Mr Speaker, I move:

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon—

1. (a) the manner in which satisfactory pension benefits could be provided for or assistance could be given to that section of the public which has no or insufficient pension cover;
2. (b) the compulsory preservation of pension rights by means of transferability or otherwise;
3. (c) the commutation of a part of lumpsum benefits into annuities,

and matters relating thereto, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react briefly to a number of points made by the hon the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. First of all I should merely like to point out that the hon the Minister’s accusation that the PFP, in collaboration with the CP, was trying some delaying tactics in connection with this measure is surely completely unfounded. Quite honestly, if the hon the Minister has gone into the history of the way in which select committees operate on an issue of this nature he would know that it has not always been necessary to extend the activities of such a select committee over an extremely long period. It is also not always necessary for such a select committee to call numerous meetings. It is, however, quite possible indeed that a Bill of this nature can be dealt with fairly adequately in a reasonably short space of time.

The hon the Minister has himself made the point that this Bill is indeed based to a very large extent on the existing Electoral Act and on electoral methods and regulations that have already proved to be effective. Therefore I believe these arguments will similarly apply on shortening the procedures to be followed by a commission of the nature as suggested by the PFP in its amendment moved during Second Reading. The hon the Minister, however, has not yet advanced any cogent argument why Coloured and Indian people, who are essentially going to be affected by this measure, even if it is only for the purposes of this one initial election, should not be given the opportunity of taking part in the activities of such a commission and also of expressing their own views there in respect of the contents of this Bill.

The hon the Minister has also informed the House that during the course of negotiations and consultations with the representatives of Indian and Coloured political parties no representations of this nature have been made of which he has any knowledge. That is of course hardly a reason, Mr Chairman, for rejecting a concept of the nature of the one suggested by the PFP. Obviously the agendas of both the Coloured and Indian political parties must by now comprise a number of matters. It is therefore quite understandable that an issue such as perhaps that of asking for a select committee to investigate this particular measure has simply not been thought of yet. That does not, however, mean that such a suggestion is not valid.

Secondly, the point must also be made in this respect that if the hon the Minister wishes to suggest that consultation has taken place and that a commission consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians to investigate the contents of this measure is not necessary after all, I submit that the hon the Minister, is then ignoring the necessity for any kind of select committee that is appointed by this House. I do not believe, however, that that is his intention at all. I do believe, on the contrary, that he will appreciate the fact that there is always some value in appointing such a select committee in which an atmosphere can be created for people to deliberate on a specific issue and to reach consensus in a more congenial atmosphere. Therefore I suggest the hon the Minister has been grossly unfair in accusing the PFP of taking part in delaying tactics. Nothing is further from our intention. We have had to accept the result of the referendum of 2 November last year, and we also accept the fact that elections are going to be called. If these elections must then take place, the sooner the better. There is, however, no reason to suggest that a commission such as the one we propose will not have sufficient time still to complete its functions long before the already announced election date. From a purely practical point of view therefore, Mr Chairman, I do not believe there is a serious problem in the way of such a commission, and also bearing in mind the accusation made by the hon the Minister, I have to reject that completely while stating very clearly that the PFP does not intend to resort to delaying tactics in this respect. That is not at all true.

Also in reply to the Second Reading debate the hon the Minister said that the complaints raised by the hon member for Johannesburg North that the supplementing of voters’ rolls from the population register was causing some degree of chaos and disruption, was not a correct statement. I can assure the hon the Minister that that is true and correct-indeed. When I say this I speak of own personal experience. It does not mean, however, that that type of method is necessarily a bad one. It simply means it has been applied incorrectly and that not enough time has been given to political parties to update the voters’ rolls by contacting voters in order to make sure that they are registered. Once again I submit that the hon the Minister has not reacted with sincerity to that argument.

A further point in that connection is that the existing voters’ rolls pertain to Coloureds and Indians. In the case of the Indians voters’ rolls that applied in the last election for the SA Indian Council, and in the case of the Coloured people the voters’ rolls that applied in the last election for the CRC, can no longer be regarded as valid. I honestly believe the chances that those voters’ rolls are outdated are indeed better than the chances for the population register to be outdated. If the hon the Minister is prepared to accept the registration of a voter who has registered himself for the purposes of the last election of the CRC, I submit, the chances are certainly excellent for more recent and more up-to-date information to be derived from the population register. There is no reason, I believe, why the hon the Minister could not have received our suggestion in a more objective and more reasonable manner. The argument still remains that this could lead to some very curious and very unusual results. The hon the Minister made the point that in the case of White elections in the past delimitations also took place on the basis of information contained in the population register. To some extent he has already been corrected by the hon member for Bezuidenhout to the effect that he was not altogether correct because attention was always given to the content of the voters’ rolls and that it should therefore be done in this case as well. Once again, therefore, I maintain that one can encounter some severe problems in this regard.

A third point to which I should like to react very briefly is in regard to the argument that developed between the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon the Minister in relation to the allegations made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout regarding the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. The hon the Minister obviously took great exception to the allegations made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. However, I wish to reiterate that if the allegations made in the newspaper report that was quoted by the hon member for Bezuidenhout that a certain firm, whether it be a company or made up of certain individuals or otherwise, is going to address a strategy meeting of a Coloured political party for the purpose of helping them in the election and discussing election strategy, is correct, then it quite clearly falls within the ambit of the prohibition imposed by that Act. I am the first to concede that the whole situation is absurd but then the hon the Minister must also accept the fact that that is an absurd piece of legislation. To the extent that the hon the Minister has said that he is prepared to have that legislation investigated to make sure that it does not produce absurd results, we are very pleased indeed. However, I do feel that an examination and investigation of that particular piece of legislation is well overdue. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point repeated all the old arguments we discussed during the Second Reading debate. In my opinion the hon the Minister replied in full at that stage to all the questions that the hon member raised once again.

The hon member again came up with the contention that a select committee would take very little time. We readily accept that, but in his amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill the hon member proposed the appointment, not of a select committee, but of a commission consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. In my humble opinion such a body would take up far more time than the hon member himself perhaps had in mind. We should be involving in these people who were not members of the original select committee in which we discussed the Electoral Act with one another. They would be people with no significant practical experience of elections, and this would certainly give rise to delays we could get to 22 August. It is not only a question of 22 August. There is also a proclamation day which will have to be determined shortly. Moreover, there are voters’ rolls that have to close shortly and we cannot afford having delays in regard to the composition of voters’ rolls for these elections.

I should like to repeat that after the election of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, any Minister is free to submit a new Electoral Act and then appoint a standing committee comprising members of the three Houses of Parliament to determine on the basis of their experience how that Electoral Act operates and to recommend improvements in that regard.

As far as consultation is concerned, the hon the Minister also stated the position very clearly to the hon member for Green Point. I wrote down the words of the hon the Minister while he was speaking.

The hon the Minister made four points. In the first place he said that if ever there had been a period of in-depth discussions, it was the period of the past two years concerning the accommodation of Coloureds and Asians and the way in which we have to accommodate those people in politics. In the second place the hon the Minister said that there was ample opportunity to discuss any aspect of the Electoral Act, or of their participation, with the Minister concerned or his colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Over the past few months we have sat in one caucus meeting after another while the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has kept us up to date, virtually on a daily basis, with regard to discussions they have had and how these people feel about elections and ways of holding elections. This is a matter that has been discussed in depth over the course of many months.

Finally the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs gave the hon members of the Opposition the assurance that there had been a great deal of consultation with these people over a broad front and that there had been ample opportunity for all leaders of the political parties of other races to make their inputs.

The hon member said that it was grossly unfair of the hon the Minister to accuse the PFP of delaying tactics. I can only say that all I can see, after listening to the hon member again this afternoon, is that that is really all one can read into their standpoint, viz that they are out to see whether they can delay this situation.

That is the biggest rubbish in the world.

I should prefer to leave the hon member for Pinelands at that.

The hon member for Green Point again spoke about the identity document situation. The hon the Minister told him clearly—this is the advice that we have had on this side of the Committee, including advice from the department—that as far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned, the population register is not sufficiently up to date to be used as a basis for the drawing up of voters’ rolls. Thousands of applications for in dentity documents from these people are still outstanding. What the hon member must also understand is that the population register cannot even be fully used with regard to the White voters’ roil. We only use it as a source of information to draw up voters’ rolls. Therefore the Government says that they must register purely for practical considerations, so that all Coloureds and Asians may have the opportunity of being put on a voters’ roll. They need only fill in a form with a view to registration and their name will be placed on a voters’ roll. It is, of course, the ideal that the population register will eventually be used as the basis for the composition of the voters’ rolls.

Towards the end of his speech the hon member for Green Point wanted to come back to Communitel. I really do not think that that story of theirs will get very far. They are trying to make political capital out of a situation which really does not lend itself to that. This is a private company which, in my humble opinion, ought to be praised by everyone in this Committee. This private company wants to assist a political party in the Coloured community with regard to the determining of an election strategy. They probably also want to play a part in the training of that party’s candidates as regards the making of speeches and everything that has to do with communication, and certainly not as far as the content of speeches is concerned. The private company certainly does not aim to be active in politics on behalf of those people but wishes to help those people by training them.

The hon member for Rissik must not get involved because he will certainly help the people out of the frying pan into the fire.

Mr Chairman, I want to remind the hon member for Turffontein of something he said some years ago. I wonder whether he still remembers it. Does he remember saying at one time: “I have no future under the NP …”?

What clause are you discussing now?

That hon member is worried about what clause I am speaking about. I am dealing with clause 1 of the Bill, but I am first replying to the hon member for Turffontein. Can the hon member recall uttering those words? He can sometimes be so theatrical here, but does he recall uttering those words? He said here very dramatically that there was not future for him in the NP and he added: “But the voters of South Africa will change the Government; then I shall have a future.”

In any event there was an improvement when you left.

Let me say to the hon member for Pretoria West that a few days before that clash occurred in the NP caucus, he told me that if he were to choose between his status as an Afrikaner and the NP, he would choose the Afrikaner. I want to give the hon member for Turffontein credit for not having changed as far as his basic approach to these South African problems are concerned. If one reads what he has said since he came to this House as a young member, lost his seat and returned, one sees that he stands by the same principles. He has not changed. I give him credit for that. What has in fact happened in this country, is that the NP has changed. However, the people of South Africa have not changed their point of view.

And what about the outcome of the referendum last year?

Let me tell the hon member again that we regard the result of the referendum in the same light as the election result of 1943. At the time the then United Party was returned to this House with a very large majority. The NP had to accept that result, of course, but nevertheless continued with their opposition to the standpoints of that Government, and in 1948 succeeded in taking over the Government of the country. The CP is following the same approach.

I want to turn to the hon the Minister. In his reply to the Second Reading debate he showed great satisfaction when expressing his thanks for the contributions of those members on his side who had participated in the debate. But when I heard him praise the speeches of the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member for Turffontein and the hon member for Innesdal as being brilliant speeches that profoundly analysed the problems of South Africa, I could not believe my ears. I could not believe that this was the same Minister I had learnt to know over the past decades. We are dealing here with an instrument that is to create the opportunity for the Brown people and the Indians to go and vote for their own representatives in their various Houses in the future Parliament. The NP has no problem with the idea that they should obtain political rights. In the nature of the matter we very much want the Brown people and the Indians to obtain full political rights, in accordance with our views. And our problem is not that the Electoral Act that has applied up to now, and that we as Whites have used, is not a good instrument, because it has been tried and tested over many years and to a very large extent has worked well. This instrument that the hon the Minister is creating—he himself is the instrument of a group of people in South Africa who have never really placed a high premium on the sovereignty of the Whites—will eventually destroy his people and my people as well as the other two population groups.

I shall protect you, Daan.

I should like to ask the hon member Dr Vilonel whether it was correct that the hon member for Innesdal was present during our discussion at Tukkies. The hon member for Innesdal said that he was present at that meeting, but I want to say to him that what he said here the other day was an untruth. I read the hon member’s Hansard and it appears there. Since the hon member Dr Vilonel is gaily making interjections now, I just want to say to him that he lost the NP many votes on that day. He must tell this House how he mentioned that his young son could, if he wished, elect a Black majority Government in 20 to 30 years’ time. Did he tell his colleagues that he said that he did not mind mixed schools? [Interjections.] That is what happened on that platform and I want to say to the hon member for Innesdal that he was not present. The tale runs as it pleases the teller.

I was standing at the door.

Why, then, was the hon member too shy to come in?

I listened to the hon the Minister saying that he had apparently consulted Coloured and Indian leaders in connection with this legislation. When the select committee met at the time it was the standpoint of the PFP that they should form part of that select committee. My standpoint, too, was that we as a select committee of this sovereign House of Assembly, which the NP wants to abolish, should listen to the Coloureds and the Indians so that we can hear what they say and what their standpoint is about these matters. I want to say again to the hon the Minister that although we are fighting the new dispensation tooth and nail, and this legislation as well, it is also my standpoint that it is necessary to listen to the Coloureds and the Indians on a broader basis. The hon the Minister said that he had held discussions with the leaders, but we do not know which leaders. The correct procedure would have been to publish this legislation and distribute it among the Coloureds and the Indians. We could then have obtained the input of the Coloured and Indian leaders in a specific way. The hon the Minister speaks about consensus, but it seems to me as if he only wants consensus with certain Coloured and Indian leaders, just as he only seeks consensus with certain Whites in South Africa. Our standpoint is that as far as this legislation is concerned, the hon the Minister has not given this House sufficient proof that the Coloured and Indian communities have really examined this and have had the opportunity to state their standpoints in this regard. I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Green Point by saying that when we wish to give thorough consideration to legislation and want to make use of a Second Reading debate, a Committee Stage or a Third Reading debate to do so, we are accused of employing delaying tactics. However, I gain the impression that we are going to enter a new dispensation in which the debates in this sovereign House of Assembly, which is now to become a House, and those in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, will be restricted to a minimum and that the discussion of policy, legislation and the new direction that will be adopted, will be discussed by the top structure, viz the mixed Cabinet and the so-called Standing Committees that are to be formed. The open debate in the Houses will then be very limited. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think I am correct in saying that you are permitting the first speakers of each party to range a little further afield. If so, I believe it is my duty, on behalf of the party that I represent, to re-state very clearly its point of view in respect of this Bill. I ask myself if I am able, and similarly my colleagues, to go outside this House and to face any audience of Whites, Coloureds or Indians and say to them that we have supported the right thing here today. The answer is clear. I, and every one of my colleagues, can stand before any such audience and say “Yes, we have done the right thing” and we can say so on account of three very simple factors. In the first place no Indian or Coloured is being denied the vote as long as he qualifies for such vote. Secondly, every single opportunity is being given to every Indian and every Coloured who qualifies for such vote, to register for such vote. Thirdly, and also very important, is that in his Second Reading reply the hon the Minister has indicated that he will probably accept an extension of time for the registration of voters until the end of May 1984. That is the only criticism of any note that I have heard from the broad cross section of either the Indian or the Coloured voters, namely about the timetable.

Did you read the Natal Mercury this morning?

Yes, I heard about the article in the Natal Mercury this morning about the 300 voters. I have not read it, but I have heard of it.

If we pass this Bill, we will allow these people to do these three things, and that is the question which I have to answer.

Having said that, I want to come back to the subject of the population register which has been canvassed backwards and forwards across the floor of the house in some considerable detail. I want to put one question to the hon the Minister in this connection. Is it not true that even though the voters’ rolls will apply to those whose names were on such rolls for the old Coloured Representative Council or the old South African Indian Council, that a submission of a new RV1 by an individual whose address or marital status has changed, will enable the voters’ rolls which have been prepared for this election, to be updated accordingly?

Yes.

