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

1. 1. On page 22, in line 60, after “shall” to insert:
   , subject to the provisions of section 18,
2. 2. On page 22, in lines 62 to 64, to omit “an Act of Parliament or any law purporting to be an Act of Parliament” and to substitute:
   any law which is expressed to be enacted by the State President and Parliament or by the State President and any House
3. 3. On page 24, in lines 4 to 6, to omit paragraph (c).
4. 4. On page 24, in lines 9 and 10, to omit “or a law purporting to be an Act of Parliament”.

Amendments 1 to 4 agreed to.

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

1. 1. In the English text, on page 24, in line 39, to omit “council”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. In the Afrikaans text, on page 27, in line 45, to omit “regstreeks” and to substitute “direk”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. In the Afrikaans text, on page 27, in line 61, to omit “regstreeks” and to substitute “direk”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. In the Afrikaans text, on page 29, in line 13, to omit “regstreeks” and to substitute “direk”.
2. 2. On page 28, in line 26, to omit “2” and to substitute “3”.
3. 3. On page 28, in line 27, to omit “32” and to substitute “29”.
4. 4. On page 28, in line 28, to omit “6” and to substitute “8”.

Amendments 1 to 4 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 30, from line 19, to omit “180 days after that dissolution” and to substitute:
   45 days after the polling day of the general election held in pursuance of that dissolution
2. 2. On page 30, in line 30, to omit “180 days after that dissolution” and to substitute:
   45 days after the polling day of the general election held in pursuance of that dissolution

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 30, after line 46, to insert:
   1. (3) The day appointed by the State President in terms of subsection (1) or (2), shall be a day not more than 180 days after the dissolution of Parliament or the House in question, as the case may be.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 48 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Franchise

1. 52. Every White person, Coloured person and Indian who—
   1. (a) is a South African citizen in terms of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949; and
   2. (b) is of or over the age of 18 years; and
   3. (c) is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 4 (1) or (2) of the Electoral Act, 1979, shall, on compliance with and subject to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 1979, be entitled to vote at any election of a member of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, respectively, in the electoral division of the House in question determined in accordance with the last-mentioned Act.

New Clause put,

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, F. J. le Roux, J. C. A. Schoeman, Mrs. E. M. Scholtz, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. L. M. Theunissen, C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, Dr. F. A. H. van Staden, Messrs. J. J. B. van Zyl and J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side,

New Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 53:

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

1. 1. On page 36, in lines 3 to 5, to omit “registered as a voter for the election of members of the House in question in one of the provinces” and to substitute:

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57:

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

1. 1. On page 38, in lines 24 and 25, to omit “or any other judge of the Supreme Court” and to substitute:

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 44, after line 19, to insert:
   1. (2)(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (f) of this subsection, the members of the President’s Council appointed under subsection (1)(d) shall include 10 persons of whom—
      1. (i) six have been nominated as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection by members of the House of Assembly who were supporters of the opposition parties in that House at the time of the nomination;
      2. (ii) three have been so nominated by members of the House of Representatives who were supporters of the opposition parties in that House at the time of the nomination;
      3. (iii) one has been so nominated by members of the House of Delegates who were supporters of the opposition parties in that House at the time of the nomination.
   2. (b) Any nomination contemplated in paragraph (a) shall be made by election, according to the principle of proportional representation whereby each voter has one transferable vote, by the members of the House in question who are supporters of opposition parties in the House and who are present at a meeting of such members called in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c): Provided that any nomination made in pursuance of an agreement among such members of the House who are present at the meeting shall be a valid nomination for all purposes.
   3. (c) A meeting contemplated in paragraph (b) shall take place during a session of Parliament or of the House in question and under the chairmanship of the Speaker of Parliament or the Chairman of the House, at a time and place fixed by the Speaker and made known by him or that Chairman at a sitting of the House, and the date so fixed shall—
      1. (i) in the case of a dissolution of the President’s Council, be a date after the dissolution but not more than 14 days thereafter;
      2. (ii) if the House was dissolved otherwise than at a dissolution of Parliament, and at least two members of the newly constituted House who would be entitled in terms of paragraph (a) to participate in a nomination have requested the Speaker in writing that such a meeting be called, be a date not more than 14 days after the first meeting of the newly constituted House;
      3. (iii) in the case of a casual vacancy in the President’s Council in respect of which a person is to be nominated for appointment and of which notice in writing has been given to the Speaker by the Chairman of the President’s Council, be a date not more than 14 days after the date of the notice or, if Parliament or the House is not then in session, a date not more than 14 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament or the House.
   4. (d) The regulations which apply in terms of this Act to an election of members of a House in terms of section 41(1)(c), 42(1)(c) or 43(1)(c) at a meeting of members of the House who may vote at such an election, shall apply mutatis mutandis to an election contemplated in paragraph (b) of this subsection, except in so far as they are amended or replaced by regulations made by the State President for the purposes of an election so contemplated.
   5. (e) The Speaker shall submit to the State President in writing—
      1. (i) the name of every person nominated in terms of this subsection;
      2. (ii) the date upon which he was nominated; and
      3. (iii) if he has been nominated at a meeting called in terms of paragraph (c) (ii) for appointment in the place of a member of the President’s Council, the name of the member in question,
         and the State President shall appoint the nominated person as a member of the President’s Council.
   6. (f) If the Speaker advises the State President—
      1. (i) that a meeting was called in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) and that a nomination which was required to be made thereat, was not made; or
      2. (ii) that such a meeting cannot be called for the reason that there is no opposition party in the House in question or that there is only one opposition party in the House with only one member of the House supporting it or that any circumstance contemplated in section 37(2) applies to the House,

the State President may appoint any person deemed fit by him as a member of the President’s Council in the seat in question: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall again apply to any subsequent appointment to the seat in question.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 44, in line 60, after “appointed” to insert:
   otherwise than in terms of section 70(2)
2. 2. On page 44, after line 64, to insert:
   1. (f) in the case of a member appointed by the State President in terms of subsection (2) of section 70, on the date on which a person nominated under that subsection for appointment in the place of the member concerned, by competent members of the House in question at a meeting of such members called in terms of paragraph (c)(ii) of that subsection, becomes a member of the President’s Council by virtue of his appointment in terms of paragraph (e) of that subsection.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 72 to 77 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

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

1. 1. On page 54, in line 21, to omit all the words after “in” up to and including “President” in line 26 and to substitute:

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 54, in lines 63 and 64, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
   1. (b) to an institution, body or functionary which in terms of the previous Constitution was required to be construed as a reference to the State President, shall be so construed;
2. 2. On page 56, in line 1, to omit all the words after “Assembly” up to the end of the Clause and to substitute:
   or a member thereof, or to an institution or body or a member thereof which in terms of the previous Constitution was required to be construed as a reference to the House of Assembly or a member thereof, shall be construed as a reference to Parliament or the Houses or a House or to a member of a House, as the case may be or the circumstances may require, unless it is inconsistent with the context or clearly inappropriate;
   1. (d) to the Executive Council, shall be construed as a reference to the Cabinet or to the relevant Ministers’ Council, according to the circumstances;
   2. (e) to the President’s Council, shall be construed as a reference to the President’s Council established in terms of this Act;
   3. (f) to the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary to the House of Assembly, or to a functionary which in terms of the previous Constitution was required to be construed as a reference to the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary to the House of Assembly, shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, respectively, to Parliament.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 98:

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

1. 1. On page 56, in line 23, to omit “unless” and to substitute “until”.
2. 2. On page 56, in line 36, after “(a)” to insert:

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 58, in line 12, after “33” to insert “, section 34(2)(a),”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 60, in lines 45 to 47, to omit the proviso.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 102:

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

1. 1. On page 64, in lines 14 to 16, to omit “referred to in section 52, would be entitled in terms of that section,” and to substitute:

1. 2. On page 64, in lines 17 and 18, to omit “to be registered as voters of the House” and to substitute:

1. 3. On page 62, in line 54, to omit “for the purposes of section 64”.
2. 4. On page 62, in line 57, to omit “that section” and to substitute “section 64”.
3. 5. On page 60, in line 56, after “elected” to insert “in terms of this Act”.
4. 6. On page 60, in line 61, to omit “him” and to substitute:
   the State President referred to in section 103(1)
5. 7. On page 64, in line 4, after “President” to insert “referred to in section 103(1)”.

Amendments 1 to 7 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 64, in line 49, after “President” to insert “referred to in subsection (1)”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Schedule 1:

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

1. 1. On page 66, in item 1, to omit “, including maintenance, adoption and rehabilitation inquiries and their disposal, whether by any court or for the purposes of court proceedings or otherwise,”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 68, to omit paragraph (a) of item 2 of Part 1 A.
2. 2. On page 68, in paragraph (d) of item 2 of Part 1A, to omit “, and by the addition to that subsection of the following further proviso:” and the proposed further proviso.
3. 3. On page 70, to omit paragraph (a) of Part 1B and to substitute:
   1. (a) by the substitution in subsection (5) for the expression “20A(1)” of the expression “26”, and for the expression “1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961)” of the expression “1983”.
4. 4. On page 70, after Part 1B, to insert:
   C. Amendment of the Laws of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Application Act, 1982 (Act No. 36 of 1982)—
   1. (a) by the substitution for the words “Until such date as may be fixed in terms of section 4(2) of the South African Coloured Persons Council Act, 1980 (Act No. 24 of 1980)” wherever they occur of the words “Until other provision is made by or under any law”; and
   2. (b) by the insertion after section 4 of the following section:
      “Effect of repeal of certain laws
      4A. The repeal of section 17 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964 (Act No. 49 of 1964), and section 5 of the South African Coloured Persons Council Act, 1980 (Act No. 24 of 1980), in terms of section 101 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, shall not affect the provisions of sections 1(g)(ii), 2(1)(ii) and 3(h) of this Act as amended by the said section 101, or the validity of any proclamation or notice published in the Gazette under the said section 17 which was in force immediately before the date of such repeal.”.
5. 5. On page 72, to omit Part 2 and to substitute:

Part 2

Amendments 1 to 5 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A dynamic society and national economy such as we have in South Africa, which continuously endeavour to make systematic progress on a democratic basis, require the Government regularly to implement processes by means of which public opinion can be tested before decisions are made or action is taken. Hon. members are familiar with the various methods of consultation between the Government and the country’s inhabitants which exist at the moment. I shall mention only a few of these: the Government tests the opinion of its supporters at its annual congresses; it tests the opinion of the voters by way of elections in which it asks for a mandate for its future conduct; it tests the opinions of interested parties by calling for evidence to be given before commissions of inquiry; and it sometimes tests opinions and attitudes with the help of bodies such as the HSRC.

