Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Friday, I was replying to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg in his speech. To start with I want to point out that the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member for Waterkloof indicated that they would not he here today. In spite of their absence it is, however, essential that the statements they made during the course of this debate be dealt with.

In a statement the hon. member for Pietersburg by implication made the accusation that with regard to the participation of the respective population groups—Whites, Coloureds and Asians—in referendums, there had been a sudden change of standpoint by this side of the House on power-sharing, joint decision-making and joint responsibility. It is rather interesting that the hon. member for Pietersburg, as well as the hon. member for Waterkloof, used the concepts of power-sharing, joint decision-making and joint responsibility as equivalent terms in this regard. This is interesting, because in this connection there is a little history attached to the behaviour of the hon. members of the CP. For the purposes of my argument I shall use the arguments of the hon. member for Pietersburg and operate on the assumption that they are correct. The history indicates that those members, through their leaders and in their own statements, propagated specific standpoints on these concepts. In this connection it is relevant that I point out that during the election last year an election manifesto appeared which was signed by all four provincial leaders of the NP. In this the hon. member for Waterberg, under his signature, subscribed to the standpoint of joint responsibility as far as matters of common interest were concerned. I therefore want to suggest that in view of this we should determine who actually changed their standpoint.

That does not mean a thing!

Well, if it does not mean a thing the hon. member for Waterberg ought to understand it, because his only talent is to understand nothing.

Oh dear! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterberg … [Interjections.]

You really sound like an HNP member now!

Of course the hon. member is referring to his partners now. The other day, in the absence of the hon. the leader of the CP, the hon. member for Sunnyside said that the ANC and the HNP were actually equivalents. [Interjections.]

That is a lie. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Sunnyside say the hon. the Minister is lying? [Interjections.]

Sir, I accept it from that hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister accepts that it is not true. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Sunnyside say?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that I had labelled certain things as equivalents, to which I replied that it was a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, it will avail the hon. member for Waterberg nothing to make all kinds of ingenious interjections. The fact remains that under his own signature he accepted joint responsibility on matters of common interest in an election manifesto. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg should not quarrel with me. He should quarrel with his own followers. In his arguments last Friday—in the conspicuous absence of the hon. member for Waterberg, as usual—the hon. member for Pietersburg used power-sharing, joint responsibility …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to refer to the hon. member for Waterberg in such a pejorative way? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg used those words as equivalent terms. In addition he charged the hon. member for Benoni with having referred to joint responsibility in an article he had written. It will avail us nothing now to run away from one another as far as these things are concerned. [Interjections.]

Since when has that been power-sharing?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterberg was not here. Under the circumstances it would therefore behove him to behave himself better. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Pietersburg used the concepts of power-sharing, joint responsibility and joint decision-making as equivalent terms in his speech. [Interjections.]

But that is your own standpoint! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietersburg said that he rejected this legislation because it implied joint decision-making, power-sharing and joint responsibility.

You are the ones who are placing them on an equal footing.

The hon. member for Waterberg allowed a document to be published under his signature and its contents propagated … [Interjections.] … in which joint responsibility was accepted. In the second place the hon. member for Waterberg and the people sitting behind him remained in the Government and the hon. member and his colleague from Lichtenburg served in the Cabinet, with a certain interpretation of the 1977 constitutional proposals as formulated by the previous Prime Minister. He said that it implied, inter alia, a joint say on matters of common interest. If hon. members want me to quote this for them I shall do so with pleasure. They also remained in the Cabinet and remained members of the Government, under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, after he had given content to and an interpretation of the proposed Council of Cabinets.

He said that the status, the functions and the responsibility of the proposed Council of Cabinets would be the same as those of this Cabinet as far as matters of common interest were concerned. I do not care if the hon. member of the CP reject this now, but the fact remains that they cannot get away from what they supported at one stage nor from the fact that they served in a Government whose standpoints they did not support. The choice is theirs.

The hon. member for Pietersburg also said that we had allegedly deviated from the 1977 plan. I do not want to take this any further now. However, look at what he used as an argument. He stated that even geographic content was given to the 1977 constitutional proposals presented to the voters, and he indicated that he was quoting from the original information document that was published and not from the new model. He stated, inter alia, (Hansard, 27 May, 1982)—

Of course a local government functions within a specific geographic area, whereas the Government of the country is responsible for the entire country. The hon. member for Pietersburg went on to say (Hansard, 27 May, 1982)—

In the first place he therefore placed local government on the same level as the Government of the day. He then went on to place joint responsibility, power-sharing and joint decision-making on the same footing.

But you made it healthy.

I shall still get round to the hon. member for Barberton. [Interjections.] In this connection I shall also still get round to the hon. member for Waterkloof. The hon. member for Swellendam said the object of this legislation was to find a scientific way of ascertaining and gauging people’s opinions. However, the hon. member for Pietersburg said it implied power-sharing, joint decision-making and joint responsibility.

The hon. member for Waterkloof said that referendums were now being introduced into the legislative process of South Africa.

System.

The hon. member referred to the process; he can look it up in his own speech. In the second place he said that referendums were being introduced into the decision-making process, and that was the basis of his objection. However, we are probably all agreed that this legislation is intended as an advisory and consultative process. The hon. member is nodding affirmatively; he therefore agrees with this, but he nevertheless rejected the idea that it should be incorporated in the legislative process or system. This is evidently not true. He said we were introducing referendums into the advisory process and I want to put a question again, namely: Are hon. members of the CP opposed to consulting other people? Are they opposed to the process of consulting other people in connection with those things which affect their lives? [Interjections.] Are they opposed to that?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Rissik says he is not opposed to it. [Interjections.]

This is extremely interesting. The hon. member for Waterkloof’s ingenuity will be of no avail to him now. He never referred to “one man, one vote” consultation. He referred to the conceptual contents of the legislation. That is what he referred to. I want to tell the hon. member that if he has any complaints about this—and he may very well have complaints—he must in the first place address his complaints to those persons who were jointly responsible for starting a process of consultation in respect of the constitutional development of the country. Several hon. members of the CP were directly involved in that process, while all of them were indirectly involved in it.

What was the subject referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution? The committee had to investigate the constitution of the country with reference to the 1977 proposals.

It was not “with reference to”.

Let us not quibble about this. [Interjections.] The terms of reference of the committee was to investigate the constitution of the country.

It had nothing to do with the 1977 proposals.

I want to go further. That Select Committee, which was subsequently converted into a commission, made recommendations in which hon. members of the CP had a part. Two hon. members of the CP signed the recommendations; two of them approved the proposals at Cabinet level and the rest of them approved the proposals in the NP caucus. [Interjections.] What are the facts? The hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Brakpan said that all people affected by a constitution should be consulted to enhance the acceptability of that constitution. When the hon. members said that and voted in favour of a consultative process in an institutionalized way which had subsequently to be established by means of an act of Parliament, did they then adopt the standpoint that, in the first place, it represented power-sharing; in the second place, that it represented joint responsibility and, in the third place, that it was a matter which was being introduced into the legislative system of the country?

Did you know that during the 1981 election?

The hon. members either did not know it or they concealed it.

I have never concealed anything. [Interjections.]

The hon. members not only adopted the standpoint that our country’s political development, as well as development in other spheres, would have to take place in an evolutionary way and that we must do everything in our power to establish institutions within which consultation could take place. They also voted in favour of an institution consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Chinese. What is the difference in principle between one process of consultation and another?

The hon. member for Barberton said in a rather interesting way that I had referred in my speech to the possibility that Blacks could be consulted. He said that that was an overture to the PFP.

That was how they understood it.

But how does the hon. member understand it? We need not discuss the PFP now.

The standpoint adopted by the hon. members of the CP totally disregards the standpoints they adopted in the past, unless the hon. member for Waterberg has again led them along the path of a political lie …

I was referring to your own covert models.

… of a covert lie.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

Sir, I withdraw them, and I say that those hon. members formally subscribed to standpoints when they were members of this party while they did not believe in those standpoints.

That is not true.

If it is not true—and I should like to accept the word of the hon. member for Rissik—it is those hon. members who have changed their standpoint and not the members of the NP. There is no other conclusion one can draw from their behaviour. The hon. member has two choices. This is a free country. It is general knowledge that the hon. member for Barberton’s colleagues, namely the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Brakpan, when they served on the Select Committee, not only voted in favour of the standpoint that Whites, Coloureds and Asians should be consulted, but also said that Blacks should be consulted. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Barberton has conveniently forgotten that at one stage they also supported the establishment of a Black council, and he has conveniently forgotten that he also supported the idea that committees of the President’s Council and committees of the Black council could hold joint meetings and give advice. [Interjections.] It is interesting that other people are now being accused, although we all know that what the hon. members are now opposing, they approved by means of their signatures.

In the second place, the hon. member for Waterberg must reconcile himself to his behaviour. He must reconcile his behaviour to what he preached. I want to give the hon. member some good advice, in the words of Langenhoven, which apply to all of us, namely: “‘n Mens moet jou glimlag hou vir jou vyand, jou trane vir jou vriend, jou oor-deel vir jouself en jou gewete vir jou God”. I would understand hon. members and I would understand the hon. member for Waterberg if he were to stand up and say that at one stage in his life he subscribed to standpoints which he no longer finds expedient. [Interjections.] Then I would have had respect for his political integrity. But I hold it against him that he and his colleagues go from one meeting to another in this country and advocate standpoints which are directly at variance with what they subscribed to in the past, and that the responsibility for this is now being foisted onto other people. [Interjections.]

That is precisely what you are doing.

He is a coward.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Parys refer to another hon. member as a coward? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Parys say that?

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member for Waterberg was a coward.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Sir, I withdraw it. But may the hon. member for Barberton call me a born coward, whereupon I said that he could not say that about me, but that I could in fact say that about him because he had proved it?

Order! Did the hon. member for Barberton say that?

I did, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said the same thing. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries also say that the hon. member was a coward?

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute untruth. I did not say that, and if I had said it, I would have been honest enough to repeat it.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Parys has just said that it proves that I am a coward. Is he allowed to say so? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must obey the Chair and must not contravene its rulings deliberately. The hon. member for Parys must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the hon. member for Barberton wanted to create and use an opportunity to escape from his dilemma. I have been trying to prove that those hon. members have not only deviated from previous standpoints in formulating their present standpoint, that they not only were members of the Government of the country while the standpoint of the Government was different from theirs, and failed to do anything about this, but that they are also engaging in reprehensible hit-and-run politics outside this House with regard to our existence in South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietersburg accused us of deviating from the constitution of the NP. I want to ask him how he reconciles his standpoints, his statements about other inhabitants of this country, people who are also citizens of the country, just as he is, with the principle contained in this constitution which they all subscribe to, or at least formally subscribed to, namely that we are seeking to develop the country on the basis of Christian National principles. I want to ask him how he reconciles his present standpoints with what he subscribed to when he said that the NP was dedicated to the promotion of the welfare of every part of the country and the impartial preservation of the rights and privileges of every section of the population?

We still adhere to that, of course.

The last question I want to ask in this connection is: How do those hon. members reconcile their present standpoints with what they once subscribed to when they also said that this party did not allow people in its ranks who put the interests of race or population group or country of origin above the interests of South Africa? I want hon. members to reply to those questions. I repeat that I do not think they have read the principles of the party. All those hon. members accepted the fact that Whites and Coloureds and Asians inhabited the same country.

What did that mean?

It meant that although we all lived in our own communities, there was no separate homeland for any group. If hon. members agree with that, we need not debate it any longer. We also agreed that there can be only one central government authority in a country, although there may be various institutions. However, we did not only accept this as a concept; we also advocated parliamentary institutions, of which the one was to have had the power of decision over the others. We went further and advocated a Council of Cabinets which was to have been able to decide about matters of common interest and which was to have had the same powers. We went on to say that because there were different groups in the country and because we had to regulate matters on the basis of the existence of these groups, institutions would be established by means of which communities would decide about their own affairs. We also said that institutions would be created in which they could be involved in joint decision-making concerning matters of common interest. All I am asking now is why hon. members are disclaiming responsibility for what they enthusiastically advocated under the banner of the NP, during a general election last year as well.