That is another minor problem area that has been swept out of the way and makes the support for clause 1, particularly as regards the elimination of postal votes, all the easier for anybody. There again a message goes out to our friends in the Indian and Coloured communities. If they have had a change in status or address, they should submit a RV1 indicating such change of status or address as is currently required from the White voters.

So I cannot find anything in this measure that makes it any more difficult for either of these population groups to become registered and record their votes on 22 August this year. I am heartened by the fact that the hon the Minister cleared up that one particular area of concern during his Second Reading speech, namely the closing date.

I now want to turn to the interjection made by the hon member for Pinelands about the article in the Natal Mercury. I understand that the argument presented in this morning’s Natal Mercury has to do with the 300 voters’ signature requirement in respect of non-registered parties.

As well as with the elimination of postal votes.

From what the hon member for Umbilo tells me, that is all that appeared in that newspaper this morning as being the comments emanating from Solidarity. If that is the case, surely the argument must fall away. Solidarity has organized itself into a party and surely do not want to deny other individuals who do not have time to form themselves into parties the right to take part in the elections or to form themselves into parties with the requisite 50 signatures as provided for in the legislation before us.

I am sorry, but I must also reject the argument coming from anybody including a White voter—who in his heart of hearts does not want to take the postal vote system out of our electoral process altogether. It is a system that lends itself to abuse—we all know it—and it is abused in the extreme even today. As long as we have the assurance—and the hon the Minister has given this assurance—that any voter who finds himself outside his constituency or has reason to believe that he is going to be outside his constituency on election day will be able to record his vote by way of a special vote for which facilities will be provided at the maximum number of points throughout South Africa, we will be perfectly happy to accept that situation.

We believe that this Bill should not be delayed in any way. I said in my Second Reading speech that I did not accuse the PFP of delaying tactics, and I was pleased to hear the hon member for Green Point assure the House that they are not indulging in delaying tactics, but I submit that they are doing a bit of posturing that is quite unnecessary. I think that, if they really considered what they were doing here today, they would realize that, while they are possibly not employing delaying tactics, they are rather spoiling things for Indians and Coloureds in that they are making it a little more difficult for us to get the show on the road, as one of their members said, and for us to get the programme moving along the right lines as expeditiously as possible. We will support clause 1.

Mr Chairman, clause 1 of this Bill simply provides that the provisions of the Electoral Act be made applicable to the first general election of members of the House of Representatives and members of the House of Delegates. In addition, the clause provides that "provisions with regard to the system of postal votes will not be applicable in the forthcoming elections. The hon member for Rissik reacted to this, and with due deference, I should like to give him a little advice. He spent three quarters of his ten-minute speech on this clause trying to attack the hon member for Turffontein with a barrage of words. He then tried to attack the hon member Dr Vilonel with a barrage of words as well. Then he tried to do the same to the hon the Minister with regard to this clause. Everything he says about members on this side gives me the impression that the hon member for Rissik and his party do not really have any fundamental political arguments against a provision such as the one in this clause. If one succeeds in once again bringing personal matters into a provision such as the one in clause 1—as the hon member for Rissik did when he referred to who said what and when in the past—I ask myself what the purpose is and what contribution he and his party are making in this House.

Sir, permit me to react to just one personal matter.

Order! I regret that I cannot permit the hon member such latitude. I have permitted the chief spokesmen of the various political parties a little latitude with regard to clause 1. However, I am not going to permit this debate to be conducted as though it were a Second Reading debate. I therefore expect all subsequent speakers— with the exception of the hon the Minister— to speak only about the provisions of clause 1. If the hon member for Innesdal wishes to react on a personal note. I suggest that he does so during the Third Reading debate.

Sir, I shall abide by your ruling. I just want to ask for your guidance with regard to a specific point. The hon member specifically referred to me personally, and I regard his remark as being in an extremely insinuating vein. I should just like to ask you whether I am entitled to react to such a personal remark, which apparently contains an incorrect insinuation, during the Committee Stage when the clauses are discussed.

I am sorry but I cannot permit the hon member to do so, since I would then have to permit other hon members to do so as well. In that case we would be repeating the Second Reading debate.

Sir, I accept your ruling. I shall therefore conclude by saying that the provisions of clause 1, which makes a general election possible for the Coloureds and the Indians, and in terms of which the system of postal votes is also being specifically excluded from the provisions referred to in the schedule, are encouraging to us on this side of the House. We are looking forward with great expectation to passing this clause in this House and to making the elections possible, as well as giving substance to the result of the referendum on 2 November last year.

Mr Chairman, this clause, and this Bill as such, is brought about because we do not want to use the existing Electoral Act because it does not at present incorporate Coloureds and Indians, and also because we do not want to use the Coloured Representative Council Act or the Indian Council Act for these elections.

The hon member for Umhlanga, has said that every voter is being given—I am not necessarily quoting him verbatim—every opportunity to register. In general terms that is true. The opportunity is available to each voter. That is correct. However, we all know in practice that providing the opportunity as such for a voter who specifically, deliberately and consciously wants to register, is not enough.

Order! To what clause is the hon member speaking now?

Clause 1, which makes provision for all aspects of the Electoral Act to apply for the first elections of these new Houses, and in so doing amends the Electoral Act of 1979.

The hon member may proceed.

Thank you. The critical point in this regard is that it is not the same as the opportunity that has been given to Whites over the years. I want to illustrate this in just two respects. First of all, I think I am correct in saying that there is no Government financed general registration of voters taking place in the Coloured and Indian communities, which happens with regularity in the White community. It is of particular importance, especially where one is going to have delimitations, and in a new era. It happens in the White community but not in Coloured and Indian communities. In other words, the opportunity in real terms is not the same.

Secondly, the time may or may not be extended by another month, but effectively, compared with the time that is available to White political parties and White voters to register, this is greatly reduced.

I just want to refer briefly to a point made in the Second Reading debate. Sir, it is not a debating point, but I am sure you will allow me to raise the matter now. The hon member Dr Vilonel in the course of his speech made remarks about Coloureds also being our people, and I was discussing …

Order! I am sorry I cannot allow the hon member to expand on that.

I merely want to correct something. I do not want to raise another debating point.

The hon member for Innesdal asked me to allow him to do a similar thing and I was not prepared to allow him to do that. I can therefore not allow the hon member to do that. The hon member can use the Third Reading for that.

All right, Sir. The other point raised by hon members, in particular by the hon member for Turffontein, was the question of delaying tactics, that we do not want these measures to come into being and hence we have suggested that it be referred to a commission, and that our objective is therefore to institute delaying tactics and nothing else. He will know that a select committee reported to this House …

Order! Is the hon member speaking to clause 1 now?

Yes, Sir.

But that has nothing to do with a select committee being appointed.

I am referring to the reason why we want this legislation amended in a different way.

The hon member must speak to clause 1 and only clause 1. The first speaker of the official Opposition has already discussed the suggestion of a select committee. I cannot allow the hon member, the second speaker of the PFP, also to discuss it.

Mr Chairman, I am not talking about a future select committee but about a past select committee.

The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Those amendments and possible amendments which could have achieved exactly what is being attempted here, namely incorporating Coloureds and Indians, were investigated by a select committee which reported before the 1983 session of Parliament. Indeed, there was a Bill, but it was never debated as the Government did not provide time for it to be debated during the last session, nor for that matter at the beginning of this session. How can we in those circumstances be criticized for causing a delay? The Government is entirely to blame for the delay that may have occurred. They have had that Bill which a select committee had gone into, for more than a year without it ever seeing the light of day. Yet the hon member for Turffontein wants to suggest that we are trying to delay the matter. It is certainly not our fault.

Those, Sir, are the comments I wish to make in terms of this clause. I will raise other points at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, in his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said the following with regard to clause 1 (Hansard, 13 March 1984):

In addition, it was placed on record that 113 000 Whites voted by way of special votes in the 1981 election and that 59 000 voted by way of postal votes. During the Second Reading debate, when we argued that he had not consulted the Coloureds and Indians, the hon the Minister asked: “What makes you think that I have not consulted them?” However, he did not answer the question in his reply to the debate on the Second Reading either.

Order! Could the hon member tell me what this has to do with clause 1.

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, it has a great deal to do with clause 1.

Then I ask the hon member please to tell me what this has to do with clause 1.

I am explaining that to you, Mr Chairman.

Before the hon member proceeds with his speech, would he first explain what this has to do with clause 1?

In terms of clause 1 the provisions of the Electoral Act are applicable “save in so far as they relate to absent voters”, and I am now referring to absent voters.

Order! But the hon member is arguing with the hon the Minister about the question of whether the Coloureds have been consulted.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, is that not a reasonable question?

Does it have anything to do with clause 1?

Mr Chairman, it does in fact have something to do with clause 1, since in terms of the provisions of that clause the possibility of postal votes is being excluded. [Interjections.] I am therefore asking the hon the Minister whether he has consulted the Coloureds in this regard.

In that case the hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. However, the hon the Minister did not reply to that question in his reply to the Second Reading debate, but he asked us whether we had consulted the Coloureds and the Indians before we adopted a standpoint in the Second Reading. We therefore want to know specifically from the hon the Minister whether he has consulted the Coloureds and the Indians.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I respectfully suggest that the hon member for Brakpan is now arguing about the question of consultation and he wants to link that to a provision contained in clause 1, viz that the system of postal votes will not be applicable.

Order! I ruled that the hon member for Brakpan could proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I just want to know from the hon the Minister whether he has consulted the Coloureds and the Indians, and if so, how he did so.

Mr Chairman, clause 1 of this Bill is making it possible for the Coloureds to vote. The principle and the wording of the clause are simply saying that we are indeed doing what we said we were going to do. Consequently, this means that one can accept the word of a Nationalist, and I therefore also believe that the hon member for Innesdal was present at that meeting.

Mr Chairman, several hon members have referred back to the Second Reading debate, and where necessary I shall do the same. However, I do not intend to repeat the Second Reading debate in its entirety.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point said I had made an unfounded accusation in connection with delaying tactics adopted by the PFP. If the hon member, however, should read the speeches made by some of his hon colleagues he will definitely discover that very strong suggestions and pleas were made for the adoption of procedures that would result in the elections only taking place in 1985. It is true that the hon member for Bezuidenhout made a very strong plea that we should adopt certain procedures and apply certain basic philosophies, which would inevitably result in the elections only taking place in 1985. I suggest the hon member read the speech of the hon member for Bezuidenhout unless of course he feels that I should have ignored other hon members who took part in the debate and that I should only have taken note of his contribution in his capacity as chief spokesman on this subject. The fact of the matter is that the total picture emerging from the debate as far as the participation of the PFP goes is that the PFP, although paying lip service to these coming elections, have tried throughout to convey a message which, if I were to accept their suggestion, would result in a serious delay of the elections. [Interjections.] All right, I shall give the House one example of what I am talking about. If I should accept … [Interjections.] There was a specific plea that I should firstly have the population register completely updated in respect of the Coloured voters before calling an election.

Who suggested that?

The hon member for Bezuidenhout suggested that. It could also have been the hon member for Greytown, who suggested that. Be it as it may, the suggestion was that the voters’ rolls should then be compiled on the basis of the population register. That is exactly what would result in a serious delay.

*Now, Mr Chairman, I just want to say a few words in connection with the commission proposed by the hon member for Green Point. Does the hon member really believe that a commission of that nature would not want to offer people an opportunity to give evidence? Does he really think that such a commission would not make a public appeal for the making of representations by anyone who feels that he has an interest in the matter? Would the hon member be prepared to serve on a select committee which took no cognizance whatsoever of people’s problems or did not offer them any opportunity of making representations? Surely a reasonable period of time must be allowed for the making of representations.

I do not deny that if circumstances had been different and if we had wished to enact a measure which was to remain in force for all eternity, the correct procedure would have been to allow as much time as possible for the making of representations. However, we have explained over and over again that we are dealing here with special circumstances under which we have to pass legislation which is meant to be used on one single occasion—the first general election of the two additional Houses concerned. Surely that is all we are arguing about at the moment. I have pointed out repeatedly that I shall introduce another Bill later this session which will be the result of the activities of a select committee. I have also said repeatedly that I undertake to submit that Bill to interested parties among the Coloureds and Indians before it is debated in this House, in order to give them the opportunity of making representations to me in this connection, if they wish to do so. This will be the Bill which will really form the basis for future general elections.

However, our circumstances are not ideal. The fact is that it is felt—and this feeling is shared, we believe, by the majority of the Coloureds and the Indians—that the elections should take place fairly soon. For the information of the hon member for Brakpan in particular, I want to point out that there has already been extensive consultation in this respect. In view of these particular circumstances, Mr Chairman, there simply is no time at the moment to deal with this Bill in the ideal manner. Circumstances dictate that we should place this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible, because the elections must take place as soon as possible. Time is of the essence, as I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate. Because of the time factor, therefore, and for all the other reasons I have mentioned, we have to deal with the matter as we are doing at the moment. In the first place, we are dealing here with a proven procedure. It is a procedure which is substantially in accordance with what was good enough for the Whites for more than half a century and which is substantially in accordance with the election procedures according to which the Coloureds and the Indians have already fought elections, procedures that have stood the test of time. Specifically for this reason, the Bill was not published again and no representations were invited and awaited in this connection.

In my reply to the Second Reading debate, I spelt it out very clearly that throughout all the deliberations there have been about the question of a new dispensation and constitutional change, there has been ample opportunity for anyone who wanted to say anything about election procedures to do so. I indicated that that opportunity had been fully utilized by some persons and bodies with whom we had consulted, and also that when the subject had been under discussion at that stage, my hon colleague and myself had also raised and clarified up certain aspects. I have not kept a record of all the consultations that have been held in this connection, nor do I intend to deal in chronological order with every discussion that took place and to say when various subjects came up for discussion. I can only say that some of the fundamental aspects mentioned in this measure were finally formulated and inserted into this legislation as a result of representations or after representations had been heard or ideas had been exchanged. In the case of this specific Bill, however, it was not done on exactly the same basis, in the way in which it was introduced in this House, the consultation and discussions there have been about the material facets or most of the material facets that have been discussed with some parties and individuals, and especially with those who were interested and who took the initiative, and they were fully able to do so at all times. In fact, there has been interaction between me and one of the political parties on this matter over the past few days right up to this morning. Some political parties were established quite recently. They were not involved in this lengthy process of consultation and I think that even more political parties are going to be established before the elections are held. In fact, the Bill provides for the establishment of more political parties. Somewhere, however, there is a cut-off point which we have to lay down by means of legislation. I have received certain representations from one of these new parties, and I think it is the party to which reference was made in a report which appeared in the Natal Mercury. I have made a very thorough study of fresh representations made by this party with regard to certain aspects, and after very thorough consideration I have to say—I very much regret having to reply to them in public, but time and circumstances have forced me to do so—that as a result of all the factors which I spelt out in the Second Reading debate and which I want to repeat briefly at this stage, I am not prepared to change the provision in the Bill in terms of which we do not require 300 signatures.

The reasons why we do not want to require 300 signatures is that it is not possible to distinguish here between the established parties that have already won elections and parties that have never won an election. If we were to exempt the registered parties from the requirement of 300 signatures, while not exempting independent candidates, this would also be discriminatory, because there is not a single party—as far as the SA Indian Council is concerned, I do not think they were all elected on a party basis— which can prove that it already has a voting record. In the same way, the individual should be allowed, in this first election, to prove his support at the polls. We also know that the select committee recommended that this question of the 300 signatures be investigated. I want to predict that in the new Bill which I hope to introduce later this session, adjustments will also be made with regard to White elections as far as the question of 300 signatures is concerned. For that reason, because it is something which does not work well even for us, and because we are dealing here with a first election, this is not discriminatory at all and it is really being done with the best of intentions and I believe that if we do not impose that obligation on them we shall be helping all Coloured and Indian parties to concentrate on the election campaign itself rather than getting bogged down in formalities.

