Mr Chairman, the proposed amendment of the Constitution seeks to simplify and in so doing make more efficient, the method whereby boundaries of electoral divisions shall be indicated by delimitation commissions.

The present procedure is that a delimitation commission has to indicate the boundaries of electoral divisions on a map and in addition has to prepare a complete description of the boundaries. This is a task of enormous magnitude which demands a high level of technical expertise. Furthermore it is a very time-consuming task because the descriptions have to be drawn up in great detail by the office of the Surveyor General. Therefore the publication of a delimitation commission’s report is substantially delayed in practice by the requirement that complete boundary descriptions must form part of the report.

Therefore the question that arose was whether the magnitude of the task of supplying boundary descriptions was justified by the need for such descriptions. In practice political parties and other persons involved show little concern for the boundary descriptions and rely almost exclusively on maps. Experience also teaches us that the maps are quite clear enough to determine the boundaries of electoral divisions beyond any doubt.

†In view of these practical circumstances it is proposed in clause 1(a) of the amending Bill that the mandatory submission by the delimitation commission of a description of the boundaries of each electoral division be eliminated. Instead it is proposed that the delimitation commission should have a discretion to provide such description of boundaries only in those cases where it is deemed necessary. In those cases where doubt could exist in practice as to the actual boundaries of an electoral division, the delimitation commission would therefore still be in a position to add a full description to its report. This amendment will ensure a less cumbersome and at the same time a more flexible and effective procedure to be followed when electoral divisions are to be delimited.

Since as a result of this proposal the report of the delimitation commission will, as I have explained, contain either only a few descriptions of boundaries or none at all, the present elaborate provisions regarding discrepancies between the maps and the description may also fall away. This is provided for in clause 1 (c) and (d).

Lastly, it is proposed in clause 1 (c) that copies of the maps, on which the boundaries of electoral divisions appear as determined and certified by the delimitation commission, will be kept in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, since he is already in charge of electoral matters. In terms of the Electoral Act the Chief Electoral Officer is deemed to be the proper functionary to take care of the maps.

The question as to the availability of the maps to political parties and other interested groups will, as at present, be dealt with by making copies available for public inspection at the offices of the regional representatives of the Department of Home Affairs. This has not posed any insurmountable problems in the past and I have no reason to believe that the amendment will change that in future.

*The passing of the amending Bill will entail that unnecessary waste of time can be avoided without forfeiting any legal certainty.

I should like to ask hon members to continue the unanimity on this issue which was achieved on in the joint committee and to approve of this legislation accordingly.

Mr Chairman, it does not happen every day that I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister.

This amending Bill is basically a corrective one.

†It is basically only technical. We dealt with the details at committee level. I was really only going to repeat what the hon the Deputy Minister has already stated.

We have no particular problems with this amending Bill. I think it is an improvement on the existing legislation, and therefore we cannot but support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, after the speeches made by the two hon Deputy Ministers only one thing remains for me to say, and that is amen and sela. We support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, in supporting the amendments in this Bill, I wish to draw the attention of hon members to the decision which was reached, namely that once these maps are drawn, they will be available at all regional offices of the Department of Home Affairs. Political parties and those who are interested will therefore be able to have easy access to the maps. The maps will now be the main basis for the identification of electoral divisions rather than descriptions. We have agreed on this and I know the hon the Minister has agreed that these maps will be made available at all offices of the Department of Home Affairs.

There is one request I would like to make and I want to use this opportunity to do so. Political parties do receive maps at the moment but these maps are very big and they become cumbersome to walk with, so I would like to ask the hon the Minister to make smaller maps with the boundary descriptions available to the political parties once this Bill has been passed.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we are dealing here with the Constitution Fourth Amendment Bill. It is a short Bill, consisting of only two clauses.

This Bill seeks to effect certain amendments, specifically to section 50 of the Constitution of South Africa, No 110 of 1983. Section 50 of the Constitution deals with the powers and duties of a delimitation commission. This Bill seeks in the first place—through the amendment of the existing section 50(1)(a)—to accord a delimitation commission the discretion of submitting a description of those boundaries in addition to the map on which the boundaries of electoral divisions are indicated.

As a result there is now a consequential amendment as regards section 50(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, in terms of which the State President shall from now on make known only the names of electoral divisions, as they have been finally determined, on maps by way of proclamation in the Government Gazette.

It would therefore appear to be superfluous to give boundary descriptions in cases where the map is sufficiently clear.

Finally, provision is being made for the filing of the certified maps at the office of the chief electoral officer. This procedure will make the work of future delimitation commissions a lot easier and will help them complete their activities.

It is a pity that this measure was not put forward much earlier. Then we might have had a delimitation in terms of these amendments for the coming general election.

The CP gladly supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to support this Bill on the grounds that it makes provision for a reasonable and rational streamlining of the work of a delimitation commission. Clear and unequivocal maps are adequate without lengthy descriptions of the limits of a constituency in order to identify beyond doubt the exact extent of such an electoral division.

In any case, few of us in the political fraternity really study the written descriptions of the constituencies we are interested in. The descriptions have to be studied in conjunction with the maps as references or vice versa. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, everything that can be said about this Bill has already been said. This measure is long overdue but it is a positive step and my party will always support anything that is positive.

Mr Chairman, we in the DP benches will support this measure. It is actually a Bill of a very practical nature. In practice, very few people read the Government Gazette which describes verbally the boundaries of the constituencies, although this was finite in the past in terms of the law.

At this stage, however, and in view of the fact that we are supporting this Bill and giving the Government a mandate to proceed, we would urge them to pay special attention to the number of maps and the venues at which these maps can be made available. As there will not be a Government Gazette to which one can refer, one will have to rely on maps. The maps will certainly have to be distributed down to regional level by the Department of Home Affairs.

We would also like to urge that some attempt be made to find suitable maps in respect of certain constituencies, so that there can be no ambiguity as to where the constituents are registered to vote.

With these comments we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, everything happened so quickly that I thought there were more speakers. I have been informed that this is the first measure in terms of which the Constitution is being amended and which is being adopted unanimously by Parliament.[Interjections.] I thank hon members for the great unanimity which prevails here so early in the afternoon and for the peace which has broken out, as it were.

†I would like to refer to a point that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates and the hon member for Sea Point raised in connection with the availability of the maps. I was told that the joint committee had made an amendment to the original Bill which provided that the maps be available at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and not at the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I think this was a proper amendment and through this provision, of course, the maps can be made available at the regional offices of the Chief Electoral Officer.

*I think this matter is important and with reference to the request made by the hon member for Sea Point, I gladly undertake to convey the request to the Department of Home Affairs so that they can ensure that the regional offices have these maps readily available at suitable places. I shall ask them to ensure that these maps will be available to the extent that copies will be obtainable.

I do not think the purpose of the maps is to go any further than merely to determine the borders. After all, that is the function of the maps and I believe it would be sufficient to convey this request to the Department of Home Affairs to ensure that they are readily available at the regional offices. I undertake to convey this to them.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I am under no illusion that the discussion of this Bill will take place in just as peaceful an atmosphere as the one which the committee has just disposed of.

†In elevated literary circles Omar Khayyam is probably not the most frequently quoted poet in history. However, I believe that at certain moments his verses can help to place events in a more tranquil perspective. Now is indeed such a moment for me, and Omar’s definition of life is such a verse, which I would like to read:

Since this is the last piece of legislation I will introduce into this House, hon members will understand that I stand here with mixed feelings. It is only human for those living and those leading at one particular point in time to think that their own time is one of great moment, of great danger and of great challenge.

It is right and it is good that this should be so, for this is how men and women become responsible and become involved in the affairs of the community and in the affairs of their country. But for the sake of humility, we who are involved in politics, should now and then pause to look back at the political history of our country, and indeed of mankind.

The known political history of mankind is but a few thousand years old. The known political history of Southern Africa is only a few hundred years old, and then only partly for most of that time. Nowhere in the political history of the world—or for that matter in the history of our own country—is there to be found a moment which was not one of danger and one of challenge for the people living at that time.

What is clear is that the story of the political history of mankind is a story of continuous growth and of change. What is indeed significant is not that change was and is inevitable, but that growth more often than not continued in spite of, rather than because of, the intervention of history’s remembered political leaders. It is probably more true to say that history makes men, than that men make history.

The greatest setbacks in the political growth of mankind occurred when able, clever, persuasive politicians interrupted the steady process of change by destructive fervour or, on the other extreme, obstructive obstinacy.

Less often found in history books are the names of that vast majority of reasonable people whose day-by-day concerned involvement helped to turn change into growth. Politically it is infinitely more spectacular to be destructive or obstructive than to be builders or to be constructive.

The Government and the political party in which I have grown to a position of leadership, and which I shall continue to support after I retire from active politics, have chosen the road of constructive political change and of political growth. We are persuaded that that is the road of progress, security and justice for all South Africans. To this end, the Government has made certain fundamental choices with far-reaching implications for itself, but also for the country and its people.

*The acceptance that partition or the division of land is not the final and total answer to the constitutional development of the Black communities in our country, has perforce led to the acceptance of the permanent presence of the Black communities outside self-governing territories and independent states, the acceptance of one common citizenship for all South Africans and of one undivided South Africa in which we should all be accommodated and will have to co-exist.

In accepting a distinctive democratic system for this society, the Government has accepted that all individuals and all communities, including the Black citizens of our country, should take part in the Government institutions and processes on all levels of government.

When the Government in its pursuit of the democratic objective accepted that, apart from own institutions, there should be central institutions in which all individuals and communities should be represented, it thereby accepted by implication that there should eventually be a joint central executive and legislative authority.

In accepting the democratic objective and system the Government has also accepted that it should be established in a democratic way. When the Government chose this option, it has thus also opted for a process of negotiation and for negotiated solutions.

The process of negotiation has been going on for decades in this country, but more specifically in my time we have started to stimulate and support the process of negotiation by means of actions to create the right climate. I maintain that we have succeeded in laying foundation stones for freedom, equivalence and a non-racial society. It is indeed a foundation on which to build democracy.

I also believe that we have succeeded in making the democratic ideal live in the hearts of most South Africans. I believe we have succeeded in making leaders of all communities demonstrate a marked commitment to the democratic ideal—in spite of great pressure and often fierce intimidation.

Therefore, negotiation could inter alia lead to the removal of various discriminating measures from the Statute Book of our country. It has also led to new approaches with regard to the reality of the existence of groups and the definition of groups in our society.

Negotiation also led to the 1983 Constitution, and at the same time triggered an ongoing process of the reappraisal of laws and regulations.

In a developing community and in a country with a multiplicity of cultures and groupings, where the traditional sector totally dominates the modern sector in numbers, an ongoing and incremental political development process is obviously the right thing. Last year it culminated in all three Houses’ acceptance of the Promotion of Constitutional Development Act. Hon members will perhaps remember that it was the first legislation to be accepted in a joint meeting of Parliament. This Act makes statutory provision for a council or a forum in which a new constitution can be researched and negotiated. Although the Act also provides for the participation of self-governing regional authorities, it is basically for the Black South African citizens outside the self-governing areas who are not yet accommodated at the highest level. Their participation in such a forum or council is of the utmost importance. I should like to believe that the Government would implement this Act and establish such an institution as soon as possible.

In a developing democratic constitution increasing representation in political institutions can be established in several ways. It can happen by means of direct elections, by means of indirect elections or by means of co-optation. Black South African citizens have already gained representation in several political institutions in one or other of these ways. In the governments of the self-governing territories, as well as in local authorities, there are directly elected representatives. In the regional services councils there are indirectly elected representatives. In the provincial executive committees there are co-opted representatives.

