioned here this afternoon. I should like to refer to one reason why influx control is essential to us, and that is the economic aspect. The hon. member for Constantia is the person who is always so extremely emotionally opposed to there having to be a restriction on the influx of Black people into the Western Cape. South Africa and Southern Africa, i.e. the southernmost point of Africa, generate about 30% of the total economic activity generated on the entire continent. It goes without saying that economic activities of this nature and a standard of living which is higher than anywhere else in Africa is an attraction to people outside. Does the hon. member want all of us in this country, whoever we may be, to remain totally unidentified and for us to allow people from other parts of the world and not only from Africa, to come to South Africa to take that higher standard of living for which we work every day away from us, to lower it and to hamper our future economic growth?

What is wrong with a photograph?

I said a signature and a photograph … Sir, if I had to identify the hon. member for Constantia by his photograph this afternoon, I would not recognize him at all. It so happens that I broke my spectacles this morning. How can he expect me to identify him from a photograph today? Maybe he wore a beard in the past and has since shaved it off. The photograph in his identity document may have been taken when he was 16 years old. I wonder if we would still be able to identify him today by that photograph.

As I have said, influx control is an important factor and to be able to apply it one needs a method of identification, an infallible method of identification. That is why it is important that we should also be able to use finger-prints as a form of identification. For this reason I strongly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their contributions to the debate, particularly those hon. members who supported the legislation. The standpoint of the Opposition is summed up in their amendment. However, listening to their arguments in support of their amendment, I agree with the conclusion of the majority of hon. members that there has been no contribution whatsoever from hon. members on that side in regard to the other provisions of the Bill which do imply improvements. Allow me, however, to begin by just speaking in general terms.

Firstly,’ we must ascertain whether it is necessary for the citizens of the country to be identified. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who does not agree with me when I say that it is indeed necessary that each one should be identified. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees that it is indeed necessary that it must be possible to identify the citizens of our country. In the first place there is the individual need, the need of the citizen to be able to identify himself.

He need only sign his name for that.

I do not know how he can identify himself by only signing his name. That hon. member received a lot of votes on another man’s name. Surely he knows that. Therefore hon. members can understand the identity problem the people had, because that hon. member was not properly identified. But let us please argue this matter seriously. There is therefore a need on the part of every individual to identify himself at those places where he does business. The fact is that there is no obligation on business institutions to demand an identity document or number from anyone. However, go and see to what extent the identity number is used by institutions nowadays in their own activities. Therefore, the statement by the hon. member for Constantia to the effect that what we are really doing is further restricting the small man, is untrue. Considerable benefits for the citizens of the country have stemmed from the fact that there was and is a method of identification. It goes without saying that when we walk down the street we see that people have now developed methods of withdrawing money from various institutions which can only happen because people can identify themselves. Therefore the legislation creates the possibility and fulfils the need on the part of individuals to identify themselves. Accordingly this legislation is not, as the hon. member for Constantia called it, “most offensive or objectionable”. [Interjections.] On the contrary, the legislation meets a need.

It is not really worth while to do so, but since the hon. member for Constantia made that remark, let me deal with him now. The hon. member’s party recognizes one important fact, and that is that as far as the political development of the country, the group to which people belong must play an important role.

That is the Government’s idea.

No, Sir. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote a book together with other people in which he discussed the possibilities of a consociational model.

On a voluntary basis.

Oh, really, Sir, could the hon. member now please be quiet? I did not interrupt him when he was making his speech. To tell the truth, I sat silently listening to the biggest lot of nonsense. [Interjections.] Surely it is a fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is seeking an answer to the political questions of the country on the basis of peoples’ group attachments. That is a fact. If that is correct, then is there not a need for the members of a group to be identified as members of that group?

That does not follow at all.

Of course it follows. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bry-anston says that they should put a label around their necks. I think they should do so, then at least we should know who they were. [Interjections.] After all, we cannot get away from the consequences of our standpoint in one sphere which also applies to other spheres. If one admits that the group components of the population must be recognized in one’s political system, then one recognizes the need to identify the members of the group. One cannot draw any other conclusion. Therefore I want to suggest that the hon. member for Constantia should have a discussion with the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

There is a second point I want to make. It is also in the interests of the State, and in the interests of the State’s obligation with regard to the citizens of the State, that the citizens should be identified. After all, this is not an alien concept, and it is indeed an important one. As soon as we accept that there is a need for identification from the point of view of both the individual and the State, then only one question remains, viz.: What is the most effective way of doing so? There is not a single hon. member who could argue that it could be done more effectively than by way of irrefutable evidence, not so? Not a single hon. member has argued that there is a better way than by the taking of fingerprints. Surely that is correct.