The political debate will show us that.

One really should not deny responsibility.

I thank the hon. member Mr. Van Staden for his contribution. He is one of the veterans who participated in the discussion of the legislation relating to the previous referendum.

I also thank the hon. members for Klip River, Helderkruin, Swellendam and Hercules for their contributions.

I come now to the hon. member for Langlaagte. He did not discuss legislation, only the issue. He concentrated, therefore, on the type of question which could be asked by way of a referendum. Therefore he did not condemn the legislation as a consultative or procedural instrument. He said that by means of a referendum we could ask, for example, whether we could close down the Press. However, we do not need a referendum if we want to do that. If the Government wants to close down the Press, it can do so without holding a referendum, because it has a majority which enables it to do so. In any event, Parliament is sovereign.

The fact is that the referendums that have been held in our history have been used as a method of constitutional consultation.

The issue came first. [Interjections.]

I am discussing the process of resolving the issue. What is relevant is that we have used a referendum to bring about consultation—i.e. the formulation of a standpoint—outside this House concerning the constitutional position of the country. We did this in 1960, when we held a referendum about becoming a Republic, the most important event in the history of the country up to that time, because it ended a struggle which had lasted more than 250 years. The second time it was used—this seems so strange today—was when the decision had to be taken whether Ciskei wanted to become independent in accordance with the Government’s policy.

We do not trust you any more.

None of the hon. members objected to the use of that method in order to ascertain the opinion of the citizens of Ciskei. Therefore they are prepared to give other peoples an instrument which they deny their own people. That is a fact. I repeat that although some of us want to retrogress, none of us in this House thinks that the present constitutional dispensation can remain as it is. There is no one in this House who can deny that a constitutional change, whatever form it may take, will affect the lives of the inhabitants of this country. There is no one in this House who has not at some stage voiced the belief that people whose lives will be affected by a constitutional change should be consulted about it.

This is the first time the vote is being given to people who are not citizens of this country.

That is not true. But I am coming to that, if the hon. member would just give me a chance. Since the hon. member for Langlaagte is so serious, I may as well deal with him now. It is not true, of course, that people who did not have citizenship were not allowed to vote.

The amendment was only moved today.

The hon. member must please give me a chance. I am not quarrelling with him. I am just replying to what he said. The hon. member said by way of interjection that this was the first time a person who did not have citizenship would be able to vote. I am just telling the hon. member that his statement is not correct. In terms of the legislation with regard to the election of the Indian Council, Indians who were permanently domiciled in this country could vote for the Indian Council.

For the Indian Council.

Yes, but they can vote. They can vote for a constitutional institution, and in terms of legislation which we will support. After all, the matter has a historical background, and the hon. member knows what the situation is. Before Union in 1910, each of the provinces had its own legislation with regard to Asiatics. As from 1927, a system of assisted emmigration to India and other countries was organized by Indians in the Union who wanted to make use of it, and the policy of repatriating the Indians was the policy adopted by successive Governments in this country. As a result, Indians did not obtain citizenship in terms of the prevailing policy.

That hon. member, who wants to go back to the era before 1966, knows that the then Minister of the Interior, the father of the present hon. leader of the Transvaal, announced in the House of Assembly on 16 May 1961—the year we became a Republic—that the Asiatics were being accepted as the permanent responsibility of this country, that most of them were South African citizens and that they were consequently entitled to the advantages which this entailed for them. Not one of those hon. members ever quarrelled with us about this. [Interjections.] When the Electoral Act for Indians was introduced in 1977—and I have an idea that the hon. member was here at that time—provision was made for Indians over the age of 18 years who were domiciled in our country to be given the vote.

For an Indian body.

For an Indian Council.

I am replying to the statement made by the hon. member for Langlaagte.

Well, this is a fact.

Those hon. members all accepted that that council—and it is a constitutional institution—was going to be elected by people who had not formally obtained citizenship.

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

Later. [Interjections.] As that hon. member knows, the present piece of legislation is based on that Act, with adjustments, of course. The reason why citizenship was not required of them was that at that stage, as a result of the policy of repatriation, many Indians were not yet registered as South African citizens. However, it is a false and malicious argument to say that it is blatant discrimination because more is required of the Whites and the Coloureds than of the Indians.

But it is a fact.

It is not a fact, and I have just given the reason for the course of events. [Interjections.] However, the position has changed since then. Most Indians are now registered as South African citizens. Because this is so, there is no longer any need for the old provision which had to deal with the factual situation. This is the explanation for the amendment which appears on the Order Paper.

I want to say, for what it is worth, that none of us wants these people …

In the Free State.

… to be denied recognition as permanent citizens. None of us denies their right to decision-making either. As far as the hon. members of the CP are concerned, I want to say that they are entitled to their standpoint. In future, however, the possibilities of a constitutional solution in the country will increasingly be determined by this House, not only by way of its formal processes, but also on the basis of the language which we use when referring to other people who share this country with us. To make any population group permanently subservient to any other is a recipe for the destruction of the institutions we believe in. The fact is that we cannot deny our joint citizenship with the population groups that are being discussed here.

As well as those that are not.

I shall come to that, if the hon. member would only give me a chance.

The hon. member for Waterkloof asked me a few questions. I see that he is absent from the House again. [Interjections.] He asked me questions about what our reaction would be depending on the result of any referendums which may be held. The legislation provides for one, two or all three population groups to be consulted by way of a referendum. The hon. member knows that whatever the result of the referendum or referendums may be, there is only one institution which is able to bring about constitutional changes, and that is the House of Assembly. Therefore, although it may be interesting to advance witty arguments, the fact of the matter is that if we want to introduce constitutional changes in the country, the electorate of this House will have to be persuaded to accept these, for if we cannot succeed in doing so, those changes will not be evolutionary, nor will they be constitutional. That is the answer to his question.

Secondly, the hon. m8025ember knows that there have been and still are different dispensations with regard to Coloured people and Asians. Surely it is not necessary, if those population groups adopt different standpoints, to accommodate them in different ways in the future constitutional dispensation. When we are simply creating the instrument for consultation, why should we use this type of argument?

I want to say in this connection that the hon. members rejected the reports on the constitutional dispensation out of hand. I do not wish to discuss that. However, I want to put it to them that in spite of enormous pressure from various quarters, the leaders of Coloured political parties have refrained from adopting standpoints of rejection. In doing so, they have set an example to many people—including hon. members of this House—of how to negotiate and co-operate with responsibility.

That is the greatest compliment you have ever paid anyone.

I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that this is the greatest compliment…

Now you are talking just like Jan Hofmeyr!

If I am talking like Jan Hofmeyr, I am talking just like the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Waterkloof, the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Waterberg did. [Interjections.] They supported all these processes. [Interjections.] Those hon. members supported all these processes. [Interjections.] On the basis of that, and in order to explain matters to the hon. member for Langlaagte, I want to point out that because the need with regard to the Indian population no longer exists, the amendment has been placed on the Order Paper.

This brings me to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member supported the legislation, and also said that the questions should be simply and clearly defined. I agree with him that this would be desirable. The hon. member also spoke about the question of postal votes. I wanted to point out to the hon. member that a different dispensation applied with regard to postal votes. As the hon. member know, provision was made for postal votes in terms of the Electoral Act for Whites. With regard to the election of the CRC, too, provision was made for postal votes. No similar provision existed for elections of the Indian Council. If this would satisfy the hon. member, I want to point out that the Electoral Acts of all these population groups are the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee. Depending on the report of the Select Committee and the acceptability of reports in this connection, we can reconsider the circumstances with regard to postal votes. It is not practicable to do so now, because it would imply that approximately 90 amendments would have to be made to the existing legislation. I hope the hon. member will accept this.

The hon. member for Greytown and the hon. member for Constantia basically adopted the same standpoints as the hon. member for Green Point, with regard to postal votes as well.

†The hon. member for Umbilo raised certain matters to which I should like to reply. In the first instance, I believe that the amount of R400 is inadequate. Therefore I have indicated that I would increase that amount to R2 000 by way of moving an amendment during the Committee Stage.

Allow me to add immediately that I believe that political parties are doing an immense job for the Department of Internal Affairs. I believe that, to a large extent, political parties make a major contribution to keeping the voters’ roll up to date. Therefore I should also like to indicate that my department, in consultation with the Department of Finance, is at the moment investigating the possibilities of making some adaption in respect of political parties in order to compensate them to some extent for the work which they are doing on behalf of the Government, and in particular on behalf of the Department of Internal Affairs.

Hear, hear!

I cannot give any indication now about how this is going to be done or whether it could be done at all. I am, however, only mentioning it in passing because I believe it is an important issue. It also relates to the expenditure that political parties have to incur in the process of taking part in elections. Therefore I believe we should let the matter rest for the time being.

What about the Blacks?

The hon. member for Sea Point wants to know what about the Blacks. The hon. member is aware of the fact that according to the standpoint of the Government, the constitutional accommodation of the Blacks should take place in a different way from that of the Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Furthermore, the hon. member is also aware of the fact that mechanisms have been created for Black people outside the national States—some of them are still in the process of being created—with regard to local government, by means of which they are being given the right to take decisions within the areas in which they live with regard to the matters which affect their lives. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that we are not going to reject these States after they have attained independence. The Government accepts that the attainment of constitutional independence by States does not mean that they are going to be rejected and that their economic ties with South Africa have to be broken.

I am not talking about economic ties.

Can the hon. member not be quiet so that I can reply to him?

I am talking about constitutional…

I am coming to that.

Colin, you are not talking on the telephone now.

That is why we are saying that ties can be established with the independent States on the basis of confederal principles, and that this can also apply to Black people who live outside the national States. Allow me to say to the hon. member that the attainment of independence by Black States is inevitable and irreversible … [Interjections.] … and if the hon. member would rather use his energies to help us to develop these States, to make them strong and to enhance their abilities, he would be making a contribution. However, the hon. member’s questions reflect the negative attitude which he and his party adopt towards all matters in this country. The hon. member was the instigator of his party’s boycott of the President’s Council. He is the man who persuaded his people to reject those proposals [Interjections.] Now the hon. member, the rest of his party and his leader want to use the President’s Council as an instrument for bringing about consultation with the Black people. Now they want to use the proposals of the President’s Council as a basis for reform for the Blacks. [Interjections.] Look at the hon. members of the PFP sitting over there. Over the past 33 years, nothing has been accomplished in this country which was not initiated by this Government. As soon as success has been achieved, however, or when there are signs of success, those hon. members latch on to those successes and then they suddenly want to climb on the bandwagon.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make a few brief remarks. During the Second Reading the hon. member for Rissik referred to the definition of “ordinary place of residence” and supported the idea that students should be registered at the place where they are studying. This provision which is now being introduced by the legislation is not aimed at propagating a specific standpoint, but merely at bringing the legislation in respect of the electoral acts in line with those relating to population registration, because the one has to be compiled from the other. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 19, to omit all the words after “signature” up to and including “palm-prints” in line 21;
2. (2) on page 9, in lines 43 to 49, to omit paragraph (h).

My first amendment indicates that we do not object to the idea of a person’s signature being included in the population register, but that we do object to the inclusion of his finger-prints and palm-prints.

†The finger-print requirement has been called an offensive requirement, and I wish to associate myself with that view. People will take offence at having to submit to what they would consider to be an indignity, an undignified process. It is a messy process, and it will be considered to be an invasion of privacy. It is the kind of thing people just do not like and do not approve of, and they will also ask the question: What is next? Will we have to submit a footprint next or will we have to make our teeth-marks in something? Technically speaking, certainly those things add to the means of establishing of a person’s identity. So if it is purely a technical requirement and if we honestly believe that it can really add to the administration of our population register, then those things could also at least theoretically make some sense. Moreover, it is a system that is associated with criminality in this country, and this is not a stigma that could be easily shaken off.

