Mr Speaker, I move;

Mr Speaker, before the House adjourned yesterday evening I was thanking hon members of the Opposition parties for their support for the Bill under discussion. With regard to the amendments which appear on the Order Paper today, I also indicated yesterday that we would first have to evaluate them objectively before we decided whether or not they were acceptable. I feel that we shall be able to discuss those amendments in detail during the Committee Stage.

However, there is another aspect of this legislation which I want to elaborate on. When this measure was being drafted there was concern in the ranks of the engineering profession, which to a certain extent overlaps the professional land surveyors’ and technical surveyors’ profession, regarding the possibility that the establishment of the envisaged council for land surveyors and technical surveyors would to a great extent also affect the activities of people in the engineering profession. Their concern was based on the fact that the envisaged new council would cause their own activities to be jeopardized in the process. However, after lengthy discussions with them in which the hon member for Waterkloof took the lead, we finally reached an agreement. We agreed that, as is also clearly indicated in clause 7(2)(a), the Minister would have the power to determine the activities of the council and delineate the sphere of these activities and that in exercising his power, the Minister would also consult the engineering profession in order to get their consent as to what would be delineated so that in the process the rights of people in the engineering profession would not be encroached upon. It was also agreed that after they had examined this, they would also be able to make inputs as regards the delineation of such activities.

We also agreed that in the process the Minister, as far as the exercising of his powers was concerned, had to act in the way all Ministers act with regard to all other statutory councils. In this connection we are thinking of the statutory councils for engineers, architects, town planners, etc. In view of this it therefore appears that legislation of this kind is essential so that the members of the land surveyors’ profession can also structure their own activities properly. On this basis it was also agreed that they would not oppose the legislation under discussion, on condition that we would continue to regulate matters in the way I have already explained.

It is therefore felt that within the ranks of those persons in the land surveyors’ profession everyone is satisfied. There is no doubt that everyone in the engineering profession is quite satisfied with this. All the interested parties therefore support the measure as it is formulated at present.

In conclusion I should like once again to thank all hon members of all parties in this House most sincerely for their support for this measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for the remarks he has just made in regard to the agreement reached between the architects and engineers, a matter with which I also dealt briefly yesterday. I still intend to move an amendment in regard to the question of educational qualifications and I think we can go ahead on that basis.

The only other point I wish to make dealing with this clause is that I take it that it is clearly understood that where the term “mine surveying” is used it has reference in general terms to the way in which a mine is defined under the Mines and Works Act. Although it is not necessary to define it in this Bill, I just want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill does exclude mine surveying and therefore, too, in the absolute meaning of the term as it is defined in the Mines and Works Act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, as far as this clause is concerned, I want to make sure that anything undertaken by the Minister will be undertaken after it has been considered and approved by a relevant recommendation of the council. With this in mind, I wish to move the following amendment:

1. 1. On page 9, in line 23, to omit “consultation with” and to substitute:
   consideration and approval of a relevant recommendation made by

If this amendment is adopted, the position will be quite clear. It will mean that the Minister will be able to do what he wants to do after he has received a recommendation and will not merely have to consult with the council.

Mr Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout because it would appear to me that the intention in this clause is for the Minister to have a discretion after having had consultation. The amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout does not in fact give the Minister an opportunity to use that discretion because it states clearly that it must be after the consideration and approval of a relevant recommendation; in other words, it will not be the Minister who will be making the decision but the council that will be making the recommendation. As I see it, that will change the intention of the clause completely and therefore, as the wording of the clause is that normally used under similar circumstances in the other Bills that have been before this House, I feel that the amendment is neither desirable nor necessary. I feel moreover that it will detracrt from the present provisions of the Bill in terms of which the Minister may make a decision after consultation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo very clearly set out the grounds on which I cannot accept the amendment. The idea embodied in this clause is that the Minister is not obliged to accept the advice or the decision of the council but that he may do so in co-operation with them. However, the final decision in this regard lies with him. In terms of the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout the Minister has to accept the council’s decision. On these grounds I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I want to) express my amazement to hear an hon member of one of the Opposition parties in this House actually speaking on behalf of the Government while the hon the Deputy Minister is quite capable to deal with the arguments advanced. This is quite an abnormal practice and I think it foreshadows what is going to happen in the very near future when the hon member has crossed over.

Let us deal with the merits. Yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister expressed the wish that the council would be independent. He also expressed the wish that the council would follow the same procedure that has been laid down for the engineers, the architects and the doctors who look after their own affairs. Now the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Umbilo want to get rid of that idea. They want the Minister to decide as to what he wants to do when he wants to give them a certain measure of autonomy. If this clause is accepted, all the Minister has to do is to agree or disagree. He does not have to accept because he still has the power not to accept, but does no have to consult. I think it is absolutely necessary that the council must consider and recommend to the Minister, and the Minister can then accept or not accept. I think in that way we shall have better autonomy than we have at present in terms of the Bill. It may be that at the moment we have a very good Minister who might be compatible to what they think, but another Minister might want to be dictatorial. The amendment will prevent him to act in such a way. I therefore appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to accept my amendment.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that the hon member for Bezuidenhout chose to try to make a political issue of this. I am opposing his amendment because the words he uses are totally illogical. If it is only possible for the Minister to approve something after he has received an approved relevant recommendation from the council, then it does not make any sense the Minister having a say at all. This is the point I am trying to make. Were it a question of consultation, there would be no problem because that is in the Bill as it stands. I have no problem with consultation and taking serious note of what the other people have to say. We must bear in mind that this is a standard provision in a variety of Acts which govern professional people. As far as I can see what is provided for in the amendment is that the Minister can only make a recommendation if that recommendation has already been recommended to him and approved by the council. This makes nonsense of the clause. If the amendment should be accepted, then the council can make the recommendation without the Minister being involved at all.

Mr Chairman, I want to point out to the hon member for Bezuidenhout that what we are dealing with here is a member of the council who is in trouble because of his improper conduct. His membership of the council is therefore also in jeopardy. It is left to the discretion of the Minister to appoint a member. If it is within his discretion to appoint a member, it should also be within his discretion to discharge him from that office. The question is simply whether he should do so on the recommendation of and after consultation with the council, or whether the council should take a decision which the Minister has to carry out. The hon member for Bezuidenhout said we should look at the legislation regulating similar institutions. Let us consider the legislation relating to professional engineers. In section 4(2)(e) there is a similar provision which amounts to the fact that a person may be removed from his office on account of improper conduct or if, in the opinion of the Minister, he was guilty of conduct of such a nature that he was not a fit person to be a member of the council. It is not stated that the Minister should accept the decision or advice of the council. Mr Chairman, I feel that the principles under discussion here have been very clearly incorporated into this legislation and unfortunately, I cannot therefore accept the hon member’s amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 13, in line 38, to omit “(4)(b)” and to substitute “(5)(b)”.
2. 2. On page 15, after line 3, to insert:
   (s) act on behalf of any institute or association referred to in section 3(2) which nominates persons for appointment to the council: Provided that the council is authorized in writing to do so by resolution adopted by such institute or association; and
3. 3. On page 15, in line 18, to omit “(4)(b)” and to substitute “(5)(b)”.
4. 4. On page 15, after line 25, to insert:
   (3) The Minister may approve the constitution, rules and by-laws of the Institute of Topographical and Engineering Surveyors of South Africa.

Amendments No 1 and No 3 are dependent upon the other two amendments being accepted. Amendment No 2 means that if an institute of its own accord wishes to make a recommendation to the council it may do so. It does not have to come from all the other institutes. Amendment No 4 relates to one of the basic problems why this legislation took so long before coming to this House. I think it is absolutely essential that the rules and by-laws of the institute referred to in my amendment should be approved by the Minister so that he can make sure that those rules and by-laws conform with what is required by this Bill. I hope the hon the Minister will accept this because it will make matters much easier in the future. The Institute of Topographical and Engineering Surveyors of South Africa has now the right to appoint three members to the council.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member indicated amendments No 1 and No 3 are dependent upon amendments No 2 and No 4 being accepted. Amendment No 2 is a little confusing on account of the letter (s) at the beginning thereof. That creates the impression that there will be two paragraphs (s), which I do not think is intended. It is supposed to be a substitution, and the way it is printed on the Order Paper shows that this is the case. In as far as the amendment provides, that the Minister may approve the constitution, rules and by-laws of the organization referred to, I have no quarrel with it. However, to ensure that you get stability, should it not read that the Minister “shall” approve the appropriate agreement? I offer this suggestion to the hon member, because it would seem to me that his intention is that the Minister should be obliged to approve these things, particularly if there is a dispute between the various organizations.

Mr Chairman, I only have the Afrikaans text of the hon member’s amendments in front of me and from this it is very difficult for me to follow his second amendment. I want to point out to the hon member that one can see from clause 3(2) that all the professional land surveyors institutes were established by ordinances or Acts of certain law-makers, in particular the provinces concerned prior to 1910. These institutes are rather jealous of their autonomy. They operate under certain circumstances and according to certain rules and even according to certain differentiated fees when it comes to non-title tariffs. I am therefore of the opinion that the various institutes will jealously guard their autonomy. What the hon member is now suggesting is rather an inroad into that autonomy. I interpret the hon member’s amendment as providing that the council can in certain circumstances act on behalf of these institutes. I do not think that is necessary at all. The institutes are autonomous and they cannot encroach on the activities of the council, because the council being established by this measure will be autonomous with regard to the things pertaining to them in this measure.

*With all due respect to the hon member, I do not believe that there is any need in practice to insert the new paragraph (s). In fact, if this paragraph were inserted, I think it would give rise to far more objections on the part of these institutes. This is my personal view and my personal experience of the functioning of the various institutes.

†With regard to the hon member’s fourth amendment I want to agree with the hon member for Umbilo that I do not see any point in saying that the Minister “may” approve a constitution. It is too wishy-washy; it really gives no say to the Minister and in fact brings no certainty at all. The question I must ask is whether this is necessary at all. Up till now the Minister has not been involved in approving the constitution of this body. Why should he now approve their constitution and not also that of the air survey companies? In clause 3(2) mention is made of the Association of Air Survey Companies. What is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. I do not think it is necessary for the Association of Air Survey Companies to have their company statutes or whatever approved at all. I can assure the hon member that if anything untoward should happen in respect of either of these bodies, the first people who would react to it would in any event be this council. They would immediately take the matter up, because they are empowered to approve or to disapprove of certain memberships. Whilst the hon member does have a certain problem which one can identify can occur in extreme circumstances, I want to suggest that in this case his fears are unfounded.

*I do not think there is any need for us to accept these amendments. They make no contribution, but rather encroach on the autonomy of the institutes. They could also be meaningless when it comes to the exercising of control by the hon the Minister. I say this to the hon member in all friendliness. I say this with great respect for the hard work which he has done. This is merely my opinion. I obviously respect his and if he disagrees with me, I will not be surprised but sorry.

Mr Chairman, under the normal rule which applies to amendments, the fact that there is an (s) here means that the existing (s) will consequentially become (t). That is common parliamentary practice.

There is something else which I want to mention. If the hon the Deputy Minister will accept the word “shall”, I am quite prepared to change my fourth amendment accordingly. As far as the hon member for Pretoria West’s remarks are concerned, it was not necessary for me to apply it also to the air companies because the clause states that it is a professional land surveyor who has to be appointed by the air companies. So as far as this clause is concerned, he is already a professional man.

However, in the case of Itessa, this is not a professional at all, but a calling which these people have. In the normal use of the word “profession” one refers to somebody who has an university degree, and a person who does not have a university degree has a calling. One of the things about this particular Bill is that for the first time—it has been done in the Act relating to engineers by way of an amendment as well—people who are professionals have been brought into one body with people who have a calling, the technical people who will actually do some types of work. They need to have a constitution.

As far as the land surveyors and their institutes are concerned, they have already been governed by previous legislation by legislative bodies before Union and by this House since Union. They are therefore covered and everybody knows exactly what their constitutions are. As far as Itessa is concerned, this is for the first time being recognized by this House as a body. I am therefore quite prepared to change my amendment and to use the word “shall” if the hon the Minister will agree to it.

As far as the other objection raised by the hon member for Pretoria West is concerned, I want to say that if one reads this clause as to what the council may do, one sees that it has a large number of powers. All I want to make absolutely certain about is that if an institute has a particular point of view which it wants to put forward, it shall have the right to send it forward and the council may act on it, which means that it may disapprove of it if it so wishes. I just want to make absolutely certain that an institute does not lose that particular right. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will accept the word “shall” in the place of “may”.