The Bill now under consideration by Parliament, removes restrictions on co-optation, in whatever way, in the central executive. It would be unreasonable to say that we are not prepared to support this legislation before a negotiating body has completed its job and has drafted a final constitution. We who are already members of Parliament, others who are Chief Ministers or Ministers, and members of legislative assemblies who are members of provincial executives, should not adopt the attitude that others should be denied similar opportunities.

We have become part of systems which we do not like. Nevertheless, we are here. Others have become part of institutions which they do not like, but still, they are there. We should not keep others out of similar or comparable systems because we do not like them. The step envisaged by this Bill is another step in the political process of growth which incrementally makes or can make it possible for all of us to have representatives at central government level. Therefore, in the final analysis, we should not judge this Bill in isolation. As I see it, it should be judged in the light of our common democratic ideal. I ask hon members to support this Bill so that we can have growth and progress on our way to the democratic ideal: A constitution which will be accepted by all because it has been negotiated by all. Our ideals will never be realised if we keep waiting for them to come true. Only positive action will make it possible for us to attain our ideals for the country. In fact, he who does nothing, has never achieved anything. He will not make any progress or break-throughs. Today I should like to tell hon members with great conviction that the citizens of this country are longing for progress and break-throughs. The Bill before us represents a further positive step on the road on which we have all set out.

I ask hon members for their support knowing that they would thereby grant others the same opportunity which they have had themselves and still have today. Let us support the Bill knowing that it is only a small and humble step in the long process which is lying ahead for us and the country. Let us also accept this piece of legislation since we can thereby keep moving ahead towards an ideal which is greater than all of us.

Mr Chairman, I have very little time at my disposal and I therefore do not intend to give a philosophical basis or argument for the adoption of a standpoint, as the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did. I will confine myself to the piece of legislation under discussion here.

However, I merely want to say that it was truly a sad day when this Government decided a few years ago summarily to abandon a road that had been the history of the people of this country for more than 300 years. Before they deserted this road they had the example of the wisdom which had resulted in a long period of relative peace in this country. Since the abandonment of that road, we have up to the present been in an almost continuous state of siege and our country is in a state of emergency.

In the first instance I want to look at the Bill before us and judge it with reference to a question asked in this regard in the joint committee, namely: Will the Black Ministers whose appointments are envisaged actually be full-fledged Ministers? Hon members in the House of Representatives then asked whether they would merely be Ministers with meaningless portfolios such as those offered to previous hon Ministers from other Houses. Will they not simply be Ministers without portfolios, with everything that that entails?

The hon the Minister answered this question frankly, saying that they would be full-fledged Ministers and Deputy Ministers with regard to general affairs in the Republic of South Africa. This therefore differs from what was envisaged for representatives in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. These people will therefore hold full-fledged positions from the first day they walk in here.

I still remember what the hon the State President said when he was asked why he did not appoint full-fledged Ministers from the ranks of the members of the House of Representatives and House of Delegates. He said they first had to acquire experience of the government. He said that once they had reached that stage they would be qualified to occupy such posts. It is therefore peculiar that after five years there are no such Ministers. The hon aspirant State President therefore has the privilege, in contrast to his predecessor, of deciding on these matters.

What is the meaning of the step being taken here? In the first instance the CP says that this is total contempt for the democracy. It is total contempt for the democratic political system of government which to a large extent we have known in this country up to now. Normally representatives who come here are democratically elected by the voters of a specific constituency. In that way such a person can join the legislative or executive authority and can serve as an elected member in the House of Assembly. That is why there is a provision in the Act that states that such a person, should he be appointed as a White Minister from outside of Parliament, shall obtain a seat within 12 months. This is fundamental to democracy. He must therefore also have a power base in the executive, which will be his power base. That base is being completely rejected in terms of this measure. A man is appointed irrespective of whether he is elected or not. By whom, we ask? After all, we are justified in asking. What flows from this? Who do those Black Ministers represent when they come here?

I contend that they definitely will not be representative of the Black people, because they will not have been elected by the Black people. They will quite simply have been appointed to an NP Cabinet to implement NP policy in that Cabinet.

This makes them the first Black supporters of the NP who will be taken up in the Cabinet directly, to govern Whites as Blacks without having had to sign formal NP membership cards.

I want to tell these hon MPs who are sitting here that they had better warn aspiring candidates who intend attempting to win seats here as members of their party. They had better take note that the competition is somewhat unequal should one want to become a Minister here. They will discover—as the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid will discover one of these days—that they will simply be removed from their posts. The competition is somewhat unequal now.

This actually makes a mockery of the NP’s criticism of the DP. The NP ridicules them for accepting people of other race groups and enrolling them as members. The NP on the other hand actually goes so far as to take someone and make him a member of the Cabinet. He need not even start at the bottom. Without further ado they are simply made members of the Cabinet. They then try to ridicule the DP when they accept such people in their ranks.

What are the reasons for this step? In the first instance this serves as further proof of a planned process of gradualism whereby the Whites are conditioned to accept being subjected to an alien power. We heard of something very disturbing during the joint committee discussions. We heard it from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He was asked why we were not progressing faster, and why more meaningful steps on the road to reform were not being taken. Why so slowly? It was then that we were given this disturbing answer. We were told that the Government would meet with opposition if they moved any faster. Who will oppose them? Obviously this will come from the ranks of the Whites. What this really means is that they cannot at this early stage tell the electorate exactly how far they want to go, for then the voters will discover it, and they will encounter opposition. For that reason they will not tell it to the voters at this stage.

I never said any such thing!

It is true. It is an indisputable fact. The statement is there in black and white. All hon members who took part in that joint committee know that that is what the hon the Minister said.

It is a pity that this is how matters stand with us. Indeed, this is the first step in the realisation of these very statements by the hon the Minister as well as the hon aspirant State President. Here is the first proof of that one mixed Cabinet which the hon Minister said he wanted to create.

The second reason for this step is apparently that the Government is under pressure. They are under pressure from the left, under pressure in their party and under pressure from abroad to show that something is really happening on the road of reform. When a national council was appointed, one of the purposes and objectives of the council was to devise methods to give Blacks interim participation in the processes of government until the Constitution had been drafted. This is one of the reasons why this national council is being appointed.

However, what is happening now? In reality it is being said that the national council is not really necessary and that the Government is going to intervene at this stage without giving that council an opportunity to make a contribution. The Government therefore has to take a drastic step, and they do not care whom they trample in the process. They do not care whether they trample democracy. They are powerful because they are in power. This is once again proof of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Corruption blooms in such a climate. When one despises total democracy and the values built around it, it is no good saying afterwards that one is fighting corruption. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is not often that I agree with the CP but the previous speaker, the hon member for Ermelo, certainly had a lot of truth to reveal. It is so, first of all, that we speak from personal experience. We also affirm that to claim that this departure is part of the process of democracy is certainly an insult to the whole system of democracy because the democratic process of representatives being elected by the people will not be practised.

However, one has to remind oneself of the past. When I was appointed to the Cabinet the question of a portfolio arose and I was one of those who said that I would not like to be in a portfolio because a portfolio within a NP-dominated Cabinet would mean that one was there to implement the policy of the NP which is the policy of apartheid. The question of portfolios therefore becomes irrelevant. It is rather the principle of a person serving under such circumstances that is relevant.

Before giving further thought to that matter I would like to say that despite our political differences, the period during which we have known the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has been one during which we certainly developed certain friendships and exchanged ideas. We give him credit for having devised, amongst other things, the process of participation in Parliament. However, whatever he tried to do, he had to do within the limitation of NP policy which, of course, like the policy of the CP, is impracticable. It is not acceptable to the majority of South Africans and the world at large and will certainly not be able to satisfy the constitutional demands of our time.

I must disagree with the hon the Minister when he speaks about the whole question of this being a step towards the realisation of a scientific democratic ideal. I think there is a conflict between the scientific explanation and the ideal and how we democratically get from the scientific examination of a situation to the implementation of that ideal. One of the problems with the NP is that it does not know where it is going. How can it then be a scientific, democratic ideal when the ideal has never been spelt out constitutionally for South Africans?

*We cannot talk of citizens of this country and their rights, and also of the appointment of Blacks at the highest level of citizenship, namely on the Cabinet, while the ordinary citizen of this country does not have the right to participate in the decision-making process. In this regard I agreed with the previous speaker that they must be present first and thereafter there must be representation at a higher level.

†The situation in which we find ourselves is a serious one and we cannot afford the luxury of dealing with trivialities, in a sense, and of running away from the real issues. We have said before that what we are looking for is real and meaningful constitutional development. However, while the majority of South Africans are not here, we are not moving towards that ideal.

I want to say that my party has had a broad discussion of various schools of thought, including people who represent various trains of thought in the Black South African community. The majority of these recognised leaders are against the implementation of what is proposed in this Bill. We also believe that to talk about representation at Cabinet level at this stage is mere tokenism and not meaningful at all. The principle is the representation of all people in all the democratic processes at all levels, and we therefore cannot start from that position.

I can also say that from my own experience I will not envy a person of colour serving on a Cabinet which is controlled by the NP Government in the sense that one has 18 persons against oneself in terms of matters related to development. Even if one exercises the right to differ with the Cabinet—as I did when I was there—and although that difference is noted in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting, the impression outside is always one of identification with the total Cabinet.

I remember when I differed on the question of the state of emergency. It was noted and it appeared in the minutes, but it was said that the Cabinet had agreed to the state of emergency. Any person who serves on the Cabinet is, by virtue of that, part of the decisions made. That is certainly a position which nobody will be able to tolerate. I believe that the perception outside is more important than the perception in terms of NP ideology. We have, as I said, consulted with recognised and accepted leaders and all are of the opinion that we cannot support such a move.

The hon the Minister used an illustration in terms of perceptions and movements. I am reminded that at one stage I had to remind the then South African Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, of the fact that we were merely pawns on the chessboard being moved according to the will and fancies of the people at the top.

His use of that image is certainly very illustrative of the situation in which such a man finds himself, namely that of being a pawn on the chequerboard. When we pause, look back and talk of obstructive obstinacy, then we also have to think in terms of destructive obstinacy, because we have been talking and pleading for five years. For five years we have been looking at progress in terms of the manifestation not only of security but of justice for all, and we have not seen that ideal being manifested or realised here.

I would also like to say at this particular juncture that while the hon the Minister is now leaving this portfolio, my party and many South Africans are very regretful about the new appointment that has been made because of what that person has done and the ideas that he has represented in the past.

*I wish to add that we must never become petty in our politics and in our deliberations. I would like to give an example of this “reproach” as it is called. One of my hon members wrote to the hon the Minister with regard to the necessary development and money that was needed for some project or other. The hon the Minister said in his reply that since the House of Representatives had rejected his Vote, he was not in a position to give assistance; the hon member would simply have to wait and see what was going to happen. [Interjections.] There is no room for that type of reproach in South African politics.

What must I do then?

The hon the Minister knows what he can do, and that is why we say this is reproach. Did the hon the Minister not learn enough in this portfolio to accept that criticism can really be exercised? On behalf of my party I want to say that we reject these proposals.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the statement of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that this piece of legislation which he introduced here today is his last. I want to place on record today that the hon the Minister played no insignificant part on the road of reform which the NP has chosen. The hon the Minister played no insignificant part in the NP’s acceptance of the harsh reality that total partition cannot work, and that solutions had to be found along other routes. The hon the Minister played no insignificant part as the architect of the several constitutional structures, one of which we are sitting in today, which came into being under his leadership.