What about the administrative aspect of a finger-print or palm-print system as envisaged in the Bill? In the past application could be made through the post. There were things that created certain difficulties for the applicant, e.g. that he had to have his photograph taken and that the photograph had to be certified that it was a true reflection of the applicant. That sort of thing had to be done, but very often people could make their application for an identity document from home if they received the necessary assistance. I know that in some old age homes people actually arranged for a photographer to come around to take the photographs, to assist the aged people with their applications, to do the certification and then to post the applications to the department so that identity documents could be issued. This situation is now obviously being complicated by the requirement of finger-printing because I certainly do not believe that fingerprinting for this purpose can be done just by anybody. It should be done by somebody who knows something about this. I therefore believe that this system will create difficulties in some instances.

Ever since we have become aware that the voters’ rolls are going to be compiled and based on the population register at some future stage we as political parties have taken a greater interest in trying to get people to apply. But we have found a certain resistance to this, for reasons which are not at all always rational or sensible. Particularly old people very often view this identity document system with some degree of suspicion. They may, of course, have some historical reason for this. Some of them even have difficulty in providing us with information about their date or place of birth, and that sort of thing. Once again I believe that the finger-print system is going to complicate matters to a very grave extent in this regard. Particularly if the new Electoral Act is passed by this House, in terms of which the voters’ rolls will be based on population register, it will be necessary, even if it has not been necessary in the past, to try to get every inhabitant of this country to apply for the book of life. I do not believe that the requirement of finger-prints is going to make our task any easier. In fact I am convinced that it will complicate matters very severely.

Lastly, I want to ask: What value are finger-prints going to have in terms of security? I ask this question because that has been the justification that has been given for this new requirement. Let me say immediately that all the objections we have in regard to this question of finger-prints are obviously relative objections. Although they are fairly strong objections I believe that they are objections that can be overcome if a very good reason can be advanced as to why this should be done. I believe that the public would in the main be prepared to waive their objections to this system if they can be given a very good and a very convincing reason for this to be done. I say this because I do not believe that people necessarily object to such a system in respect of which very stringent security requirements apply if it is applied to a very small group of people who are privileged in the sense that they have access to a very, very sensitive installation, for instance, security guards guarding a particular installation. I believe that if a finger-print system is applied in respect of those people, they will most probably very happily submit to such a system. However, as far as the general public are concerned, I do not believe that the general public sees the need for this and I must say quite frankly that I am in sympathy with them in this connection.

The hon. the Minister has said this is really the ultimate form of identification. That is quite correct. It is a very good system of identification but if anybody arrives at the door or the entrance of any sensitive installation where it is truly necessary to check such a person’s identity before such person is admitted, surely, as the hon. the Minister has said, that person can be asked to give his finger-prints and, if a finger-print expert is available, he can compare the finger-prints given by the particular individual with the finger-prints appearing in his identity book. However, once again, I believe that if a person is capable of introducing his own photograph into a falsified identity document he will similarly be able to introduce false sets of finger-prints into such a document. I have no reason to believe that this is not possible. Such a system of finger-prints will only be of value if a comparison can be made between the finger-prints of that individual and a master set of finger-prints that presumably must be held either at the head office or a regional office of the department. All I am saying is that if a comparison is only required to be made between finger-prints that are required to be given on entry to such an installation and the finger-prints appearing in an identity document, this will be of no more value than the photograph appearing in that identity document and therefore that it will not really improve the standard of identification and the validity or usefulness of an identity document in such an instance.

In defence of this system the hon. the Minister mentioned across the floor of the House that the example I quoted of Mr. Dolinchek—the fact that two passports had been issued to one individual under a false name—actually supports the argument that finger-prints are necessary. However, it is very clear that what went wrong in that instance—of course, one can speculate to a very large extent in this regard—was that there was no checking between the people who issued the passport and the head office to ensure that there was in fact such a person and whether the particulars given on the application form for that passport corresponded to particulars in the population register held in Pretoria or in the regional office. That was obviously what went wrong. Therefore, those twin passports must have been issued to that person because the information that was available to the department was not processed correctly. That is the sort of thing that causes problems.

It is in this sense that I say that I do not believe that finger-prints will improve the situation. What needs to be done is that in spite of the fact that the department is understaffed and overworked, it must properly process the information at its disposal so as to ensure that this sort of duplication or issue of false passports does not take place. If this is done, I believe that we shall overcome our problems. I do not believe that the system of finger-printing that is sought to be introduced into our system by this legislation will improve the situation. I believe in fact that it will grossly aggravate the administrative problems which the department is already experiencing.

My second amendment proposes the omission of clause 4(h) which seeks to add the following paragraph to section 7(1) of the principal Act—

*I have already indicated in the Second Reading debate that the legislation, as it reads at present, makes it very clear that certain categories of information concerning a person will be included in the population register and no other information whatsoever. Consequently the legislation is very clear as far as this matter is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish either to waste the time of the Committee or to tax the patience of the hon. members by repeating all that has been said by the hon. member for Green Point. With much of the speech he made in respect of his first amendment, I can agree, but I feel that he has not taken sufficient cognizance of the fact that the department definitely requires an improvement in the security aspect. In this regard I believe the department is right that there should be an improvement in the security aspect. I do agree with the hon. member that the taking of finger-prints of all and sundry will not resolve the problem and in fact will antagonize a lot of people because, as I have said during the Second Reading debate and as has been said by other people, it is a highly emotive subject which people associate with criminality and criminal activities. Therefore, having borne in mind the need for improvement, I believe that we should have a system of signatures—I am very happy to go along with that—and I do believe that where we have illiterate people, those who are not capable of properly signing their name, the finger-print aspect could and should be considered as a viable alternative. Therefore I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I shall react briefly to what the hon. member for Umbilo said. I can see the hon. member for Umbilo’s point that fingerprints are acceptable to him in so far as they are used as an alternative for a signature. As far as we are concerned that is also a much more reasonable approach to the question of finger-prints. However, the point I wish to raise in this regard, if finger-prints are to be seen as an alternative to a signature, is that until now the department has not regarded finger-prints as being necessary, since now is the first time that the department is making signatures an identification requirement. This is an indication, therefore, that the signature or an alternative for it has not been deemed very necessary until now. If the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo is accepted, that will of course mean that in future a finger-print will be required from people who are illiterate. There is some merit in that.

However, I want to raise the point that one hopes that the degree of illiteracy and the number of illiterate people in the country will decrease rapidly and that the requirement of a finger-print will decrease to an increasing extent. Since this requirement, in terms of the Bill as it stands, will be introduced gradually and will only apply to people who apply for an identity document for the first time, it may not be necessary to take finger-prints even in the case of such people. However, I want to say at once that if my own amendment is not accepted we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo.

I just want to complete my motivation for my second amendment very briefly. It concerns the provision which is being included to the effect that the State President is given the right to enter further personal information into the population register, while previously this had not been the case. This is only one of those situations to which we, as the Opposition, object. Until now the legislator was jealous of his right to decide what information about a person would be entered in the population register, whereas now he is partially being denied that right. Let us look at the effect of the provision. Should this measure become law the hon. the Minister never again need to come to this House if he wants further information to be entered in an identity document or the population register. For example, he could in future stipulate that a person’s criminal record has to be entered into the population register. It could also be decided that if a person suffers from some disqualification that, too, has to be entered in the population register. We object to this in principle, because I feel that this is not the kind of matter that should be dealt with at short notice. There is no reason why, if he feels that he wants to enter further information about a person in the population register, the hon. the Minister cannot refer that request to the legislator in order to effect an amendment in that way.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I believe the hon. the Minister has received the amendment.

No, I have not received it.

I should just like to motivate the amendment briefly. The principle of the exclusion of information from the register is not objectionable to us. In fact, we would like to see as little information as possible contained in the register, of course consistent with the objectives of the State. What we do object to, however, is the potential that seems to be embodied in this clause at the moment to exclude categories on a racial basis. We feel that this would be an extremely objectionable manoeuvre. I would therefore like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that it is not his intention to introduce …

I gave that assurance during the Second Reading debate.

Well, in that case he should have no difficulty in accepting this amendment if he is not trying to introduce discrimination by proclamation and, for example, apply finger-printing, or any other form of identification, to only one racial group. If that is not the objective, this amendment would simply enforce that fact. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the amendment. It merely makes that one limitation and does not restrict the hon. the Minister when it comes to making other kinds of exclusions not related to racial categories.

I just want to make a further point in support of the hon. member for Green Point’s amendment that we should not grant the hon. the Minister the right to include unspecified information in the register. I can only repeat the point that was made during the discussion of the Second Reading, namely that we find it an extremely objectionable principle to be asked to give the Government a blank cheque in regard to what can be included in the registry in future. When the concept of the book of life was introduced, the Government gave certain assurances in this regard. It was built into the principal Act that there should be no other information whatsoever included in the book of life. The fear was expressed at the time when the book of life was introduced that this would become a kind of Big Brother type of register.

That fear did not materialize.

Well, the threat is there. If this goes through, we will be giving the Minister a blank cheque to decide to include in the future population register whatever he wishes. That is objectionable. I think that anything that is going to be kept on a permanent basis about the citizens of South Africa should be brought to the House and agreed upon and not be left to the personal discretion of the hon. the Minister and his successors, who may be worse than he is. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, I should briefly like to refer to the question of finger-printing. Not to belabour the point, we find it a degrading proposition that every individual should have his fingerprints taken. We do not accept the point of it being the ultimate form of recognition. It may be a very advanced form of recognition for trained people using certain machinery, but it is most certainly not an advanced form of recognition for the man in the street. Just to put it to an absurd test, I should like to challenge any candidate of the NP who might wish to stand against me in a future election and wants to lose his deposit, to put his thumb-print on his posters instead of his photograph.

Some will look better.

It is quite clear that the man in the street is not assisted by a thumb-print or a finger-print in achieving any kind of recognition. Only a very limited category of people using machines and with special training will be able to make use of this. Therefore one wonders to what extent it will really be used as a security measure. It seems to me that, when in the House the word “security” is used, the Government’s political judgment flies out of the window.

I think that the hon. member for Green Point made a valid point when he asked why if one can falsify a photograph in an identity document, one should not be able to falsify a finger-print too? Then it is even harder to distinguish what has been falsified. I have been given to understand that in some parts of the world where finger-prints are used for certain reasons—the hon. the Minister the other day mentioned driver’s licences in certain of the States of the USA—one can obtain false plastic skin with different fingerprints and use that and sometimes get away with it.

Now I can understand your objection.

In other words, there are questions the hon. the Minister must clear up. He must say why this fits in with his security programme. We are not persuaded. We find this an extremely objectionable and degrading position.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, should like to support the changed amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, particularly as far as the finger-prints are concerned. When this matter was broached in the proposed Bill for the first time a year or two ago it was specifically said that it would not be used for criminal purposes; in other words, that it would not lead to a kind of large-scale tracing service. Many of the hon. members on the Government side have mentioned how well it would serve those purposes. It was said, for example, that employers would like to know what had happened to former employees, etc. That is why we want to know whether this is going to be used as a large-scale tracing service to enable any body to, for example, trace people’s new addresses. I can see that the days of Sherlock Holmes and Hercules Poi-rot are going to disappear completely if one is going to be able to simply send a constable to get a person’s latest finger-print. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us if that is the purpose of this legislation. If that is not the purpose, could the hon. the Minister then tell us who would have access, for example, to the information in respect of finger-prints and the addresses which go with them? Do the police have access or is it only for use by the Department of Internal Affairs, or not? I should just like the hon. the Minister to put it to us very clearly because Government spokesmen have said that it would not be for the sake of having a super-information service.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point raised three objections to this specific clause, and in particular to the taking of finger-prints.