Mr Chairman, I accept the correction of the hon member for Bezuidenhout in respect of the letter (s). I put it down to the fact that I overlooked the issue. Nevertheless, I regret that I cannot support that particular amendment.

I am very anxious to support some amendment of the hon member. I am really keen to do it. He has proposed now that “may” be changed to “shall” and because of that I will be very happy to support his fourth amendment.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the amendments moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout which have now been discussed in depth, I want to begin by stating that several institutes have been created to represent certain professional groups within a geographical area. In clause 3 these institutes are now being given proportional representation on a council. That council now has to take care of and regulate the interests of the profession as a whole. It is now being proposed that in terms of this legislation we should, in essence, determine or approve the constitution of an institute. To my mind the question is whether, in terms of this legislation, the Minister should have the task, when a council is established, to approve the constitution of the nominating body. As far as my knowledge of the entire sphere of activities goes and bearing in mind that in this specific case the land surveyors’ profession and the relevant institutes were established by law in certain cases, it is not necessary to make such a change in this legislation. For this reason therefore I cannot see how I can accept these amendments.

The fourth amendment of the hon member reads:

We are dealing here with a council which is being established. As regards the institute which is the nominating body, we read in clause 3(2)(i):

This is the nominating body which is now going to be given representation on this council. It is not this Bill in connection with this representative council which now has to determine the constitution of the nominating body. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Deputy Minister misunderstands the whole purpose of this. I will persist with the word “may” and thus leave it entirely at the discretion of the Minister if at some future date he should wish to exercise this power and therefore I shall not insist on “shall” at this point in time. The position is that the Institure of Topographical and Engineering Surveyors does not consist of professional people. They are for the most part technical surveyors. They have the right to nominate a professional land surveyor if they so choose, or to nominate technical surveyors. I am almost certain that they are likely to nominate three technical surveyors and less likely to nominate a professional land surveyor because the whole purpose of the Institute of Topographical and Engineering Surveyors is to represent technical surveyors.

Because they are being brought into a professional body, because this is going to be by law a constituted body, it is necessary that the Minister should have the right to examine their constitution if any sort of conflict should ever arise. All this amendment is giving the Minister is the right to take the proposed step if he wants to. He does not have to exercise that right, but he may have to exercise it. I think that the hon the Deputy Minister would be quite incorrect not to give himself this right. If a dispute should at any time arise in the council itself between the professional land surveyors and the technical surveyors, which might cause a rift inside this particular council, I would like the Minister to have the right to be able to examine their particular constitution. He will have the legal right to do so and may or may not exercise it. I think it will be to the benefit of the profession as a whole and to the council if the hon the Minister will accept these two amendments.

As far as the institutes are concerned, despite what has been said, I believe that every one is autonomous and that they should have the right, if they so wish, to approach the council and send in their recommendations. There are on occasions differences of opinion, as the hon member for Pretoria West has pointed out, between the various institutes. They have never acted as one complete body otherwise there would not have been five separate institutes but a Republic-wide institute. Therefore I want to recommend to the hon the Minister that he should accept these two amendments.

Mr Chairman, there are three things that should be looked at when we discuss the fourth amendment of the hon member. First of all, when we refer to a technical surveyor we must understand that he is now classified as a professional man in terms of this legislation.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a minute. It depends on how one defines a profession. Let me put it differently. I would say they are granted recognition as a particular group of persons with particular expertise and ethics, which means that there is no reason to say that these people are not highly educated. They are sufficiently educated and sufficiently learned for the purpose of constituting this particular council at its first meeting.

So the first point I should like to make here is that we are dealing with a group of people who in terms of this legislation are recognized as technical surveyors with certain qualifications and as such they are entitled to be present when the council is constituted. It would be ridiculous to have a whole Act in terms of which they are recognized as a group of people with a particular expertise and then not have them present at the meeting. They should be able to sit in at the first meeting to constitute the council.

I should also like to mention a second point. There is no reason at this stage to say that we have any idea that the Institute of Topographical Engineering Surveyors has in its constitution anything untoward which should be looked at and which the Minister should monitor. We should therefore not create the impression that the constitution of Itessa is in any sense to be looked at at this stage. It would be a kind of motion of no confidence right at the start of this whole exercise.

I should like to take this slightly further. I can assure the hon member that all the land survey institutes have had a very close look at the constitution of Itessa, and if they had not been satisfied with that constitution there is absolutely no reason why they should have agreed to this at all. The professional bodies intimately concerned with the application and working of this measure have said that they are happy and that they do not think it is necessary for the Minister to have a look at Itessa. What the hon the Deputy Minister has in effect said is simply that there is no reason for the Minister to monitor the constitutions of the constituent members of this council at its first meeting. The reason for that is quite obvious. The institutes themselves will be the best possible monitors one could possibly have in the circumstances.

There is also a third point.

I think that this particular measure should be give a chance. It took a considerable time for the interested parties to agree on the wording of each and every subsection, and unless there is very good reason to change it, one should rather not tamper with it, and I submit that there is not sufficient reason for any changes to be brought about. I therefore repeat my appeal to give this particular clause a chance. Everybody concerned is happy; even the hon the Deputy Minister is happy, and should something go wrong, there is always an opportunity to come back to this House to effect a change. Meanwhile, we prefer this new style of government, namely to reach consensus rather than to have confrontation, or to have a Minister always having to settle disputes. It is I think something uncomfortable for any Minister to do, especially when it is proved to be unnecessary.

*I have only put forward these three points for the hon member’s consideration. I should like to support the hon the Deputy Minister because I believe that under the circumstances in which the legislation has been introduced, it would be unwise to accept the hon member’s amendment at this stage. However, this does not mean that the possibility is entirely excluded that we may at some stage have to do what the hon member has requested. It may become necessary one day.

Mr Chairman, in view of the explanation given by the hon the Deputy Minister and in view of the speech made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout, I am afraid that I will have to withdraw my support for this amendment, particlarly in view of the extraordinary reason given by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. He says that he feels that the hon the Minister should have this in the Act in case at some time in the future there should be a dispute between the various bodies. However, I do not quite see how the Minister will have to approve at that stage ex post facto the constitution of one of the parties. I just cannot see how it will work, and I certainly cannot see how it would resolve a dispute. We are all trying hard to reach consensus with the hon member and I very badly want to support him on something.

Are you sure that is reciprocated?

I doubt whether it is reciprocated but I turn my cheek if you slap the other. However, I merely want to make the point that under the circumstances I accept that this amendment is not necessary and therefore I withdraw our support.

Amendment 1 negatived and amendments 3 and 4 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

1. 1. On page 17, after line 45, to insert:
   1. (c) In a case of alleged improper conduct on the part of a professional land surveyor or a professional land surveyor in training, such committee shall consist only of professional land surveyors of at least 10 years’ standing.
   2. (d) In a case of alleged improper conduct on the part of a technical surveyor, a technical surveyor of at least 10 years’ standing shall be an additional member of such committee.

I am not anticipating anything, but I would just like hon members to have a look at clauses 21 and 22 in advance where it is definitely stated that a land surveyor who has attended a university has a profession and is entitled to carry on his profession or calling in any part of the Republic. In the case of a surveyor or a technician it is stipulated that such a person is only entitled to carry on his calling in any part of the Republic.

In a similar Bill, which was introduced into this House last year, it was actually stipulated “profession or calling”, to which I then moved an amendment seeking for “profession” to be deleted. I see “profession” has been deleted in this Bill. I believe there is a difference and that there is going to be a problem. Therefore I sincerely regret what has happened previously. The reason why I move this amendment is because I want to make absolutely sure that where a professional land surveyor is tried for misconduct only professional land surveyors shall serve on the committee hearing that case, and that no technician shall serve on it. I believe professional people should be jealous of their particular profession, and that they should therefore be tried by their own peers, and not by people who are not their peers.

In a case like this, where we have professional societies, I submit that that is how things should be handled. In the case of an alleged improper conduct on the part of a technical surveyor on the other hand, I want to make sure that the committee will not only appoint land surveyors but that it will make absolutely certain that one technical surveyor is appointed, who must be a man of at least 10 years’ experience. I say this in the light of what I have said previously, namely that all the professional land surveyors serving on such a committee should be people of at least 10 years’ experience. In this way we will make certain that people are appointed who do know the profession. Furthermore, I want to make absolutely sure that a technical surveyor is also included because he will understand the problems that are peculiar to a technical surveyor.

I therefore appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to accept the amendment I have moved.

Mr Chairman, it is evident from the amendment he proposed that the hon member for Bezuidenhout is fully aware that people who have to be tried due to alleged improper conduct must be tried by those who are au fail with the profession in which the alleged improper act was committed.

I believe that the first aspect about which we must have clarity in this regard is the question whether one should regulate, in terms of the envisaged legislation, all the activities of the council to be founded. That is the first question one must ask.

The second relevant question is the following. The new council that is to be established will be composed of members of what one could perhaps call representative professions; people who have undergone diverse training. However, the council will try to promote the profession in question as a whole and regulate its activities. If one is to make exceptions as far as certain codes of conduct are concerned, with regard to alleged improper conduct of a professional land surveyor on the one hand and that of a technical surveyor on the other, it is clear that there will be a significant difference as to what the alleged improper conduct would mean in each individual case, to the extent that the two people concerned would not be able to settle the dispute.

The third relevant aspect in this whole process is the following. If one were to accept the first part of the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, it would mean that only professional surveyors would be able to decide what constituted improper conduct on the part of a professional land surveyor. However, in the second part of the hon member’s amendment he asks that at least one technical surveyor should be present at such at investigation. However, if we wanted to apply the principle consistently we should also have to provide that only technical surveyors ought to judge the alleged improper conduct of a technical surveyor. Only then would one be entirely consistent. I therefore believe that there is a great deal of merit in the arguments advanced by the hon member for Bezuidenhout with regard to this whole issue. However, I wish to say to the hon member that at this stage I have confidence in the composition of the council. It took a very long time before the necessary agreement could be obtained among the various professions involved, and this Bill and its wording are based on that agreement. All interested groups are now satisfied with this legislation. I therefore have to ask myself, since this satisfaction on the part of all the interest groups exists, concerning the drafting and the wording of this Bill, and since they have confidence in the future conduct of the council, whether we might not perhaps be disturbing that harmony by way of such an amendment. On that basis, and although I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, I think that at this stage it would be wiser not to accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Chairman, let us look at the composition of the council as laid down in this legislation. There may be three technical surveyors appointed by Itessa to the council. In its wisdom the council may decide that only five members will be necessary to form a board of inquiry into alleged improper conduct and it is possible that three members of such a board of inquiry may be technical surveyors and only two, land surveyors. How would the hon the Deputy Minister feel if he were a professional land surveyor and was being tried for improper conduct by people who were not qualified to judge his profession? I think it is absolutely absurd to have a situation such as that, and that is what I am trying to avoid. I am not prepared to leave the question of the investigation of improper conduct and the way in which it should be investigated in the hands of the council. I think it is necessary that we in this Committee lay down that it is necessary for a professional man only to be tried by members of his profession. If the hon the Deputy Minister does not wish to accept the second portion of the amendment in relation to technical surveyors, I shall be happy to accept his decision. However, I do feel that in the case of the professional men they should only be tried by people of equal status. We cannot expect a professional man to be tried by persons who are professionally of an inferior status even though they are represented on the council.