Another matter concerns the question of postal votes. The party to which I have referred has a particular standpoint on this and there are other parties which have other standpoints. I want to give the assurance that the decision that there would be no postal votes but only special votes was only taken after very thorough consideration. Let us make this very clear: Any absent voter will be able to vote. The question of whether this is done by postal vote or by special vote only concerns the procedure according to which the vote is cast and does not affect the person’s right to vote as an absent voter, and it does not restrict a party’s ability to ensure that one of its supporters who is an absent voter in terms of the Act will be able to cast his vote. It only concerns the method and not the basic right of a party or a voter to ensure that an absent voter will be able to cast his vote. Consequently we have to examine the system.

For the reasons I advanced in my Second Reading speech, which I do not wish to repeat now, I am convinced that at this stage, a postal vote system is not in the best interests either of the political parties which are going to participate in the election or of the voters who are going to cast their votes in that election. I suggest that we accept this and refrain from turning it into a political issue.

It is not a question of discrimination. It is not a question of one system being good enough for the Whites but too good for the Coloureds or the Indians or vice versa. It is basically a question of devising an election procedure for the next election which will result in an effective election and which will enable the parties to conduct a good and well-organized campaign.

In this connection I want to ask—this also serves as a reply to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens—when we have had a general election where all parties were warned more than two months before the closing of the voters’ lists—if we were to change this date to 31 May—that there was going to be a general election on a more or less specified date? Surely this puts a completely different complexion on the matter. If the parties work hard at this stage, basically only people who move elsewhere after 1 June and before the election date will have to be dealt with as absent voters. This is a wonderful opportunity which the Coloured and Indian parties have and which we have virtually never had in general elections, because we have never had potential notice of more than two months that it was necessary to start working now to get the voters’ lists in order. This changes the whole nature of the election and I believe that over and above the other arguments I have advanced this also justifies a more modern and streamlined approach to the votes of absent voters.

With this I think I have basically replied to the hon member for Green Point. I do not wish to elaborate again on the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. What I wanted to say about that I said during the Second Reading debate.

It seems to me that even his presence at the signing of the Nkomati accord has not inspired the hon member for Rissik to turn his face towards the future. While he was speaking, I reread clause 1 four times with great interest, and nowhere in the clause did I find any reference to myself or the hon member Dr Vilonel or any other hon member to whom the hon member for Rissik devoted eight of his ten minutes.

Do you not know the rules of this House?

I know the rules of this House and I know that the first speaker in the Committee Stage is allowed to restate in broad outline his party’s basic approach to the Bill. However, the hon member did not talk about the Bill. The hon member lectured me and delved into my past again and he lectured all of us on this side. I want to tell him that his lectures have no impact. He will promote the interests of his voters much more effectively if he devotes his time to the functions which he was elected to perform, for although the hon member no longer subscribes to the mandate on which he was sent to this House, each one of us in this House does have the mandate when legislation is being discussed to try to word that legislation in the best possible way. That is what the Committee Stage is meant for.

I have replied to him in full on the political arguments he advanced. Thanks to a concession on the part of the Chair, we have debated these aspects in fairly general terms. I said on Friday, in reply to the hon member for Pietersburg, that his party was abusing the concept of “sovereignty” in order to give the electorate a distorted impression of what the new dispensation really involves. The sovereignty of the Republic is not being compromised in any way by this legislation or by our constitution. The concept, as it is normally used in debate, is a concept which functions within the Westminster system. As against this, we have devised a system here which divides power, which separates power when it comes to own affairs and which at the same time contains a formula for co-responsibility with regard to matters of common concern, so that people may have a joint say in decisions concerning those matters which affect them all. Under the new system the concept of “sovereignty” in which all of us have to find our security is expressed in a different way and every participating population group is enabled to maintain effectively the security and identity of its group. Hon members opposite oversimplify this matter by suggesting that those who give their support to the new dispensation are giving up that sovereignty which amounts to White supremacy and that they are surrendering the Whites to domination by others. That is what they really want the people outside to believe. But it is simply not true. We have stated repeatedly that the security of the Whites will not be destroyed or endangered in any way under the new dispensation. What we are in fact doing is to give those who have no other way of becoming politically emancipated, that is to say, the Coloureds and the Indians, the opportunity of full participation in a way which may satisfy their aspirations and maintain their group identity and which will not detract in any way from the survival of the Whites. That is the essence of the new dispensation. For a little while yet those hon members will be able to get away with this oversimplification in constituencies such as Soutpansberg, but oversimplification has a way of catching up on one, and as one’s opponents get an opportunity to expose that oversimplification, voters also come to realize that those hon members have been playing on their feelings and deceiving them. Those hon members do not base their argument on merit but on misrepresentations of what the debate should actually be about.

The hon member for Umhlanga once again spelt out the reasons why his party supports this clause. I want to tell him that his analysis is correct.

†He asked a question about the RV1 form, the application for registration form, namely whether even though a person is registered at present as a Coloured or Indian voter in terms of the other Electoral Acts which allowed him to register for the other statutory bodies for which he could vote, it would be acceptable if he were allowed to fill in forms with his new address and that if it would result in such a person being put on the new voters’ roll. The answer is “yes”. Every RV1 form received, whether it is a new registration, whether it is a change of address or whether it denotes a change of status, will be accepted and the information contained in it will be reflected in the printed voters’ rolls once they have been finally compiled. I also thank him for his report with regard to the 300 signatures. I think the hon member contributed towards putting the whole question in the right perspective, namely that it is not a discriminatory measure, but a very practical adaptation being brought about for sound reasons and to meet the requirements of prevailing circumstances.

*I want to thank hon members for their participation and I hope that we shall be able, during the rest of the debate, to concentrate on the improvement of the Bill within the framework of the principles that have already been accepted.

Clause 1 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 2 and 3 standing over.

Schedule:

Mr Chairman, this Bill is an unusual Bill in the sense that most of the amendments being effected are part of the schedule. To facilitate discussion I shall mention the page number and the number of the section when I wish to discuss a specific section.

Firstly, I wish to refer to section 6 on page 7, which deals with the registration of voters. Thus far a great deal has been said about the question of the registration of voters during the course of the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. The hon the Minister made it clear that he was in favour of elections taking place on the basis of such registration. I wish to refer in this regard to the hon the Minister’s statement that consideration could be given to postponing the closing date for such registration by a month. Perhaps this points to a greater measure of flexibility than the hon the Minister intimated was possible previously, but I nevertheless welcome this. I think it is a good thing that this is being considered at this stage. I wish to suggest that as far as administratively possible, the hon the Minister should heed any person or representation suggesting that registrations should be accepted up to a later date. It could be that certain political parties are opposed to this, and for obvious reasons. Perhaps certain political parties were quicker off the mark and perhaps they were more willing to participate in the new dispensation at an earlier stage, and so on, and as a result they made an earlier start with the registration of voters. As the hon the Minister himself indicated, there were other parties that have shown their willingness more recently and that have begun with their organization work more recently. I think that in this respect it would undoubtedly be best to allow as much time as possible for registration, and I would seriously recommend to the hon the Minister that registrations be accepted up to the last possible date—at least until 31 May. In this regard I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is in fact considering supplementing the voters’ lists with names from the population register in terms of the 1982 amendment to the Electoral Act. There will then be a combination of information obtained from the population register and information available on the voters’ lists.

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer to page 19 of the text, namely the amendment to section 156 of the Electoral Act. This amendment is necessary as it has to do with the presentation of election applications. It is necessary because it cannot be done before the commencement of section 37 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. I therefore have no objection to the amendment. However, in the process of changing that date, the proviso in the Electoral Act of 1979 has been deleted. The proviso is there for a very specific purpose. The proviso states, inter alia:

In that case an extension is allowed. It is obviously possible for contraventions or misconduct to take place some while after the election took place, such as illegal payments to somebody for some service rendered during the election. There should be provision that action can be taken against such persons under such circumstances as well. Accordingly, I move as an amendment, and I might add that the wording is exactly the same as the wording in the Electoral Act of 1979:

1. 1. On page 19, to add at the end of the proposed paragraph (b) of section 156:
   : Provided that if the return or election is questioned upon allegation of an illegal practice, the application may be presented, if the election application specifically alleges a payment of money or some other act to have been made or done since that day by the member or an agent of the member or with the privity of the member or his election agent in pursuance or in furtherance of the illegal practice alleged in the application, at any time within 30 days after the date of such payment or other act.

Under these circumstances “that day” will be the date of commencement of section 37 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act and in all other respects the provision will apply as it applies under the existing Act.

Mr Chairman, in order to prevent any further debate on this matter, I just want to tell the hon member that I accept his amendment.

†Originally it was left out because certain technical difficulties were foreseen. After reconsideration, however, it was felt that it would improve the Bill if we put it back. I want to congratulate the hon member on noticing this.

*The hon member for Green Point put some questions to me about the question of registration. I think it is reasonable to say that each person who wishes to vote has to register. The exceptions are those who applied for registration in the past and who now appear on one of the existing voters’ lists. For the rest, everyone must have an equal opportunity to register—and they are getting it—and everyone has to accept an equal responsibility in order to register, namely to fill in a form. Where people who register are already on the population register, it is our intention, before finalizing the voters’ lists, to check the very latest information against the population register with regard to their addresses, in an attempt to use the latest information as far as addresses are concerned. The reason why we are not supplementing the voters’ lists from the population register is that we have already received applications which we do not believe we shall be able to process before the voters lists are closed. The moment we proceed to do this, we must do it for everyone. A person who applied for a population registration document in December or January would be justified in arguing that if I use one person’s application for an identity document to place his name on the voters’ list, I must also process his application for a population registration document, if it was received in time, and place him on the voters’ list as well. This would introduce an element of differentiation which I wish to eliminate. That is why we insist that in order to be included in the voters’ list, one either has to be on that list already or one has to fill in an RV1 form. As far as additional information with a view to the voters’ lists is concerned, we shall consult the population register to see whether there is any more recent information which we can use.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the proposed section 19, on page 13, which contains the penalties. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon the Minister accused me of only mentioning that there is discrimination in favour of the Coloureds, and to the detriment of the Whites. However, I was specifically referring to the proposed section 19. The penalties for which provision is made are a fine not exceeding R200, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both the fine and imprisonment. However, section 31 of the Act, which contains the penalties, provides that if a person commits certain offences which more or less correspond with the offences mentioned in the proposed section 19, he is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction—at least, in two cases—to a fine not exceeding R50, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. In the case of an offence in terms of paragraph (c) one is liable to a fine not exceeding R100, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. Then there is another offence in respect of which the fine does not exceed R200 and imprisonment does not exceed a period of one year. I should just like to know from the hon the Minister why the penalties in this case are different from the penalties for which provision is made in Act 45 of 1979.

Mr Chairman, as regards the proposed section 19 I want to say that at this stage we are already introducing basic streamlining. The hon member said the fines varied between R50 and R200. As a result of inflation and the change in the value of money from time to time, we are in the process of adjusting the fines upwards, when the occasion arises, in respect of all penalties. Insofar as it is an increase in the maximum fine, I am of the opinion that it is a moderate upward adjustment, which is quite in keeping with other upward adjustments which are effected in legislation from time to time. At present a fine of R200 is really not much more than a fine of R50 was quite a number of years ago. There is no ulterior motive in that regard. I do not think it is discriminatory in essence. It remains a moderate fine under the circumstances and in view of the present value of money.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon the Minister that the penalties in regard to paragraphs (d), up to and including (g), are precisely the same as those being laid down here with regard to all the offences that can be committed in terms of the proposed section 19. It is therefore not a question of an upward adjustment. In Act 45 of 1979 a person who violates certain of those provisions is more guilty than when he violates other provisions. With respect, I do not think we are dealing with an upward adjustment here. This is determined in degrees of importance and seriousness.

Mr Chairman, it is an upward adjustment in respect of those aspects where a fine of R50 applied previously, not so? An adjustment from R50 to R200 is an upward adjustment. The status quo is being maintained in respect of the offences for which the fine was R200 until now. As the hon member pointed out, it is quite correct that it has the effect that the difference in degree that was previously attached to this, is no longer attached to it, and that there is also an egalitarian effect. He will recall that in my first reply to that point I told him that streamlining was also contained in this. If we wanted to we could certainly discuss item by item whether the differentiation between the various offences of between R50 and R200 mentioned here are really justified. I think this is streamlining. It remains a relatively small fine and the difference in degree varies very little between R50 and R200. If it were a question of the difference between R200 and R2 000 the intention of the legislator that it is a serious difference in degree would have become apparent. Then one would not be able to deviate from it lightly and without protracted motivation. An upward adjustment from R50 to R200 is taking place here. This results in the streamlining of the section so that there will be one fine for offences that do not differ so drastically from one another in degree that a difference in degree need necessarily be maintained.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to section 36 on page 13 which deals with the registration of a political party.

†In that connection I just want to question the hon the Minister about the requirement that 50 signatures from the founding members of a party should be submitted as part of the application for registration in respect only—if I understand the legislation correctly—of political parties founded after the commencement of this amending Bill. That is my understanding of it. I know this is something that has been transplanted from the existing Electoral Act in a similar form, but I want to know whether the hon the Minister considers it wise to retain this in the Bill as it stands. There is very little validity in terms of testing the support of a political party by imposing such a condition. At the same time it is the kind of thing that could be considered to be an obstruction or a nuisance more than anything else, particularly in view of the fact that the hon the Minister saw fit to do away with the requirement of 300 signatures for the purposes of this election, a decision which, incidentally, I support wholeheartedly. In fact, I think that sort of requirement should never have been in the Electoral Act. I am rather surprised that there are calls coming from political parties in the Indian community that that provision should be reinstated. I am surprised, to say the least. I have always considered that to be an infringement of a basic democratic principle, and thus a sort of thing that one should get rid of, the sooner the better. The point I want to make is that one now creates a situation by this requirement, however limited the extent, where an obstruction is created in the case of a political party that is not created in the case of an independent candidate. In a sense the trend against which the legislation has been drafted originally, the 300 signatures and so forth, is reversed in this instance. Where in that case the trend was to discourage independent candidates, in this case it has the effect of almost discouraging the formation of political parties. I concede that it is only to a limited extent, but I think it is the kind of thing that could be an undue nuisance if it is imposed at this stage. I really wonder whether the hon the Minister thinks it is wise to leave it in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister not to introduce any change here, which means that he should not accept the amendment proposed by the hon member for Green Point, for the simple reason that the Coloureds and Indians are now entering a new phase in their participation in the politics of South Africa, and we have an arrangement here which will only apply to the first round, in which the members of their respective Houses are to be elected. There are going to be quite a number of independent candidates. If a candidate does not have to submit 50 signatures in support of his aims in order to register as a political party, every independent candidate could claim to represent a political party. In my opinion, this would be very unfair when we are providing here for the first round of elections for the Coloureds and the Indians. That is why two arrangements will apply: Firstly, those parties which already exist only have to submit their aims. After the commencement of this legislation, however, it will be necessary to hand in the aims of a party together with 50 signatures in order to be registered as a political party.

I believe that we should not see Coloured and Indian politics in the same light as the White political parties in South Africa. I believe that it would be unfair simply to give any individual carte blanche when he is actually standing as an independent candidate, while pretending to represent a political party. This new requirement will enhance the credibility of such a candidate, above that of the organized political parties in that community, perhaps.