Since all hon. members require that we use the most effective means, I cannot understand why they reject the most effective one. That is, in fact, what they are doing. I really do not understand this logic.

The fact is that there is a difference between the point of departure of this side of the House and hon. members in other parties on the one hand, and the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the other, because throughout this session the PFP has been typified as the party which regards the threat to the country as far less severe—sometimes they deny it—as does anyone else. Because this is so, they do not understand what is necessary to ensure the security of the people of the country. They do not understand this. Nor do they understand what it implies. That is why their point of departure is as it was put forward this afternoon. This leads to the question: Why, if we differ with one another, do we differ in this way?

The hon. member for Constantia asked me whether I could show him other countries where people were identified by way of fingerprints.

Countries in the Western World.

I take it that the hon. member will concede that the USA would be a country such as that to which he refers. I cannot hear whether he says that it is a civilized country. I take it he agrees.

Yes, it is so.

In various States of the USA, a fingerprint is required before a motor vehicle driver’s licence can be obtained. This happens in a civilized country in the Western World. What is more, according to the information at my disposal, that same country requires the fingerprints of all its people who perform national service. This is done in a civilized country; the norm which the hon. member keeps putting to me. Why, when we are discussing our country and its circumstances, should we get this reaction from the hon. members of the official Opposition, a reaction which so clearly fits into a pattern?

I do not apologize for taking steps or assisting to ensure the security of the country. It is for a specific reason that I do not apologize for that, since all hon. members in this House and the general public hold the Government responsible for the security of the citizens of the country. I therefore say that hon. members must place the instruments wherewith to ensure this, in the hands of the Government. The fact is that the request that fingerprints be introduced on identity documents emanated from the security services of the country.

It will have no effect.

The hon. member’s difficulty is that he should have been in practice for a longer time so that he could be aware of what goes on in life …

Because he, of course, is an expert in that field!

… because in fact he is by no means an expert in this field. What are the facts? Documents are forged. The hon. member for Green Point himself furnished us with the best evidence for the need for this Bill when he said that two passports had been issued to the same man. That is the best evidence.

Because you did not use the information at your disposal.

Wait a moment. The hon. member should just give me a chance. [Interjections.] According to my information it takes at most two weeks to teach an intelligent person—I concede that there are certain hon. members who would not pass that test—how to read a fingerprint and how to compare fingerprints. Moreover, in this country we have national key points which are identified targets for attacks from terrorists. If a person who wants to obtain access to those institutions has with him a document on which his fingerprint appears, and he requests the security officer of the institution to grant him access, his fingerprint can be taken, and it can be established then and there whether the fingerprint in the document is the same as that which has been taken.

That means nothing.

That hon. member says it means nothing if a person has a forged document.

If a person can forge a photograph, he can also forge a fingerprint.

If that is his argument

It can only be done in Pretoria.

May I just have the hon. member’s full attention for a moment? He must just close his mouth for a moment so that he can open his mind. If one can prove that a person has a forged document with him, then surely one knows at once that one is dealing with a suspicious character. [Interjections.] What, then, is the hon. member’s problem?

Are you unable to understand it?

But I have just explained the whole situation to the hon. Member. Oh really, Sir, I had better leave it at that.

This brings me to my third argument. The hon. member for Umbilo is correct when he says that this is a highly emotional matter. However, security is too. Why should we make use of the fact that in the past, fingerprints were used for policing purposes, to put up an emotional argument here? I can say why it is being done. It is being done for petty political gain.

And very little at that.

However, what are the facts? At the beginning of 1981, when the legislation was published, I convened a Press conference. At the time I provided the media with documents containing all the information we are discussing here. I want to add at once that the media did in fact pub-lish it. Hon. members should take a look at the reaction we had as regards the issue of fingerprints. Out of a population of 30 million, there was only opposition from a few individuals. However, there was no opposition at all from hon. members opposite. [Interjections.]

You do not read the newspapers.

I say that after we had published the document and called for representations, we received nothing from them. I am not speaking about what was stated in the newspapers.