The same thing applies to engineers. Engineers have four grades of professional men who fall under the provisions of the professional engineers association. Engineering technicians now have some form of representation but they have no right whatsoever to sit in judgment on professional engineers. How would it be if the Law Society were to appoint an articled clerk to sit on a committee to try a lawyer for improper conduct? I think the hon the Deputy Minister has taken the matter a little too far, and I feel that he should accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout has a reasonably sound argument relating to the principle he is speaking to. However, I say that he has no argument as far as the implementation of the provision is concerned, because he has no confidence in the council that is established. How is that council composed? If we accept for a moment the contention of the hon member for Bezutdenhout, viz that technical surveyors lack the qualifications to judge a complaint of improper conduct on the part of a surveyor, then we must consider the composition of the board which is to appoint such a committee. It consists of various professional land surveyors nominated by the various institutes of professional land surveyors in the Republic and other bodies, including the Minister, as well as certain technical land surveyors who are also mentioned. Therefore, when it has to nominate that committee, the board is predominantly composed of professional people. If it is so wrong to embody this in the legislation, how much more so will land surveyors appoint to the council people who have knowledge of it? Surely they will be able to do so better than we who are not land surveyors. It is in the discretion of the land surveyors to appoint these people. The provision in this regard even had the approval of the professional land surveyors. For that reason I cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Chairman, while I realize that the hon the Deputy Minister will not accept this amendment, I think the hon the Deputy Minister believes that there was complete unanimity on this aspect. I know, however, that on this particular aspect which I have brought forward many, many of the professional land surveyors want this provision embodied in the legislation because they want to protect their profession against a possible intrusion by other people. I think the hon the Deputy Minister should accept the amendment for the sake of those land surveyors. If he does not want to accept the amendment, that is not my problem. I tried my best to solve this problem.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by saying that the hon member for Bezuidenhout is absolutely correct in principle when he says that a man should be tried by his peers. I do not think anybody can argue about that. We all agree to that. There is no difference of opinion on that. The question is simply as put by the hon the Deputy Minister. Should we enshrine that principle in the legislation or should we not?

I think this matter could be quite competently treated when it comes to the regulations. Provision can be made in the regulations to prescribe the procedure which a committee constituted for hearing transgressions of a professional nature will have to follow. I have my doubts whether it is necessary to cover this aspect in the Bill at this stage. I agree, however, in principle Wholeheartedly with the hon member. I think this matter can well be dealt with in terms of the regulations. I am certain that should there he any difficulty, the hon the Minister will be quite sympathetic towards such an idea because he agrees in principle— he said so. The matter can therefore be solved in terms of the regulations. While I agree wholeheartedly with the approach of the hon member, I do find difficulty with the necessity to embody this in the legislation. I suggest that as a means of achieving the result which the hon member is anxious to achieve, which the hon the Deputy Minister wants to achieve and which I should like to achieve, this aspect can be dealt with in terms of the regulations.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

1. 1. On page 19, in line 22, to omit “person” and to substitute “professional land surveyor”.
2. 2. On page 19, in line 23, to omit “persons” and to substitute “professional land surveyors”.

In this clause we are dealing with an advisory committee which shall be appointed by the Minister and not by the Council. The advisory committee will go into the whole question of professional and technical qualifications. If it is a very important committee indeed because it provides the basis which determines the standard of the profession. The committee will also decide whether technicians are up to standard. In South Africa we have two types of educational institutions which provide the necessary education and training. We have the universities on the one hand and technikons on the other hand. I believe it is necessary that the type of person whom we have in mind here should be a professional land surveyor. That is why I am moving these amendments. I think that as far as this Committee is concerned, it should consist of people who have had the top education in their particular subject.

Mr Chairman, I regret having to keep differing with the hon member for Bezuidenhout, but I believe that an extremely important point comes up in this clause, and in the specific part of it that the hon member seeks to amend. Clause 12 relates to the appointment of the education advisory committee. The committee has to be balanced with regard to the advice it furnishes on the profession it controls. The profession it is going to control will consist of professional land surveyors and technical surveyors. Clause 12(1 )(b) provides that the committee will consist of “one person nominated by the Minister of National Education from persons in the fulltime service of every technikon or college providing instruction in surveying". The issue here is specifically the technical training and the idea that anyone who is concerned with it is nominated to the committee. The question now is whether we necessarily have to appoint a professional person from this sphere of training or whether one should not specifically appoint a person with technical training. Such a person will be able to contribute inputs to this committee relating to problems in the technical sphere. This is the idea behind this paragraph. It may be that the staff of the technikon may not even have a professional surveyor in its ranks and that only technical people provide training there. The Minister will then have his hands tied to such an extent that he will not be able to nominate anyone because the Act will prevent him from appointing anyone but a professional land surveyor. On this basis, and on the basis of the principles I have explained, I think that the Minister must have the choice of appointing a person who has only undergone technical training.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon the Deputy Minister, but I would hope that at each technical college where survey is taught, the person conducting the tuition would be at least be a professional land surveyor. I do not know who is able to teach surveying unless it is a professional land surveyor. He can do all the work that a technical surveyor can do and therefore I would have thought that the person teaching at a technical college would be a professional land surveyor. I do not know how many technical colleges there are in South Africa. There must be at least a dozen and I would have thought that the hon the Minister would have had no difficulty in finding a professional land surveyor among the teaching staff of these colleges.

Mr Chairman, if it is the point of departure of the hon member for Bezuidenhout that a professional person has the highest qualifications and that only people with the highest qualifications should be appointed to the committee, then that will mean that there will be no place for a technical person in the entire council or in the education advisory committee. The question that now arises, is whether people who have only received technical training will be content with the composition of the board if they have not been consulted in the matter. I want to give the hon member for Bezuidenhout the assurance that this forum that is being created makes it possible for the best qualified person to be appointed for that purpose, whatever he may be, whether he be a professional land surveyor or a technical surveyor.

Mr Chairman, when one has a close look at clause 12, one notices that clause 12(1 )(a) refers to a professional land surveyor. The universities therefore have to nominate a professional land surveyor. Clause 12(1)(b) does not state that there should be a professional land surveyor. It is also not stated in paragraphs (c) or (d), although I did not look at this very closely. However, the point I am trying to make is that in terms of paragraph (c) it is not a prerequisite that a professional land surveyor be appointed. The argument under paragraph (b) should then also be the argument under (c). I think one should be very careful here because we have here Education Advisory Committee and the hon the Deputy Minister is quite correct when he says that one person nominated under (b) and (c) by the hon the Minister of National Education need not necessarily be a technical surveyor. He could be anybody. He could for instance be a man with expertise in the commercial field or in the educational field itself. This is very important and I do think that the arguments advanced by the hon the Deputy Minister are very cogent indeed. One should take notice of them and under the circumstances it is important that we accept that the problems encountered by the land surveyor are not exactly the same as those encountered by the technical surveyor. The technical surveyor has different problems and there is a different set of rules for him. We should perhaps start at a lower level and not bring him up to quite the same level. However, to ensure that under the circumstances technikons and colleges could meet the need, it is important that they also should be on the education advisory committee. I therefore agree with the hon the Deputy Minister.

There is something else I would like to mention. It normally happens that one decides a professional land surveyor as head of a survey department at a technikon, but it need not follow because a professional land surveyor is really a man who should be practising his profession. A lecturer at a university knows the theory but divorces himself more and more from the realities of his profession. That too is something against which one should guard.

I therefore suggest that it is important when one takes an overview of the Bill and the purpose of the Act that the training of a technical surveyor should also be looked into very closely. It is very important that such a person be nominated. The committee is merely advisory, but is nevertheless important. I do think that one should also create the opportunity for a technical surveyor, if nominated by the hon the Minister, to serve on this particular advisory committee.

Mr Chairman, I do not think that the hon member for Pretoria West has looked at clause 3 very carefully. Clause 12(1 )(e) states:

This means to say one person nominated by the Institute for Topographical and Engineering Surveyors. One therefore has representation from one of their people on this committee plus an alternate member. I therefore want to make sure that the people who come from the technical colleges are people of a high educational standing. As the hon the Deputy Minister said, they already have a representative. There is already a technical surveyor on that education advisory committee. I just want to ensure that the top people come from the colleges and that they be land surveyors or from the technikons.

Amendment 1 negatived and amendment 2 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

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

1. 1. On page 23, after line 30, to insert:
   1. (c) assess, in the case of professions other than that of land surveyor in which survey work is part of the function of such professions, the standards of the relevant courses relating to survey work and to recommend to the council what exemption from the provisions of this Act may be granted by virtue of the relevant qualifications.

The hon the Deputy Minister announced this afternoon that an agreement had been reached amongst the engineers with respect to this. I do believe, however, that one of the functions of this education committee should be that set out in my amendment. I want to make absolutely certain that the education committee goes to the universities and sees what courses are being offered. I do not know whether the hon the Deputy Minister has ever seen a proclamation of a notice in terms of section 7(4) of the Professional Engineers Act. If one looks at the various types of engineering that are possible, one finds that there are various types of survey work which engineers must carry out. There are agricultural engineers, chemical engineers, civil engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, industrial engineers and others. In Regulation R382 of 14 March 1969 this has been clearly defined and in Regulation R1321 of 27 June 1980 certain additions were made to that. When one looks at that and sees the vast areas which are covered, one realizes that, in order to avoid any conflict that may arise between the engineers, the architects and those related to them on the one hand and the land surveyors on the other hand, this committee should assess the value at each university of each particular course. In other words, this committee should not only examine the quality of the land surveying, but should also have the opportunity of going to the engineering department and seeing what courses are offered by that department in respect of surveying in the various sections. Then the committee will only recommend to the council that in a certain case they think that the amount of training the engineer receives qualifies him to be granted exemption. Particularly in the case of architects who have to design buildings and all the rest of it, they do a certain amount of survey work on site. It is in order to avoid conflict that I think the hon the Deputy Minister should accept this particular amendment. Otherwise there may be trouble later on between the engineers and the land surveyors despite what the hon the Deputy Minister said today. It is just a question of assessing the value of a course given at a university or at a technical college.

Mr Chairman. I regret that I cannot support the amendment, for one particular reason. It is not a normal procedure for one professional code to assess another professional code. The amendment refers to any survey work. That really takes it on to a very broad basis. Does the hon member for Bezuidenhout suggest that, for example, in the case of marine surveying where a considerable amount of surveying work is involved, land surveyors should in fact veto their work?

What about quantity surveyors?

Yes, quite correct. That is also survey work. Apart from anything else the hon member’s amendment is extremely broad. The overriding principle as far as I am concerned is that far from reducing friction it would raise friction if one professional body is allowed to assess the work of another professional body. Therefore I cannot support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, if I understood the hon member for Bezuidenhout correctly he has in mind the extremely laudable objective to see to it that the engineer will be able to continue the work he has being doing for years. That is a laudable idea with which we all agree. That is exactly what one has to do.

†Nobody wants to do anything else. We do want to have the engineer doing survey work under certain circumstances and under strictly controlled conditions.

The hon member must help me here. If I read clause 39(1) correctly it already empowers the Minister to do exactly what the hon member wants him to do. This provision reads as follows:

Obviously, if he has had consultation with the council the council will refer the matter to the education advisory committee who will come back with advice to the council. I quote further:

That includes an engineer:

This could be civil engineers:

It therefore does seem to me that this provision is sufficient for the protection of exactly those people whom the hon member so laudably wants to project.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pretoria West is absolutely correct. All that I want to do is to make absolutely certain that when the Minister consults with the council they have the proof coming from the educational body that the degree of training which they received which allows them to do that particular work, is in accordance with what the land surveyors want them to have. The only way that they can find out for certain if it is so is by assessing the particular course. All I am asking therefore is that they shall have the right to assess. They report to the council who can then consult with the Minister to state that such exemption shall be granted. I think it is necessary that it should be written into the legislation. It might be a problem for the council to go and assess another course unless it is actually laid down in the law. I want to give the education advisory committee the legal power to go to a university to find out exactly what architects’ courses entail. I agree with the hon member for Pretoria West that one must preserve the present position as far as engineers are concerned. I think it can be accepted on that basis.

Mr Chairman, on considering this specific amendment I asked myself why the hon member for Bezuidenhout moved the amendment, paticularly in view of the theory as it appears in the Statute Book and as it is to be implemented in practice. I have already made the point that the engineering group have, in our negotiations with them, expressed concern about the fact that in the implementation of this legislation there are going to be infringements of the Professional Engineers’ Act. If we were to accept this amendment, the problem would arise that the education advisory committee for the land surveyors would now become the body that would provide the input regarding decisions about job demarcation in the engineering industry.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily, but it is implied, due to the critical situation that will arise if this legislation were to be accepted. I asked myself what the purpose of this would be in practice, from the point of view of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, and I came to the conclusion that if the Minister were to take a decision on the demarcation of or qualification for the work, he would, in the first place, consult the council of the profession in question, in this instance the Council for Land Surveyors. The council for Land Surveyors, in turn, would have to turn to those people who were au fait with the type of work, the demarcation and the technical detail. Ten to one they would approach the education committee for advice. After that committee had furnished the necessary advice, the Minister would have to form an opinion in regard to the profession of land surveyor that would be acceptable to them. As far as the engineering industry is concerned, however, the Minister will still have to approach their council, and the same procedure will have to be followed there in order to determine what the eventual effect will be. Therefore I am of the opinion that as regards the procedure to be followed, it will work, in practice, as the hon member for Bezuidenhout proposed. Since the notice of job demarcation has not yet taken place, however, in my opinion it is not advisable to demarcate it so specifically as to instil doubt in a certain profession, and I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that in line 57 the word “surveyor” is wrongly spelt?