One day, after time has afforded perspective, historians will write about this phase of the development of our country and do justice to the actual role played by the hon the Minister, Mr Chris Heunis. [Interjections.] We wish the hon the Minister everything of the best in his retirement and we trust that he will enjoy good health. I know that the hon the Minister is resigning now, but I also know that he will be unable to retire. We in the NP wish to give him the assurance that we who remain behind will carry on further along the path which he pioneered for us. We are very grateful to him. [Interjections.] If the hon the Leader of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives will be a little patient, I will come to him in a moment.

The hon member for Ermelo said here that this legislation violated democracy because a Minister need not have a seat. I hear that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives agrees. Montesquieu, in his doctrine Trias Politica, separates the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, but what is important is that this is included in the Constitutions of the USA and France. I want to ask the hon the Minister and the hon member whether they think the fact that a Minister need not be a member of Parliament in France and in the USA constitutes a violation of democracy. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and the hon member are wedded to the old Western system, the old English system. I can understand that of the hon the Minister, but I certainly cannot understand how that great Afrikaner can cling so tightly to the English system. I cannot understand that at all. What is important is that there must be control over what that Minister does, which can be by means of his budget, by means of legislation he introduces, and by means of public debate. It has often been said that the NP is bluffing with reform. It has often been said that we only talk, but with this legislation the NP and the Government are once again showing today that we are on the road of reform. [Interjections.] The NP admits that it is totally impossible to… [Interjections.] Those hon members can surely make their election speeches outside. We know that that is what they want to tell the people, but the fact that they are sitting here is proof of one of the biggest reform steps taken in this country and those hon members cannot wish it away. [Interjections.] In time we will handle the matter the way we are doing now.

But what about their rights?

The NP admits that it is totally impossible to move 15 million Black people to self-governing and national states in a peaceful way. We maintain that it is not only impossible to do this peacefully, we also say that it is impossible to do by means of violence, because the effect of that would be too terrible for our country.

[Inaudible.]

That is one of the reasons why we in the NP say that we recognise Black people as a permanent part of our country’s population. We admit further that all permanent inhabitants of a country have to get political rights in the country of which they are citizens. [Interjections.]

Hon members can now see why the CP does not want to accept Black people as permanent citizens of this country: Political rights will have to flow from this. Because they are afraid of dominance they would rather bury their heads in the sand and seek to escape through partition, which necessitates the removal of 15 million people from this country. That is the attitude of the hon members of the CP, instead of accepting the straightforward fact that the Black people are here and beginning to think creatively about how to accommodate Black people politically in our country.

The NP recognises the political rights of Black people, and if we recognise their political rights it means that it should be possible for them to take part at the highest level of executive authority, namely the Cabinet. This is what we are doing here today. [Interjections.]

The NP is trying to do three things by means of this legislation. In the first instance we want to tell the Black people that the NP is serious about the accommodation of their political rights. [Interjections.] This is a small start, but we sincerely wish to accommodate them. The second thing I want to say is addressed to the Whites in this country. They must come and take a look at this legislation and see that we are serious about reform.

[Inaudible.]

It is the only way to ensure the security of the Whites in this country.

Now you are telling the truth!

Thirdly, we want to say that this is an attempt to gain the direct advice of Black people. [Interjections.] How many misunderstandings have not arisen in this country as a result of the fact that we approach matters from different worlds. Here we now have an opportunity to talk to one another and to explain our cases to one another. [Interjections.]

Deep-seated differences exist between us and the DP. Both parties believe in reform, but our end product and the method whereby we want to achieve it, differ vastly. We do not want White domination, but we are not prepared to exchange it for Black domination. The DP is prepared to do so.

The methods we employ are also different. They want the total constitutional change to take place overnight. We say that constitutional reform is a process and its speed depends on several factors. I therefore understand that they will reject this Bill too, as it is not revolutionary, but a careful step of reform.

I also expect the question of co-option to be raised. This is a new political buzzword created by the leftist school of thought and therefore it had to be made a swearword immediately. I want to say today that co-option is an essential step in the reform process. It is not a swearword, because if one makes haste slowly one reaches one’s destination sooner. It is my privilege to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parow said that this Bill is designed to advance the political rights of the Black people—to bestow political rights upon them. I cannot understand by what stretch of the imagination this Bill does that.

The hon the Minister said that this would be the last piece of legislation that he would pilot through Parliament. We of the House of Delegates must say that the hon the Minister has made his contribution to the reform processes of the country. There is no doubt in our minds that he has contributed much. His leaving us at this stage, when more than ever before we need all the people of South Africa—himself included—to pilot the ship of state through the turbulent waters, is regrettable. By virtue of his experience in having brought us here, he could have been of much assistance. Be that as it may, he is not going to be here with us. We wish him well, and we thank him for all that he has done for the country up to now.

The enactment of this second amending Bill will enable the hon the Minister to appoint a Black person as a Minister or Deputy Minister. One can argue persuasively for such an enactment, and one could also argue against this Bill. The difficulty I have in supporting the desirability of this Bill is the fact that I am not convinced that there is a significant sector of the Black population who are indeed supportive of the provisions of this Bill. It would have been of assistance to me and to my party to have heard from leaders of the Black community, and more importantly from leaders who are representative of Black local government bodies. We would have liked to hear from persons such as Mr Tom Boya of UMSA, the United Municipalities of South Africa, from Mr Steve Kgame of the Urban Councils Association of South Africa, and any other provincial leaders reflecting the views of organisations such as the United Community Councils of Natal.

Whilst we may, from a personal standpoint, have no serious objections to the appointment of Black Ministers and/or deputies, there is this serious flaw that we have not heard officially from Black leaders from whose ranks such appointees would emerge. I have had unofficial discussions with Mr Tom Boya, and if I understood him correctly, UMSA is opposed to this Bill. Some will argue that this Bill will allow for token representation in Government by Blacks. They will also argue that the proposed Minister or Deputy Minister will not be accountable to a constituency or electorate, as are all provincial councillors at the moment. If I understood the hon the Minister correctly at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Black local government leaders are in fact supportive of this Bill. It would have been of assistance to us to have heard them express this view at the Joint Committee.

I understand from what the hon the Minister has already said that he is determined to see to it that this Bill is submitted to the President’s Council, after which it will be approved.

No, Sir.

Well, I understood the hon the Minister to say that the Bill would be taken to its logical conclusion. However, if he did not say that then I apologise for having misunderstood him.

My appeal is that if possible, this opportunity to hear Black leaders be afforded us so that we may be persuaded by them. The fact that Mr Tom Boya of UMSA has expelled executive members of UMSA for having participated in meetings of or the formation of the National Forum of Mr Philip Mhlapo is to me a significant pointer that there is a possible rejection of this Bill by the very people for whom it is designed.

It is not our intention to hinder the advancement of any community in our country. On the contrary, we advocate a full and direct participation by all peoples of our country in all the forums of our land.

Simply put, we view that which is offered in this Bill as far too little and far too late. What we should seek is a credible government of national unity where there is no domination by one minority over any other majority or minority. My party wishes to recall a plea that serious consideration should be given to a recommittal of this Bill to the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs for a much wider canvassing of opinions so that a measure of understanding may be arrived at.

We are of the view that a measure of this importance should not be imposed on the people for whom it is designed. Should there be a total rejection after the appointment is made, then repercussions may be damaging to further negotiations with people with whom the Government should have its lines of communication open.

We are also of the view that serious negotiations should be undertaken with all the relevant leaders of our country in order that an acceptable solution for constitutional reform can be found. By this we do not exclude leaders who are not within the borders of our country.

In the circumstances, therefore, we are not able to support this Bill but reiterate a plea that the Bill be withdrawn and sent back for further discussions and consultations. This must be done in a spirit of constructive political change.

Mr Chairman, as one who has served under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and in view of the fact that this is the last occasion on which he will be with us, may I say two things?

First of all I want to thank him for the courtesy which he has extended to me and, I believe, to other members of his committee during our period of service. Secondly, I wish him good health in his retirement or whatever else he is going to do.

I think it would be churlish of me on this occasion to try to evaluate the merits or otherwise of the hon the Minister’s stewardship of constitutional affairs. I have disagreed with him in the past and I will probably disagree with him again. I think on this occasion, on his retirement, it would be fair enough for me to say that I am quite prepared to let history be the arbiter as to whether the constitutional steps taken over the past five or six years have been plusses or minusses. I would presume that history will support my point of view, on which I remain silent. It could be, though, that the hon the Minister’s most important achievement was not in constitution building but in trying to educate his own party from within and in trying to move it away from the sterile processes of the past to something better in the future. Be that as it may, let me return to the Bill before us.

Let me make it quite clear that the DP would like to see the Black citizens of South Africa fully represented, not only in the Cabinet, but also in the Parliament of South Africa. That is quite fundamental as far as we are concerned. If this Bill were doing that, we would be supporting it. By this we mean we want to see them in Parliament and in the Cabinet as full citizens with a full vote under a constitution guaranteeing the fundamental rights and freedoms of all the people of South Africa. We say that without any reservation.

We have examined this Bill and we believe that it is a highly unsatisfactory compromise. There may be a time factor or there may be a pressure factor—I do not know. The fact is, however, that it is an unsatisfactory compromise which is a direct consequence of the Government’s failure or the Government’s inadequacy in including Blacks in the legislative decision-making process.

The hon the Minister will recall the glossy advertisements that appeared in, I think, January 1986 which proclaimed full rights for everybody in South Africa. I can recall that two years ago there was an election called for the House of Assembly and a mandate was obtained for the inclusion of Blacks not only in the executive but also in the legislative process.

Two years have elapsed, four years have elapsed and still this has not been achieved. Now the Government comes with a makeshift attempt to resolve a dilemma of its own making.

We in the DP benches would not like to talk down to or make decisions for the oppressed majority of people of South Africa. In spite of other objections that we might have had, we would have been inclined to support this Bill if we had been satisfied that the majority of Black South Africans and people of stature within the Black community were in favour of this Bill or that this Bill would assist in the constitution-building process. We have made some efforts over a number of years to establish this and we are quite satisfied that the significant majority of people, particularly those people representing constituencies within the Black community, do not want this measure. We do not believe that this measure is going to assist the process of constitution building.

The hon the Minister might indicate that there are some people who want this Bill and we shall concede that, but the Government has time and time again said that we must proceed to constitution building on the basis of consensus. If consensus has not been reached on this issue with the significant majority of Black leaders then, even on the basis of its own statement, this Government should desist from proceeding with this Bill.

It is our view that if the Government rushes ahead at this stage with a half-baked amendment to the Constitution, it will damage the process of constitution building.

If, in the present circumstances, Cabinet Ministers are invited to operate within the provisions of the present Constitution, their presence is likely to be a source of division and conflict rather than a source of reconciliation and unity.

I would like to explain to hon members the reason for our opposition to this Bill and in doing so I can only try to interpret the views that have been expressed to us. This Bill smacks of tokenism. People are to be invited in at the top but they do not have a power base down below.

Secondly, the Black people in this country want rights. They do not want handouts. It is a fundamental concept. They do not want to be told that we want to be generous to them. They want to have what they believe to be their rights as citizens of South Africa.

The third reason is that we believe that executive office at the highest level should be underpinned by a solid electoral support base. Having a support base for the executive is fundamental if there is going to be stability and representative government in South Africa.

Fourthly, a Cabinet office that is held within the framework of the apartheid structures is going to inject people into a system which we know they reject and which they want to scrap altogether. We do not believe that the significant majority of Black people want this and we do not believe that this Bill is going to help the process of constitution building.