However, important constitutional events sometimes require a special way of consulting the electorate. For this reason, a referendum was held in Natal in 1909, in which the voters had to indicate whether they were in favour of the draft constitution which had been proposed at the time; and there was the extremely important referendum held in 1960, when the voters were asked whether they were in favour of becoming a Republic.

†Speaker, when the Referendum Bill was introduced in this House during 1982 the then Minister of Internal Affairs motivated the need for an instrument to test people’s opinions from time to time on particular issues. Parliament then accepted this need by adopting the 1982 Referendum Bill.

*I shall therefore refrain from motivating the need for a measure which will make it possible to hold referendum. What is more important in the discussion today is the question of how referendum can best be arranged and conducted.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will notice that the Bill which is before the House today differs considerably from the Referendum Act which was passed in 1982. Unlike that Act, the Bill which is before us is an enabling measure in terms of which the holding of a referendum will be regulated by means of regulations made by the State President. The former practice of embodying as much as possible of the familiar detail concerning the holding of elections or referendum in our laws is certainly not without merit. Since we are now on the eve of the new constitutional dispensation, however, and since it is expected that referendum may be held more regularly, I believe that greater flexibility is very important.

It is not advisable to tamper with our laws every time a situation arises which is slightly unfamiliar. The procedures for referendum should be flexible enough to accommodate minor deviations and to meet needs which may differ from one case to another. That is why this Bill has been drafted mainly as an enabling measure.

The possibility also exists that systems other than voters’ rolls may increasingly be used to allow voters to vote in future referendum, through the utilization of identity documents, for example. This is because referendum differ from ordinary elections in that they do not have to be conducted on a constituency basis.

Why not?

I shall motivate that. We therefore need a flexible Act which will enable the State President to prescribe the best system for conducting every kind of referendum which may be held in future.

Other aspects of this Bill which require elucidation are the following: Firstly, the proposal in clause 1 that only Whites, Cape Coloureds, Malays, Griquas, Chinese, Indians and the Other Coloured Group may participate in referendum as voters. This principle was also contained in the Referendum Act, 1982, and is being repeated in this measure for the same reasons.

In terms of clause 2, the State President may determine who shall be entitled to vote at a particular referendum, which category of voters shall be involved in a referendum and in which area in the Republic a particular referendum may be held. The need for flexibility in the measure is well illustrated in this clause. It enables the State President to test public opinion on any subject which he may consider important. He may test the opinion of a specific group or category of inhabitants on the subject, for example, or he may test opinions in a particular area or areas.

Clause 4 provides for the State President’s power to make regulations with regard to voting areas, the way in which a voter must identify himself and the circumstances under which a ballot paper may not be issued to a person. This proposal is bound up with the idea that referendum do not necessarily have to be conducted on a constituency basis and by means of voters’ rolls.

Another important principle contained in clause 4 is that the State President may prescribe the manner in which the result of a referendum should be determined and announced. This is bound up with the idea that the counting of votes does not necessarily have to take place on a constituency basis. In the case of referendum, where the election of persons plays no role whatsoever, constituencies are really quite irrelevant.

Did this apply in 1960 as well?

And when voters all over the country are able to vote at any polling station, even outside their constituencies, which was not the case in 1960, the result per constituency becomes even less relevant.

†Mr. Speaker, in addition to the aforesaid, the Bill contains proposals of general provisions which are considered necessary to ensure the secrecy of voting, the protection of voters, and the preventing of double voting or voting under false pretences. Measures to prevent undue influencing of voters are also contained in the Bill.

A Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Tygervallei considered the Bill now before the House. The amendments proposed by the Select Committee will be discussed during the Committee Stage. At this Stage I want to express my sincere appreciation for the diligent manner in which the Committee performed its task.

*I deemed it advisable to make draft regulations drawn up with a view to the forthcoming referendum available to the Select Committee provisionally, so that the Committee could have an indication of the form of such regulations. Although the regulations themselves could not be evaluated and amended by the Select Committee, I have nevertheless received valuable suggestions from hon. members which will be borne in mind when the regulations are finalized for submission to the State President. The regulations in terms of which the forthcoming referendum will be held should, in my opinion, provide for the following, inter alia:

Firstly, the provision of sufficient polling stations to make matters as convenient as possible for the voters. It will be possible to set up more polling stations than in the case of elections, but I want to give the assurance that polling stations will be set up in consultation with all the interested parties.

Secondly, the counting of votes on a regional basis. Every region will consist of the constituencies which fall under each of the 15 regional offices of the Department of Internal Affairs. The regional offices are situated in Cape Town, Beaufort West, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, George, East London, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Johannesburg, Roodepoort, Germiston, Pretoria and Pietersburg.

Thirdly, provision will be made for measures to prevent and to keep a check on double voting. In addition to the severe penalties for double voting which are being proposed in the Bill, the Department of Internal Affairs is able to ascertain after a referendum whether double voting has in fact taken place. For example, the identity numbers of those who have voted can be compared with the aid of a computer and it can be ascertained whether two votes have been cast under one name. In addition, a record is kept of the reissuing of identity documents, and on the basis of this it is also possible to ascertain which persons have had more than one identity document issued to them.

Fourthly, there is the appointment of agents to help monitor the voting and the counting of the votes. The Referendum Act of 1960 provided for the appointment of one “Yes” and one “No” agent per constituency to serve, respectively, those who were in favour of a republic and those who were against it. With a view to equal treatment in every voting area during the forthcoming referendum, the Government has seen fit to announce even at this early stage that not more than one “Yes” and one “No” chief agent will be appointed in every voting area. [Interjections.] The leaders of the various political parties have been informed of this beforehand, so that they may start organizing their activities in good time. They have also been informed of services which will be rendered to them by the Department of Internal Affairs.

The importance of the forthcoming referendum cannot be over-emphasized.

What about the Bill?

I appeal to all to give their fullest co-operation to enable this historic event to take place as successfully and as smoothly as possible.

Then you must not deviate from the rules.

The hon. the member complains about the rules. This referendum is not about the survival of the CP; it is about the survival of South Africa.

The fact that voters will be allowed to vote at any polling station upon production of their identity documents is an exciting step and is preferable, in my opinion, to the rigid system of voting according to voters’ rolls on a constituency basis.

On its part, the Department of Internal Affairs will do everything in its power to help voters who do not yet have identity documents to obtain their documents in time.

The department and its regional offices are ready to give the fullest co-operation in this connection. However, the onus is now on those without identity documents to apply for them without delay.

We are on the eve of one of the most important decisions in our history. I am convinced that this Bill and the proposed procedures, of which I have already given notice, will make it possible and easy for every White voter to participate in the decision which will be taken on 2 November 1983.

The hon. the Prime Minister once said that we had a date with the future. This Bill and the referendum which is to be held in terms of it are the official invitation to keep this date.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the final comment of the hon. the Minister about the date we have with the future, I am afraid to say that I think that the NP has stood up the future on so many occasions in the past that the future can hardly take them seriously any more.

Let me say that the PFP’s attitude to this Bill must be seen against the background of our understanding and belief, which we still have today, that a Bill dealing with referendum’s should be based on the wealth of experience that is built into our existing Electoral Act. For many years the detail in that Act has been the subject of discussion and, to a large degree, consensus between members of different political parties who in the process have acquired a considerable degree of expertise in the conduct and control of elections. This attitude on the part of the PFP has been shared until very recently by members of the Government and, I think, also by members of other parties. It is borne out by the fact, as the hon. the Minister himself conceded, that the existing Referendum’s Act passed as recently as 1982, is more or less styled on the existing Electoral Act. Let us make no mistake about it. The Bill before us throws this approach overboard and creates a situation in terms of which the Government is given unfettered power to manipulate referendum’s almost at will.

The main clauses of the Bill, that is those that remain of value, make provision for little more for peripheral matters, while the substance of the provisions regulating a referendum is left to the Government to regulate by way of regulation. In this sense the Referendum’s Bill is yet another step away from representative democratic government in the direction of executive government, more autocratic, more capable of abuse, unhindered by the constraints of political accountability.

The reason advanced for this drastic change is that more flexibility is needed. However, it is strange that when amendments were moved by this side of the House in the Select Committee on an issue in respect of which flexibility was really needed, namely referring to the groups of people or the varieties or categories of people who could be tested in a referendum, those amendments were voted down by the Government members on the Select Committee. I am afraid that this Bill gives the Government a blank cheque. It gives legislative respectability to completely unpredictable action on the part of the executive.

*The hon. the Minister himself mentioned that it may be necessary, when circumstances change, to change the legislation if we are too rigid in the steps we take. He said that we did not wish to tamper with our laws. Indeed, we want to warn against this kind of approach. It would be better to introduce an amendment to legislation here every year, if that were to prove necessary, rather than simply to vote to give away the power of this House to regulate such legislation and leave it exclusively in the hands of the Government.

