Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react briefly to a few things the hon. the Minister said in reply to the Second Reading debate in this House. It is, of course, with your permission that I do so, Mr. Chairman. I refer to one of the most important considerations on which, as we have mentioned, our opposition to this Bill is based. It is that people who have just been registered as voters will be disenfranchised by the proposed new system with a view to the coming referendum. In this connection I just want to re-emphasize that what the statements we actually made amounted to was not merely that there would now be more people who will be able to vote on the basis of a voters’ roll than would be the case if people voted on the basis of an identity document. The statement we actually made, was that thus far people have been aware that if they are registered as voters, they are entitled to participate in elections, as well as referendums, of course, whenever these take place. We also pointed out that that confidence people had in the past would no longer apply in the circumstances under discussion. I am merely mentioning this in order to throw light on our standpoint regarding the legislation under discussion.

In fact, the most important aspect is the question of how many people are going to participated is referendum and how many of the people who are indeed going to vote, really deserve to vote in the referendum. In this regard the hon. the Minister quite rightly remarked that more names of people appear on the Population Register than appear on the voters’ rolls throughout the country. In reaction to this, therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if the information now on the Population Register were to be transferred to the voters’ rolls—in terms of the 1982 amending Act—this would not lead to more people voting. When I asked this question before the hon. the Minister admitted that this would in fact be the case. I believe that in the final instance, this is an indication that our motion to the effect that we should adhere to the present legislation, is entirely valid. The same applies to our argument that the voters’ roll can be supplemented, in terms of the existing legislation, with information from the Population Register. If this were to be done, the greatest possible number of people would be afforded the opportunity to vote, and at the same time no one whose name appears on the voters’ roll at the moment would be disfranchised. Under these circumstances we would also afford the department concerned the opportunity to devote its time to the actual preparation of the structure of the referendum instead of trying to issue as many identity documents as possible at breakneck speed and with the utmost difficulty.

We therefore stand by our argument that, from that point of view, we still believe that the decision not to hold the referendum on the basis of constituencies is and remains a political decision. The only other reasons given were that we are now doing away with the system of postal and special votes. I believe that Opposition parties would display an accommodating spirit if the governing party were to propose statutory amendments whereby the system of postal and special votes could perhaps be facilitated. For example, there is already a difference, in the sense that the present legislation on referendums does not make provision for postal votes, but only for special votes. If we were to further facilitate or streamline the system, I am sure this party would be sympathetic. However, we are not prepared simply to throw overboard the existing system, a system which is the product of many years of practical experience.

We also believe that the legislation under discussion may lend itself to abuse, particularly because virtually all the essential aspects it covers can be dealt with by way of regulation. This is another reason why we are not at all happy with it.

Another very important statement the hon. the Minister made was that the Government had no objection in principle to Black communities participating in a referendum, but that such a referendum would have to take place by virtue of legislation which would have to be introduced in this House by another department, or would even have to be administered by a different authority. This standpoint attests to an administrative and political inflexibility and an ideological committedness which we on this side of the House can never approve of. I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 4. On page 2, from line 10, to omit paragraph (iv).

We move that “this Act” as defined in the clause, be deleted, because we do not want to create the impression, as is being done at present here, that in fact “this Act” includes the regulations. If there is a reference to the Act, we want it to be clear that it refers only to the Act. If there are further references, they ought to be defined in the Bill in the words “this Act and regulations made in terms thereof”. We are dissatisfied specifically because too much is being left to regulations in this legislation. We do not want to make matters worse by trying to create the impression that things that are actually being dealt with by regulation, in fact have legal force and effect in the normal or narrower sense of the word.

Mr. Chairman, we indicated very clearly during the Second Reading what our feelings were in connection with the Bill before us. I want to confine myself to my amendment to clause 1, as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 2, from line 14, to omit paragraph (vi) and to substitute:

Clause 1 deals with the definitions and paragraph (vi) in the English text deals with the definition of “voter”. As the Bill reads at the moment, the “voter” is somewhat restricted. Although we have said that we believe that in general the scope of the Bill is not restricted sufficiently, here we believe the exact opposite applies. We believe that, now that the principle of the Bill has been accepted, we should seek to enlarge the scope of the definition of “voter”. Hence my amendment.

The hon. the Minister has himself indicated that there will certainly be occasions when people other than South African citizens may be called upon to express a point of view in a referendum; such a referendum may possibly apply to a certain part or area of our country. If we are going to have a Bill which is going to be used not only for the forthcoming referendum but for all referenda, to use the correct plural, which may be held in the future in South Africa, then, equally, we should have a definition of “voter” that could apply to everybody but would be restricted in the proclamation and by regulation to the particular group of people who would take part in a referendum at a particular time. It may be argued that in the future it could well happen that one would want to canvass Black opinion. One may want to canvass Zulu opinion. One may want to canvass the opinion of the citizens of, say, Soweto. One may want to canvass the Portuguese community in South Africa.

My amendment would enable the hon. the Minister and the department to do this, in that one can simply say in the regulations who the people are whom it is intended to canvass and who the people are who can come forward in a referendum to state their opinion. We are, therefore, not seeking to do anything strange here. We are not seeking to do anything other than make it easier to work within a set of regulations. At the moment there is a certain restriction in the regulations as they are currently framed in that a “voter” means—

It is therefore rather restricted. We believe there should be more scope so that more people can be involved in referenda if the occasion should require it. I believe there is merit in the amendment, and I sincerely hope it will meet with the approval of the hon. the Minister and the support of other parties in the House.

Mr. Chairman, the CP is by no means able to associate itself with clause 1, since this clause gives expression to the Government’s new policy of one nation in South Africa. The clause provides that by making regulations various groups can be thrown together in a referendum. For this reason, the CP can by no means support this clause. Nor are we in favour of using the word “referendum” in the Afrikaans text, and I am therefore moving a motion to the effect that the word “volkstemming” be substituted in the Afrikaans text. At this stage, I should therefore like to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. In the Afrikaans text, on page 3, in line 9, and wherever else it occurs in the Bill, to omit “referendum” and to substitute “volkstemming”.
2. 3. On page 2, in line 19, to omit all the words after “who” up to and including “referendum” in line 21 and to substitute:

Whites, Coloureds and Indians can be grouped together as voters by way of regulation to give an opinion on a particular matter. The object of my first amendment, particularly in respect of important matters such as, for example, the new constitution, is that South African citizens should decide, and not merely …

Not merely who?

Not merely a group of people. [Interjections.] This is a regulation. Apparently the hon. member for Pretoria Central is satisfied for the country to be ruled by way of regulations. The CP is not satisfied with that. Nor has the CP got any confidence in the regulations made by the Government, or in the Government’s undertakings. [Interjections.]

This legislation had not even been introduced in the House of Assembly, when the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs had already announced certain regulations. We only disposed of the Second Reading on Friday, but Die Burger of 2 September already contained a report under the headline: “KP en PFP in een span by die stembus”. Inter alia, the hon. the Minister said in the report that the parties would be compelled to reach an agreement on the organization of the “no” vote in a constituency. According to the report, the hon. the Minister also said that the decision of the Government would mean that there would only be one “yes” agent and one “no” agent in each constituency. He also said that each chief agent would be entitled to have nine assistants. In other words, before the legislation had been passed by Parliament, the hon. the Minister had already said which regulations he was going to make. We have no confidence in the Government…

What was wrong with announcing the regulations?

… because the hon. the Minister makes regulations to the benefit of his party. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said in advance that there would be only one “yes” chief agent and one “no” chief agent and that cards would be made available to only one group of people.

There cannot be two “noes”.

But there are different political organizations in this country that want to oppose this montrous constitution for different reasons. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister makes use of regulations for political gain in advance.

My second amendment is aimed at permitting citizens of the Republic of South Africa who live in the Republic or in South West Africa to vote in the referendum. The citizens of the Republic of South Africa who live in South West Africa helped make South Africa a free and independent Republic in the 1960 referendum.

That has already been debated, Jan. We all agree.

The hon. member for Roodeberg has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I know the principle has been accepted.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Hon. members opposite have been referring to the hon. member for Roodeplaat as the hon. member for Roodeberg for some time now. I think it is mockery to refer to the hon. member by that name.

Order! Did the hon. member for Kuruman purposely refer to the hon. member for Roodeplaat in that way?

No, Sir. It was a slip of the tongue. I apologize. I said that the citizens of South West Africa helped make South Africa a Republic in 1960, and South Africa is their fatherland, too. It is my contention that they should vote in this election. Their future is greatly affected by the decisions of this Parliament, and if a referendum is to be held which is to alter the composition of this Parliament, a Parliament that has to decide on the future of South West Africa, I believe that they should be closely involved.

I wish to quote from the speech Mr. Kosie Pretorius made in the Legislative Assembly in South West Africa. He said the following—

He speaks here of “just as integral a part of South Africa”. We want them to have a say, too, when we have to make a decision concerning this Parliament, which, in turn, has to decide on their future. It is our contention that they should also have a say in that regard.

The former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, said the following to the hon. member for Simonstown in 1977—

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information had the following to say on 6 July 1979—

In reply to a question from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said the following—

However, to this day there has never been a clear statement with regard to this matter. The hon. the Minister who participated in that debate as an ordinary member at that time gave the people of South West Africa certain guarantees. Mr. Kosie Pretorius said in his speech—

That is the present hon. Minister of Internal Affairs—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman asked whether the enfranchised people of South West Africa would be able to vote in the forthcoming referendum. I think the hon. member for Walvis Bay, who is an expert in this field, and who can speak about that matter with a great deal more understanding of, and insight into, the facts, will reply to the hon. member for Kuruman shortly.

The hon. member for Kuruman commenced his argument on this clause on the basis of his amendment that Whites, Coloureds and Indians should be mentioned separately in this clause, since, as he put it, the clause as it stands at present, embraces the concept of one nation. The CP wants to draw a clear distinction between the separate groups.

If one looks at the provisions of clause 1, it is very clear that referendums on various issues can be held among Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Since the hon. member has spoken about separate referendums among the various population groups, I want to point out to him that this clause does not exclude that possibility.

Our problem with the hon. member for Kuruman and his party is that they have such an absolutist view of South Africa, that they cannot even accept that there could be a question, such as one which has to be put to the voters in a particular referendum, which transcends all barriers. In fact, we have to contend with a situation in the forthcoming referendum to which we can rightly refer in terms of this clause. According to what the hon. the Prime Minister said, the question pertaining to the forthcoming referendum can be put to the three population groups separately.

And jointly.

And jointly. I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that when we consider this clause, I believe we in South Africa have reached the stage of political maturity when we are able to put specific issues to the people which encompass the interests of all groups in this racially, ethnically and community complex country. We on this side of the Committee are not afraid to take a particular issue, issues of common interest as well, as in the case of the forthcoming referendum, and put them to the voters, the people who we believe will be directly affected, although it could be at different time.

This proves that in 1983 we in South Africa believe that democracy is a totally comprehensive concept, we believe that we should make all peoples and all communities in South Africa participants in democracy.

That is unclear.

If the hon. member for Rissik thinks that it is unclear when the Government is telling everyone frankly and clearly that we believe that all people in South Africa should be made part of the democratic process, then the hon. member for Rissik and I do not understand one another. [Interjections.] I believe that, besides a referendum such as the forthcoming one on constitutional matters, there will, in future, also be many other issues in certain parts of the country that we can put to people in general, as the clause provides, or to one particular group. In my opinion, the policy of a homeland for the Coloureds advocated by the hon. member for Kuruman is something which could also be put to the voters, but I have somewhat of a problem with the hon. member and hon. members of the CP in the forthcoming constitutional referendum as well. My problem is that they are not at all interested in the forthcoming expression of democracy. The other day the hon. member for Jeppe said by way of an interjection that once the voters had given their decision on the particular question in the forthcoming referendum, they would come back and resume the battle immediately.

Yes, of course.

It is therefore my contention, since we are discussing the forthcoming referendum, that democracy does not count as much with hon. members of the CP and the PFP as their personal, petty political interests.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I have an idea he is really digressing too far from the clause.

Sir, I shall abide by your ruling. I think you are quite correct, but I was simply reacting to what the hon. member for Kuruman said about nationhood. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Kuruman asked the hon. member for Pretoria Central whether we were satisfied to govern by way of regulations. We find ourselves on the eve of a particular referendum; and the hon. the Minister expressly told hon. members of the CP and the PFP in his Second Reading speech that regulations that would be announced in terms of the clause would be streamlined. He also said, however, that he would permit all the Opposition parties to make inputs.

I ask hon. members of the CP, and the hon. member for Kuruman in particular, if a Government should come forward with a provision in terms of which it wants to make regulations whereby a referendum is to be arranged, and those regulations are obviously to the benefit of the Government party, do they not think that the voters would be extremely prejudiced against the Government party? The whole object of this referendum is to make it possible for every voter, whether it be a PFP voter, a CP voter, an AWB voter, a Kappie voter, etc., to air their views in a fair manner. I want to reiterate that we are not holding a referendum on 2 November because we are afraid to put a question to the voters, but because we feel free to do so. Consequently, we have to insert the provision with regard to regulations so as to give it the necessary flexibility, to allow everyone to be able to vote with the maximum amount of ease. I want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman whether he really meant it when he claimed that if the CP were to go to the hon. the Minister beforehand, as they said they would do, the hon. the Minister would not listen to them and would not give his attention to what they requested as regards the regulations.

The hon. member also referred to the appointment of only one referendum agent. As a person who has held elections before, I want to ask him whether it is not ridiculous that there should be two referendum agents for the no votes and two for the yes votes. After all, one cannot hold a referendum in this way in practice. I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument in this regard.

The hon. member for Kuruman also moved an amendment to omit the word “referendum” and to substitute the word “volkstemming” in the Afrikaans text. It is clear to us on this side of the House that they wish to effect this amendment so as to fan emotions. The CP are of the opinion—and this is what they tell the public at large—that they represent the people. When the hon. member for Waterberg rises to speak, he speaks of “our people”. He speaks only of the Afrikaner, as though his party has the monopoly on Afrikaners in this country. It is my contention that the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman is ostensibly aimed at trying to exploit Afrikaner emotions. The word “referendum” is a word that has already become established in the language of the people. The CP need only go and read the newspaper reports since the announcement of the referendum and they would see that the word “referendum” has become firmly established in the language of the people. Everyone in South Africa knows precisely what we mean when we speak of a “referendum”. I have a report with me, which I do not have the time to quote now, which indicates how the hon. member for Lichtenburg tried to fan emotions at a recent meeting with the word “volkstemming”, and by saying hon. the people (volk), should vote. In view of this, I am justified in saying that we cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman concerning the insertion of the word “volkstemming”. The CP simply want to fan emotions, and are not at all interested in the term “referendum”. I should like to refer the hon. member for Kuruman to the Afrikaans text of Hansard, col. 101, of 20 January 1960, when Dr. Verwoerd announced the previous referendum. He said—

I have with me some definitions from the Afrikaanse Verklarende Woordeboek, as well as from a number of experts, which indicate that the word “referendum” and the word “volkstemming” are absolutely synonymous. When we go to the voters, we do not only go to the Afrikaans-speaking voters. It is accepted in the language of the people in 1983, and it is fitting, that when we go to the White voters, we speak of a “referendum”, which means “volkstemming”, but it is a more comprehensive and better definition and includes all people. It does not have as all-inclusive—I am inclined say exclusive—an Afrikaner connotation, as the hon. member for Kuruman wants to attach to the term.

I therefore want to conclude by saying that this amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman is petty party politics, which is not fitting in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal can make accusations about petty party political gain if he wishes. The hon. member quoted a passage from Hansard when Dr. Verwoerd announced in 1960 that he was going to put the question to the people. To which people did Dr. Verwoerd put the question? I am asking the hon. member for Innesdal: To which people did Dr. Verwoerd put the question?

In the same broad context as we are doing today.

Then surely the hon. member must support my argument.

Which people?

The hon. member for Kimberley South is asking “Which people”? Which people did Dr. Verwoerd mean in 1960 when he said that the question would be put to the people? Which people did he mean?

He put the question to the Afrikaner.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation says that he put the question to the Afrikaner.

You are misinterpreting the word “people” (“volk”).

He said that he was putting the question to the people. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, is claiming that it was only the Afrikaner people. When Dr. Verwoerd said that he was going to put the question to the people, he meant the White voters of South Africa. When the CP says that the question should be put to the people, we mean the Whites of South Africa. When Mr. Speaker refers in the parliamentary prayer to “Ons is hier vergader as verteenwoordigers van die volk”, he does not only mean the Afrikaner. He means the White people assembled in this Parliament. The hon. member for Innesdal may as well accept the amendment, since he says that Dr. Verwoerd meant the White people of this country. Consequently, I think he may as well support the amendment that this Bill be called “Die Wetsontwerp op Volkstemmings” in Afrikaans. The hon. member also said that we should make it possible for every voter to vote in this referendum. We should also like this to be the case. What is so wrong with each political party asking the hon. the Minister to give every party a referendum agent?

The AWB as well?

If the AWB is a party, give them an agent, too.

And the HNP?

The HNP as well. We are fighting this forthcoming referendum together. Hon. members on that side of the House think that the voters of South Africa are so stupid that they can lead them to believe that the CP and the PFP are going to work together in the forthcoming referendum. For different reasons we are saying…

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the matters to which the hon. member is referring now, are not contained in clause 1. Furthermore, I wish to point out to the hon. member that the question of referendum officers will only come up for discussion under clause 4.

The hon. member for Innesdal referred to the regulations, and it is provided in the regulations that the Minister can declare by way of regulation that a certain number of cards be issued to voting agents. We are asking that they be issued to all participating parties. The arguments the hon. member for Innesdal advanced are therefore completely irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member for Kuruman, one thing is very clear to me, and that is that the CP are ashamed of their bedfellows. I can understand the dilemma they find themselves in, since I would also be ashamed of such bedfellows. [Interjections.]

I want to refer more specifically to the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman, asking for the inclusion of all citizens of South Africa, as well as the citizens who live in South West Africa. I always feel nostalgic and sad when South West Africa and its people are mentioned.

Yes, I believe in your sadness.

It is a vast country of which the hon. member for De Aar knows very little.

What do the people of South West Africa say?

South West Africa is a country of tough and hardy people, but they are also hospitable people. It is where I live, and because I live there, I think I have more understanding of, and sensitivity towards, the feelings of the people who live there. I understand their joys and sorrows better. I find it odd that the CP profess to be the champions of the Whites of South West. During the Second Reading debate on this measure, the hon. member for Meyerton again requested the participation of the Whites of South West in this referendum. The hon. the Minister gave him a clear reply, a reply with which I wish to associate myself. The hon. member for Kuruman pointed out that the Whites of South West were able to participate in the 1960 referendum, and I was one of them. It is true, but South West Africa was still represented in this House at that time.

And now you are selling out the Whites of South West.

I am pleased that in a conversation with the hon. the Minister, I was able to gain the assurance … [Interjections.] It is true that there are many voters in South West Africa who qualify for this referendum and who will be able to vote, providing that they present themselves at a polling station somewhere in the Republic on that day. The address at the back of their book of life will indicate whether or not they can vote.

We held an election in Walvis Bay on 2 November last year. Hon. members will recall that Walvis Bay, Stellenbosch and Parys held elections on that date. The hon. member for Kuruman was in charge of the CP’s campaign in Walvis Bay, and the hon. member knows that hundreds of South West Africans participated in that election. He also knows that many South West Africans participated in the Battle of the Bergs. No voter who was qualified to vote, was disqualified. It is true that we in South West Africa have worked towards, have lived for, and prayed that we would be included in the Republic. Our ideal was to be a fifth province of the Republic. The course of history determined otherwise, however. A general concession to all the voters of South West Africa is not possible …

Why not?

That is a good question. Let us try to place the matter in perspective. In 1975 the then leader of the NP in this House took the initiative which led to South West Africa deciding to pursue the course of independence. This led to the Turnhalle Conference, and it is a pity that after he had lost the leadership struggle to Mr. du Plessis, Mr. Mudge decided to split the NP. The White man in South West lost his bargaining power that day.

But you are a Mudge man, not so?

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I have never associated myself with the policy of Mr. Mudge. As a result of boycotts and threats of boycotts against the Republic, the national leaders of South West Africa began to work towards independence in the hope that the pressure on the Republic and South West Africa would be lifted, and in the hope that we could still co-exist peacefully.

Order! I realize that the hon. member is trying to make out a case as to why he cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman. However, I think he is wandering a little too far.

As you wish, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that the Act that paved the way for the independence of South West Africa was passed by this Parliament. The hon. member for Lichtenburg, the hon. member for Waterberg as well as the hon. members for Kuruman, De Aar, Rissik, Meyerton, Barberton, Pietersburg and Sunnyside voted in favour of that legislation in this Parliament. I voted in favour of the legislation with them. It was South West Africa’s choice. [Interjections.]

We must take note of the course of history. It is no use boasting of a fine past. It is no use pointing a finger at one another or putting out our tongues at one another. The question is whether it could benefit South West Africa or the inhabitants of that country at all. I believe that we are only exacerbating unrest and misunderstanding in this way. The people of South West Africa are engaged in a difficult struggle. My sympathy lies with those people. [Interjections.]

I reiterate that that is where I live, too. Moreover, I know more about these people and their problems than the hon. members of the CP, who are making such a noise now. It is very easy to organize a busload of teachers in Pretoria to go and conduct a week-long election campaign in South West Africa. It is much more difficult for people to live and work there …

Order! The hon. member for Walvis Bay must please confine himself to the contents of the clause under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, those hon. members voted in favour of the legislation that was passed by this Parliament at that time. However, the hon. member for Kuruman is not prepared to abide by that legislation now. I believe that all of us would like to do so. However, we must decide on which voters’ roll the names of the people of South West Africa must appear. Because they have their own separate voters’ rolls, only those who cannot be accommodated on a voters’ roll there, those who qualify in terms of the present legislation, can be permitted to vote in the referendum.

For that reason, I regret that I am unable to support the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the first amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman is concerned—that the word “referendum” be omitted and “volkstemming” substituted for it—I just want to point out that all hon. members of the Opposition parties voted in favour of that amendment on the Select Committee.

This may seem strange to some hon. members. However, it has become the accustomed practice of the NP to employ even political terminology in the service of their ideology, and to create new terminologies in order to distort accepted meanings and to give different meanings to words in order to present a particular ideology or a particular political policy in a more favourable light. I suppose it is understandable that the CP should follow their example in that respect, and that the CP and the NP should join issue with each other in that connection. As far as the PFP is concerned, we do support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kuruman. As the hon. member for Innesdal has said, the words are in fact synonymous. However, we believe that “volkstemming” is a more descriptive and also a better word. For that simple reason, therefore, we support the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walvis Bay referred to the by-election in Walvis Bay. However, I want to have it placed on record here today that the real tragedy lies in the fact that the people of Walvis Bay voted for the hon. member. They voted for the NP because they were under the impression that the NP of South West Africa and the NP of South Africa were one and the same party. [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that I am not going to allow another general political debate under this clause. The hon. member must therefore confine himself solely to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, if a citizen of South West Africa, a person who has lived and worked there all his life, comes to the Republic of South Africa to settle here and also registers as a voter, surely he is entitled to vote in the referendum and to say no to the new constitutional dispensation. Why should the same person be deprived of his rights because he lives in South West Africa? If he is still a South African citizen, why can he not have the right to vote in this referendum? He should also be able to cast his vote on this new constitution for South Africa, because he regards South Africa as his fatherland. I have here a letter from a South West citizen who is permanently resident there, and he writes—

All we are asking for is that provision should be made in this measure for these people to have a say with regard to the constitution, a matter which concerns them very closely. We have told them in this Parliament that they will be consulted when their lives are being affected. If this Parliament changes and if it has to take decisions on the future of South West Africa in another year or two, perhaps, surely it is essential that they should also be consulted in this matter.

The hon. Minister who is handling this Bill said on 14 June 1977—

Our only request to the hon. the Minister is that they should also be able to participate in this referendum, that they should also be able to express their opinion on this Parliament which will eventually have to decide about their future. The hon. the Minister also said—and I am now quoting Mr. Kosie Preforms—

This is Minister F. W. de Klerk—

He said that this Parliament was the watchdog. If this Parliament is the watchdog with regard to South West Africa as well, I believe that the inhabitants of that territory should also have a say in a referendum which will determine the future of South Africa, which is their fatherland, too.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he voted against the abolition of the representation of South West Africa in this Parliament?

I voted for the Bill which was before us at that stage. [Interjections.] However, we took the hon. the Minister’s word for it that the people of South West would continue to be consulted in future.

The NP of South West Africa also asked at their congress to be allowed to participate in this referendum. The hon. member for Walvis Bay must now tell me whether he agrees with this request made by the NP of South West Africa.

I have answered your questions.

The hon. member has not. He has stated standpoints in this House.