As the hon the Minister will be aware, and quite apart from the racial considerations which I have dealt with, this Bill represents a fundamental departure from an important principle that is incorporated in the present Constitution and that has been incorporated in all constitutions of the Union since 1910, namely that Cabinet Ministers should have their power bases in Parliament and ipso facto that they should be an integral part of the electoral process in the country. That has been a fundamental principle through the years.

We can say that it is the Westminster system. The hon member for Parow spoke about the French or the American system but there the executive power is elected on a completely different basis. The President in the USA is elected by popular vote through an electoral college and in France he is elected on a run-off vote, so one cannot compare the systems with ours. In the context of our present system it is imperative that Cabinet Ministers should have a responsibility to the people. They should not only have a responsibility towards the Head of State.

In 1983—the hon the Minister will remember this—Parliament specifically turned down a request that Cabinet Ministers need not be members of Parliament. There was such a proposal before Parliament and it rejected that proposal. It said that they should be members of Parliament because by separating Cabinet Ministers from Parliament, they lose that power base and the restraint that there should be on their activities in terms of their behaviour and their mandate.

This Cabinet has awesome powers. It is not like the American Cabinet, which is subject to a whole range of checks and balances. It is only subject to the check of this Parliament. There are enough other procedures for checking on its powers. Given its awesome powers it is imperative that the members of the Executive should be subject to the restraining influence which comes from Parliamentary membership.

Every one of the hon members on the Government side will know what a restraining influence there is when one has to be a member of Parliament. There is the restraining influence of the political process and there is the restraining influence that comes from direct responsibility to an electorate. Those things are an essential part of our constitutional system.

I want the hon the Minister to explain why he is proceeding with this proposal at this stage. All the indications are there—I am hopeful about this—that we are at long last getting closer to the start of a process of real negotiation. Why anticipate that and go ahead with a measure which the hon the Minister knows will be divisive? He knows this is a measure on which he does not have consensus yet he is going ahead with a fundamental structural change in the Constitution without it being part of a total package.

It is “lappieswerk”; it is patchwork and I do not know why the hon the Minister is proceeding with it. Is it perhaps the heavy hand of Tuynhuys which wants to appoint a Black Cabinet Minister before 6 September in order to fulfill the mission regardless of its impact on South Africa? We ask the hon the Minister in all seriousness to withdraw this Bill. We ask the Government to think again; to realise that what is required is not a new definition of who can be a Cabinet Minister, but a new definition of who can be a voter. That is what we want. We want to know who can be voters in South Africa, not who can be Cabinet Ministers.

This makeshift patchwork legislation is going to do our Constitution no good. What is needed is a fundamental shift in the Government’s constitutional thinking so that power, authority, stature, dignity—everything that would go with higher office—are based on the exercise of the normal rights of citizenship by the people of our country.

We want to see security and stability in our society. However, security and stability are not achieved by superficial ad hoc measures of this kind. Security and stability must in the last resort rest on the will of the people and on the will of the voters. It cannot rest on the whim of the State President.

For these reasons we do not believe this measure is called for. We do not believe it is wanted even by the Black people of South Africa. We ask the Government to think again and to reintroduce constitutional discussions of a fundamental nature so that security and stability in this country can rest on the will of all the people who form it.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to speak after the hon member for Sea Point and I want to underline everything he said. It is a pity that my party and I have to oppose this last Bill the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is presenting to Parliament.

We believe that those Black people who are going to be appointed will be political appointees and as such it is obvious that political appointees will have to be loyal to whoever appointed them—in this case the NP. They will therefore perhaps have to give tacit approval to certain Government policies and the implementation thereof.

One cannot quarrel with one’s bread and butter.

That is correct.

†Apart from being tokenism, I think this whole Bill is more symbolic and it is unfortunate that it has to be presented at this stage when it cannot be accepted. It is not the appointment of Cabinet Ministers which is required by the majority of the people, but rather the Parliamentary franchise which must be given to the Black people.

The hon the Minister must not consider us obstinate or destructive. We are merely using the leverage—created by the hon the Minister’s department to get us here. We are now using that Parliamentary leverage to say to him that he must withdraw this Bill. It is not the ideal.

Perhaps he could try to come up with something else which will give the Black people in this country the franchise they need.

I want to pay tribute to the hon the Minister. He is the chief architect of the tricameral system. I want to pay tribute to him, particularly in the field of local government. I have had the honour of serving under his chairmanship in the coordinating council and I know about the good work that has been done there.

However, this particular measure dampens that. We have come a long way, but we cannot be seen, at this stage of the political life of this particular session of Parliament, to give approval to something which will be pushed through. People have not been consulted and the important factor here is that the Black majority must get a say in the highest decision-making authority. This piecemeal situation to pacify some aspirations from certain quarters is certainly not acceptable to us and therefore my party will not be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Parow, since it is the last legislation to be introduced by the hon the Minister in this House. I should also like to thank him for the strong leadership he has exercised over us in his capacity as Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning over many years. We on this side of the House wish him a well-earned rest and we wish him and his wife everything of the best for the future.

I believe the hon the Minister has made out a very strong case for this measure in his introductory speech today. The concept which he highlighted, and which struck me most, was the concept of “creating a climate”. This measure should simply be seen in the context of the creation of a climate.

†Mr Chairman, my submission is that it must be seen as a logical and necessary preparatory step, a scene-setter if you will, for continuing reform and for the bringing of more people of colour, specifically Black people who are currently excluded in many respects, into the executive structures of Government. I would submit that it has to be seen, not as tokenism, but rather in a positive sense as symbolic and indicative of a further step in the whole process of orderly reform in our country.

Much has been said today in a negative way about co-option, as if it is a dirty word. I would be able to agree with that attitude if, and only if, co-option were in fact seen as a destination. However, the fact of the matter is that it is common knowledge that we do not see this as a destination or a point of arrival, but as a point of departure. It is a means to an end, the end being a fair dispensation for all.

The fact of the matter is furthermore that there are respected leaders of the LP in this Parliament today who came here via the President’s Council, after a debate which raged in their own ranks about that body being a vehicle for co-option. Today they play a key role in our political life.

I therefore cannot concede that co-option is in itself intrinsically bad. In fact, in a process of incremental reform, it can play a positive role and for that reason I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the object of this amending Bill is to make provision for the appointment of Black Ministers and Black Deputy Ministers to the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa.

It is a very brief amending Bill, consisting of only three clauses, but hon members should not allow themselves to be misled by that. There is a very true saying to the effect that the strongest poison comes in the smallest bottles. By means of this amending Bill provision is now being made for Black Ministers and Black Deputy Ministers to be appointed, without their having a constituency or being members of Parliament. In other words, they are responsible to the hon the State President, who appoints them, and that is where it ends.

I now wish to put the following pertinent question to the hon the Minister with regard to this Bill: Will these Black Ministers be given general affairs portfolios? I am getting no answer from the hon the Minister.

I shall reply to you a little later.

The hon the Minister will reply to me a little later. We therefore take it that general portfolios will also be allocated to these Black Ministers. Of the NP only the name remains. Fortunately they have several sets of principles.

This Bill should undoubtedly be seen in the light of the announcement by the hon the State President on 21 April 1988 to the effect that Blacks should be given a say up to the highest executive level. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, too, assumed this at an earlier stage, when he said the following in response to the question whether Blacks would be included in the Cabinet. I quote from Hansard, 22 May 1987, col 370:

Now we have the latest pronouncement by the NP in this regard. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in Parliament on Friday, 5 May 1989, while explaining the policy of the NP, that South Africa was an undivided unitary state in which everyone—White, Black, Brown and Indian—would be represented in one Cabinet and one Parliament. It is almost unnecessary to say that the same NP totally rejected the inclusion of Black people together with the Whites in one political system. There are innumerable statements to prove this. Unfortunately the NP has become a party of convenient pragmatism. They find principles a little troublesome. They remind one, unfortunately, of a layabout. One can tell him he is useless and he will laugh about it, because he knows it is true, and in any case he is past caring.

It is now NP policy that there will be one Cabinet for all. This Bill is the first step towards making this possible. The point of departure of the NP is now one system in which all will govern together. The current tricameral Constitution was introduced by the NP to accommodate Whites, Coloureds and Indians, but of the Blacks it was said that no, they would be taking a different constitutional route. However we should have known on that occasion that that was not true either.

Let us take a look at just two pronouncements by NP leaders. The hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, said the following at an NP congress in 1977:

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is quoted and reported as follows in the Die Transvaler of 6 October 1982:

Subsequently various other statements by the NP followed. On 8 May 1989 this year, during the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote, I presented to hon members the standpoint of the President’s Council of 1982, as well as the pronouncements by that very hon Minister, as reported in Hansard of 1983, col 214-5. From these pronouncements emerged many arguments as to why Blacks should not or could not be included in one governmental system together with Whites, as is envisaged by this Bill in respect of the Cabinet. On that occasion the hon the Minister was apparently of the opinion that it was not necessary to reply to that. The hon the Minister ignored it.

I now again ask the hon the Minister the pointed question, with regard to those arguments he advanced, as to why it was not possible to include Black people in a single system together with the Whites. I trust I shall receive a reply, since hon the Minister says this is the last time he is going to be participating. I ask: What became of, in the first place, the cultural differences, in the second place the relative numbers, in the third place the conflicting interests, in the fourth place the divergent political aims, in the fifth place the conflicting political cultures, in the sixth place unique African values, in the seventh place the tendency towards the centralisation of power, in the eighth place the pattern of ethnic domination, in the ninth place the denial of group interests and in the tenth place the multinational character of the population?

I say to the hon the Minister that all those things still exist. Surely all these factors, if not more of them, are still in existence, as always. By means of this Bill the NP and the hon the Minister are saying: Forward, forward, let us go forward towards one Cabinet. With this measure, like the NP’s proposed one Parliament, they are inevitably heading for a Black majority government—not because the NP necessarily wants that, but the route they have chosen makes it inevitable. They will no longer be able to avert it. The CP will vehemently oppose this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I speak in support of this Bill. [Interjections.] As was said here earlier, democracy is as well served by appointed members of the executive, and the examples were quoted of America and France. This Bill can well be seen as a forerunner of a federal type of executive, particular at this time when people are talking about a federal constitution for South Africa in the very near future. I think the symbolism of a Black member of the executive is an important indicator in that direction.

However, at this moment it is of crucial importance that Blacks be brought into all structures of Government in order to speak and take decisions on behalf of Blacks. For far too long other people have taken decisions on their behalf. A Black Minister of Education, for example, is long overdue.

In supporting this Bill, the DRP also clearly indicates its support for an evolutionary and negotiated settlement to South Africa’s problems.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives. It is particularly pleasant to see that he has the courage of his convictions to support this Bill. It is interesting, however, that all the other parties in this Committee oppose the Bill, although for conflicting reasons. There is a world of difference between the reasons why the CP are opposing this Bill and why the other parties in this Committee are doing so.

I want to put it to hon members that in a certain sense it demands courage on the part of the Government to proceed with this piece of legislation at this stage—on the eve of an election. However, it is very important that this should happen, because the NP wants to give the country a clear sign that it is serious when it says that Black citizens must be involved in the constitutional dispensation. The NP wants to tell the country that at this stage, this measure is perhaps more symbolic than anything else. We concede that, but this symbolism is important, because in doing so the Government is making it known that our Black fellow citizens are entitled to have a say up to the highest level. That is, in fact, what hon members in the House of Representatives, and even the DP, are appealing for.

We concede that whenever one is engaged in evolutionary reform, there must be movement. However, the movement must not be in conflict with one’s objective. We have the same objective which we wish to achieve.

That cannot be true!