Mr Chairman, I am, to say the least, somewhat surprised by the hon member for Turffontein’s argument. He seems to suggest that independent candidates in the forthcoming elections would wish to convey the impression that they represent a political party and in a sense would be prepared to create political parties overnight to give them some credibility. I am not sure that that will be the case. I can hardly understand how someone could suggest that. Independent candidates will not have the credibility of any established political party. I can see that it can be of great value to a White candidate in White politics to stand under the banner of a White political party. Although it is not the case with all White political parties, certainly some of them enjoy sufficient credibility to be of value to the candidacy of a particular person. In my view the hon member’s argument clearly goes in the opposite direction than the arguments that have always been advanced to justify the imposition of the requirement of 300 signatures in the case of independent candidates while a much easier dispensation has applied in the case of political parties. I therefore believe that we have an anomaly here which certainly deserves the attention of the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the registration of a political party should be an important and positive act for anyone who wishes to form a political party. However, the hon member argues as though it were a burden. In order to start a business, one has to comply with certain prescribed procedures. Forming a political party which could come into power, which could win an election, is an important act. I believe, therefore, that to provide that a party which already exists should only send in its charter, while in respect of a party which is to be formed, it is necessary to indicate who the people are who are forming the party, is reasonable. This goes even further, however. Registration of a political party has certain advantages in an election. It has the advantage that in addition to the name of the candidate, his party affiliation and that which he stands for must also be indicated on the ballot. In the light of this, surely there must be some certainty about who may lay claim to this on behalf of a party. In this regard it is necessary to exercise control. One has to know who the members of that party are. When a person alleges that he is the candidate of some party or other, surely he must be able to make certain submissions in order to prove to the nomination court that he is in fact the candidate of that party. If there is no control over the registration of a party, if it is not proved that a register exists and that certain formal requirements have been met, chaos could result in that people could simply justify their candidacy on the basis of alleged parties, while it has not even been possible to check the existence of such parties, and while they have not complied with certain prescribed requirements by a certain date.

I do believe, therefore, that it is essential to regulate the registration of parties before an election, because in those cases where political parties are involved, not only the candidate’s name appears on the ballot, but also the name of the party, as required by our legislation. This makes control of this nature essential.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 2 and 3.

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. 1. On page 3, in line 36, after “sections” to insert “4(1)(a)(iii),”.

I have supplied copies of my amendment to the hon the Minister, to the hon member for Umhlanga and also to the hon member for Rissik. The effect of this amendment will be to remove the disqualification in respect of the franchise, which exists in the case of any person convicted in terms of the Internal Security Act, 1950, or the Terrorism Act, 1967, or, in the case of an independent state, of an offence under any law which is applicable in that state, and which has as its object the combating of communism or terrorism, in respect of which he has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine.

First of all, Mr Chairman, allow me to make the point that this is certainly a standing principle adopted by us on this side of the House. We have opposed throughout the introduction of those specific Acts, and we have done so mainly because the definitions of certain offences in terms of those Acts are hopelessly too wide, viz that the onus of proof is placed on the accused in terms of numerous sections of those Acts, and that that is done in such a manner that we believe that in prosecutions in terms of those Acts a miscarriage of justice is indeed quite possible, particularly if one looks at it against the background of our South African situation. We feel therefore that such a drastic step as depriving someone of his constitutional right to vote is an unfair and unnecessary limitation to be imposed as a result of a conviction in terms of one of these Acts. We believe it makes no contribution to the security of the State to deprive someone of his voting right, and that we should therefore abolish this practice.

A further point I wish to make is the following: When one looks at the Terrorism Act, which is now being repealed and replaced by the Internal Security Act, 1982, one notices that the definitions contained in that Act are as wide as those I have referred to and which exist in terms of the Terrorism Act. One finds that for instance the advancement of an argument that people should not invest in South Africa is indeed punishable in terms of section 2 of the Terrorism Act. I am not sure of the comparable section in the present internal security legislation. However, people could be found guilty in terms of this legislation mentioned here as a result of arguing that people should not invest in South Africa. The attitude of this party towards that kind of argument is, of course, very well known. The efforts made by members of this party to counter the arguments of the disinvestment lobby abroad are also well known. It is a fact that there are political parties in South Africa among the Coloured community—this may be so in other communities as well—which have advocated disinvestment as part of their national policy, as part of their declared policy accepted by their national executives. This happens to be the case in respect of no less a party than the Coloured Labour Party. I am not mentioning this fact to try to embarrass anybody. What I am trying to indicate is that we have here a situation in which people could be found guilty on a charge which is really marginal. It could be regarded as a criminal offence in some instances but really, Sir, in view of the situation in which we find ourselves, one wonders whether it was correct to write such a provision into the legislation in the first place. It may also be as well to remember that the Leader of the Coloured Labour Party was once interned in terms of security legislation. As far as the attitude of the responsible Minister at the time was concerned, that person was at least guilty. Although he may not have been found guilty by a court of law, he was guilty of behaviour which, in the main, fell within the ambit of our security legislation in South Africa. Therefore, as we seem to be taking a more lenient view of these matters simply by virtue of the fact that there now seems to be a much more healthy and open relationship between the Government and the Coloured Labour Party, I wonder whether it is wise to try to retain the sort of qualification for the vote in this Bill. For that reason I suggest in my amendment that this be done away with and that it should no longer be retained as a disqualification from the franchise in respect of any political party. Obviously, we cannot do the same thing at the moment in respect of Whites but this may well be the right time and place to make a start and do it in respect of voters for representatives of the House of Representatives and House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that we in this party will not be supporting the amendment of the hon member for Green Point. Although we understand that it is in line with the attitude which the PFP has always adopted, we are unable to support it.

During the Second Reading debate we indicated to the hon the Minister why we were opposed to this Bill. I do not want to go into clause 2 in detail once again, except to say that we shall not be supporting the clause.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Green Point and I want to tell him that I am not prepared to give favourable consideration to his amendment.

†In the first instance, Sir, there is no question of there being greater leniency in respect of terrorism on the part of the Government as the hon member indicated. Terrorism remains terrorism and we feel just as strongly about it now as we have always felt in the past. To wish to bring in now the question of people who in earlier years may have adopted certain other views but who are now prepared to participate in the democratic system is, I think, an unwise thing for the hon member to have done in this debate.

*The hon member spoke as though a perfectly innocent person was being disqualified. That really is a tremendous insult to our legal system. Our legal system, with its finely developed system in respect of punishment, provides for imprisonment without the option of a fine to be reserved for serious offences. Surely it is not something in the nature of a traffic offence which will disqualify one from voting. It is a conviction by a court of law where one has had the opportunity of defending oneself. Moreover, it is a conviction by a court of law in a case where the court regarded the offence in such a serious light as to imprison the offender without the option of a fine. In addition, it is a conviction accepted by the accused without his availing himself of the right of appeal, or, if he did appeal, it is a conviction upheld by a higher court. Consequently, to suggest here that we are dealing with a case of a person being disqualified who is actually, in today’s terms, a perfectly innocent person, but who would in older terms have been terribly guilty, is, in my opinion, to present a distorted image of what is embodied in the provision itself, as it does not take into account, firstly, the fact that the person was convicted by a court of law, secondly, that it was a conviction in which punishment was meted out without the option of a fine, and, thirdly, that there was a right of appeal to a higher court if a person wanted to call a judgment in question.

Since all of us were elected subject to this restriction, I think it is fair that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, too, should be elected subject to this restriction. It might be a more appropriate time to debat these provisions when we introduce the new Bill which seeks to introduce greater uniformity and which will embody the recommendations of the select committee which we have accepted. That Bill will be discussed outside the context of the Coloured and Indian elections and at that time we can discuss to what extent contraventions of security legislation are to be regarded as a disqualification for election as a member of one of the three Houses. I do not want to go into that in too much detail today. The temptation is great to make a political issue of that matter, but for the sake of the good spirit prevailing this afternoon I shall confine myself to this reply.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react very briefly to what the hon the Minister had to say. Our argument is very simply that the courts before which these people have to appear can only apply the law as it is found. The same applies to any court of appeal. I am not trying to diminish the responsibility, criminal or otherwise, of people who actually commit things which could be considered crimes in terms of anybody’s definition of what is acceptable or inacceptable in terms of political or criminal activities. The specific example which I mentioned is one from which I believe one can hardly escape. One can look at the Rabie Commission’s discussion of this issue and even at the more recent Eloff Commission which dealt with the SA Council of Churches and also with this specific issue. They concede that this kind of thing may very well fall within the ambit of the Terrorism Act, but they feel that a very good case can be made out for strengthening this kind of thing to make it more specifically punishable. For that reason I believe that one should consider getting rid of this disqualification.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 3 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr Speaker, the PFP will support the Second Reading of the Bill. We do so because we favour a situation where the obligation of military service, of national service as it is called, should not be limited to people who are citizens of South Africa in the normal course of things; in other words, to citizens who have either been born in this country or have registered voluntarily or become naturalized as citizens of this country. We agree that the obligation of military service should be extended also to those who have enjoyed the privileges of residence in this country over a substantial period.

The PFP supported the predecessor of this Bill in 1978 and members of this party have in the recent past in debates on defence matters called, and have done so repeatedly, for a more fair distribution of the burden of national service. We want a more fair distribution of these obligations among citizens and people who at this stage are still non-citizens but have been here for a very long time. We are aware of quite a number of complaints emanating from the ranks of young people about the unfair advantages sometimes enjoyed by those who avoid doing national service simply by having the status of an alien. I believe that these complaints have to be taken seriously and have to be dealt with sensibly. While we have a system of conscription—and hon members will know that that has been the subject of much discussion over the years—with the burden it places on the young men of this country, we should not tolerate unfair differences in treatment of any sort.

In expressing support for the Bill, I must confess a considerable degree of irritation at the way the Government has to tamper with citizenship in order to solve a problem which is essentially of a military nature. This is not new, this is not the first time.

As I have already indicated, this party has supported predecessors of this kind of legislation. I believe, however, that we have done so with the same degree of reluctance because we are unhappy about the way citizenship is being dealt with. Citizenship is a right which should be cherished and should be dealt with jealously. To force citizenship on people is hardly the correct way of dealing with it. When I say “force” I use the word guardedly but I believe that I do so correctly. In terms of the original Act of 1978, the concept of losing one’s right of permanent residence was not included. There was therefore not that kind of penalty and no element of force. If one wishes to be euphemistic about it, one can say that it is not an element of force but of Hobson’s choice. The choice is very simply to become a South African citizen and face the music in terms of national service or on the other hand lose one’s right to permanent residence with whatever that may entail. The irony of the situation is in fact that this Bill implies that large numbers of aliens remain aliens only to avoid military service—that is factually correct—and that they should therefore be forced to serve in one way or another.

At the same time the Bill confers on those very people the precious right to exercise the vote in this country. In order to catch those people for military service, it confers upon them citizenship of this country and therefore the precious right to vote, something which is denied to millions of people born in this country and who would probably do a great deal to have that right of citizenship and that right to vote; in other words, the Bill gives citizenship, greater permanence and finally the right to vote to those whom it considers to be disloyal or possibly—if I have overstated it—to people who are considered not to be keen to do their duty in terms of military service.

We would have preferred that this situation be dealt with in terms of the Defence Act. It is correct that the hon the Minister, during his Second Reading speech and also in debates dealing with issues of this nature in the past, made mention of the fact that in terms of international law difficulties could arise about South Africa’s calling up citizens of foreign countries for purposes of national service.

*In reaction to that I want to say at once that although it is true that international law difficulties could arise from one country calling up foreigners living in that country for national service, I am not certain whether we can improve the situation by dealing with it in this way. We may succeed in making use of a loophole in international law; we may circumvent international law. If states such as West Germany and Britain, for example, were to object to South Africa calling up their citizens, who are resident in South Africa, for military service, I can hardly see their not minding that we call up the same persons for military service after we have made them citizens of South Africa by means of legislation, that is to say by force. I am using the word “force” guardedly here. In a sense these people are being presented with a very difficult choice. Therefore I am not certain that the argument in connection with international law difficulties is really valid here.

It is also general knowledge that in the past a country like the United States did not think twice about calling up citizens of another country for military service during the Vietnam era, without any steps having been taken to change that person’s citizenship. I would far rather have preferred this problem, which is of such a nature that we are prepared to support a solution to it, to have been solved by legislation which was implemented directly by the military authorities and introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act. In terms of the Defence Act, it is by now already possible to call up persons who are not citizens of South Africa. In terms of one of the sections in the Defence Act it is possible for the State President, by proclamation, to make sections of the Defence Act applicable to citizens of other countries who are resident in South Africa and to call them up for military service. Moreover, it is a fact that the State President has already issued such a proclamation. Let there be no doubt, therefore, that at this stage there is nothing preventing the Government from calling up persons who are not citizens of South Africa for military service, except for the international law argument which is being advanced and which I have already dealt with to a certain extent. I think that consideration should be given to this in future.

I have said that I feel unhappy about the way in which citizenship is being dealt with here, particularly because one realized anew since we have been scrutinizing legislation dealing with citizenship and aliens in South Africa during the past few days, that a great deal of our legislation in this connection has become a bit chaotic owing to the introduction of amendments which were not really motivated by anything fundamentally related to citizenship and the status of an alien, but for all kinds of other reasons, for example to catch people for military service, to impose additonal penalties on people owing to exchange control contraventions, and to impose additional punishment on people owing to contraventions of a political nature. I really think we have reached the situation where we will soon have to take another look at our citizenship arrangements in order to clarify them. Citizenship is an element which is far too fundamental and important to blithely amend from year to year as altered circumstances make it convenient for us or on the basis of the changing needs of some department or other. I should very much like us to examine this situation as soon as possible.

There is another aspect which I find interesting. I have already put questions in this regard on the Question Paper, but unfortunately there has not been time enough for me to receive replies to certain of those questions. I am referring to the extent to which existing legislation has been applied. One of my questions on the Question Paper was, for example, whether the proclamation which could be issued in terms of the Defence Act to make it possible to call up citizens of other countries had ever been used in South Africa. I am not sure whether it has or not, but one is inclined to think that if it has been used at all, it has only been used to a very limited extent.

Another aspect I should like to have further information about and in regard to which I also asked questions, is the question of the extent to which the penal provisions written into the predecessor of this legislation have in fact been applied. In other words, to what extent can the penal provision be applied in practice, the one in terms of which people had to relinquish their right of permanent residence owing to the fact that they had indicated that they did not want to become South African citizens? Are those persons still living in South Africa under normal circumstances with temporary residence permits, or have some of those people been deported? I do not wish to suggest for a moment that one should take harsh action against such people. I wish to add at once, however, that if none of these penal provisions—if one wishes to call them that—have been used, one really wonders to what extent this kind of provision is in fact of value to us and should be retained in our legislation.

It is interesting to see—I also think it is a good thing—that the qualifying period of residence which applies here has now been extended to five years. Consequently this brings it into line with the normal qualifying period for people who wish to become South African citizens by way of naturalization. One wonders whether it would not be a good thing, at some stage or other in the future, to adapt our citizenship arrangements in such a way that people can become South African citizens in a less cumbersome way, after a period of residence of five years, without any penalties, the threat of being deprived of the right of permanent residence, being imposed and without our being saddled with that kind of problem.

If it is not being used why is it at present still on the Statute Book? What is interesting is the reply to the question of how many people have already acquired South African citizenship in terms of the existing section 11A of the South African Citizenship Act since its commencement. The figure is approximately 10 000. That is a relatively large number of people. At the same time the question was asked how many people had made a statement in terms of that section to the effect that they did not want to become South African citizens. There were only slightly more than 300 of them. Of that total, 39 subsequently withdrew their statements in this connection. In other words, according to those statistics, the problem appears to be reasonably limited. I wonder, then, whether it is necessary to retain this kind of penalizing measure on the Statute Book.

We therefore support the Bill, but I want to tell the hon the Minister at once that I am of the opinion that at one stage or another we shall have to arrive at a decision and say that we are going to cease meddling in our citizenship legislation in order to solve a problem which is essentially of a military, criminal law or some other nature, and that one should rather resolve problems of this nature directly by means of statutory amendments administered by those departments.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful that the hon member for Green Point supports this measure on behalf of the Opposition, although he does so with a degree of reservation and is not very happy about it. I should like to deal with a few of his remarks.