In the second leg of the hon. member’s amendment he objects to the fact that an obligation is now being imposed on employers to provide us with the information. In all fairness, we did not summarily decide to draft legislation. Surely this Bill is the culmination of a long process of negotiation with various bodies, inter alia, the private sector through their organized institutions, commerce and industry. We negotiated with Assocom, the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Handelsinstituut, local authority organizations and provincial administrations. Remarkably enough, all these people—this may be news to the hon. member for Green Point—also had a need for the information which the State needed. I want to ask the hon. member whether employers do not need the addresses of their employees.

Yes.

The answer is “Yes”. If, then the employer must have it in any event, why can he not send it to us as well? That would also help to trace the hon. member’s voters.

That is already in the present legislation.

What is the hon. member complaining about then? That is part of his amendment. If it is already in the legislation why is he complaining about it?

Read the amendment.

Let me go further. All hon. members ask us from time to time to ensure that we keep the voter’s rolls up to date as far as possible. Why? Because we would like to ensure by way of an election that the people who are entitled to vote will state their standpoint. Surely we cannot do so without the co-operation of the public at large.

†The hon. member for Umbilo said it must be the responsibility of the individual. It is the responsibility of the individual. The trouble is that he does not always comply with that.

Fine him then.

I am coming to that. How many people must then be charged under the circumstances? The hon. member will know …

One only has to charge half a dozen people and the rest will queue up.

The hon. member for Durban Point has no experience—he will forgive me for saying this because I do not mean it in a nasty way—of the administration of a country. How many people are not charged for other reasons, while millions of people have always committed the same offences? What the hon. member said is surely untrue.

If an act is not implemented, then people take no notice of it.

The fact is that it is far better to obtain people’s co-operation than to use penal sanctions. I wonder how the hon. members for Constantia and Durban Point would reconcile their standpoints. The one says that we are threatening the small man, and the other says that we must throw him in jail or fine him, because he has not given us his address. Surely that does not make any sense.

We did not say anything about imprisonment.

What, then, do we do to someone who is unable to pay his fine? Let us get away from these subtleties. That is simply not how it works in practice.

As a responsible party we further assessed the issue of finger-prints. We sounded our own supporters on the subject at our congresses and they accepted it unanimously. However, I can understand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot refer matters to his party’s congresses, because nowadays they are having such difficulty achieving consensus in their caucus and at their congresses.

Which of us splinters the most?

The hon. member for Green Point objects to our wishing to transfer some of the functions to other departments in the legislation. Is the hon. member, then, unaware of what is going on in the country? To date the Department of Co-operation and Development has been responsible for the drawing up of registers relating to Black people. I need not, therefore, send experts on the subject to them. They already have the expertise. Moreover, surely it is not an alien principle that the State uses other agencies to carry out State functions. The test whereby to determine who should do this is: Who can do it most effectively? Surely it is true that as far as the supply of health services is concerned, various agencies do it on behalf of the Department of Health and Welfare. It is also true that the Department of Health and Welfare provides health services on behalf of other people on an agency basis. Therefore this is by no means an alien principle. It is a practice which has applied throughout our State administration for many decades now.

If it is being done for practical reasons, well and good; here, however, ideological reasons are involved.

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point sees ideological bugbears in everything the Government does. That is his problem. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that this measure vests discretionary powers in the State President. In that statement he is supported by the hon. member for Constantia. What, however, is the true state of affairs? I have told hon. members that we want a more fluid situation, a less rigoristic system as regards identity documents, as regards both format and content. I now wish to give a practical example of this; hon. members on the Government side have in fact already referred to it. It is true that it is essential that an identity document must be in the possession of its holder. What now happens is that by virtue of the content of that document, it is often required that the document itself has to move between the individual and the Government Office. This entails that it is often impossible for an individual to identify himself. This is because the content of the document requires that it be sent to the Government Office, and this means that its holder must be without that document temporarily. We have now appointed a committee to investigate the possibilities with regard to the content and format of identity documents. Moreover, in clause 4 of the Bill, provision for that fluidity is made. We hope that the content of identity documents will ultimately be less and not more. We want to do this to ensure that the document may be in the possession of the holder when he has to identify himself. Accordingly the arguments of hon. members of the Opposition make no sense in this regard either.