†His first argument was that it was an offensive practice, that it was undignified, that it was a messy process and that he opposed it therefore. He added that it was also an intrusion into the privacy of people. Allow me to deal with these arguments briefly. It is true that the intention to introduce legislation which would contain a clause of this nature was widely advertised. The hon. member for Green Point indeed reacted to it in the public media at one stage.

The Bill was published, and during January 1981—more-than a year ago—a Press conference was held at which the provisions of the legislation now before us were fully explained. If public reaction to this legislation had been what the hon. member for Green Point suggested it was, it would only be fair and reasonable, I believe, to conclude that there would have been a public outcry against this intention. I further think it would be fair to conclude that under such circumstances the Department of Internal Affairs would have been inundated by objections against this so-called objectionable and offensive measure.

What are the facts, however? Notwithstanding the fact that this legislation was widely publicized, that the public media carried very prominent articles about the intention to introduce the taking of finger-prints for the purposes of the application of this legislation, the department received not more than three objections from individuals. I should say therefore—and I do not mean this in a derogatory sense—that it is our responsibility not to create artificial public opinion against proposed legislation. I have said it before and I reiterate now that this Parliament’s ultimate responsibility is the safety of the State and of its people. We have indeed all accepted this principle, and therefore it is the responsibility of this Parliament—regardless of whether it is popular or not—to take the necessary action to ensure the continued safety and security of the State. I concede immediately that I am not an expert in this regard. There are, however, in this country bodies to which the security of the State is entrusted. They contend that this measure is indeed the only scientific method of identification of a person. It is true—and the hon. member tried to take it further—that in many cases the taking of finger-prints is being associated with something criminal. However, it is also true that the majority of finger-prints that are being taken in terms of the existing law are not taken for that purpose, and the hon. member should know that. My question therefore is: Why does he not present a fair argument to substantiate this case?

What are they taken for?

For identification. Black people’s finger-prints are being taken for identification, and the hon. member knows that.

The point I am trying to make—and I think the hon. member will concede the fairness of my argument—is that in the majority of cases where finger-prints are taken, they are not being taken for criminal purposes.

For what purposes are they then taken?

For identification purposes, which is also the purpose of this Bill.

Let me take it further. I have been informed that there are a variety of products on the market that can be used, products which are not offensive. The fact that the clause relating to the taking of finger-prints is to come into operation on a date to be determined by the State President, is evidence of the fact that we want the best product under the circumstances. Therefore I ask hon. members to assist me in this particular regard and not to create a climate that does not exist today, against the provisions of this Bill. The second argument raised by the hon. member for Green Point was in regard to administrative difficulties that he suggested would follow on this provision, and he particularly referred to the aged, the senior citizens of our country. The hon. member must forgive me when I say that this is simply a political argument, because he knows, that in terms of the provisions of the Bill, it is only on the first application for the issue of an identification document that finger-prints are to be taken. The hon. member will therefore concede the fairness of the statement that most of our senior citizens have their documentation already. The register proves this to be so. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the identity document is required to be taken out at the age of 16. I have given the information to hon. members as to how many documents have not yet been issued. So, to suggest that this provis-ion will affect the aged is simply not true. Of course, I concede that there could be a small minority of elderly people who are not yet in possession of an identification document, but to argue on the basis that this is the rule and not the exception is, I submit, a completely fallacious argument. It is only used for political purposes and for nothing else.

I would go further and point out that even in the case where a document is lost and there is an application for a re-issue, the taking of finger-prints will be unnecessary.

*I come now to the last point and in dealing with it I shall also reply to the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Constantia knows that his views on and his record in respect of security matters are the subject of much discussion, to the extent that they are creating a great deal of tension in the ranks of his party. I can therefore understand it if he is debating purely according to the pattern of his previous standpoints and previous conduct today. There is a complete difference in premise between the hon. member for Constantia and the majority— his colleagues on that side of the House on the one hand, and this side of the House on the other. Those hon. members refuse to recognize the extent of the threats against South Africa. The hon. member refuses to recognize the ingenuity and sophistication of those who are seeking the downfall of our country.

And you want to catch them with five million fingerprints …

When the hon. member for Green Point made his speech I listened to him. I advised him last Friday—apparently it was to no avail, therefore I have to repeat it—to keep quiet for a change. Then his mind may become receptive.

That is not a scientific fact.

If that is the case, the hon. member for Green Point has no mind that can become receptive. So I accept that it is not a scientific fact. The fact of the matter is that finger-prints are not used for “recognition purposes” as the hon. member for Grey town put it.

†It is to be used for identification purposes. There is not a single person that will argue the fact that to date it is still the best and most scientific method of identification.

Yes, I agree with that.

Then why raise this whole business of “recognition”? Surely it is no argument. Surely it is not the intention to use it for recognition purposes.

It is for the information of the police and others.

Surely the hon. member knows that the information obtained for the purposes of the register is not intended for the police.

That side of the House said so.

I said the hon. member should look at what is stipulated in the legislation. Good heavens, the hon. member can read, can he not? I cannot understand why the hon. member believes hon. members on this side of the House only sometimes and not always. He believes them only when he wants to. We should really get rid of such absurdities here in this House. I have already referred to the fact that there are modern products available which could be used for taking finger-prints and that we are investigating the matter. As this investigation progresses we shall decide when the specific clause should come into effect.

The hon. member also said that the fingerprints would only be of value if a master set were kept at the department. But of course there will be one.

But that is not going to help the fellow at the gate.

But does the hon. member not know that if we do not take the necessary steps the country will be inundated with illegal immigrants from various countries? Does the hon. member not know that if a person enters the country illegally, or we suspect that he is here illegally, his fingerprints could be taken and tested against the master set? Why does the hon. member argue in such ignorance? With great respect, nobody asked him to make a contribution that revealed his lack of knowledge. The fact of the matter is that it is a fairly simple process to compare the finger-prints of a person with the one on a document on the spot. Again, in order to utilize the provision fully for the reasons we are discussing we also have to ensure that administrative steps are being taken and that if people have to be trained, that is possible. Of course it is true that people could have skin transplants, but surely that applies to the finger-prints taken by the police as well. Does the hon. member want to argue, on that basis, that fingerprints should not be taken at all? Oh, please! Surely the hon. member is not all that naive. Surely he knows that his argument is really not authoritative.

The hon. member’s second amendment relates to the power being granted here to obtain information other than that defined in the clause. I have already explained to the hon. member that the intention here is not really to obtain more information, but only to rationalize. The reason why we want to do this by means of a proclamation is that if the interdepartmental committee which is working on a simplified document finds that there is information which is required at the moment but which we do not need, it can be omitted. However, the hon. member argues that that cannot be debated in this House.

I was referring to the extra.

Yes, I am referring to the extra now. The hon. member must understand that if I have to take the one, I need the other one as well. The hon. member also knows that he can come and debate it here if I should act differently. Surely he had opportunities to debate it. He has the opportunity during the discussion of my Vote to debate it. He also has the opportunity during various other debates to debate it. Therefore I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not want to agree with me that if, from this moment until we meet again, we should find that we could get a simplified document which reduces the administrative burden on the department—because we are working under terribly difficult circumstances—and that in that way we could ease the burden for other people, we should introduce such a simplified document. To be able to do that I need the power stated in this clause. Therefore I want to make a suggestion: If we were to use this provision to be a “super-snooper”, as a certain hon. member insinuated, I shall come to Parliament and amend the provision myself. I have also indicated that exemption from the taking of finger-prints will not take place on a race or colour basis. Consequently I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia. I hoped that he would trust me, but I am prepared to accept his amendment. However, the other one, the one the hon. member for Green Point spoke of, I need in order to be able to adopt a simplified procedure.

I finally come to the hon. member for Umbilo and his amendment. If we were to accept his amendment, surely it would perpetuate discrimination.

†If literacy is the norm for a finger-print as an alternative to a signature, one has to relate this to actual practice, is that not so?

That has been done for years.

Very well, but I thought we had all agreed that discrimination should be eliminated wherever possible.

Well, if you are going to say that, then give everybody the same pay. Don’t differentiate in that regard at all.

No, Sir, I am talking about the functions of the State. The fact of the matter is that there is compulsory education for Whites, Coloureds and Asians but at this stage there is no compulsory education for Blacks. All I am trying to say is that the illiteracy rate in this country has a practical colour connotation whether we like it or not. Even though we are trying to eliminate this discrimination wherever possible, these are still the facts and so I submit that in consequence although not in principle, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo would affect that population group more than anyone else, and I think the hon. member will concede that point.

That is differentiation, not discrimination.

That we can debate at another time.

Let’s debate it now.

No, Sir. I have some observations to make in this regard but it would not be in order for me to do so now. I should like to be in order when I do so.

For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point and the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo although, as I have indicated, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react to a few points raised by the hon. the Minister.

In the first place, the hon. the Minister said that my argument that older people would find it inconvenient and would object to having their finger-prints taken, is nothing more than a political argument. I do not want to argue with the hon. the Minister about the facts of the matter. I can just give him the assurance that as far as the registration of voters and attempts to persuade people to apply for identity documents are concerned, there are a tremendous number of older people, and more specifically older people who were not born in the Republic, but who have been living in this country since before the Second World War, who do not yet have the new identity documents and who are for some reason suspicious of them. The hon. the Minister knows that this is a point we have raised in earlier discussions in connection with the Electoral Act and the amendments to it which have now been referred to a Select Committee.

The hon. the Minister also stated that there was no general opposition to the Bill, and that I am creating a climate against it. I have no intention of arguing this point with the hon. the Minister. Whether or not there is public opposition to it is a matter of fact and we can agree to disagree with one another on this.

As far as the security aspect is concerned, the hon. the Minister again evaded its importance by using the blanket argument of the threat to South Africa and how this new requirement is actually to help us to combat this threat against South Africa. I am sure the hon. the Minister will concede that if one is expert enough to take an identity document apart and put one’s own photograph in it, one can also put one’s own finger-prints in it in the same way. It is not very difficult to do this. If those counterfeit finger-prints are then compared with your own finger-prints they are absolutely useless for purposes of identification. The only meaningful comparison will be if the comparison is made with the master copy of finger-prints kept in the office of the department. This is what will take time. If, for example, a comprehensive security survey is carried out in connection with a specific person and there is time to send away a set of finger-prints with the request that they be compared with the fingerprints of the person that person claims to be, that would make sense. However, if a person wants to enter a sensitive installation and a quick check must be made, fingerprints are of no more use than photographs.

But you are only arguing from one angle; I argued from both angles.

It is true that the hon. the Minister also argued from the other angle. It is true that if they are compared with another set of finger-prints kept in a central office, they are of value. However, I say that they are not of greater value than a photograph in an identity document where one must make an on-the-spot comparison at the entrance to a sensitive installation. As far as the private sector is concerned, where identity documents are used in banks and the like, it is of course of no use at all. If they do not have the necessary experts they will rely on the photograph. That is why I believe that in this regard as well the hon. the Minister has not furnished an adequate reason as to why we must try to persuade the public to overcome their fundamental objection to this system and support it.

As far as the second amendment I moved is concerned, the hon. the Minister said they may need it for rationalization because they may find that a simplified document is necessary. I want to point out immediately that the identity documents we use in South Africa are not things that one changes overnight. They are changed after careful consideration and long discussions. I really do not believe that there is any reason why we must deviate from the stringent statutory control which has thus far applied regarding that information, and why we cannot wait until the next session of Parliament so that the necessary amendments can be made.