This Parliament is now being replaced by a multiracial tricameral Parliament for which provision has been made in the new constitution, and this has to be approved in a referendum. The future of the people of South West Africa, is closely bound up with the new Parliament. That is why we want those people to have a say in the referendum as well.

Mr. Chairman, during the Select Committee’s deliberations on this measure we, like the PFP, supported the hon. member for Kuruman’s amendment where he sought to use the word “volkstemming” rather than “referendum” in the Afrikaans text of the Bill. However, I fear that the hon. member for Kuruman, in his addresses here this afternoon in motivating his case, is busy destroying that case. I have listened very, very carefully to the speech he has just made and on seven occasions during that speech he used the word “referendum”. Not once did he himself use the word “volkstemming”. [Interjections.] I supported his amendment because I believe language is important. This was referred to as a “volkstemming” in the previous legislation. I sincerely believed that it should correctly be “volkstemming”. But when the motivator, the person who moves for this destroys his own case, I start to have my difficulties. I sincerely hope that the hon. member is not going to pursue this at any great length because, I am afraid, he is doing himself a lot of harm.

I also want to say that we will not be supporting his case in respect of South West Africa. I did not indicate it in my earlier address but we will be supporting the amendment by the hon. member for Green Point to omit paragraph (iv) in the list of definitions.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Kuruman and I was dismayed to hear the hon. member refer to the new constitution as a “monstrous” constitution. This just shows what the pattern of the CP’s conduct is going to be in the coming referendum.

I wanted to discuss the concepts of “volkstemming” and “referendum”, but I believe the hon. member for Umhlanga has done this so thoroughly that there is no need for me to elaborate on it any further. When the word “volkstemming” was used in the past, a completely different connotation was given to the concept of “volk”. However, the CP has politicized the concept of “volk”, so much so that they are now talking about a “volkstemming” while their women’s association, the Kappiekommando, talks about a “Boerevolk”. There is only one “volk” in South Africa. There is only an Afrikaner “volk”. If we want to talk about the Afrikaner “volk” we must make it clear that we are holding a “volkstemming” for the Afrikaner “volk” alone, and not for all the components of the White population, which forms part of the South African nation.

I wish to refer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Kuruman about voters in South West Africa who ought to vote in the referendum. The hon. member’s argument is that the NP in South West Africa has asked for the people of South West to be allowed to participate in the referendum. On the other hand, the Republican Party in South West Africa has decided that the people of South West should not take part in the referendum. So there is disagreement in South West Africa about whether or not they should participate in the referendum. If there is disagreement among the White politicians in south West Africa themselves, we should not involve them any further in our internal problems.

I want to put the opposite situation to the hon. member for Kuruman. If South West Africans have to participate in the referendum on 2 November, will the hon. member concede that South African citizens living in South Africa at the moment should also participate when South West Africans vote on independence?

That is not relevant now.

Of course it is relevant. If the hon. member wants South West African citizens to take part in the South African referendum, surely the reverse is equally applicable. Then we should participate in the election in South West Africa.

They are South African citizens, not South West African citizens.

The letter from which the hon. member quoted was a letter written by a South West African citizen, not a South African citizen.

It was from a South African citizen living in South West Africa.

The hon. member said that it was a South West African citizen. Did the hon. member say it was a South West African citizen?

I said that he lived in South West Africa, but that he was a South African citizen.

Did the hon. member say he was a South West African citizen? [Interjections.] I am asking a simple question: Did the hon. member say he was a South West African citizen?

I am telling you now that he is a South African citizen.

I put it to you, Sir, that the hon. member for Kuruman said that he was a South West African citizen. If he now wishes to imply that it was a slip of the tongue he should say so, and if not, he should say so too. I think the hon. member’s argument was ill-considered.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend following the hon. member for Kimberley South in respect of his argument with the hon. member for Kuruman. However, in that regard I should just like to say that in the few years I have been in this House, I have heard endless and tedious arguments about “volk” and “nasie”. What has struck me all along is that the heat generated by that debate is only of relevance if in fact we are planning to discriminate against some people either in regard to political rights or in regard to other rights, otherwise the distinction in constitutional and legal terms would not be of any consequence and would not have to become an integral part of the debates in this House.

I rise essentially to support the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlanga in regard to the change of the definition of “voter”. I have noted that thus far none of the hon. members of the NP who have spoken have disagreed with that amendment or criticized it in any way. That does not surprise me because I feel they may well be planning to support it. Throughout the Second Reading debate on this Bill there was mention by hon. members opposite of this legislation being there to provide flexibility in relation to referendums. Therefore, they did not want too many things stipulated. They wanted the State President to make regulations. The amendment of the hon. member for Umhlanga provides for greater flexibility in the area of the definition of “voter” than is there at present. As far as his amendment is concerned the only restriction applied is that the person must be over the age of 18 years, which I think is a very reasonable one. If for some reason or other one wanted to hold a referendum involving people under the age of 18 years, I think that that should be a special matter for this Parliament to consider and for which to make special provision. Therefore, on the grounds of flexibility, it does what the hon. the Minister’s has been pleading for even better than what is currently in the Bill. It is unrestricted and it allows the State President—in other words the Government—to choose which group of voters is sought to be reached.

From our point of view, there are restrictions in the existing definition of “voter”, including the very clear distinction that people in this country who are Black will not be able to take part in any referendum, even a referendum only for Blacks. That is in terms of this Bill. We can well imagine that even in relation to the policies of the Government there could be occasions when they would want to conduct a referendum among Blacks living in the Republic on a matter concerning them such as education, local authorities or something of that nature. Therefore, I cannot see why that should cause them any problems either.

It was mentioned in the Select Committee—although it has not been mentioned here today—that this Bill is going to be administered by the Department of Internal Affairs and therefore to make provision for the possibility of Blacks being included would be illogical because that department would not administer the matter. I should like to point out that the Bill makes no mention of any Minister or department specifically. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever why a department other than the Department of Internal Affairs need not perform a function in terms of this Bill. Therefore, that too is no reason not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlanga.

Finally, Sir, as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman is concerned, we shall be opposing it, firstly, because it provides for the continued exclusion of Black persons and secondly, in view of the fact that clause 2 makes provision for the State President to obtain the views of particular categories of voters and possibly also from only a part of the Republic. The changes that the hon. member wishes to make really do not make much sense and as far as we are concerned are not necessary.

On behalf of the official Opposition I want to say that we shall be supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlanga.

Mr. Chairman, there have been quite a number of contributions on clause 1. I should like to deal with the various arguments more or less in the order in which the speakers took part in the debate.

The hon. member for Green Point argued that we should rather return to the voters’ roll system and supplement the voters’ rolls from the population register, as it is technically possible to do. I just want to repeat very briefly that anyone who does not have an identity document at this stage can still obtain one. What we are doing now should be compared with a general registration, and that is that everyone is being told that they have to reregister in order to be able to vote. What we are saying now is that in order to vote—we are giving notice of this in advance—it is necessary to obtain an identity document. We are in a position to say that if such an application is received from any individual voter before 30 September, we shall enable him or her to vote on polling-day. So we are not disfranchising anyone. What are we gaining in this process, compared with the old voters’ roll system?

Firstly, it will not be necessary for us to cause inconvenience to any voter by requiring him to cast his vote in an inconvenient way, by making use of a postal of special vote, for example, because he cannot be present in his constituency or in the electoral district in which he lives on polling-day. Those of us who have fought elections in the past know, after all, that in this way, we shall be eliminating administrative work relating to postal and special votes amounting to about 2 000 times the number of constituencies that we have in South Africa. Surely this means the elimination of a massive amount of red tape. Does the hon. member not want us to give the voter this greater freedom of movement so that he may vote at any polling station which happens to be near him on the day of the referendum? This is one giant leap, in the words of the American who went to the moon, which we are taking into the future. All of us who know party organization should be excited about this innovative approach, but the hon. members of the PFP reject it, while claiming to be the advocates of renewal and change. No-one is being disfranchised, and the argument that anyone is being disfranchised does not hold water, because every White voter who is able to vote in the referendum can still obtain such an identity document if he does not have one at the moment.

In the second place, we shall help those who find themselves in a difficult position and who cannot get to a photographer, such as elderly people and invalids. The department has offered to help them. We shall arrange for a photographer to visit such people in their homes in order to take their photographs. We shall do this if notice is given in good time and if the request is reasonable. We shall bend over backwards to accommodate such people.

The hon. member repeated the argument that because so many particulars were going to be provided for by means of regulation, the process was open to abuse. There is a remedy if we were to abuse it. The remedy is that the Opposition could adopt the standpoint that we were introducing unreasonable procedures. The hon. members could conceal their lack of arguments based on policy considerations behind the convenient argument that we were being unfair as far as procedure was concerned. We shall not be so unwise. As far as the regulations are concerned, we intend to act in accordance with the long-standing and sound tradition of South Africa by giving everyone a fair chance to put their case and by exposing everyone to exactly the same factors. We dare not make regulations which would place one party in a more favourable position than another …

Come to the “yes and no” argument.

I am coming to that argument, although we shall discuss it under another clause as well. I should like to refer to it very briefly.

The Opposition parties are welcome to judge us by the regulations. I undertake to make them available to those parties in advance. I suppose we may disagree about some aspects that may be contained in the regulations, but by the same token we would have disagreed about what should be contained in the measure, as in fact we are doing at the moment. The fact is that in this Bill, we are dealing with a general measure which is not intended to regulate the referendum on 2 November only, a measure which we believe should be flexible enough to provide for certain circumstances. Let me mention a very practical example. If we were to provide in the measure that one had to produce an identity document in order to vote, for the reasons which we have been debating at such length, it might not be possible to comply with this requirement when the Coloureds and the Indians were holding a referendum, because we might not have made the necessary progress with the issuing of identity documents to them. In that case, they would simply have to vote on the basis of voters’ rolls. Then we would have to set out various possibilities in the Bill, and it would become a cumbersome piece of legislation full of alternatives if one wanted to keep it flexible, and then one could still choose any of the alternatives in any event. I really want to ask the Opposition to co-operate with us in this matter. Since we differ with one another and since we cannot reach consensus, let us at least accept one another’s bona fides on this point, i.e. that as far as elections are concerned, we are trying to draw up the rules of the game in such a way that everyone will have a chance to kick the ball. Whether one wins or loses, and whether one’s standpoint is accepted or not, depends on one’s inherent ability and will not be influenced by the rules of the game.

†The hon. member for Umlanga said that he wanted to extend the scope of the Bill. He moved an amendment which was supported by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. For the reasons already stated, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. Two arguments have been advanced in this regard. The one argument is a new one. The hon. member for Umhlanga indicated that it might even be possible to canvass the opinion of non-South African citizens in terms of the Bill. As I see the Bill, one should regard it as an extension of our Electoral Act.

*It is an extension of the Electoral Act. It would be a completely new principle to introduce this into a measure which is primarily intended to provide for the way in which certain categories of voters should be consulted. Although the concept of “voter” is not defined in terms of the Electoral Act, it refers to the persons who may vote for particular purposes in this country. Therefore such an extension would be a totally new principle which I really would not like to introduce here. Any non-South African citizen who is an inhabitant of this country is free to acquire citizenship in terms of our naturalization laws. In fact, it is a source of great dissatisfaction among many South Africans that so few of our immigrants who have permanent residence do acquire South African citizenship. My argument is the same therefore, as it is in respect of those who do not have an identity document yet. A non-South African White who is a resident of this country can become a South African citizen if he applies for citizenship after his obligatory period of residence. He will then qualify in terms of the existing definition. The proper way for him to obtain the right to participate by casting a vote is to take South African citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, the present definition does not say that non-South Africans are excluded. It only refers to persons who have been classified in terms of the Population Registration Act in a certain way. There are aliens who have been classified in this way and who are on the Population Register. Is it therefore, not true that in terms of the existing definition that non-South Africans can vote, or that potentially they are a category which may be allowed to vote?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that it is totally excluded in terms of the present wording. However, I want to give clear notice that it is the absolute intention that in the coming referendum, which deals with the constitution of South Africa, only South African citizens will vote.

*The second argument, and this is the real issue, is the question of whether the Blacks should not be included. The franchise of Blacks, how they vote and where they vote, is regulated in a different way from that of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. We disagree about this. We have debated the matter thoroughly and we are going to do so again. It has been advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as the main reason why they say that people should vote “no” in the referendum. I really do not want to try your patience, Mr. Chairman, by dealing with this argument at any length. It must be emphasised that they do have the right to vote for specific purposes and for specific institutions. It is wrong merely to say that the Blacks are being excluded. Provision is being made elsewhere for Black franchise and Black political rights. We say that this is not the right place to do so, because we do not want to use this legislation to regulate and to test Black political rights and Black political development. The primary purpose for which we want to use this legislation, apart from all possible future uses, is to test the political situation with regard to the citizenship rights of White, Coloured and Asian, or to be able to test it among those three groups if referendums are held for them as well at their request. Therefore I think we must agree to differ on this. I am convinced that I shall not be able to change the minds of the hon. members of the PFP. I have already given the reasons why we are doing it this way, and we obviously differ fundamentally on this matter.

I come now to the hon. member for Kuruman. It is very interesting to note that his third amendment does include the Blacks, and I want to say at once that I do not think he intended that. This just shows what we are faced with when we have to deal with the CP’s ill-considered plans and proposals. The hon. member proposes that a voter be defined as—

The Electoral Act, 1979, substantially excludes Blacks. The hon. member uses the term “citizen of the Republic”. I should like to ask the hon. member, because we are struggling with their concept of citizenship: Are the Coloureds citizens of the Republic of South Africa?

Yes.

The hon. member has no alternative but to say “yes”, because they are. Are Indians born in South Africa citizens of the Republic of South Africa?

Are they a part of our nation?

The answer is “yes”. There are also millions of Blacks who are citizens of the Republic of South Africa, apart from the Whites. The citizenship question is another matter. What we say in our definition is that this Bill is meant for three categories of South African citizens, namely Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the other subgroups who fall under Coloured in terms of the Population Registration Act.

You agree, therefore, that the Blacks are excluded.

The Blacks are not included in this Bill. Their franchise and political rights are regulated elsewhere. They are not without rights. That is why the concept is misleading and is not in the interests of South Africa. It is the same kind of oversimplification of which the CP is guilty as soon as they say that it is mixed government. As against that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it is the entrenchment of apartheid. They do not take into consideration all the facts.

Is it not mixed government?

We can discuss that during the Third Reading debate.

I come now to the proposed inclusion of inhabitants of South West Africa as South African citizens. The hon. member was not here, and I do not know whether the hon. member for Rissik has conveyed to him what I said. I said that we intended to draft and to word the regulations in such a way that those South African citizens whose usual places of residence enable them—I am talking about those of them in South West—to be included on the voters’ roll for the House of Assembly in terms of the Electoral Act of 1979, will be able to vote in the referendum. If we did not do this, the hon. member’s request would mean that South African citizens who are resident in South West and who cannot vote for this House of Assembly should in fact be able to vote in the referendum than for an election of the House of Assembly. Let us take the logic of this a little further. Why is the hon. member asking for this in respect of South West Africa only? Why is he not asking for it in respect of all South African citizens all over the world? This would mean that we would have to hold a world-wide referendum, i.e. if the only test were to be South African citizenship and if this were not linked to residence, to the place where one lives. Let us take the question of South West a little further. Is it the standpoint of the CP that we should amend our electoral laws to allow South African citizens living in South West to vote in elections for the House of Assembly? Is this their standpoint? If it is, at least it will be logical, since they are now pleading for participation in the referendum. The hon. member for Kuruman is the leader of the CP in the Cape Province. His seat is very close to South West. Even though the hon. member is the leader of only two members of the House of Assembly, I ask him to say, by virtue of the position of authority which he occupies, whether it is the standpoint of the CP that the right to vote in elections for the House of Assembly should be extended to all South African citizens living in South West. The hon. member does not seem to have a standpoint in this connection.

Let us go on and let us take the argument of the hon. member for Kimberley South a little further. South West Africa also has electoral laws, after all, and those laws contain a provision to the effect that South African citizens may register there as voters, but that they will not have a double vote. South West itself has adopted the standpoint that the people who vote there may not vote anywhere else. Our standpoint is in line with this, namely that people who vote here in the Republic may vote only here and not there as well as here. There is nothing else behind this. We are not afraid to have the people of South West express an opinion…

Yes, you are.

… on matters of principle here in the Republic. After all, we had proof in Walvis Bay, among people living under similar circumstances, of where their sympathies lay. Sir, I see that that hon. member and his party are canvassing for votes. Let us just contrast the conduct of that hon. member with the love, the warmth and the seriousness with which the hon. member for Walvis Bay spoke about South West. From this we may infer that the CP thinks that this matter may enable it to gain some political advantage in an opportunistic way. The hon. member for Walvis Bay on the other hand, shows a deeper compassion and concern for what is really going on in South West. The hon. member for Kuruman produced a lot of irrelevant quotations here. They do not contradict anything that is contained in this Bill.

The hon. member also complained about the fact that Die Burger had given an indication even before the commencement of the Second Reading debate on this Bill that the intention was to appoint only one “no” agent and one “yes” agent. But, Sir, I am not the only one who knew about that intention. On the contrary; after the decision had been taken, I took the leaders of the various parties into my confidence as soon as possible in order to notify them at the earliest opportunity. Therefore it was also known to the other leaders. Did the hon. member’s leader not inform him before I spoke on Friday? Did his caucus know?

But you know that I put a request to you on behalf of my leader.

That is correct. But did the hon. member’s caucus know about it?

Yes.

You see, Sir, by now we have 22 hon. members who knew about this.

Did your caucus not know about it?

No. I did not inform the NP caucus on Wednesday. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

I did not do so, because I wanted to mention it in public for the first time in this House. I did discuss it with individual members, just as that hon. member did, and so, I am sure, did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NRP. The reason why I informed the party leaders in advance was to enable the respective parties to put their arrangements into effect as soon as possible. There is nothing sinister about it. After all, we know that when something is known to so many people, newspapers also get hold of it in some way or other. But I did not bypass Parliament in the process. What the hon. member is trying to do now is to take something which I did among colleagues and to use it against me, suggesting that I abused it. I think the hon. member owes me an apology for that.

Sir, you have already ruled that this is a matter which is relevant under clause 3 or 4. I shall therefore refrain from discussing it any further, but you will allow me just to say in one sentence that the question which will be asked on 2 November essentially involves a choice between two standpoints, i.e. should the new constitution be implemented—yes or no? It is not concerned with the interests of political parties. It is not concerned with reasons. All that is being asked is “yes” or “no”. The two standpoints must have equal status. The purpose of a referendum is to ensure that the other standpoint is not favoured and that there are no malpractices. As I have said, it is not concerned with promoting the interests of political parties.

The hon. member made no contribution in his follow-up speech which calls for a further reply from me. But I think he was unfair to the hon. member for Walvis Bay. I have already referred to that.

Deal with the question of “referendum” or “volkstemming”.

I am coming to it now. We have had an interesting debate and we have listened to the various standpoints on this matter. The reason why we are retaining the term “referendum” instead of “volkstemming” is that the CP is misleading the electorate by exploiting this concept. In debates in recent weeks, some of the CP speakers have conceded that the Afrikaner people is “volk”, while the White group as a whole is not a “volk”. This afternoon the hon. member for Kuruman has advanced the opposite point of view, and then we have also had the absurdity of the hon. member for Brakpan saying in a previous debate that he was a member of the Afrikaner people as well as of the White people. So he manages to be a member of two people at the same time.

It has become necessary for us to be precise in our use of the term “volk” in the political debate that is being conducted at the moment, so that we may not cause confusion with regard to this term among ourselves and on the part of the electorate.

What does this Bill actually provide for? I now want to argue this matter from a purely logical point of view. It provides for us to ascertain the views of certain categories of people. It does not even have to be all the Whites in the country. In terms of this legislation, it would theoretically be possible for the State President to call a referendum only for the Whites in the Cape Peninsula, for example: a referendum on a particular matter. Then there would be no question of a “volkstemming”, after all. It would theoretically be possible for the State President to call a referendum for the inhabitants of a particular province only. In that case, too, there would not be any question of a “volkstemming”. What this Bill provides for is group consultation. That is why the use of the word “volkstemming” would be quite inappropriate, even in its normal meaning, detached from the political debate on “volk” and “nasie”. When the term “volkstemming” is used, it inevitably creates the impression of a country-wide referendum, while we are also providing in this legislation for referendums to be held for smaller categories and in smaller areas. For that reason, I believe, the use of the word “referendum” is more accurate in Afrikaans as well.

Finally, there is just one more thing I want to say in reply to the hon. member for Kuruman. This hon. member is creating the impression that we may be dealing here—if I may use their terminology—with a mixed referendum. I wholeheartedly endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Innesdal in this connection, namely that referendums may of course be held simultaneously on matters of common concern. The hon. member for Kuruman also knows, after all, that we are providing in the new constitution—this, by the way, is the principal objection of the hon. members of the PFP—for elections to be held for separate institutions on the basis of separate voters’ rolls. The hon. member also knows …

[Inaudible.]

Oh, if the hon. member would only listen to what I am saying, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member also knows that the essence of the new constitution is that there will be group decision-making within the separate groups, even on matters of common concern. When decisions are taken on legislation relating to matters of common concern, the majority opinion of the Whites will be formulated here in the House of Assembly, while the majority opinion of the Coloureds will be formulated in their own legislative House, as will that of the Indians. To try to insinuate, therefore, that the Government is suddenly going to call a mixed referendum—if I may call it that—in which all ballot papers will end up in one and the same ballot box, while in voting for the legislative Houses, we have to do it on the basis of separate voters’ rolls, is absolutely ridiculous, after all. It remains the essence and the foundation of the Government’s approach that group existence should be recognized, and that when elections are held, the democratic process should primarily take place within the group context, and that from this group context, security will develop for each group; that each group will increasingly be able to protect its own interests, but also that because confidence and security are being created, healthy co-operation among the groups with regard to matters of common concern will in fact become possible. Then the various groups will be able, while each preserving its own identity and security, truly to co-operate on matters of common concern, to accept a joint say, or joint responsibility—whatever we want to call it. This is the basic philosophy to which this Bill also conforms. For the hon. member for Kuruman to come along with his over-simplified stories about mixing, as though the Government were trying to promote integration in terms of this measure and adopting the course of the Progs, is quite absurd, therefore. It simply does not hold water. Intelligent observers will take no notice of him, and those who have allowed themselves to be confused by the CP are rapidly finding out what a distorted account has been given of the NP’s approach.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Ministers said that we should give our definition of “volk” so that the matter could be cleared up. In his Bangmaakpraatjies he wrote that the members of the Cabinet serving on the Council of Cabinets would deliberate as representatives of the “volk” to which they belonged. Would the hon. the Minister define this term “volk” for us?

Because a basic mutual trust used to exist among our own people, the concept of “volk” was used in the past without any attempt at political point-scoring. Since the CP came into being, however, attempts at point-scoring are being made in our political debates. Attempts are being made to read meanings into words which were never intended and to interpret historic statements on the basis of definitions which are in dispute today. They are making a very serious mistake in doing so.

I gladly accept responsibility for what has been done in my name. However, I want to say that the previous Minister and leader of the NP in the Transvaal, Dr. Connie Mulder, really fiddled around with the pamphlets published in my name. Many of the problems which we had even in 1977 in guiding this country in the direction of new constitutional development were caused by his double talk when he was still a member of the NP.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has not answered my hon. colleague’s question at all. In trying to hide behind Dr. Connie Mulder, the hon. the Minister is making a very big mistake. I know Dr. Connie Mulder. Could we perhaps not arrange to have the hon. the Minister and Dr. Connie on the same platform at Randfontein … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. I am no longer going to allow this wide-ranging political discussion.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister again that our reference to the White citizens of South West Africa is simply intended to convey the fact that the South African White citizens of South West Africa have a fundamental interest in the changes that can be brought about to the constitutional structure in South Africa. For that reason we say that it is also absolutely essential for us to give them an opportunity to take part in the referendum on the Constitution Bill.

Nor did the hon. the Minister give anything like a clear reply to our amendment requesting that “referendum” be substituted by “volkstemming”. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the fact that on 10 June 1982 his predecessor said the following in connection with a similar matter (Hansard, col. 8938)—

It is therefore not terminology that only started being used yesterday or the day before. His own colleague, the leader of the left wing in the NP caucus, used this terminology himself when he said—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he would be honest enough to tell the Committee who gave him the references for that quote?

Certainly. It was the hon. member for Grey-town. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member also took part in that debate. Now the hon. the Minister says we cannot talk about “volkstemmings” here because in future we are going to have referendums.

No.