I now wish to turn to the hon. member for Umbilo. I want to put it to him that if he only objects to the provision in regard to finger-prints, he could still have accepted the principle of the legislation and voted against the clause in question during the Committee Stage. I therefore contend that his objection does not provide him with sufficient reason to oppose the principle of the Bill at the Second Reading. It does not make sense at all. I must add that I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Umbilo.

The hon. member for Welkom made a very valid statement when he said that he did not believe that exceptions should be made. In principle I agree with the hon. member. However, it is a fact that in terms of the legislation relating to identity documents, provision is indeed made for certain exceptions. I have already given the assurance that in terms of the Bill under discussion, the provision in the existing legislation is repeated for the same reasons as it was deemed necessary in the past. However, it is not the intention in this regard to draw a distinction between groups, but rather between people in the same group, if it may be implemented in this way. This I have already said in the course of my Second Reading speech. The hon. member ought therefore to know this. Nor is it, therefore, necessary to make this a point of issue today. However, at a later stage I shall consider whether it is necessary to retain the provision in the legislation. If it appears to be unnecessary as regards the implementation of the legislation I shall come back to this and delete the provision. I give hon. members that assurance.

Just one more thing. I should have expected hon. members to agree that we should have a uniform system of documentation with regard to data concerning the population of the country. Look what the hon. member for Constantia today made of an identity document which is solely and exclusively used to identify people! He says that this is Draconian legislation. However, it is not the identity document that makes the hon. member White or makes anyone else Brown or Black. It is not this document which provides what a person is. The identity document only confirms what a man is. If the hon. member is ashamed of what he is, then neither I nor the legislation can help him.

It is what you do with it that counts!

Although I am unable to react to all the proposals made by the hon. member for Klip River, I concede that there is considerable merit in what he suggested. I agree that we should make use of all mechanical and electronic means to keep our system up to date as far as possible. This is also one of the reasons—as far as this is concerned, the hon. member for Umbilo was correct—why we decided to decentralize with a view to the collection and processing of information, because we want to bring about a more personal link between the individual and the body performing this function. In this regard we already have the cooperation of all the people. The hon. member for Turffontein apologized for not being able to be present; I thank him for his contribution. I want to thank the hon. member Dr. Odendaal, too, for his contribution.

In conclusion, I just wish to say this: There are ideological differences between us—probably we shall always have them— but we must not let them become a stumbling block in the sense that when we take steps to facilitate the administration and government of the country, these things are given an ideological stigma. This would simply mean that we in this House are no longer capable of conducting consensus politics, but only the politics of conflict, as the hon. members of the official Opposition did today.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question, Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker I move—

At this stage I should just like to indicate that I shall move amendments to clauses 14, 29 and 36 during the Committee Stage. I will let hon. members have copies of these amendments.

At present there is no statutory provision to determine the views of voters by way of a referendum, and the object of this Bill is to place on the Statute Book the necessary statutory provision for the holding of such referendums. If hon. members were to examine the Bill, they would ascertain that it is merely enabling legislation, legislation which will make it possible to hold referendums and which, if they were to be held, makes the necessary provision for how this should take place.

Sir, we do not live in the past, but in a time of adaptation—reform, if you prefer— in the constitutional sphere, and because this reform or adaptation affects the life of every citizen it is not only desirable, but it can also in certain cases be essential to obtain the views of voters when certain constitutional changes are being considered. In this regard I want to point out that this is not the first time that this House is creating an opportunity for the holding of a referendum on a particular subject. Hon. members will recall that we have held such a referendum before, namely on the question of whether we should change our constitution in such a way that South Africa could become a Republic. Hon. members will also remember that on that occasion this House created the machinery, the mechanism, to test the opinion of voters on that question. I contend that there is not a single hon. member in this House who does not today agree on the fact that we should have held a referendum on that question and that it was a good thing that we used a referendum as an instrument to change the constitutional structure of the country. I also want to contend that there is not a single hon. member in this House who will want to return to the pre-Republic era in the history of this country. In my view the most important motivation for the holding of a referendum under specific circumstances is therefore that it is an instrument to test people’s opinions.

Consequently it is being proposed in clause 7 of the Bill that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette determine that such a referendum be held to ascertain the view held by voters in relation to a matter stated by the State President in the proclamation. I have a feeling that hon. members in this House will welcome the opportunity of testing their respective views by means of a referendum.

Preferably an election.