Firstly, I agree with the hon member that this measure will lead to a fairer distribution of national service. I cannot agree with him that by way of this measure we are forcing people to accept South African citizenship. There are many examples throughout the world—for example, in America and Australia—where one automatically obtains citizenship after one has resided there for a certain minimum period. If one does not do so, one loses one’s right of residence and one has to return to the country from which one came.

The hon member’s argument with regard to the national states, the argument concerning Hobson’s choice, with regard to people who are supposed to be losing their citizenship, is not relevant at this stage. We shall discuss that aspect with the hon member on the appropriate occasion.

No coercion is being used with regard to obtaining citizenship. People to whom this measure applies do, in fact, have a choice. After a certain period they have the choice either to accept citizenship or lose their right to reside in South Africa. In addition, the Act is very sympathetic. A person who is unsure of what to do, is given six months to decide. Within that period of six months he must be able to decide whether he should accept citizenship, or whether it would be best to leave.

I have a problem with the hon member’s suggestion that we use the Defence Act to deal with this specific problematic situation. However, if we were to use that Act, we would in fact be forcing people to participate in a process in which they perhaps do not wish to participate. This is particularly the case in view of South Africa’s international position, as regards its defence activities in particular. This is a very sensitive matter. I want to present one example in this regard and ask the hon member to consider it. Perhaps his party would adopt a different standpoint then. For example, take South Africa’s involvement in South West Africa. The UN condemns South Africa for this and is of the opinion that South Africa is there illegally and that only Swapo has a legal claim to the area. According to the UN, we are an illegal force in South West Africa. On the other hand, South Africa believes that we have a mandate to carry out there. Therefore, if we are going to use the Defence Act to solve this citizenship situation and involve people in military service, in my opinion, we are simply going to be exacerbating a very sensitive international situation. I believe that the Government is very careful and fastidious about the question of citizenship. That is why we have been seeking suitable measures to order this situation from as far back as 1978. Perhaps this measure could assist people in the future, since there are many people who want to accept South African citizenship, but who do not get around to doing so. Perhaps this measure will assist them in finally making a decision.

I have already said that the Government is acting responsibly with regard to this matter. The legislation before us today was already published in December 1983 for examination by all those involved, and they therefore had the opportunity to make inputs in the drawing up of this legislation. My experience in a constituency where there is a large number of Portuguese immigrants in particular, is that the reaction is exceptionally favourable. I asked a number of those Portuguese who are not citizens to accept South African citizenship, since I know they will vote for me, and I had a very favourable reaction from them. Those people are really not opposed to becoming citizens of South Africa. I also think that the hon the Minister and his department have been very frank with all those involved.

The hon member for Green Point said that citizenship is not a matter one can simply deal with hurriedly. However, I think all of us in this House know that citizenship, whether it is compulsory citizenship, or whether it is a shortening of the period to obtain citizenship in South Africa, and military service for the children of immigrants in particular, has been on the agendas of the congresses of all political parties in South Africa for many years. It is therefore a matter that has been thoroughly considered and discussed in depth, and we on this side of the House welcome this step the Government is taking by coming to this House with this measure. We are dealing here with an old problem between our people and immigrants. This measures provides that the children of immigrants who are older than 15 years automatically obtain citizenship if they have been living in the country for five years. If a person has already been living in the country for five years, he should at least know whether or not he wants to become a citizen of the country. I therefore think this is a reasonable standpoint on the part of the Government. If there are people who do not wish to accept citizenship, they forgo their right to reside in South Africa. Basically, this is only an extension of measures that already exist and is by no means a new principle, and I want to dwell on that for a moment.

In 1978 immigrants who were 25 years old or younger were granted citizenship by naturalization after two years of permanent residence, unless an immigrant declared that he did not wish to accept South African citizenship. In other words, the principle had already been introduced at that time and the immigrant simply had to apply by way of naturalization. Subsequently, in 1980 and 1981, it was provided that those who do not accept citizenship would forego their right to reside permanently in South Africa. That arrangement was applicable to immigrants who came to South Africa after 19 April 1978. Consequently, we have here an extension of the measure in order to involve the children of immigrants who entered the country before 19 April 1978 in military service. They are now subject to national service and also forego their right to reside here if they decline their citizenship. This whole matter has caused friction between South African citizens on the one hand, and the children of immigrants on the other. I can attest to this in a constituency like Turffontein, where there are thousands of immigrants, Portuguese immigrants in particular. Quarrels really do arise between neighbours because the child of the one has to do military service, whilst the child of the other is exempted because he is not a South African citizen.

Whilst South African citizens have to render protection services, do two years military service, and accept further military responsibilities in South Africa, the children of immigrants can begin their studies unhindered after matric, they can go and work, go and study at technikons, or complete their apprenticeship. I believe that this is an unfair advantage over South African children, who first have to complete their military training. This is an unfair situation. It causes unfair competition between South African citizens and the children of immigrants. Above all, there is one thing we cannot afford, and that is that there should be friction between South African citizens and immigrants, or prospective South African citizens in this country. We cannot afford that. After all, we are all descendents of immigrants. Our forefathers all came from elsewhere and we would like to get those people fully involved as soon as possible, not only in community life, but also in the responsibilities they should bear for the military defence of South Africa.

I should therefore like to congratulate the hon the Minister on this legislation. It has already come a long way; it took a long time for the Government to eventually take this step. I believe it is a courageous step; a step which I believe will be welcomed by every hon member of this House with great acclamation.

It is possible that in the immediate future the children of immigrants will become involved with some degree of resistance. However, I maintain that after a year or two they will be part and parcel of the new arrangement. Other countries—America and Australia, for example—do not provide people with accommodation on such a broad basis with regard to citizenship as we have maintained thus far in this country. In those countries the rules are infinitely more stringent. I therefore believe that the Government of South Africa is doing this in a very reasonable and fair manner.

There is an argument—I have seen this in the newspapers—that prospective immigrants to South Africa are supposedly going to be deterred by this new measure. However, I maintain that this measure is not that drastic. I have already tried to indicate that it is simply an extension of arrangements that already exist. I wish to mention only one example in this regard. In terms of the old arrangement, that of 1978, a person who was already 25 years old could obtain citizenship by way of naturalization after having resided in South Africa for two years. Therefore, this only really affected people once they had reached the age of 23. In 1981 that maximum age was reduced from 25 to 23 years, and then, with the two years’ grace to become naturalized, the age was eventually reduced to 21 years and younger. This measure, which again increases the age to 25 years, and the period of residence to five years, therefore really means that only people of 20 years and younger are affected by this measure. I therefore believe that this will be less of a deterrent than previously.

Then there is the other very important aspect as well, viz that only people of 15 years and older will be subject to this measure. All children of immigrants between the ages of 15 and 25 years will therefore be compelled to accept citizenship after having resided here for five years and then, of course, they will have to do their normal national service. I have already mentioned—and I thank the hon the Minister for this—that there is a six month period of grace for such a person to make a final decision. After all, it is probably an important decision for any young person to make. I think this arrangement will be accepted by all responsible immigrants, since it does not affect those over the age of 25 who do in fact reside in South Africa at present.

Whether we are South African citizens, whether we were born here, whether we are children of immigrants who came here, and whether we came here as immigrants ourselves, we must nevertheless accept full responsibility for the weal and woe of South Africa, in the military sphere as well. We are all products of immigrants, and our forefathers had to accept full responsibility from the day they arrived in this country. If we enjoy the benefits, we must also accept the responsibilities that accompany them. We on this side of the House therefore support the present measure with great acclamation. Once again, we congratulate the hon the Minister on this measure which is finally being placed on the Statute Book.

Mr Speaker, the CP also supports this legislation.

I just want to refer to one aspect mentioned by the hon member for Turffontein, ie the argument that if one’s citizenship laws are possibly made stricter, this could, to a certain extent, act as a deterrent to prospective immigrants. I think there is enough proof to indicate that a prospective immigrant who wanted to come to South Africa would chiefly look at the economic prospects in the host country. He would want to see how the economy of the country from which he is emigrating compared with the economy and the economic conditions of the host country. Here I also want to refer again to a study carried out in 1973 by Prof John Stone, erstwhile professor of sociology at Columbia University in New York. Prof Stone said the following:

In the debate that took place on 1 March 1978 and thereafter, this problem of a deterrent was also mentioned.

I am grateful to the department for the statistics it made available to me to enable me to observe the consequences of the 1978 legislation. In 1978 18 565 immigrants came to South Africa. The legislation, to which I referred a moment ago, was then passed, and in 1979 the number of immigrants was 18 568, more or less the same. In 1980 there were 29 228, in 1981 there were 41 429 and in 1982 there were 45 662. This merely goes to prove once more the trend linking immigration closely to economic cycles. In the document I obtained from the department, it is also stated that 1978 was a good example of a slump, and the significant gains since then prove that notwithstanding the 1978 amendment Bill, and what followed, in times of an economic upsurge we have drawn the manpower that the country needed. The important consideration is therefore an economic one.

I also want to add that we debated this whole matter fully in 1978, and all the parties in the House agreed on the principle. As the hon member for Turffontein has said, this Bill is merely a further development of a vital issue. It was also mentioned at the time that there was a degree of confusion in regard to the situation in terms of international law, but the eventual consensus did boil down to the fact that it was the host country that could decide what it wanted to do with its immigrants.

Let me mention, for example, the case of the USA which, during the First World War, called up 200 000 aliens to fight for the USA. In Britian it was also provided that if an emigrant from Britian had any problems with the host country’s laws, that was something he must settle with the host country. Britian would not come to the aid of such an emigrant.

The host country offers the immigrant all the rights he may claim in terms of international law. He does, for example, have the right to participate in economic activities. He has the right to sue and can also be sued. He has the right to a just, non-discriminatory judgment. As far as economic activities are concerned, he has equal rights in terms of international law. The Hague Convention of 1930 provides the following, amongst other things:

If the emigrant country therefore wants other arrangements to be made, it must do so by way of an accord with the host country.

We support the principle, but we are not happy with the proposed deletion of subsection (5) of section 11 A. Here it is a question of doing away with publication, as provided for in the principal Act. In this connection let me refer to what one of the hon Minister’s predecessors said on 2 March 1978 (Hansard, 1978, col 2209):

Now the hon the Minister is coming along with a further amendment to section 5ter, stating that one cannot carry on any profession or occupation. “Conduct a business” was in the Act, but “profession or occupation” is now being added, and the penalty is being increased. So as far as that aspect is concerned, the CP cannot go along with that amendment, and in the Committee Stage we shall be voting against it. We are, however, in favour of the principle contained in the Bill, and we shall be supporting it.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his general support for the measure.

I should like to refer to what the hon member for Green Point said. He referred inter alia to certain figures. He referred to the figure of 10 000 people who had already accepted automatic citizenship in terms of this measure. He said that approximately 300 people had refused citizenship in terms of this measure. He asked whether, if these were the figures, it was really necessary for this measure to continue to exist. What is very important, is that these are the figures while the measure is still in force. The question is whether 10 000 people would have accepted citizenship if the measure had not existed and whether those people could then have been used for military purposes. One would have to weigh up this measure against the dissatisfaction which would have prevailed if the measure had not existed, particularly the friction which would have arisen, to which the hon member for Turffontein also referred.

The Bill has two main facets. Firstly, it affects immigrants already in the country. I want to suggest that this is the aspect which is of specifically great importance. It affects the immigrants already in the country who entered the country prior to 1978. Prior to this measure they were not subject to the provisions of the legislation placed on the Statute Book in 1978. They were therefore not subject to automatic citizenship and it is no more than right that they should be placed on a par with immigrants who arrived here after 1978. There is no reason why immigrants who arrived here before 1978 and who have therefore been here longer, should be in a privileged position compared with immigrants who arrived here after 1978. I want to suggest that the situation should rather be the reverse, in other words people who have been here longer and have enjoyed the privileges of the country for a longer period, should have a greater responsibility towards the country. Whether an immigrant therefore arrived here prior to or after 1978, he will now be subject to the same obligations. If he has been permanently settled here for five years and is not younger than 15 years of age or older than 25 years of age he will have to become a citizen. If not, his permanent residence permit may be withdrawn.

The other facet which I consider to be of great importance is how this Bill affects prospective immigrants. I maintain that contrary to the way in which the Press has to a large extent interpreted this measure, it actually affords relief as regards the obligations resting on immigrants who now enter the country. If one considers the chronological course of events with this measure, it is quite clear. The 1978 legislation provided that after a period of permanent residence of two years a person acquired citizenship, provided he was not older than 25 years of age. This meant that an immigrant had to be 23 years and one day old in order not to qualify under the provisions of the measure. In 1981 the provisions were amended and the maximum age was fixed at 23 years. This therefore meant that an immigrant had to be 21 years and one day old not to qualify in terms of the measure. This was introduced because the Government was sensitive to the fact that the country had a great need for immigrants. If we consider the situation which is going to be introduced by this measure, it means that the maximum age is in fact being increased to 25 years of age, but that the period is also being extended to five years.

An immigrant who now enters the country, and who is 20 years and one day old, will therefore not qualify in terms of this measure. This means that the qualifying period is in fact being reduced from 21 years and one day to 20 years and one day. It can therefore not be alleged that this measure will be a greater deterrent to prospective immigrants. It is in truth the opposite. For a person like me who believes that immigration plays a very important role in South Africa and will have to play a far more important role in future, I am very grateful for this concession. The Government is definitely attuned to the country’s need for more immigrants.

I should like to refer to a matter which in my opinion is a deficiency in the legislation. This concerns persons who are in the country on a temporary study permit. It happens quite frequently that young children enter the country, attend school here, attend university after completing their schooling and only then, at the age of 22 or 23 years acquire the right to settle here permanently. Those people will not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. I maintain that these people enter the country and enjoy the privileges of our schools and universities at State expense and therefore should in some way or other be subject to the legislation since they come to this country with a view to ultimately settling here permanently.

Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear at the outset that the NRP will also be supporting the Bill. If the hon member Mr Schutte will excuse me, I will not follow his particular train of argument.

There are a couple of points which I would like to take up. The one made by the hon member for Green Point rather perturbs me as he suggests that one will be giving citizenship to people who are disloyal because they do not join the Citizen Force. That was the implication of what he said in the early part of his speech. I am afraid that I cannot accept that and I think it is a rather unfair statement to make. Were loyal South Africans clamouring to join the Defence Force before we had conscription? Of course they were not. They only joined the Defence Force for the most part when they had to, and it is the same in regard to people with permanent residence. Very few people want to do military service voluntarily and if the conditions …

What about the Second World War?

It is another story when there is a World War. I possibly know a little more about this than some of the hon members in the PFP. The point I want to make is that because a person does not volunteer to do military service, it does not mean that he is disloyal. In this instance, if the benefits of permanent residence are such that there is no particular advantage in taking out citizenship and a big disadvantage in doing military service and losing a lot of time in one’s career, people will quite obviously avoid becoming South African citizens. That does not make them disloyal. They look upon it as avoiding something which they do not want to do but it certainly does not make them disloyal. I would resent that kind of slur on many people who have otherwise been very loyal to South Africa.

The hon member for Brakpan made the point that the reason for most immigrants coming here was for economic improvement, and I agree with him. That is the reason why a great number do come here and I would like to suggest that the ancestors of most South Africans came here for that very reason, except for those who were shipped out on various ships and dropped off here. However, the majority of them have come here to improve their economic position, whether they be new immigrants over the past 20 or 30 years or whether they are “old” immigrants of families who came here 300 years ago. It does not make much difference as the situation is very much the same.