Well, I want to state that at this stage it is important that provision should be made to enable those people who were not accommodated in the executive in the 1983 Constitution, to in fact be accommodated in it.

Make Mandela the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning!

Hon members must not interject with their own speeches!

By so doing we are signifying that there will have to be a broadening of democracy and that the status quo cannot be maintained. Those hon members also agree with that. By so doing we are signifying that a joint executive institution will have to develop in which all groups may be represented. Those hon members do not differ with that, either.

Now it is true to say, and this is the great point of criticism put forward by those hon members, that this legislation addresses only the executive and that it does not relate to the legislature. However, the intention is not to afford representation to the Blacks by way of this legislation. Insofar as it may be viewed as an interim measure, however, it is an important reform measure. This measure must be associated with the legislation relating to the negotiation forum which we adopted last year. It would be wrong to argue that there should be no constitutional reform until a new constitution has been created by the negotiation forum, because this will be a slow process, and meanwhile this measure can promote the process. With respect, that is where hon members are wrong. It can, in fact, promote the process, because in this way better first-hand knowledge can be gained of Black perspectives, and it can also expand the range of experience of the new members of the Cabinet, as well as that of the existing members. Whenever people speak to one another, there is, in fact, progress.

What is also important, is the fact that this measure will also make it possible for the own affairs of the Black citizen to be managed more meaningfully. Why can a Black man not be responsible as a Minister or Deputy Minister for Black education or Black development, for example? At present all Black affairs are dealt with as general affairs, and this legislation will, in fact, make it possible to promote self-determination with regard to own affairs.

This measure is not in conflict with the NP’s constitutional point of departure of self-determination with regard to own affairs and real joint decision-making with regard to general affairs. It could even be a step in the direction of an own Black Ministers’ Council, which could in due course emanate from an elected legislature for Black own affairs. The point is, however, that to begin with the executive authority, even when negotiations are still to take place with regard to the legislative authority, is a positive step, and it is not going to make it more difficult to supply the present deficiency insofar as Black people are concerned, at the central level by way of negotiation. It could even promote the negotiation process.

This Bill is important because, as I have already said, it is a symbol of the NP’s seriousness about accommodating the Black people in our political set-up in an orderly and just fashion, because the NP’s constitutional objective is the permanent, peaceful, orderly coexistence of everyone in South Africa. This reform measure may be supported because it is a step that is capable of practical implementation. It is acceptable to a great majority of the elected Black representatives through their national forum. It is economically affordable because it need not enlarge the executive authority, and it conforms to the NP’s political objectives and goals.

Madam Chair, it is a delight to have “Queen Helen” in the Chair. Last week, when the hon member for Houghton made what appeared to be her valedictory speech, there was a lump in my throat. I am not a sentimental fellow but that lump came unbidden. To see the hon member for Houghton temporarily in the Chair today gladdens my heart.

Last week, behind the back of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I said a few things about him which were not destructive or uncomplimentary. I want to look him in the eye this afternoon and say that I am personally very sorry that he is laying down the burdens of office, particularly at a time when negotiation is in the air, when Inkatha is more amenable to negotiation than it ever was and when Mr Gorbachev is using his not inconsiderable influence upon the ANC to encourage them to lay down arms and get on with negotiation.

The hon the Minister knows Hobbes. He knows Lord Macaulay. Unfortunately he has also read Alexis de Tocqueville. That has held him back a little. However, he has also read Samuel Huntington who—who knows?—may well have influenced the hon the Minister. He has often declared that he is not a racist and I have had no hesitation in accepting that without any reservation. He has tried to lead some of his people away from the racism which has held them back. Unfortunately, he himself has been tethered to the policies of his party, which has made it impossible for him to move as fast as the country wants him to move. That is the tragedy of our situation.

In regard to the Bill itself, it is unfortunate that we have to have placed before Parliament for consideration a Bill which wants to bring Blacks into the Cabinet, into the executive, by a convoluted procedure. That is unacceptable. We do not need people to be brought into the Cabinet by the back door. They should come in via the front door by being elected because, after all, every person who holds power must be accountable. The only people he can be accountable to are the electorate. If he is not elected, there will be no accountability. That will be a perversion of the principles of democracy and the fundamentals will then not be upheld. That is the reason why we of the DP are unable to support this particular measure.

I actually have reason to believe that if only the hon the Minister had his own way and were not subjected to the tethering restraint of his party’s policy we might have had a better Bill before this House and we could have had a situation in terms of which a Cabinet would consist of elected members of all racial groups. He talked about a single executive derived from a federal system. That is the kind of Bill which he should have been enabled to present to us in this session of Parliament. I am sad that when that kind of Bill comes forward, as it must, he will unfortunately not be there to pilot it. We need such a Bill because if that kind of situation is not created we are going to see this country descending into anarchy and no-one in his reasonable senses wants that.

This Bill is not only insufficient but also goes about development in the wrong way and for those reasons it is impossible for us to support it.

Madam Chair, it is indeed an honour to have you as chairperson here today. I hope that now that you are leaving us the ideas that you have held so courageously for so long will prevail not only in the Chair today, but also everywhere in this land of ours.

*This occasion during which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is introducing his last legislation today, is actually rather unique. Now that the hon the Minister is retiring, I should like to ask him whether he could please take that creation of his, namely the tricameral Parliament, along with him on the day he leaves. We can then start from the beginning. [Interjections.] The tricameral Parliament caused more conflict and polarisation in our country than any other creation of this Government. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Albany and other hon members should give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech.

What struck me while the hon the Minister was speaking was how quietly the hon members in the Government benches were sitting here. Most of them looked down. There was absolutely no enthusiasm for or interest in what the hon the Minister was saying here.

The best compliment the hon member for Parow—that is him entering now—could pay the hon the Minister, was that he, and I quote, “played no insignificant part”. That is really a very feeble compliment coming from one’s own party. [Interjections.] The hon member for Roodeplaat, who has just spoken, said, and this is very important, that this Bill before us today will expand and establish the principle of own affairs as it affects Black people. That is what he said. [Interjections.]

Certain hon members on this side of the House—members of the DRP in the House of Representatives—who said that they supported this legislation, should tell us whether they also support own affairs for Blacks, since that is merely a continuation of the Government’s apartheid policy. [Interjections.] A Government party saying that here today, should not tell us tomorrow at the polls that they are in fact moving away from apartheid and own affairs and towards one South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

So that is not what they are saying. They are therefore adhering to the old policy of apartheid.

[Inaudible.]

Very well, I am sorry. The LP made it very clear that they did not support the Bill.

†It is indeed quite amazing that a Government that claims to be reformist and moving away from apartheid comes forth with legislation that is not aimed at abolishing apartheid but rather at entrenching the whole concept of group—that is race—representation. It comes forth with legislation that is rejected by any Black leader of standing in this country. There is in fact no support coming from the community for this legislation. So much for negotiation!

Those Government propagandists who are already telling us and especially the White voters to “give F W a chance”—this is the new refrain from the NP—should tell us if it is for this sort of apartheid legislation that they want to “give F W a chance”. Is he going to give us more and more of the same that we are used to thus far?

*If this is the first step, as the hon member said, where does that first step lead to? You do not board a train unless you know its destination.

†I want to highlight some aspects of this legislation. Although this Bill does acknowledge the fact that Black South Africans must become part of the central government of South Africa—for that one is grateful after all these years—the way in which this is being done, namely by appointing a Minister or a Deputy Minister, reduces this step to nothing but tokenism. It is not even subject to the approval of any representative Black grouping and it is not subject to any formalised process of negotiation.

Secondly, the fact that he is appointed by the State instead of being elected means that he will have no mandate in any way to speak on behalf of the people whom he is supposed to represent here. At best he can try to reflect what he thinks they want—something which will be deeply resented by a community that is quite capable of producing very capable representatives at leadership level for this Parliament.

Thirdly, continuing with this system whereby the State unilaterally nominates or appoints people to represent this or that racial group will not make the process of negotiation with the majority easier. It will not do that. On the contrary, it will actually make the process much more difficult.

It is after all well-known—even to this Government—that the Black people of South Africa insist that the Government negotiates with those leaders and organisations that represent them, have their confidence and are the ones chosen by them to negotiate with the Government. It is also well-known that this Government refuses to do so and that it continues to either ban, restrict or harass all those organisations such as the ANC, UDF, Cosatu and many others, and leaders such as Mandela and all the others one can mention who do truly represent the aspirations of the majority of Black South Africans. In the Western Cape one can mention leaders such as Trevor Manuel, Christmas Tinto and Oscar Mpetha—all people who play leadership roles and who have been restricted or detained.

The fact that the Government ignores those leaders who have the confidence of the majority and unilaterally appoints its own chosen leaders, is nothing but a slap in the face of the Black people. This can only retard the process of negotiation and it makes it virtually impossible for this Government to start the process of negotiation with real leaders.

In the fourth place, this proposal is nothing but window-dressing. While the Government wants the political benefits from such token Black inclusion—that is an appearance of multiracial government which it can sell overseas and to supporters of the DP, not to the CP—it refuses to accept the political consequences of Black inclusion. A consequence is the loss of sole White control because, contrary to what the hon the Minister has told us before, democracy is based on numbers. One cannot have a democracy if it is not based on numbers. The two go hand in hand and the word democracy means just that.

This kind of tokenism also has the very dangerous consequence that it can lull well-meaning Whites into believing that fundamental change has indeed been brought about. In fact, the presence of some Black MECs at provincial level has already resulted in this. I am sure the Government will do exactly that during the election campaign. The Government will say there are Blacks, Coloureds and Indians on all government levels and that we have a multiracial Government and a Government of unity. It is dishonest to say that to the White voter who then may think that they do have a solution, and that they have seen the light and are moving forward.

I stress that this is dangerous since Whites in general will then not understand why Black rejection of the present political dispensation is continuing. Until one negotiates with the ANC and with the Mandelas of Black South Africa, the political conflict in South Africa and the rising Black aspirations which the Government is trying to suppress in such a ruthless and violent manner will continue, resulting in a permanent state of emergency. This Bill will ensure that the emergency will continue because it will feed the discontent which the Constitution has led to up to this moment. After the Constitution was passed in 1983 it was Black exclusion that was fundamental to the unrest in South Africa.

This Bill does not represent Black inclusion because the Government is appointing the person that it wants to represent people. Blacks are still not included and until they are this Constitution will lead to more conflict in this country of ours. I am sure that even hon members on that side of the Chamber know that. Until the majority of our people are brought into the legislative process one will merely be fiddling while Rome is literally burning. This Bill before us is mere fiddling, it is not a step towards making our future a more safe future for all our children.

*The reality is that the majority of our people are Black and until the Government accepts that reality and gives these people genuine representation on all levels of our South African community, there will be no democracy in our country, and conflict will await us.

Mr Chairman, I have not often found it worthwhile to react to the hon member for Claremont. Nor is it worthwhile doing so this afternoon, but I do have a few remarks I want to make. If the hon member had done his national service for this country, he would have been better qualified to talk about the political future of the country.

At the beginning of his speech the hon member also said that when I left this Place I should take the tricameral Parliament with me. I am prepared to put that hon member to his own test. If the hon member condemns the existence of this system so vehemently, he should not make himself eligible for re-election to serve in the system. [Interjections.] That can be the only test of personal and political honesty. If that hon member does make himself eligible for reelection, he is violating both. What I find very interesting is that the hon member has so little support that it is difficult for him to gain access to the DP which, so help me, has very little support itself. [Interjections.] In fact there was almost a crisis in that party over the admission of that hon member to the DP.