The hon. the Minister said “volkstemming” meant that the whole of South Africa could be involved. In his Second Reading speech, however, the hon. the Minister spoke of “volkshuishouding”. Then he was not trying to hide behind other things. He himself used that concept. The hon. the Minister must not try to get away from his past. This is the kind of thing one cannot get away from. [Interjections.] The interesting point is that we are going to have referendums in future. The hon. member for Meyerton said in his Second Reading speech that the coming referendum would be the third in the past 70 years. The hon. the Minister says we are frequently going to have referendums in future.

I did not say that.

The hon. the Minister said that referendums would be held on a more regular basis.

I said from time to time.

Yes, from time to time, whatever that may mean. Perhaps every six months or every year. [Interjections.] This is a very important point. The hon. the Minister says we are going to have more referendums, and they are not going to be referendums that are only going to affect one specific population group. Referendums will also be held on a regional basis.

That is theoretically possible.

As far as referendums on a regional basis are concerned, are the opinions of Whites, Coloured and Indians going to be tested separately? Does the hon. the Minister foresee, for this nation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians he is creating, joint referendums in specific regions, held on the same day in connection with so-called general affairs? Then there will no longer be voters’ rolls. On 2 November there are going to be no voters’ rolls. Is the opinion of the voters—the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning speaks about “voters”, does he not—going to be tested on specific matters of a general nature, with everyone voting together, are the votes in that specific referendum then going to be counted jointly and is the majority decision then going to be accepted by the Government? Then surely the hon. the Minister must not come and make a Middelburg speech here this afternoon. [Interjections.] He must tell us quite frankly that this new nation, consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, are going to be tested jointly on a regional basis on the question of general affairs and that the Government, as befits a good democratic institution, is going to accept the results.

Mr. Chairman, it astounds me that after the hon. the Minister’s lucid argument about the word “referendum”, the hon. member for Rissik could again argue that we should replace the word by “volkstemming”. Does the hon. member for Rissik regard the Indian population group as a people?

If the Chairman would allow me to stand up, I would reply to that.

Does the hon. member regard the Indian population groups as a people—yes or no?

It depends on what one understands by “people”.

Apparently the hon. member does not regard the Indian population group as a people. In terms of his own argument in regard to this clause, however, he is in trouble at once. This clause deals with referendums that can be held amongst specific groups, amongst others the Coloureds and Indians. So if we are going to do that, how can the hon. member argue that we should use the word “volkstemming” instead of “referendum”, specifically in the light of the fact that Coloureds and Indians are going to be involved? The word “referendum” is, in my humble opinion, a much better word. I fully agree with the hon. the Minister that “volkstemming” …

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. In terms of the 1977 proposals there were to be three Parliaments, one for Whites, one for Coloureds and one for Indians. Each would have its own Cabinet. The hon. the Minister of Internal affairs writes the following—

Order! The hon. member must ask a question and not make a speech.

Did the NP, at the time, regard the Indians as a people or not?

I do not want to enter into semantics about “people” and “nation”. In recent debates we argued that point for days. I want to support the point the hon. the Minister made. What a senseless debate are we not conducting in South Africa about the concept “people” and “nation”? As I have said before, hon. members of the CP are trying to claim the concept “people” as their own personal property. In regard to the concept “people” they want to lay exclusive claim to Afrikanerhood. If we take a look at the referendum which Dr. Verwoerd announced in 1960, we see that that referendum was a reflection of the spirit prevalent in the will of the people that had to be balanced up against the idea of a monarchy, and merely from the point of view of the Afrikaans definition I find it quite understandable that we spoke of a “volkstemming” (plebiscite) at the time. Here we are dealing with a general provision that does not only relate to the constitutional referendum that lies ahead. Here we are dealing with referendums that could be dealing with various matters. Secondly we are dealing here with referendums involving various population groups. I said a moment ago—and I want to reiterate—that I believe that the word “referendum” is already so much a part of everyday usage, has become so strongly entrenched with our people, is used so generally in the newspapers and on television, that we can rightly argue today that the word “referendum” is a better word than “volkstemming”. I again link it up, in particular, to the fact that in my humble opinion one cannot, with regard to the Indians and Coloureds, rightly speak, with reference to this provision, of the exclusive significance of the word “volkstemming”, as was the case in the referendum of 1960. In the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal there is the following definition of “volkstemming”—

For the word “referendum” we find the following—

Even as far as the dictionary definition is concerned, one can make a great play of the concept “people” and debate it at great length.

As far as the meaning of this clause is concerned, let me conclude by saying that the word “referendum” is a much better word. It is a word that has found favour as an everyday usage. It is a word everyone understands.

The everyday usage of which “people”?

Sir, hon. members of all parties in the House of Assembly speak inclusively and in a wider sense of a “volk” (people). In the Afrikaans version of the prayer, read out each alternate day in the House of Assembly, mention is made of the “volk”, and we also take it that that reference to “volk” does not exclusively mean the Afrikaners or the Whites, but indeed the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to put the following question to the hon. member for Rissik: Are the Whites a “people” [Interjections.] Let me also put that question to the hon. member for Langlaagte, who is such a clever fellow. Are the Whites in South Africa a people? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan said in the House the other day that he was a member of the Afrikaner people and the White people. Then the hon. member for Koedoespoort says that all hon. members in the House of Assembly are members of the White people. They also go on to say that the White people is a people with a Christian character. The point I want to make is that the word “people” has a very all-embracing and broad political significance, and for the purposes of this Bill I do not think that the word “volkstemming” should replace the present word “referendum”.

What does a referendum mean? In this regard I should like to quote from Kotze’s Basiese Konsepte in die Politiek—

This clause deals with voters—White voters, Coloured voters and Indian voters—

The hon. member for Rissik asked the hon. the Minister whether, in terms of this clause, we could allow the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians to vote on a specific day about a specific subject. In terms of the provisions of the clause, very definitely. It depends on the matter the Government wants to have aired. The provisions of the legislation are therefore wide-ranging, but when all is said and done it is on the basis of each specific issue that one wants to have aired, under specific circumstances, that one must ask oneself how one would handle that question put by the hon. member for Rissik.

The hon. member for Rissik spoke about inclusive, over-all nationhood. With that argument about unitary nationhood he is merely confirming the whole point that I have been wanting to make, i.e. that they want to bring in the word “volkstemming” for the sake of playing politics, specifically when it comes to the historical Afrikaner ties with the word “volk”. They want to take it all back to the year 1960 so that they can, on the basis of the coming referendum, tell everyone that the Afrikaner people must decide, and they also want to tell the Afrikaner people, as the hon. member for Rissik admitted here, that they are being sold down the river, because now there is a one-nation story doing the rounds. That is a piece of folly.

In conclusion, I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that his arguments, and the hon. member for Kuruman’s amendment about the use of “volkstemming” instead of “referendum” in this clause, specifically go to prove the complete, the absolute political bankruptcy of the CP. They make a grasping play for emotions instead of asking themselves whether each and every person in South Africa is being placed in a position to vote and, secondly, whether it is fitting and proper, in a democratic South Africa of 1983, and in the years ahead, for us to have a measure such as this to test people’s opinions. I think that if there has ever been anything in this country that attests to openness, if there has ever been anything in this country that attests to goal-directed planning, by a Government, to consult people, to let people have their say, to have people join us in having their say, it has been this provision involving the word “referendum”.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of his speech the hon. member for Innesdal argued that the CP wanted to use the word “volkstemming” (plebiscite) in order to play politics. I therefore conclude that he is insinuating that we shall be telling the voters that we supported the word “volkstemming”, but that the Government did not want to budge. To take that political weapon, which has been put into our hands, away from us, the hon. member for Innesdal should ask the hon. the Minister to accept our amendment, because then we could not go to the voters with that argument that the hon. member envisages. Then the Government will have taken that so-called weapon out of our hands. [Interjections.]

This brings me back to another reality, and in support of the hon. member for Kuruman’s amendment, let me quote the following to the hon. the Minister—

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister very clearly that I have in no way been motivated by a desire to play his senior officials off, one against the other, but as far as I am concerned, there is a lot in the argument contained in the report.

Where are you quoting from?

Die Vaderland of Friday, 2 September.

When a senior spokesman of the Department of Internal Affairs, someone who stands outside the active political arena in other words, someone who is not supposed to look through NP-tinted, CP-tinted, PFP-tinted or NRP-tinted spectacles—and is an expert in this sphere, states it as his view that this is indeed possible and that there is, in his opinion, some merit in it, I must definitely attach a great deal of importance to it.

In conclusion, let me set the mind of the hon. member for Umhlanga at rest. That hon. member decided to support our amendment, but then started getting restless when my colleague, the hon. member for Kuruman used the word “referendum” seven times in his speech in place of the word “volkstemming”. If the hon. member reads the Bill, however, he will see that it is called the “Referendums Bill”. At the moment the word “referendums” is being used and not “volkstemmings”. The hon. member must also take note of the fact that the hon. member for Kuruman’s amendment reads as follows—

We have a very competent and sometimes very strict Chairman. If the hon. member were to have spoken continuously about “volkstemming”, I think our Chairman would have called him to order and pointed out that we were discussing the Referendums Bill. [Interjections.] The hon. member may therefore rest easy in voting for this amendment.

The word “volkstemming” is, in my opinion, historically correct, is more precise and more descriptive than the word “referendum”. It is therefore a pleasure for me to support my colleague’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to clear up a misunderstanding which may perhaps exist. Although I argued that it was theoretically possible, and that in addition it could perhaps happen in practice, that in specific cases the opinion of a specific group of people in a smaller area could be tested in terms of the Bill, I do not now foresee a proliferation of referendums on every conceivable matter. It is my personal standpoint and that of the Government that one should not hold referendums on where bus shelters should be situated or such absurdities, as is the case in some other countries, but that a referendum should only be held when it deals with a matter of general importance, of great importance, and one wishes to ascertain the opinion of a specific group, as this Bill makes provision for, or the opinion of everyone in regard to that matter. That is why the argument is that it will not necessarily be a country-wide poll every time. This is a strong and logical argument, away from politics, against the use of the word “volkstemming”.

Mr. Chairman, before you rule me out of order, you will allow me to say a final word about the concepts of “people” and “nation”, because such a great deal was said about these concepts. I should like to know from the hon. member for Rissik whether he would acknowledge the report published by the General Synod of the Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk in October 1974 under the title “Ras, volk en nasie en volkereverhoudings in die lig van die Skrif” as a reasonable authority.

As another authority.

Does the hon. member not wish to concede that it is a good authority? [Interjections.] The hon. member says it is a good authority. On page 6 one finds a discussion of these concepts because they say that these definitions concerning a people and a nation are important in acquiring a better insight into the nature of the problem which they deal with in the report. Then it is stated in this report—

Then they make the following interesting observation—

I think that the view of the PFP in this connection is more accurate than the view of the CP. The CP’s definition of a people is very definitely related to colour, and to colour only. They talk about one White people (volk). Does the CP not talk about one White people? They say there is an Indian people in South Africa and they say there is a Coloured people in South Africa. They do not apply the test which the Synod laid down. In fact they confuse the concept of “people” with the racialistic concept of what a group is. Therefore, when they speak about a people, they are speaking in completely woolly and confused terms.

I should like to reply to something else which the hon. member said. The hon. member kept on referring to this “new” nation of ours.

It was the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who said that.

Wait a minute. It was the hon. members of the CP who added the word “new”. What did the Synod say a nation was in Ras, Volk en Nasie? They said—

That is what my hon. colleague has consistently maintained a nation is. The hon. members of the CP, however, want to give a new meaning to the concept of “nation”—once again in conflict with the consensus of scientific opinion. They want to turn nation into a politically loaded term in order to suggest that we are now on the road to integration and the elimination of all dividing lines, that we are not concerned about group security and that we are not making provision for decision-making of our own over our own affairs, etc. By now we know the whole story off pat. The hon. members of the CP adopt a completely unscientific approach for the sake of political expediency and we accuse them of wanting to be misleading in respect of these matters and of therefore not acting in a way conducive to a clear, lucid political debate which will able the electorate to form an honest opinion. They rely on confusion. By doing that, they are not doing themselves and South Africa a favour.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I just want to finish what I am saying first. The hon. member asked me whether it would be possible to vote together. I want to repeat that it will be possible to vote on the same question on the same day. In such a situation one will have to think about how it should be organized. It is our standpoint that when voting within a group context takes place, every group should be afforded an opportunity to form its own opinion and that we are making provision for the most important election of all, the one for the constitution of Parliament, for a separate voters’ lists, for separate voting processes for the constitution of the House, and also within the House itself. Therefore the hon. member must not use this to try to stir up feelings. However, there is nothing wrong with holding an election among the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians on the same day, as the constitution in fact makes provision for, if it is on one general question of general importance.

On the same matter?

Yes, it may also be on the same matter. On election day one is concerned with the same matter, namely the election of the representatives of one’s group.

At the same polling booth?

Don’t be silly.

It is nevertheless true.

Exactly the same applies in a referendum. There one’s group will give its verdict on the question so that the opinion of one’s group may be ascertained. Hon. members must not try to associate us with the thinking of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He wants to have one poll at one polling station for one institution on one day.

What groups are you dealing with?

I am talking about this Bill, about the definition in clause 1(3).

What group is the Coloureds?

The Coloureds are defined. We say in fact that they are not a people. We differ from those hon. members because we say that they are a heterogeneous group, just as the Whites are a heterogeneous group, and just as, to a lesser extent, the Indians are a heterogeneous group. However, there is a connection between them. A community of interests has also arisen among them as a result of various factors. We can debate this during the Third Reading. Race, inter alia, plays a part. Surely the hon. member knows that race plays a part. However, it is not only race which plays a part. There are various other factors which also play a part. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Meyerton is committing a basic error of reasoning; so too are other hon. members of the CP. If we were now to take cognizance of what are normally, in our traditional system, the fundamental principles from which the franchise arises, it appears that, besides other things, colour plays a role in when one votes, and on what. Age determines whether a person may vote or not. However, there is another qualification which is indissolubly associated with the franchise—this applies to all democratic systems—and that is where a person lives. In that way whether a person can vote or not is also determined.

And citizenship?

Citizenship also plays a part, yes. Citizenship and where one fives, both play a part. In our system citizenship has always been associated with where a person lives. The hon. members of the CP cannot argue about that. One may be a South African citizen, but if one day he is no longer living in a specific place, his name may not be included in the voters’ list. A South African citizen living in London, cannot vote here. South African citizens living in Zimbabwe, in Moazambique, or wherever it may be, cannot vote here. South African citizens living elsewhere, it does not matter where, cannot vote here. Yet hon. members of the CP maintain that when a person is living in South West Africa, which is not part of the Republic of South Africa, they should be able to vote here. Surely that is illogical. It is unscientific. It is a violation of …

And the Coloured living with me on the farm?

The Coloured living with the hon. member on his farm, is now able to acquire a proper franchise. That is precisely what this entire debate has been concerned with.

He and I therefore vote together; on the same day and at the same polling station?

The Coloureds are going to vote within their group context. Surely that is the essence of NP policy; unlike hon. members of the CP are trying to imply the policy of the NP is. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg wanted to put a question to me.

Mr. Chairman, with references to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the term “nation”, can the hon. Minister tell us whether his definition also includes Black people with South African citizenship, those who are born in South Africa?

Jurisprudentially, at this stage, yes. Within the framework of what the Government is envisaging, however, it is a fact that the constitutional development of the Black people is following a different course, because they are in fact members of peoples, peoples with own territories, own traditional territories, which they have occupied, which were their countries. They also have a history of their own, of having governed themselves. They have their own royal families, their own constitutional divisions. For that reason their constitutional development will follow a different course. All the arguments which apply in regard to the Black peoples, are not applicable to the Coloured people. They have always shared the same territory with Whites. They also have their own tradition in regard to the exercise of their constitutional rights, also within the framework of the constitutional rights of the Whites. That is why we believe that the chimera of the CP is merely a theory. It is a wonderful theory, but it is not attainable in practice. Morally it cannot be justified or defended, nor does it have the capacity of ever receiving significant support from the Coloured people and the Indians themselves. The policy of the NP in regard to the Black people has in fact demonstrated that it does in fact have the capacity to elicit significant support among the Black peoples. It forms part of their traditional development and does not run counter to it. It is therefore a logical policy to advocate in relation to the Black people.

The 1981 manifesto, which was cordially supported by hon. members of the CP as well, in fact stated that it would be the ideal situation if we were able to do it for everyone. For the Black people it is largely possible, but for the Coloured people and the Indians it is not attainable in practice because they still continue to share the same territory with the Whites. That is why we still accept, as we did in 1981, what hon. members of the CP now reject, viz. that those people will form part of the same nation—as I have just defined nation—but that this new system will also be constructed on the recognition of the distinctive differences between, and the group existence and essence of, the three separate groups—the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians. That is why we believe in self-determination of own affairs, yet at the same time in the establishment of machinery for co-operation when it comes to matters of common interest.

Mr. Chairman, the Whips of the various political parties in this House have agreed that we shall dispose of the Committee Stage of this Bill today. We should indeed like to do this. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister, however, that I think the longer we listen to him, the vaguer and more incomprehensible we find the standpoint of the governing party in regard to this matter becoming. [Interjections.] Clause 1(iii) refers to …

You do not want to understand it.

No, it is not a question of my not wanting to understand it. The hon. member for Mossel Bay knows very well what all these things really mean. His dilemma is that he finds himself in a party in which he does not really belong.

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be led astray to such an extent that he does not discuss the clause at all.

Very well, Sir. Firstly I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have looked at the study made of race, people and nation by the Church. I would quite probably have stated certain aspects in a different way to that in which they stated them. When we are dealing with these concepts, I think one should look up what the people who are trained in this specific subject, namely the social anthropologists, have to say. The hon. the Minister did not reply to certain questions. In future we are going to have far more referendums than in the past, and these are not going to be on a country-wide basis, but on a regional basis.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member on what grounds he says that I said that we would not have them on a countrywide basis? Surely that is not true.

But the entire argument as to why we should not use the word “volkstemming” is, according to the hon. the Minister, that in future …

It could happen. I did not say that it would happen.

Sir, the hon. the Minister is very uneasy.

I am becoming tired of my words being distorted. [Interjections.]

On a point of order: May the hon. member for Brits say that the hon. member for Rissik is lying again?

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

Sir, I said it with the utmost conviction.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

Sir, the hon. the Minister said he wanted to use the term “referendum” because in future referendums were also going to be held which would not be country-wide.

That is better.

Very well then. Now we are ad idem. He also said that referendums would not only be held among the Whites, but also among the Coloureds and the Indians.

Are they peoples?

The hon. the Minister also said however, that we were going to have referendums on a regional basis.

We can also have referendums on a regional basis.

Very well. So far we are still ad idem.

Now I should like to put another question. Let us consider the Cape Peninsula. The people who live in the Peninsula are for the most part Coloureds and Whites. Now the State President may find it necessary to ascertain the opinion of the inhabitants of the Peninsula on a specific matter. I accept that these are two separate population groups which will vote in separate venues. If the Coloured people and the Whites in the Peninsula have to give a verdict on the same question and a referendum is held in this connection, is the Government willing to add together the sum total as far as the verdict of the Coloured people is concerned and the sum total for the Whites and then adopt the democratic approach by saying that the majority vote which has been polled there is the standpoint of that particular area and that that result will then be accepted? That is all I want to know.

It is a foolish hypothesis.

No, Sir, it is not a foolish hypothesis as the hon. member for Ermelo is alleging. Surely it is not foolish that Coloured people and Whites should participate in a referendum on a specific matter. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Ermelo will simply have to join the discussion. We can take Ermelo as an example. I grew up there, and the hon. member represents Ermelo until the next election. There are many Indians living in the Eastern Transvaal. If we were then to hold a regional referendum for the Eastern Transvaal, in which many Indians are living, a referendum in which the opinion of the Indians and the Whites on a specific matter is ascertained separately, would the NP submit to the joint result of the Indians and the Whites in respect of that specific matter? [Interjections.] It is not a foolish question.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Rissik satisfied to vote in the company of the Black Sash and White Antichrists on 2 November?

Anyone who has an identity document and who is entitled to vote on 2 November, may of course do so. [Interjections.] The CP will not disenfranchise people who are entitled to vote or prevent them from voting.

Then you are a racist. The issue for you is simply a White and Brown one.

That is an interesting statement. In the legislation provision is made for three separate groups to vote. If the hon. the Minister shares the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister that the Coloured people speak the language of the Whites, have the same church denomination, fight on the same borders, etc., on what grounds therefore does he wish to place them in another Chamber? [Interjections.]

Order! This discussion about the various Chambers, about own affairs and matters of common interest is no longer going to be allowed. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause now.

Sir, I should like to come back to the clause, but then hon. members must not ask me questions to which I have to reply. [Interjections.] If I do not reply to the questions, they either say that I am afraid or that I cannot reply to them. Nevertheless, Sir, I shall abide by your ruling.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister, however, whether he will accept the result of a referendum when Coloureds, Whites and Indians vote jointly on a general affair. Will the Government submit to the result?

Mr. Chairman, the Government’s policy in this connection is very clear. For the purposes of the election of members of the House of Assembly, or for any other purpose, it is not the approach of the Government that the votes of the Coloureds, Indians and Whites should be thrown together into one hat and counted. The Government’s policy is clear and lucid, namely group decision-making within group context. That is inter alia why the PFP is so drastically opposed to the proposals of the Government. The hon. member knows that what he is now asking me can only happen if a party such as the PFP should come into power in South Africa. This is the policy of the PFP, and we differ with it drastically and dramatically. Our complaint against hon. member of the CP is in fact that they are, by misleading actions and statements, trying to create the false impression that the NP Government has allegedly committed itself to this course. The hon. member may therefore rest assured on that score.

What is possible, however—this is what we have to make provision for—is that in the new dispensation the Coloured Ministers’ Council may ask the State President to arrange for the Coloureds to be consulted in regard to a particular matter. In this way a referendum may be held among the Coloureds. In the same way the House of Assembly may ask for its people to be consulted and the Indian House may ask for the Indians to be consulted. The State President may, however, also decide in respect of a matter of common interest that there shall be countrywide consultation of all three groups in respect of a specific matter. This is all possible. Different variations are possible. It is also possible that the Coloureds or the Whites may say for example that they want a verdict on a specific matter in a specific province. This may then give rise to the regional type of situation.

I think the hon. member has made enough political capital now. Perhaps we should rather begin to dispose of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 5. On page 2, in line 22, after “by” to insert “a”.
2. 6. On page 2, from line 30, to omit “on a day or consecutive days and, subject to the provisions of this Act, during the hours so specified”.
3. 7. On page 2, after line 32, to insert:
   1. (c) fix the day upon which the referendum shall be held: Provided that such day shall not be earlier than 45 days after the publication of such proclamation;

The clause makes provision that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette make certain regulations regarding a referendum. What we seek to do with these amendments is to govern the way in which such proclamations are made.

By means of amendment No. 5 we seek to change the clause so that instead of it reading “the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette” it will read “the State President may by a proclamation in the Gazette". This is a very minor amendment and I am sure it is one with which the hon. the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting. Although it is a minor amendment, it is important because it is the proclamation in the Gazette which sets the rules of the game and determines how the referendum has to be run. Earlier on this afternoon the hon. the Minister said that he was concerned that the rules of the game as far as the referendum was concerned should be entirely fair to each party. The problem we have is that it is possible, as the clause is worded, for a number of proclamations to be made setting out the conditions from paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of clause 2. What we should like to see is one proclamation in which all the conditions from (a) to (e) are set out. This will make it much easier for all the parties to participate from the start because they will know exactly where they stand as the regulations will be clear. It will also make it impossible to change the rules once a referendum has got underway. I think every hon. member will agree that it is important that once the game has started, once the referendum has started, these rules are not changed. It is like starting a game of rugby in the course of which the referee can change the rules as the game goes along. I suppose that will not be too bad if the referee is totally unbiased, but with all due respect, we do not believe the referee will be totally unbiased in this situation. That is why we should like to see this clearly set out from the start.

Amendments No. 6 and 7 are aimed at achieving two objectives. The first objective is to confine the length of the referendum to one day. Had our earlier amendment been accepted to make it possible to include Blacks in the referendum, then we might not have insisted on one day because obviously in view of the places where Blacks live, the long distances which they have to travel and the methods of travel involved it may not have been practical to confine a referendum to one day. As clause 1 has gone through as it has, we believe that it is possible and also desirable to limit the length of a referendum to one day. There is no reason why any member of the White population, the Coloured population or the Indian population could not realistically attend a polling station on the particular day in question. By confining it to one day it makes administration much easier, it makes security provisions and regulations much easier, for example what is to happen to ballot boxes overnight, and it makes all the mechanisms much easier which are involved in a referendum. To cover all these aspects it would of course be much easier if the referendum was confined to one day. That is what we should like to achieve by means of amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Our other objective is that adequate notice is given of the referendum. In the case of the forthcoming referendum the hon. the Prime Minister gave us two months’ notice. This kept all the Opposition parties happy, and I think that was fair. My amendment is aimed at us getting at least 45 days’ notice of a referendum. Obviously this is the minimum period an Opposition party needs to get ready, to plan its campaign and to do what is necessary for a referendum. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that theoretically it is possible for the governing party, because it is they who make the decision about a referendum, to be aware of it for a longer period before an Opposition party is. That is why I would like to see that the proclamation for a referendum be promulgated at least 45 days before the date of such a referendum.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on amendment No. 7 of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. As far as amendment No. 5 is concerned, I think the hon. the Minister will give him a satisfactory answer.