†Together with this process of abdicating our legislative authority, which takes place to a large degree in terms of this Bill, we experienced an inexplicable attitude on the part of the Government members on the Select Committee also in another respect. This is very clear from the report of the Select Committee. They opposed every amendment of the Opposition parties to introduce even the slightest form of restriction on the ability of the Government to regulate. Amendments by the PFP, the CP and the NRP aimed at introducing some sort of order, were rejected without even being properly considered. In spite of the good spirit in which discussions were conducted on the Select Committee, it was largely a futile operation. In one respect particularly I believe it was a futile operation, namely that when I moved that the Select Committee should consider the regulations, which are in fact the meat of what we are talking about, the suggestion was voted down without much consideration on the part of the Government.

What am I talking about when I say that the Government is given a lot of power and that we are in a sense voting away our legislative authority if we support this Bill? The State President, therefore the Government, is given the right to issue a proclamation to call a referendum. This is fair enough, because obviously this is the right of the executive. It is accepted that they can call a referendum whenever they like. Also, they can call a referendum to test the opinions of whomsoever they like. That is also accepted. I do not think there is much disagreement in that respect.

But clause 2 of this Bill gives them powers far beyond this, unrestricted powers, and I refer specifically to subsection (2), which states that the proclamation calling the referendum can in fact be amended at any stage. It may be legally so that this stipulation is unnecessary, and that it is possible in any event, but I cannot help thinking that it looks ominous that one writes into a Bill of this nature the specific power to enable the Government to amend a proclamation calling a referendum. What is the meaning of that? It means the Government can change the question halfway through the referendum. Secondly, it means the Government can change the date halfway through the referendum and, thirdly, it means the Government can even change the sample that it wishes to test halfway through the referendum. In fact, no certainty is created whatsoever, and no time limitation is placed on the Government whatsoever. In effect the Government is given the power to mock the public—the voting public as well as the non-voting public—in the country in this way. I do not believe that is fair if we wish to place legislation on the Statute Book to enable us to conduct a referendum in an orderly way. We must decide whether we want to do it by way of the normal legislative process or whether we merely sign a blank cheque to issue to the Government. I am afraid we are not prepared to do that.

Clause 4 of the Bill empowers the Government to issue regulations. These are aspects which are dealt with in absolute detail in the Electoral Act, for instance the aspect dealing with absent voters. It receives no more attention than three lines in clause 4, once again giving the absolute right to the Minister and the Government to do whatever they like about making arrangements for absent voters. I do not believe that is democracy. Electoral legislation such as this Referendum’s Bill is in fact very closely as important as constitutional legislation, because it is very much part of the rules of the game of democracy.

I believe the fact that the Government can change any of these proclamations, for example the fact that it can change the regulations at any stage, is a very unhealthy situation. We have certainly tried in the Select Committee, and also in previous discussions, to convey our views to the Government in this respect. We have moved amendments in the Select Committee to introduce time limits—this is a very basic thing—for example between the time the proclamation is issued and the day the referendum is held. Sir, can you believe it, the Government voted that down. The Government is not prepared to accept a minimum period between the proclamation of a referendum and the holding of a referendum. I cannot conceive of any reason why a reasonable person is not prepared to accept such a time limit, even if it is a relatively short period. At least people will then know where they stand.

We have tried to move an amendment that when a referendum is proclaimed in the Government Gazette at least all the salient aspects should be made known at the same time. Once again, it was voted down. We believe that it is necessary and fair that, whenever a referendum is conducted—whether it be this one in November or a later one, and in any community—people at least know at the earliest possible opportunity, and know in a way which has legal validity and legal effect, what the question is going to be, when the referendum is going to take place, as well as the other aspects which are important in such a referendum.

We have also moved an amendment on a third issue, namely to allow a committee of judges to test the question framed by the Government. We do not question the Government’s ability and right to frame the question, but the suggestion to have it tested by a committee of judges merely to establish whether it is clear, to test it for fairness and equitability and to test it in order to make sure that it does not contain any misrepresentations, has once again been voted down.

Let us look at the matter of control of a referendum conducted in the way the hon. the Minister has suggested. There is very little detail about that. In fact there is no detail in the Bill about how the Government intends conducting a referendum on the basis of the book of life. I am convinced, and only time will prove whether I am right or not, that this will in fact complicate the control of the referendum to a considerable degree. All sorts of new systems are being introduced, all sorts of new assumptions are being made and control is being centralized. I cannot help but believe that this is going to undermine the very confidence that has been built up in the electoral system in this country over many years. I believe this is one of the administrative aspects in this country which does enjoy the confidence of the public. Some people may feel that there is a lot of red tape, but believe me, there are very few people in this country who do not believe that in as much as elections are regulated by the Electoral Act it is done in a fair and equitable way. I believe that this Bill is the kind of thing that will shock that confidence and shock it very badly.

The hon. the Minister has made reference to methods to ascertain whether people have voted twice. I can hardly see that one person is actually going to use two identity books issued to him to go and vote twice. If he is such a idiot he deserves what is coming his way. However, if somebody goes there and uses somebody else’s identity book or uses a different number, that is something entirely different. The point is that the follow-up in trying to trace a person who is really out to make mischief, is going to be extremely difficult. When one is counting a million and a half ballot-papers and one has to test every number to check whether there has been a duplication, even if one does it through a computer and one gets an indication that the number has appeared twice, it is not going to tell one anything. In fact the hon. member for Umhlanga asked by way of interjection at an earlier stage of the debate how one is going to know or find somebody who has voted twice or has voted by using somebody else’s name. That is not going to be possible and I think the hon. member is quite correct in that respect.

*I just wish to deal once again with the question of doing away with voters’ rolls. As was also the case with regard to the Constitution Bill, the Bill we dealt with earlier, legislation always goes hand in hand with certain customs, and I think that the fact that the voter in South Africa has become accustomed to having a right to have his name on the voters’ roll and thus has a right to vote, if he applies for registration as a voter. This is something that has become established over the years in the minds of our voters. In point of fact, this is to a large extent embodied in our Electoral Act. People assume that if they have submitted their application for registration within a certain date, usually the end of the second month before the election, they are enfranchised and they rely on that. As the hon. the Minister indicated on a previous occasion, if a person arrives at a polling station and his name is not on the list and he knows he has applied for this, he is angry. I fear that by means of this new system we are going to disenfranchise people who are at present registered as voters, because they do not have identity documents. The argument has been advanced that there are more names of people, of South African citizens, on the population register than on the voters’ roll. I concede that. That is an important consideration. However, the fact of the matter is that other arrangements can be made, and this is what we suggest, viz. that in terms of legislation passed last year, it is possible for the hon. the Minister and his department to transfer the information from the population register to the voters’ rolls in the various constituencies and then to include all this, as soon as possible, in a consolidated voters’ roll and make it available to the parties. After all, people can then still have the opportunity to ascertain where they are registered. Moreover, political parties will have the opportunity to trace people, and in addition, people can make sure that they are registered at the right place. I believe that one aspect that hon. members on the Government side cannot dispute is that the voters’ roll, however out of date, is at least more up to date than the population register, particularly due to the fact that political parties are constantly encouraging people to provide their changes of address. Moreover, this is something that people themselves do readily.

But surely, in that case there should have been more people’s names on the voters’ roll.

Mr. Speaker, it is not merely a question of registering people as voters. The real question is where they are registered.

But that is irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, one fact that I believe cannot be disputed is that out of every 10 people who change their addresses, there may be one who sees to it that his new address is recorded in the population register. However, the majority of people simply do not take the trouble, chiefly because it is of no importance to them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members must please just give me a chance to continue with my speech. If the interjections were made individually, I could perhaps still react to them. [Interjections.]

I spoke about the condition a voter has to comply with when he applies for registration. Once he has complied with this condition, he assumes that he has the right to be registered as a voter. However, that condition is now being changed. The Department of Internal Affairs is now making several efforts to issue identity documents to people. What attempts the department may make is irrelevant. There is no doubt that there will be many people who will not have identity documents when the referendum takes place later this year. The hon. the Minister has furnished figures to us in this regard, figures which I find quite interesting. It seems to me as if there is a degree of uncertainty with regard to the figures. I would have thought that the uncertainty in this regard was quite considerable. In answer to a question last year—I asked how many people had applied for identity documents, people to whom identity documents had not yet been issued—the hon. the Minister replied that the number was approximately 400 000. Of course, these were not necessarily all first applications, but included amendments to applications. On a later occasion the hon. the Minister said that this, of course, included Indians and Coloureds. That I can well understand. However, I do find it remarkable that the figure came to almost 400 000 and that only about one-third or fewer of them were Whites. On a later occasion earlier this year, during this session, the hon. the Minister said that 137 000 Whites were thought to be without identity documents.

In reply to a question asked by the CP a few days ago, the hon. the Minister indicated that the figure had grown to 158 000. I find this disturbing. That figure is supposed to be dwindling. Nevertheless, it appears that the figure is still increasing. For that reason I believe that something is indeed wrong somewhere. Perhaps the reason for this must be sought in the fact that the department is obtaining more information. Perhaps more people, of whose existence the department was not previously aware, are applying. However, the fact of the matter is that this is a disturbing situation. If 150 000 people, or even anywhere near that number, are not going to be able to cast a vote in the coming referendum, then I know of people who are going to be very dissatisfied. Indeed, they will have every right to feel very dissatisfied. I believe that the hon. the Minister has imposed an impossibly heavy burden on his department by instructing them to issue identity documents to all those people within such a short period.

For some years now it has been approved in principle that in future, voters’ rolls will be drawn up on the basis of the population register. This is a principle that has been accepted by all the parties in Select Committees. It was accepted because we believe that it will work, that it will eliminate red tape in the department itself and that it will eliminate duplication. However, this is a principle that must be applied with circumspection. Once again, it is a principle which, until a short time ago, was accepted by hon. members on the Government side as well. As recently as January 1982, a Select Committee unanimously agreed that that principle was in fact accepted. However, it was also accepted that wide-ranging steps would have to be taken to provide for a transitional period so that people would not be disenfranchised. The hon. the Minister himself said something about that. He said that this would have to be brought into effect with caution so that people would not forfeit the right to vote and also so that voters, people not necessarily registered as voters, political parties and the responsible department would have enough time and opportunity to allow that transitionary process to proceed smoothly.