However, there are immigrants who come here for other reasons as well. There are those who did not like the political situation in the countries from whence they originated and people who have suffered humiliation or had other problems in the countries from which they came. They were for instance persecuted and the like. It has in fact been said that some people leave South Africa and emigrate because they believe they are persecuted here. There are, therefore, all sorts of reasons for emigration although I see the primary reason for the majority as being an economic affair and it always has been.

As far as we in this party are concerned, we believe this Bill is fair enough as far as it goes. We believe further it is very timeous because South African young men have been discriminated against for a long time in favour of these immigrants. It has been suggested that there are approximately 250 000 of them in South Africa at the moment. This is unfair and I am sure that hon members in the PFP will agree that discrimination is a bad thing. They are therefore supporting this Bill to get rid of discrimination, just for once against the Whites of South Africa.

What about local option?

I wish I had some local option I could apply to that hon member. I know what I would suggest for him. [Interjections.]

This discrimination has meant serious delays in the commencement of the careers of many of these young South Africans. I know a number who have suffered genuine hardship as a result of having to do military service. Nonetheless, they have gone ahead and done it and have eventually gone back to their private careers and carried on. In the meantime these permanent immigrant types have in fact gone straight from school into their professions, or to university and then into professions. They have lost no time and they have lost no promotion opportunities. They have therefore certainly had a distinct advantage.

A further point in respect of this and in respect of any immigrants who may feel resentful about this, is that we do not really see why, if a country is good enough to live in—and, certainly, an immigrant must have lived here for five years before he would qualify in the age group concerned—and, seeing that they have been educated here and have enjoyed many advantages in South Africa, as the hon member Mr Schutte has pointed out, they should not be prepared to become citizens of South Africa. They have really been enjoying all the privileges with none of the disadvantages. The point that is important about this Bill is that it does not compel anybody to become a South African citizen. There is no compulsion, and I agree that there should not be compulsion because that would denigrate the act of acquiring citizenship. The point is that if, having qualified for citizenship under these circumstances people decide that they do not want to enjoy citizenship, they must accept the fact that they are using South Africa for their own ends and for their own benefit, and it is not unreasonable for South Africa under those circumstances and conditions to say: “Fair enough; we will allow you to remain here as long as it suits us and, if it does not suit us, then regrettably you will have to go”. I have no quarrel with that at all. I think it is a fair attitude and approach.

Another point worthy of consideration is the fact that, by acquiring citizenship, they do not only have to serve in the military forces but will also have a say in the future of this country because they will then be eligible to become voters, as has been pointed out by several other speakers. I think that this is a very good thing. There are too many people in South Africa already who are old enough to have had a vote here for many, many years but who have not become South African citizens. I have mentioned here before that I think it is a very, very bad thing for a country such as South Africa to have such a huge number—and it is a huge number—of foreigners roaming around here who owe no allegiance to this country. This is why I mentioned at the beginning that we are in favour of this Bill as far as it goes. We believe however that there is considerable merit in having a look at the possibility of extending this citizenship system even further. The average South African does not finish his military duties and obligations when he has done his two years service but he carries on for several years and then carries on further after that in a commando unit. Any other South African citizen up to the age of 55 is eligible to be called up for commando service, but there are thousands upon thousands who could also be inspanned for this particular duty. I come from Durban. People say that that is the heart of the old Empire, or something of that nature.

The last outpost.

Is that what it is? People say it is the last outpost of the old Empire, and I can tell you, Sir, that I have come across dozens and dozens of people who are very vociferous in their criticism of the Government of South Africa, whether it be at the local, provincial or central level. They believe they have the right to say their piece, but when one suggests to them that they should become South African citizens and do something about it, they say “Oh no!” and give you a list of reasons why it would be disadvantageous to them to become South African citizens. I cannot help but feel that these people over many years have enjoyed a very privileged sort of existence. Certainly within the South African context as Whites they have enjoyed a privileged existence as compared to many non-Whites. Such being the case I am personally somewhat resentful of the fact that they do not accept their full responsibilities. I look upon the question of voting as not only a privilege—it is a privilege perhaps—but as a duty and a responsibility. It is not only a privilege but also a right if one is a citizen of a country. I feel we have allowed too many of these people too much latitude in this regard. I cannot help but feel that there is a possibility that this could be looked at with a view to quantifying the value of not being a South African citizen. The opportunity should be given to them on an automatic basis—I will explain in a moment why I say that if they have been here for a certain number of years. If they then refuse to become South African citizens some sort of levy or tax should be imposed upon them to make up the difference. I am sorry, I am a little unhappy about these people. I have spoken about it many times, not only in this forum but in others as well.

I believe that it is desirable to have it on an automatic basis for a particular reason. There are certain countries of origin that have a system whereby citizens who relinquish their citizenship by positive renunciation, which in the case of South African citizenship is normally desired, would lose certain rights and privileges which they had in the past as citizens of those countries—I refer specifically to Britain and France. If it is done on the basis that is proposed now, that it becomes automatic under certain circumstances, they would not lose those rights because it is not positive renunciation but merely an acceptance. There are many people who would be quite happy to have South African citizenship under those circumstances. I would really appreciate it if the hon the Minister could give an indication as to whether this aspect has been looked at. I am quite sure that many people in the 25 to 45 age group would be very happy to serve in the Commandos.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member a question on the point which he made about a more general extension of automatically becoming citizens. Is he saying that in terms of the law of other countries it would not amount to positive renunciation of their citizenship, even in a case where there is an element of choice?

There are certain countries that will permit a citizenship without positive renunciation. Britain is one of them. A British citizen or a French citizen can have two passports. I merely mention that in passing.

Many of these people have enjoyed the fruits of being in South Africa. They would like to be citizens of the country, but to do so by positive renunciation would present them with enormous difficulties, especially those who are getting on in years and who have in the past paid in towards contributory state pension schemes. If one is still a citizen of that country, without renunciation, one is on a different basis to those who renounce their citizenship by positive renunciation. At some stage in the future this would be something of a disadvantage to them. There are other reasons that may perhaps encourage a person to retain his original nationality but, as I say, most of them would become South African citizens if they had the opportunity of doing so automatically.

As far as we are concerned we support this Bill and we hope not only that these young people will do their military service but that they will also take an active part in the politics of South Africa. When I look around and see all the grey hairs and bald heads I feel we need some young people coming forward too.

Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon member for Umbilo. I also want to thank him most sincerely for the positive contribution he made, and in particular for his support for this legislation.

The Bill under discussion makes new provision for the acquiring of South African citizenship on the grounds of residence in the Republic, and does away with the obligation of the relevant Minister to publish certain returns. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister indicated in detail that this amending Bill envisaged inter alia putting an end to the untenable position that immigrant children who entered the country prior to 19 April 1978 are not accorded the same treatment as South Africa citizens, including those persons who acquired South African citizenship on the strength of the 1978 measures when it comes to military service. It is difficult to find fault with this, as also appeared from the representations received. At the same time there cannot be any objections to the arrangement that a person who, after a period of residence in which he has enjoyed all the benefits of the country, is not prepared to accept the responsibility of citizenship, forfeits his right to permanent residence.

This measure which by implication also links citizenship to the responsibility of national service, rightly gives a new meaning to citizenship, which is in fact to be welcomed. However, this legislation deals not only with national service and citizenship, but with citizenship in general, and it goes without saying that citizenship is something special to our country and our nation, a great privilege but also a responsibility. I am sure hon members who were privileged to watch the video recording of the events at Nkomati or who were there in person, all experienced something of the sense and meaning of citizenship, of the essence of citizenship, a warm feeling in the heart, knowing that one belongs to a specific country and that one can identify oneself with the people of that country.

Perhaps it was after we became a Republic, with our ideal of unity with the retention of our own principles and identities among Afrikaans and English-speaking people in particular, that citizenship acquired a new meaning for us. It is not merely a matter of legislation, a purely formal matter. Citizenship is also a deeply-rooted spiritual experience. According to C N Venter in his publication Ons nuwe Republikeinse burgerskap, the Afrikaans word for citizenship, “burgerskap” is associated with “burger” and “burg”, while to a certain extent it is also associated with the words “borg” and “geborgenhied”. In the old days a stronghold (burg) was a guarantee (waarborg) of safety, order, peace and certainty, both internally and externally, in the minds of its burghers. The citizen and the idea of citizenship therefore sets him apart from everything which wanders and is constantly subject to change, insecurity, unrest, confusion and uncertainty. Security, order, peace, certainty and a feeling of being provided for— these are actually of paramount importance here.

The idea of citizenship therefore presupposes a spiritual attitude and a spiritual frame of mind, and is inherent in a specific attitude towards life and the world. For that reason it is only right that as general conditions for South African citizenship, it is laid down that such a person must inter alia be of good character, be able to speak one of the official language satisfactorily, have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of South African citizenship, and must also swear an oath of allegiance.Of course, South African citizenship also means that that person becomes part of the South African nation, a politico-economic community sharing the same fate, which is united by the State and which consists of separate peoples and/or sections of the community or population groups. This sharing of the same fate or South Africanship does not cancel out the identities of the respective peoples or population groups; on the contrary, good South Africanship, which is based on co-operation between the separate population groups, is dependant on the extent to which each person feels safe in his own group and has the opportunity to make his contribution. In maintaining and developing the identity of specific peoples or groups we therefore cannot allow ourselves to be deterred by prophets of doom who are trying to imply that by doing so we are curtailing healthy South Africanship.

South Africanship can never offer the same feeling of security, particularly for young people, that identification with one’s own people or group can offer them. And it is only when one can experience that feeling of security in one’s own group, in other words when one is safe in one’s own group, that one can reach out and, realistically and without sacrificing any principles, work together with other groups, in the interests of South Africanship or South African citizenship. On the other hand, because good South Africanship, and therefore also good citizenship, is based on co-operation between separate population groups, this also means that nationhood may not be absolutized to such an extent that co-operation is impossible and that citizenship cannot therefore be fully realized.

I believe that this measure can in fact contribute to developing citizenship in South Africa into meaningful citizenship in the interests of our country and of our people, and I therefore take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member Dr Pieterse. I should therefore like to return later in my speech to one or two of the ideas which he expressed here this afternoon.

The hon member for Green Point has already indicated that we on this side of the House support the principle that people whose intention it is to live in South Africa, people who enjoy the benefits of this country, should also be prepared to accept the concomitant responsibilities. We have indicated on various occasions, of course, that we would favour the application of this principle. We have also said in our election campaign that we would be in favour of such a measure. In this House, too, we have pointed this out on more than one occasion. Like the hon member for Green Point, I should also like to point out to the hon the Minister that the Defence Act, in its present wording, already provides that non-citizens may be called up for compulsory military service. Therefore I assume that the hon the Minister will also explain to the House in his reply to the Second Reading debate how it came about that we cannot, in fact, call up young men under the Defence Act. I know the hon the Minister has pointed out that there are problems concerning international law. But perhaps he could go into the matter more specifically and tell us what problems actually exist, or did exist in the past.

†We have taken a very long time to get where we are today in regard to this Bill. In terms of section 2(1) of the Defence Act the State President may with the approval by resolution of the House of Assembly by proclamation in the Gazette apply any provision of the Defence Act to females or persons who are not White persons. Section 2(3) read together with section 2(4) and (5) of the same Act goes even further in that it is stated that the State President is empowered to issue a proclamation making the provisions of the Act applicable to non-citizens who are White and who have been domiciled in the Republic for more than five years. The State President did in fact issue such a proclamation in December 1967, and this fact has already been referred to. It would, however, appear as though that proclamation was not implemented or carried out in practice. The applicability of the proclamation was therefore subject to the provisions of the schedule to the proclamation which provided, inter alia, that:

Already, therefore, there seems to have been a reluctance on the part of the Government through the State President to bring those people in if they decided to opt out by refusing to take out South African citizenship.

Because, apparently, the Defence Act could not provide the necessary wherewithal to bring these young people in, in 1978 a further attempt was made to include non-citizens by way of an amendment to the original Act. At that time this party also indicated that it was in support of the principle although we found in practice that nothing came of the Bill in the sense that those who had been in the country before 1978 could not be called up.

We have reached the stage now where we have this Bill before us which we are going to support. In this connection I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether there are any examples of non-South Africans at present who were prepared to do their national service without becoming South African citizens and who will now, in terms of the Bill before us, be called up to do their national service. I ask this question because it may well happen that a person who volunteered, as it were, to do his national service some four or five years ago and will now be called upon to do so, may now find himself in a somewhat difficult position from a business point of view or otherwise while, as a young man leaving school, he may have been quite prepared to make that contribution. I should like the hon the Minister to give us some indication of what the position of such a person will be. Will such a person be able to approach the department and say that although he understands that in terms of the Bill he now has to do national service, economically it will place him at a disadvantage? He may say that he was quite prepared to do his military service, and indeed volunteered to do so some years ago. I ask whether that will be taken into consideration when he applies for exemption. I do not believe that there can be many such examples, but I believe that in Parliament one should try to be fair even if only one person is concerned. So I ask the hon the Minister, while we support the principle of the Bill, while in fact we would like to believe that all those who are enjoying the benefits of South Africa are also prepared to contribute and to carry out their responsibility, whether, when there are exceptions such as the one I have mentioned, he will give us some indication as to how he will deal with the situation.

I want to refer to one of the remarks made by the hon member for Umbilo. I do not want to say that he made a good speech, but we do agree with very much of what he has said. The hon member asked whether the automatic acquisition of citizenship should not only apply to all rather than to only particular age groups. I think that is a question worthy of consideration and I take it that the hon the Minister will devote some of his time in replying to that.

Where I do disagree with him is where he implied or said that the hon member for Green Point cast a slur when he used the word “disloyal” with regard to those who did not make themselves available. I think it must be placed on record that nowhere in the speech of the hon member for Green Point did he imply or say that people who had not made themselves available were disloyal to South Africa. What the hon member said was that people who were not automatically brought into the system would in future be brought into the system automatically while they did not want to take out South African citizenship earlier and that those “disloyal”—for lack of another word— people would in future be given the vote. That is all he was really trying to say. That is the point he wished to make. Nowhere did he say that they were “disloyal” or did he imply that they would not be good South Africans.

But he did use the word “disloyal”.

With due respect and in reply to the interjection, he used the word as it were between brackets giving it a different meaning to what is normally understood when the categoric statement is made that somebody is disloyal. I think that must be accepted because that is what the hon member was saying and one can see perfectly well what he wanted to convey to the House. I think the hon member for Umbilo heard perfectly well what the hon member for Green Point said.

The hon member Dr Pieterse referred to the event which took place last Friday on the South African border. He referred to the “warm feeling” which all of us who were there and even those who were not present experienced because of that event. He referred to the feeling which we experienced as South Africans. This is probably the appropriate time to refer to that warm feeling which the hon member mentioned because when we are about to pass a Bill in this House which will have the effect that people will automatically become South Africans, I think it is also appropriate for us to talk about the kind of South Africa of which they are going to acquire citizenship. I think that is what the hon member was also referring to.

I want to say that while one would like to congratulate all those who brought about the possibility of the signing of the accord and those who brought about the new close relationship between South African citizens and citizens of one of our neighbouring states, it is probably also appropriate for us to say at this stage that we must express the view that the new South Africans who are going to be given automatic citizenship, will be able to share proudly that citizenship also with a great number of non-White South Africans who do not at present enjoy citizenship. I believe that the hon the Minister who is responsible for taking this Bill through its various stages in Parliament can play a very important role in bringing about a new dispensation which will encourage even more South Africans beyond the ages which are referred to in this Bill also to apply for South African citizenship, because it will be a country with which they will be able to associate themselves and of which they can be proud.

Mr Speaker, it does not often happen that anyone on this side finds it a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Wynberg has spoken, but on this occasion it is a very great pleasure for me to do so. On behalf of this side of the House I want to express our thanks to him and to his party for the support they are granting to this Bill.