It is strange that the hon. the Minister stated, on the one hand, that he wanted that blanket discretion to be able to make changes, and on the other hand insisted on incorporating the finger-print requirement in the legislation at once, notwithstanding the fact that it is specified that this would only come into effect at a later stage. In my opinion these arguments do not coincide.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister is so keen in opposition to discrimination. In future, when Bills are introduced into the House, I shall take the opportunity of reminding him how strenuously opposed he is to this discrimination. I do believe, however, that he has the matter quite wrong.

When it comes to the question of fingerprints being used for illiterates, this is a concept of identification of the individual used throughout the world. I have travelled in dozens of countries and almost invariably when there is an illiterate, his finger-print is accepted in lieu of a signature. To say that this is a form of discrimination is, put at its very least, mildly humorous. The truth of the matter is, of course, that in the old “dom-pas” finger-prints were included and to ensure that in the new documents finger-prints will still be included, it has to be extended to the other communities as well. That is basically what it appears to me.

That is not true.

To ensure that one is going to get it for the Blacks, the Whites are going to have it as well. Let us be fair, open and honest about it; that is the situation. These identity documents, in one form or another, have been in existence for over 30 years now and it has not been necessary to have finger-prints in respect of the White community or, in so far as I am aware, the Indian or the Asian communities. Now we are all going to have the same document and because the finger-prints of the Black community are wanted they are going to have the finger-prints of everybody else as well. If that is the reason, fine. I suppose one will have to accept it if one is going to call it a method of disposing of discrimination. Let us, however, at least be honest about it and say that is the reason why we want to do it, because I truly do believe that that is the reason. However, saying that one cannot have illiterates giving their fingerprints in lieu of a signature is really, as I said earlier, a joke. Banks use that system and building societies also use it, and they are dealing with large sums of money. If it is accepted by them, I really cannot see why, from a purely technical point of view, we cannot have illiterates doing it.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we cannot let the hon. the Minister get away with this one as easily as all that. [Interjections.]

Did you misunderstand me, then?

Unlike my colleague from Umbilo, who thinks his description of what is discriminatory practice is mildly humorous, I think it is quite hilarious, to say the least of it, and coming from that hon. Minister, whom I have come to know over the years, I find it almost unbelievable. [Interjections.] If a person can write his name, he does so, but if he cannot write his name, he uses a thumb-print. This is acceptable throughout the world. We are dealing here with an identity document that will have a photograph and, if our amendment is accepted, either a signature or a thumbprint. It has nothing to do with the colour of a man’s skin, nothing at all. It applies equally to Whites, Browns, Pinks, Yellows, Greens and also people with purple spots. It makes no difference what the person’s colour is, none at all. The hon. member for Umbilo has suggested that there may be an alternative. Let me, however, go one step further and say there might be an alternative at the other end of the scale, and perhaps the hon. the Minister is not levelling with us on this. Is he perhaps seeking to have a central finger-print registry for every member of the population in South Africa, because if that is what he is seeking to have, let him say so.

But my Father above!

Yes, my father, my mother and my everyone! [Tussenwerpsels.] This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever come across. If a person can sign his name next to his photograph, surely that is sufficient proof of his identity. Why must one have everybody’s finger-prints, and now also a palm-print, because we are going one step further in South Africa. I do not see why we do not have a person’s foot-print at the same time. [Interjections.] The time may come when we might even have a backside-print, who knows? It is, however, getting quite ridiculous. [Interjections.] I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has to put forward as childish an argument as the one he put forward in regard to the amendment my hon. colleague moved, an amendment that I think is reasonable and would certainly cater for the requirements of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up much of the Committee’s time. However, it is interesting how conflicting arguments within the same party can be. Look how the hon. member for Umbilo’s arguments conflict with those of the hon. member for Umhlanga.

Oh, really!

It is a fact. The hon. member for Umhlanga said the argument I used was not valid. However, the hon. Member for Umbilo said that because we want it for Blacks, the Act also plans to give it to Whites.

We are asking you to tell us if that is the case.

I said it was not. Just look, however, at the conflicting arguments in one and the same party.

†It is clear that those two hon. members in that party are politicizing the matter.

You should be used to that…

Of course I am.

… in your party.

I have to look at that hon. member’s face every day. [Interjections.] The fact is that photographs get out of date. One need only look at the photographs hon. members use in elections. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the NRP need only look at the glamorous photographs they use in elections. [Interjections.] As an hon. member pointed out, one would never recognize them as the same people. After all, that is how the hon. member for Greytown polled certain votes which were actually intended for another Cronjé. He himself admitted this to me. However, let us be serious for a moment. The fact of the matter is that we need the document for identification purposes. In the second place, everyone is agreed that finger-prints are the most effective form of identification. There is no other motive involved. Hon. members may disagree if they want to, but these are the facts of the matter. In the third place, we make no secret of the fact that the master register of finger-prints will be kept at the department. How else are we to compare these things? Must we take the finger-prints and then destroy them? Surely, that is a ridiculous suggestion. The fact is—I have said this repeatedly—that we need this for identification purposes.

Now the hon. member for Green Point argues that people reach certain conclusions when finger-prints are taken. He referred to people who have lived here for years but do not have documents. I find it strange that they have been here for years and do not have them.

[Inaudible.]

Then the hon. member should rather encourage them to obtain their documents. When my department receives applications for naturalization, one of the aspects the selection board takes into consideration is the criminal record of people. To ascertain this, finger-prints are taken. I do not apologize for this. Those people do not object to it either.

Are those fingerprints destroyed later on?

Of course not, they are kept in a file.

Do they keep them in the file?

Yes, they keep them in the file.

Why?

The hon. member need not be worried about it.

For future reference.

As far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned, they are kept for future reference. [Interjections.]

That is what worries me.

I therefore suggest that the clause be accepted, together with the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. S. S. van der Merwe put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention very briefly that our objection to this clause is embodied in one of the points as stated in our amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill, namely that we feel that obligations are being imposed on employers and lessors of accommodation with regard to the notification of changes of address and with regard to the possession of identity documents. We do not believe that the extent to which employers and lessors of accommodation have to carry out the duties of the department as prescribed in the clause, is justified. We believe this creates a situation where too many people are being given the duty to interfere in the affairs of too many other people. For that reason we shall oppose the clause.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

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

This amendment is similar to the second one I moved under clause 4, viz. that the State President is once again given the power to stipulate by proclamation in the Gazette that further particulars—particulars not presently included in the lists given in the principal Act—can be included in an identity document in future. In other words, where the present position is that the information to be included in the book of life is very clearly and strictly set out in the Population Registration Act, this particular provision in the clause will give blanket power to the State President to categorize certain further categories of information for the purpose of inclusion in the identity document. We feel this is a wrong principle. Once again this will lead to a situation where it will not be necessary in future for the hon. the Minister to come to the House to request that further information be included in the identity document and that the legislation should therefore be amended.

I may add that this is obviously the provision in terms of which finger-prints will eventually be permitted to be included in the identity document as well. This is an additional reason why we object to this clause and why we have moved an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the same amendment that I moved to clause 4. This one applies to the identity book and the previous one applied to the register. In doing so I should just like to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting my previous amendment. It is reassuring that he has done so and we see it as a small step on the road of non-discrimination. I therefore move—

I trust the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting this amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not repeat the arguments I advanced in connection with clause 4 for the purposes of clause 6. The amendment of the hon. member for Green Point is unacceptable, but the amendment of the hon. members for Constantia is acceptable and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment moved by Mr. S. S. van der Merwe put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I referred to this clause. It provides that the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette may assign the administration of this legislation or any part thereof to the Department of Co-operation and Development in so far as Blacks are concerned. The hon. the Minister then quite rightly pointed out that to a large extent this already falls under that department. However, I should very much like to have clarity in connection with the extent to which it is going to be dealt with by the other department and what the role of the Department of Internal Affairs still is at this stage with regard to the population register and identity documents for Blacks, so that we can ascertain exactly what change is to be brought about here and whether it is possible that this is merely a clause affording legal sanction to a situation which in actual fact already exists. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us a little clarity in connection with this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I explained this matter during the course of the Second Reading debate. When he objected to the provision and based his objection on the argument that expertize had to be created, I indicated that the expertise already existed. All that is therefore happening is that we are being given the authority in terms of the legislation to appoint another department which is involved for other purposes as well in the obtaining of specific information in connection with the population groups.

In the second place there is the question of how long this clause will be used. Of course, this depends on the entire process of rationalization which has not yet been completed. With the hon. member’s permission I shall tell him, when the process is complete, what the position is.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the idea is that the Department of Co-operation and Development will merely act as an agent of the Department of Internal Affairs; in other words, whether the power granted by the State President, is one which can be cancelled by the Department of Internal Affairs? Is that how the hon. the Minister sees it—that the Department of Co-operation and Development is acting as an agent rather than that this part of the administration of the legislation will permanently fall under that department?

As the clause reads, the State President may, as far as the population groups referred to are concerned, assign the administration of the provisions of the legislation to that specific Minister and his department. This is of course a different concept to that of agency. Whether it will be permanent, or how long it will apply, will depend on the entire process of rationalization of the State departments, a process which is not yet complete. That is why it is very difficult at this stage to give an indication whether we are here concerned with a permanent or a semi-permanent situation.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Nuclear activities have already developed over a wide front in South Africa and the existing nuclear institutions, i.e. the Atomic Energy Board as the statutory research board and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation of S.A. Ltd., have different degrees of autonomy. Because of this sectional development of the Republic’s nuclear activities, the Cabinet appointed a committee on 21 May 1980, under the chairmanship of Dr. A. J. A. Roux, with Drs. C. J. F. Human and R. L. Straszacker and Mr. J. J. Kitshoff as members, its terms of reference being, in close co-operation with the Commission for Administration, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Department of Finance, to inquire into and report on—

1. (a) the desirability or otherwise of restructuring nuclear activities which are carried out with State funds, and the nature of the changes to be effected to ensure an efficient structure; and
2. (b) such financial and other matters as may arise from the recommendations which may be made.

The committee was also asked to investigate the effective co-ordination of activities and legislation relating to radiation pollution and nuclear safety. The principal recommendations of the Roux Committee were accepted by the Cabinet, and these are contained in the Bill which is before the House. In considering the restructuring of nuclear activities, attention was given in particular to the more effective utilization of scarce and expert manpower, as well as the effective co-ordination and control of the functions which are being performed by the two existing institutions at the moment. For purposes of rationalization, provision is furthermore being made for the regulatory functions in respect of radio-active isotopes, which at present fall under the AEB, to be transferred to a suitable department within the Public Service. This matter will receive attention as soon as the results of an inquiry which is at present being undertaken in this connection by the Commission for Administration are known.

The principal objective of the Bill is to create a central corporate institution, the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, Limited, an organization under which all nuclear activities can be effectively co-ordinated and controlled. This is the premise and central theme of the measure which is before the House, and it means in practice that the two existing institutions, the AEB, as the statutory board, and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, are to be converted under the Company Act into companies which will henceforth function as subsidiaries of the corporation.

As far as the safety evaluation and licensing of nuclear institutions are concerned, provision is being made in the Bill for the establishment, in addition to the central Atomic Energy Corporation, of a Council for Nuclear Safety, which will be able to act independently of the promotional function of the corporation and its subsidiaries and which will be able to advise the Government with regard to nuclear safety and licensing.

†The fact that the envisaged Atomic Energy Corporation is to be established as a State corporation means that the activities under its control will be aimed primarily at production and applied research and development. The more basic research being undertaken at present will, in time, as far as is practicable, be phased out and handed over to universities and other research organizations. In this regard it should be mentioned that two divisions of the Atomic Energy Board, namely the Life Sciences Division and the Extraction Metallurgy Division, have already been transferred to the University of Pretoria and the Council for Mineral Technology (Mintek) respectively.