May I please ask a question? Since an announcement has been made to the effect that there will be an opportunity to obtain identity documents until the end of September, how can there be any question of disenfranchisement if one gives notice to everyone that there is still ample opportunity to ensure that they will in fact be able to vote?

Mr. Speaker, I shall give the hon. the Minister the answer I gave him at the time he made that announcement in the first place. The fact of the matter is that in reality that is not how it works. There is insufficient time. I contend that many voters are not aware of that, because the hon. the Minister himself told us that people arrive at a voting station and then feel dissatisfied because they are not registered as voters. For how long have people known how to register as voters? I want to say to the hon. the Minister that that problem is going to be aggravated. I also wish to make the additional point that the hon. the Minister is now imposing a burden on his department that will result in people being disenfranchised, not only as a result of their own neglect—many will be disenfranchised as a result of their own neglect—but also because the hon. the Minister’s department is not going to eliminate the backlog, because the department is going to be overwhelmed with applications, particularly now that the referendum has already been announced. I am convinced that the figure he mentioned to us will not, in fact, drop to an acceptable level before the referendum is held.

I want to say here and now that I find it very remarkable that there has been such a sudden change in strategy with regard to this matter; that until last year hon. members opposite found the present Referendum’s Act acceptable as a basis on which we could fight referendum’s. It is not as if anything has happened in the meantime to cause this to change. The referendum that has already been announced is for Whites only. In any event there is no sign of it applying to other people, and therefore there is no problem as regards doing it on the basis of the present White voters’ rolls. I just want to say that I find this very remarkable.

†Mr. Speaker, hon. members should not suggest that the difference between elections and referendum’s is so material that it justifies a completely different system. After all, Sir, we passed a Referendum’s Act in this House only last year, an Act which I believe is based substantially on the same structure as is our elections system.

*What, then, is the motive underlying this? I fear that the hon. the Minister’s speech this afternoon did not give us the whole story as to why it is necessary to have such a sudden departure from a fully tried and tested system that has applied over the years. I fear that the one consideration that, more than anything else, counts with the Government is to move away from the idea that the counting of votes should be done on a constituency basis.

†I say this, Sir, because there will be a stampede of the public representatives of the Government all over the country in those constituencies where they have been given “no” votes, and I believe that this is something that they cannot afford.

For all these reasons, Sir, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) matters previously provided for in law can in terms of the Bill be dealt with by regulation at the whim of the Government;
2. (2) the Bill grants the Government unfettered powers in respect of important aspects relating to the conduct of a referendum;
3. (3) the control over the conduct of a referendum will be too complicated;
4. (4) persons presently registered as voters will be disenfranchised for the purposes of a referendum if they are not in possession of identity documents.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister gave a very detailed explanation of the Bill, and the hon. member for Green Point also dealt mainly with the details of the clauses in his speech in this Second Reading debate. I feel that in the practical discussion of the Bill it would probably be far more fruitful for us to discuss the Bill clause by clause in the Committee Stage.

Are you going to apply a guillotine?

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is trying to be silly right from the outset. Because he really tried to make a practical contribution in the Select Committee, I hope he will be continuing in that spirit rather than occupying his time with such tomfoolery in this House.

The fact remains that the Select Committee completed its allotted task in intensive sessions. As is apparent from the report, the official Opposition and the CP registered fundamental objections even at the start of the negotiations in the Select Committee and this meant that it was impossible to reach consensus on clauses to which they objected.

In the first place the objection of the official Opposition—and this was also quite clear in the speech the hon. member for Green Point just made—lies in the fact that they have adopted the standpoint that the existing Referendum’s Act, 1982, is quite adequate and that new legislation is therefore not needed to provide for this referendum. It is understandable that it is very difficult to negotiate on legislation like this with a party which is not capable of any renewal. The same applies to the CP. They are not capable of any renewal at all.

You people do not know what the word means.

I am not going to allow myself to be side-tracked by the hon. member for Jeppe today, because if there is one hon. member in the history of this House who has managed to become a national figure on the strength of his bad manners, it is he. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the fact that it has become a tradition for parties in Select Committees of this kind to reach consensus. I remember that in my speech earlier this year, on the occasion of the discussion of the vote of the hon. the Minister, this was the very fact I complained about, because in the past it was customary for parties to enter a Select Committee with a reasonably open mind so that through negotiation and persuasion we could succeed in reaching consensus. However, this is no longer the case nowadays. The fact of the matter is that opposition parties come to the Select Committee with fixed, preconceived ideas supposedly based on principle and on those grounds they raise fundamental objections, the result being that there is not much co-operation at all. I have gained the impression—as a matter of fact, this is what drove me to complain to the hon. Minister—that there is really no longer all that much sense in referring electoral legislation to a Select Committee, as was the case in the past.

If amendments to clauses are there to rectify mistakes in legislation, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg tried to make out here the other day in the discussion of the Constitution Bill, then the Referendum’s Act is virtually faultless because so few amendments to it were moved. For that reason I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members who participated in this Select Committee for the thorough study they made of the legislation, because it goes without saying that this greatly facilitated the task in the Select Committee. I also want to express my thanks for the opportunity I was given to be chairman of this Select Committee, because I personally have very strong convictions regarding the modernization of our entire electoral system.

Having referred to the speech I made in the discussion of the vote of the hon. the Minister, let me now also say that what I complained of in that speech was that in spite of the fact that there was a Select Committee on this matter last year, our existing electoral Acts, are archaic, that they are rigid and that they do not make provision for voters to cast their votes in the easiest possible way. We must not wear ourselves out in a referendum with restrictive measures which have a detrimental effect on this system which is simply a system regulated by the State to hold an opinion poll. If this is the objection to the electoral Acts on the Statute book today, then it also applies to the Referendum’s Act, because one is subject the same restrictions in the handling of a referendum in terms of that Act.

I do not want to repeat myself unnecessarily, but this Bill before us today incorporates a far freer electioneering spirit, a spirit in which people can record their opinions with far greater ease. What we have before us today is really an exciting piece of legislation. Sir, you will note that it is mainly enabling legislation. It is therefore not an accumulation of prohibitions seeking to close loopholes here and there, but in the process making organizational flow virtually impossible. Sir, you will, however, also note that the penalties in the case of offences really serve as a deterrent. Over the years we have advocated moving nearer to the European system where there are not only prohibitions, but where things are made far easier for the voters. For example, a voter in Britain can write a letter to the electoral officer in which he asks him to send him a postal vote. Then a postal vote is sent to that voter. It is made as easy as that, but there is the proviso that in case that electoral privilege or freedom is abused, the penalty acts as a deterrent.

For that reason I find it interesting that, although this is enabling legislation, to a very large extent attention has also been given to the prohibitions. A voter therefore retains the freedom to vote, he can easily be driven to the polling booth, etc., but the penal provisions ensure that there will be no unnecessary abuse of the system. If hon. members look at clause 7, they will note that it is a serious offence to compel a person to vote, that a voter may not be misled, that a voter may not be bribed and that, on the other hand, a voter may not accept a bribe or negotiate one. One finds that in that case there is a prohibitive provision in terms of which a fine of R10 000 or imprisonment for three years, or both in certain cases, may be imposed. Because we are therefore trying to have as free and fair elections as possible, the penalties are such as to ensure that elections can take place without prohibitions having to apply in clause after clause.

In clause 8 we find that if a voter impersonates another person, tries to vote in someone else’s name or tries to vote twice, which is possible in this system if he has two identity documents, the penalty goes much further than the prohibition. In other words, with a fine of R10 000 or with imprisonment for three years, or both such fine and such imprisonment, I do not think anyone would be tempted to vote twice. I believe that in the case of forgery, which is dealt with in clause 9, a person who forges a ballot paper or removes it from the polling station, knows what he is letting himself in for if he commits such an offence. Clause 9(1)(e) is a very important paragraph, because it expressly provides that a person who deliberately interferes with a polling station or tries to destroy it, will be liable to a fine of R10 000 or imprisonment of three years, or both such fine and such imprisonment. If there are militants who are opposed to a referendum for reasons for principle, or a gang of men on motor cycles who feel that the referendum is not going their way and that they should rather try to render the polling stations inactive, there is sufficient warning in this clause for them to know that they will run into trouble if they do so. The same applies, in terms of clause 6, when a person deliberately causes trouble at a polling station.

In terms of the Electoral Act they cannot do so either.

As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just shouted by way of interjection, this can certainly also be done, but we are trying to obviate the necessity for so many prohibitions. Here we are not trying to do so by way of prohibitions, but are determining what the fines will be if certain things are done. I think this will be far more effective than saying hundreds of time what people may or may not do.

Clause 2 is an enabling clause which allows the State President to do certain things by proclamation. Initially major objections were raised to the provisions of clause 2, and in particular clause 2(1)(d) which provides that the State President may determine the particulars on the ballot paper by proclamation. Proof of how far-fetched and theoretical that objection was, is to be found in the referendum which has just been announced. The Government has already announced in advance, in fact long before the time, what question is going to appear on that ballot paper. In other words, particulars of what will appear on that ballot paper are already known.

Clause 4 is a very important clause because it contains all the enabling provisions in connection with the making of regulations.

Why do you not use the Electoral Act?

I wonder whether we cannot give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout an opportunity to speak at a later stage. It seems to me he is very excited. If I had two turns to speak, I would resume my seat now so that the hon. member could say what he wanted to say. The hon. member must just be a little patient. As far as clause 4(1)(c) is concerned, we have the same interesting situation we had in 1960. The State President may make regulations for the appointment of agents for organizations with an interest in a referendum. In other words, he may make regulations in connection with the appointment of a “no” agent and a “yes” agent. This is the same thing we had in 1960. I think hon. members opposite as very sensitive about this.