In regard to the hon. member’s amendment about notice being given at least 45 days prior to a referendum taking place, we on this side of the House are of the opinion that the date should be left open. It can be determined by regulation, in accordance with the needs of the particular referendum that has to be held. By including a provision in the Bill specifying a minimum period of 45 days, we would specifically be depriving the Bill of what it was our intention to build into it, i.e. pliancy and a certain degree of flexibility.

Hon. members will remember that earlier this year when elections were being discussed here, the hon. member for Tygervallei and I advocated that elections in South Africa should be made more streamlined. I pointed out that in England it was possible for Mrs. Thatcher to finish off an election within 21 days of having called such an election. It is true that we are not dealing with the Electoral Act now, but I do want to contend that whatever is applicable to the Electoral Act, could just as well be applicable to this measure.

As the hon. member rightly pointed out, there will be a period of two months prior to the referendum that has been announced. I do believe, however, that in future circumstances could arise that might make it necessary for the Government to test a certain category of voters, in a much shorter period of time, by way of a referendum. Such circumstances could indeed arise.

For these reasons we cannot agree with the hon. member’s amendment. We feel that the date should remain open so as to retain that degree of pliancy and flexibility.

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

1. 1. On page 2, from line 24, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:
   1. (a) declare that a referendum shall be held in order to ascertain the views of White or Coloured or Indian voters as separate groups;
2. 2. On page 2, from line 28, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
   1. (b) determine that the referendum shall be held among the voters of the Republic, including those resident outside the Republic, and other voters in a part of the Republic specified in the proclamation;
3. 3. On page 2, from line 33, to omit paragraph (c).
4. 4. On page 2, in line 37, after “contain” to insert:

Clause 2(1)(a) reads—

By proclamation the State President can declare that a referendum should be held in order to ascertain the views of the voters. The voters could therefore be Whites, Coloureds and Indians who could jointly express their views. My amendment is aimed at ascertaining the views of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians separately.

My second amendment is aimed at also enfranchising those voters living outside the Republic.

Clause 21(1)(c) reads—

As the clause reads at present, the State President can, by proclamation in the Gazette, determine who shall be entitled, on compliance and subject to the provisions of this Act, to vote in a referendum. As the clause reads at present, the State President can again designate who the voters are to be, Whites, Coloureds or Indians, and if my amendment 1(a) were to be accepted, this clause would be unnecessary. We therefore move that the clause be deleted.

Clause 2(1)(d) reads—

We should like to have inserted, after “contain”—

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and at the same time I wish to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 10. On page 2, from line 44, to omit subsection (2).

My amendment seeks to delete subsection (2) from clause 2. The reason for my amendment is that at the outset one would concede that it is possible for any proclamation to be cancelled and superseded by a new proclamation. However, we do not believe that it is desirable on as fundamental a question as a referendum that provision should be made for a proclamation to be amended from time to time by further proclamations. Let us look at what is provided for in this clause. Subsection (1)(a) states that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette—

We are happy with that provision, as it may be necessary to determine the views of, say, women on a particular matter, or men on a particular matter, or an age group, for example 18 to 25 years of age. Therefore we are happy with the clause as it stands.

Paragraph (b) states—

We are happy with that as well. For instance, it might be necessary to follow up something that happened last week in order to determine the views of, for example, the residents of Mayfair on whether they wanted the area in which they live to be mixed or not to be mixed. In terms of this provision a referendum could be held in Mayfair to determine that.

If the amendment of my hon. colleague to the previous clause had been accepted it might have been possible to determine the views of the residents of the Moutse area as to whether they wanted to be removed from Lebowa and added to kwaNdebele. Unfortunately that was not accepted.

Paragraph (c) states—

It is the same thing. If we were to take May-fair as an example we would say that just the people of Mayfair could vote in that referendum. However, we might extend it by saying that not only the residents, but also the property owners in that area as well. Therefore we are happy with that paragraph.

We are also happy with paragraphs (d) and (e), which provide for the determining of the form of a ballot paper and for the appointment of an officer. However, we believe that all these details should have been well thought out and decided upon well in advance. They are basic and fundamental matters and should not be chopped and changed to suit the whim of a political party. Let us take an example. Let us look at the Middelburg by-election which is to come up later this year. The date has been changed to suit the NP and to avoid possible embarrassment if the election had been held the week before as was originally planned. What is going to happen now is that both the by-election and the referendum in that Middelburg area will be held on the same day. For purposes of the referendum people in the Middelburg area may vote anywhere they choose, but for the by-election they must vote at their regular polling booths and in terms of the Electoral Act. I believe that in Middelburg, on 2 November, things could well develop into a shambles. That has all come about simply because the NP have changed their minds. We do not believe it should happen in a referendum. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put forward a few ideas about the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Kuruman. The nature of the amendment indicates that hon. members of the CP are still trying to draw a parallel between a referendum and an election.

When an election is held, we are dealing with a specific legal situation which is the direct result of such an election. Representatives of various constituencies are elected, and this results in the House of Assembly or a provincial council being constituted, which in turn leads to a Government being constituted. Since we do have separate population groups, we agree with hon. member of the CP that the separate representation of those groups is advisable. That is also the reason why the whole Constitution Bill, which has been discussed in this House over the past few months, is based on that principle.

I think it is necessary to bear in mind, however, that in a referendum one is dealing with the ascertaining of views; that no legal situation results from this, it merely being an indication of the feelings or opinions of certain people, certain categories of voters; even perhaps of the people in a certain area of the country. The Government of the day, which holds such a referendum, does so with a view to ascertaining certain views. No legal situation therefore results from this.

Hon. members of the CP are now consistently trying to confuse the necessity for separate elections with the necessity of having separate voting in a referendum. I want to agree with the hon. member for Kuruman when he says that in normal circumstances one would separately elicit the views of the White voters, the Coloured voters and the Indian voters because one wanted an indication of the individual standpoints of the respective population groups. It is however, also conceivable that in particular circumstances the inhabitants of a certain area would have to be asked for their opinions. We therefore believe that this specific amendment could only lead to a further restriction being placed on the relative Government’s freedom to elicit the opinions of a group of voters or of the electorate as a whole. We therefore do not believe that this is justified.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to become involved in the debate between the CP and the NP in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kuruman. Therefore the hon. member for Umlazi must forgive me for not replying to what he has just said.

I should like to refer to something mentioned by the hon. member Mr. Kritzinger. He spoke about an election taking place in three weeks in Britain. I believe that if we are going to have “soepelheid” or flexibility in South Africa, we should try to fix one day a year for all elections and referendums. In this respect I can refer for instance to the State of California, where the electorate can decide on numerous things on the first Tuesday in November every year. As hon. members probably know, the first Tuesday in November is the day on which all elections in the USA take place—for Congress, for the Presidency, for State legislature, and for municipalities. Even referenda are held on the first Tuesday in November. I think consideration should be given to the possibility of even allowing private individuals to make suggestions in connection with matters that could be tested by way of a referendum. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister for instance to proposition No. 13, which was proposed by a particular individual in the USA, and which had to do with taxation. The proposition was accepted by the State as one of the matters in connection with which a referendum could be held. Therefore I believe that attention will have to be given to the question of flexibility. In this respect it is important, I believe, to consider the possibility of a fixed day each year for all elections and referenda to take place. By doing that we will have a whole year in which to prepare ourselves for it, and everybody in the country will know that on that particular date a referendum will take place, if necessary. That would be far better, I believe, than having a whole series of referenda scattered on various dates throughout the year.

If we are going to have a referendum under the prevailing circumstances, I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, particularly in respect of fixing the day not earlier than 45 days after the proclamation appears. In the future we have to give the people in the area concerned a period of time in which to prepare themselves, and 45 days more or less ties up with the amount of time allowed in ordinary elections where there are so many days between proclamation and nomination and so many days from nomination to election day. According to our experience, that is the amount of time required for people to prepare themselves for an election. It is no good trying to have a referendum after three weeks’ notice. Most people will not even understand what the question to be put in the referendum is if the referendum is to be called within three weeks. The Government should give plenty of notice, but I think that a minimum period of 45 days is very necessary. I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to have placed on record the fact, firstly, that I regret we cannot support any of the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Kuruman.

As regards the first amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I do not believe that it is necessary, because it is standard procedure to determine that “the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette …”. I do not think it makes it any better to word it: “By a proclamation in the Gazette”. I think it is quite clear that what is intended is that it shall be by a proclamation. It is not necessary to have “a” inserted.

As far as the hon. member’s next two amendments are concerned, we will certainly be supporting those because we believe he is quite correct when he points out that there is no necessity for the words “on a day or consecutive days and, subject to the provisions of this Act, during the hours so specified”. After all is said and done, the State President will by proclamation determine that a referendum shall be held in the Republic, or in a part of the Republic specified in that proclamation. There is no need for there to be any more than that in it.

I would agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said about a referendum being held not earlier than 45 days after the proclamation appears. We in South Africa have not as yet reached the stage of sophistication that has possibly been reached in countries like the USA and Britain. We are not as yet geared up to that point. In addition, we have a problem with distances and a number of other factors. I believe we must first see how things go with the use of an identity document in a referendum and also possibly in future elections before we start tampering too much with what is custom and tradition in our country. It has been custom and tradition from virtually Union to have a period of at least 45 days between proclamation and the actual day of the election or, in this case, the referendum. I do not think that this is something the hon. the Minister should look upon unkindly. I think it is something he can quite readily accept. It is a reasonable request and amendment and one worthy of support.

We cannot agree with the first amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. Nor can we agree with his second amendment. It is obviously for the ruling party of the day, whether it be the NP, the PFP, the CP or ourselves, to determine what the question shall be. I do not believe that it is for a panel of judges or anybody else to determine that. We cannot go along with that.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has moved an amendment with which we agree entirely. Once the proclamation has been printed in the Gazette and the referendum has been called, that should be the end of the story. To have a mechanism whereby there can be a change in the rules prior to the day on which the game commences is quite honestly bad in our view. It does not look good and it leaves virtually a bam door open for malpractices. We do not believe it is in the interest of good legislation to have subsection (2) in the Bill. We believe this is very bad. It is not the thing that should be written into our statutes. We will therefore certainly be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react, firstly, to the amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Kuruman. I am afraid we also cannot support his first three amendments. As regards the second amendment I may mention that we have initially in the Select Committee given our support to it. The voting took place fairly quickly, and at the time it was our impression that this really deals with the position of absent voters, people who happen to be within the Republic at a particular time, and not with the position of people permanently resident outside of the Republic. This is a category which we believe should not necessarily have the automatic right to participate in such a referendum. In respect of the position of voters in South West Africa who have clearly chosen to remain there who are clearly citizens of that territory, who clearly participate in elections in that territory to the extent that they are held, I feel they do not deserve a situation where they can participate in either referendums or elections in South Africa. Therefore we will not be supporting the second amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman, as I have already indicated, as well as the first and the third amendment.

As regards the hon. member’s fourth amendment, I will soon move my own amendment regarding the putting of the question. However, very much as a second prize, we do believe some parliamentary control over the framing of the question is being provided in the fourth amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman, and therefore we will support it.

I just wish to also indicate that I obviously support the three amendments moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. At this stage I wish to move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 8. On page 2, in line 36, after “(d)” to insert “subject to the provisions of subsection (3),”.
2. 9. On page 2, after line 46, to add:
   1. (3)(a) The question put on the ballot paper for reply shall be submitted to a committee consisting of the Chief Justice and two judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa of his choice, which shall determine whether the question has been clearly and fairly formulated and contains no misrepresentations.
   2. (b) The committee referred to in paragraph (a) shall give all interested parties an opportunity of making representations before it comes to a decision.

The second amendment concerns the question on the ballot paper. It is drafted in the first instance by the executive, and we do believe they have the right to do it. They have the right to decide which question is to be asked, when it shall be asked and who it shall be asked of. However, we do believe that there is certainly some room for the Committee provided for in my amendment—a committee consisting of the Chief Justice and two other judges of appeal—to determine whether such a question has been clearly and fairly formulated and whether it contains no misrepresentations. A decision by such a committee shall be arrived at only after all interested parties have had the opportunity to make representations. The tests which I have set in my amendment, namely that it should be clearly and fairly formulated and that it should not contain any misrepresentations are not tests that are necessarily political in nature. They are certainly tests which can be applied in law and which therefore can be applied by a committee essentially consisting of judges. I certainly do believe that in this respect there is a role for judges to play in ensuring that a question is put in such a fair way that the voters who have to react to it can truly make a choice in a sensible and informed way and that fair play does take place in the course of such a referendum.

In the course of the Second Reading debate the point has already been made that this amounts to an interference into the rights of the executive to frame the question. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. There is certainly a check on the right of the executive to frame a question and I believe that is perfectly justifiable, but the mere fact that a committee decides whether the question is fair, clear and free of misrepresentation should not interfere in any substantial way with the basic and fundamental right to in fact put such a question. I therefore have to reject that argument. I still believe there is room for such a committee.

The argument has also been used in the Second Reading debate that the hon. the Prime Minister has already announced a referendum and indicated what the question is going to be. If the question is going to be proclaimed in the way the hon. the Prime Minister has announced I do believe it is a fair and straightforward question which is capable of being answered very clearly either in the affirmative or in the negative. However, that does not necessarily mean that all questions are going to be framed in that form. Hon. members on the other side of the Committee will certainly know that they themselves have been speculating to a fairly extensive degree about how one can frame questions to try and embarrass one’s opposition. Hon. members will know who I am talking about.

I believe that if one just looks at some of the advertisements placed by the NP, obviously at great expense, one can see what unbelievable confusion can be created if one presents false alternatives. If anything in the nature of that is reproduced in a ballot paper, it can by no stretch of the imagination be described as being fair, clear or free of misrepresentation. I believe that that would just simply lead to a false answer to the question, and a false test which will clearly not be in anybody’s interest. I therefore believe that these two amendments certainly could be of great value as a part of this Bill if they should be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, both the arguments of the CP and the PFP were concerned with who should determine the question and how it should be determined. The hon. member for Green Point is now moving an amendment to the effect that a committee of judges should be appointed to determine the question. What do the practicalities of the situation teach us? In regard to the two referendums that have been held in South Africa, I do not think there was any voter who could argue about whether the question was a correct or incorrect one.

I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether the PFP is satisfied with the question that is to be put in the referendum on 2 November. [Interjections.] They are satisfied with it. So to chase up hares by suggesting that the Government is purposely going to put a question that will drive voters into a corner, thus forcing them to vote yes or no, does have not have much to commend it, as far as I am concerned. I think that these people are basing all their arguments on mere supposition. Like the hon. member for Umhlanga, I want to argue that it is the governing party’s pre-eminent right to test the views of the population as a whole, a part of the population or a certain category of the population, by way of a referendum. It is also the governing party’s prerogative to put the question, because it is not a matter involving the election of representatives or the election of a new House of Assembly, but merely a matter of a specific question. Hon. members can argue that the referendum that is at hand is a very important referendum. The hon. member for Kuruman moved an amendment to the effect that Parliament should decide about that. What this amounts to is that it is not only the governing party that must be involved in the decision about a question that is going to determine whether drastic changes are to be introduced. I want to put the following question to the hon. member for Kuruman: Who determined the question in the 1960 referendum? Was it Parliament or was it Dr. Verwoerd?

We trusted Dr. Verwoerd.

Just listen to that, Sir! That is the outrageous argument of those hon. members! They trusted Dr. Verwoerd! I want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman whether he accepts the question put by the present hon. Prime Minister?

We accept it.

They accept it. That is the kind of argument one gets from those hon. members. They accept the question set by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with this referendum, but in one and the same breath they say that only Dr. Verwoerd could decide, because they trusted Dr. Verwoerd. Those hon. members are really painting themselves into a corner. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik is a political sissy. When he or one of his own colleagues is speaking, he always kicks up a great fuss if anyone makes interjections. When he is not supposed to be speaking, however, he goes on speaking.

It is my contention that in the 1960 referendum a much wider-ranging question could have been put. One could possibly have asked people: Do you want a Republic within or outside the Commonwealth? Only one question was put, however, about which neither this Parliament, nor a court or a committee of judges decided. The governing party decided. My contention is therefore that that argument really does not hold any water.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South remarked—he also moved an amendment—that he did not like the idea of a referendum not being restricted to a specific day, but also being held on successive days. He also said that because Black people were being excluded, the argument that because Black people lived in rural areas, it would facilitate matters for them to vote on consecutive days, falls away. I present the following for the hon. member’s consideration. There are also rural Coloureds who live in certain widely scattered areas. If referendums need to be held amongst the Coloured communities in the rural areas in future, the same argument applies as that which applied to Black people in the past, i.e. that of holding elections on consecutive days.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also put forward the argument that the regulations that were going to be made should now be included in this legislation. I think that we already discussed that principle in depth in the Second Reading debate. The reason that was given was the fact that we were seeking flexibility in regard to this legislation. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also said: “The referee can change the rules after the game has started.” Let me say at once that a Government that wants to hold a referendum will, as quickly as possible, want the electorate to be sure of what it is all about. The examples the hon. member gave about such things as the changing of the date, etc., do not, as far as I am concerned, hold any water. There is possibly some merit in the argument that the date for holding a referendum should be published 45 days prior to the holding of the referendum, and the hon. the Minister will probably still be dealing with that. Let us, however, take another look at what happens in practice. The referendum that is going to be held on 2 November was announced more than 60 days before the time. All political parties therefore know that a referendum is going to be held on 2 November. The hon. the Prime Minister also put the question, on which a decision has to be reached, to South Africa.

In connection with clause 2, the hon. member for Kuruman also wanted it in writing that we would not hold mixed referendums. He wants it in writing that referendums will be held separately. The hon. the Minister went out of his way to explain to those hon. members how the new constitution is going to work, and my contention is that those hon. members are merely stirring up trouble round the question of mixed government, joint voting and heaven knows what else. I want to repeat what I said to the hon. member for Rissik a while ago. I told the hon. member that he was prepared to let people in South Africa vote on the same day as long as they are White, regardless of whether they were members of the Black Sash, atheists, Moslems or Hindus. They must not, however, be Coloureds or Asians. I therefore allege that those hon. members are so racist in their whole approach that they have really lost their sense of balance. In regard to an example I want to give about, say, defence, let me ask: If at some time in the future a referendum has to be held about a certain aspect of defence in which Whites, Coloureds and Indians are involved, what would be wrong with holding a referendum so that those people could decide?

Would they all be liable to military service?

The hon. member is now coming along with a counter-question. It is not the question that is at issue, but rather the mechanism. The hon. member must not try getting away from the argument by throwing in another argument. It is my explicit contention that the legislation is so clear that the hon. members do not have any argument to raise. That is why they are frothing over with racism and why they bring this up to bedevil the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Green Point do not agree in their opposition to the provisions of the Bill concerning the question, because the hon. member for Green Point wants a committee comprised of judges to be appointed, whilst the hon. member for Kuruman wants Parliament to determine the question.

The hon. member for Kuruman objects to the Bill because he regards it—I think deliberately—as an integration measure because it would be possible for Coloureds, Indians and Whites to vote on the same day.

Repeat what you have just said.

I do not think I am one of the softest-spoken members in the Committee. I suggest the hon. member for Rissik has his hearing tested if he cannot hear what I am saying.

In these parties’ objections to the Bill there is an element of striking similarity. Their objections are politically orientated, a continuation of the suspicion-mongering about the so-called unreliability of the NP Government and the NP. If one analyses this trend of thought, it is very clear that they want to tell the electorate: In the Referendums Bill we ourselves have shown that the NP Government and the NP cannot be trusted with South Africa’s cause.

Hear, hear!

That “Hear, hear!” confirms, does it not, that I am right in the conclusion I have drawn, and I think the PFP should also be shouting “Hear, hear!”, because I put them in the same category when it comes to this matter.

What is strange about this matter is that if one asks those parties, as an hon. member has already done, whether they agree that the question put in the 1960 referendum was a fair question, they say “yes”. The CP says that they said “yes” because they trusted Dr. Verwoerd. The CP is merely confirming, once more, their lack of faith in the NP Government and the NP.

Hear, hear!

Sir, they are sinking deeper and deeper into the quagmire. [Interjections.] Gumboots are becoming all the more necessary. How are we to take it if they tell us they are also satisfied with the justness of the question for the coming referendum, whilst at the same time saying that they have reason to distrust those who will, in future, be putting the questions? Is that being consistent, is it normal, or must one conclude that there is simply one motive behind this distrust, i.e. to obtain votes against the NP in the referendum? If it is simply a case of striving to get votes for or against the issue, let me ask whether we are actually promoting South Africa’s cause. I think it is a serious question. Even though the hon. member for Rissik sits there sneering, as usual, I do think it is a very important question that we must ask ourselves. In these difficult times we must answer this very important question for South Africa. The future of each and every person in this House, of every member of the general public, depends on the answer that is obtained. Must we, in such serious circumstances, give precedence to political advantage, or should we rather give thought to South Africa?

I want to make a serious plea that in the discussion of this legislation—and here I am including the PFP, the NRP, the CP and the NP—we should, in heaven’s name, get to the nub of the question, and that in the discussion of this measure we put South Africa first and put politics aside. This measure is not a political measure.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein made a few remarks about who should judge whether the question is right of wrong. Of course it is the executive who decides. Even though Dr. Verwoerd announced the question, it still had to be approved by his Cabinet and the executive. However, we are not talking about this particular referendum or this particular question. We are busy with a measure which is going to apply for a long period of time. We do not know what questions are going to be put forward on what subjects in future and for whom referendums we are going to have. That is why we ask that there should be a panel of judges who has to assess on the validity of the questions that should be put in future referendums.

Mr. Chairman, before I react to the various speakers, I should like to react, in sequence, to the amendments that have been moved.

As far as the first amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman is concerned, I think that we have already discussed the matter in regard to clause 1 in detail and that I have put the Government’s standpoint very clearly. In regard to the amendments generally, I just want to say that many of them are attempting to do specifically what we said, during the Second Reading debate, we did not want to do in the Bill, and that was write in all the details. I shall therefore quite frequently be refusing to accept amendments because they want to include detail in the Bill, whilst we have specifically said that the Bill must be flexible because of the fact that in various circumstances it will have to be used for various groups. It is the Government’s policy that when a referendum is held, it will be held in such a way that each and every group involved in this measure will be able to formulate its opinion. We do not want to throw votes into a hat and obtain one single opinion. As in the case of elections, we want to test decision-making and opinion-formation on a group basis.

Secondly, the hon. member has again come forward with an amendment about who should vote. We have already discussed this question in detail in regard to South West Africa, and I am not going to repeat the argument now. I therefore cannot accept the hon. member’s second amendment either, nor therefore the consequential amendation that he moved in his third amendment. As far as the fourth amendment is concerned, an amendment which actually goes hand in hand with amendment No. 9, printed in the name of the hon. member for Green Point, I do not see my way clear to accepting that amendment either. The Government, the State President, now or in the new dispensation, does not ever need to call a referendum. The government has a mandate to govern the country. It can take decisions. It can take any decision by way of legislation passed by Parliament and it can carry it through. This legislation presents another option. Instead of passing legislation on the grounds of the mandate obtained through elections, it can say: Before presenting a case to the elected representatives or, as in the case of the coming referendum, after having presented it to the elected representatives, the Government would broadly like to test public opinion. It is therefore a decision that the executive authority takes because it wants to. So to make such a decision subject to a parliamentary decision, or subject to finalization by a committee consisting of judges, would be making a mockery of the inherent powers of the executive authority. That is, however, a trend discernible in the ranks of the official Opposition, because they cannot obtain an adequate mandate to take over the Government. Because they realize that they have no hope of obtaining it, they consistently want to remove the powers that all democratic Governments have, place these powers in other people’s hands and find methods of placing obstacles in the way of the Government’s efforts at governing the country. What they cannot achieve by way of political debate or at the polls, they now want to try to achieve by way of court cases, technical points and all kinds of other mechanisms that they want to use to further strengthen their influence as an Opposition. That is really the only reason I can think of. This really attests to a lack of self-confidence. Unreasonable questions in a referendum play into the hands of the Opposition and expose the State President, and the governing party from which he comes, to criticism. It plays into the Opposition’s hands, and that is why any sensible Government—unless it has suicidal tendencies—will always take the trouble, as in the case of this referendum, to formulate its question carefully and to make the rules of the game fair and just so that it does not expose itself to unnecessary criticism and so that attention can really be focused on the actual point at issue. Hon. members must hold to these facts. This Bill does not say that referendums are being made compulsory. It is merely empowering the executive authority to say that it can go further than it needs to go in terms of our system and allowing the executive authority to say that it wants to test public opinion. Having made that gesture, it is surely the prerogative of the party, which has decided to make that gesture, to say what question it wants to ask and what the poll is all about. Therefore I do not see my way clear to accepting these amendments.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South moved a fairly innocuous amendment in his amendment No. 5 by wanting to insert the word “a” after the word “by”.