Hon. members are aware of the fact that since the co-ordinated nuclear research and development programme was approved by the State in 1959, developments in this field have taken place at a fair pace. The budget of the Atomic Energy Board grew very rapidly from R1,6 million in its first year, 1960, to approximately R120 million in 1980. The Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa, Limited, came into being as an independent body in 1970 and, in addition to commissioning a pilot uranium enrichment plant, is currently engaged in erecting a semi-commercial enrichment plant. The first nuclear power station, with a total electricity generating capacity of 1 844 megawatts, will be commissioned by the Electricity Supply Commission over the next two years.

I would again, on this occasion, like to pay tribute to the founder and father of the nuclear research and development programme of the Republic of South Africa, Dr. A. J. A. Roux. The launching of nuclear research and development of our country, and the progress made to date, are largely due to his insight and devoted service over the 23 years since 1959, when his proposal for a national nuclear research programme was accepted by the Government. Dr. Ampie Roux has devoted a great portion of his productive life to the expansion of this programme, and in this way has won fame and honour abroad as a respected leader in this field. We wish him a well-earned rest which, fortuitously, will commence with the establishment of the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, Limited.

In view of the developments referred to, the time was deemed ripe to consider a restructuring of all the Republic’s nuclear activities. This proposal therefore makes provision for the revocation of the existing Acts, namely the Atomic Energy Act, 1967 (Act No. 90 of 1967), the Uranium Enrichment Act, 1970 (Act No. 33 of 1970), and the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963 (Act No. 43 of 1963), and their combination into one Act, in accordance with which the Atomic Energy Corporation and the Council for Nuclear Safety will be established to bring about the necessary co-ordination, to exercise overall control on behalf of the State and to advise the Government on the nuclear energy policy pertaining to production and safety that should be pursued in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will come as any surprise to the hon. the Minister that we on these benches welcome this Bill. Without a shadow of a doubt this Bill is an improvement on the situation prior to its introduction. That is not to say that there are no further areas in which we believe improvements can be made. To start with, the hon. the Minister has no doubt noticed that there are a number of amendments to this Bill appearing in my name on the Order Paper.

Before setting out to talk about nuclear energy as such and the Bill in particular, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I think that the time allowed in the House for the passage of this Bill which is on a subject which, to say the least of it, is a difficult one and for a Bill which is lengthy, consisting of something like 87 pages, is frankly insufficient. With a Bill of this nature, one would like—this is certainly true of the Opposition benches—to have the time to send the Bill for study to a number of people who are more expert in this field than any politician and to get a come-back from them. One has been able to do a certain amount of that, but it has been an insufficient amount in view of the fact that the Bill was only tabled on Wednesday last week and is being debated now, on the following Tuesday. I hope that this will not happen in the future.

As the hon. the Minister pointed out, atomic energy in South Africa basically saw the light of day in 1959. Then, in 1970 we had the dramatic announcement by the then Prime Minister about the wonderful new method of uranium enrichment which had been discovered by Dr. Ampie Roux, whom the hon. the Minister has already mentioned in this debate this afternoon. I want to quote from the no-confidence debate on 20 July, 1970 (Hansard, col. 56) where the then hon. the Prime Minister said—

It is interesting to note that now, twelve years later, we do not have any atomic energy being produced and our only current plans are for 1 844 megawatts from Koeberg. I shall be referring to that later. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

He went on to say—

I would ask the hon. the Minister to bear that figure in mind—

That was the start of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, and of this new cheap process, which—and I must draw that to the attention of this House—during the last two years alone has cost the taxpayer of South Africa R373 million, directly from the budget in terms of spending on the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. I should point out again that the then Prime Minister mentioned that France was spending R700 million on what was, at that time, a very expensive plant. One does not know what the total cost of this particular enrichment plant is to date. One also does not know what the total cost of this “cheap process” is to date. I did put a question on the Question Paper, to the hon. the Minister in this particular regard, but unfortunately he was not prepared to tell us because, he maintained, the information on the costs of the uranium enrichment process in this country so far was totally secretive and that it was not in the interests of the country to divulge it. I should suggest that that is purely a commercial process. Everybody in the Western World knows that South Africa is in the process of erecting a plant to produce enriched uranium. It is not a secret. The costs involved here, I maintain, are very important to the South African taxpayer, and I really cannot see why it is necessary to keep the costs involved a secret. I hope the hon. the Minister can enlighten me on this particular point.

It is being quoted in the overseas Press that we are to start our uranium enrichment process in about three years. One wonders, however, how valuable this particular process is because since 1970, when this process was first announced, there have also been many developments overseas in terms of uranium enrichment. I would only draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the centrifuge method, which has been developed since 1970, and which, I understand, has reduced the cost of uranium enrichment by a considerable amount. One has to ask the question of this hon. Minister whether our cheap process is still a cheap process. Is it still, compared with uranium enrichment processes in other parts of the world, so very desirable? Can we sell our enriched uranium overseas on an economical basis?

It is very interesting to note in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech that he talks about a semi-commercial enrichment plant. I should like to ask him precisely what “semi-commercial” means. Does this in fact mean that it is a commercial plant, and that it is going to make losses? “Semi-commercial” does not appear to me to mean anything in particular, and I should like the hon. the Minister to spell out what “semi-commercial” does mean.

My second question to the hon. the Minister is the following. Will we be competitive with the imported product in terms of our own enriched uranium? My third question is: When making the decision to go ahead with the establishment of Koeberg, were these enrichment costs taken into account? Were they taken into account in the process of working out the costs to us of a unit of nuclear electricity? Obviously, Koeberg’s costs were taken into account in this regard. Were the costs to the South African taxpayer, however, of establishing this “semi-commercial plant” to provide for the Koeberg plant with only 1 844 kW taken into account? One wonders precisely how this is going to be economic. Always in the background—that one has to bear in mind—is the fact that in South Africa we have coal in tremendous quantities. The hon. the Minister himself announced not so long ago that the coal reserves of South Africa had been resurveyed, and that, according to the latest estimates, those reserves had been increased considerably. We have this coal available for generating electricity.

In 1970 we were apparently planning for 20 000 MW of nuclear energy usage by South Africa by the year 2000. Today, however, the hon. the Minister has repeatedly stated that at this stage we have only taken a decision to go ahead with Koeberg, and that no decision has been taken in connection with the erection of any additional power plants elsewhere in the country. It does seem to conflict to a certain extent with the statement made by the then Prime Minister in 1970, and which I have quoted earlier. I quote it again—

Is it in fact correct to continue pouring so much money into a project of this nature? As I said during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, South Africa has in the past two years spent approximately R565 million on atomic energy, and this does not include the cost in regard to Koeberg. If we are only going to establish one nuclear power plant, is it worth spending all this money? Surely the hon. the Minister should at the earliest possible opportunity decide whether we are going to expand our nuclear power facilities or whether we are not going to do so because, if we are not going to expand those facilities, those tremendous sums of money that are being spent cannot in our view be justified. Can the Uranium Corporation be viable in only supplying Koeberg? Previously we spent millions researching an all-South African process for nuclear energy to produce power and electricity, and then, ultimately, having spent all these millions of rands, the French process was bought for Koeberg. If we are not to extend our nuclear power network, is additional expenditure on Ucor justified?

Before I come to the Bill itself, I want very briefly to mention the explanatory memorandum. On page 2 of that memorandum in clause 1(3)(b) it is explained that three subsidiaries to the basic corporation are to be established. The first such corporative organization would have as its primary objective the development of nuclear fuel; the second, nuclear reactor and nuclear process development; and the third, mainly production oriented preparatory work and specialized auxiliary services. I think we should ask the hon. the Minister to spell out more clearly what is meant by this fairly wide-ranging definition. We understand the objectives of the first two corporative organizations because these more or less currently exist, but we should like the hon. the Minister to explain what is intended with this third company that is going to be established as a subsidiary of the corporation.

Obviously, the Bill before us today is primarily a consolidation measure. As we see it, all the changes in this Bill are improvements. First of all, the establishment of a corporation instead of having an Atomic Energy Board means, from the point of view of the staff of that board, that they will no longer fall under the public service sector and will therefore be able to be more on a par with their colleagues who work for the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. I think this will be good for staff morale and perhaps quite good for staff pockets as well. We welcome this, and I hope it will make for more efficiency.

Secondly—and I believe this is the most important step in this Bill—it establishes a Nuclear Safety Council. We welcome this move because we believe it is a very important step in the future development of atomic power in South Africa. Perhaps they will even be able to tell us whether a Boeing 747 would be able to penetrate the shell at Koeberg. This body will deal with safety and we believe that it is very welcome. There are, however, a couple of small points that I should like to raise in this regard. Firstly, should the same Minister be responsible for the corporation and the council? I am not sure that this is a good principle on the basis that, in my view, the corporation and the watchdog body, the council, should actually be kept as far apart as possible—a total arm’s length operation. If one has the same Minister responsible for both of these bodies we are not sure that this will happen quite as much as we would like. Up to now we have had a situation in regard to this whole safety affair where the fox has actually been put in charge of the hen-house. At present we have a Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee which is part of the Atomic Energy Board. The committee consists of 14 members. I understand the same 14 members will serve on the Nuclear Safety Council. The Bill spells out that four of these 14 members shall be from the Public Service. In regard to the other 10 members, the Bill gives no indication of from where the hon. the Minister is to draw these people. It is left totally in the discretion of the hon. the Minister. I do not believe this is bad but I should like to suggest two categories of people to the hon. the Minister. I am sure he has already taken them into account but nevertheless I believe that one or more academics from South African universities should serve on the council. Secondly—and I think this is very important—where nuclear facilities are established in a specific area— one can take as an example Koeberg and its closeness to Cape Town, one of the largest metropolitan areas in South Africa—it would be worthwhile, if possible, to have someone from the Cape Town environs, perhaps even a nominee of the Cape Town City Council, appointed to the Nuclear Safety Council. There is nothing like somebody serving on the Nuclear Safety Council who can then go back to the local municipality and say that there could be alarmist talk about this, that or the other, but that the case is in fact this, that and the other and satisfy the municipality of the metropolitan area close by that the hazards about which there can be speculation, do not exist anywhere near the extent to which they may fear. Those are the two particular categories of people that I would recommend should serve on the council.

The second question I have in regard to the council is whether its functions and powers are defined widely enough to enable it to operate efficiently. I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the amendment which I propose to move to clause 29. If the hon. the Minister agrees to that amendment, I believe it will go a long way towards setting the doubts that we on these benches have as to the effectiveness of the proposed Nuclear Safety Council. I shall motivate that amendment more fully at the Committee Stage.

I shall accept your proposed amendment to clause 29.

I am very happy to hear that because it is, I believe, a fairly important amendment.

As far as the relationship of the council with the corporation is concerned, I must draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention that in terms of clause 27 all the administrative functions of the council are going to be performed by members of the corporation. I do not believe this is a good principle. On the other hand, I can appreciate that a degree of knowledge is necessary to be able effectively to fulfil these conditions. Whether we have sufficient people in South Africa with the scientific knowledge necessary to be able to fulfil council functions separately from corporation functions, I do not know. However, if we have sufficient experts in this field I believe the administrative functions should not be performed by employees of the corporation. In my view the council has to be a watchdog over the corporation itself and I believe that that should be one of its most important functions. It is not particularly clear to me from the way the legislation is worded as to the degree of control the council will have over the corporation and as to the extent to which it will be able to inspect their facilities and comment on the way they are doing things. I understand some difficulty was experienced in the drafting of the Bill to bring about that particular situation. I understand also that it is the intention that the council should be able to act as a watchdog over the corporation itself. Clause 45—which I find an extremely complicated clause—apparently brings this about. However, I should like the hon. the Minister’s confirmation that the council can act as a watchdog over the corporation.

There are various other matters relating to this Bill most of which I shall be discussing at the Committee Stage, but there is a question which I should like to ask with regard to clause 50 in terms of which the hon. the Minister is given certain powers until such time as another Minister takes over those powers. I should like the hon. the Minister to spell out a little more clearly what is intended in that clause, subsection (2) of which provides that—

This is rather an open-ended clause as far as we in these benches are concerned. We do not necessarily want to circumscribe it but we should like the hon. the Minister to comment a little more fully upon it. He has not commented upon it at all at this stage.