The basic principle to which substance is being given in this legislation is that of the mutual responsibility existing between the community and the individual. One of the most basic of principles or rights that an individual has is his claim to being a member of a specific community. It is one of the most basic and elementary rights a person can have, ie being able to lay claim to being part of a community. Equally, the community’s most elementary right is its ability to demand at one and the same time from the individual, who demands his rights relative to the community, that he make his rightful contribution. I think that is the principle underlying this Bill. Merely on the grounds that this principle is a personification of mutual responsibility, and the acceptance of such responsibility, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I would agree with the hon member for Caledon that there are privileges and responsibilities attached to citizenship as well as privileges and responsibilities attached to permanent residence in any country. I think that there is agreement in principle in the House that these factors need to apply.

I believe that we are dealing with a rather complicated question. In principle it is fairly straightforward but when one comes to see how to implement it in law, quite a number of complications arise. I believe there are problems and anomalies in any approach, including this Bill. In certain respects I must say that I am slightly perplexed. I would like to draw attention to some of these problems and anomalies and to have the comments of the hon the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I think there are problems we have to face up to and to which we will have to try to find the best solutions.

As I understand it in general terms, the main problem that one is trying to overcome is the question of people who have lived here for many years, in many cases from young childhood. They have benefited from their life in this country in our schools and so on and are living here permanently and intend to continue to do so; and yet, by not taking out South African citizenship, they have up to now succeeded in avoiding doing their national service. As I see it, that is the essential problem we are looking at and not other peripherals.

Equally, I see that our national service system as presently constituted is based on the concept that one does one’s service when one leaves school or alternatively, if one wishes to do so, one can wait until one has further qualifications if one is going to do further study before one does one’s military service. That is the basis on which our service operates at present. Within the context of that problem which we are trying to solve and on the basis of this system, I would like bringing certain problems or anomalies to the hon the Minister’s attention.

The first is the question of people who are already say, 24 years old. Whether they chose or did not choose to become citizens in the past was a choice which had certain implications. They will certainly not have planned their lives with the possibility of having to do two years’ national service and a series of camps afterwards. It is particularly the two years’ national service to which I am referring here. In terms of their family, career and financial planning those people will not have taken a two year national service commitment into account, and I think they will be particularly hard hit. I do not think that they are in the first instance the prime target of the groups at which we are looking.

A second category is that of immigrants who come to this country at the age of, say 18 or 19 years. They have not benefited from a long life in South Africa or our schooling system. I think hon members will agree that it is obviously more onerous, particularly if one has not planned to start one’s military service at the age of 23 or 24 rather than at the age of 17 or 18 years as most young men do. In certain instances—and I would like the hon the Minister to confirm that my assumption is correct—they cannot choose to do their service earlier because they cannot become South African citizens until they have been here for five years. Therefore, the person I am referring to in this regard is an immigrant who comes here at an age of 19 years. Even if he intends staying here for the rest of his life and he knows he will have to do some national service he cannot—as I understand it—a year after coming here at the age or 19 of 20 years do his service then. As far as I understand it, he is at a disadvantage because he is not a South African citizen and cannot become one even if he wants to. I think one needs to look at that category of person.

A further category that causes a bit of an anomaly, is, say a child of 15 years whose parents decide that he should be a South African citizen although he then or at a later date decides that he does not want to become a South African citizen. In South West Africa/Namibia there has been a court case in this regard and I would like to hear the hon the Minister’s opinion on that in relation to this Bill. Should such a person not have some choice when he is 18 or 19 years old to decide what he wants to do? He would not disadvantaged because he would have the option and, when he reaches that age, he then needs to make up his mind once and for all. He cannot then complain that he has already been out of school for a couple of years because he would have known what was coming.

A further group—I will not elaborate in this regard because the hon member for Wynberg has already mentioned this category—are the people who are not South African citizens but who have lived here for some while and who have actually volunteered to serve in the South African Defence Force but have not been accepted for national service because they are not South African citizens. One needs to look at that category as well. For somebody who did not want to become a citizen for various reasons but was prepared to do national service and his duty in that regard but could not do so, to be told five or six years later that he should do so, is rather harsh.

Another aspect that is somewhat of an anomaly is the fact that women who are aliens will, as I understand it, also automatically become citizens in terms of this Bill, but they will not have the obligation of military service. I would be interested in the hon the Minister’s comment why, if this is oriented entirely towards military service, women fall within the ambit of this Bill and not only men.

There is a last group I should like to mention which contrasts interestingly with these female aliens who are going to become citizens without any obligations of national service. I refer to the group of aliens between the ages of 25 and 55. They are not going to become South African citizens automatically, although South African men in that age group can be and sometimes are called up for commando service, even though they have not done basic training. So we have the anomaly of on the one hand women becoming South African citizens merely because of their age while men and women who happen to be older than 25 and could possibly have military obligations do not become South African citizens. I accept that the whole matter is a very complex one. I am not suggesting that the answers to all the problems and anomalies I have raised are easy ones, but I would be interested in the hon the Minister’s comments in this regard.

Mr Speaker, at the very outset let me thank hon members who participated in the debate for their support, whether full or partial.

The hon member for Green Point rightly said that citizenship should not be forced upon people. That has been the Government’s standpoint for a long time now. In fact, from my young days NP congresses have regularly considered the draft resolution that immigrants be forced to accept citizenship. Throughout the years the Government has refused that request because we basically and primarily adopt the stand point that citizenship should not be forced upon people. Nor are we doing so with this Bill. There are two grounds for saying this. The first and most important is that people have a choice that can be exercised within a period of six months. The second is that when it comes to obtaining citizenship the period of residence must be brought into line with the period of residence applicable to persons other than those falling in the category of young people. What we are, in fact, doing is amending the procedure involved in obtaining citizenship. A child, a young person, boy or girl, who has been here for a period of five years need not go through the laborious procedure to which the hon member referred in order to obtain citizenship, since such citizenship is obtained automatically. They do, however, have six months in which they, in consultation with their parents, can decide to accept it or not. I think there are good grounds for this distinction, besides the main objective relating to the question of national service. A young person who has been living here for a period of five years still has virtually his whole life ahead of him. There is nothing to check up on in such a child’s life. One does not need to determine whether he is bilingual. After having attended school here for a period of five years, after having watched our television programmes and after having been part of our community life, he ought to be bilingual. The approach in determining whether a young person is acceptable for citizenship is therefore different to that in the case of someone who spent his youth, a large part of his life, in another country before coming to South Africa. I therefore think there is justification, broadly speaking, for another approach to how a young person who wants to spend his future years here should obtain South African citizenship in contrast to someone who actually has firm ties elsewhere and now, by an act of will, is deciding to ask for citizenship of this country. I do see some justification for this distinction. They are consequently not being compelled to accept citizenship. They are, however, being forced to choose. They exercise the choice, not by filling in a form, but by saying that they accept or do not accept what they are being offered. It remains an act of will that must be exercised before citizenship is finalized.

The hon member referred to the question of international law. Both the hon member for Wynberg and the hon member for Cape Town Gardens also asked certain questions about volunteers who had done military service. I cannot, on behalf of the Defence Force or on behalf of the Minister of Defence, state the official standpoint of the Department of Defence—I would then be exceeding my limits—but the fundamental reason why other avenues are not employed, for example those to which the hon member for Wynberg referred, relates in point of fact to the question of international law. We decided that the only sound and truly justifiable basis for compulsory military service lay in citizenship. The war we are conducting, and the military campaigns we may be involved in from time to time, do not in all quarters meet with international approval, and we must therefore be doubly careful that we do not, on the basis of constitutional or international law, expose those who participate to anything reflecting upon their country of origin, action against family members or action on any other grounds. All kinds of delicate aspects are involved. Although there may perhaps be exceptions, although it may be done differently in other countries, we must ensure that the action we take is completely in accord with international law. We believe it to be in the best interests of those whom we thus allow to participate in the defence of South Africa and compel to participate in the defence of South Africa. This also presents such a person with a choice about whether, in his acceptance of South Africa as his fatherland, he also wants to accept his obligation towards the country, or whether he would rather not make South Africa his fatherland, thereby side-stepping the obligation of helping to defend his country. The actual grounds are fundamentally to be found in the principle of international law, and that is why, in consultation with the Department of Defence, we decided rather to make citizenship the basis for compulsory participation.

Two hon members asked a question about the position of someone who had voluntarily done national service. That would be a question of how this legislation detailed the obligations involved in national service and would fall under the Department of Defence. I do, however, without any consultation with that department, want to give the assurance, on behalf of the Government, that we are certainly not going to penalize the volunteer in the sense of treating him any differently to anyone who, like the volunteer, also did his national service. That seems to me to be a logical approach. We greatly appreciate what volunteers in the Defence Force and other security organizations are doing. Inevitably voluntary service is always the result of the clear and unsullied motives. Hence our great appreciation for volunteers, and I want to give the assurance that volunteers will not be penalized on technical grounds. I shall also convey the problem, as stated here, to my colleague, with the request that he prepare himself and address the problem so that he can, on behalf of the Defence Force, give a clear and unequivocal answer to this question when his Vote is discussed.

Both the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and another hon member pointed out that young women are also being included in this legislation. Yes, that is indeed the case. In my Second Reading speech I said that although its primary objective was to regulate national service by young male immigrants, when considering the formulation of this Bill we decide to include young women as well. We came to this decision because we were of the opinion that it was a good thing for all young people, after having lived in the country for five years, to have to become part of South Africa’s future by adopting citizenship, or if they do not want to, and yet still want to remain here, rather to request residence here on a temporary basis, ie without the right to permanent residence.

It is true—for the reasons I have outlined—that granting citizenship to young people has a different complexion to that granted to people who have spent a large portion of their lives and have had their training elsewhere. Let us look at a few of the rights arising out of a young person’s permanent residence in South Africa. In the first instance he has the right to study at heavily subsidized tertiary institutions. If he does not have permanent residence, he must apply for temporary residence for study purposes, and only in exceptional cases is this granted. A young person permanently resident in South Africa also has the right to study at a technikon, an institution which is also heavily subsidized. To train a young person today involves the country, in which he is undergoing his training, in a large investment, and I therefore think it only fair and just that young people who, on the basis of their intention to remain here permanently, lay claim to training and to everything South Africa offers them, should declare themselves willing to comply with the requirements of this Bill and obtain citizenship or, regardless of their sex, exercise a choice and decide and adopt another course.

The hon member for Green Point referred to the question of military service and the greater obligations subsequently imposed. The answer to this is the same as than given to the hon member for Wynberg, ie that I accept that someone who has done his national service will be judged according to the rules that applied at that stage. We are not going to impose great obligations on a child, merely because he is an immigrant, than we would impose on his counterpart, a South African-born citizen who initially did national service with him. I therefore do not envisage any additional obligations, but rather a balancing out of the situation; in other words that we shall make the same demands of people who have done the same degree of national service. I shall ask my colleague to discuss that in more detail with the hon member.

I should like to thank the hon member for Turffontein sincerely for his contribution. He has obviously made a very thorough study of the Bill. His detailed additional information was illuminating and undoubtedly helped hon members towards a better understanding of the legislation.

To the hon member for Brakpan I say thank you for his constructive contribution. I agree with him when he says that a measure such as this will not discourage immigration to South Africa. He contends that this statement has been proved, and I support him in that. The facts the hon member quoted do, in fact, go to prove the validity of this statement. I do, in fact, believe that this is the case, specifically because the legislation is inherently fair. It is fair because it allows everyone a choice. No one is being forced, against his will, to accept citizenship and the concomitant obligations of national service, amongst other things. The hon member objected to the publication of names on a quarterly basis, as provided for in previous legislation, being stopped, and also quoted the motivation of one of my predecessors in support of his argument. I want to say two things about this. Firstly, that predecessor of mine did not, at the time, yet have the benefit of being able to determine empirically whether use was really being made of this. Our impression, after concerted efforts to determine this in a scientific manner— although we did not send out questionnaires or anything like that—is that this is not something in which people are fundamentally interested. That was, in fact, the experience we gained in the Department of Internal Affairs. It seems as if we are here furnishing a service that is not regarded as such by those for whom it is intended.

Secondly we are, of course, living in an era of rationalization. If one just sees how the Public Service is being dealt with and how Government departments are being reorganized, it is clear that we are in a period of rationalization. One facet that should, in my view, be rationalized—and I do not want to refer now to other hon Ministers’ departments—is of course the Gazette. I think we must give very serious attention to this. The Gazette is a very costly undertaking, and I think that we must very thoroughly and rationally determine what we are to publish in the Gazette, what ought to be published in that Gazette. What can we make known by methods other than publication in the Gazette? In what areas can we, for example, shift the onus? How can we continue to ensure that the required information is available, whilst at the same time shifting the onus so that those who want the information must ask for it instead of having it forced down their throats, with only one of every 3 000 people or perhaps one out of every 10 000 of 20 000 people, really taking note of it? Is it really necessary for us to publish pages and pages full of information that really does not meet the criteria of what it is essential for the public to take note of? We as a department regard this as the rationalization of information that ought to be published. I would therefore like to give the hon member the assurance that if we are proved wrong, and enquiries are received proving the need for a return to the status quo, we shall develop methods for making information of that nature readily available. If we were to come to the conclusion that the only practical method involved publication in the Gazette, we would certainly ask for more authorization to do it in this way. If a need does come to light, however, I think there are cheaper and more efficient methods of making this information available than publication on a quarterly basis in the Gazette. I therefore want to ask the hon member to reconsider his part’s position in this connection. There are no ulterior motives behind this. It is merely a question of economy, greater efficiency and more effective streamlining. Our experience does, after all, indicate that in this case this is, in fact, the right and proper thing to do.

The hon member Mr Schutte argued in favour of broadening this principle now being implemented in regard to young people even further. I think I have already replied to him indirectly. He did, however, refer specifically to young people with study permits, asking whether it should not apply to them as well. A young person only needs a study permit, however, if he does not have a right to permanent residence in South Africa. I therefore believe that it would be an extremely drastic measure to penalize someone, which one is specifically allowing to be here for the purpose of reaching an interim objective, in other words, allowing him to spend a number of years here on a limited basis, merely because he has been allowed to be here. The fact of the matter is that we do not grant study permits indiscriminately; we do things on a fairly selective basis, on the basis of well-developed norms. Besides, this benefit is not all that readily available to everyone. I therefore think it would indeed be going a bit too far if one exposed these people to something like that. So as far as this is concerned, I cannot agree to what the hon member has asked, unless he could perhaps persuade me in a more convincing manner, in which case I would be willing to listen to him.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his support and for his interesting contribution to this debate. The hon member pleaded specifically for an extension of the principle and the practice that will now be brought into being for young people to adult immigrants as well. As I have already said, there is to my mind room for differentiation in this regard between adults and young people. I think that a person who has already been trained in another country and who applies to become a permanent resident of South Africa, who changes his whole life and comes here for specific reasons and whom we allow to stay in the country because we need him because he already has the sort of training that we require and because he will fill a vacancy that we cannot fill—this is the basis of our policy when we decide to say either yes or no with regard to an application for permanent residence—is in a different position to the position of a young man or woman who in most cases began by going to school in South Africa, a young person who is here and who is participating without contributing anything special to South Africa. To my mind such a person shares the future of South Africa and, as such, must be brought into the mainstream immediately as a full citizen.