*It appeared to me that one could accept the amendment, but after having made inquiries, it seems that it would really make no difference. If I were to accept it, however, it could lead to a fairly strange situation if I did not also accept the hon. member for Johannesburg North’s amendment. Subsection (2) provides that further proclamations can be issued. Because I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I shall not be able to accept this one either.

†The hon. member furthermore moved the deletion of the words “on a day or consecutive days and, subject to the provisions of this Act, during the hours so specified”. I think that has been argued fairly adequately already. I am not prepared to accept that amendment, simply because circumstances may arise which make it necessary to hold a referendum over a longer period than one day.

I just want to refer to two such possibilities. Firstly another group with different circumstances, the Coloured group, may come along and state that they want to hold a referendum over two days. Even the Indians may come along with such a request. Therefore, I believe, we should leave that option open. It has as a matter of fact been suggested to me in informal discussions that it would be a good thing to maintain flexibility in this particular connection. Secondly I should like to point out that we do not know whether intimidation may not become a very important factor in some future referendum. Therefore, having a referendum over more than one day can create a very important possibility of obviating the dangers and the threats of intimidation. Therefore I believe that we should maintain this measure of flexibility, and that the particular stipulation should not be amended.

Thirdly, the hon. member moved in his seventh amendment the insertion of the period of 45 days as a minimum period before holding a referendum. In this regard I should point out that if we were to insert details, as we have in some other pieces of legislation, 45 days would possibly have been a reasonable period. It might even be a little bit short, I believe.

*The reason why we should not do it is, I believe, firstly because I do not want to include details in the Bill. Secondly I think that the danger of fixing the period at 45 days lies in the fact that it is restricted solely to 45 days. Is it not better to establish a convention to have referendums announced as quickly as possible, especially when it is a question of such a very important matter, necessitating large-scale mobilizations by all parties. The actual proclamation is not the important aspect as far as I am concerned. What is important is that as soon as the decision has been taken, the announcement should be made.

In this respect I can attest to an exceptional instance of a similar nature. Parliament was, for example, immediately informed when the actual decision about a referendum was taken. If we were to accept the provision of 45 days, we would be able to keep silent about holding a referendum. It would be possible for us first to get all our machinery ready for action and then make a surprise announcement about a referendum. I do not think that is how we should do things. That is not, in any case, how we have done it. There is nothing sinister in this. We shall not, for example, make it known, 10 days before the time, that a referendum is going to be held. One does, in any case, need that run-up period, after the proclamation, to do all the things for which the legislation under discussion makes provision. I just do not want us to weigh ourselves down with details in this regard.

I have already dealt with the amendments moved by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Johannesburg North’s argument about the question of amendment being eliminated is an aspect on which I do briefly want to comment.

†Once again—I suppose it is only natural—the hon. member for Johannesburg North, as an Opposition member, reads all sorts of sinister possibilities into this measure.

You have given us adequate reason.

Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to name only one positive reason why a clause such as this is indeed necessary. In terms of this legislation we might proclaim a referendum. After proclamation the Opposition may come along with the request that this clause should be amended because they do not like it. They may want to change it, and it may also be possible for them to argue forcefully that for some reason or other—some valid reason—that should indeed be done. Say for instance we have forgotten that the day on which a referendum is to be held is perhaps a religious holiday for some affected group, and that administratively there has been an oversight. Should we not be able to amend it, or should we go through the whole rigmarole of approaching the State President—something which would in any event be possible—in order to withdraw the proclamation, and proclaiming a new referendum the next day in a special Government Gazette? It is of course always possible to do that, and I think it is better to stipulate in this legislation that it can be amended. Once again one has the political weapon in one’s hand. Should we be unreasonable with our amendments then obviously hon. members of the Opposition will be free to take us to task. Under such circumstances they should in any event have more certainty in respect of their powers of persuasion.

*Reference was made to Middelburg as an example. The hon. member acts as if it were unreasonable of us to have shifted the Middelburg by-election date from 26 October to 2 November. He must remember, though, that it is surely more convenient for the voters who have to vote in both the referendum and the provincial election to have both polling booths there side by side on the same day so that they can cast both their votes and do not have to vote on one issue the one week and another issue the following week. Many voters have to travel long distances in rural constituencies.

Secondly it costs the individual voter and the parties more if two separate elections are held instead of both being held on the same day. The custom of voting on the same day was established when, years ago, we decided that members of the provincial councils and members of the House of Assembly could be elected on the same day.

Those are two different things.

They may be two different things, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advocates that we should decide 20 different issues on one day.

In referendums.

Yes, but he advocates that we hold referendums, elections and everything on one day, as they do in California.

†I want to come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. A referendum costs money and it is really my firm opinion that a referendum should not be used for trivial matters. We do not want to go the way of California where the people vote on whether their should be seats in the park, on whether the parks should close at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. and on similar trivial questions. I am just, at random, giving imaginary possibilities. The fact of the matter is that in terms of Government policy a referendum could be used to get clarity about the opinion of the voters with regard to serious matters of great importance. In that sense one cannot time the need for a referendum by tying it to one particular day. When the need arises, one must be able to act very swiftly, always allowing sufficient time for the parties to get their machinery in order to participate in a referendum.

*I think I have dealt with all the arguments from the Opposition side. I say thank you very much to hon. members on this side who assisted me and also dealt with these arguments. I also gratefully associate myself with their arguments.

Amendments 1 and 2 negatived and amendment 3 dropped (Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 4 negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 5 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 6 negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, this clause is very straightforward. Our only problem is in regard to subsection (2) which empowers the chief referendum officer to appoint referendum officers for various areas. As these referendum officers are going to play a critical role in the functioning of referendums we feel that it is important that, as in the case of the Electoral Act, there is some time limitation placed upon the chief referendum officer to oblige him within a specified period to appoint these people and to make those appointments known in the Gazette as is provided for here. For that reason, we suggest that within 14 days of the proclamation of a referendum in terms of clause 2, these appointments be made known in the Gazette so that interested parties and organizations can start functioning properly and obtain the necessary details from such officer.

I want accordingly, Sir, to move the amendment to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. On page 4, in line 10, after “Gazette” to insert:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is identical to an amendment that I have on the Order Paper and therefore I shall not move my amendment. I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. I believe it to be in the interests of all concerned that the name of the referendum officer in each constituency should be known as timeously as possible. I do not believe there should be any reason why his name should not be announced within 14 days of the proclamation appearing in the Gazette. I think that the hon. the Minister will realize that it is fair to say that it will be very, very difficult for all parties concerned in a referendum to start their campaigns effectively and really to get going if they do not know who the referendum officer in that particular area or constituency is going to be. After all he is their liaison with the chief referendum officer and with the department which is centred in Pretoria. Without knowing the name of this individual it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for interested parties whether they are in favour of “yes” or “no”, whether it is for the coming referendum or whether it for a future referendum. It is going to make it extraordinarily difficult, as I say, to conduct any sort of campaign without knowing who one’s referendum officer is. I think the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to accepting this amendment. I cannot see any reason why anywhere in South Africa there should be a time lapse of longer than 14 days between the proclamation and the appointment of an officer in any constituency. I do not think any constituency exists which should present any unsurmountable obstacle in the way of accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again I think that 14 days appears to be a reasonable time, but for the same reason why I suggested we do not include the 45 days, I am not prepared to accept these amendments. I can give the hon. members the assurance that it will be announced as soon as possible and I think it can be done within 14 days. It is usually done within 14 days and it will be done within 14 days. However, we do not want to write the detail into the Bill. We want this to be a Bill authorizing a referendum, and the regulations will deal with that. The regulations will specify in detail the sort of procedure which will have to be followed in each case. Those regulations will therefore be promulgated for the purpose of a particular referendum. The regulations will be the document to which the hon. members refer and which will spell out the ground rules. The hon. members will have the opportunity to criticize those grounds rules, to attack them and to make nonsense of them if they are in actual fact nonsense. I do not want to include all these details in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I must take this further with the hon. the Minister. He says that this will be provided for in the regulations, but I want to draw his attention to the fact that in the suggested regulations that were placed before us but which we were not able to consider in the Select Committee—I believe the chairman of the Select Committee was probably correct in his ruling in that regard—the time is not specified.

The regulations which I have before me where they talk about polling officers, say that the chief referendum officer appoints a person as polling officer. I presume that would be the referendum officer in each polling area. The regulations go on to talk about a notice of an appointment under subsection (1), they say that the notice shall be published in the Gazette, but no time limit is given. The regulations then go on to talk about the incumbent of a post in the Public Service having been so appointed and they provide that the polling officer for a polling area may appoint one or more persons. We are not suggesting that the other people should be appointed within a specified time, but in the very thing to which the hon. the Minister made reference, these pro forma regulations which I have before me at this moment, there is no time limit.

I am quite happy to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance, but it is far better to provide specifically that it will be done within 14 days. It is not as though it is doing something untoward here; it is merely having 14 days stipulated in the clause. Subsection (2) of the clause should read—

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to take this point a little further. Whenever we ask for something to be stipulated which makes it clear that within the limited context of what we are talking about in the clause, there needs to be fair play and that a sensible procedure should be followed, the hon. the Minister talks of the need for flexibility and suggests that when he issues the regulations, if anybody does not like them, they can then publicly start debating the merits of the regulations, when in fact the main issue at the time will be the question of the referendum. If the hon. the Minister is going to be logical in his approach, can he explain for example why clause 3 exists at all? There is no need to mention that there is going to be a chief referendum officer or that he has to appoint as referendum officer any officer in the Public Service for a particular area. That can all be included in the regulations. The long list contained in clause 4 could be included in the regulations. So one can go on. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the reason why these things are included in the Bill, is because this Bill, in terms of referenda, is actually a disgraceful Bill. I presume that the hon. the Minister and his party …

I am prepared to accept the amendment, but if you carry on for too long I might change my mind!

The point I am making applies to other clauses as well, so I will rather take the point up when we discuss them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments, and on further consideration I do not think it would do any harm to accept the hon. member’s amendment. I therefore accept it.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. 1. On page 6, in line 11, after “rejected” to insert:

This is the interesting clause of the Bill, and I think we are going to get quite a lively discussion on a number of amendments that are going to be moved. I know that the discussion of this clause is going to involve us in a hot war between the CP and the NP. We feel very warmly about the subject as well.

We supported the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman on the Order Paper in the Select Committee, but then I thought that it was not worded quite as I would have like to see it worded. I have amended the amendment quite dramatically in that I removed all reference to race from the hon. member’s amendment. I took out the words “Whites, Coloureds or Indians”. I did so little realizing that it would possibly have the effect of bringing the official Opposition around to our way of thinking. However, I think it has probably served to encourage those hon. gentlemen also to support our amendment. I sincerely hope that is the case. I am not being presumptuous when I say this, because I make this claim as a result of what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said during his Second Reading speech. I quote—

He went on to say a little later—

I am delighted to hear the hon. member for Johannesburg North speak in this fashion because although they voted against the amendment of the hon. member of the CP in the Select Committee, since they have not moved their own amendment, they are now hopefully going to support the amendment that I have moved.

I know that the hon. member for Umbilo will be joining issue with the hon. the Minister on this issue. He did so at some length during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote earlier in the session. I know, too, that there is a lot of argument about counting votes on a constituency basis and particular reference is always made to doing so in respect of urban areas. A number of speakers from both sides of the House have offered arguments in regard to the urban areas and the cities. I think Pretoria is one that has been mentioned—and I think your own seat, Mr. Chairman, the seat of Verwoerdburg has been referred to quite often—and it has been suggested that the number of people who are registered in that particular constituency will cast their votes in the centre of Pretoria. I accept that. I accept that this is going to happen in the urban areas. It is going to happen in Pretoria and it is also going to happen in Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth etc. It will happen in the urban areas, but it is not going to happen in the rural areas. It is not going to happen in the far flung areas. There one is going to find that the voter is going to go to his traditional polling station and that is where he is going to cast his vote. I see no reason why we should not continue to count votes on a constituency basis or, even better, to count on the basis of a polling station as was outlined in the Referendum’s Act that was passed by this House last year. I know that a lot of people are going to say that this is possibly playing politics. This is not playing politics. This is purely a matter of logistics. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that he knows and I know and I think everybody in this House knows that the department has time and again freely admitted that counting on a constituency basis would be far, far easier to administer than counting on a regional basis. The department has accepted this. After all, the officials are there, they are in situ, they are able to balance the ballot immediately the polling stations close at constituency level. They are there.

The intention is that it will still be balanced at constituency level.

Balanced yes, but why not then count immediately at that level? The logistics are there. It is all there. Why not do it immediately? The officials of the department have told us that it would be easier to do so. We must accept that. I am sure that the hon. the Minister cannot gainsay that argument. It must be easier to do so at that level. Why, in heaven’s name, do we not do it?

I replied to that in my reply to the Second Reading debate.

I am afraid that I cannot in any way support the hon. the Minister’s argument at Second Reading. I cannot say that the hon. the Minister presented a convincing argument at the Second Reading. I really cannot do that. However, I do sincerely believe that if the logistics are at the polling station the count should be effected immediately. The figures can then be transmitted to the head constituency station for onward transmission and I think that the results would be known a lot earlier than they would be if they were all to be brought in to a central point and then counted at one time at the various regional offices throughout the Republic of South Africa.

As I said earlier, one of my hon. colleagues is going to be speaking on this issue and I am sure that others will join me in suggesting that this particular amendment should be accepted because I believe that South Africa will want to know the result on a constituency basis. Whether or not one finds that people will tend to vote in the city centres, rural South Africa will want it otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga argued that he could understand why the problem could arise in urban areas that a number of the voters could vote in constituencies other than those in which they were registered. That, of course, is not the whole story. The fact of the matter is simply that if we get rid of the old system of postal votes—as we have in fact done in this Bill—then we shall be in the position in which literally tens of thousands of voters—for example, young national servicemen throughout the country at various border bases in South West Africa and in the Republic—find themselves. In the past all those voters could cast postal votes; postal votes which could be channelled back to specific constituencies.

That is not our argument.

That is what we were able to do in the past. Of course that is so. Now, however, we can no longer do so, and because we can no longer do so, the position is that we would create a totally distorted picture of each constituency if we were to count the votes per constituency, as the hon. member for Umhlanga proposes.

Is that your most important reason?

That is the reason I am advancing, yes.

But is it your most important reason?

It is my reason I am advancing, yes.

Your most important reason?

In my opinion it is the most important reason, yes. [Interjections.] It is indeed my most important reason. I wish to point out for the benefit of the hon. member for Rissik, Mr. Chairman, that the fact is simply that we would obtain a totally distorted image of the actual position in each constituency. I do not believe the hon. member could dispute that.

That is what you say.

Of course, yes. If, for example, we were to count the votes on the basis of that constituency, and perhaps one-third of the voters in that constituency had voted outside that particular constituency, does the hon. member for Rissik contend that that would be a true reflection of the actual situation in that particular constituency? I ask the hon. member whether that is what he contends.

You do not know Pretoria.

My goodness, Mr. Chairman, now I do not know Pretoria. Honestly! If I do not know Pretoria, what place do I know? [Interjections.] Of course that is so. Surely the hon. member for Rissik knows that that is so.

You would do better to stick to Kimberley.

Precisely the same argument applies to Kimberley. [Interjections.] The same argument applies to Kimberley. To loudly maintain that I supposedly do not know Pretoria and am therefore unable to justify such a statement is surely absolutely ridiculous. [Interjections.] This argument applies in particular to the densely populated urban areas, such as Pretoria, Johannesburg and the entire Vaal Triangle.

I believe that this argument advanced by the hon. member for Umhlanga and by hon. members of the CP as well, really holds no water.

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

1. 4. On page 6, after line 50, to insert:
   1. (3) A regulation made under subsections (1)(a) and (1)(g) to (1)(n) shall be published in the Gazette on the same day as the proclamation referred to in section 2, and all other regulations made under this section shall be published in the Gazette within 14 days of such proclamation.

I want to state that the whole purpose of my amendment is to ensure that everybody will know the regulations and to whom they apply on the day of proclamation. Therefore we want certain portions of the regulations to be published on the same day as the proclamation, so that when preparations for a particular referendum begin, everybody will know exactly what regulations will apply. The remaining regulations can then be published within 14 days. The question of polling stations, for instance, involves an arrangement among the referendum agents and the chief referendum officer for a particular constituency. It does take time to establish polling stations. Therefore I believe that this is quite a reasonable request to put to the hon. the Minister.

There is one thing about the regulations, however, which I do not understand. That also applies to the statement made in this connection by the hon. member for Umhlanga. People in a particular polling district will arrive at the polling booths to cast their votes. What happens after that? Apparently, as far as I understand the regulations, what is going to happen is that all the boxes in that particular constituency are going to be sent to a central point in that constitution. When they arrive at that central point the first and only thing that is going to happen is that an audit will be carried out. Why send them all the way to a central point? Either you count them there or you do the audit at the polling station. If you want to count the actual votes, whether for or against, at a central point, let them be sent from the polling district to that central point. Why should they go to a central point in the constituency? If they are going to go to a central point in the constituency, one may as well count them in the constituency. Why send them to a central point in the constituency? If there are five or six polling districts in a constituency, in a central area like Johannesburg or Durban it is easy, but let us take a constituency like Prieska. All the votes must first be sent to a central point in Prieska and then from there the whole lot must be taken somewhere else again. I do not really see the point of that. I strangely enough agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga.

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

1. 2. On page 6, in line 11, after “rejected” to insert:
   : Provided that the result of the referendum shall be published in the Gazette and the votes given by Whites, Coloured persons or Indians for or against the question shall be announced separately and per electoral division
2. 3. On page 6, after line 44, to insert:
   1. (o) the manner in which voters resident outside the Republic may participate in the referendum,

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment No. 3 as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

I accept that, Sir.

I just wish to say right at the outset that the CP is opposed in principle to the Referendum’s Bill being arranged by regulation, to a very important referendum such as the one being held on 2 November concerning the constitution of South Africa, being arranged by regulation. Nevertheless, we are moving our amendment because we should like to improve the Bill.

I have already said in the discussion of the previous clause that we are opposed in principle to the organizing of this referendum by way of regulation. I also gave an example. Here we have a much better example. Clause 4(1)(c) reads—

Even before the Bill has been adopted, a newspaper report has appeared in which the Government states that it will only appoint one agent for the yes votes and one for the no votes. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is no yes organization or no organization in South Africa.

You are the no organization.

The CP is going to vote no. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister, since the CP as an organization is going to vote no in the referendum, to afford the CP the opportunity to appoint an agent for the no votes in every constituency in which it wishes to do so. [Interjections.] Clause 4(1)(c) reads—

I am going to move an amendment to that. It appears on the Order Paper.

I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about that. I take it that what his amendment will amount to is a condonation of what he has already decided. I would say that the clause as it stands ought to be right, because every organization with an interest in the referendum ought to have an agent. The CP has an interest in this and for that reason we should very much like the hon. the Minister to attend to this.

As regards the question whether there must be a central count or a count by constituency, I want to say that in the Select Committee some of the officials, and also political parties, with knowledge of elections said that the best and easiest place to do a counting is at the ballot box.

No one is arguing about that.

However, it is not always possible to do it there. We have never done it there in the past. The second best is to do the counting on a constituency basis.

No one is arguing about that.

If there is a balanced count at the ballot box, then the votes can be sent to the headquarters in the constituency.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended for supper, I was discussing whether counting should be on a central basis or on a constituency basis. In the Select Committee we were told that the aim of this Bill was to streamline the system. Moreover, the hon. the Minister said in the course of his speeches here that the Bill was aimed at streamlining the system. However, I contend that it is not streamlining to want to count votes at 15 different points in South Africa. This is a fragmentation of the counting mechanism. The Government is always saying that it is in favour of decentralization, but what we have here is centralization. [Interjections.] Why? Hon. members can laugh if they like, but I shall say why. Why is the Government centralizing in this instance? Why is the Government in favour of votes being counted at 15 points and not on a constituency basis? The hon. member for Kimberley South provided the answer earlier on, when he said that the results of constituencies could provide a distorted image. He said that constituencies would give us a distorted picture of the position of the parties in constituencies. In saying that, the hon. member let the cat out of the bag. The NP is afraid to see what the referendum results would be in the various constituencies. [Interjections.] In saying that he let the cat out of the bag.

That is untrue, and you know it is untrue.

The Government is afraid to say what the situation is like in the constituencies. The Government has reason to be afraid and panic-stricken about the results in the various constituencies.

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw the words “and you know it is untrue”.

He does not know it is untrue, Sir.

Order!

I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon. member for Kuruman may proceed.

The hon. member for Kimberley South is one of the men who would have reason to be concerned if the referendum were held on a constituency basis. I say: Kuruman is not afraid. Let us count the votes in Kuruman on a constituency basis. We are not afraid. The Government party is afraid to organize the referendum on a constituency basis.

[Inaudible.]

If there is one man in this House who ought to be gravely concerned, it is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs.

I said earlier on that the best place to count votes is at a polling station.

Is it now at the polling station?

I said that a moment ago as well. That hon. Deputy Minister knows very little about these things. He should wake up a little. I said earlier that the best place to count votes was at the polling station, at the ballot box. The second best place to count votes is in the constituency itself. If ballot boxes are conveyed from the various polling stations to the constituency head office where the votes are balanced, all that is necessary in the case of a referendum—after the votes have been balanced—is to separate the yes and no votes. [Interjections.] That hon. Deputy Minister—he represents Cradock—is also one of the fellows who become very nervous when we speak about these things. Moreover, he has reason to be nervous. What is being proposed in the legislation? The ballot boxes are conveyed to the constituency office where the votes are balanced. In Namaqualand, in the Northern Cape, for example, the ballot boxes have to be conveyed over thousands of kilometers to a central point. In every constituency there is already an organization that can assist in the counting and that can dispose of this task on the same day that that referendum is held. However, this Government, that seeks to save money, that wants to facilitate matters, says “no”: It prefers to convey the ballot boxes thousands of kilometers further and appoints several other people, agents within agents, to count the votes at a central point. I now ask the hon. the Minister to move his amendment to this clause.

Have you just read it?

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us why he is moving this amendment.

I shall come to that.

But I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us now, because we want to debate it with him. As it stands here, the State President appoints an agent for every organization involved. What I suspect is that the hon. the Minister saw to it that this statement, this idea, this decision of his, appeared in the newspapers, and then he realized that it was in conflict with this clause, so he came forward with an amendment. Therefore I call upon the hon. the Minister to tell us what the position is. I should like to invite the hon. the Minister to rise after me and move his amendment so that we can debate this matter with him.

Mr. Chairman, it is part of my sense of discipline in life to have a high respect for leaders, and I do not want to depart from that fine tradition of mine this evening by attacking and undermining leaders.

Are you a leader?

That hon. member is certainly not one.

Let us have another brief discussion about the central counting. As the hon. the Minister indicated, the 15 electoral areas will be the central areas where the counting in the referendum will be done. Now, I cannot begin to understand—I exaggerate when I say that I cannot begin to understand, because in point of fact, I understand full well—what the hon. Cape leader of the CP …

There is no such thing. There is no Cape leader of the CP.

Yes, but nor is there any such thing as the Chief Whip of the CP, but that is what that hon. member calls himself. I cannot begin to understand why the Cape leader of the CP is so eager that the counting should be done on a constituency basis, when he is fully aware of the whole intention and spirit of this Bill, viz. to create additional polling stations, particularly for concentrated urban areas, central business districts. The hon. member will concede that my argument is not unreasonable.

It is still on a constituency basis.

Just give me a chance. Out of great respect for that hon. member I did not interrupt him. The hon. member will concede at once that the whole essence of this Bill is specifically to make more polling stations available in order to make matters as easy as possible for the voters. It is not simply the idea to eliminate postal votes by making it possible for a person who is in a different constituency to that in which he is registered, to submit his identity document and then be permitted to vote; the idea is also to afford those people who are in concentrated urban areas, the opportunity to vote where they are employed. An example mentioned on innumerable occasions is the Civitas Building in Pretoria, where hundreds of officials work. Incidentally, I am acquainted with Pretoria, particularly that part. Those officials will now be afforded the opportunity to vote there. This Bill will also make it possible to establish a polling station at, say, the Sanlam Centre, thus making it convenient for many hundreds of young men and women who live in the Peninsula to vote.