But why did he seek admission? He did not do so out of conviction. He did so so that the party could nominate him to go and stand in a specific constituency for the system which he rejects. [Interjections.] Oh please, one would have paid heed to peoples’ arguments if they suited actions to their words. The only honourable way in which that hon member can illustrate his standpoint in respect of this tricameral Parliament is to say that he does not want to participate in such a damning system.

[Inaudible.]

I thank the hon members for Parow, Umhlanga and Roodeplaat who supported the proposed legislation. [Interjections.] If the hon members would perhaps just give me a chance to participate in the same debate, I should like to express some surprise.

[Inaudible.]

The hon members who spoke against the legislation, argued as though this legislation represented the final step in the constitutional development of this country, while I pointed out that we were engaged in a process of constitutional development in a community which was predominantly Third World.

I must state at once that there are few countries, if any, in which a Third World group was itself able to broaden democracy or indeed allow it to survive. If one considers what has happened in history, one will find that democracies in such countries came into existence through a long process of dictatorships and military coups. South Africa ought to be praised by all the hon members in this Parliament, and even by the outside world, for the fact that it has succeeded in persuading voters to tread the path of democracy. This implied that people who had the power, had to relinquish some of that power to people who did not have it.

Of course the end of that path has not been reached. Naturally this process has not been fully disposed of. It is not only I who adopt this standpoint, the majority of parties in this Committee shared this standpoint with me last year. I want to point out to hon members the second objective of this Bill, relating to the promotion of constitutional development in this country. The second objective—which quite by chance is also the one that received the most support from members of the Black community—was the one which referred to the interim say of Black communities that had been excluded from the processes of government.

†All the majority parties in the Houses supported not only the process, but also the instrument within which that process should have taken place. They endorsed the objectives enunciated in that Act.

*To argue now that we should not take interim steps violates this important principle.

It is not us. It is the policy.

I must say at once that the speech that the hon member for Ermelo made today was wiser than usual. It was wise of him not to try to explain their philosophy. The hon member is a lawyer and one would have expected his arguments to have been sound ones from a legal point of view. But what did he say? He argued that Ministers must have a seat in terms of our Constitution. Surely that is not true! Surely the Constitution makes provision for three categories of members of Parliament. The Constitution makes provision for elected members, indirectly elected members and nominated members. Where is it stated in the legislation that a Minister must have a seat within 12 months?

[Inaudible.]

Or else the hon member for Ermelo is trying to mislead this Committee; but I do not think he would want to do that.

[Inaudible.]

On the other hand he does not even know his Constitution, and on those grounds alone his arguments do not mean much.

I want to ask the hon member something. There was a time—the hon member was then, as I understand it, a member of the NP—when he agreed that the heads of government in the provinces ought to be a nominated persons. He was arguing on the basis of a principle, however, and if the principle is sound then it must apply under all circumstances. We cannot argue on principle just as long as it suits us. A principle is either sound, or it is not sound.

I come now to the hon Chairman of the House of Representatives.

†He talks about a “scientific democracy”. I never referred to a scientific democracy. Perhaps at some time or another he will define that.

You won’t be here.

He says—hon members must listen carefully now: “We must not force this system on the Black people from above. Let them come into the system of government by way of an election.” Once again, if it is a philosophical standpoint to which the hon member and his party adhere every time, then he is entitled to argue in that way. However, let us once again see what has happened in history. The hon member and his party supported the legislation on provincial government. [Interjections.] On that basis there were members of the executive committees who were nominated—who were indeed co-opted. I am arguing the principle with the hon member. [Interjections.]

Who made the nominations?

Order! No, a dialogue with the hon the Minister is starting to develop in two places here.

Hon members are also conversing with one another. The hon the Minister is dealing with a very complicated and important Bill. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Not only did they support the legislation which made provision for co-opted members on that level of government, but members of their party are serving in that authority. Do you know where, Sir? In all four provinces! I cannot understand it. They also argued that such co-opted members became the lackeys of the person who appointed them. I now want to ask them whether they are accusing the members of the LP who are serving on those executive councils of being lackeys of the President? That is the only logical deduction one can make from the arguments of the hon members. [Interjections.] No other deduction can be made.

I want to take it further. Listen to his argument. He says: Leaders of the majority of the Black people are opposed to this legislation.”

†Let us assume this is true. Was that true of the 1983 Constitution? Were the majority of the Black people against the 1983 Constitution Act? [Interjections.]

We faced the election.

Was it true that in Eshowe, notwithstanding the position of the Black leaders that nevertheless opted to come to… [Interjections.]

Order! No, if the hon member continues to make interjections, I shall ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon the Minister may proceed.

You see, Sir, if one wants to argue in this Place one must have a good memory. If one wants to argue here, one’s principle must not change from one day to the next. [Interjections.]

Let us consider what else the hon member said, and I do not want to make a long story of it. The hon the Leader of the LP said that I was petty. I replied to requests made by one of his members by saying that I could not help him before finality had been reached as far as the Vote was concerned. He said that we had a method. I want to ask him what the method is. Is the method a President’s Council? And if that is the method, will the LP members in the President’s Council vote for such a solution? Only if that happens will there be a solution in terms of the proposal of the hon the Leader of the LP. No, when we do things for political symbolism, we must calculate the consequences of those things for the people we represent; otherwise we are making petty political issues of the needs of communities that we say we serve.

We serve South Africa in the long term.

The hon says he serves South Africa in the long term, but a lot of people are going to be hungry in the short term. [Interjections.]

†Now I come to the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs. I confess that I do not understand that party. [Interjections.] I was given the assurance that the party represented by the hon the Deputy Minister, was going to support this legislation at the Second Reading. Under these circumstances—I want to say one thing—democracy will find it very difficult to survive. Quite apart from everything else it requires that people should be committed to their undertakings. We are making a mockery of democracy in the institutions of democracy. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister would like to know what Ucasa says. He is entitled to consult them but he did not consult Chief Minister Buthelezi when he decided to come into the system.

How do you know I didn’t?

Chief Minister Buthelezi was against the system and he is still against the system today. [Interjections.] If the hon the Deputy Minister did consult him, he ignored him. [Interjections.] That is the only logical conclusion.

The hon the Deputy Minister does not refer to the President of Ucasa who with due respect, leads the majority of the local governments in the country and leads the majority of the leaders in those institutions. His authority is Mr Boya. I do not want to discuss Mr Boya because he is not here to defend himself, but all I know is that according to my information there is only one Black council affiliated to Umsa today and a few individual councillors. But the National Forum, when it was established, had representatives in the persons of mayors of all the local authorities in the Black communities. They all had a vote to elect those councillors. Therefore the logical conclusion is that these councillors represent millions of Black people in South Africa. I would rather listen to the pleas of these representatives, than to those of a single person.

The hon the Deputy Minister says he is against Black Ministers because he believes in the concept of accountability to an electorate. I want to ask him, if the members of the executives of Indian origin resign their positions, would he not fill them again because they have no elected basis? They have no accountability to an electorate. I want to plead again with all hon members of Parliament not to adopt an attitude of “I’m all right, Jack—you stay out of it! I want to have the benefit of possessions. I want to be a Minister or a Deputy Minister but you cannot be one!”

I agree with the hon member for Sea Point that in the final analysis history must be the judge of all things and all people. I would, however, like to say that I do not believe that upon the acceptance of the Constitution in 1983 this country arrived at the final conclusion. I said at the time—I repeat it today—that it was but a step in the constitutional history of this country. It was a major step, however, in the sense that it made it possible, after more than 300 years, for people of colour to serve in the Parliament of their country.

No other party, not even the party to which that hon member belonged before he joined other parties in succession, had been able to change the Constitution so that other people could serve in Parliament and in the Cabinet. No matter what the deficiencies are—they are there—we should use this institution and we should use the moment to further extend the ideals that we have in practical terms. Unless we have the capacity to do so, whatever we do will be retrogressive.

The hon member for Sea Point also said that they would have supported this measure if they had been persuaded that the majority of Black people supported it. I have already indicated that, insofar as it can be assessed, Black people also want to be where we are, even on a limited basis. [Interjections.] Therefore I argue again that we should not deny other people the rights that we have reserved for ourselves and which we have accepted.

*I should like to come to the hon member for Randfontein. He put questions to me. Firstly he asked whether Black Ministers would have general departments. The reply to that is simple. Yes, they can have general departments, but the State President of the day will decide about that.

The basic argument of that hon member, however, was concerned with something else. The arguments of the hon member related not to Black people, but to all people. It related as well to the Coloured people and the representatives of the Indian communities. Is that not correct?

That hon member was advocating a Cabinet consisting solely of White people. Is that correct? [Interjections.] That is what he was advocating. The hon member does not even want to say it, but he was advocating the exclusion of Black people. I am saying he did that because he has a standpoint. I differ with him in that regard, but he has a standpoint that the Cabinet in which he serves should consist of White people only, and preferably Afrikaners.

We reject the unitary state!

Good! That is all I wanted to hear.

I have here for the hon member the 1977 proposals on a unitary state—at least in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. As it happens, there was a former hon member for Randfontein with the same name as the present hon member, who adopted a standpoint in respect of that unitary state concept and a mixed Cabinet.

There was no mixed Cabinet!

Let me quote to him what the former hon member for Randfontein—the namesake of that hon member—said in respect of those proposals:

The hon member was arguing against the concept of consensus decision-making. He said it was not possible. I quote further:

What does this say? It says that, at least in respect of the Whites, Coloureds and Asians, we were embarking on a course of consensus politics. One is either opposed to it in principle, or one is not. One cannot be partially in favour and partially opposed to it.

Consider the terms the hon member used. He said we were conducting politics like tramps (boemelaars). Tramps are people who live on favours. The NP is one who dishes out favours for all people. It is not simply because it is altruistically minded, but because it recognises the claim people have to those rights. The fact that we are not able to give final shape to those rights, may not detract from our commitment to doing so.

The hon member asked what had become of the various cultures; what had become of the question of the power of numbers. Does the hon member not listen to the debates? The hon member’s problem is that he only understands one system. He only understands one constitutional system, and it is that of one man, one vote. Because he cannot dissociate himself from that, he is terrified by the preponderance of numbers which threatens him. While that remains the case, those hon members will remain where they are.

There is never going to be a time when that party, or any other party, will be able to find a country in which one has White majority occupation. While that is not possible there is only one alternative, and that is to allow decisions to be taken on the basis of consensus.

As is happening today?

Yes, as is happening today. Surely the hon member knows that for the sake of the administration of a country there must be decision-making bodies. If the hon member does not like this one, he must bring another one.

I come now to the hon member for Southern Cape. He is now being accused of being an agent of the NP. The hon member for Southern Cape is merely being consistent. He argued today as his former leader argued in 1983.I know that to be true; I conducted negotiations. I met the executive of that party. Surely hon members know that. [Interjections.] Of course.

I was also there.

Yes, the hon member was there, but at the moment he is really far away from that.

Mr Chairman, I want to finish off now. I think history, in perspective, will find a great deal that we did wrong. However, history will do so with the advantage of hindsight.

It is the easiest to do it that way. However, I want to ask whoever reached the winning post without taking the first step. Whoever did that? Robert Louis Stevenson said, and I quote:

†The fact that we have not finally arrived and that other generations after us will have to do that, does not detract from the fact that we have to travel the road of life.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the alteration of the boundaries of self-governing territories has constantly been in the news during the past few years as a result of various court applications in regard to the incorporation of certain areas into the self-governing territories. The divergent court judgements that were given create legal uncertainty when specific areas and the people living in them are included for short periods in a self-governing territory and are then in turn, with retrospective effect by way of court judgements, added to the RSA.