I do not think that the hon. member for Jeppe should propagate that, because that is the surest way to ensure that he will not come here again, and if he wants to differ with me on this, the test is in his hands and not in mine. [Interjections.] However, I do not at this stage want to enter into a debate with the hon. member. I should rather do it later.

It is also being proposed in this clause that it will be possible for Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Chinese to take part in these referendums if the State President so determines. However, with a view to a matter which may only affect certain of the aforementioned population groups in the Republic or certain of these population groups in a particular region, it is moreover being proposed that the State President may determine in the proclamation which population groups in a particular region will take part in a referendum and which population groups will not.

No provision is being made in the Bill for the consultation of the Black section of our population by way of a referendum. However, should it be necessary that Blacks are also consulted in a referendum—and there was such consultation prior to the Ciskei becoming independent—it will be possible to use the respective election proclamations and voters’ lists which were promulgated and prepared for the election of the Legislative Assemblies of the various national States, in consultation with the leaders of those States, as a basis for such referendums.

In clauses 3 and 5 it is being proposed that the voters’ lists which are presently being prepared for the various population groups, should be used for a referendum if such a referendum were to be held.

†However, no voters’ rolls exist for Chinese and consequently provision is made in clause 3(3) to compile separate voters’ rolls for Chinese from the population register. In clause 5(4) it is further proposed that the chief electoral officer use the electoral divisions of the House of Assembly as a basis for the compilation of voters’ rolls for this population group.

It is not possible to make the present electoral Acts applicable mutatis mutandis to referendums and consequently provision is being made in the Bill for the procedural differences that exist in respect of referendums and for circumstances that only arises in the case of referendums. For example, in this Bill provision is made only for special votes in the case of absent voters and not also for postal votes. I want to say immediately in this regard that hon. members who are knowledgeable in regard to postal votes will most probably miss this aspect in this particular Bill.

Mr. Speaker, many clauses in this Bill are patterned after the provisions of the Electoral Act of 1979 with which all of us should be familiar and for this reason I am not going to elucidate each clause at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Government mooted the possibility of calling a referendum to decide on far-reaching constitutional changes quite some time ago. This is a good idea because it obviously makes sense that if there is a drastic change in a constitution, the Government should follow this particular procedure to present the matter to the population for decision in order to obtain the widest possible indication of support or otherwise for such constitutional change. In the past we have expressed our support for that line of thought—the idea that one crisply put question in the form of a constitutional amendment should be presented to the public—and that the judgment of the public should therefore not be clouded by all kinds of side issues which may be quite irrelevant to that particular issue. For that reason we are hopeful that there will, in fact, be such a referendum. I am also hopeful that the speculation in some of the newspapers a few days ago, to the effect that there are “Nationalist Parliamentarians” who hold the view that at this stage the proposals of the President’s Council are so close to the 1977 Nationalist proposals that a referendum would not be necessary, is indeed an unfounded speculation, because I think it would be a mistake to interpret it in that way. So inasmuch as this Bill represents the enabling legislation for the purpose of presenting such a choice to the electorate, we are prepared to support it in principle.

This brings me to the practical aspects of the Bill. The hon. the Minister did point out that the provisions of the Electoral Act could not be made applicable to this mutatis mutandis. We understand that. On analysing the Bill we have found no particular aspect that represents any serious deviation. There are, however, one or two matters we would certainly like to take up with the hon. the Minister, particularly in the Committee Stage. One of them involves the postal vote system. In spite of all its weaknesses, I do not necessarily believe that there is any good reason why the postal vote system should not be applied in the case of referendums as well. I say it, in particular, because if one were to rely on special votes alone that would, in my opinion, place an additional heavy burden on the personnel appointed and supplied by the hon. Minister’s department for the purpose of attending to the votes of absent or incapacitated voters. We therefore certainly reserve our judgement on that issue and shall be discussing it further in the Committee Stage.