Moreover, in many instances the most recent delimitation was not very meaningful.

The judges did not delimit meaningfully?

But of course it was not meaningful delimitation, in the sense that specific communities were cut in two. In my constituency I have many divided communities. Please do not tell me that it is the NP that performed this delimitation; it was done by judges, for whom I have the highest respect, but who, of course, cannot have an intensive knowledge of communities throughout the country. If I may refer to my constituency, I could mention that in one of my polling districts the majority of my voters will vote in the Pinelands constituency. In another, the majority of my voters will go and vote in the False Bay constituency, because those polling stations are best situated to serve those voters. The primary issue is the convenience of voters, because they are not voting for me in the process; they are passing a verdict on a matter that has been Submitted to them.

Is that your affair or is it not your affair?

It is my affair, but surely it is also the affair of everyone who is positive. It is the joint negative affair of that whole lot sitting there and in the same way it is the joint positive affair of my party.

This would mean that if an individual result were to be announced in Tygervallei, we should have a percentage poll of at most fifty, which would be totally misleading. Eighty per cent of my voters might vote, but because they would be voting at other polling stations, it would not be evident that I had a percentage poll of eighty in my constituency. I do not know what the hon. member wants to prove by results on a constituency basis. I can guess what the hon. members want to prove thereby. They have accepted in advance that the yes vote will win by an overwhelming majority. [Interjections.] We can talk about that again on 3 November; let us not boast about it before the time. They have assumed in advance that they are going to lose the referendum, and they are indeed going to lose it.

What possibility do they see in the referendum? They see in the referendum a petty political exercise with a view to ensuring the survival of the CP. The hon. member who is Cape leader of the CP, far rather than take an interest in the outcome of the referendum, wants to collect every last CP member in his adjoining constituency of Prieska to come and vote in Kuruman, to prove that Kuruman supports the CP. Surely that is very clear. For what other reason would they show such eagerness to have the outcome announced on a constituency basis? Only in order to engineer a majority in Kuruman for the hon. member’s sake. [Interjections.]

I have something to say about the hon. member for Rissik, the leader of the CP in the Free State. He stands in the lobby every Wednesday evening, for everyone to hear, and canvasses funds for the CP in the Free State. He would be well-advised to close the door of the telephone cubicle. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I am sorry that I have allowed myself to be led astray; I shall come back to the Bill immediately.

I think it is ridiculous to try to operate on a constituency basis when there are so many factors affecting constituencies, in the sense that voters from elsewhere can vote there or voters from that constituency can vote elsewhere. I would be in a position to manipulate, from my own constituency, the situation in a constituency such as Pinelands, to obtain a yes majority in Pinelands. However, what would that prove? That is all those hon. members are interested in. They want to prove a few things and we are not interested in proving them. For us the issue is the central question: Is the voter prepared to endorse the constitution that will be adopted by the House of Assembly, or is he not? Whatever the answer is, we are prepared to accept it, but those hon. members of the CP see their way clear to trying to play their petty political game, viz. to try to prove by way of manipulation that they have the majority in a specific constituency. I do not think that this is such a petty matter. Indeed, this is a matter of such importance that we do not want to drag in minor side issues such as these as far as the results are concerned. Therefore the areas can give their verdict and I once again support the idea, as specified in the legislation, that this should be done on a centralized basis.

Mr. Chairman, I indicated during the debate on the Second Reading that there were certain aspects of this Bill that we were very unhappy about. I also indicated that we would place an amendment on the Order Paper to cover one of the points in question. Consequently I move the following amendment—

1. 5. On page 6, after line 4, to insert:
   1. (v) the manner in which a voter who does not have an identity document but who desires to vote at that polling station may be issued with a ballot paper if he signs a declaration to the effect that he has not already voted at the relevant referendum:

Now I should just like to comment on a statement made by the hon. the Minister to the effect that if the regulations are nonsense we will be able to attack them. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to answer this question: When will we be able to attack them, before or after the referendum?

Before.

What effect will that have on them? There will not be any time to change them. There are only a few weeks left before the referendum is to be held. It is all very well saying that we will be able to attack them. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I will no doubt be on the same side as he is in regard to the referendum and so the last thing that I want to do is to attack the regulations. That is why I hope that where there are certain points which are of considerable importance, serious consideration should be given to resolving the problem before the regulations are published and not afterwards.

The other point that was made by the hon. the Minister was that the Referendum’s Bill should be considered as an extension of the Electoral Act. I am very pleased the hon. the Minister made that statement because I have always looked upon it as such. I realize, of course, that they are two totally different Acts but nevertheless primarily we are supposed to be dealing with the same people. We in the NRP have no objection whatsoever to modernizing and updating the system of elections and neither do we have any primary objection to the concept of the identity book being the prime means of identification. I feel that this is a step in the right direction and we are quite happy to go along with it. However, bearing in mind the hon. the Minister’s statement to the effect that we must look upon this legislation as an extension of the Electoral Act, what is he going to do in respect of the 150 000 people who are registered voters but who are not in possession of identity books? This is going to present quite a serious problem because when these people arrive at a polling station, one of the myriad of extra polling stations that we are going to have available to everyone, they are going to be told: Sorry, you are not permitted to vote because you do not have an ID book. I think the point must be made very clear that this is a serious business. There are 150 000 voters who may well not have an identity document by that time. I know that the department is making valiant efforts to process all the applications for documents they receive, but there is going to be the problem that anybody who wishes to make an application for an identity document, has to collate a number of other documents. If they only start doing that now, they are going to have difficulty collating those documents in time. They have to get hold of their marriage certificate, their birth certificate, gun licence, driver’s licence etc. Again, in spite of the fact that many immigrants do not become South African citizens, many of them are in fact South African citizens and are registered under the Population Registration Act in terms of which they have identity cards. Many of them are very elderly. Perhaps because they were not prepared to spend the money they did not have additional photographs taken and did not apply for identity documents. It costs R3 or R4 to have the photographs taken and to a person who only receives a modest pension, this is a serious consideration. No effort is being made to look after these people.

I have made an offer.

I have not seen the offer. The point is that the offer is not being made public. We are therefore going to have the situation where the people have registered as voters and have identity documents which they presume ensures that they are registered under the Population Registration Act, which they were under a previous Minister, but because it seems that the administration cannot cope with anything other than the identity book itself, they will be deprived of what this whole referendum is all about, namely the right to vote. This is what this referendum is about. In the process of creating this situation, it is possible that as many as 150 000 registered voters will not be allowed to vote in the referendum. To us this is an extremely serious matter. What is going to happen if the referendum is won by a relatively small margin and these people have been excluded? Is it going to be considered by the people on the losing side that they lost because of the absence of these voters?

I am thoroughly convinced that the majority of the White voters, who are the people who are going to vote in this referendum, are going to have sufficient sense to vote “yes”. I am convinced of it. The CP and the PFP know that this is going to happen, and they are in some trouble as a consequence. However, as I said on a previous occasion, if I am going to be on the winning side, I do not want it to be possible for somebody to cast an aspersion as to whether it has come about fairly or not. I think it is a relatively simple thing to solve the problem in respect of these voters and to give them their vote. I do not suggest that they should be able to go anywhere and everywhere. I had to phrase the amendment in fairly general terms, because it would not have fitted in otherwise, but I believe that if they are confined, by regulation, to their own constituency and if necessary their own polling station, and there is a declaration by somebody with an ID book as to such a person’s identity, that should be enough to ensure that they are able to vote. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister yet realizes the trouble that can be caused if these people are deprived of their vote.

Are you worried, Derrick?

I am not in the least worried. I am not worried about myself; I am worried about the vote of these people. This is what people have gone to war for, this is what this referendum is about and this is what potential trouble can be about after the referendum if they are not given their vote. As far as we are concerned we would obviously prefer the whole referendum to be on a constituency basis. Obviously we would refer that, but we are prepared to say that if it cannot be done for whatever reason, at least make sure that these people have a vote. Again, on the second point made by the hon. member for Umhlanga, we cannot for the life of us see why, when it is easier and more convenient to count in smaller areas, all the ballot papers have to be taken to two central points in Natal and various other restricted points in the other provinces. The question of not knowing who votes for this and who votes for that is irrelevant. I do not believe it makes a scrap of difference whether the votes are counted on a constituency basis or not. In any case, whatever is the truth, is going to be the truth, and the “no” votes obviously are going to be heavily outnumbered by the “yes” votes. So what is the hon. the Minister worried about? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that every voter should be afforded the opportunity to vote. I also share his fear that there could be a lot of people who because of the fact that they do not have their identity documents, will not be voting. For that very reason the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech called upon political parties and all people concerned to make sure that everybody would be able to vote.

There are 24 days left as from now to do that.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to a figure. I think he mentioned the figure of 150 000. I would just like to point out that the hon. the Minister has indicated that the figure quoted by the hon. member and mentioned also by other hon. members is much too high because many of the people have become married but are still registered under their maiden names. I should like to conclude my argument with the hon. member for Umbilo by saying that I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to him with regard to his amendment. As far as I am concerned I do not think that there is any sense in accepting his amendment.

*I should like to turn to the speech of the hon. member for Kuruman. I should like to say to the hon. members of the CP this evening that there is no doubt whatsoever—let us say it frankly—that they need have no illusions, they need not labour under any misconception, because the reason we are not counting on a constituency basis is inter alia because we want to elevate the referendum, the result and the emotions centering around the question, above party-politics as far as possible, as the hon. Government Chief Whip put it. There is not a single hon. member in this House, there is not a single politician in South Africa, there is not a single political observer outside this House, not a single intelligent analyst of politics in South Africa, who is not fully convinced, even at this stage, that the answer to the question will be an overwhelming “yes”. I can understand the difficulty of the hon. members of the CP. In fact, all the political parties in this House have some difficulty with regard to this aspect of that counting. If the result is an overwhelming yes, then in my humble opinion this will have a very detrimental effect on the standing of the PFP as against the NP. If we count the votes on a constituency basis, we as a party would derive tremendous benefits. In the first instance, we would benefit because the supporters of the PFP are going to vote in the affirmative to this question we are going to submit to them. Hon. members of the NRP, who also moved an amendment, know, too, that we are going to benefit in Natal because the constituency result will go against them, to use their own argument if they want to prove something. Now, I should like the hon. member for Rissik to realize that as surely as we are sitting in this House this evening—he and the hon. member for Jeppe must realize this; the hon. member for Jeppe who is always lighting fires; that is why I said the other day that he was a political “wildewragtig” (firebrand), and I stand by what I said …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to use the word “wildewragtig” again with regard to an hon. member of this House, after you had directed him to withdraw it? Is he entitled to contend that the hon. member for Jeppe is a political “wildewragtig”? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Innesdal has repeated that allegation after you directed him the other day to withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member for Innesdal must withdraw the word “wildewragtig”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you briefly on the meaning of this word. According to the Afrikaans dictionary HAT, a “wildewragtig” is “in voëlverskrikker; ’n vrou met wilde, woeste, ongekamde hare; ’n vuurvreter”—perhaps this applies to the hon. member for Jeppe—and “wildewragtig” is also an irresponsible person according to the same dictionary.

And you are a “mak wragtig”, Albert! [Interjections.]

My contention is that the hon. member for Jeppe is politically irresponsible. That is all I mean when I refer to him as a political “wildewragtig”.

Order! No, the hon. member for Innesdal has just convinced me that I should rather direct him to withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling and withdraw the word “wildewragtig”. I withdraw it and apologize to the hon. member for Jeppe. I had not intended to insult him. [Interjections.]

There is no doubt that we in South Africa are on the eve of a referendum, amidst extremely strong emotions that are being unleashed among the public at large with regard to that referendum. For that reason we regard it as of the utmost importance to bring about the greatest possible degree of calm in South Africa. I want to put it to hon. members of the CP that their arguments with regard to this clause, and the fact that they want the referendum votes to be counted on a constituency basis, are giving rise to emotions, emotions that are being aroused among the public of South Africa. What is happening here, reminds me a great deal of the emotional outbursts we saw when 190 clergymen met last week in Pretoria. Therefore, since we are discussing this motion by hon. members of the CP this evening, I must say that as a member of the church, I find it a great pity that clergymen practise politics in the way those 190 clergymen did in Pretoria last week. [Interjections.] I believe that those clergymen should rather climb down from the pulpit, take off their gowns and devote themselves entirely to politics. After all, that is the field that they themselves have chosen to enter. [Interjections.]

I believe that if we were to accept the motion of hon. members of the CP with regard to this clause, it would only help to incite further the emotional outbursts that are being unleashed in South Africa in regard to the constitutional proposals. By doing that we should only politicize matters more by allowing emotions to run higher, instead of adopting a purely intellectual approach so that our people could adopt an unprejudiced … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman the hon. member for Barberton is one of those who is making such a tremendous noise now. He is a person who, I believe, is very talented intellectually. [Interjections.]

Order!

Politically and emotionally I believe that the hon. member for Barberton is an extremely dangerous man to me and to my people outside. I say this with reference to the emotions that they are arousing among the people in the country. Ultimately, however—I am sure of that—the intellect will triumph; the politics of common sense will triumph. Ultimately human reason will triumph. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Rissik can laugh as much as they like. As sure as they are sitting here this evening, the vast majority of the people who have been carried along over the past few months by those hon. members’ politically irresponsible emotions, will permit reason to triumph on 2 November. Nor will they continue to practise the kind of politics practised by those 190 clergymen. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Barberton must realize that the thinking public, the balanced public in South Africa, are sick and tired of petty party politics. They are even more tired of petty party politics when practised under the cloak of religious activities of clergymen who should be going about their clerical duties rather than entering the political field, as we saw in Pretoria last week. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Barberton can make as much fuss as he likes. If a person tells me today—and a voter did say this to me today—that the emotions we saw being aroused at that so-called religious meeting had disturbed him to such an extent that he could no longer sit in his own church as a Christian and pray together with his clergyman who practised politics in that way; that he could no longer partake of communion with him, then I believe that it is late in the day. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the CP must accept joint responsibility for …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton need not be concerned. What I say in this House, I shall say with equal clarity outside. I shall say it before all those clergymen, from Prof. Boshoff down.

By all means do so.

That is why I say that because we do not want emotions, we simply cannot support the motion of the hon. members of the CP that we should count the votes on a constituency basis. They are doing one thing and one thing only, and that is to rouse emotion, for the sake of their own petty party political objectives, without any intention of submitting the question to the electorate of South Africa in an honest and impartial manner. It is a sad and a tragic day in the history of our country that thinking people who call themselves mature politicians, and thinking people outside who should be providing guidance at the religious level, should be carried along by emotion to such an extent that we are unable to consider matters meaningfully, calmly, sensibly and in a balanced way in the interests of our children, as the voters will do on 2 November. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Barberton and all the hon. members opposite …

You are a disgrace to Afrikanerdom.

You see, Sir, the hon. member for Barberton makes the personal and petty remark that I am a disgrace to Afrikanerdom. I want to say to him that neither I nor hon. members of my party ever intend to try to explain to people that we are decent people or Afrikaners. If people cannot see that for themselves, it is not worthwhile trying to explain it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal has now given us one of the reasons why, according to him, the results should not be provided on a constituency basis. That reason is that they are afraid of the emotions surrounding the matter. I want to say to him that in their speeches, he and some of his NP colleagues advise against emotion on the part of the Whites from time to time. I want to ask him: What is a person who no longer has emotions?

I was speaking about wild emotions.

What is a person who is emotionless? Moreover he often states that we of the CP tell the people what the like to hear. The hon. member has young children, and he loves his children, but he must bear in mind that in terms of his philosophy he may no longer tell them that he loves them. [Interjections.] According to his philosophy one may no longer tell the people what they like to hear. Just as his children like to hear that he loves them, the White South Africans like to hear that there is a party and there are leaders that love them. [Interjections.] I am now referring to the CP.

That hon. member furnished one reason. I now want to mention the other two reasons. I want to facilitate his task. I shall give him the other two reasons.

Mr. Chairman, may I as the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I do not have the time. Another reason is that the hon. member and his colleagues know that in the constituencies of at least half of the Cabinet Ministers there will be an overwhelming no vote. [Interjections.] They want to prevent that with a view to the coming election. The hon. members also know that the vast majority of conservative Afrikaners on the platteland will vote no. The hon. members want to prevent that, too.

I want to go further. Not a single hon. member on the Government side was able to convince us of the Government’s reasons for not announcing the results on a constituency basis. They are concentrating on the regions. The Republic consists of 15 regions, but each of those 15 regions consists of constituencies. Whereas the 15 regional divisions give the total result, the constituencies in each region give the total result for the region.

The hon. Chief Whip on the Government side said that more polling stations would be made available to facilitate matters for the voter. That is right. I agree with that. However, one cannot have a polling station outside the boundaries of a constituency. It will be within constituency boundaries. I want to say that in many of the rural constituencies the voters will vote as they have voted over the years, viz. on a strictly constituency-bound basis.

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

I have already said that I do not wish to reply to questions now. Let us take my constituency, Meyerton, as an example. It is a semi-urban constituency, but there is such a thing as the power of habit among one’s people. People are influenced by habit to go and vote at their traditional polling stations. The people of Meyerton, the people of Heidelberg and the people of Nigel—all the people in that type of constituency—have always been accustomed to go and vote at their polling stations near their homes after five o’clock in the afternoon, after work. This is also what will happen now. I contend this evening that out-of-constituency voting will not mean a difference of more than 10% one way or the other. [Interjections.] The voter from Vereeniging who happens to go and vote in Meyerton will be balanced by the voter of Meyerton who may go and vote in Vereeniging. This will be the case in all the constituencies.

Let us consider the voting procedure. The other evening, in the course of his reply, the hon. the Minister explained what would happen. He said that first the votes would be checked in the constituencies, on the evening of the day of the referendum. This means that the counterfoils of the ballot books are counted and compared with the votes cast. If they balance at, say, 5 000 votes, then half the task of counting has already been disposed of. What we are asking relates to the next round of counting. The 5 000 votes must be separated into two groups, the yes votes and the no votes. After that, both groups are made up into packs of 50 and counted. In that way the result is know within a few hours. In the case of Meyerton the votes of the ten polling districts must be taken to the Meyerton City Hall to be checked. After having been checked they must, in terms of this law, be transferred from Meyerton to Johannesburg. Sir, would you believe that the votes of Lichtenburg and Ventersdorp have to be transferred from their constituencies to Roodepoort, hundreds of kilometres further? The Johannesburg region, into which my constituency also falls, will consist of approximately 400 000 voters. What size venue will be needed to count such a large number of votes? How many officials will be needed to count 400 000 votes? How long will it take? How difficult will it be to check? Therefore I say that there is no valid argument.

The question of the convenience of voters has been raised. In two to three years’ time we shall again have a general election. What about the convenience of the voters then? Then they are constituency-bound. [Interjections.] That argument does not hold water.

I now come to the voting agents. [Interjections.] In my Second Reading speech I argued that every political party should be entitled to its own election agent. I said that at the time of the referendum in 1960 there were two parties in the House of Assembly. Later I added by way of interjection that there was only one member of the Progressive Party. I was wrong. I now want to provide the correct figure. In 1960 the state of the parties in the House of Assembly was as follows: I Cape: NP 34 and UP 18; Natal: NP 2, UP 14; OFS: NP 14, UP 0; SWA: NP 6, UP 0; and Transvaal: NP 49, UP 17; National Union, 1; and the Progressive Party 1. During the 1960 referendum there were, apart from the NP and the UP, only two smaller parties in the House of Assembly. Each of these two smaller parties had only one representative each. What will the situation be during this referendum? The state of the parties is as follows: NP, 126; PFP, 27; CP, 17 and NRP, 8. That is a total of 52. Therefore my request is that each party be entitled to an agent. Let me quote clause 4(1)(c)

1. (c) The appointment of agents for organization having an interest in a referendum;

My colleague referred to political parties as organizations. That appears in the Bill. I know that the hon. the Minister is satisfied with this Bill, but at the time the Whip spoke and this amendment was moved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Meyerton. The hon. member says that we no longer have emotion. I want to say here and now that the hon. member sat next to me for many years and I still have great appreciation for him as a person. I even still have great compassion for him, although I abhor his politics. He will accept that. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not provoke me in this regard because what I am saying about the hon. member for Meyerton I cannot say about all those hon. members. I have always had great appreciation for him. Now, however, the hon. member has indicated to us in detail what the situation was in 1960 and what the distribution of seats was between the NP and the United Party. At the time these parties were to a large extent the yes and no parties in the referendum. However, there were also two smaller parties, the National Union and the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party was the queen mother of the Progressive Federal Party. Can the hon. member tell me in what way those two parties were represented by a “yes” and a “no” agent? The hon. member has now given us the statistics, but he must now take his argument to its logical conclusion and tell us how those two parties were represented in that referendum. I hope that the hon. member is going to have another chance to speak so that he can tell us this, because I really cannot understand what the fuss is about and why the members of the CP are so tremendously upset. They have allies fighting alongside them in this referendum. The CP should just accept that they have allies with whom they share a common cause. Surely there is no question about that.

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

I just wish to complete my argument. It does not matter whether that hon. member has a qualified reason to vote no which is different to the qualified reason of the official Opposition. The fact is that both vote no, and in consequence both are serving a common cause. The same principle applies in this House. How many times have the hon. members of the CP not voted together with the PFP against the Government in the course of this session?

What has that to do with it?

It has more to do with it than delimitation. What is the situation is there is a division about a matter concerning which the hon. members of the CP have a common cause with the official Opposition against the Government? The Whips of the official Opposition call a division, and there is no objection to the Whips of the official Opposition counting the members of the CP. It is that very principle that applies here. There has never been any objection to that. However, I wish to point out that they run away from this connotation, a connotation we have never attached to the situation; they have done so of their own free choice and by their own actions.

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

Sir, he would not ask me a meaningful question about this argument, after all, because the fact remains that the CP has elected to follow a negative road. It has chosen a “no” road for itself. It has chosen for itself the same road as the PFP has chosen to travel—a negative, “no” road. They will simply have to identify with their allies. What is the point in stating sanctimoniously that they do not wish to speak to those people? The position of the hon. member for Rissik is a little different, of course, because he is a former United Party supporter. [Interjections.] He rose this afternoon with an argument with which to fight the Government, but it was not a quotation he had found himself. The brilliant hon. member for Greytown had come up with it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, the hon. member is making such a noise now because he does not want to hear. The brilliant hon. member for Greytown was his research officer. He does not mind using arguments supplied to him by a backbencher of the PFP in order to attack the Government. If we had not forced him to do so, he would not have admitted the copyright. However, when it is a matter of a referendum in regard to which they are negatively inclined, and he knows in advance that his standpoint is going to be rejected, he is ashamed of his bedfellows.

However, those are not his only bedfellows, because those people also have bedfellows that they do not like. They have already said that they do not wish to co-operate with the CP. I cannot imagine the hon. the Leader of the Opposition launching a tremendous struggle to have a no agent appointed in Waterberg. [Interjections.] Nor can I see why the hon. member for Waterberg should struggle to have a “no” agent appointed in Claremont. Why should he? [Interjections.] Why should we take up our time with such glib talk?

Whereas with regard to the question of joint referendum’s the possibility was mentioned this afternoon that Coloureds and Asians could vote about the same matter, the hon. member who is the Cape leader of the CP is going out of his way to create the idea that if the outcome were to be in favour of the Government, there would be a combination of votes. At the same time, if—and I underline the word “if”—the no vote were to win the referendum, then the CP would very much like to take the credit and not give any credit to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who must himself, with a considerable struggle, say no. The CP would not want to give him the necessary credit.

On what does the hon. member for Meyerton base his arguments? After all, he is a very fair minded hon. member. On what basis does he contend that in a single constituency he can demand a no agent, the official Opposition can demand a no agent and that brother of his, Jaap, can also demand a no agent. Where does he get the idea that three no agents should be appointed in a constituency, as against one yes agent? But surely the rules of the game are not so ridiculous? There are more parties that are going to vote “yes”, and we shall necessarily have to agree with one another although we shall preserve our identities as parties in the process.

These men will have to follow the road they have chosen. They will have to take with them the companions they have chosen, and there are yet other friends, extra-parliamentary friends, that will be their friends as well. There is also a young man like Andrew Boraine, who is the treasurer of the UDF. They do not all qualify for the vote, but ultimately this young man will also be able to make his demand, because he represents Mandela, Tutu and Boesak, and the CP will have to put up with that. They are all men who are working to bring about a no vote, and the CP will have to be prepared to identify itself with them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with very great interest to the hon. member for Tygervallei and I must say that his method of argument was quite intelligent as far as logic is concerned. However, when he starts arguing about politics, he becomes completely illogical. How the hon. member can equate the PFP and the CP voting together in regard to particular aspects with any form of alliance, beats me completely. He has been a member of Parliament far longer than I have and he knows that what he has just told us is not the factual position at all.