We are sensitive about the democratic aspect.

I do not know whether I have judged incorrectly, but the hon. member for Rissik is particularly sensitive about this provision.

Did you read the front page of this morning’s Burger?

Yes, I read it, and it is simply a logical deduction. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point is going to vote “No”, not so? [Interjections.] Sir, surely that is a fair question. Is the hon. member for Green Point going to vote “no”?

Yes.

Of course he is going to vote “no”. May I ask the hon. member for Rissik—the two of us do not have a bone to pick with each other—how he is going to vote?

Of course I am going to vote “no”, “no” for the downfall of the Whites.

Of course he is going to vote “no”. These two Van der Merwes are going to vote an unqualified “no”. They each have only one vote, because the regulations provide that a person may not vote twice, for if he does he will find himself in deep water.

That is a standard six argument.

If the hon. member for Jeppe had made a better job of passing standard six he would have known that he must behave himself in this House. [Interjections.] If these two hon. members are going to vote an unqualified “no” they are, after all, in agreement, and if they are in agreement, how can each claim his own agent?

Do you realize that the ANC wants you to win the referendum?

The situation with regard to the “yes” vote is nevertheless going to be the same. I make no secret of the fact that I am going to vote “yes”. I am going to do everything in my power to convince other people to vote “yes” as well. The NRP has already indicated that it is also going to encourage its people to vote “yes”. Because the NRP has indicated that it is going to participate in the referendum as a party, and because the NP has also indicated that it is going to participate as a party, it is obvious that they will have to reach an agreement on who the “yes” agent will be in each specific constituency. After all, we cannot have two “yes” agents. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must not start feeling uncomfortable now. They must not start arguing now. The fact remains that they will have to get together around a conference table. [Interjections.] They will have to hold a national convention to discuss the matter. If one has given one’s unqualified support to a matter, one has to identify oneself with one’s allies. This is undoubtedly true. I do not believe the referendum is a political issue, and that it goes far beyond political boundaries.

It is a purely political issue.

If it does not transcend political boundaries, how can the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for North Rand both vote “no”? If they vote “no”, they vote “no”.

We are prepared to appoint our agents and we are prepared to reach an agreement. Those hon. members, however, are ashamed of their allies. A few of their allies can come to their rescue, but they are not part of the referendum.

The hon. member for Green Point kicked up a big fuss about judges being given a testing rights to determine whether a question is fair or not. Just to set the record straight for this election at least, let us assume it is agreed that such a judicial committee be appointed. Would the hon. member for Green Point refer the question we are discussing here to that judicial committee?

In terms of my amendment…

The hon. member does not want to give an unqualified reply. It goes without saying that he will not do so. Apart from the dilemma of the Van der Merwes now being drawn together, he surely does not doubt the validity of the question. Sir, I find the actual motivation for this constituency count extremely entertaining. However, I think we should rather postpone this argument until we get to the Committee Stage. Then we can discuss it again during the discussion of that specific clause. It is clear that apart from this Referendum’s Bill opening up the exciting possibility of testing the opinions of voters in a very simple manner, of testing the opinions of many more voters in the most convenient way possible, it will also be a test of the party organization’s control, on election day and so on. Applying proper control will therefore depend on the ingenuity of political parties, of the parties participating in the referendum. But any political party worth its salt should be able to succeed.

We are looking forward to discussing this matter in greater detail with the hon. members in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Chief Whip of the governing party made a not so flattering reference in his speech to my namesake and colleague, the hon. member for Jeppe, I want to tell him—and I am saying this in all sincerity, and I think I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues—that the hon. member for Jeppe means a tremendous amount to our party. [Interjections.] I can understand that hon. members can laugh about that, since they do not know what goes on behind the scenes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member Mr. Theunissen allowed to refer to an hon. member on this side of the House as a gerry-manderer?

Mr. Speaker, there was a ruling a few days ago that that was not unparliamentary.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we on this side of the House know what goes on behind the scenes, in our caucus and in our party. I have had dealings with a great many people in my life, inter alia, with the hon. the Chief Whip, and I want to say that I have met few people in my life who can think a matter through, formulate and motivate it so thoroughly as that hon. Chief Whip, but I also want to tell the hon. the Chief Whip that I have met few people, if any, who possess the capacity for work and the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Jeppe. He means a great deal to us.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to ask the hon. member for Meyerton whether they are going to send the hon. member for Jeppe abroad during the forthcoming referendum, as they did during the by-election in Parys. [interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe is useful to us everywhere. We shall send him to assist us anywhere we see fit. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue with my speech now. In 45 years’ time I shall be all of 100 years old. I am therefore an old hand. When people my age speak about referendum’s, it kindles a certain amount of nostalgia in us. I and many others inevitably cast our minds back to the year 1960, when we held the referendum on the Republic. The hon. the Minister said that we have had only had two referendum’s in South Africa from 1909 until now. The forthcoming referendum will therefore be the third since 1909. Of course, the hon. the Minister quashed another one of his arguments by saying this—viz. his argument that matters must be regulated in such a way by way of the present legislation that in future we will be able to do certain things by way of regulation, since we can hold a referendum every now and then. However, we know now that this is only the third referendum in South Africa in the 74 years since 1909.

When I think back to the 1960 referendum, I recall that I was privileged to be the referendum agent in the Heidelberg, Transvaal, constituency. Before confining myself specifically to the Bill, I just want to relate a few reminiscences about that time.

You were still positive then.

Yes, just as positive as I am now.

At least we are not a lot of yes-men. [Interjections.]

In 1960 we held a referendum with a view to establishing a sovereign, independent White Republic of South Africa. That is what the CP still stands for. [Interjections.]

As I have already said, I was the referendum agent in the Heidelberg constituency in 1960. It was therefore my task to visit the voters who were in doubt as to whether they should vote “yes”. My task in the forthcoming referendum will therefore be the opposite of what it was then. [Interjections.] I arrived at the home of an elderly couple in Meyerton. I knocked on the door, and the wife opened it. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, judging by the reaction of hon. members opposite, I am making a very good speech. [Interjections.]

I arrived at the home of an elderly couple in Meyerton, people I had to visit because they were still in doubt as to how they should vote. I knocked, and the wife opened the door and invited me in. I put my case to her and told her that I was working for the Republic and that I wanted to ask her please to vote “yes” in the forthcoming referendum. I told her that that one “yes” vote could perhaps be the decisive one in favour of a republic. Her reply was: “Very well, my boy. I shall vote ‘yes’. You can be sure of that.” I asked her where her husband was, and she said that she would go and call him. However, she added: “Before I go and call him, I just want to warn you. One cannot believe a word he says.” I said: “Very well, I shall speak to him.”

She then went to call her husband. He came in, and as he sat down, his wife said that she was going to make some coffee. When she had left to go and make the coffee, I told him that I had come to ask him kindly to vote “yes” in favour of the Republic. I then asked him whether he would vote “yes”. His reply was: “Yes, my boy, I shall vote ‘yes’. However, I am not so sure of my wife.” I then said: “I have already persuaded her. She will also be voting ‘yes’.” Then he said to me: “My boy, I just want to tell you that one can never trust her; one can never believe what she says.” [Interjections.]

Those two are probably members of the CP now! [Interjections.]

When I consider what is to happen on polling day, I am very pleased about the fact that an identity document will have to be produced by people who want to vote. On that polling day in Meyerton, a certain lady came to cast her vote. However, someone else must have already voted in her name, or her name must have been deleted by accident because they thought she was deceased. The returning officer refused to issue her with a ballot paper. The lady was most upset and insisted that she wanted to vote. I then called the returning officer aside and asked him—merely to placate her—to issue her with a tendered vote. I told him that he could simply state his reason in writing for issuing her with this vote.

When that specific ballot paper was opened the next day, the reason the returning officer had attached to it in writing, read as follows: “I saw fit to give her a ballot paper, since the deceased denies that she is dead.” [Interjections].

I want to say this in all earnestness: Dr. Verwoerd and I visited many of the polling stations on the morning of referendum day, and the tension was mounting in me: What are the people going to decide today? I shall never forget that we drove to a small polling station at Panfontein. It is a rural area situated between Vaaldam and Meyerton. We drove through lush maize fields where it was very lonely and isolated. I was extremely tense, and I asked Dr. Verwoerd whether he did not think we should stop and pray, giving the undertaking that if we were successful, that day would also be a day in our history like Blood River. What I want to point out today, is the magnanimity of Dr. Verwoerd. He said: No. We may not do that. We may not try to bind the nation, whose views are based on two convictions, to our own view. That was the first thing he said. Secondly, he said: Even if we do not win today, our country will still continue to exist. It will not be the end.

The CP takes a serious view of this Bill. We are not happy with this Bill. There are a few matters in it with which we are able to agree, but it also contains matters with which the CP is not at all happy. The hon. the Minister said at the conclusions of his speech—and the hon. the Chief Whip of the Government party elaborated on this in a lighter vein—that the “yes” vote and the “no” vote are entitled only to one agent. Throughout history, it has always been the case that political parties participating in the game are entitled to an agent or representative. [Interjections.] The National Party and the United Party participated in 1960. [Interjections.] It is my contention that it would be disregarding the democracy of the people of South Africa if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to review his decision. I want to ask him in all earnestness to reconsider his decision.

There are a number of amendments to this Bill on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Kuruman. We shall move those amendments during the Committee Stage in order to make certain representations to the hon. the Minister once again. Because we are democrats, I want to ask the Minister in all earnestness to give ear to these representations that are to be made, and to give his attention to them. It is true that the President will do certain things in terms of regulations, and this is a different situation to the one we were accustomed to. Our elections have run smoothly in the past.