Parents, however, find themselves in a different position because of the way in which they came to this country and because, quite often, of vested interests in their countries of origin to which the hon member also referred. In this regard I also want to ask, together with the hon member for Green Point, whether, even if we do apply these principles, this would be regarded by the countries referred to by the hon member as an action in regard to which there was not also some sort of deed on the part of the prospective citizen. The hon member for Umbilo argued that it would help some immigrants if we applied this provision to them because their countries of origin would, in such an event, differentiate between a person receiving citizenship in terms of a provision similar to that contained in this Bill and a person applying for citizenship voluntarily. I would argue that because of the six month choice involved it is still a voluntary act if a person becomes a citizen in terms of this provision. Therefore, I do not think that that distinction is applicable in this case.

*I want to thank the hon member for Caledon and the hon member Dr Pieterse for their contributions. The hon member Dr Pieterse brought a very interesting perspective to bear on citizenship. His contribution attested to thorough research and preparation and we want to thank him very much for his discussion of a facet of citizenship that really makes a person think.

I now come to the hon member for Wynberg. I have already tried to answer some of his questions, but towards the end of his speech he made one point that astonished me somewhat. If I heard him correctly, what he said was that we must ensure that all South African citizens can be proud of their citizenship, including these young immigrants that obtain citizenship in this manner. I agree with the hon member. One must be able to take pride in your citizenship. If, however, he was intimating—and I think that was indeed the case—that that is not possible at the moment, I do not think it is a statement one can simply allow to pass.

Criticize me on what I said; not on what you think I said.

Why does the hon member think it necessary to refer to a situation which, in his opinion—otherwise I cannot understand why he made the point— does not give one any justifiable reason, at present, to be proud of one’s citizenship? Interjections.] The hon member referred to non-Whites without motivating that reference. The hon member spoke of non-Whites who were not citizens. I do not know what non-Whites he was speaking about. One is either a South African citizen or one is not.

Oh, come on now!

The hon member must not say “Oh, come on now”; that is something I could say to him. What does the hon member have in mind when he speaks of non-Whites who are not citizens? Every inhabitant of South Africa who was born here and is not a citizen of another country is a citizen of the Republic of South Africa. Of whom is the hon member speaking?

I am speaking of those who do not have the same rights as the new White citizens.

But that has nothing to do with the citizenship. [Interjections.] The hon member is free to go and read his Hansard. He spoke of non-Whites who did not have citizenship. The hon member was therefore trying to create a picture of a lot of stateless people in South Africa hovering around here in some strange fashion. The difference between that hon member and his party and us lies in the question of how each citizen’s political rights must develop and within what constitutional framework his political rights must come to full maturity. [Interjections.] We do not, in point of fact, have any disagreement about some people not yet having full political rights, in the sense of having the franchise, and so on and so forth, on the same basis as the Whites have. We have no fundamental disagreement about that, and we argue about that in other debates.

Then what do we disagree about?

We disagree about the hon member having suggested—he would do well to go and read his Hansard—that South Africa, as it is at present, gives South African citizens reason not to be proud of their own citizenship. If the hon member wants to imply that I have misunderstood him let me ask him to express himself more succinctly in future, because his suggestion would have given anyone who had listened to him objectively, and without any ulterior motives, a clear and logical reason to have made such a deduction.

†I come now to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens who asked a number of specific questions. Since he is now not in the Chamber I wonder whether I should take the time of the House to reply to him in detail.

He was here when you referred to him earlier.

Well, then I take it that he does not regard the other question as all that important. Nonetheless he can come back to those questions in the Committee Stage because I should like to answer him in his presence.

He is talking to one of your colleagues.

I am not holding his absence at the moment against him. I shall give him a reply during the Committee Stage or during the Third Reading debate when he is present.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill contains proposals that are chiefly aimed at stepping up control of aliens in the Republic. In the course of my speech I shall try to elucidate the clauses in question but at this point I should like to take the opportunity to refer to reports that have appeared in the Press recently. It is alleged that this Bill is aimed at the citizens of the TBVC countries. However, I should like to stress that the legislation on aliens and immigration as it stands in the Statute Book at present has always been applicable to aliens from all independent countries. In so far as that legislation applies to aliens from the TBVC countries it will remain applicable to them and to the same extent, notwithstanding the proposals embodied in this amending Bill. There are still, however, other special measures, arising out of agreements and in terms of other legislation, in terms of which the flow of citizens between those States and the Republic is regulated. Until such time as those measures and agreements are amended, that will continue to be the position. In drawing up and preparing this legislation it is not the intention to change this situation. The amending proposals are solely concerned with the overhauling of alien control in the established sense of the word.

To come back to the Bill I wish to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the penal provisions in the laws to which the amending proposals refer have been reviewed. This has been done, on the one hand, to keep pace with the drop in the value of money and, on the other hand, to combat certain offences more effectively by way of severer penalties that may be imposed by the courts. The review of the penal provisions has also meant that those measures in terms of which imprisonment without the option of a fine is prescribed have been adjusted, in accordance with the modern approach to punishment, to allow the court a discretion to specify a fine as an alternative to imprisonment in meting out punishment. In this regard I refer hon member to clauses 2, 8(b), 11(a), 19, 25, 28, 29, 35 and 37(b) of the Bill.

†Mr Speaker, effective control over aliens is necessary not only to ensure that only those persons who could be an asset to this country be allowed to take up permanent residence in the Republic but also to prevent persons from entering or staying in this country whose presence could be detrimental to the safety, the morals or the common welfare of our people. It also goes without saying that measures to prevent aliens from circumventing our inherent right to decide who may enter and remain in this country, whether the intended sojourn is permanent or temporary, are not only necessary but should also be as strict as possible.

*At present the Aliens Act, 1937, provides that aliens must be in possession of temporary permits in order to enter the Republic and reside here temporarily. The permit is issued for the purposes and periods, and subject to the conditions, specified therein. For some time now it has been found necessary in issuing the permits to levy deposits or call for guarantees in appropriate cases in order to ensure that the conditions specified in the permits are complied with. It is now being proposed in clause 1 that a deposit may be required from a person in order to compel his compliance with the conditions of the permit. Therefore this proposal will give legal effect to what is already being done. Such a deposit, which is forfeited if the person fails to comply with the conditions of his admission, is a means of ensuring compliance with the conditions. Of course, requiring deposits from aliens is not a new principle. There are several provisions authorizing this in the Acts under review and the Bill also contains provisions in terms of which the deposits which may be levied, may be increased in order to keep pace with the dwindling value of money. In this regard I refer hon members to clauses 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 30.

†Mr Speaker, section 5ter (1) of the Aliens Act, 1937, prohibits persons from employing any alien who is illegally in the country, or from entering into an agreement with such an alien for the conduct of any business, or from harbouring such a person. However, those restrictions are considered to be inadequate and, consequently, it is proposed in clause 3 that the carrying on of any profession or occupation with an alien without legal residential status, or the assisting, enabling or helping of such an alien in the conduct of a business or the carrying on of a profession or occupation, also be prohibited. Furthermore, it is also proposed in this clause that no one shall let or sell or in any manner make available fixed property to an alien in a part of the country where he is not allowed to be. This proposed measure will discourage aliens from remaining and doing business or working in the Republic illegally. But then also, Mr Speaker, it is of the utmost importance that our own people should co-operate in our efforts to prevent aliens from circumventing our alien control measures. The proposals in clause 3 will also encourage that co-operation. Hence, it was also deemed fit to propose in clause 4 that employers can be compelled to furnish the Director-General, at his request, with information regarding all employees in their service who are aliens.

There is also a proposal in clause 37 that will make it a criminal offence to be in possession of stamps, instruments or forms which are used or capable of being used for the purpose of fabricating or falsifying or unlawfully recording on any document any endorsement regarding the admission to, sojourn in or departure from the Republic.

*Mr Speaker, as the laws on control of aliens stand at present, an alien’s right of residence or exemption in terms of the Act from which he derives a right of residence does not elapse by passage of time while he is absent beyond the borders of the Republic, for however long he may stay away.

It is felt that this deficiency in the Act creates an undesirable state of affairs, particularly when such an alien loses contact with South Africa entirely while having in the interim accepted permanent residence elsewhere. Such an alien ought to forfeit his right or exemption if he is resident outside the Republic for a long period, unless the Minister, or an official authorized by him, decides otherwise. Accordingly the aim of clause 6 is, firstly, to insert a new section 8A in the Act to give effect to this idea.

It should be mentioned that the envisaged section 8A is based on section 17 of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, in terms of which a South African citizen by naturalization loses his South African citizenship due to extended absence.

It is also proposed in clause 6 that a new section 8B be inserted in the Aliens Act. 1937, which provides that a person who is removed from the Republic in terms of a statutory provision—for example due to having committed certain offences—loses any residential status he may have had in the Republic. What this amounts to is that if such a person wishes to re-enter the country he has to apply afresh for a permit for permanent or temporary residence.

Mr Speaker, due to the agreements that the Republic entered into with the TBVC countries on their independence it is necessary to adapt some of the existing measures to give effect to those agreements. In this regard I refer hon members to clauses 9, 10 and 24. In the first-mentioned clause the definition of “passport” is extended to include travel documents that may be used by citizens of the Republic and the TBVC countries for travel purposes, in accordance with an agreement concluded with those countries, and which cannot normally be described as travel documents, for example identity documents. In the latter two clauses it is proposed that the ports of entry which are mentioned in the agreements and which are not ports of entry for the purposes of section 2 of the Departure from the Union Regulation Act, 1955, and section 32 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, be given legal status.

†There are various measures in the Acts under review empowering the Minister, for instance, to grant exemptions, to order the removal of persons from the Republic, to cancel visas and to declare visas nul and void. These powers are, however, of such a nature that senior officials of the Department of Internal Affairs could exercise them. Consequently clauses 12, 29 and 31 contain proposals which will have the effect that the Minister can delegate particular powers to officials of the Department who must exercise the powers under his control and in accordance with his directions. This will lighten the burden of the Minister, and will also contribute to expediting matters.

*Due to rationalization and the need for better internal control of aliens it has become necessary to extend the categories of officers, officials and persons who may be appointed as passport control officers.

At present the Minister can only appoint an officer in the Public Service or a member of a category of officers in the Public Service or a person or category or persons in service of the SA Transport Services—more specifically, the Railways Police—as passport control officers. In clause 14A it is now being proposed that the Minister may also appoint certain other persons. Therefore it will be possible, for example, to appoint an officer of the local authority, too, as well as messengers of the court. In clause 14(b) it is further proposed that the Minister may provide that anyone belonging to a category of officers, employees or persons is an immigration officer for as long as he belongs to such category or until he is removed from office by the Minister.

In clause 41 it is proposed that the words “passport control officer” be substituted, wherever they occur, by the words “immigration officer”. The reason for this is that “passport control officers” were previously known as “immigration officers” but when a full-fledged department of immigration was established in 1961, confusion arose and the title was changed.

The amalgamation of the Department of Internal Affairs and Immigration has meant that there is no longer any reason to continue to apply this distinction. The English title “Immigration Officer” is internationally recognized and is more descriptive of the duties of a “Passport Control Officer”. Those persons who are at present entrusted with passport control have been consulted on the proposed change of name and they welcome it.

In terms of section 43 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, any person other than a South African citizen by birth or descent who has been convicted of any offence referred to in schedule 1A of the Act and who by reason of the circumstances of such offence is deemed by the Minister or an official to whom he has delegated his power to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic, may be removed from the Republic under a warrant.

In accordance with the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation—the Rabie Commission—all cases of deportation effected in terms of other laws should be effected in terms of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972. Other laws affected by the recommendations of the commission in question have already been adjusted but the necessary power still has to be specified in Act 59 of 1972. In clause 40 such an amendment is proposed and in addition, the power of the Minister of Justice to order deportations in terms of the Insolvency Act, 1936, is included in the schedule in question.

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, due to the length of the Bill it is not possible for me to explain the amendment proposals in full detail. However, I have tried to elucidate the most important clauses as far as possible and I am sure that hon members will agree with me that the amendments proposed in the Bill are essential for the purposes of overhauling and stepping up the control of aliens.

Mr Speaker, it is not unusual for a state to be careful as to who is to be admitted to its territory as an immigrant or even as a temporary resident. This is the case particularly when a State becomes a very popular destination for immigrants, due to factors such as exceptional scenic beauty, a wealth of natural resources, a relatively low population density and other factors. In such a country it is all the more important that the government should possess effective measures to keep an eye on and exercise effective control over the flow of aliens through or to its country. The need for such measures is of course increased when conditions bordering on chaos prevail in other states due to, say civil war, political violence, droughts and other natural disasters etc, with the result that an over-hasty exodus from such a country can often occur, and to a country where they are not necessarily welcome. Many of the more prosperous states have had experience of this in the past. The USA has encountered tremendous problems with illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central America. Cuba and other states in the region. There have even been problems with immigration in countries such as the Netherlands and Britain, where we know that it is often a political dispute rather than a real problem. Nevertheless, this is a problem to a degree. Needless to say, South Africa has not escaped the consequences of this phenomenon either. Therefore it is necesary that we, too, should have the legal power to deal effectively with the situation.

This of course presents a specific state with a major dilemma. On the one hand a state may be situated close to another state in which certain inhabitants or a specific group of inhabitants are being subjected for some reason to extremely traumatic conditions, for example persecution, discrimination—of whatever nature—and violence. These groups can take a variety of forms. They may be religious, political or race groups. They are subjected to circumstances such that the citizens of the country that have to receive them have sympathy for their miserable and untenable situation and are therefore prepared to accept them. However, there is another side to the matter. A state also has an obligation to its own citizens to preserve a standard of living which may have been built up by the hard work and good planning of the citizens of the country, to preserve a situation of relative order and security, or to keep intact, as far as possible, a situation of full employment. This situation can very easily be threatened by an uncontrolled influx of immigrants or even of oppressed inhabitants of a neighbouring state—in other words, the traditional refugee problem. Of course the various states have dealt with this dilemma in different ways, but I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that this has often led to a very ticklish political situation.

In general—and this has been proved in this House in various debates—the PFP is sympathetically inclined towards the creation of legislation which makes it possible to deal effectively, but also reasonably, with the question of the admission of immigrants and aliens. For example, on several previous occasions we have lent our support to Bills that have often contained very stringent provisions relating to illegal immigrants. For example, in debates on the Internal Affairs Vote we mentioned persons who in our opinion should not have been admitted to the country. Moreover, we have also on occasion placed questions on the Question Paper relating to cases in which we have believed exceptions had been made when they should rather not have been made.

†The issue of citizenship and the status of an alien has in South Africa acquired a new dimension, and this is clearly the result of the application of the policy of separate development, or grand apartheid if you will and the conferring of independence on states which were formerly part of South Africa. The result of this was that several million Black South Africans were deprived of their South African citizenship and put in a position where they were aliens in the country of their birth. This incidentally appears to be a fact that has escaped the attention of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs judging from comments he made earlier in another debate. Questions raised and fears expressed at the time about this issue and the effects it was going to have on the lives of those people were, I think, possibly posed in an atmosphere of theoretical debate, and were sometimes rejected and discarded as being excessively academic and therefore not worthy of the serious consideration of the Government or even the serious consideration of the people who are represented in this House. However, subsequent events have proved that this is not a theoretical or academic matter at all. A couple of years ago—I think it is well known by now—legislation that was traditionally applied only to aliens, to undesirable immigrants in the classic and the commonly understood sense of the word, was used against people who were South Africans who had been born and bred in this country and who had grown up in this country. By virtue of legislation passed in this House and by virtue of the policy of the Government, they were deprived of their South African citizenship and given the citizenship of another state merely on the grounds that they happened to speak a particular language commonly used by Black people. I think therefore that it is perfectly understandable that there was quite a furore in the Press and in other circles when this Bill was first published. It is also understandable that fears were expressed that this was possibly just a new form of influx control.

I admit that to an extent it may possibly not have been the intention of the Department of Internal Affairs the deal with the situation at all. I am very happy to accept that, but that kind of assurance is not worth anything as the recent past has in fact shown.