I also want to say that we on this side of the Committee do not wish to become involved in the struggle that is obviously taking place between the NP and the CP in regard to the Dutch Reformed churches. I must say that I am very pleased that we are not involved in that argument.

Mr. Chairman, with leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw an amendment that I moved a short while ago and substitute another.

Amendment 4, with leave, withdrawn.

We have asked for certain regulations to be published on the day of proclamation and the remainder fourteen days later. There is apparently a technical problem among the officials in regard to the publication of two sets of regulations. With that fact in mind, I wish to move the following new amendment—

1. 18. On page 6, after line 50, to insert:
   1. (3) The regulations made under this section shall be published in the Gazette within 14 days from the date of the proclamation referred to in section 2.

This means that all the regulations must be published in one fell swoop and one set of regulations must be available to the public within fourteen days of proclamation, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I should move my amendments at this stage so that hon. members can discuss them as well. I therefore move the amendments, as follows—

1. 6. On page 4, in line 15, after “may” to insert:
   in relation to a particular referendum
2. 7. On page 4, in line 19, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
3. 8. On page 4, in line 34, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
4. 9. On page 4, in line 34, after “referendum” to insert:
   , or of persons to act as agents for voters who hold a particular view that may be expressed in terms of the referendum
5. 10. On page 4, in line 41, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
6. 11. On page 4, in line 47, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
7. 12. On page 6, in line 7, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
8. 13. On page 6, in line 9, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
9. 14. On page 6, in line 12, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
10. 15. On page 6, in line 38, to omit “a” and to substitute “the”.
11. 16. On page 6, in line 35, to omit the second “the”.
12. 17. On page 6, in line 36, after “(c)” to insert:
    who in terms of the regulations may attend and who are present,

Before I react to the contributions made so far, I want to say that the amendments I have just moved fall into three categories. As far as amendment No. 6 is concerned, it should be read in conjunction with the amendments to omit “a” and to substitute “the”. These two aspects taken together mean that as this is now worded, it is according to the law advisers, susceptible to uncertainty, as to whether there is one permanent set of regulations which will have to apply throughout in respect of all possible referendum’s which can be held in future in terms of this legislation. If this amendment is accepted, it will be confirmed beyond all doubt that a specific set of regulations may be promulgated for a specific referendum according to the requirements.

Secondly, Sir, amendment No. 9 relates to clause 4(1)(c), to which the hon. member for Kuruman kept on referring. I have received conflicting advice on this paragraph. The advice from more than one source is that the present wording of the paragraph is entirely sufficient and enabling and, in addition, also affords proper legal grounds on the basis of which a proper decision can be taken, such as the one which I made known to the leaders of the various parties and also on Friday to this House, namely that a “yes” agent may be appointed for a specific standpoint, having regard to the interests of organizations, and another agent for the “no” votes, as we have it at present. However, there was an opinion from the Government law advisers that some doubt could nevertheless exist, and therefore I am moving the amendment to establish beyond all doubt that this can in fact take place and that there are proper legal grounds for it. I make no apology for this, because we cannot make legislation which does not give expression to the intention of the legislature.

The third amendment I wish to refer to is amendment No. 17, which deals with that portion of the clause relating to when the counterfoils of used ballot papers are opened. As the subparagraph reads at present, one would not be able to do so unless all the agents were present when this was done. The amendment moves that the words “who in terms of the regulations may attend and who are present” shall be inserted. In other words, everyone will receive notification, but the onus is on them to be present. If they are not present, the processes set out in the clause concerned will take place in the presence of the agents who are infact there.

I now wish to react briefly to the speeches made by speakers who have spoken so far. The arguments revolved primarily around three matters.

†The hon. member for Umbilo once again argued the question of the so-called registered voters who will now be unable to vote because they do not have identity books. I want briefly to repeat some of the arguments advanced on Friday. Unfortunately the hon. member could not be present then.

Firstly, I argued that it had happened quite often in the past that voters were told that their names were no longer on the voters’ roll and that there would be a totally new registration of voters. This is in effect what is happening now. What we are now saying when we say that people have to have identity books, is that we regard all voters’ rolls as being cancelled for the forthcoming referendum and that people have to register afresh. However, instead of going through the expensive process of reregistering, we stipulate that all people in possession of identity books can vote and that the very small percentage of voters who are not in possession of identity books still have time to obtain them. As long ago as the end of May I warned during the discussion of my Vote that this could be the case. It is not as though there was no prior warning. During the Parliamentary recess the Department of Internal Affairs launched a campaign on television and over the radio to get people to apply for identity books. We have the situation that people still have the opportunity, at least until 30 September, to obtain identity books; in other words, we are not taking the right to vote away from anybody. Anybody who regards his vote as important and dear to him and who does not possess an identity book at this moment, still has the opportunity of obtaining one. The basic question in this regard is on whom the onus rests in terms of our law to register as a voter. I am appealing to voters who regard the right to vote as being precious, as I do, to take the trouble to go to a photographer to have their photographs taken, to fill in the form that is available everywhere and to apply for their identity books.

Every time there is a new Minister of Internal Affairs they have to get a new book.

May I just say that the new book and the previous book, the blue one and the green one, are both valid. Therefore there is no basis to that argument. Thirdly, there is a category of people who find it difficult because of illness or because of old age to get to a photographer. I made the offer and I repeat it for the third time now, and I hope it will not be necessary to do so again, that any reasonable request for the department to send out a photographer with an application form to such a person who qualifies for this special treatment because of ill-health will be met and such a person will be visited in order to get the application completed. All old-age homes will also be visited. We are dealing with all these cases wherever the management is co-operating with us. Therefore we are doing our utmost to serve the category of people for whom I have the same sympathy as the hon. member. However, for a normal man who can walk on his own two feet, the right to vote should be important enough for him to go to the trouble to apply. Nobody will be deprived of his right to vote.

*The second argument was concerned with counting on a constituency basis. I just wish to summarize this again. The hon. members are talking as if everyone living in their constituency are voters of theirs. We know, after all, that in every urban constituency more than 30% of the people on the voters’ list are no longer living there. Surely this is a fact. We found during the recent by-elections that the situation in our rural constituencies was not much better. If we vote according to our voters’ lists, those votes are added to the electoral division where the voters are registered. If we vote according to identity documents, the voters are counted where they vote if one were to count on an electoral division basis. In other words, we are not concerned here with a few hundred who cross the boundary line to vote in the next ward; we are concerned with all departed voters, and they are approximately one-third of the number of voters, who are going to vote on the identity document in another electoral division, outside their own electoral division. That is why the hon. member is quite correct when he says that it will give a totally distorted picture of what the actual result is in a constituency in regard to his voters who may vote there in terms of the Electoral Act.

I come now to the second argument. This referendum is not concerned with the interests of the parties. It is not concerned with the interests of the NP, nor with the interests of the CP, the PFP, the NRP, the HNP, the Volkstaatparty or any other political organization. There is a single question before the voters and next to that question there is no mention of NP, PFP, CP or any other party policy.

Who are you bluffing, FW?

The one question is: Do you want the constitution to be implemented, yes or no? I should like to see every voter, including every National voter, who wishes to vote “yes” out of loyalty, but who feels for some reason or other that the constitution should not be implemented, answer that question according to the dictates of his own conscience and without being influenced by outside motives in that he could perhaps prove something else by the way he votes. We are not afraid, as hon. members are implying. The hon. members are very upset because the Sunday Times has stated that people should vote “yes”. It seems as if we are going to benefit a great deal from the PFP. It would seem as though we could benefit if we could pick up a lot of votes, but I am not interested in the votes of PFP supporters to prove how strong the NP is. We are proving this in any event at one general election after another. We will take on any party at any time in a general election. We are not calling a general election now, but hon. members wish to turn this into a general election. Perhaps one or two of them may prove a point, but do hon. members know how many of them would be bruised if we were to comply with their request? The hon. member for Langlaagte will never be able to hold up his head again, no matter how thick his skin may be. He will never be able to hold up his head again in this House. So I can go on down the list, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying here is applicable to every hon. member of the CP.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I shall reply to questions later. Let us take the hon. member for Sunnyside, for example, Mr. Chairman. He is all washed up. He only has a political past. He has no political future. [Interjections.] For his sake, the oldest hon. member in their midst, hon. members of the CP ought to treat such an old man gently. He can only get hurt. This applies to all of them opposite, Mr. Chairman. I maintain that if they …

Surely we are free to run that risk.

If those hon. members are so obsessed with this that they are willing to run that risk, I shall see whether I can also organize the holding of by-elections in their own constituencies on 2 November, if they resign. Surely they can resign them and demonstrate to us how strong they are in their constituencies.

You and I both resign, and then Fanie Botha opposes me. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I and all other hon. members of the NP still adhere to the same principles on which we were elected by the voters. [Interjections.]

Do you want to tell me that you have not changed? [Interjections.]

There are no moral grounds on which I should feel guilty that I am sitting in this House under the banner of a party other than the party which sent me here.

Perhaps the same party, yes, but no longer the same principles.

The hon. member for Rissik is the person who now has other principles. He is the one who has an obsession to prove something. Why then does he not prove it in his own constituency? [Interjections.]

The third reason why we should preferably not count the votes on a constituency basis…

What happened in 1960?

In 1960 we did count the votes on a constituency basis.

Then why not do so again now?

In 1960, however, there was only one “yes” agent and one “no” agent. Does the hon. member for Brakpan grant me that?

No, the question was the same. [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will not get away that easily. When the methods of 1960 suit him, he wants us to use the same methods again. When the methods of 1960 do not suit him, however, he wants us to do things in a different way.

We ourselves will be the agents. We do not need other agents. [Interjections.]

Oh no, please, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of principle. It is not the NP or the CP or the PFP or the NRP which is at stake on 2 November. [Interjections.] It is a verdict … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to say that by now I have grown accustomed to behaviour of this kind from the hon. member for Rissik. However, I am not accustomed to it from the hon. member for Brakpan.

But you are not bluffing anyone.

The hon. member has said that five times now.

But you do not hear me. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has said five times already. I shall just have to repeat it again, so that all other hon. members in this House can hear it. Perhaps my voice carries better than his. The hon. member for Brakpan says I am not bluffing anyone. Allow me to deal with this statement of his. [Interjections.]

On 2 November the Northern Transvaal—five constituencies in the Northern Transvaal, where the CP has a strong following—has an opportunity to prove his statement. The Northern Transvaal is, after all, the place where the CP, they believe, are the strongest.

It is not our strongest region.

Well, where then?

Daan will probably try to suggest it is the Free State.

Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, surely they can demonstrate their claims by means of the Northern Transvaal results. The East Rand, too, will then have an opportunity to prove its standpoint. The CP is supposed to be strong in that area as well. Sitting over there we have the hon. member for Nigel, the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Germiston District. Surely they can go and prove their standpoint. In Alberton, too, where their MPC crossed the floor, they can prove that the East Rand voted “no” on 2 November. That will be as effective for hon. members as it would be to receive an individual result on a constituency basis in Brakpan and elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Yes, certainly.

Why is it not possible to count the results per electoral division?

Because the boundaries of electoral divisions are irrelevant when people vote on the basis of their identity documents. That is the only reason. The second reason is that when people vote according to electoral divisions, other motives are involved, motives which are dragged in by people who cannot advance arguments in connection with the question to be put on 2 November, but who are inveigling the voters into giving a verdict which is not honest and according to the dictates of their conscience. [Interjections.]

Then why cannot they vote according to electoral divisions? [Interjections.]

Because we want to be practical. [Interjections.] It is merely because we want to be practical. [Interjections.]

I come now to the third aspect. This has to do with the question of the agents. In 1960 it so happened that agents were appointed in accordance with the standpoints involved. The principle is that there shall be equal treatment as far as each standpoint is concerned, because standpoints are not defined in this sense that it will be stated on the ballot papers whether these are the opinions or the policies of the NP, the CP, the NRP, he PFP, the HNP or whoever. That is why we are dealing merely with a “yes” or a “no”. The question is not concerned with motives either. The question is merely concerned with an answer. The function of the agents is not to represent the interested parties. The function of the agents and their assistant agents is to ensure that the standpoint which they oppose is not benefited and that no malpractices occur. In addition, it is only fair that there should be an equal number of people exercising supervision on both sides. What I find strange is the tremendous reaction from the parties. I find it extremely strange that the PFP have had nothing to say about this so far in this debate, because they deemed it important enough to adopt a resolution on their executive committee, if it has been correctly reported, that they refuse to negotiate with the CP. May I ask the hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition whether such a resolution was adopted?

Yes.

Well, Sir, I find this very strange indeed. They adopt a resolution on their executive committee that they refuse to negotiate with the CP on this question, but they do not raise it in this debate. Four or five hon. members of the CP raised it, but the official Opposition did not say a word about it. Is it perhaps because someone said of them that it was an untenable resolution in view of their official policy that they would negotiate on the future of this country with anyone? They would negotiate with Nelson Mandela, with the CP and with Jaap Marais. That is what was said in this House. They would involve them in deciding the future of the country together. Now we are participating in a referendum which, in a certain sense, could be decisive for the future of the country. However, they refuse to converse with fellow-parliamentarians, who are voting with them against clause after clause of the Constitution Bill, in a discussion of who should get what agents and where. If ever in our history a mask has been ripped off the face of a party in regard to its willingness to engage in real dialogue, then it has been ripped off the face of the PFP. If I were them I would really be ashamed of myself. They stand humiliated even before the CP. I think the CP complains a good deal, but they negotiated with the PFP on Waterkloof and a few places where their interests coincided.

As far as the question of agents is concerned, I want to say that there will be assistant agents. Parties who want to be reasonable and who want to discuss matters with one another should be easily accommodated by means of the assistant agents on a fair basis so that there will be someone who can be present on a regular basis and who can also make the voice of those parties heard. It is simple. In the first place I do not want to allow the voters to be inundated by giving every little splinter party the same host of agents as large parties. I do not think it is fair that polling stations …

We are asking only for one. We are not asking for a host of agents.

But every party that has one principal agent, receives a number of assistant agents. In our legislation it is equal. If a party has a candidate he receives, regardless of whether it is a small party or a large party, an electoral agent, four assistant agents, 12 apostles and everything equal. With the proliferation of parties and the break-aways which took place, it would be unfair, it would cause an imbalance and it would cause congestion at the polls, etc. It is fair that there should be equal treatment, and I think it is a sound principle.

On our part we differ radically with the NRP on many points. The NRP is fighting just as hard as the other members opposite against this Bill. They are not being pally-pally with us. [Interjections.] However, we are going to make our arrangements with them like adults. All I ask is this: Let us forget about the childishness and high school aspects of this debate; let us behave like adults; let us talk about the real issues and not about all these trivialities with which hon. members are trying to put up a show.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the hon. the Minister has moved amendments Nos. 6 to 17 printed in his name. I think he would do well to study amendment No. 16 before he gets too serious about matters. That amendment reads—

That makes absolute nonsense of the English language.

[Inaudible.]

Why does that hon. the Minister not stand up and make a speech about it?

Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt and say that there were to printing errors which will be administratively corrected. Firstly, in the English version amendment No. 16 should read, “On page 6, in line 35” and not “line 37”.

*The Afrikaans version of amendment No. 17 on the Order Paper also contains a minor error in that it should read “wat ingevolge die regulasies” and not “regulasie”.

Thank you. That saved us a lot of time.

I was only trying to help.

I do wish the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications would stand up and contribute something instead of sitting there and muttering.

I am trying to help you.

Thank you, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that I do not need his help now or at any other time. I can do quite well without it.

Let me come back to the observations made by the hon. the Minister. He made much of the fact that he had warned the House and the country at the end of May that people would have to get their identity documents in order to vote in the referendum. He made much of a television programme that was supposed to have advised the nation of the fact. I just want to say that I saw that television programme and that I have never in my life seen such a confusing programme. People telephoned me afterwards to ask what on earth they had to do because they were told on the programme that a new identity card was possibly going to be introduced. They were told all sorts of things. I do not lay the blame entirely on the department. I certainly do not want to pick out officials. Possibly the confusion was created by the SABC’s editing of the programme. I do not know. However, the programme was the most pathetic effort that I have ever seen in my life. The programme was trying to put across a message to all South Africans to get their identity documents, but the people concerned in the programme were talking about the possibility of the introduction of a new identity card.

At least they confused you at a high level.

That is one way of putting it, I will admit. The hon. the Minister blithely stands up here and says that he has made this appeal and that certain things have been done. However, these things have achieved nothing. When the country is presented with that sort of propaganda it is absolutely meaningless. Furthermore, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is easy to say that the public has between now and the end of September in which to get identity documents. It is nearly 25 minutes past nine at night on 5 September—we have 24 more days—and we have not yet seen the regulations for the coming referendum.

You don’t need regulations to apply for identity documents. All you need is a form and a photograph.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has stood up here and time and again appealed to us as members of Parliament to motivate people in order to get them to apply for identity documents. Let us be reasonable, we are sitting here in Cape Town.

That is not my fault.

We are sitting here and the Bill is not yet law. Let us face the facts, please. This Bill is still in its Committee Stage and has not yet reached the Third Reading. Does the hon. the Minister then expect us to act on something that is not yet a law of this land? That is absolutely ridiculous. I feel very strongly about this issue. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there are indeed going to be many thousands of people, in the main the elderly, who are going to be voteless on referendum day. It ill befits him to allow this to go through. I believe these people can be given the vote along the lines outlined by my colleague the hon. member for Umbilo. For the hon. the Minister to say he is going to send teams out to take photographs of people in their homes is something—I challenge the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House—that…

How brave you are!

Yes, I am brave. The hon. member for Greytown, as well as all other members, has people in his constituency who will not be able to vote. What happens if the hon. member for Kuruman gives five names of people in his constituency to the department who want their photographs taken because they cannot apply for identity documents themselves? Sir, do you want to tell me that the hon. the Minister is going to send out five different vehicles with five different photographs? It is absolutely impossible.

They will send out one vehicle.

One vehicle to cover the whole constituency of Kuruman? That is an absolute fallacy. In my constituency it would be an absolute fallacy.

May I ask a question? Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member remember that I also offered that in special cases, such as those which he mentioned, we will be prepared to accept the existing photograph which is part of the plastic identity card?

No, I do not remember that. I do not remember that at all.

I said that on Friday.

Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting point, because then tomorrow we shall give him the names of three people in the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point who will be voting “yes” in the referendum and the hon. the Minister will accept their identity cards. I have the documents here already. I found three elderly people in one house in Sea Point, not one of whom can get to the office, as one is blind and another is a cripple and the third is looking after them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, what could well be done—and I seriously think the hon. the Minister would do well to address himself to this and think about it—is that people who are entitled to vote, people who perhaps carry the old green card and who genuinely do not have their identity documents, should be allowed to vote only at the polling stations where they are registered as voters. Such a vote could then be a declared vote. At least one would then not be saying to those people that they do not have a vote. If need be, those declared votes could be set aside. When it comes to the count and it is obvious that without those declared votes there is an overwhelming “yes” majority in favour of the implementation of the new constitution, which I am convinced there is going to be, the fact remains that those people have been permitted to cast their vote, even though it is still in an envelope in a declared ballot box. However, if—and this is the biggest “if” in the world—there is not a overwhelming “yes” majority, those votes can then be taken out of those boxes, counted and be considered by the representatives of both the “yes” and “no” parties in order to determine their acceptability in the count. Please, in heaven’s name, the logistics of that are easy to undertake. Why not do it and accommodate these people? I want to put this as a friendly warning to the hon. the Minister: These people, the elderly, are our South African citizens and they are the people whom we have to think of and whom we must accommodate in this. Give them the privilege and the right of at least recording a vote and then we can decide afterwards, depending entirely on the outcome, whether or not those votes are going to have a bearing on that outcome and, if so, those votes can be brought into the picture and be counted.

Mr. Chairman, I appeal finally to the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to framing this sort of thing in the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made a very moving case for allowing tendered ballot papers. I am sure the hon. the Minister will react to this and I shall therefore leave it to him.

I just want to touch on one aspect briefly. I do not think the hon. member for Meyer-ton deliberately withheld facts from this House; that is not how I have come to know him. I know him as a very straightforward type of person. However, as far as the 1960 referendum is concerned, my information is that in 1959 the Progressive Party, when it broke away from the United Party, was represented by 12 members, including Mr. Steytler, Mr. Russell and many others. After the 1961 election only the hon. member for Houghton remained. However, I think that during the 1960 referendum the Progressive Party still had 12 members who could participate in that referendum and the subsequent election. I do not think the hon. member for Meyerton was quite correct in his version of the facts and the division as far as a referendum agents were concerned. I wonder whether those hon. members have already tried to negotiate with Mr. Jaap Marais of the HNP, the UDF and the AWB and many others in an effort to appoint a common agent. I think the sooner they begin negotiating in this regard, the better it will be.

I just want to deal very briefly with one further point, i.e. the matter of referendum agents, assistant agents and counting agents. In my next speech I shall elaborate on this a little further. I want to try to ascertain whether the referendum agents will be able to appoint their assistant agents and counting agents in more than one capacity. I feel that this should, in fact, be the position and I think it would be of practical importance to various parties in the House of Assembly. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here peacefully listening to the hon. the Minister and then he became personal. He said I only had a political past, but no political future. But the hon. the Minister himself is not a man of his word. He is also the hon. Minister who said in the past that there was no power-sharing. Then the leadership of the Transvaal became so attractive to him that he eventually contradicted his own testimony. [Interjections.] I think he is the last hon. Minister who should say that. If I am such an old man what are we to do with the hon. the Prime Minister? He is several years older than I am. What does one do with such an old man? Get rid of him! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kimberley South say that the hon. member is senile?

Order! Did the hon. member for Kimberley South say that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I also listened to the hon. member for Innasdal. In every debate in which he participates, he becomes more and more reckless. A few days ago he also attacked the hon. member for Waterberg. This reminds me of the Old Testament when the angel said to Hagar: “Thou art with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ismael. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. I think that is all I can say about the hon. member. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Sunnyside say the hon. member for Innas-dal is a wild man?

Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I merely said that I had read it in the Old Testament.

Order! Did the hon. member for Sunnyside use that expression with regard to an hon. member in this Committee?

Mr. Chairman, I merely said that I had read it in the Old Testament. However, if you want me to withdraw it I shall do so. [Interjections.] As far as the number of agents is concerned, the hon. the Minister said that he cannot allow so many people to be appointed. He referred to 12 apostles, but 12 apostles are not involved here. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that when voting takes place in the constituencies, those votes have to be supervised. All those votes have to be counted. After the votes have been counted, they have to be replaced in the ballot boxes and the ballot boxes are resealed and transported hundreds of kilometres. What is the reason for this? Why cannot those votes be counted immediately? It does not take very long to count those votes. I know this because I have helped to count votes on several occasions. It does not take very long to sort out the votes and then count them.

There is another argument we can also raise and that is in connection with the identity document. In every constituency we are now going to have a more reliable reflection of the voting than is the case when voting takes place according to voters’ rolls. I say this because all the people residing in a constituency at the moment can be registered where they live. If one could register everyone this evening, one would have the total number. This gives a far better and more correct reflection of what is going on in that constituency. It has been said that 30% of the people have usually moved elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Where do you live, Oom Jan?

The hon. member for Paarl … [Interjections.]

Order! Far too many interjections are being made.

Why is it that the hon. the Minister does not want a true reflection of the constituency? If one goes to vote in one’s constituency with one’s identity document this is a far better and more reliable reflection.

In the case of an ordinary election, if there are four candidates each candidate has his own electoral agent. Why in the referendum can there not also be four agents if there are four parties? After all, this is in line with the practice in general elections. What is the hon. the Minister trying to conceal or cover up? Let us be honest and sincere with each other. The hon. the Minister wants to cover something up and we are telling him that there has to be a true reflection. The votes have to be counted in that constituency. We are also thinking of the additional expenditure which will be incurred and the time that will be taken. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how long it will take to determine the result of the referendum. All ballot papers have to be transported and anything can happen to the ballot boxes while they are being transported.

You can travel with them.

I do not have much time left at my disposal, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what the motive behind this is, because his arguments so far have not carried any weight.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the question of the disenfranchised voters when we have been discussing for some days, and I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. I made it quite clear on Friday when I spoke that we believe that this issue of the almost 160 000 disenfranchised voters is of the utmost importance. The hon. the Minister suggested that the figure might be lower because of marriages or whatever …

Just tell us whether you are going to vote “yes” in the referendum.

If that hon. member listens carefully, he will get some sense into his head.

That figure might very well be lower, but no matter how low it is, whether it is 100 000 or lower, those people are still important. At some stage or other they took the trouble to register as voters and if for whatever reason, be they old, be they infirm or be they frail, they have not got around to obtaining an indemnification document, we still believe that it is important that they be given the opportunity to register their vote on 2 November. For this reason we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo.