I want to dwell for a moment on two matters in particular. I simply cannot wait to get back to my constituency, and I am sure that all the other hon. members, regardless of which party they belong to, feel this way. After all, it is our duty and our task. We simply cannot wait to get back to our constituencies and put forward our views. I am convinced that my view is correct. I also respect those who disagree with me, since I know that they, too, believe that their view is correct. They also want to go and work in their constituencies, just as I do. What happens there? We get down to activating our branches. Our helpers begin with their task. They go canvassing. They do everything that needs to be done during an election. Then it is polling day. One has one’s agents who perform certain tasks. One has one’s people who transport the voters. One also has one’s inside agents. One has one’s reception officers who receive the voters and who also try to convince the voters how to vote at the last minute. What happens? The polling station closes at 9 o’clock. The cherry on the top for the workers, which is what is going to motivate us as from next week until the evening of 2 November, is waiting in front of the polling station, in front of the town hall, to hear the result, to hear how many have voted “yes” and how many have voted “no”. That is the cherry on the top. That contributes to much of the romanticism at election time. I want to address an urgent request to the hon. the Minister that this referendum should also be constituency-bound.

What is the reason, why can the results not be made known by constituency as in 1960? The results were broadcast on the radio late that night in 1960, and we were told that Welkom’s result had given South Africa the Republic. In the same way, the people of South Africa will also want to wait as a constituency to receive the results constituency by constituency. Surely the hon. the Minister would very much like to know to what extent the people of Vereeniging voted “yes”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Koedoespoort allowed to show me how he is going to slit my throat? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Koedoespoort perhaps have a knife in his hand? [Interjections.]

No, Sir. I was merely rubbing my forefinger across my throat.

The hon. member for Meyerton may proceed.

I want to put the following pertinent point to the hon. the Minister. In 1960, when we viewed the referendum with great earnestness, as we shall, this time, too, a very important group of people helped to determine the result which culminated in the establishment of the Republic of South Africa. I am referring to the voters of South West Africa. Since the Whites of South West Africa have always manned one of the important borders of South Africa militarily, economically and otherwise, particularly over the past 20 years, I request that they also be given the right to cast their vote on the occasion of this referendum. They should be allowed to vote either “yes” or “no” on this occasion.

I am in favour of the clause which forbids people to intimidate others to vote. There are organizations and institutions in the Transvaal that have never asked their staff in the past to which political party they belong, or told them that they are not permitted to participate in political activities, but since the establishment of the CP, we find that suddenly, after all these years, there are organizations and institutions that prohibit their staff and workers from participating in politics. I see the hon. the Minister is frowning, but I have proof and I shall give it to him in private.

I am also very much in favour of the clause dealing with opinion polls during a referendum campaign. Recently, we have had opinion poll upon opinion poll which have tried to influence the public. The public were told that the CP were going to lose Germiston District by a few thousand votes, the CP were going to lose Parys by a few thousand votes, the CP were going to lose Waterberg, the CP were going to lose outright in certain elections. The contrary was proved, however. I am therefore pleased that this clause appears in the Bill, although it is not as far-reaching as I would have liked it to be.

I wish to conclude. I am going back to 1960. When Dr. Verwoerd informed the people about the referendum in 1960, he said the following on the radio—

I hope that this time the leaders of each of the political parties will have the opportunity to put their case on television, as well as on the radio.

Mr. Speaker, you have had a great deal of experience, you have a clear mind and sound judgment. Consequently, I think you would agree with me when I tell you that since I only expected to make this speech tomorrow, and I left my speech at home in Acacia Park, I do not think I fared too badly this afternoon! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, as a person the hon. member for Meyerton is a very respected neighbour of mine in Akasia Park, and I believe him when he says that he forgot his speech at home. I think he will agree with me that the points he illustrated here about the CP’s objections were, here and there, of such a nature as to give us cause to believe him. He raised the points here about people in South West Africa, about where counting should take place and about opinion polls, an aspect in regard to which amendments were moved by the CP and the PFP, and those are points we can profitably debate further during the Committee Stage.

With this Referendum’s Bill we are actually on the threshold of one of the most important events in the history of South Africa. I think it would be correct to say that the coming referendum is infinitely more important to the White man in South Africa than the 1960 referendum. If there has ever been a period in our history when each of the White children of Black Africa has had to ask himself the searching question: “Where do we want to go?”, it is now with this referendum. As far as the governing party is concerned, it is of cardinal importance for every individual voter to cast his vote unhindered, unprejudiced and with the utmost possible ease, and he must specifically be able to do so because we believe that this referendum is tremendously important. The fact of the matter is—I say this on the strength of the background to the constitutional debate that we have conducted—that the NP did not need to go to the voters with a referendum. The fact that the Government party is indeed going to the voters with a referendum must be seen by members of the general public not only in the light of the Government’s faith in its own constitutional proposals, but specifically in the light of its absolute confidence in the fact that the people of South Africa have reached political maturity, in fact have reached the point where we can feel ourselves so much at liberty to put this big question to them.

Let us therefore tell the CP: The Government party is going to the South African electorate frankly, unequivocally and without any party politicking, and in the interests of their children’s future we ask all the voters in South Africa to vote, across party political lines, in the affirmative on the question we are going to put before them. In the present political struggle, let me tell the hon. members of the CP—I know it is not nice, least of all for me, to tell them this sort of thing—that the most unsavoury aspect, as far as I am concerned, has been that I and others on this side of the House have, from time to time, had to fight with people—at a very unpalatable level—with whom we would have preferred not to fight. In asking ourselves the fundamental question about the future, I am sure that everyone in this country, the PFP, the CP and everyone else, has certain common objectives that he wants to achieve in the interests of his children. So if, on the eve of the referendum confronting us, one says that one does not think that the CP, under the leadership of Dr. Treurnicht, is fighting for a better future, but is in fact fighting for a better past, it is said more in sadness, but nevertheless with absolute conviction.

Albert, you are a domesticated verligte.

The hon. member for Jeppe can say what he likes to any hon. member on this side. Each of us is what he is, and we do not have to explain to people what we are. We do not have to tell people how National we are or how proud we are of our identity, and we do not have to tell people how deeply we care for our children. People can see that. Let me tell the hon. member for Jeppe that if one has to tell people, as often as they do, how good one is, how strong one is and how strongly one feels about one’s identity, as far as I am concerned such a person’s bona fides is open to question. Since those hon. members are obviously striving for a better past, let me say that we and the other voters of South Africa will not allow ourselves and our children to be sold down the river in the coming referendum. I want to say that frankly. South Africa will not allow our children’s future to be sold down the river by the lopsided manner in which the hon. member for Waterberg and his people present thinks.

And if you lose?

If the “no” votes in the referendum are in the majority, the hon. member for Jeppe does not need to worry about this causing any problems for the NP. What would happen, in truth, would be an escalation of emotions amongst all groups in South Africa, on a scale that we in this country would scarcely be able to cope with. That is why we, as the governing party, say that it is with confidence that we are going to put that question to our people in the referendum. We know that in South Africa we have people who think about things, and anyone who knows and thinks about the fundamental problems is going to stand by us on the road ahead. We believe in our people’s good judgment. We believe that the White voters will realize the seriousness of the question being put to them. We are going to present the people with that question, in spite of the fact that we know that the CP obviously wants to make politics out of it. I want to tell the CP frankly that the NP does not intend to make the coming referendum a party-political issue. We put South Africa’s cause first. That is why we want everyone to be able to cast his vote in as easy and unprejudiced a manner as possible. The NP has confidence in its voters. In this measure we are making provision for the holding of further referendum’s on other matters in the future. What we are saying is that the object of the coming referendum is to give people the choice to answer the question we want to put to them, i.e. to have other people made partners in the South Africa political dispensation so that each individual and population group can eventually have something to lose. The man in the street will not allow himself to be side-tracked by CP propaganda in this debate.

The hon. member for Meyerton asked that the counting take place on a constituency basis. In the light of the hon. the Minister’s speech, I should like to refer to the 15 regions into which South Africa is going to be divided. I suspect that the CP merely wants to try to prove a political point. If there were to be more “no” votes than “yes” votes in Waterberg, this would, as they see things, perhaps promote their own party-political image. They should, however, make a study of how the following 15 regions have been divided up. The point they would like to prove, they will also be able to prove in this regional context. At present the number of voters per region is as follows—

If the hon. member for Pietersburg wanted to make party politics out of the result of the referendum in a certain region, I think he would also be able to do so in terms of this regional classification. I think the hon. member for Pietersburg and his colleagues are living in a dream-world if they really think that on 2 November 1983 the voters of South Africa would make as ridiculous a decision—affecting the interests of their children’s future—as that of voting “no”. History is not made by way of pessimistic or negative decisions. The history of a people—also now, in this referendum—is made by people who think positively. People who think and act positively are the ones who make history. History is made by people and governments who display intrepidness in the action they take, by people who are not politically power-hungry, but are like this Government which acts in a politically balanced and sensible manner in the interests of the future of all its people. Let us put it bluntly on this occasion: We as a Government believe that South Africa, the people of South Africa, have achieved that degree of political maturity which convinces us that we can put this big question—and also other questions in the future—about racial politics to them without having any qualms. I am quite convinced of the fact that the CP’s obsolete ideas involving the stirring up of emotions and relations politics in 1983 will no longer be swallowed by the voters. That era in South African politics, of telling people nice things because they want to hear nice things, is past. We now talk to people intellectually about the political issues of 1983, and we do so in the interests of our children. We have unshakable faith in our people.

The coming event is, of course, a great moment in the history of our people. In the Bill provision is being made for the votes cast in this referendum to be counted on a region-able basis. I want to ask hon. members of the CP what their reaction would be if a specific region, for example, the Cape region, and also other regions affected by their proposed Indian and Coloured homelands, overwhelmingly voted “yes”. Let us be honest. Would the CP then regard it as a rejection of their standpoint? Surely they would never do that. My contention is that regardless of the result of any referendum, hon. members in that party do not have the slightest interest in the acceptance of the democratic decision in terms of this measure. They are only interested in their own petty, party-political, so-called judgment. [Interjections.] The NP is past at all that. It is an intrepid Government that is going to the voters with this far-reaching question. It is a Government whose belief is resolute and inexorable. That is why it is so important for us to make it easy for our people to vote in our cities and rural areas.