That will be rectified in the normal cause of events.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper:

1. 1. On page 27, in line 3, to omit "not be entitled to perform any survey work, except" and to substitute:
   only be entitled to perform survey work

The English text is very inadequate and does not explain the position. I think it would improve matters if we could substitute the phrase "not be entitled to perform any survey work, except” by “only be entitled to perform survey work”. That is putting it positively, and I think the hon the Deputy Minister should accept this.

Mr Chairman, I should ask the hon member for Bezuidenhout to explain his amendment more fully because I detect here a distinction without a difference as it were.

It is a matter of negative or positive.

That is quite correct. It is a matter of either negative or positive. The fact of the matter is, however, that in legal parlance this is the normal way of formulating. Why the hon member wants to change a normal way of formulating a prohibition I do not know. Perhaps he could explain to us why he wants the prohibitive style to be changed from a negative into a positive or vice versa because, as I understand it, this is very, very clear indeed. I can see no problem arising in respect of the interpretation of this prohibition at all.

I do not want to commit any injustice towards the hon member for Bezuidenhout. That is why I should ask him to explain fully his reason for moving this particular amendment.

Mr Chairman, clause 21(4) reads as follows:

What is important here is to note that mention is made of a professional land surveyor in training and not a professional land surveyor. If such a person happens to be a professional land surveyor in training he can only work under the supervision of a qualified land surveyor. I merely want to make absolutely certain that the public do not make a mistake in that people accept that a professional land surveyor in training is entitled to operate on his own. Therefore I want it to be made absolutely clear that a professional land surveyor in training should only work under the control of a professional land surveyor.

Mr Chairman, all the hon member for Bezuidenhout seems to envisage with his amendment is to have a prohibition that is negatively expressed in the clause itself, stated positively. Therefore, in terms of the hon member’s amendment, a professional lano surveyor in training will be authorized to practise subject to a certain qualification.

On the other hand, the normal procedure is to ask whether a person who has not yet fully qualified should be authorized to practise, or whether a prohibition should be imposed on him with an authorization to practise thereafter. Therefore this means that in exceptional cases he may practise. The one point I wish to state very clearly is, of course, that the person in question has not yet completed his training and is not therefore qualified to practise on his own. Because he is not fully qualified he cannot be authorized to practise. Therefore a prohibition is imposed on him. However, if he practises under supervision, he may be permitted to practise under certain circumstances subject to the prohibition imposed on him.

The converse of this is, of course, that he is prohibited from practising and that he may subsequently obtain authorization to practise.

The statement made by the hon member for Pretoria West is very important as far as this particular matter is concerned. The normal way legislation is worded is to begin by imposing a prohibition on a person, after which he is in certain exceptional circumstances permitted to practise. That is exactly what is being done here. Accordingly, because this is the normal way in which legislation is worded and also because the person concerned has not yet been qualified and cannot therefore be authorized to practise, I cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Chairman, in view of the explanation offered by the hon the Deputy Minister I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33:

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

1. 1. On page 41, in line 47, after “period", to insert:
   under the terms and conditions determined by it

This clause deals with the termination of the suspension of any person by the council. My amendment simply seeks to give the council the right on the termination of such suspension and when such a person is reinstated, to lay down certain conditions and terms under which such person has to operate. Such a person may have been found guilty of improper conduct of a particular kind and the council may wish to reinstate him for a trial period of a year. It then decides to terminate that person’s suspension for a period of one year on certain conditions. At the end of that year, the council can then lift that suspension completely and remove the conditions. As the clause reads at the moment, if such a person’s suspension is terminated, he may practise openly without the imposition of any terms or conditions, and I feel that the council should be given this right.

Mr Chairman, we on these benches also believe that the amendment proposed by the hon member for Bezuidenhout would be an improvement to the clause as it stands; so we shall support it.

Mr Chairman, in the form that the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout appeared on the Order Paper it was not quite clear to me what the proposed amendment implied. I should like to read the clause as it will read if the amendment is accepted:

The question I ask myself is whether the condition being set here is a condition for the lifting of the suspension or whether it is a condition of practice. If it is a condition relating to the suspension itself, then I can see no problem. However, if it relates to the conditions on which the person may practise, then there is a problem. The council may set the conditions, but the public at large, that may suffer due to the improper conduct of such a land surveyor, is not aware of the conditions that may be set. Therefore such a surveyor could continue to practise as if no conditions had been specified. How is one to publicize such conditions so that the public may know about them? If they are conditions relating to the lifting of the suspension, then it goes without saying that the council must lay down certain rules in terms of the decision it has to take relating to that suspension. If that is so, there can be no problem. However, I first want the hon member to clarify this matter somewhat.

Mr Chairman, it applies to both actually. It means that the council has the right to say that it is lifting the suspension. A man may have been suspended for five years and after two years the council wishes to terminate that suspension and allow him to practise once again. However, there may be certain conditions it wishes to impose in order to make absolutely certain that such person will not again be guilty of certain practices and it should, therefore, be able to lay down those conditions in terms of which such a person may practise, let us say for the period of one year. If at the end of a year that man is found to have abided by the conditions, they can lift his suspension. Let us assume a man has been suspended for life because of a particular improper conduct and after some time he makes an application to be readmitted as a land surveyor. In terms of the clause as it stands at the moment, the council has only two options. They can lift the suspension or they can decide that the suspension remains. If they lift the suspension the land surveyor becomes a full member and he can do what he pleases. It is also possible that the council can decide for reasons known to itself to terminate the land surveyor’s suspension, but certain conditions will have to be met for a certain period of time. The council can come to such a decision to make absolutely sure that that land surveyor does not make himself guilty of such improper conduct again. I just want to allow the council the power to terminate a suspension under certain conditions. I think it is reasonable that the council should have the power to impose certain conditions. I think the hon the Deputy Minister should accept the amendment under those circumstances.

Mr Chairman, I shall try to explain the position. If one looks at clause 29, one finds in it the penalties which can be imposed and to which clause 33 refers and one finds that it reads:

1. (a) a fine not exceeding R500; or
2. (b) a caution or a reprimand or a caution and a reprimand; or
3. (c) suspension from practising in the Republic for a specified period not exceeding one year …

One year is the maximum time he can be suspended.

What about cancellation?

Here two points come to the fore. The hon member points out that he can be probibited from practising. If that happens, he is prohibited for a year. In the event of his right to practise being cancelled, the amendment of the hon member cannot be considered either because then the land surveyor has to register from scratch and he cannot practise unconditionally. Therefore the hon member’s amendment lapses when there is a total suspension. It can only apply when he is suspended for one year. The term of suspension is such that one would have uncertainty in the profession as a result of the conditions, because the public would know what the conditions were under which such a surveyor could practise. That is why I cannot accept the amendment when it is a matter of the conditions of practising. If it had been a matter of conditions under which his suspension could be lifted and under which the council could set such conditions, that would have been a different matter.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39:

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

1. 1. On page 45, in line 15, to omit “consultation with” and to substitute:
   consideration and approval of a relevant recommendation made by

When the Committee considered a previous clause I explained why I believe this amendment is necessary. I do not wish to repeat that argument.

Mr Chairman, I think that the same principle that applied to the previous discussion also applied here, when it is a matter of consultation and the proposals embodied here. For the same reasons I am unable to accept the hon member’s amendment.

Amendment I negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40:

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

1. 1. On page 45, after line 54. to insert:
   1. (2) All the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Institute of Government Land Surveyors shall be assigned to the said two Institutes by resolution of the Institute of Government Land Surveyors prior to its dissolution.

I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister is probably going to accept this last amendment of mine. All I want to make absolutely certain about in this particular instance, is that the assets, rights and liabilities of each of these institutes will be preserved for those institutes and will not be taken over the council. There will have to be an audit of the books of those two institutes. I feel that they should be able to retain what assets, liabilities and obligations they have when the new order comes about.

Mr Chairman, as regards the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Institute of Government Land Surveyors, it is of interest to note that this institute is the only one of its nature which uses the name “Government land surveyors". This name goes back to the time of the old Cape laws when virtually all land surveyors were still public servants who had to provide the service. The first question that occurs to me when one thinks about assets and liabilities is the degree to which “Government land surveyors" would have had major assets in terms of payments to their institute. I think that the principle at issue here is that if this institute makes recommendations on how these assets and liabilities are to be dealt with, the Minister can consider them. However, at this stage I should prefer not to decide of my own accord, and without consulting them, how the funds are to be spent. After the matter of the expenditure of the funds has been taken up with them, one will be in a better position to act. However. I do not think that one should specify in this measure what action is to be taken.

Mr Chairman. I take it that what the hon the Deputy Minister has just said, is an undertaking that he will consult these two institutes on this particular point. In the light of this, I ask permission to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1. with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, we come now to the last stage of this Bill. Despite the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister has not accepted some of my amendments, I do believe that problems are going to arise in the Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors in time to come and that he will have to take a certain amount of action along the lines I have indicated. It is the duty of a member of Parliament to point out problems which such organizations may encounter. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House wish this council the very best of luck. We are glad that the technicians and the professional people are now going to come together, that there will be unity and that the profession as such will benefit from the establishment of the new council.

Mr Speaker, we are also very happy to support the Third Reading of this Bill. We wish the hon the Deputy Minister every success in dealing with the organization involved.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout said that the hon the Deputy Minister had not accepted some of his amendments. I cannot recollect which one he did accept, but I really tried to give him a bit of assistance despite the fact that he felt I was being unkind to him.

We will be supporting this Bill and we wish the association all the luck in the world in the use of it.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank hon members of the Opposition parties most sincerely for the support they have given this Bill at its Third Reading.

†I want to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout. Although we differed during the Committee Stage, I want to thank him for the way in which he presented his amendments and I am sure that in time to come we will amend this Bill. I am not sure which clauses will be amended but as time progresses I am sure that amendments will come.

I also want to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his kind words to me. Although we agreed at times, there were also times when we did not agree. The initial remarks made by the official Opposition about this hon member were not quite correct because afterwards he actually agreed with them. I was not as nasty to him as they were. I want to thank him for the support which he gave me.

*I think we have had a good day in that all three stages of this Bill were taken by this House. Now the affairs of this profession, too have been put in order. I want to associate myself with hon members of the Opposition parties in wishing this council well. I think things will go well for this profession and the country as a whole.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon member for Pretoria West. He was very helpful and displayed a particularly professional and academic knowledge of this subject. I want to thank him, too, for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Last year this House passed the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Then the White voters of the Republic were asked whether the Act should be implemented. On 2 November 1983 they said “yes". This contained a mandate that the new Parliament with its three Houses should be established. This House is to become one of the Houses and the Bill now before this House is a proposed procedural measure to enable the other two Houses to be constituted. Provision is hereby merely being made for the first general election of members for the two additional Houses. At a later date I intend to submit proposals to this House in connection with uniform electoral procedures in all three Houses for future general and by-elections.

Those additional proposals that I shall be making later this session will contain some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which, in the past, has submitted very constructive proposals in connection with certain reforms and amendments.

Section 52 of the 1983 constitution provides that every White person. Coloured person and Indian who: (a) is a South African citizen in terms of the South African Citizens Act, 1949; and (b) is of or over the age of 18 years; and (c) is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 4(1) or (2) of the Electoral Act, 1979, shall, on compliance with and subject to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 1979, be entitled to vote at any election of a member of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, respectively, in the electoral division of the House in question determined in accordance with the last-mentioned Act.

Various ways of making provision for the first general election for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates were considered. Specifically because of the provisions of section 52 of the Constitution Act, it seemed best to use the Electoral Act of 1979 as a basis and then make the necessary adjustments so that the Act could be used for the first general election. This point of departure is stated in clause 1 of the Bill.