On Friday I asked the hon. the Minister what efforts he had made to trace those voters and he replied that they had been written to. I then asked him with what effect and what further efforts would be made to trace them and he said that he would reply. I do not recall that he did answer this in his reply to the Second Reading debate and trust that he will do so now.

I did reply.

Well, then I did not hear that, but I trust that he will reply now.

I shall.

For that I thank the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has now said two or three times that it is like a general registration in that every 10 years or so everybody loses his vote and he has to reregister. Well, that is not the same as this time because the Government has changed the rules. The Government now prescribes that I must have two pictures taken, I must fill in a form, I have to go to an office to submit these and to apply for an identity document. That is completely different to registering as a voter. The Government cannot change the rules and then put the onus back upon me to register as a voter. In the event of a general registration the State sends enumerators around from house to house to ensure that every person is registered. This is completely different. The onus is now being put upon the aged, the infirm and the frail to have two pictures taken be it on their own or by means of an official who calls at their house, and to submit the documents with a fee of R2,00. There is no fee to register as a voter when one fills in an RV1 form. One simply fills in the form and submits it to the Electoral office. This is completely wrong, it is a different principle and we are entirely opposed to it.

Having dealt with that, there is just one thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister about the question of counting. The whole question of counting has been mentioned frequently here over the past few days. We are still of the opinion that the counting should be done at the traditional halls and offices where votes have always been counted in the past. When I said on Friday that just as justice has to be seen to be done votes have to be seen to be counted, I did not imply that the officials were doing anything underhand. It was not my intention to imply that and if the hon. the Minister gained that impression, I want to assure him that it was not my intention. I do not believe that officials do that sort of thing. In fact, all of us who are involved in elections always thank the officials at the end of it for their hard work and the way in which they have conducted those elections. It is therefore not the officials we believe would do things incorrectly. Sometimes there are black sheep in parties who would do things incorrectly. People who vote at their traditional places of voting expect the results to be announced at a particular place. That has been done up till now and they are used to it. That is what I meant when I said that votes must be seen to be counted.

Order! Before I allow the debate to continue, I want to appeal to hon. members not to repeat arguments which have already repeatedly been raised. I shall not allow any further repetition.

Mr. Chairman, clause 4(1)(c) provides that the State President may make regulations with regard to the appointment of agents for organizations having an interest in a referendum, and now we also have the words the hon. the Minister wants to add to this by way of amendment.

The State President therefore appoints people as agents by regulation. If the PFP is not prepared to reach an agreement with the CP regarding the appointment of a voting agent and we recommend a person to be appointed as a voting agent in each constituency, what is the State President going to do? Is he going to side with the PFP and appoint the person they recommend, or is he going to side with the CP? The hon. the Minister must tell us this. It is not stated anywhere in this Bill that parties or organizations—this is the term used—have to negotiate with each other to appoint one person as an agent. If both the PFP and the CP appoint people as agents, which of the two people will be appointed? If the NRP and the NP cannot reach an agreement and in Queenstown, for example, the NRP …

Order! Whether the PFP and the CP have to agree with each other, or whether the NRP and the NP have to agree with each other, the argument remains the same. The hon. member has made his point now. I have already appealed to hon. members not to repeat arguments.

Well, Mr. Chairman, then the hon. the Minister must tell us what will happen in such a case.

This Bill was dealt with by the Select Committee, and this clause was one on which unanimity was reached. I find it strange that after the report appeared in the newspaper in which it was stated that the CP and the PFP would be compelled to reach an agreement on the organization for the no votes in each constituency, the hon. the Minister put forward amendments to this clause. I was not here during the Second Reading debate to do so, but I want to thank the hon. member for Tygervallei for the way in which he acted as Chairman of the Select Committee. He gave the various parties adequate opportunity to state their standpoints. I just find it strange that the Select Committee, in co-operation with the law advisers, allowed this clause to pass without any problems. I maintain that when the hon. the Minister saw that clause 4(1)(c) would cause him trouble, he moved an amendment on this paragraph. I am really sorry that this is going to happen.

As far as more polling points are concerned, I want to agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei that more polling points, such as at Civitas or the Sanlam Centre, will make it possible for voters to vote more easily. However, these polling points are within the geographical area of constituencies.

But a constituency other than the one in which he lives.

What difference does it make if a voter from Vereeniging is travelling through Kuruman and he votes there?

Do 60 000 people vote in your constituency and 5 000 in another constituency?

But what is the difference? It would still be easier to get the 60 000 voters in the Sunnyside or Pretoria Central constituencies who will now have to vote at Civitas to vote on a constituency basis instead of a regional basis.

Order! I think that argument has been used many times now.

The hon. member for Innas-dal, unlike the hon. member for Kimberley South, said that vote counting on a constituency basis would be to the benefit of the NP, and he gave reasons for this. He said many Progs would vote for the NP. He could probably have added to this that the NP’s bedfellow, the Sunday Times, has advised the Progs to vote “yes” with the NP in the referendum. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Cape Times is your bedfellow.

I shall still get around to that. The hon. member for Tygervallei has tried to link the CP to the PFP, to Nelson Mandela, Boesak and others. Die Burger has done the same. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Tygervallei whether he and Die Burger are of the opinion that there are CP supporters who are stupid enough to believe that the CP and the Progs are going to co-operate. [Interjections.] I think it is only the hon. member for Geduld and the hon. member for Tygervallei who think that NP supporters are stupid enough to believe that the CP and the Progs can co-operate. Surely hon. members know that this is impossible. The hon. member for Tygervallei said nothing about…

Is your “no” going to be counted separately?

I am not a “ja-broer” like that hon. member.

You are a “nee-suster”.

Sir, all one finds sitting on the opposite side are “ja-broers”. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Tygervallei did not mention the fact that the NRP are their bedfellows. The hon. members of the NRP have said here that they are going to participate in this constitution, but that they also want the Blacks to participate. The NRP, like the Coloureds and the Indians, have said that they are not satisfied with this constitution, but they are participating to change it. What is the difference between co-operating with the PFP or with the NRP? We are not co-operating with them. We are saying “no”. We are opposing a multiracial constitution for South Africa in our own right.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member votes “no” in the referendum, can he tell me whether he is going to write “CP” as well, or is he only going to vote “no”.

I am merely going to make my cross next to “no”, and I am going to ask the White voters of South Africa to vote “no” to a multiracial government in South Africa. Why did the hon. member for Tygervallei say nothing about what the Government has done with the drafters of the new constitution, including Mr. Dennis Worrall, Prof. De Crespigny and Mr. Japie Basson? Perhaps the hon. member could also tell us whether or not the allegations that Prof. De Crespigny is a member of the ANC are true? [Interjections.]

Order! I not only appeal to hon. members not to repeat arguments, but also to confine their discussion to the contents of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention to the question of voters who are going abroad or leaving the country on holiday. Until now, as I understand it, no arrangements whatsoever have been made to accommodate these people. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider, such as when general election and the previous referendum took place, to setup polling booths for example at Jan Smuts Airport and at other places of exit under the control of immigration offices so that people on their way out of the country can also be given the opportunity of casting their votes, providing of course that they are able to produce their proper identity documents. In this case I do accept of course that a passport will not be a valid identity document for the purpose of being eligible to vote.

Should the hon. the Minister be willing to yield to this request of mine and accept an amendment accordingly he should of course, I believe, inform all travel agents throughout South Africa that everybody, leaving the country on or before the day of an election of the referendum, will be able to cast his vote at one of these special polling booths.

Why can they not be allowed a special vote?

Yes, they can indeed be allowed a special vote as well. They should, however, be able to vote at the place of exit too.

No, but that is just another form of a special vote.

It is one and the same thing. If arrangements are made to accommodate people at the main places of exit, however, I believe it should obviate many possible problems.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Roodepoort, and the hon. member for Berea in particular, for enabling me to rectify the mistake I made earlier. I would definitely not have liked to discover that I was wrong and that that was what was printed in Hansard.

I received the following note from the hon. member for Berea, in which he told me that I was wrong regarding my figure for 1960. He wrote that he was a member of the old United Party in this House at that stage, but that as far back as 1960 he was a member of the then Progressive Party, which had broken away from the United Party in 1959. According to him there were 12 of them in this House. I am therefore really sorry that I made such a mistake. I used election statistics in connection with the 1961 election—shortly after the 1960 referendum. The mistake I therefore made was to quote the figures I obtained from those statistics. I thank the said two hon. members for enabling me to rectify my mistake.

I also just want to repeat my earlier argument by referring to the exact wording of the relevant Act, which reads as follows—

In terms of this provision the parties would therefore be able to appoint their own agents. However, with regard to the hon. the Minister’s amendment I want to make a claim to which I should like to hear his reaction. According to his amendment it is still very possible to argue that the parties will still be able to appoint their own agent. Mr. Chairman, I shall motivate my statement. The hon. the Minister’s amendment reads as follows—

I want to argue that “or” can also mean “and”. However, as far as I am concerned the key words are “hold a particular view”. For example, hon. members of the PFP have a specific point of view. What their point of view amounts to is that the Government’s constitutional proposals do not go far enough. That is, after all, briefly what it amounts to. That is their point of view and that is why they are going to vote “no” in the referendum.

In contrast, what the view of those of us in the CP amounts to is that the Government’s constitutional proposals imply power-sharing. For that reason we are also going to vote “no” in the referendum. [Interjections.] The PFP have their specific point of view and we have ours. For that reason, in accordance with the amendment of the hon. the Minister, people holding a particular view will be entitled to their own agent.

Quite right!

I therefore want to suggest to the hon. the Minister, in all seriousness, that in accordance with his own amendment this can be done. Mr. Chairman, we have been arguing about this for hours now. I believe that in all fairness the hon. the Minister should, however, give consideration to conceding that, on the strength of his own amendment, people holding a specific view are entitled to their own agent. The PFP is going to vote “no”; the CP is also going to vote “no”. The two separate parties, however, have their own individual views; two views which do not correspond at all. In terms of the hon. the Minister’s own amendment the said two parties are, owing to their specific view, each entitled to its own agent. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, so many questions are being put to me. Perhaps I should just reply to them. However, I hope that we are in fact going to dispose of the Committee Stage of this Bill this evening; in accordance with the joint decision of the Whips of the various parties. Therefore I shall not try to provoke anyone unnecessarily, and shall be very calm and circumspect in what I say.

The hon. member for Sunnyside asks what we are once again trying to cover up. We are not covering anything up. Everyone can be present everywhere, at every vote count. There will be proper supervision. We have nothing to hide. On the basis of the principle of equal treatment, we want there to be an equal number of agents for every standpoint.

Let me reply here and now to the hon. member for Meyerton. He has already made a mistake about the number of Progs there, and now he has made another mistake with my amendment by not reading the whole amendment. The following appears in my amendment—

What do the words “that may be expressed in terms of the referendum” mean? They mean “yes” or “no”. That is the point of view that is intimated.

No.

There are only two standpoints one can state in the referendum, unless one spoils one’s ballot paper. Therefore his argument simply does not hold water.

Let me repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate. No one says that those hon. members are voting no for the same reason that the Progs are voting no. We know that they have different reasons. I said that at Middelburg and I am saying it again for the second or third time. All the parties concede that it is a fair question. However, the fact remains that irrespective of whether we count on a constituency or a regional basis, if in the end there are so many no votes and so many yes votes, we cannot distinguish which people voted yes for the reasons advanced by the NP or the NRP and which were motivated to vote no by the CP or the PFP.

Or which people were motivated to vote “yes” by the PFP.

That is another reason why it is ridiculous to think that a constituency result could tell one anything.

The hon. member for Brakpan said we were afraid. Say, for example, the number of people in Brakpan who voted yes was equal to the number voting no—I do not want to make a contentious statement now. Who, then, voted no? Surely he cannot argue that all the people who voted no, did so for his reasons. After all, there will be a group of people who voted no for the Prog reasons.

NP supporters too.

Therefore it is absolutely meaningless to say that because 7 000 people voted no in a constituency, those 7 000 people support a certain party. No one can allege that. The NP cannot say that about the yes votes and the CP cannot say that about the no votes, nor can the PFP. Therefore no inference will make any sense, because among the people who voted yes and among the people who voted no there will be people who voted one way or the other for diverse motives. Therefore it would make no sense, and would have no substantive or interpretative value, to draw any inference on the basis of the number of yes or no votes. Perhaps it would have more value on a regional basis involving a wider distribution. There those gentlemen can enjoy themselves and have a political field day when the results appear. We, too, shall have a political field day. We are full of confidence, but we are going to have an enjoyable discussion during next year’s session.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked me in a previous debate what reaction we had to the notices we sent out. Unfortunately, we did not have a very good reaction. That is another factor leading us to believe that many of the people concerned are no longer living at the addresses we have for them. I think many of the cards were returned. The people are no longer at those addresses. Many of them have remarried. Some of them have died or left the country.

May I, in reply to the hon. member for Umhlanga, say that under our old system thousands of people—I think almost a thousand per constituency—were turned back from the polling booths. They were willing and able to vote, but they could not vote. That was especially the case in the cities. Let us be honest about it. I think we have all had the experience of a man coming forward and saying he has lived in the area for 30 years and, while he is still on the list, his wife is not on the list. The old system led to many more unfortunate circumstances where people were actually prevented from voting, where they were on the roll and their names suddenly disappeared from the roll, and that sort of thing. As long as one has one’s book, no one can take that away from one and one is entitled to vote. Let me repeat here that we must forget about voters’ rolls in terms of the old system. I foresee that we will not have another election based on them. We have gone over to the book now, also with regard to how voters’ rolls for elections are constituted. We have moved away from registration. All the parties must take note of that. With regard to future referendum’s, let us move into the new phase where the deciding factor will be whether one has a book of life so that one can vote anywhere. In an election the deciding factor will be one’s latest address. The deciding factor will be whether a person has notified the population registration office of any possible change of address. The latest address should appear at the back of the identity document. The latest address will be the deciding factor. The moment the new Electoral Act is passed next year—the one that was also referred to a Select Committee—I plan to say that there will no longer be voters’ rolls in terms of the old white card and that we will move totally on to the identity book. Let us therefore make an all-out effort. If people do not have a book on 2 November to a certain extent I will be held responsible, but I will hold parties co-responsible. We all have organizations back in our constituencies. We are used to helping people to become registered. Let us then also help them to get their books of life. My department offers all the help possible.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make two brief points. The Government has a two-thirds majority in this House. I believe all hon. members of the NP believe in their cause, inexorably, as they did in 1960. One need only think of the impetus a referendum gains as the results become known one after the other. Hon. members will remember how wonderful it was when the result in Welkom was announced and the majority were in favour of a Republic. Was it not wonderful?

It was very gratifying.

Was it not fantastic? Here the Government has a two-thirds majority and so help me, it refuses to hold the referendum on a constituency basis. Sir, can you believe that? The only conclusion one can draw is that the Government is afraid to announce the results constituency by constituency.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

We now come to 1958 and the 1960 referendum. Do hon. members know what the position was in 1958? In 1958 the NP had 103 seats as against the UP’s 53.

What clause are you referring to now?

I am now discussing the matter of announcing the result of the referendum on a constituency basis. Is the hon. the Minister with me? [Interjections.] Then came the referendum. The result of the referendum was 105 to 49. Consequently there was no big difference because the results were announced on a constituency basis.

And you voted “yes”.

If people are now going to vote at the Civitas Building, in Pretoria Central or in Sunnyside, for example, the number of votes polled will be neutralized by people from Pretoria East or Roodepoort who just happened to be in that area. There is only one answer: The Government is afraid.

Order! The hon. member must use a new argument now.

I now want to discuss the next point. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. member please co-operate now and not repeat the same arguments over and over?

Yes. I said quite clearly that I wanted to discuss the next point.

The hon. member for Meyerton said that “or” could also mean “and”. The hon. the Minister said that the key part of the clause was contained in the words: “… that may be expressed in terms of the referendum”.

“View that”.

Very well. However, the first part of the clause has not been deleted. But leave it as it is, because in the Ten Commandments it is stated “nor his ox, nor his ass, nor his manservant”. That means all of them. Clause 4(1)(c) reads as follows—

I say it is not the NP, the CP, the other parties and the HNP, and any person …

You are simply changing the “or” to “and”.

I am changing “or” to “and” because “or” can also mean “and”. Does the hon. the Minister not agree with that?

[Inaudible.]

Very well then, leave the clause as it is. We are quite satisfied with it. The hon. the Minister did not reply to the question of the hon. member for Kuruman as to who was going to appoint the magistrate if two political parties lay equal claim to an agent.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place hon. members must remember that this clause, as it is to be amended, is an enabling provision. The regulations will now be made under this enabling provision. Before the newspaper report to which the hon. member for Kuruman referred so regularly appeared, I had already informed the leaders of those hon. members and they had informed the hon. members, that I intended to formulate the regulations in such a way that they would provide …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I did consider that and I decided that I could not comply with the hon. members’ representations. This will provide that there will be one chief agent for the yes vote and one for the no vote. In other words, the regulation will be drawn up in accordance with the second alternative. I do not want to mislead the hon. member and he should therefore not expect anything else. It is also the intention to have nine assistant agents for the yes vote and nine for the no vote. We would prefer the parties to reach consensus and find a formula …

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. the leader of the Cape want a reply?

That is unfair.

Does the hon. member want a reply?

Yes.

Very well, the hon. member must just keep quiet. We want the members of the various parties to be reasonable, to act in a way befitting adults and to make an arrangement on the basis of a constituency, as to how they want to handle the situation. If they do not do so, the regulations will make provision for a norm of fairness for the referendum officer and he will have to use his discretion in the application of that norm. Then he will have to decide because he will not be able to appoint more people than the regulations make provision for. The hon. members can therefore continue their quarrels there. We are used to the fact that if the CP—like the HNP—can seize upon a technical point and can put a spoke in the wheel somewhere, they will do that instead of occupying themselves with constructive arguments on the real issue.

Mr. Chairman, I wish firstly to place on record that we will be opposing amendment No. 9 moved by the hon. the Minister—the provision relating to the referendum agent.

I wish to make two points in this regard. First of all, there has been talk of the proliferation of referendum agents and that various people will be used for “no” and others for “yes” votes. I think the hon. the Minister is well aware that in election times there are often up to five or six political parties and independents contesting a particular seat but one is quite able to manage that as it tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Obviously in this instance one is talking of just two answers and one does not have six candidates. However, the fact remains that there is nothing to stop people from appointing agents and it is not an unmanageable situation.

The second point I would like the hon. the Minister to comment on is that in terms of the Electoral Act the agent has to accept certain responsibilities for the conduct of the subagent during the election. I think that is the correct position under the Electoral Act. In terms of these regulations, if they are going to follow a similar pattern and referendum agents are going to take responsibility for certain actions of the subagents, it is a very good reason why we should object. Clearly it is unreasonable to expect a referendum agent of one political party to take responsibility for the activities of a subagent of another political party. The hon. the Minister may think that is very amusing but if it is the case I think it is unreasonable and I have no doubt but that this change is merely a cynical manoeuvre on the part of the Government to embarrass other political parties.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment 2 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 5 negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments 6 to 8 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, clause 7 deals with undue influence and bribery. It reads—

1. (a) makes use or threatens to make use of any violence, or restraint … upon or against… any person …
2. (b) by any such means as aforesaid or any fraudulent device or contrivance induces, compels or prevails upon any voter to vote or to give or refrain from giving a particular vote at a referendum, or impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise by any voter at a referendum; …

Over the years we have become accustomed to State institutions such as the SABC adopting a very impartial attitude when it comes to elections. Since there has been talk of a referendum this year we have, however, seen a change in the SABC which is in direct conflict with these provisions in clause 7. There is undue influence by the SABC, an institution for which all voters in South Africa pay tax.

In this connection I want to refer to the programme “Sake van die Dag” at seven o’clock in the morning. I do not have the time now to quote, but in the talk on 26 August 1983 there was a flagrant attempt by the SABC at exerting an influence in order to swing public opinion to vote “yes” in the referendum. During the previous referendum there was no medium like television, but if one considers what is being shown on television at the moment, I maintain that the various parties or views are not being given an equal chance to influence the people who have to vote.

In consequence of this I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will see to it, when the referendum is proclaimed, that the radio and television services of the SABC allot a fair amount of time to both views on the question at issue in the referendum.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak on behalf of the SABC, of course, because I am not the Minister in charge of that organization, but I should like to make a few remarks in this regard.

As soon as this measure has been agreed to and promulgated, the hon. member is free to complain to the SABC about its contravention of this provision. The hon. member will have to motivate his case and the Advocate General will have to decide whether the hon. member has a case. If he does in fact have a case, the SABC is liable to prosecution and can therefore be fined. This is the correct course for the hon. member to adopt, and that is why this provision is included in the Bill.

I also want to point out that I listen every morning, day after day, to the SABC simply repeating the untruths the CP come to light with in this House. They are not even newsworthy. What the hon. member for Kuruman said today, what the hon. member for Pietersburg said on Friday, and what the hon. member for Brakpan said on Thursday, is reported by the SABC. I do not want to go into all their statements, but the point is that the Opposition is given a great deal of exposure by the SABC. On Saturday evening, in the eight o’clock news bulletin on SABC-TV, prime viewing time was devoted to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stating why his party is going to vote “no” in the referendum. I therefore think the hon. member for Pietersburg is simply trying his luck. He is trying to play rugby with a soccer ball, and I suggest that we abandon this topic.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

1. 1. On page 10, in line 15, after “(b)” to insert “deliberately”.
2. 2. On page 10, in line 22, after “(e)” to insert “deliberately”.

We are of the opinion that the offences being created in terms of clause 9(1)(b) and (e) are not quite in line with the others. We do not consider these two offences as being all that serious and therefore want the word “deliberate” to be included in both cases to ensure that people who act bona fide are not subject to the penalties included in subsection (1).

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

1. 3. On page 10, in line 17, after “paper” to insert “or envelope”.

This whole clause relates to offences, and subsection (1)(c) states—

In terms of the normal regulations applying to special votes, people will be entitled to place envelopes containing the ballot papers in the ballot boxes and I think for the sake of clarity it is worthwhile inserting the words “or envelope”. I think we should also bear in mind, both in the case of the Electoral Act and whatever regulations we have, that there are a large number of people who have to work with the regulations some of whom are not necessarily all that well acquainted with electoral procedures. Therefore the clearer and more precise we make them and the more impossible they are to misinterpret the better.

Mr. Chairman, both the amendments of the hon. member for Green Point are acceptable to me and I accept them.

I also went into the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, because if one can improve a Bill, one does so gladly. My information from the law advisers is that the words “any paper” would also include another envelope and that what the hon. member is contemplating is therefore actually covered. All that may be placed in it is a ballot paper and nothing else. I therefore feel it is unnecessary to add the words suggested by the hon. member. The words are tautological, and I therefore do not accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute that that is what the hon. the Minister’s legal advisers say and I also do not dispute the fact that if a matter went to court that that is what the court would rule. My point is that all the people having to handle these ballot papers, in hundreds of polling districts all over the country, are not necessarily legally qualified people and do not necessarily have many years of experience of electoral procedures. In that context I think that if we can make it clearer, it should be made clearer. The fact that a court would accept the other version, I do not see as being a valid reason in itself for not accepting the amendment.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Amendment 3 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, we shall vote against this clause.

The Government is concerned that surveys could create a bandwagon effect and this would unduly affect the voters’ democratic choice. I think it is a flaw in the Government’s thinking as it has not been proved. Opinion surveys reflect public opinion; they do not necessarily shape it. In fact I believe there are three reasons why such surveys should be allowed in connection with a referendum. Firstly, for some time they have been an integral part of the Western democratic process. I do not know of a single other Western country that prohibits them. Secondly, as a reflection of public opinion at a particular point in time there is no doubt that they serve to assist in enlightening the public on important public issues. Thirdly, they most certainly add to the drama and excitement of any electoral contest of this nature. I do not think that they produce a bandwagon effect. I think the public takes them with a pinch of salt. They have been known to be wrong, although on many occasions they have been uncannily accurate. I feel sure the public can respond in a mature way to the surveys that are published. The Government provides for unscientific surveys, claims by parties, etc., yet it excludes scientific surveys. I think this view is misguided, and the Government has nothing to fear by allowing them to be published.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to say that I disagree for reasons which I shall advance at the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, at this late stage I rise merely to say that I have consulted the English department at one of our universities who have advised me that it is not incorrect to use the word “referendums”, but that it is more appropriate in legal terminology to use the word “referenda”. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. 1. In the English text, on page 14, in line 5, to omit “Referendums” and to substitute “Referenda”.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I should like to address you on a point of order. When we divided earlier, and I say this with the utmost respect to the Chair, I think a lot of the confusion and some of the rude remarks that we heard from the other side could have been avoided if you had allowed hon. members on this side of the House to resume their seats before putting the other clauses. We should therefore like to be afforded the opportunity to record our objection to Clause 17.

Order! The Minutes will be amended accordingly.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.