One aspect of the referendum that is obviously tremendously important, is the drafting of the question to be submitted to the public. The hon. the Minister did indicate that other political parties would possibly like to have the opportunity of presenting their policies to the public so that the public could pass judgement on those policies. I am sure that most of the political parties represented here would indeed like such an opportunity. However, the reality is such that that is a privilege that only the Government enjoys. The position, in reality, is that the Government presents the public with the status quo as one choice and some new deal, which the Government proposes, as the other choice. In practice the other political parties do not get the opportunity to have the public pass judgement on their ideas. We accept the fact that that is the reality of the situation. When I say that the drafting of the question is extremely important, however, I am being very serious about it, and my intentions in saying this are very sincere. I say this because if a question put before the electorate in a referendum is not succinct and perfectly clear we could certainly end up with a spurious result, and there is nothing sadder and more wasteful than calling a referendum, presenting a false picture to the public and then getting a spurious result. There may, of course, be reasons for people to want to do such a thing, and in the past there have certainly been cases of choices in a referendum being presented to the voters of a particular country in such a way as to give them only a false choice or a false set of options. That is something we should like to warn against, even at this stage. Unfortunately it is very difficult to legislate, in a Bill such as this, against a false choice or the bad drafting of the question. There is consequently not much that could, in a Bill of this kind, be done to prevent something like that. It is unfortunately something that must be left to people’s discretion, and we can only express the hope that, when necessary, it will be done adequately, that the question will be put crisply and clearly and that the choice put to the Coloured voters, Indian voters, White voters or whatever, will be a sincere and honest choice, a clear choice, so that there can be a clear and sensible result.

With these few words, let me also just point out that we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very pleasant surprise to find that the official Opposition supports the Bill.

Why?

I shall tell you why. This Bill is patterned after the legislation on referendums placed on the Statute Book in 1960. How different it all is now! The hon. member for Green Point quite rightly pointed out that there was no skeleton in this legislation. The Bill is being introduced with a view to a specific purpose, namely to create the machinery so that the State President may test the view of population groups.

In 1960 a debate was conducted which lasted for days. I have just been counting. There are only 11 hon. members left of those who were here in 1960. One thinks of Mr. Douglas Mitchell in particular. Everyone knew at the time that the Bill was being introduced with a view to holding a referendum on becoming a Republic. At that time the Bill as such was not really discussed, because a discussion then took place about becoming a Republic, and such a discussion was not really relevant.

I said that one thinks in particular of Mr. Douglas Mitchell. He really made fiery speeches about becoming a Republic. The first speech was on the occasion of the no-confidence debate. After the then Prime Minister had made an announcement about becoming a Republic in the course of that debate, Mr. Mitchell became so angry that he said that he would “march” and that he would “march” Natal out of the then Union. He also said that if they were successful in a referendum, he would stand on his head and play with his feet, because he wanted to have nothing to do with a Republic.

But do you not know that all three of those statements are untrue.

Look, I have the Hansard of those days here with me. In his speech he said to the Minister who was in charge of that legislation, the present hon. Prime Minister, inter alia—

You go and be damned.

[Interjections.] Later Mr. Mitchell changed to such an extent and became such a good and worthy Republican that the State President presented him with the highest order in the country. This happened in spite of what was recorded in Hansard.

Today I had a look at the speeches that were made at the time. I then saw that I also made a speech, and to me it seemed like rather a good speech. [Interjections.] My present bench-mate—he is not here now—

Because your party had made such a mess of the existing Republic. [Interjections.]

I was a little concerned today, because I do not like people to make fools of themselves. If one reads the debates of those days, you find that the then Opposition made fools of themselves. I was afraid that the Opposition would do the same again today. In the ranks of the Opposition three members still remain who took part in that debate; they also made fools of themselves.

Today I am grateful. We have made great progress here in South Africa, for today we are able to discuss an issue like this, which was handled with so much heat and conflict in 1960, in this calm way in the House.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill, he said that this legislation was necessary in the process of reform and adjustment, in the light of the new constitutional development in South Africa. He also referred to the previous referendum in connection with our becoming a Republic. The hon. member for Green Point then signified his concurrence with the measure and indicated that his party would support the Second Reading. The mere fact that the official Opposition supports the Second Reading is a clear demonstration to me that here we very definitely have a fundamental standpoint with which this party cannot agree. [Interjections.]

The principle is that we must renounce our Afrikanerhood. [Interjections.]

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden nostalgically recalled the days when we had to vote for a Republic, and the legislation associated with it. However, in introducing this Bill it is quite clear that the NP changed its fundamental standpoint even before it brought this legislation to this House, because the principles contained in this legislation deviate from the written principles of the NP as they are recorded in its programme of principles, and I shall prove this. Article 7 of the programme of principles states that the NP—

It does not say here “a relatively free and sovereign independent nation”. The question which may now arise is: Who is this nation? There may be differences of opinion on this score, but on the back of the blue membership card this problem is quite clearly eliminated because one reads there—

[Inaudible.]