The way in which the adjustments are being made is perhaps rather unusual. Hon members will notice that an important adjustment is already being made in clause 1. Then in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 2 certain more general adjustments are made. Paragraph (d) contains specific adjustments, whilst paragraph (e) refers to a schedule by means of which a number of more specific adjustments are being made. The State law advisers, who had to deal with the formulation of the Bill, have given the assurance that this was the best way of doing things. In my opinion they have formulated the Bill carefully and imaginatively and have made a good job of it. I thank them for it.

The details of the Bill are not at issue now, but I would like to mention and elaborate on the most important adjustments.

In clause 1 it is provided that the system of postal votes for absent voters shall not be used. Most of the parties who will probably participate in the elections do not have the established and experienced country-wide organizations at the disposal which are necessary to utilize and operate a system of postal votes to the full extent. A system of postal votes is expensive and requires a great deal of manpower, as everyone in this House knows. In addition there might possibly be quite a number of independent candidates in the field for whom the system of postal votes would not be of that much use. Although postal votes were used in elections for the Coloured Persons Representative Council, they were not used in elections for the South African Indian Council. Bearing all these circumstances in mind, it is proposed that only special votes be available to absent voters.

The more general adjustments proposed in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 2 are self-explanatory and do not need further elucidation. The amendments proposed in paragraph (d) are also self-explanatory, but for the conveience of members who may possibly not have had the opportunity to refer to the sections in the principal Act, I should like to mention certain aspects.

Section 4(1 )(c) of the principal Act makes the possession of an identity document a prerequisite for a person to be registered as a voter and section 82(2)(d) requires the furnishing of an identity number when an application is made for a special vote. This subsection of the principal Act has not yet been put into operation. The State law advisers are of the opinion that it would nevertheless be desirable expressly to eliminate them again in order to avoid any possible problems of interpretation.

Section 34(3) and (4) of the principal Act lays down periods which have to elapse between proclamation day, nomination day and polling day. The Bill now provides for a singel deviation from this for the forthcoming elections for the two relevant Houses. There are already planned target dates, but in the process very good reasons may arise why the periods between these days should be longer or shorter. By not laying down periods, there will consequently be greater freedom of movement. Obviously the periods eventually decided on will have to be reasonable, or else meaningful elections will not be possible.

Section 41(4)(b)(ii) and (5) requires 300 signatures for the nomination of a candidate other than a candidate of a political party already represented in the House of Assembly. Obviously this distinction cannot be made in the first general election for the two Houses. Section 123(1 )(b) and (c) deals with polling agents, and its repeal is linked to provisions on the same subject in the schedule to this Bill. Section 187 of the principal Act is a nostalgic relic from the past. It gives White women the right to sit in Parliament, the hon member for Houghton being tangible proof of this. I have been assured that the deletion of this section will not lead to this right that women have being placed in any doubt.

†The most important adaptations proposed in the schedule deal with the registration of voters, the registration of political parties, the nomination of candidates and the occurring of vacancies after the general elections have taken place.

Mr Speaker, regarding the registration of voters, it is proposed that section 6 of the principle Act be substituted by measures making specific provision for the registration of voters for the two Houses. It is also proposed that voters already on voters lists for the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the South African Indian Council and who are entitled to vote for the Houses, shall be deemed to have applied for registration as voters for the Houses.

The possibility of using the population register as a source of the compilation of voters’ lists for the first general elections, was considered. Several factors, however, militated against such a course. As far as Coloured persons and Indians are concerned the population register is very far from complete. It was not possible to attempt a project towards the completion of the register similar to the one that was successfully concluded for the referendum last year. There are hundreds of thousands of applications for identity documents received more than a year and a half ago that could as yet not be processed because of lack of essential information or because inquiries were not responded to. There are also more than 100 000 applications received since January 1983 that are considered to be current applications and that must be processed together with fresh applications received from day to day. A team of about 500 after-hours workers is presently employed in an effort to bring the population register up to date for Coloured and Indian persons. There is however, no prospect of completing this task before the end of September at the earliest. Where voters lists will probably close at the end of April 1984 for polling in the general elections, it is just not feasible to use the population register in the state it is expected to be at that time, as a source for those voters’ lists. The probability of disenfranchising voters who are already on voters lists or who may rely on being placed on voters lists because they did apply for identity documents, is too real. By using voters lists compiled by registration and by making it known that only those who are already on voters lists or who apply for registration will be able to to vote, everybody is given the best opportunity of personally making sure that he will be able to cast his vote in the general elections. More than a month remains for prospective voters to fill in their application forms and for political parties to ensure that their voters are registered. I appeal to all eligible citizens to take this opportunity and to make sure that they will be able to cast their votes for the candidates they prefer to represent them in Parliament.

The most we thought we could usefully employ the population register for was to bring the addresses of votes already on voters rolls up to date. This is provided for in the schedule to the Bill.

*Mr Speaker, as far as the registration of political parties is concerned, it is proposed that section 36 of the Electoral Act, 1979, be adapted to differentiate between the parties already established before the amendment Bill came into operation and those established after that date. In the former case all that is required is the deed of foundation or some other proof of the establishment of the party. In the latter case it is required that the deed of foundation be signed by 50 voters. It is also proposed that section 41. which deals with the nomination of candidates be adapted. This adjustment in regard to candidates of political parties is linked to the proposal in clause 2(d). which I have already elaborated on.

Sections 44. 104 and 110 of the principal Act are being adapted to provide that vacancies which arise before, on or after polling day be deemed to have arisen on the day on which the new Parliament comes into existence.

†This Bill is an important further step towards a new political era. The White voters of South Africa have taken what were for them far-reaching decisions. They have opened the doors to the Coloured and Indian groups to have, as we have, full power over their own most intimate affairs and to join, on the basis of co-responsibility, in the taking of decisions with regard to matters of common interest.

I call upon the Coloured and Indian communities to grasp this opportunity by registering as voters, standing for election, voting for their candidates and participating to the full. Thus they will contribute towards the successful launching of a new dispensation, which offers hope and opportunity in a balanced and responsible way.

Mr Speaker, the Bill before this House envisages, for the first time in our history, laying down legal guidelines in terms of which Coloureds and Indians will be able to elect representatives to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, respectively. This is not the time, however, to comment on the constitutional aspects of such an election. This may, however, possibly be the time to take note of the technical aspects of holding elections in order, as far as possible, to ensure that the integrity of the envisaged elected bodies is not further encroached upon by deficiencies in the technical measures for which provision is made in legislation of this kind.

I have already said on previous occasions that, generally speaking. South Africa has a good electoral system. This system is regarded with a great deal of confidence by political parties and is generally respected by the voting public. The system is in fact, good because it has been tested for so many years in keen political competition and also because time and again the Electoral Act and amendments to it have been the product of negotiations and discussions in a select committee.

The subject of this legislation was of course, referred to a select committee two years ago when legislation concerning the registration of voters and other matters pertaining to Coloured and Indian voters was published for the first time. In the ordinary course of events, and bearing in mind that it was referred to a select committee as far back as two years ago, one could say that by this time we should have a very good Bill before us, a Bill which creates a reasonable degree of confidence and satisfaction among the Coloured and Indian politicians and voters who will have to participate in elections in terms of this legislation. I want to suggest, however, that today we cannot really feel, with conviction, that we are creating an atmosphere of confidence and satisfaction by means of the legislation before us, and I want to put forward two principal reasons for this.

In the first place, Coloureds and Indians have not had a say in the run-up to and drafting of this legislation, in any event not to the extent to which White political parties have. It goes without saying that if we expect those population groups to accept both our good intentions and the content of the legislation, it is essential for them to have a say in the drafting of that legislation.

†Pursuant to this belief the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, in the course of the select committee proceedings, moved the following motion, and I quote:

1. (a) the Elections Amendment Bill be published and comment and representations thereon be invited, particularly from Coloured persons and Indians; and
2. (b) such comment and representations be considered before the Committee submits its report.

This motion was defeated by the majority of NP members on that committee, and was supported only by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon member for Umhlanga and by myself. I believed at the time, and I still believe, that that was a perfectly reasonable request and a perfectly reasonable motion. That could only have served to enhance the acceptability of the legislation now before the House.

One of the reasons advanced for the Government members opposition to that motion at the time was that there was not sufficient time to give effect to such a resolution should the motion be carried. It was stated that time was of the essence and that the Committee had to submit its report in order that the Bill could be introduced into this House during the course of the Parliamentary session of 1983. The fact that that Bill was never introduced during that session is now part of history. The whole issue was subsequently kept in obeyance until the introduction of the Bill with which we are dealing today.

Again it is interesting to note what the hon the Minister had to say when he announced here in the House, on Tuesday, 24 May 1983, that the Bill was not to be introduced after all during the session of 1983. I quote his exact words, as follows (Hansard. 1983, col 7976):

I want to suggest, Mr Speaker, that there has not been any further streamlining of legislation in this connection since the hon the Minister made that announcement here in the House last year. I am sincere when I express this criticism because I believe it is valid. I also believe it is sad that one is compelled to express this criticism. It means that the whole matter has merely been left in obeyance until now. It has now all of a sudden become clear that this issue has to some extent become a matter of urgency. Precious time has been wasted while extensive negotiations and consultations could have taken place with representatives of the Coloured and the Indian communities.

That brings me to the second reason why I believe we cannot be confident of the degree of acceptability of this type of legislation. I submit that there is little indication that the Government has taken notice of the important recommendations of the Select Committee that sat during the course of the session of 1982, and completed its work early in 1983.

In his introductory speech the hon the Minister indicated that he proposed to deal with some of those recommendations by way of legislation that would take effect at a later stage. That is legislation which will presumably deal with elections in respect of the Coloured and Indian Houses. The point remains, however, that that could have been done earlier. That would have enabled a far better Bill to be introduced into this House today; also a more acceptable Bill to all of us. [Interjections.]

There has also been little indication that the Government has learnt anything from the experience gained in that Select Committee and also before that Select Committee was appointed. Let me take just one example. The select committee at that time dealt extensively with the new concept of drawing up the voters’ rolls from the population register. In fact, all political parties had accepted the concept that in the future voters’ rolls should be drawn from the population register and this therefore would encourage political parties to assist in getting people to apply for identity documents. In this way the population register would be brought up to date so that the procedure of transition could take place smoothly and so that one could be left with a good and up to date system for the drawing up of voters rolls.

I think that a number of very positive suggestions for the smooth transition emanated from that committee. A wealth of experience went into those discussions and recommendations and the fact that nothing has been done about this matter since the report was tabled simply means that as far as this Bill is concerned the select committee was wasting its time. In spite of the recommendations regarding voters rolls, the registration of voters and delimitations the hon the Minister has introduced a Bill in this Parliament that contains a very strange anomaly and, because of this fact, could produce some very weird results.

Let me refer in some detail to what I have in mind. I am referring to the fact that the delimitation of electoral divisions in respect of the Coloured and Indian Houses will take place on the basis of the information contained in the population register. It will therefore be assumed for the purposes of delimitation that a Coloured or Indian voter resides at the address given in the population register while the elections will take place on the basis of voters rolls. This means that in theory the basis of the delimitations is quite irrelevant to the basis of the elections. Although the theory may not be relevant, what is important is the fact that in practice this position may in fact produce some strange consequences. If for example, one assumes that Coloured people throughout South Africa are in possession of their identity documents on a fairly equal basis—in other words, that there is not a larger proportion of Coloured people in the Western Cape who are in possession of identity documents than there happens to be in the eastern Cape or on the Witwatersrand or the platteland of the Western Cape—if one assumes that this is the case—and I believe that to be a fair assumption—and at the same time one takes cognizance of the fact that certainly in the Cape Peninsula where a very large proportion of the Coloured people reside the resistance to registration as voters is much stronger than anywhere else in the country, it means that one may have the situation where quite a large number of constituencies will be established within the Western Cape area on the basis of the delimitation according to the population register while, because of the low registration of voters, such constituencies will have far fewer voters than constituencies in the Eastern Cape, on the Witwatersrand and, certainly, in the rural areas. I believe that this is not merely theoretical but that it will be the practical situation and so I also honestly believe that we may find ourselves having some very strange results indeed in that some constituencies in this area may end up having far fewer—possibly as high as 50%—than the number of voters there may be per constituency in, for instance, the Eastern Cape, on the Witwatersrand and in the rural areas. I believe this is something which cannot be ignored. I do not know what views some of the Coloured and Indian political parties or leaders have on this situation, but I believe this is a situation which is extremely exploitable. Whatever political organization should choose to concentrate its political activity on the Western Cape and the Cape Peninsula in particular, it may find that it has an incredible political advantage over political parties which have their main power base in areas elsewhere or over parties which concentrate their organizational activities elsewhere. I believe this will turn out to be a very important point and I believe this is a situation which should not be ignored by the Government. Furthermore I believe that this is a situation which could have been avoided. I can accept all the reasons which the hon the Minister has given for the state of the population register. I can accept that there are not sufficient numbers of Coloured people who are in possession of identity documents and similarly there are incredibly low numbers of Coloured people who are registered as voters. I believe the indications do not point towards that percentage being increased to a satisfactory level. I believe that had this situation been tackled at the time when it should have been tackled, we could have been in a much better situation.