It is therefore essential for Parliament, by means of legislation, to create legal certainty in regard to incorporations that have been disposed of and in regard to future additions of land to and excisions of land from self-governing territories.

In various court cases various criteria have been elevated to become the decisive consideration. In this way, for example, ethnicity was elevated to become the decisive criterion in the well-known Moutse court case. In the court case on Botshabelo it was ruled that the various development steps, as prescribed in various laws, through which a tribe or community ought to pass—that is to say from a tribal authority to a regional authority and subsequently to a territorial authority and ultimately to self-government—are the decisive norm. It is possible that there could also be other criteria which could in due course, in other court cases, be elevated into the decisive criterion, for example the geographic situation of the area, the economic aspects of the incorporation of one area into another, or the availability of infrastructure.

It is clear that the Government cannot continue with the finalisation of the consolidation proposals in respect of the self-governing territories in this way without a clear criterion being determined and laid down as the decisive factor. It is with this object in mind that clause 2 of the Bill provides that any Black area may be included in the area of a self-governing territory when the State President deems it expedient, and after the necessary consultations have taken place.

Criticism has already been expressed, inter alia in the Press, that the effect of this provision will be to empower one person, namely the State President, to add any land to the area of a self-governing territory. This allegation is not correct. Only a Black area, as defined in clause 1, may be incorporated by the State President into a self-governing territory in terms of this section. To establish a Black area is a long process, which entails inter alia that the Commission for Cooperation and Development shall hold public hearings, during which representations may be heard from interested parties. Subsequently it requires a decision of all three Houses of Parliament to amend the Schedules to the legislation in question. Only when that has been done can the State President incorporate such an area into a self-governing territory.

Clause 2 (2) will result in the laws of the self-governing territories to which an area has been added applying within that area as from the date of incorporation.

†Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides that no court of law shall be competent to inquire into or pronounce upon the validity of any proclamation issued under clause 2 (1). Numerous representations were placed before the joint committee for this subsection to be deleted. After careful consideration of all the legal and political implications, an amendment was placed on the Order Paper to omit the subsection, for the information of the hon member for Pinetown.

With a view to legal certainty clause 3 (1) of the Bill provides that all proclamations issued or purporting to have been issued under any law for the alteration of the area for which a legislative assembly has been established, is in point of fact valid. Clause 3 (1) brings about absolute legal certainty regarding the areas which have already been included in self-governing territories.

*It is also necessary to give stability in law to the incorporation of the Botshabelo area, which is to be added to Qwaqwa by virtue of a tripartite agreement between Bophuthatswana, the RSA and Qwaqwa. The Government of the RSA would be breaking its word if it did not now give effect to this solemn undertaking, which was given before that area was developed in any way. The majority of the people within Botshabelo are South Sothos, and are already represented by their own elected members in the Legislative Assembly of Qwaqwa. Those elected members confirmed, in a document submitted to the joint committee, that they were elected on the basis of the policy that Botshabelo would be incorporated into Qwaqwa. The transfer of the area to Qwaqwa took place as long ago as 1987 and the incorporation went smoothly. In order to ensure legal certainty it must be established beyond any doubt that Bothsabelo legally forms part of Qwaqwa. Clause 3 (2) therefore provides that Proclamation R.169 of 1987, in terms of which Botshabelo was incorporated into Qwaqwa, is indeed valid.

Moutse was added to the area of jurisdiction of KwaNdebele in terms of Proclamation R.227 of 1985. The proclamation was declared null and void by the Appeal Court. It is necessary in the interests of the inhabitants of Moutse to declare legal beyond any doubt the administrative and other actions taken during the two years and three months in which Moutse was administered as part of KwaNdebele.

In daily practice the position at present is that pensions, vehicle licenses and commercial licenses that were granted or even marriages that were entered into during that period are challengeable. The effect of clause 3 (3) of the Bill is merely to declare those legal actions valid beyond any doubt. I want to emphasise once again that this clause is not in any way aimed at incorporating the Moutse area into KwaNdebele. Former Chief Justice Rumpff investigated the entire Moutse matter and his report is at present still under consideration.

On the joint committee it was correctly pointed out that two divergent matters had to be clearly distinguished from one another, namely the consolidation of the territory of the self-governing territories into administratively governable units, and the possible independence or otherwise of the respective self-governing territories. I trust that hon members will take this distinction into account and will find it possible to support this legislation so as to obtain legal certainty over the boundaries of the self-governing territories.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has now left the Chamber. His attempt to link my late father with the NP’s policy of power-sharing, abdication and power-sharing with Blacks, is not only rubbish, but I also reject it with the contempt it deserves.

We have here a very important Bill, with far-reaching implications. The truth is that there is uncertainty in respect of the alterations or extensions to self-governing territories. These alterations of boundaries are currently dealt with in terms of section 1(2) of the National States Constitution Act. In the recent past there have also been court cases resulting from proclamations issued in terms of section 1(2) of the above-mentioned Act. The reason for this is that the courts hold the view that section 1(2) of the National States Constitution Act should not be interpreted in isolation. Numerous previous Acts, going back as far as 1913, in addition to Acts of 1936 and 1951, are also taken into consideration. The approach of the courts is that these Acts embody the concept of ethnicity.

If an area is not entirely inhabited by a specific group, proclamations to have such an area incorporated into a self-governing territory are declared invalid. The best example of this is no doubt the whole problem regarding the Botshabelo area. Approximately 600 000 people live in this area, more than 70% of whom are South Sothos, who belong to the self-governing territory of Qwaqwa.

This Bill now makes it possible for the Botshabelo area also to be included in such a self-governing territory if the State President deems it expedient to do so after consultation with the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It is certainly true that one would want to maintain the highest degree of homogeneity in respect of Botshabelo. This city was originally founded as a large town for Qwaqwa, and it therefore makes sense that this area should now be incorporated into Qwaqwa.

The CP is in favour of the national states being consolidated to the greatest possible extent. This Bill also gives effect to this. This also means that all transactions which took place in terms of Proclamation R.227 of 1985 for the period 31 December 1985 to 29 March 1988, are valid in respect of the Moutse district. This also creates legal certainty in respect of practical matters such as motor vehicle registrations and the registration of deaths and births in the Moutse area. The CP therefore supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not in the Chamber at the moment. I differ with the hon the Minister most of the time, but his swansong today was particularly pathetic. To try and draw a parallel between appointments to the provincial executive level and those of Ministers to the Cabinet is totally irrelevant. Those members on the provincial council serve as members of the LP and they carry out the policy of the LP, as was the case when our leader was in the Cabinet. The policy of the LP determined his actions, and not that of the NP.

Here we have a Bill which basically deals with the further consolidation of homelands. In the past we have stated often enough that we believe in a non-racial geographic federation of states which must be determined by the people. In the past we have supported geographic consolidation to a certain extent. This is a fact and I am not going to deny that. However, earlier this year we decided—we gave notice of this to the Government—that we were no longer prepared to support any further consolidations until we sat down and determined exactly where we were going. This piecemeal fire-brigade approach is totally unacceptable to hon members in the LP.

Here we have a Bill which can only be described as immoral. We have had a court decision which ruled that the incorporation of Botshabelo into Qwaqwa was invalid. All hon members in this House of all political parties and people outside this House have expressed their admiration for the independence of our judiciary. The judiciary also enjoys this respect outside the borders of this country and I believe that it is important that we build on that respect.

In addressing a meeting recently, the hon the Minister of Justice spoke about the independence of our courts, the need to build up the independence of our courts and the role that the courts will play when having to enforce a bill of rights in a future South Africa. My question to the hon the Minister is this: What type of an example are we setting for those who must follow us when we are prepared to override court decisions by means of legislation?

We in the committee received a letter from a legal firm by the name of Webbers which is acting on behalf of the people of Botshabelo. They said that heads of argument would have to be in by 15 August and 15 September this year and that they expected the court case to be heard towards the latter half of next year. They asked us if we would not be prepared to let this stand over. We must question the urgency of this piece of legislation before this House.

Despite the Government’s being aware of our opposition to this Bill, they are determined to carry on with it, even if that involves having to bulldoze it through the President’s Council.

The political implications are even more far-reaching. Everyone is referring to the new face of the hon leader of the NP, Mr F W de Klerk. One must however ask whether it is merely the modernisation and continuation of Verwoerdian policy. Are we speaking here of a H F de Klerk or a F W Verwoerd? It is terribly confusing as we cannot really see a difference in approach. Bearing in mind that there can be no humane application of apartheid, it would seem that all that can be expected from the old or new F W de Klerk is a humane application of apartheid. One must ask whether this is the type of legislation that can be expected in terms of the NP’s commitment to democracy. I am reminded that it was the hon member for Springs who, by means of an interjection, said that it was the leader of the NP who was determining policy. Is this what we can expect from the new leader of the NP when he becomes State President? My advice to the new leader of the NP is that he must not be like that little old lady who thought that you only have to change to second gear once you have worn out the first gear. It would seem, in this case, that second gear is reverse gear.

The hon leader-in-chief of the NP speaks of fairness to all. Is the circumvention of the courts and the denial of the legal right of the people of Botshabelo to go to court, what is meant by fairness to all? This type of legislation, along with the determination of the NP Government to force this through the President’s Council, tells us that the F W we are dealing with is still the same one that watered down the hon the State President’s Rubicon speech. My party strongly and totally condemns this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present my party’s point of view on this particular piece of legislation.

I want to start by stating quite clearly that there is tremendous expectation here in South Africa with regard to the question of the future of this country. It appears that the impression is being created that we are on the eve of a great constitutional debate with the advent of the election of a new leader in the NP—that hon Minister—and also various other nice sounding promises. If this is true, then I ask myself what the need is for the hon Minister to introduce this legislation at this juncture. I ask whether we are not looking for a constitutional solution on a macro basis. I also ask what is the urgency and need for the hon the Minister to apply a makeshift solution on an ad hoc basis?

I would like to say to the hon the Minister that in going ahead and trying to force through legislation against the wishes of the people with whom we are supposed to have consensus is indeed not in the interest of the good functioning of Parliament or what is termed consensus politics.

I believe that if this Bill is going to be forced through the President’s Council as has been done with other Bills in the past, then that is the perfect ingredient for conflict. The consequences of such a move bring conflict within the interparliamentary and extra-parliamentary groups. I therefore ask, whilst there is a much bigger agenda outside the Chamber in which Government has indicated that it is involved, should it not wait until it has had discussions and deliberations on that particular agenda and resolved the issues in so far as the future of the country and the peoples of South Africa are concerned before bringing this ad hoc type of legislation before Parliament?

I would also like to submit that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning earlier in his speech averred that through the denial of participation of Blacks in this Chamber or at executive level, we are denying the Blacks what we ourselves have. I do not think this is correct.

In my opinion this is inductive logic because those of us who are participating in the abnormal tricameral system have indeed been elected. To bring people of the Black community onto the executive level on a purely nominated basis is, in my opinion, not the same as hon members of the Houses of Delegates or Representatives being on the executive level.

I might add that we do not see our presence in this tricameral system as a permanent feature. We see this as merely a transitional period to allow the Whites to have the opportunity of interaction with people other than Whites. Hopefully this will occur in a positive way so that we can then create the climate for a better South Africa with greater emphasis on the Whites’ involvement with other races in South Africa. Regrettably, this type of legislation runs against the particular grain that in my opinion would have been the purpose of our participation.

It will be the height of impertinence on my part, as a member of the House of Delegates and within the constraints and limitations of being called an Indian, to take it upon myself to act as a spokesman or an agent on behalf of the Black mass of South Africa. I believe that they should be permitted and given the opportunity to deliberate on issues of this nature themselves.