The most obnoxious clause in the Bill as far as we in these benches are concerned is fairly obviously clause 68. Clause 68 has been improved in this Bill by comparison with what it was previously. Let us make that point quite clear. It is an improvement in that in terms of clause 68 the hon. the Minister himself can create certain exceptions to the secrecy clause. I believe that nuclear energy is an extremely emotive subject. There have been “ban the bomb” campaigns more or less every year since Hiroshima. I myself have been to the museum in Hiroshima and I found it a horrifying experience to see what was done to that city at that time. One of the ways that I believe nuclear energy can best be used for peaceful purposes is by making the public as fully conversant as possible with what is happening. The more things happen behind closed doors, the more concerned the public is likely to become. We believe that there should be the maximum possible exposure to the public of matters atomic and nuclear. It is only if the public are told and if it is explained to them that they will be able to understand what the problems are, what the solutions to those problems have been and how this will affect their daily lives. The more there is a cloak of secrecy surrounding a subject, the more bothered the public is likely to be in that regard. In terms of clause 68 almost everything to do with anything nuclear can be subjected to this clause. The provisions of this clause could be abused in the wrong hands, although I do not believe that it has been to date. These provisions have existed for some considerable time and, to the best of my knowledge, they have not yet been abused. However, it is possible that these provisions could be abused. There are some very wide definitions in this particular clause which, for example, could affect students who are studying nuclear physics at university. The very interesting talk and film show that are given to visitors at the centre of Koeberg itself could and would be deemed in terms of the provisions of this clause to be in conflict with it. Obviously Koeberg has special permission in these circumstances to do this, but that simple explanation of how nuclear power works can be deemed to be secret and can be covered by the provisions of clause 68. If one goes to the Library of Parliament one finds a number of publications to do with nuclear energy. All those publications could fall under the provisions of clause 68. Therefore we believe that one has to liberalize this particular clause as much as possible.

With regard to matters that will affect the security of the State we are prepared to be as uncompromising as the hon. the Minister himself in this regard. There are, however, many aspects of this matter that do not affect the security of the State one iota and I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should perhaps give some attention to establishing a board of review to declassify nuclear information so as to enable the public to have maximum knowledge of what is going on. I believe that such a board of review does exist in other countries in the world and that it operates reasonably well. I also believe that a board of review for declassification is an urgent necessity. I appreciate the difficulty experienced in trying to draw up legal provisions that will catch those people who are spying or trying to undermine the interests of the State in this regard. I can well understand that it is necessary for such provisions to be framed fairly widely. However, if one is able then to declassify a number of areas, I feel that this would be very much to our advantage.

I shall deal with certain other matters that I have in mind when we reach the Committee Stage of this Bill. At this stage I should just like to add to what the hon. the Minister said that we in these benches believe that an outstanding job has been done over a number of years by the officials of the Atomic Energy Board. We know that they have not spared themselves in their efforts to develop this particular field of study in South Africa. We know that they have done a wonderful job, that the board is now coming to an end and that the corporation is being established. I am sure that these people will do as good a job working for the corporation as they did when working for the board if not better. We shall support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is essentially a consolidating measure. It consolidates three existing Acts, viz. the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Installations Act, and the Uranium Enrichment Act. In point of fact, these three Acts have been taken over verbatim into this Bill we have before us today. The fact that there was little time to study this legislation, is therefore not a matter of very serious importance because, as I have said, we are dealing here with old material.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the amount of more than R300 million which has been spent so far by Ucor. I must honestly say that all things considered, it is money which has, in my opinion, been extremely well invested. The hon. member also referred to the projected estimates on the economic feasibility or otherwise of these processes, which were made in 1970. That was 12 years ago. The hon. member also drew a comparison between nuclear energy and energy generated from coal. It is also true that as far as coal is concerned, the processes have changed a great deal since 1970. Certain data on the availability of coal in South Africa has also changed a great deal. I really do not think that the suggestion which the hon. member made, i.e. that the Council for Nuclear Safety and the Atomic Energy Corporation should be dealt with by different ministries, was a good one. I cannot associate myself with this. The other possible amendments which the hon. member mentioned here, particularly as far as the confidential nature of information is concerned, could, in my opinion, be discussed during the Committee Stage with a great deal of success. I just wish to point out to the hon. member that, throughout the world, nuclear energy is not a matter which is discussed by the man in the street and people in various capacities, and I think this would also be the position in this country. However, we could discuss that point further during the Committee Stage.

The peacetime utilization of the nuclear industry holds great possibilities for the world, but for South Africa in particular, for as we know, South Africa is the third largest producer of the source material, uranium, in the world. Processes developed by the nuclear industry are already being used successfully in the medical and agricultural sectors, but it is in the energy industry that the use of nuclear energy offers the most exciting possibilities. South Africa is on the point of entering this field with the Koeberg Power Station coming into operation during the course of next year.

As a result of the wartime utilization of nuclear energy, there is certainly no industry in the world, or in South Africa, which is regarded with more emotion than the nuclear industry. That is why it is of cardinal importance that there should be effective and extremely responsible control over the nuclear industry in South Africa. With this in mind, it was a wise decision to amalgamate the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Installations Act and the Uranium Enrichment Act into one consolidated law, which is the Bill now before us, to ensure centrally controlled co-ordination.

For the same reason the Bill, in an extremely responsible way, ensures virtually threefold control over the industry. Firstly, there is the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, established in terms of clause 2. Secondly, there is the Council for Nuclear Safety, established in terms of clause 24, which—this is also important—is constituted and which functions independently of the corporation and in respect of which the corporation only has a say in an advisory capacity. This council may also co-opt people without voting rights to assist it in the performance of its functions. Thirdly, there is the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs as the final authority.

One of the most important provisions of the Bill, in my opinion is to be found in clause 1 in the definition of “nuclear installation”. I quote from page 5, line 45—

1. (a) the production, use, processing, re-processing, storage or disposal of nuclear-hazard material; or
2. (b) the carrying out of any process involving nuclear-hazard material and which is capable of causing nuclear damage; or
3. (c) the production of nuclear or atomic energy …

Clause 30 provides that no person may become involved in any of the defined activities without a nuclear licence which may only be issued by the corporation on the recommendation of the Council for Nuclear Safety. In the case of a dispute between these two bodies, this has to take place in accordance with the decision of the Minister. An important aspect is the fact that a nuclear licence which has been issued, may be withdrawn at any time, and all activities in terms of a nuclear licence are subject to continuous inspection by inspectors of the corporation.

This is a bulky piece of legislation and it is impossible for one to discuss all its facets. I think I can state with a great deal of conviction that the interests and security of the public are the most important considerations in the Bill, as I have already indicated in respect of licencing. This fact becomes apparent in clause 39 which provides that the Minister may require security and additional security from any nuclear licence holder for nuclear damage. In the same way clause 41 provides that a licence is responsible for all nuclear damage originating from his nuclear installation or nuclear site. This includes everything, even force majeure. Clause 44 gives a claimant 30 years to bring his action for compensation. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the control of source material, radio-active materials and patents in respect of nuclear and atomic energy. Surely the Government would not draw up such detailed legislation concerning something which was not of real, practical or economic importance. I have already stated that it is in the field of energy supply that nuclear energy fulfils its main peacetime function. However, it may be asked—and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has also referred to this—whether it is justified in South Africa, with its large coal resources, to build a nuclear power station such as Koeberg at a much higher capital cost than coal stations. To my way of thinking the reply is an unambiguous “yes” and for two reasons. Firstly, after the capital outlay has been completed the operating expenses are much lower than in the case of coal stations. It is estimated that if the price of coal should double, the price of power generated by coal would rise by 60%. However, if the price of uranium should double, the power generated by means of uranium would, however, only rise by 8%. In my opinion, the second reason is also a very important one. In order to compete as a developing country in a developing world, nuclear energy is important, and knowledge in this regard is only stimulated and developed if the country has a viable nuclear industry. In such a case, the cost factor is not decisive. I think I am expressing the wish of everyone living in this country when I say that this legislation will be a source of great development, progress and stability. If it is utilized correctly, nuclear energy has the ability to make an extremely important contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Namakwaland said, and agree that the legislation before us is, indeed, extremely important legislation. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central since he is opposed to a serious investigation being carried out with regard to information in connection with nuclear power-stations not being freely available. I think the Rosenbergs in America argued at the time that if they allowed Russia to obtain information about the atomic bomb, America and Russia would be able to engage in talks with one another and would no longer wage war. We are aware of how fatal this was for the world, because that argument was of course, completely incorrect. Of course nuclear armaments are one of the major bones of contention and topics of discussion in the world today, since it is realized that the whole of Europe may be wiped out if the Americans and the Russians do not reach an agreement in their talks soon.

More specifically with regard to the legislation, I cannot omit to thank Dr. Roux and members of the commission for the knowledge displayed in drawing up this legislation, as well as the time spent on it. The Bill before us is a comprehensive piece of legislation which will control all atomic and nuclear matters.

The Nuclear Energy Bill provides for the establishment of an Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, as well as for a Council for Nuclear Safety. In terms of this measure the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa will undertake research in the field of nuclear energy and the generation of nuclear or atomic energy to enrich, process and reprocess source material and special nuclear material, as well as to control certain nuclear activities in the Republic. The Council for Nuclear Safety will, in particular, advise the corporation concerning nuclear licences and on matters dealing with safety and health with regard to the construction and use of nuclear installations, the storage and transportation hazardous nuclear material, etc. What is important, is that these days the nuclear field even includes the transport of material. Previously one only had to deal with the site. However, these days this includes all handling of nuclear material. One can see that a great deal of attention has been given to and time spent on this work of the commission.

An important provision is that in terms of the legislation, no vessel ship or submarine driven by nuclear energy, or which has dangerous nuclear material aboard, may enter South Africa territorial waters or a harbour, without a nuclear licence from the corporation. This is important. It will probably be difficult to determine whether submarines of this nature are in our waters, but I think it is fitting that we should have this legislation to protect ourselves.

Another important provision in the Bill is the provision with regard to the liability for nuclear damage. The hon. member for Namakwaland dealt with this matter in full. I think it is important that people who apply for licences, should know very clearly what their liability is, as is clearly set out in the Bill. We are in complete agreement with this.

It is also being provided that when such an accident occurs, the names of the people in the risk area should be kept on record. I think this is important. One hopes that we in South Africa will not experience any nuclear accidents. Anyone who has visited the city of Hiroshima and who has seen what a nuclear war or accident of this nature can do to people through radiation, would certainly agree that it is dangerous to build a nuclear installation and to enrich uranium, because of the danger of being exposed to radiation. However, we live in a word in which nuclear energy is going to be the preservation of mankind in the field of the production of food and in the recycling process. That is why we have no choice but to agree with the hon. the Minister and his department that this legislation is necessary.

I am always concerned when the ordinary man is affected by a law. Clause 53 therefore causes me some concern. Clause 53(2), inter alia, reads as follows—

As someone who also watches people doing prospecting work now and then, I want to say that when gold is discovered on one’s farm, one is so ignorant, that one does not know what the gold bearing value of the ore is. In the years when the farmers were still quite ignorant, they usually took some of the quartz to a university to have it examined. In this way, it could be determined immediately what the real gold content of such a sample was. However, this is no longer permitted these days. There are possibly very sound reasons for this, nevertheless I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why these samples are not returned to the owner of the particular piece of land. Furthermore, I wish to request the hon. the Minister to institute a serious investigation into the possibility of whether those samples, or rather, parts thereof, could not be made available to the owner of the land concerned. I believe that this is essential. After all, it is his property and I believe that he is entitled to know what the mineral content of the samples are which have been taken from his land.