When I take all these factors into consideration, I believe that the only way to deal with this Bill sensibly is to refer it to a body that can investigate and inquire into the Bill and that can make some input to resolve at least some of the difficulties of which I have mentioned only one. They should try to make it a more acceptable and a more sensible Bill.

The amendment which I shall move is perhaps procedurally an unusual one to a certain extent but I do not believe it will be sufficient to refer the Bill merely to a select committee because in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders the membership of a select committee can only be drawn from the members of this House and therefore it will also be racially restricted. I think we shall be doing ourselves a favour and I believe that it will be no less than absolutely correct that those population groups who will fight elections in terms of the Bill should have representation on such a commission. I therefore move as an amendment:

I believe in this way we shall be able to say truly that substantial attempts have been made to involve those people who will be affected by the Bill. They will be in a position to come forward with a new Bill or they can recommend certain amendments to the present Bill. They will be able to have discussions and to participate in producing this kind of legislation.

I want to point out that I believe there is still time for such a commission to be set up and to complete its deliberations. It need not be a long-drawn-out procedure. I honestly believe that such a commission should be appointed. I believe there are a number of very good reasons, and some of them I have mentioned already. I believe that we can benefit from the input that those people can make to such a commission. I believe they can benefit from some of the experience which hon members have when it comes to electioneering. I also believe that the potential exists for the hon the Minister to have people appointed on such a committee who at the moment may not be involved with active party politics in the Coloured and Indian communities. This highlights possibly another problem. Every time the Government wanted to consult the leaders of those communities during the last year or two, the Government had to consult with people whose representiveness was at least in some doubt. I do not believe that there are any members on the Government side who would claim that they were able to consult representatives of the majority of the Coloured and Indian populations. I think that a least in this respect we can possibly make amends to a very limited extent. I believe this is an opportunity the Government should take and that they should agree to refer this Bill to such a commission.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the standpoint the hon member for Green Point adopted here this afternoon, but I just want to say that the Bill before the House this afternoon is another milestone on the road to peace, security and prosperity for all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Green Point came to light with nothing but criticism. He referred, firstly, to the select committee looking into the Electoral Act, a committee of which he himself is a member. He referred to proposals made in the select committee by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, proposals which were not accepted. He is now moving an amendment to the effect that the Second Reading of the Bill should not be passed before the appointment of a commission, consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, to investigate it and come forward with recommendations. This afternoon I want to tell the hon member for Green Point and the official Opposition that I do not find it strange for them to adopt that attitude. They fought the new constitution tooth and nail, because they begrudge the Coloureds and the Asians the right to participate in the Government of the country. They want to deprive the Coloureds and the Asians of that right. From the very start they came along with boycott politics when the new constitution was at issue. During the referendum campaign they continued to oppose the new dispensation.

This afternoon I want to ask the hon member for Green Point whether his intentions are really honourable. Since the select committee completed its work, two elections have taken place, ie a by-election in Pine-town, in which only Whites were involved, and also an election in Soutpansberg, in which only Whites participated. Those by-elections took place after the select committee had concluded its work. There was sufficient opportunity for the hon member for Green Point and his party to have put forward their standpoint in regard to the 1979 Electoral Act in the House. Because there were only Whites involved in these two by-elections, however, it did not matter to them. Because people of coulour are at issue in this Bill, however, the hon member for Green Point is taking the opportunity to make a last attempt at boycotting the new dispensation.

Amongst other things the hon member for Green Point referred to our electoral system. He made the point that it is a good electoral system, and of course I have no fault to find with that. The State law advisers used that electoral system as the basis on which to bring about amendments to the system so as to enable the election to take place on 22 August. I can see no sense in the hon member for Green Point merely coming to light again with boycott tactics this afternoon. [Interjections.] Let us not begrudge those people an election.

The hon member also referred to the population register. I want to state very clearly this afternoon that the referendum furnished proof of the fact that changing our system so that an identity document can be used to cast one’s vote is something that should be looked at. The hon the Minister has accordingly given an undertaking that it will be looked at, and hon members need not have any doubts about that. It is very clear that here the PFP is engaged in boycott politics. They want to stand in the way of people who want to participate in the government of the country in which they live. This afternoon I want to tell the official Opposition, and also other parties in this House, that the terrain has been mapped out for the establishment of a structure in which the three population groups will live together in peace. The building plans have been approved and we on this side of the House will go ahead—in spite of opposition from two Opposition parties in this House— with the erection of a structure in which people can live in peace and security.

As far as the implementation of the new constitution is concerned, as far back as 2 November 1983 the White citizens of South Africa reached a decision. In spite of all the objections that have been forthcoming from Opposition parties, the White citizens reached a decision, and it is now the Government’s responsibility to implement the new constitution, and we shall go ahead and do so.

2 November 1983 was an historic day in the annals of South African history, and it will likewise be an historic day on 22 August 1984 when the Coloureds and Indians decide what part to play in the Government of the Country in which they live. What does the legislation now being discussed aim at? The aim is that as many Coloured and Asian citizens as possible should participate in the election. The Electoral Act of 1979 makes provision for an absent voter to be able to cast his vote in two ways. He can, firstly, do so by way of a postal vote and secondly, by way of a special vote. The hon the Minister clarified the matter and advanced reasons why, in this case, the custom of postal votes is to be deviated from

Just repeat that.

The Government has decided—and it is contained in this amendment Bill—that on 22 August 1984 the custom of postal votes is to be deviated from. Hon members know, as I do, that in the recent elections postal votes were, to a lesser degree, made use of, with special votes being made use of to a larger extent.

I think it is important for me to give hon members a few particulars. In the general election of 1981, 1 349 933 votes were cast. On that occasion 113 896 special votes were cast as against a mere 58 985 postal votes. The hon the Minister indicated the reasons for that. The reason for this can be found in the manpower, the time and the cost involved. I should like to say this afternoon that every Coloured and Asian voter who is desirous of casting his vote on 22 August 1984 will have an opportunity to do so. I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister that the Department of Internal Affairs should also see to it that there are sufficient places for special votes to be cast.

The question that arises is whether the amendments will, in any way, prejudice the voters in the exercising of their democratic right. My answer to this, I should like to say, is “no". If a voter has the will to cast his vote, there is sufficient opportunity for him to register as a voter and then cast his vote.

There are powers and forces at work influencing Coloured and Asian citizens not to participate in these elections and preventing them from participating. I know it. This afternoon I want to appeal to all persons and bodies that are dissuading people from participating to reconsider their standpoint. I have, firstly, referred to the voter, which as far as I am concerned is a very important aspect. Secondly I want to refer to the political party which is also important. The procedures adopted in registering a political party in terms of the amendments being brought about to the Act make it easier for people to register political parties. That is the second point. As far as I am concerned, it is firstly a matter of the voter himself and, secondly, that of the political party. The third aspect that is involved, as far as I am concerned, is that of the candidate. As a result of the circumstances surrounding the general election that is going to take place, it will not be necessary for a candidate to obtain 300 signatures to be able to qualify as a candidate. That is being done away with. [Interjections.] I have highlighted the three points which, as far as I am concerned, are very important in the elections. That is all I want to say about that.

I just want to make it quite clear that the elections on 22 August 1984 are important elections. People will be given the right to decide for themselves about the political party and the candidate to represent them in the Government of their people. Coloureds and Asians will be given the opportunity to decide for themselves about matters affecting them. I also want to appeal to the leaders of political parties in this House not to stand in the way of those people or be a stumbling block. This afternoon I should like to make a serious appeal to political parties in this House not to stand in the way—for their own sake—of people and deprive them of that right. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill before the House.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Witbank reminds me of an undertaker. He is the last man to let one down!

*The hon members of the PFP can speak for themselves, but I want to say that at times it is astounding to sit listening to hon members of the NP. This afternoon we again heard of the old clichés about the PFP. The hon member for Witbank just pushed aside the arguments of the hon member for Green Point and then said two things. I now want the hon member for Witbank to think about what he said. In order to conduct a good debate, I think one should also understand the principles and policies of one’s opponents. To come and say this afternoon, however, that the hon member for Green Point …

We shall never understand you.

The hon the Deputy Minister should rather confine himself to the ATKV, the ATKB and the Rapportryers that he wants to open up to the Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that the hon member for Green Point did not want to give the Coloureds and Indians political rights. Anyone with any common sense, when it comes to politics in South Africa, knows that what the PFP wants for the Coloureds and Indians is political rights here in the House. That is, after all, their policy. The hon member must not come along now with such an absurdity and say that the hon member for Green Point does not want to give the Coloureds and Indians political rights. Of course the PFP wants to give them those rights. We also want to give them those rights. [Interjections.] Only the method is different.

The hon member also came along with the old cliché that the PFP is a boycott party. The hon member’s problem is that he no longer understands what a principle is. [Interjections.] I am not taking up the cudgels for the Progs, but I do just want to tell the hon member that. Two or three years ago, after all, we were still in the same party. The fact that a person or a party disagrees and, for reasons of principle, refuses to participate, does not give one the right simply to say he is a boycotter.

Is he boycotting or is he not?

I think that hon Deputy Minister has been in the post too long now. He does not understand these things. If he does not agree with me or with my party, he cannot simply say we are boycotters. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister should rather talk to his benchmate next to him.

I just want to tell the hon member for Green Point that we shall not be supporting his amendment. [Interjections.] We shall be moving our own amendment, which we think is a better one. I can understand, however, that in accordance with the principle of his party the hon member wants the Coloureds and Indians to have a say in legislation concerning the rules relating to their election. The hon member will recall cases when a select committee had to investigate legislation involving electoral matters relating to Coloureds and Indians, it was my standpoint that one should at least listen to those people. That is one of the points I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. From the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech it was not clear whether he had consulted the leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities who now agree with him about this specific Bill. I think the hon the Minister should get away from a paternalistic attitude. The attitude he adopted today towards the new nation he himself wants to create—the melting pot of nationhood, his fellow nationals—is that of having ignored them completely and of not even having asked them what they thought of the specific Bill. [Interjections.]

On what do you base the statement that I ignored them? What is your factual basis for that statement?

I did not say that. Did the hon the Minister consult them? Was there a select committee before which the Coloureds and Indians could give evidence?

You have made the statement that I did not consult them. On what do you base that statement?

I asked whether the hon the Minister had consulted them. He must tell us how he did so.

That is not the Second Reading speech.

I do not have to say everything in the Second Reading speech.

That is, in any case, a very important aspect. In the light of the way in which the hon the Minister conducts consultations behind closed doors, when speaking to leaders, we do not know how it was done. [Interjections.] The CP is very strongly opposed to this specific legislation. I therefore move as a further amendment:

In saying this, I want to reiterate—not that it will be of any use—that the CP, in its standpoint, is very strongly opposed to this legislation, because what is envisaged here is giving the Coloureds and Indians an opportunity to vote, thereby obtaining political rights for themselves. The CP is not in any way, opposed to their obtaining political rights. When the hon the Minister addresses the people in the North, however, he is one of those who is very fond of saying that the CP’s policy is based on hatred and that there is nothing that we do not begrudge the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] We shall still be debating this issue for a very long time in South Africa. The CP does indeed advocate political rights for the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] In other words, we do not begrudge them the same political rights that we want for themselves.

Where?

Hon members should rather put the question to the hon the Prime Minister because he was the one, after all, who did the research into the CP’s policy concerning a Coloured homeland. So let us persuade the hon the Prime Minister to let us inspect his findings.

No, you tell us. [Interjections.]

No. The Prime Minister did the research. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs was, at one stage, also a great proponent of a Coloured homeland. Interjections.]

Did I say so?

Yes. The hon the Deputy Minister also wanted a homeland for the Coloured people.

You are quite dotty, man.