I want to refer, in particular, to conducting the referendum in urban areas. If we were, for example, to count votes in Pretoria on a constituency basis, as the hon. member for Meyerton proposes, surely that hon. member knows that a constituency result would not be a true reflection of what had happened, because many voters in a constituency go to vote in the city. The point I want to make is that in my humble opinion the one argument of the CP, like all the other arguments, that we could more profitably carry the debate further in the Committee Stage, relates solely to the CP’s party-political activities.

[Inaudible.]

Both the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Jeppe must tell us in this debate whether they are satisfied with the question in the coming referendum. On the Order Paper there are PFP amendments which create the impression that they are dissatisfied with the question that is going to be put to the voters.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Rissik, who is now being so vociferous, is also free to tell us, in the course of this debate, whether the CP is satisfied with the question that is going to be put in the referendum. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Jeppe says that they are satisfied. I therefore now want to ask the hon. member for Jeppe what the CP’s standpoint will be after a specific democratic verdict has been given by the voters in the referendum?

We shall accept it, but the very next minute we shall continue the fight. [Interjections.]

In 1983 those hon. members are so obsessed with petty party-political advantage that they cannot adequately evaluate this moment that confronts us in our country’s history. With this measure we as a party want to make it easy for our people to get to the polling booths, want to facilitate their voting by giving them an opportunity to use an identity document. We want to give our people an opportunity to have an independent say, divorced from party-political interference and CP intrigue.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we in this House must not be late for our appointment with the future merely because we have been delayed by the past. The Government is going to employ this referendum, not in order to be late for the future because of having been delayed by the past, but to be on time in the interests of our children. We are going to accept the responsibility and ask our voters to stand by us. We are going to accept the responsibility so that the Whites and the other people in this country are not sold down the river by an Opposition party like the CP which stirs up racial emotions, a party which is not interested in the issue at hand, but is merely interested in its own, and let me say implausible, party-political advantage.

With these few words I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy a speech from the hon. member for Innesdal. It is invariably a rousing speech and he always rises with a wad of notes in his hand and one thinks that he is perhaps going to talk for two hours. But he very, very rarely refers to those notes. He usually puts down the wad intact and here today he has done just that and also given us a typical, rousing message from Innesdal which I think really belongs to the Third Reading of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill. I do not think that it belongs to this Bill at all.

It has been said by the hon. the Minister and others that South Africa is approaching a most crucial era in its history and I believe that 2 November will see a referendum that will decide once and for all whether we are going to opt for change or whether we are going to maintain the status quo, and heaven help us if we do. That is enough of politics in my speech!

In our history we have had two referendum’s. We had one in Natal prior to Union and, of course, we had the referendum of 1960, where we had to decide whether or not South Africa would become a Republic. The referendum we are discussing now has been on the cards for some time, and last year a comprehensive Bill was passed by this House which covered every aspect—or so we thought then—of a referendum and possibly referendum’s in the future. But since the passage of that Bill and since it became an Act during the latter half of last year, there appears to have been a new approach, a number of new ideas that have emerged. In the main I would suggest that these new ideas seem to revolve around the usage of the identity document as a “ticket” to vote. I agree that there is possibly a feeling that there must be a change in methodology, and I want to say that we in this party appreciate very much the vital difference that there is between a referendum and an election. We appreciate that a referendum can really be described as a giant-sized opinion poll, whereas in an election we are electing members to this hon. House on a constituency basis. But having regard to all that, I want to add that we do to a great extent appreciate the new ideas. I must say however, that we do not appreciate and we do not approve of the way that this Bill is framed in that we see it as a Bill that seeks to set out the regulations by way of proclamation while we believe that the greater bulk of the regulations should be embodied in the Bill itself as is the practice and has been the practice in legislation of this type in the past. We believe it is not practical to embody all the regulations but we do believe that the scope of such regulations for the holding of a referendum should be far more clearly defined than they are in the measure now before the House. To illustrate my argument, I refer to clause 4(1)(c), which is, I think, a classic example of what I am really talking about. In terms of clause 4(1)(c) the State President is given the right to make regulations relating to the appointment of agents for organizations having an interest in a referendum. Let us pause for a moment and look at that stipulation. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister indeed told us that a set of regulations has been put before the Select Committee which considered the Bill.

In that set of regulations, which, in terms of the ruling of the Select Committee, we could not discuss, provision was made for referendum agents to be appointed by each party, and for each division to have four subagents. That is what was embodied in those regulations. Now the hon. the Minister has announced—and I think that is common cause because he also said so in his Second Reading speech—that there will now be one referendum agent for the “yes” votes and one for the “no” votes. We have no argument with that. We have no difficulty with that. Furthermore there will be nine subagents for each referendum agent. I think that is the intention. I do not think I am letting the cat out of the bag by saying this. Notice however, Mr. Speaker, the difference. There is a vast difference between these two issues. This is also my point.

I am merely using that one stipulation in clause 4 in order to illustrate my argument. There are also other examples of where the parameters of this measure are far too wide, and we believe there should be a more clearly defined scope; more clearly defined limitations within which regulations may be framed. That is the whole gravamen of our objection to this Bill.

Clause 1 is the only clause in respect of which we veer to the opposite. Clause 1 embodies the definitions. While in general principle, as I have already said, we seek to limit the scope of this measure, clause 1 is one instance in which we do indeed want to broaden the scope, particularly in respect of the definition of a voter.

I do not intend to dwell on items contained in the various clauses because I believe that the Committee Stage of the Bill is the time in which one should do that. I do, however, merely want to illustrate my point by saying that we believe the term “voter” should include all citizens over the age of 18 years who are not disqualified from being voters in terms of the Electoral Act. When I say this, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out too that the hon. the Minister himself in fact lent substance to my argument by what he said in his Second Reading speech. He said, and I quote—

In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister was saying—I believe that is what he is really saying to us—that a group of people in a particular area could be tested by way of an opinion poll of a referendum. If that is his aim, I believe he must grant the ability to have such referendum to every person who qualifies for the vote in terms of the Electoral Act and who is over the age of 18 years. We will therefore move an amendment accordingly during the Committee Stage.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are those clauses in respect of which, we believe, the scope could be more clearly defined, and other than minor points we have little criticism in respect of all the other remaining clauses. I must add too that in respect of the penalties prescribed in this Bill the hon. the Minister can rest assured that he has the whole-hearted support of all hon. members of this party. We do not believe that any penalty can really be severe enough, and therefore I agree whole-heartedly with what the hon. member for Tygervallei said in respect of the penalties which are applicable in terms of the British system, where postal votes virtually go through the mail because the English voter knows full well that there is a substantial penalty in he should in any way try to contravene the law.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister admitted in his speech that the practice of embodying as much detail in respect of elections of referendum’s in our laws, has—and I want to quote his own words—“certain merits”. We believe that this Bill falls far short as far as those merits are concerned. It is in this regard that we believe that the Bill does not meet the requirements of good legislation. Nowhere is provision made for those who for a multitude of reasons may not possess identity documents. I said earlier that it would appear that the whole system is changing because of the idea of using the identity document particularly during the coming referendum. However, as I say, nowhere is any provision made for those who do not possess identity documents, and this is something which we believe should be closely examined. With all due respect, no department is infallible. There could be postal delays in receiving documents and in sending applications to people, and we only have two months left. There is also the question of what I may term stubbornness and pure “cussedness” on the part of certain people. We all know that, and those people should be provided for. We would want to suggest that they should be provided for only at the polling stations where they are registered as voters. We believe that that fact could dissuade any person from trying any “vemeukery”, if I may use that expression. If the voters does not have an identity document then, in order to ensure that every voter is able to vote, he should be permitted to put in a declared vote or a vote of some such kind at the polling station at which he is a registered voter. That should be the only way that such a person could vote.

The hon. the Minister motivated his case in respect of the need for counting votes in electoral divisions, and I want to say that this was contrary to the ease with which his predecessor presented the case a year ago for the counting of votes, not only in constituencies but actually in polling divisions. This was only a year ago.

That would have been based on the voters’ roll.

That’s as may be. We adhere to our stand in this respect. The hon. member for Umbilo spelt it out very clearly during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I also want to say that we shall be moving an amendment at the Committee Stage and I am sure that my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, will take issue once again with the hon. the Minister in respect of this matter.

I also said in my opening remarks that we are facing a critical era in our history owing to the referendum to be held on 2 November. I want to say most sincerely that we in the NRP hope that every effort will be made to ensure that all South Africans will be able to cast their vote on that day. That is the reason why I have made certain suggestions. We do have sympathy for the fact that the Government is seeking to do just that by means of this legislation. However, we cannot support the Bill for the simple reason that it will then become an Act on our Statute Books for future referendum’s, and therein lies the danger of the almost unlimited scope given in respect of regulations. Because of this, Sir, I wish to move the following further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, for a while I hoped that it would not be necessary to cross swords with the hon. member for Umhlanga because I agreed whole-heartedly with him as regards his initial statement emphasizing the difference between a referendum and an election and describing a referendum as an opinion poll on a gigantic scale. However, when he appealed for a constituency-linked referendum, in my opinion he fell into the same trap that speakers from the other two Opposition parties fell into, because they are thinking of a referendum or opinion poll in the idiom of an election, and in these days of change as far as the constitutional dispensation is concerned, they are thinking in the old idiom with regard to the times we are moving towards in a new dispensation.