I am aware that the hon. the Minister and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs are trying to protect information with regard to such samples. Their attitude is that information of this nature should not be freely available to people. However, I believe that it is essential that the first person who should be informed with regard to the possible gold-bearing of ore, should be the owner of the piece of land concerned. That is why I wish to request the hon. the Minister to please consider this matter with a view of determining whether this particular provision in the Bill could not be amended.

Of course, it is difficult to move an amendment in this regard, because uranium is also involved here. I am now referring to clause 53(2). The possibility of an amendment is made difficult because, as I have just said, we are dealing here with minerals such as uranium, as well as the minerals used in the hardening processes of iron; minerals which are all of extreme importance to the country. That is why I do not wish to move an amendment whereby the Government may possibly be placed in a difficult position. However, I do request the hon. the Minister to please consider the matter and, if necessary, to effect an appropriate change.

Mr. Speaker, as was said by the hon. member for Namakwaland, the legislation under discussion in fact consolidates a number of existing Acts. A total of 19 existing Acts are being consolidated by the Bill under discussion, whereas two existing Acts are being consolidated in part. All existing legislation with regard to nuclear energy and the various aspects in connection therewith, are being gathered very neatly under a single umbrella. In the first place it facilitates control, and, in the second place, it makes the entire nuclear energy set-up far more manageable and far more streamlined.

An important principle in this new legislation is the liability for damages. According to the hon. member for Langlaagte we are dealing here with nuclear energy, something which, according to him, constitutes a danger to life. This is precisely the understanding which members of the public have of this matter. Later on I shall come back to this aspect of danger.

What this Bill amounts to in broad outline is that the licensee should have adequate insurance for covering all possible claims, and that the licensee concerned also has to accept liability for aspects not covered by insurance companies. This is the one principle.

The second principle which we find in the legislation under discussion is the proposed appointment of inspectors with the necessary authority to close down any industry or premises of a licensee, depending on what the inspector concerned may find there.

The third principle which we find in this Bill is the proposed establishment of the Council for Nuclear Safety. A very important question which may be posed now, is why we have to make provision for safety to such a large extent. If the nuclear industry were such an absolutely safe occupation and had such safe premises, why do we not dispense altogether with all these clauses providing for safety?

Unfortunately, the position is that some members of the public will fasten upon this aspect of danger in an attempt to prove that everything connected with nuclear energy constitutes a danger to life. Consequently they will maintain that that is the reason for the Government having to make such extensive provision for indemnity in the event of an accident.

In order to give the lie here and now to these emotional misconceptions, I want to quote a few statistical and other particulars relating to the safety aspects of this industry. In my opinion there are four factors in the main to which we have to have regard when considering the principles embodied in the legislation. The four facets are explosions, radio-active radiation, occupational safety and occupational risk and, finally, waste storage.

It is essential for us to make it clear here that a nuclear reactor cannot explode. On the contrary, a nuclear explosion in a nuclear reactor is as much of an impossibility as is the explosion of a piece of chewing gum in a child’s mouth. Despite the fact that nuclear physics is a relatively young science, it is in many respects simpler than the older sciences, for example chemistry and biology. In the chemical industry there are numerous combinations of materials which can cause explosions. In nuclear physics there is only one basic way in which a nuclear explosion can be effected, and the designers of nuclear reactors circumvent and avoid it very carefully. There is no possibility of a nuclear reactor causing a nuclear explosion, and consequently it is not a dangerous installation. The low enrichment of the fuel renders a nuclear explosion impossible. If the chemical industry in our country had traditionally wanted to take the same precautionary measures as those we advocate for Koeberg, for example, we would not have had the explosions which occurred recently at Modderfontein as well as in the vicinity of Cape Town. In addition one thinks of explosions such as, for example, the recent explosion of the petrol tanker in Spain, in which 144 people lost their lives. I mention this simply to illustrate that one finds far more dangerous things in ordinary day-to-day living than those with which we are concerned in nuclear physics.

The second facet is radio-activity. It is true that nuclear reactors do radiate a small quantity of radio-activity but, amazingly enough, it is considerably less than that radiated by a coal-fired installation. However, everything around us radiates a tiny quantity of radio-activity, even the modern battery-powered watches we wear. Therefore the question is not whether a nuclear reactor radiates radio-activity; it is, in fact, whether such radiation is dangerous to the people in the immediate vicinity.

What criteria, then, are we to apply to determine whether an installation such as Koeberg is dangerous? As a basis for this the authorities take the maximum levels of exposure to radiation recommended by the International Commission for Radiation Protection, a commission which has been in existence since 1928. The levels applicable to Koeberg are still considerably lower than the maximum levels which have been laid down, partly because the likelihood of the occurrence of radio-active emissions also has to be taken into account. It is enlightening to know that it has been ascertained by the United States’ National Academy for Engineering that the exposure to radiation of those living within a distance of 50 miles from a nuclear installation—in our case, therefore, everyone here in Cape Town—over a period of one year is equal to approximately the same radiation as that to which a person would normally be exposed if he were to undertake three journeys by air. Moreover, it is estimated that the exposure over a period of a year will be equal to the radiation to which one is exposed every three days from natural sources.

The next facet we have to consider when it comes to safety, is occupational safety. The occupational risks in various industries expressed per million of the population are as follows: Chemical industry, 200; iron and steel, 190; commerce, 160; agriculture, 360; mining, 785 and transport 975. As against these, the figures for the nuclear industry are only 200. The important aspect here is that the occupational risk in the nuclear industry with its accompanying radio-activity is much lower in many cases than the occupational risk in other industries.

When we compare the risk to health which different methods of generating power involve, and take as a basis 2 x 1 000 megawatt electrical power installations, we find that there are from 20 to 30 mortalities per annum at coal-fired power-stations; from zero to two per annum at gas-fired power-stations and from one to three per annum at nuclear power-stations. In the case of occupational disability the comparable figures are 100 to 300 for coal-fired power-stations, 20 for gas-fired power-stations and 7 to 40 for nuclear power-stations. It is important to know that in the nearly 25 years of the existence of the commercial nuclear industry, no one has been injured or killed as a result of a nuclear accident or over-irradiation. Even in the case of the Three Mile Island accident, as it was called, no one was killed or injured. It is interesting that more people have been killed by windmills than in nuclear power-stations.

The fourth facet to which I want to refer is the storage of waste. This is an aspect about which people make a big fuss. Nowadays the storage of waste has all of a sudden become a major problem. Large areas have ostensibly to be found for the careful storage of waste. Already people are talking of our country possibly becoming a nuclear dump. However, let us view this matter in the correct perspective. What quantity of waste is in actual fact involved?

If, for example, Britain were to decide tomorrow to convert all its electrical power-stations into nuclear power-stations, the total volume of waste for which provision would have to be made annually, including the containers for storing the waste, would come to approximately 3 000 cubic feet. To illustrate this in a more practical way: This Chamber would therefore be large enough for storing the waste which would accumulate over a period of approximately 80 years if all its power-stations were to be converted into nuclear power-stations. Consequently I cannot see why people are saying all of a sudden that South Africa will become a nuclear dump.

What about Koeberg? Naturally Koeberg’s waste would be much less than Britain’s. Be that as it may, for the next 10 to 15 years we shall have no need for the subterranean storage of waste, as the waste material of Koeberg will be kept in protecting pools of water inside the Koeberg reactor itself during that period. After 15 years it will be stored underground in containers, from where it will be possible to recover it at a later stage, if necessary. Therefore, as regards high-activity waste, there is no problem. Medium-activity waste will, after it has been compressed, be sealed in concrete and will then be stored underground in trenches. Strict safety measures apply to all these methods of storage and they do not contribute a source of danger to the community Low-activity waste, i.e. gases and fluids, are released safely into the atmosphere or the sea, again in accordance with strict international regulations.

When I say that strictly speaking, it is really not necessary to make provision for compensation, my reason for saying so is clear. The safety measures which apply are so comprehensive that practically speaking, nothing can go wrong. Despite that, and because we realize that man is fallible, we have, however, inserted this provision for compensation into the legislation so as to satisfy everyone. The proposed legislation requires licensees to comply with the regulations, and for that reason the principle of inspectors has also been embodied in the legislation. These principles ought to reassure everyone that we are not engaged in a deadly game. Moreover, it ought to enable hon. members of this House to give this Bill their wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that we really do appreciate the trouble which his department went to in the preparation of the explanatory document and for letting us have it fairly well in advance. I believe this always pays dividends, because then there can be no misunderstanding regarding the Minister’s intent. There may be a difference as to whether the intent is valid or not, but certainly there can be no misunderstanding as to what the hon. the Minister has in mind.

Secondly, I should like to add my party’s felicitations and good wishes to those expressed by the hon. the Minister in regard to Dr. Roux. I also want to pay tribute to the outstanding pioneer work he did as a leader of a very successful team in the field of nuclear energy, both at the theoretical and the applied levels.

The consolidation and rationalization not only of nuclear energy legislation but also of the organizational structure does in fact indicate a significant step forward in the maturing process and the conversion of South Africa from a fledgling in the nuclear energy field to a fully participating partner in this particular and interesting field of energy source. I do not say that very lightly because one will have a full appreciation of the risk factors accepted not only financially but also in terms of our standing internationally when South Africa decided to embark upon the nuclear energy programme which it has undertaken to this very day. The process of rationalization will undoubtedly improve and increase our efficiency both at the applied and hopefully at the theoretical research level as well. We believe that the three organizations envisaged in the programme which will come under the corporation’s guidance will not only bring about an improvement in conditions of service for the staff but also facilitate economically and scientifically the applied aspects of our nuclear energy programme.

The separation of the Nuclear Safety Council from the functions of the old Atomic Energy Board, now the corporation, is certainly to be welcomed. It was always a bone of contention not only domestically but I am sure overseas as well, that the organization responsible for production and research was also the organization which had the authority regarding safety standards. I am sure it will be a considerable source of reassurance to a number of organizations organizations and in particular to the public of South Africa to know that this function will now fall under a completely separate body.

The costs to date, the investment capital spent on our nuclear energy programme, will in the long term prove to be a very small investment in terms of the return which we will get from that investment. The start-up period of nuclear research is the most capital-intensive under present technology and certainly the area of risk that I referred to before is extremely high. I believe that we have been extremely fortunate in South Africa in that most of the projects that we have tackled in this regard have been seen through to a point of positive success. I think in particular of uranium enrichment and the work being done at Valindaba, as well as the pioneer work done at Pelindaba and other installations. The relative cost in terms of the return to South Africa will be extremely low when taken over the long term. If one considers that South Africa has had to do this more or less entirely on her own then I believe the achievement is so much the greater and the investment so much more valuable. We have today built up a stock of our own South African nuclear scientists which will be the envy of many of our major competitors in the United States and in Europe. We are extremely pleased to see that one of the functions of the corporation will be to focus its attention on the development of the stock of trained nuclear scientists in South Africa.

I should also like to say to the hon. the Minister that the fact that the universities will now be taking over most of the theoretical research in nuclear energy is, of course, putting research back into the area where it belongs. Whether the hon. the Minister will always be that successful in assisting the universities with the determination of their priorities, in terms of their needs and the needs of the corporation, remains to be seen. However, because of the very strong link in terms of technical assistance and facilities between the universities concerned and the new corporation, I am sure that the co-ordination will be successful. I am positive that the hon. the Minister is as aware as we are that universities do not always look at priorities in the same light as, for instance, the corporation, but hopefully the communication which the hon. the Minister will establish will ensure that the differences are kept to an absolute minimum.

We also note the rationalization that has occurred regarding the Department of Health and Welfare and also the responsibilities of the mining commissioner. I am sure that these particular departments and individuals welcome the rationalization that has occurred. However, I should like to concentrate attention specifically on two aspects one of which has already been touched upon by other hon. members.