There is therefore no doubt which nation is meant here.

If we look at the legislation in connection with a referendum for a republic, I think it is as well for us to consider for a moment what Dr. Verwoerd said in this House at that stage about the principle of a referendum. After he had indicated that referendums had also been held in other countries, such as Australia for example, and that the Government did not in that case necessarily act on the positive decision, he continued as follows (Hansard, 11 March 1960, col. 3208)—

But what do we find now? [Interjections.] What do we find now, in this legislation? We have the factual situation here that by means of the legislation under discussion the possibility is created for Coloureds, Indians, Chinese and Whites to have a say by means of a referendum in the South African constitution, which could drastically affect the future of the White voters in this country. The hon. the Minister referred, inter alia to clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3(3) provides the following—

If I interpret this correctly, no Chinese person is required in terms of this clause to have citizenship in order to participate in such a referendum. I consider this flagrant discrimination against White voters who have permanent residence in this country but do not have citizenship and who are not allowed to cast their votes in such a referendum. [Interjections.]

In terms of clause 7(l)(a) the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette—

This therefore means that the separate population groups may go to the polls on one and the same day to vote on the same question. If there is a vote on the same question on the same day, obviously there is a possibility that the separate population groups may interfere in one another’s political affairs. This can obviously happen with a view to the influencing of certain voters to adopt a certain standpoint. Clause 7(l)(b) empowers the State President, by proclamation in the Gazette to—

This means that the State President determines the form and the appearance of the ballot paper. Consequently this means that also in terms of this clause the ballot papers may be identical. All the separate population groups in the country will therefore be able to vote on identical ballot papers. [Interjections.]

Clause 8 contains the provision concerning the polling districts in the country in which referendums will take place. However, there are no provisions in this clause in terms of which it is made clear whether the polling districts or stations cannot perhaps be identical as far as the separate population groups are concerned. [Interjections.]

Order!

This therefore means that all the separate population groups—technically, in terms of the legislation under discussion—may vote on the same question in the same polling station. [Interjections.] Apparently hon. members of the official Opposition are completely in favour of this. However, it suits them and that is why they welcome this provision. [Interjections.] Of course it is also my standpoint that the NP is moving towards the PFP standpoint. [Interjections.]

As far as I am able to interpret this legislation, all the population groups in the country may go to the polls on the same day to vote on the same question. This is what may happen so that we may vote on one of the most fundamental standpoints in our South African politics, namely the right of the White nation to self-determination and its own sovereignty. [Interjections.] In my opinion the principle of power-sharing and of one Government by the separate population groups is now being accepted in a shameless manner in terms of the legislation under discussion. [Interjections.] After all, this has now become the policy of the governing party. However, my standpoint is that the Government did not receive a mandate for this from the voters during the previous election. It did not receive a mandate from the White voters of South Africa to do what is now embodied in this Bill. At the time of the last election the policy of the NP was absolute sovereignty for the Whites of this country and separate development without power-sharing. Geographic content was even given to the 1977 constitutional proposals which were offered to the voters. I am quoting from the original information document and not from the new model. Under the heading “plaaslike bestuur” the following appears—

This is what the NP went to the voters with before the election. Now, however, joint decision-making and power-sharing are part of that party’s fundamental standpoints. This is not a consequence of the principle of separate development, nor is it a development of that policy; it forms a total antithesis to and therefore a total rejection of the policy of separate development.

The Bill is closely linked to the proposals of the President’s Council which have to be applied in this way. The news media had a great deal to say about the proposals of the President’s Council, and Nat 80’s paved the way for it by describing it as a good, a brilliant plan. By the way, if the editor of Nat 80’s refers on the same page to the standpoints of the CP which support the highest endeavours and ideals of a nation and refers to them as White baasskap, White selfishness, White fear, Afrikaner baasskap, Afrikaner selfishness and Afrikaner fear, I should like to tell the hon. member for Brits that he should proclaim these same standpoints from a public platform in Brits and hear what his voters have to say. [Interjections.] It is ironic that in the same issue of Nat 80’s there is also a clear change of standpoint in the case of an hon. member like the hon. member for Benoni, who a year ago was still making propaganda against any form of power-sharing. Now he writes—

How have the mighty fallen! Within a year they have come to accept the principle of power-sharing. In spite of this, it is still quite clear to us that this situation is going to be unacceptable to the majority of White voters in South Africa, in whatever form it is going to be presented as Government policy. In addition, it is going to create an unfair dispensation for the Coloureds and the Indians, for in what way are these nations going to get a significant right to self-determination over their own affairs? [Interjections.] They, just like the Whites, are being forced into a power-sharing situation in this country.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Sir, I just want to make this statement: The situation created by this Bill will result in there eventually being greater chaos than if the policy of separate development had been implemented consistently. [Interjections.]