The hon. member for Meyerton referred to the fact that in the course of 74 years we have only had three referendum’s in South Africa. I maintain that this is understandable in the situation we have had thus far, in which the British, the Westminster or the so-called two party system has operated in a basically homogeneous electorate—note, I said a homogeneous electorate and not a homogeneous population.

As we all know, the British system is one of “winner takes all” and for that reason there has not really been any need for regular opinion polls or referendum’s. At a given time the people pass judgment on the majority party in the country, regarding who is to constitute the government in the country, and after that, up to and including the next general election, it is really a case of “winner takes all”. In fact, therefore, there are few reasons to hold a referendum under the Westminster system, except as was the case in 1960, and again now, when one is considering such a major step that one deems it politically advisable to ascertain the opinion of the electorate as a whole. However, there is no real necessity for a referendum in the present dispensation.

What we are seeking here, and what I feel we have gone a long way towards achieving in this legislation, is a form of testing different to that which is necessitated by a general election, a form of testing which conveniently, easily and quickly gives a reliable picture of the opinion of the population as a whole. It has to be made reliable, but also easier than the fairly tedious procedure for the election of a government, where one is dealing with representation on the basis of constituencies. By means of this legislation we are succeeding, at far shorter notice and with far less red tape with regard to both the State machinery and the voter’s role in such a test, in gaining a reliable picture of what the people decide.

We are now entering a situation in which we are no longer going to have a homogeneous electorate. As a matter of fact we are entering a dispensation in which we shall have a consensus-type government, but in that government there is nevertheless the possibility of a conflict situation among three different electorates. The Constitution Bill, the Committee Stage of which we have just completed, in fact provides for the handling of such a conflict situation. When conflict arises among the three Houses in the new dispensation, that conflict will be on a point of dispute and that dispute will not be as to whether the NP is the majority party in the White House, or whether the Labour party or the Freedom party is the majority party in the Coloured House or whether some party is the majority party in the Indian House; it will be on a specific matter. Particularly when there is a need for a real opinion poll among White voters, Coloured voters and Asian voters, and one has to go to those voters by way of a general election, that would be tedious, unnecessary and misleading in respect of the question on which a, decision must be given. That is why I believe that we have to have a new approach to our testing methods. There will always have to be elections. A Government for the country will always have to be elected at regular intervals.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether provision should be made for joint elections for all three of the groups on a specific matter on a specific day?

That is for the Government of the day to decide. Our entire approach on this side is based on the recognition of the existence of separate groups. That is why the new dispensation consists of a tricameral Parliament.

As far as this form of testing is concerned, one can also consider the position in other countries. Here I have Switzerland in mind in particular, where an opinion, poll, referendum, is a common event, without its leading to any decision at all on who the Government of the day is to be. I therefore believe that this can be developed into a valuable aid in settling disagreements, because it will be easy for the majority party in a House to ascertain how its people feel about a specific issue without its needing to go to the electorate on each occasion in order to decide who should be in, power in that House. Let me give an example. Today we are envisaging two new branches of the legislative authority, but no-one here today knows how many political parties will be represented in the two Houses. It is possible that in the Coloured or Indian Houses we may have a number of parties. Here in the White House we already have four parties represented. It is also possible that there may be co-operation among various parties in a specific House which will make it extremely difficult to judge how the voters of that population group feel about a specific point at issue. I want to suggest that this form of testing, this way of obtaining a verdict from what the Romans called vox populi, vox Dei, the will of the people is the voice of God, can be developed as a valuable aid which can be of great assistance to the Government of the day in the new dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the hon. member for Umlazi, particularly his points about opinion polls. I would suggest that he does not get too excited about opinion polls, because they have been known to be wrong in the past. I think particularly of one done by the Sunday Times some months ago at the time of the battle of “die Berge” when there was a headline in the Sunday Times: “No, no, no to Dr. No in Waterberg”.

You have completely misunderstood my point.

They were wrong. So these opinion polls can be wrong. They have been in the past and, of course, they might very well be in the future. One should therefore not worry too much about them.

I want to refer to the comments made by the hon. Chief Whip of the NP—I am sorry that he is not here now. In his opening remarks he said it is difficult to negotiate with the PFP and that in the Select Committee he found the members of the PFP on that committee to be totally rigid and not open to any suggestions or to consensus. I find that very strange, because the real reason for our existence and the whole basis of our policy is one of negotiation and consultation, It is all very well to use words, but what are the facts, what actually happened? A draft Bill was published, which was referred to the Select Committee. When it came out of that Select Committee, there were three changes. One was in clause 2 on page 2, in line 30, to omit “date” and to substitute “day or consecutive days”. The second was in clause 2 on page 2, in line 35, to omit the second “the” and to substitute “a” The third change was in clause 6 on page 8, in line 27, after the first “or” to insert “wilfully”. I would not say that those were substantial changes to the Bill and I wonder how he can justify his claim that the PFP was not willing to negotiate or to try and reach consensus when we in fact moved many and substantial amendments in that Select Committee.

The whole concept of a referendum, or a series of referenda, is a good one; It is, after all, the ultimate test of the will of the people, and as such the concept of a referendum will have the support of all fair minded people. We are in favour of the principle of a referendum to test the feelings of the population with regard to the constitutional proposals of the NP. However, our concern is that, because the Government has not allowed a full debate on all the clauses to take place in Parliament and the SABC may not allow an adequate debate on radio and television, a certain amount of confusion may exist in the minds of the voters of South Africa as to the options they are facing, and not only the options, but the whole concept of a referendum itself.

The whole issue of whether we would have a referendum or not has hung in the balance for some time. To begin with, the hon. the Prime Minister announced that a referendum would be necessary only if there were drastic changes to the 1977 proposals of the NP. In September 1982 he announced at the Free State congress of the NP that there was no need for a referendum. However, on 31 March 1983, as Budget day was drawing to a close, he stole the hon. the Minister of Finance’s thunder and startled politicians all over the country and announced that a referendum would indeed take place. Speculation was that there was a serious difference of opinion between the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Be that as it may. Less than a month later, when it became obvious that the canvass results from the Berge were not as good as had been hoped for, it was suddenly discovered that we had a drought and the referendum was postponed. However, a few days ago the hon. the Prime Minister announced that climatic conditions and prospects in large parts of the country had improved to such an extent that we could now have a referendum.

Do you welcome the referendum?

I said we do. I am talking about the concept of a referendum. There is confusion in the minds of the public. If the hon. the Minister would listen, I hope to develop my case in that regard. Prospects in large parts of the country have improved to such an extent that we are now going to have a referendum. In passing I want to mention that on the same day as the hon. the Prime Minister announced the referendum, the hon. the Minister of Finance had his revenge, so to speak. He was in Bloemfontein that day addressing the annual congress of the Vrystaatse Landbou-unie. He laid heavy emphasis on the extent of the drought. Only yesterday we had the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries quoted on the front page of Die Transvaler saying that the drought is much worse than it was in 1933. Not only is there confusion concerning the reasons for the referendum, but I want to submit that there will be a great deal of confusion in the minds of the voters concerning the proposed new system.

Voters have grown accustomed to the well-known and familiar system of voting in an election controlled by a voters’ roll. I am not saying that we should not change the system. A good case could be made out for modernizing the whole voting procedure. What I am concerned about is the haste with which this new system is being proceeded with. Voters have to be led into a new system of voting gently, and they have to be led by the hand. The average man in the street simply does not know about the contemplated procedures or what is expected of him. So, an example, let me quote you a voter to whom I spoke only yesterday. She asked me whether she now had to apply for a new book of life in order to vote in the referendum. She has a book of life, but she has been reading the papers, as most people in the street do, and she was under the impression that she had to apply for a new Book of Life to vote in the referendum. This was in response to the announcements of the hon. the Minister and his department. She was of the opinion that it was a requirement for the referendum for her to obtain an additional identity document. I am not suggesting that the hon. the Minister or his department is at fault in regard to the announcements they have made and the calls they have made for people to apply for their books of life. I am merely pointing out that the public, even those who only have a passing interest in matters political, are confused about what is required of them.

I also want to raise another serious problem. In answer to a question yesterday the hon. the Minister advised the House that almost 160 000 registered voters were not in possession of their identity documents and would therefore not be allowed to vote on 2 November. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any effort is being made by his department to trace those 160 000 voters, other than the announcements he has made in this House.

We have already written to them.

Were they urged to apply for their documents?

How do you know where they are?

We wrote to those whose addresses we had. I think it was in June.

I hope when he replies, the hon. the Minister will advise the House of the response that he has had from those people and also whether any further effort is being made to enfranchise those South Africans. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us now what the response was?

I will come to that in my reply.

The hon. the Minister should also tell us, if the response has been inadequate, what further measures he is going to take to ensure that those South Africans will be enfranchised.

I will give you a list so that you can get them …

You do your own job and we will do ours.

It is a very important principle. We in this party cannot be expected to give our support to a measure that will deprive South Africans of their vote. We will therefore register our strongest opposition to this particular aspect of the legislation when we get to the Committee Stage.

Our main objection, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point—of course, we will debate this later in the Committee Stage as well—is to clause 4, where almost every detail concerning the referendum is to be controlled by regulation. This is quite a breathtaking development. One plays a game of rugby or cricket and knows exactly what the rules are. One can go on to the field and know exactly what is required of one because the rules have been there for some time and have been tried and tested and are set out in easy form so that everybody can know exactly what they are. Knowledge of fundamental aspects of the referendum are being denied to us. We are not aware of the regulations. Some of the draft regulations that were handed to hon. members of the Select Committee have been changed, as has been pointed out. We believe this is a vital flaw in the Bill.

Sir, I want to proceed to another aspect but I am wondering whether you are watching the clock.

The hon. member may proceed.

The aspect which I want to raise concerns the whole question of secrecy. In an ordinary election one goes along to a polling-booth and is issued with a ballot-paper and one’s voting number as recorded on the voting list is recorded on the stub of the book that contains the ballot paper.