No, I am as normal as anyone can possibly be. The hon the Deputy Minister is now running away from his past; just look how he is blushing.

We are strongly opposed to this legislation, not because we begrudge the Coloureds and the Indians any political rights, but for quite different reasons. The hon the Minister must realize that there will again be by-elections taking place in the Transvaal, and on those occasions each one of us will be stating his policy very clearly and frankly. If I am making a mistake about what the hon the Minister’s policy is, he must tell me. We could even appear on the same platform. [Interjections.] We are not oppressors of the Coloureds and the Indians. If geographic separation is oppression, then the Government is, after all, oppressing the Zulus, the Qwaqwas and the Vendas, because exactly the same principle applies as far as they are concerned. [Interjections ] It is important for us to talk about these matters.

As the first speaker on this side I should first just like to give the hon the Minister a little historic perspective, because he apparently has a very short memory. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Minister what alternative we have for the Coloureds.

Order! I have allowed the hon member to cover a fairly wide field. Now, however, he is discussing the policies of political parties. He must now confine himself to the legislation.

This legislation aims at giving the Coloureds and the Indians the opportunity to vote for their representatives in the new Parliament. The hon the Minister himself said that this Bill was grounded in the new constitutional proposals and I think that you. Sir, should allow me to talk about this, because it is very important.

Even if the hon the Minister did make such a remark, that does not necessarily mean that I must allow the hon member to speak about it.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect, this Bill forms part of the hon the Minister’s plan to have the sovereignty of this House of Assembly vanish into thin air. In terms of the definition contained in the Bill, in future “House of Assembly" is going to mean something else, and I still want to talk about that. I shall, however, leave the portion I was going to refer to at that, and discuss a subsequent portion. The hon the Minister tells us …

Order! I want to make it very clear that I do not, in any way, want to restrict the debate. We must at least, however keep to certain rules. The hon member will agree with me when I say that I have, for some time now, allowed him to cover a very wide field. Now. however. I want to ask him to confine himself to the contents of the Bill itself.

Mr Speaker, that I shall gladly do. This Bill deals, does it not, with the fact that Coloured people and Indians are now going to obtain the right to vote for their representatives in this new Parliament that is going to replace this House of Assembly. As far as we are concerned, that is very important. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to point out, quite amicably, that sections 42, 43 and 44 of Act No 110 of 1983 deal with the composition of the respective new chambers. In section 53 and the subsequent sections of the same Act mention is made of the delimitation commissions and how they will operate, including how constituencies will be divided up, who will have the right to vote, when a voter will be disqualified, etc. As the hon the Minister has also said, this Bill, as a whole, is an offshoot of Act No 110 of 1983. Involving as it does the whole question of the establishment of the new chambers, the delimitation of new constituencies, the registration of voters and so on, this appears to be a subject covering a very wide field. For that very reason I ask you, Mr Speaker, to allow the hon member for Rissik to cover a broad field in his speech too.

Order! I have already indicated that I did allow the hon member to cover a wide field. I cannot, however, allow hon members to conduct a Third Reading debate on this Bill at this stage. The hon member for Rissik may continue.

I just want to point out that the hon the Minister himself also referred to the result of last November’s referendum. I would also very much like to reply to him on that, and I promise, Mr Speaker, that I will not elaborate on this issue too extensively. The hon the Minister himself referred to the result of the referendum of 2 November of last year. I just want to remind the hon the Minister that we in this House have already said very clearly why result of last November’s referendum means nothing at all to the people or the country as a whole. [Interjections.] Yes, we have frequently said it here. [Interjections] If the hon Minister sets such great store by the result of the referendum, why does he not arrange for a referendum for the Coloured people and the Indians too? [Interjections.] In this Bill the hon the Minister is making provision for the coloureds and the Indians to vote on party lines. I would very much like to know whether it would not be fair for both these groups—people who are now to become part of the hon the Minister’s new nation—to hold their own referendums, as was the case with the Whites. Then after they have held their own referendums, the three Houses can surely be constituted from scratch by way of a general election.

But what about all the people about whom you were making such a fuss here earlier on? [Interjections.]

Yes, and what about the Indians? The Indians did not… [Interjections.]

There was a difference of opinion amongst them.

Yes, a difference of opinion. That is now very simple. [Interjections.]

The problem, Mr Speaker, is of course that each time the Government wants to justify its new dispensation, it does so in a way that suits the NP. [Interjections.] The only thing of importance is what suits the NP; not what is the correct thing to do or what is fair. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is now making such a fuss about the result of the 1983 referendum. I do just want to remind him of the fact that an election was also held in 1943. In that general election the then governing party achieved a resounding victory. I now want to know from the hon the Minister—his father was, after all, a very important man in the old NP—whether the NP resigned itself to the 1943 election results. Did they resign themselves to those results?

They did not resign themselves to their policy either. Many things have changed since then.

Yes, of course. That is the very reason why I am telling the hon the Minister that we are not resigning ourselves to the result of the referendum on 2 November 1983. We are in no way resigning ourselves to that result. The hon the Minister will simply have to realize that as long as there is a CP, there will be a party that will fight the principles that the hon the Minister is trying to consolidate and perpetuate by way of the legislation under discussion. [Interjections.]

In the legislation we have before us now the term “House of Assembly” is still being used. That is also something I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister. I want to know from him why we do not now say what the so-called new House of Assembly is really going to be like. It is not going to be a House of Assembly. It is merely going to be a White Chamber. Let us call this House of Assembly a White Chamber. It is not, after all, a House of Assembly any longer.

Is this House a House of Assembly?

This House is a House of Assembly and we stand for the sovereignty of this House of Assembly.

Of what people?

The people for whom we conduct prayers in this House each day.

Go and read your leader’s book. [Interjections.]

Just go and read the prayer that the Speaker reads out each day. [Interjections.] The Government and its Ministers still persist with the game of pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. What I am saying is that the word “House of Assembly” in this legislation should be replaced by the expression “White Chamber”.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to raise continual arguments about an Act already passed by this Parliament? In support of my argument I refer to section 37 of the new constitution which, amongst other things, provides that Parliament shall consist of three Houses, ie a House of Assembly, a House of Representatives and a House of Delegates. That is an Act passed by this Parliament, quite apart from the support it obtained in the referendum. Is the hon member, in terms of the procedure of this House, entitled to argue the question of the constitution all over again?

I regarded the hon member for Rissik’s remark merely as an interjection he was making in his own speech. I shall not allow the hon member to elaborate on that any further.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister must not get restless now, because these matters are still going to be debated ad nauseam. [Interjections.] I just want to say that I do not want us to perpetuate a lie in this country by still calling this institution a House of Assembly when it is no longer a House of Assembly.

There are still going to be many Soutpansbergs.

And many Stellen bosches too.

I want to put a question to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is asking to have this legislation passed so that the Coloured people and the Indians can vote. [Interjections.] What I find so amazing is that we now have to agree to the Coloureds and the Indians being able to vote, although the hon the Minister has told us very little about what is going to happen after that voting has taken place. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I have known the hon member for Brits since his youth.

And I have known you from your United Party days.

When the hon member says most, he thinks least. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen and the hon member for Brits must now stop their little altercation. It is purely by chance that the hon member for Brits speaks a little louder than the hon member Mr Theunissen. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister must tell us what the cost is that will be incurred in this specific instance. The hon the Minister has now introduced a Bill to make provision for an election for the Coloured people and the Indians, without in any way referring to the costs involved.

I should very much like to abide by your ruling. Sir, but at this stage I just want to tell the hon the Minister that this Bill is part of the Government’s plan to have the Whites abdicate. We on this side want to tell the hon the Minister that he is now setting light to a fuse, with the explosion set to go off some time in the future. [Interjections.] Since the hon member has just said that, let my remind him that as recently as 1981 his leader, the hon the Prime Minister, said the following:

[Interjections.] If we say that a matter such as this can cause a revolution, those hon members hold it against us, but when the hon the Prime Minister himself says it, there is nothing wrong with it. [Interjections.]

Let my conclude by saying that today the hon the Minister was a great deal more hesitant in presenting the legislation than he was a year ago. There are many hon members on this side of the House who have completely written the hon the Minister off.

That is exactly what worries me— you should all have written me off already.

I have not yet written the hon the Minister off, but he is increasingly allowing himself to be used by the bunch of liberals from old Keerom Street when it comes to proceeding with legislation such as this. [Interjections.] I am being very serious when I tell the hon the Minister that with each of the pieces of legislation he comes along with he is encroaching upon that sovereignty and self-determination of his own people which have obtained in the course of many centuries. The hon the Minister must reflect again upon the course he has adopted. He must not let himself be used by other people; he must return to the things that are important.

Mr Speaker, after the remarks made by the hon member for Rissik it is not yet clear to me at the moment—I could not hear the hon member very well—whether he was indicating that his party is opposed to the Bill. He said that they wanted the Bill to be read a Second Time this day six months. That is a very strong form of parliamentary protest.

I am having difficulty with the logic of the hon member for Rissik. In his argument he said things which were completely contradictory. Firstly, he told the hon the Minister that the hon the Minister had a paternalistic attitude; that the hon the Minister had not consulted with the Brown people, but at the same time the hon member said that they wanted to establish a homeland policy for the Brown people, but they themselves need not consult with them. Those are two absolutely conflicting standpoints. We have to consult with those people, but the CP need not consult with them.

The hon member for Rissik said that this Bill formed part of our capitulation legislation by means of which we wanted to undermine the self-determination of the Whites. I want to point out to the hon member that the self-determination of the Whites is closely linked to the degree in which the Whites co-operate politically with the Coloureds, the Indians and the other population groups. White self-determination is doomed without the accommodation of the other groups in the political sphere in South Africa. We see White self-determination as being doomed if we cannot take other people along with us on the road ahead.

The NP does not wish to bring up the rear when travelling forward, much less do we want to be up front when travelling backwards. [Interjections.] If we look at the hon members of the CP, surely that is what they are doing. Whilst we do not want to bring up the rear whilst travelling forward, hon members of the CP are increasingly taking the lead in going backwards. When the hon member for Rissik and the other hon members of the CP speak about the concepts “paternalism” and “consultation”, they must ask themselves whether any one of them, even their leader, has ever spoken to the Brown people about the concept of a homeland, since that question becomes extremely relevant in the discussion of this legislation in view of the remarks made by the hon member for Rissik. Whilst we are dealing here with legislation in terms of which we are granting the Coloureds the right to vote for members of the new Parliament, I want to know whether the hon leader of the CP has consulted with groups of Brown leaders and political parties and reached an agreement to the effect that the Brown people would rather have a separate homeland. [Interjections.] I see that the hon member for Waterberg is nodding, and I infer from that that he is saying that they have done so. Am I correct? Could I ask the hon the leader of the CP politely whether he has consulted with any Coloured political party? I want to tell the hon the leader of the CP and the hon member for Rissik that we are by no means going to solve the problems of this country with an isolated way of thinking and political side-stepping. The hon member for Rissik often issues challenges when he enters debates with hon members in this House. I happened to be present at the University of Pretoria a few months ago when the hon member Dr Vilonel made such mincemeat out of the hon member for Rissik before a number of students that they were quite beside themselves in their applause for Dr Vilonel. Each time the hon member for Rissik speaks on legislation of this nature, I say to myself: “The bigger the tortoise, the more dangerous the speed”. If we were to maintain that speed, we would be heading for conflict with the Brown people on the road ahead.

The hon member for Rissik grossly insulted the White voters today. We have here a Bill that is regulating how the Coloureds and Indians will elect their delegates to the new parliament. However, in view of the referendum on 2 November the hon member is now saying that the White voters of South Africa reject the new dispensation. Parliament passed a new constitution last year. How can members of the CP sit with us in a democratic institution, pass a law with us, even if they voted against it, and say today, when we are discussing the continuation and the implementation of facets of that legislation, that we have sold out the Whites and in addition, that the Whites do not agree with that at all? I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that the White voters respect democracy. That is why they are asking us to go ahead with the implementation of the provisions of the new constitution, which makes it possible for the Coloureds and Indians to hold elections. This is what we are trying to do here. We as Whites are insulting the Brown people if we see the fact that Brown people are going to send members to the new Parliament as a threat. I cannot imagine how we as Whites in the House of Assembly of South Africa could insult the Brown people and the Indians more, after having said by way of a democratic process that we want to accommodate them in a new Parliament, than by now saying that we do not want them to vote and that we do not want them here at all. How can one insult the Brown and the Indian population groups in that way in 1984, whilst the leader of the Conservative Party himself said that he had not yet consulted them about an alternative? What are we doing to democracy when we do something like that? We are making a mockery of democracy. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik and the CP that we must not think that if we fill up the emotional pavilions of power and noisy, cheering people, we are going to win the match on the field. I want to ask those hon members— since some of their supporters are in my constituency—to display a little sense of responsibility in the interests of the Whites for whom they are always pleading. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik is asking what the cost is going to be, and I assume he is speaking about the cost of the elections in view of this legislation. That is an absurd argument, for surely the implication is that they will cost too much. If one has a Coloured homeland, surely an election must also be held in that homeland. Apart from that, the entire homeland must also be administered and kept running. Surely that is a selective and foolish argument the hon member is using in an attempt to cause trouble and to try to present us as being a lot of people who are engaged in a sell-out.