You are reasoning the way the UP did in 1960.

The policy of the CP was also considered by the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council and was simply dismissed in a short paragraph, although it was clearly stated that influential Coloured leaders had testified that rather than be forced into an unfair dispensation, they would prefer a Coloured national State situation, in other words what this side of the House would grant them. This is stated on page 39 of the report of the Constitution Committee.

This legislation represents the first step towards joint decision-making, power-sharing and mixed government for the Republic of South Africa. That is why the CP rejects the legislation before this House and why we shall fight it with all means at our disposal. We in the CP have already addressed meetings in all four provinces and we know that the mojority of White voters will support us in this matter. [Interjections.] To us these are important principles involved here, because the rules for the way in which a referendum has to take place are formulated here, the rules for a situation which will lead to power-sharing and political integration in this country. For this reason, Sir, I should like to move the following amendment on behalf of the CP—

“this day six months”.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult for me to reply to most of the things the hon. member for Pietersburg said without digressing very widely from the scope of the Bill. The hon. member made the fundamental mistake that he interpreted the consequences of the consultation of the various population groups by means of a referendum quite erroneously. The consultation of a population group by means of a referendum is, after all, not yet a constitutional decision. It is ordinary consultation and the ascertaining of the view of a specific population group on a specific matter. At that stage no decision has yet been taken. We may subsequently, therefore, discuss whether it will lead to a joint say, power-sharing and the like. We may subsequently discuss the concepts joint say and power-sharing later on, but not under this Bill. There is no decision-making involved in the legislation before us. In a time such as that in which South Africa now finds itself, where important decisions must be taken and where it is extremely important for a Government to know how those persons who will be affected by a specific measure feel about it, and therefore whether they will accept that measure or not, it is important that the necessary instrument should exist so that the Government may obtain the view of the various population groups who are to be affected. It is particularly important in the changing conditions of today to confirm the acceptability or otherwise of what is being planned. Under more normal circumstances these consultations are done at the same time as elections, but we are entering a phase where so many decisions have to be taken that we cannot hold an election on every question that is put. That is why legislation of this kind is the most democratic instrument which can exist and it is now being placed at our disposal. That is why I feel it is of the utmost importance that this legislation should be passed by Parliament.

The hon. member for Pietersburg, to return to his argument, deduced from the Bill that it would be possible for all the population groups to vote on the same day on a matter.

Do you agree with that?

That is quite correct. They can vote on the same day on a matter. From this the hon. member deduces that this creates the possibility for one population group to interfere in the decision of another population group. I think the hon. member is making a big mistake in the sense that if there is a referendum for Whites, for example, on a specific matter, they will be considering their own affairs. There will be less time for them to interfere with the other groups who are voting on that day, but if they vote on separate days the Whites will be more readily available. I do not want to suggest that the argument I have just raised is a very strong argument, but there is no motivation for the statement the hon. member for Pietersburg made by saying that because the referendum will be held on the same day, this will create an opportunity for interference. The opposite is more likely to be true.

Another statement the hon. member made is that in terms of this legislation it would be possible for the various population groups to place their ballot papers in the same ballot box; in other words, that it will be a completely collective effort. However, this is most unlikely. As a matter of fact, it is contrary to the spirit of the Bill and contrary to the spirit of the entire philosophy of the Government, namely that the three groups shall be on three separate voters’ lists. There is no ground for thinking that at any stage we shall put a question to the population in general, because it is important to know how each separate group feels. Our basis is group politics. For this reason, while it may be technically possible, I cannot see that it is the intention in any stage of the application of this legislation to do things in this way, because the reply we shall receive will be absolutely meaningless for the purpose for which we shall want it. For this reason I cannot see that this fear is valid. As a matter of fact, I feel this fear is as groundless, if one sees it in context, as is the fear that because the referendum will be on the same day for all groups, they can influence one another.

On the same subject?

On the same subject.