The measure before the House today is a sign of the peace which is unfolding in Southern Africa. There is no doubt that the peace we are aiming at and experiencing at present has an inherent tension. The White children of Black Africa are reaching out. We tell the Brown people and the Indians that we would like them to hold elections in terms of this legislation and they they must participate enthusiastically in the election of their representatives in the various chambers. We believe that there is no better recipe in South Africa than to be able to work together with those people through consultation and the way in which this Parliament is going to function. Step by step we are moving towards a new era of co-existence between peoples and groups.

I want to tell the hon member for Rissik again that we want to move from petty apartheid to magnanimous co-existence by way of this measure. Petty apartheid is that which exists particularly in the hearts of people who are afraid of all kinds of changes and who see every change as a threat to their identity. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that the future question in respect of the Coloureds, Indians, as well as the Blacks is not how separate we are, but rather how united we are. The question is how united we are going to be with the Brown people and the Indians who are going to be elected to the new Parliament in the sense that we are all going to unite on what is important to all of us.

The hon members of the CP are inclined to count heads. Let us count the Coloureds and Indians who are going to be elected to the new Parliament, and let us count those people who want to maintain democracy, the free market mechanism and Christian values. They, too, must be counted when we speak of maintaining high norms and standards. That is the essence of the new parliamentary dispensation we are entering. It has nothing to do with integration, as the hon member claims. The election of Indian and Coloured members to the new Parliament will make no difference whatsoever to the identity of any White person, the White community or the White group as such.

The hon member for Rissik uses the word “nation” continually. One could conduct a debate on the words “nation”, “people" and all those concepts. Ultimately, however, the simple question we must ask one another in this House is whether the Whites as a people, a group, a nation, a community, or whatever one wants to call it, want to be united with the other groups and whether they are united in an individual capacity as well. The election of Coloured and Indian members also has to do with people as individuals. We on this side of the House would like to tell the Coloureds and Indians—since they are soon to find themselves in the midst of an election contest—that we are extending the hand of friendship to them. The NRP is also extending the hand of friendship, and, despite all the quarrelling, the PFP is extending the hand of friendship to these people in the new dispensation, too. However, I found it shocking to hear the hon member for Rissik say today—after the new constitution has been passed—that his party is opposing a measure, in the strongest parliamentary language possible, which is making it possible and essential for Coloureds and Indians to be elected. The hon member has the cheek to say that we have only seen the beginning. That is the language of revolution and incitement, language which does not befit a discussion of this legislation.

With this legislation we are bidding the past farewell and greeting the future. In the new Parliament, in which these people are going to sit with us, we will be seeking a new dimension of violence. We are seeking the violence of co-existence, sound co-existence, good relations, consensus and the violence of going forward hand in hand. At present we are seeing a tremendous amount of emotion centred around this legislation in Indian politics—just as in White politics. At present there are boycott campaigns in the ranks of the Brown people and the Indians. There are people who are adopting extremely radical standpoints. There are people who believe that they should remain aloof, that they should create mistrust and that they should prey on the uninformed. If one looks at the Coloured political scene as it is being enacted outside this House with regard to the elections, it seems that the biggest problems the Coloureds and the Indians have with elections is that their elections and their people are just like us and our elections in so many respects. We on this side of the House believe that the emotional people, the radical people and those who are aloof will be rejected by the Coloured and Indian leaders elected to this House, just as they are rejected in the ranks of the Whites, and that people who want to assist in building a future will be sent here.

I should like to tell the hon member for Rissik …

You should listen to me more often.

I shall listen to the hon member with pleasure. I want to tell him that all on the road ahead all of us in this House should listen to all kinds of people regardless of whether they are radical or anything else. It could be in the interests of South Africa. It could only be to our benefit whilst discussing this Bill as well. I should like to tell the hon member for Rissik—he illustrated this very well again today with regard to this legislation—that in politics absolute standpoints very often lead to absolute nonsense. When the hon member for Rissik adopts absolute standpoints such as that this Bill should be read in six months time, he must ask himself to what absolute nonsense that amendment of his would lead. He must ask himself what he is doing by moving such a foolish amendment. He must ask himself if it is in the interests of his and my children. We on this side of the House say that it is not in the interests of our children. We say we are not going to permit our children to be pushed over the edge of a precipice by museum politics. I want to tel: the hon member for Rissik that this legislation creates a vision of the future and opens up possibilities for the future of my children and the children of all of us in this House.

Why have we amended the Constitution? We have done so in order to let Coloureds and Indians vote to send people here. It seems to me that there are still some people in South Africa—and I have an idea that the hon member for Rissik is encouraging them —who think that we were joking when we placed a new constitution on the Statute Book, that we were by no means serious and that we had no intention of really introducing a tricameral Parliament. In September we are going to be sitting in this complex in a Parliament in which there are going to be elected Brown and Indian members in terms of this legislation.

I should like to tell the hon member for Rissik again that in my humble opinion, his amendment can only hold out the prospect of potential for conflict in the Brown political arena. How on earth should any Brown person outside react to this? The majority of White voters are saying to the Brown people: We want you in this Parliament. However, when it comes to implementing the new dispensation, certain hon members are saying that this legislation must be read in six months time. I do not think that one could be more reckless or more irresponsible than that.

This legislation is making it possible for new MP’s to be elected to Parliament. Many of us are wondering how the new system is going to work. I myself have wondered what we are going to call the new Parliamentarians. Is each chamber going to be called what we call it today, or are we going to speak in Afrikaans of “’n LP”, “’n Lid van die Parlement”? In radio language it sounds as if we are going to be busy for too long a time. On the road ahead I hope we shall have finality concerning many of these very interesting and exciting matters. [Interjections.

Sir, the hon member Mr Theunissen is one of the members of the CP who completely confuses the terms conservatism and racism when we come forward with a measure of this nature. He sees the two concepts as being synonymous and because he is confused, he and his colleagues come here with a racist standpoint, for the CP’s standpoint on this legislation is nothing but a racist standpoint. It is saying to the Brown people and the Indians: Because you are people who belong to another race group, we do not want you near us. It is saying to them: You are not permitted to vote for members of this House, since you are not White.

What do you tell the Black people?

The hon member for Rissik knows that that is not relevant and that you, Mr Speaker, would not permit me to speak about that. Perhaps I could put it this way in one sentence: Any hon member in this House who thinks that we can succeed without accommodating the Black people politically in terms of a method we are investigating at present, is misleading the voters at large. That is foolishness. [Interjections.] No hon member on this side of the House is saying that no Black person in South Africa should be accommodated in the political sphere. For this very reason we have a Cabinet Committee that is investigating the methods in terms of which this has to be done. In other words, this concerns the ‘how”. We have already decided on the “whether”.

When this legislation is implemented in practice and the Coloured and Indian voters go to the polls we know that they are going to the polls under an Electoral Act which we have tested over many years. We as White Parliamentarians know, however, that they are still going through very emotional troubled waters. We can see that with the UDF and other organizations that are very active on the Coloured political scene they will have to hold their own. We should like to tell them that Parliament is a wonderful world of experience. It is a place where most of us thought we would have all the power, until one arrives here and realizes that one does not have so much power and that that power lies elsewhere. Parliament is a place of which everyone is always telling one how much money one gets, until one arrives here oneself and finds out that one has to struggle. Parliament is a place of which people outside so easily say that we sit here doing nothing, whilst in reality we do not have sufficient time to get everything done. Parliament is a place where people like us are exposed to criticism. Parliament is a place where the elected Coloured and Indian members, as a mirror image of their own communities, will continually be subject to criticism. Because it is a new world in which they will be moving, we on this side of the House want to tell them that we will join hands with them on the road ahead. [Interjections.] I believe that we will do a great deal of work in this Parliament. We believe that we can build a future together in this House. Above all we believe that their presence in the new institution will be an instrument by means of which we can take our children, our young people, along with us.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon member for Rissik, who bandies the word “liberalism” about so easily, something he must remember. In the future his children are going to ask him: “Father, what were you doing when you stood still?” His children are going to ask him: “Father, what were you doing when you turned around?” His children are going to ask him: “Father, how could you have misread the future?” We are grateful that his children will say to the NP Government, about a measure like this as well: “Thank you for having the courage to take that step in the interests of South Africa.”

Mr Speaker, it is always refreshing to listen to the hon member for Innesdal. His enthusiasm is something which we can all take a lesson from.

I should like to deal firstly with the two amendments which we have before us. I first want to look at the amendment moved by the hon member for Rissik, namely that this Bill be read this day six months. We in this party can in no way be associated with that. Obviously our stand in the referendum no way ties in with that line of thought. I think that the hon member for Innesdal has dealt very effectively with their argument. He has dealt with it in detail and has said all the things that I would have liked to have said, and possibly a lot of things which I could not have said as effectively and well as he did.

I want to move on to the amendment moved by the hon member for Green Point. I want to say to him—he knows it well—that we in these benches have tremendous sympathy for the expressions used in that amendment. I wholeheartedly endorsed a motion of a similar nature that was moved in the Select Committee on the Electoral Bill that commenced its work prior to the introduction of the Constitution Bill last year. I want to say to the hon member for Green Point that when we go back to that select committee, I will just as heartily and enthusiastically support such a motion if he or the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has an occasion to move it again because I believe that the essence of what he says is perfectly correct. However, let us look at the circumstances that pertain at this moment because I think that is what is important.

Since we discussed the particular issue in the select committee, we have had the introduction in this House of a Bill to amend the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. That Bill has been passed through all its stages in this House. There are those who objected to it at a greater or a lesser extent; there are those of us who were successful in having amendments to that Bill accepted. As a result of that Bill we held a referendum which I think was debated again here this afternoon. Be that as it may, we are now in an inescapable situation where we are faced with an impending election for a House of Delegates and a House of Representatives, a House representing the Indian group and a House consisting of members of the Coloured group who, together with this House, will make up the new Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Before anybody seeks to criticize me and ask me how it is that I could vote for this amendment in a select committee but cannot support it at the moment. I want to say that I have looked at the amending Bill before us this afternoon and the first thing that strikes me is that there is nothing whatsoever in this Bill that will prevent any Coloured or any Indian who is a South African citizen, is over 18 years of age and is not disqualified in terms of either section 4(1) or (2) of the Electoral Act—and that disqualification applies to you and me as well, Sir—from becoming registered as a voter and voting in the forthcoming election for his respective House. That is the point we have to have clarity on and then we have to examine what we are seeking to do today.

I perceive that what we are doing today is that we are moving a once only amendment. We are moving an amendment that is very clearly specified in the amending legislation before us. It has also been very clearly set out by the hon the Minister in his introductory speech that we are doing something here on a once only basis. As I see it, we are going to effect certain amendments so as to enable elections hopefully to take place within a timetable which is being worked on at the moment. That timetable provides for elections to be held on 22 August this year with possibly a sitting of the totally new Parliament, that is to say the three Houses, early in September of this year.

When we look at this timetable, we have to bear in mind that that is the objective that we must seek to achieve and I do not think that any hon member in this House should do anything that in any way would obstruct attaining the goal. I am not—and I want the PFP to know this—suggesting that they are obstructionists but I am suggesting that their attitude could delay the implementation of this Bill. I am therefore asking them to seriously consider the fact that there is nothing in this amending legislation that precludes any Coloured or Indian from taking-part in those elections. That is the question I believe that they must really address themselves to.

You are not quite right.

I am perfectly correct but obviously that party will have a chance to prove me wrong if they wish to do so; that is their right.