This particular Bill runs contrary even to some of the utterances which have come from the ruling party. In my opinion this Bill precipitates and presupposes what the solution to South Africa’s problems is going to be. That type of prescriptive solution is not going to be in the interests of this country.

With those comments I want to reiterate that it would be the height of impertinence for me to take a decision on this Bill on behalf of people who are not represented in Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Stanger and Addo argued on the basis that this legislation deals with new consolidation and that Botshabelo is an act of new consolidation. That, of course, is not true. All it does is to bring legal certainty as far as the position of Botshabelo is concerned.

*It does not deal with new consolidation. It is concerned with consolidation which has already been disposed of, and merely effects legal certainty in respect of that particular area. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Addo referred to the court decision as far as Botshabelo is concerned. In my opinion he is missing another very interesting point and that is that when the court made its decision, it was bound by old Acts based on the argument that ethnicity was the sole determinant as far as consolidation was concerned. What we are doing with this Bill is to move away from the old Acts which specify only ethnicity as the basis for consolidation. It also brings in other factors like a geographic area which could be administered in a neat and proper way.

*It also raises the question of new norms besides those of mere ethnicity. In my opinion this is very important. The hon member for Addo referred to the urgency of the legislation and it is true that all of us who serve on the committee in question received a letter from the legal representatives in which it was argued that a verdict would probably only be given later. I myself enquired about this and mentioned that there might be scope for further talks and negotiation with one another if we could circumvent the problem of legal uncertainty.

However, our information is that the target date for the pleas is October this year and that a court judgement could in fact be delivered which could create a large degree of legal uncertainty. Therefore it was necessary to go through with this legislation.

There is also another element in this debate which we want to address. Hon members miss the point completely that it is concerned with old Acts. It is also concerned with other new principles which are being introduced in this case.

They are not old Acts; they are existing Acts.

It must be concerned with geographic areas and ethnicity must not be the most important or the only determinant when we talk to one another about it. The policy which the LP formulates is one of federation. It deals with a geographical federation.

It must be non-racial.

However, it means that there must be meaningful geographical units. We can certainly argue with each other in the future over the boundaries of those geographical units but merely to effect an administrative consolidation of an area that already exists and is already a functioning unit within the South African system in my opinion does not serve the purpose of the real, larger debate.

I think that in the end when we sit down together and negotiate on a future structure, of which federation at least can and probably will be an important element, we must not quarrel with one another concerning small particulars and get involved in such destructive debates as these.

What is necessary indeed—the time has come for this—is that we on the NP side and those on the LP side must once again sit down together with one another in all seriousness and talk about the fundamental concepts in politics. We must enter into negotiations with one another constructively because in the end we and those hon members, when they became part of this system, accepted joint responsibility for helping to build a system that would ultimately be acceptable to the majority.

However, we will not cultivate trust in the structure and involve other people in the real negotiation forum if we fragment the existing system. All of us have a responsibility to cause it to succeed and to progress in an evolutionary way from there.

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

No, I will not answer a question now. My time has expired. That hon member can participate in the debate himself.

The point I want to make is that it is meaningless that we, when it comes to creating legal certainty over a purely administrative principle, should argue with one another as if it were new consolidation while we should be seeking certainty over the existing consolidation which is necessary.

[Inaudible.]

Did that hon member not listen to what I said?

Why did they go to court?

I said that it was concerned with old Acts and that the court was bound to them.

They are not old Acts; they still exist. You are talking nonsense!

The court was bound to old Acts which established ethnicity as a determinant for consolidation of homelands and therefore there was this verdict. [Interjections.] It creates a new situation which also includes other factors such as consolidated administrative units in the formula. It should indeed be welcomed in terms of that party’s own policy of federation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon member for Springs only referred to certain aspects of this Bill, which I agree ensures a certain degree of legal certainty for the residents. In keeping with the political consistency of which the hon the Deputy Minister is aware, my party and I have problems with this Bill in that it actually infringes on the sovereignty of Parliament and empowers the hon the State President to extend and curtail the areas of jurisdiction of certain states. This is why we have made our reservations on this matter known in the joint committee and we do not see our way clear to support it. Despite that the hon member for Springs deems it fit to highlight certain issues that were raised in the joint committee.

In this regard I want to defend the hon member for Addo. They made it quite clear that they agreed with certain legal technicalities and provisions contained in the Bill and that in principle they have no problem but that they would not support the Bill in principle.

That was the other Bill.

My party will oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we will oppose this Bill because we believe it is bad legislation in every respect. In the first instance I think the intention of the Government in regard to this Bill is perfectly clear. I would like to mention four points in this regard: Firstly, I think the Government’s intention when they introduced this piece of legislation was obviously to make it easier for the Government to incorporate land into non-independent homelands and to excise lands from them; secondly, its intention was to reverse court decisions which had prevented previous incorporations taking place; thirdly, it was to separate decisions on incorporation from decisions which are purely policy decisions and fourthly, it was to prevent further court challenges to proposed incorporations.

It is quite clear if one looks at the Government’s record in regard to proclamations relating to incorporation that it has become thoroughly irritated by the challenges it has had to face through the courts to its attempts at incorporation. One has had the experiences of Moutse, Botshabelo and others. The Government had then pointed to the fact—I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is on record as having said this—that where the courts have changed a proclaimed boundary with retrospective effect the result is often circumstances which bring about political and legal chaos for the people concerned in those areas. In fact, if one talks about administrative chaos and legal chaos in an area the real culprit is not what the courts have done when they have challenged the proclamation; the culprit is to be seen in the incorporation itself. In most cases the act of incorporation has been the agent which has brought about upheaval and chaos in the areas concerned.

If one looks at the difficulties the Government has had one sees that while it is deeply committed to its principle of moving people around, changing boundaries and so on, what in fact has happened is that incorporation had become the new weapon which the Government seems to tend to use to compensate for the difficulties it now has in forcibly removing people from their land. That, as we know from the past, has caused far too much community resistance and it has caused local and international condemnation of a high order. The Government has backed away from forced removals to a great extent but in its place it has now developed a new strategem, namely to force the incorporation of communities into so-called self-governing states by redrawing the boundaries of those states. It is in fact a form of administrative removal.

A key aspect of this Bill is that it is in fact retroactive. Incorporation which did not go ahead because of successful legal challenges will now, if this Bill is passed, be implemented. I think this is of particular importance, as other speakers have said, for the community of Botshabelo near Bloemfontein.

As we know, this community won a court challenge on the question of the incorporation of the city of Botshabelo—I believe it is the second biggest Black city in South Africa, second only to Soweto—into Qwaqwa. The proclamation was declared invalid. If this Bill is passed the incorporation will be revalidated and will go ahead.

The original proclamation only partially incorporated Botshabelo into Qwaqwa. The administrative and executive authority was transferred to the Qwaqwa legislative assembly, but the land remained South African Development Trust property. The two governments concerned, the South African Government and that of Qwaqwa, also agreed that certain services would remain under the control of the South African authorities. In these terms we think of health and education amenities, because the government of Qwaqwa was simply not able to provide these services.

So if one looks at the unfortunate history of the Government’s handling of the Botshabelo situation, one sees that it has been a piecemeal attempt at incorporation as a result of the inability of the Qwaqwa government to assume responsibility in this regard.

The hon member for Springs, who spoke a few minutes ago, talked about the whole question as being a matter of geographic importance and said that they were involving new geographic entities. The hon the Minister told us earlier that the majority of the people in Botshabelo were, in fact, members of the South Sotho group. This clearly has very definite ethnic importance as far as the Government is concerned.

One sees that this situation of the eventual total incorporation of Botshabelo into Qwaqwa will continue, should this Bill become law. It is a very curious situation. We have talked about the size of Botshabelo. I believe it has a population of something like 600 000 people, as opposed to the figures in the South African Yearbook on the population of Qwaqwa. That population figure is 181 000. We have the incredible situation here that with the incorporation of Botshabelo into Qwaqwa, the population of this semi-independent national state will be trebled.

This is a stratagem to get away from the removal of people but then simply to take a group of people in an area and attach them to a national state. One wonders how long it will be, despite the Minister’s assurances, before the Moutse situation will be reviewed. There is nothing to stop the Government, if this Bill becomes law, after the commission has reported on Moutse at some future stage to say that Moutse will also be incorporated into KwaNdebele or some other homeland. This Bill will give the Government the necessary authority to do so.

If one looks at the legislation, no guidelines are laid down as to the circumstances in which the State President will exercise the power which is given to him in terms of this legislation. It has been pointed out by some commentators that unlike the National States Constitution Act the Bill has no contextual purpose against which the State President’s decisions may be tested. The result is that legal supervision of the State President’s decisions will become almost impossible when this Bill becomes law.

We have tried and will try again to move certain amendments in an attempt to improve the Bill. The amendments are set out on the Order Paper. What we are endeavouring to do, is to try and ensure that the right of Parliament to review proclamations is protected, that the action by the State President is curtailed and that there is proper agreement within the national states concerned before any measures of this kind can be proclaimed.

It will be seen that in Clause 2 of the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper we propose to omit the words “Notwithstanding the provisions of the National States Constitution Act or any other law” altogether, because that tends to circumvent the existing National States Constitution Act. We see no reason why it should be circumvented when matters of incorporation are dealt with.

That is the effect of the first amendment. The second amendment removes the words after “consultation by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning” and substitutes the words “with the concurrence of the Cabinet of a self-governing territory”. We know that there is a vast difference, and the Government is only too eager to incorporate in legislation the fact that there will be consultation. However, on the Government’s own record, that consultation is so often a matter of the Government telling the people with whom it is consulting what it deems to be good for them. We believe that in matters of this kind it is important that there should be not just consultation, but agreement and concurrence with the Cabinet of the national state concerned. That is the effect of the second amendment standing in my name.

We believe that there has got to be a proviso when one deals with proclamations of this kind specifying that they will only come into effect after approval by Parliament. This is a right which Parliament has as the sovereign Parliament of South Africa, and we believe that that proviso is absolutely necessary.

We have of course proposed the deletion of subsection (3) of clause 2—the subsection which provides that no court of law shall be competent to inquire into the validity of any proclamation. I was pleased that the hon the Minister indicated this afternoon that the Government was also going to propose that that clause be deleted. I assume that is the case, because that has been a major obstacle. Despite that, however, even in view of the Government’s concession on that point, the other issues which I have addressed are sufficient reason for the Bill to be rejected by this Parliament.

Then there is the whole question of the validity of certain proclamations, which I have already dealt with. In terms of our amendment to clause 3 of the Bill we ask that that clause be rejected. If it is not rejected, then certainly subsection (1) of clause 3 must be rejected. That is an amendment which appears in the name of the hon member for Johannesburg North.

In all, we believe that the Bill is a bad one which will do harm to the whole question of race relations in South Africa and in particular the areas to which I have referred, namely Botshabelo and possibly also Moutse, which has been a very sore point and has attracted international attention. In the interests of South Africa the Government would be well-advised to abandon this Bill. If it does not intend doing so, then we will certainly exercise our vote against it.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives I support this Bill, especially because of the deletion of subsection (3) of clause 2. This is in any case the consensus arrived at at joint committee level. The Bill will there fore be acceptable to us because of the removal of that particular provision, which prevents courts of law from inquiring into or pronouncing upon the validity of any proclamation under subsection (1).

We base our stand in this particular case on the grounds that the elected representatives of a people are in the best position to state the case of those people, for the simple reason that their voters can remove them if they fail in this regard. In a convincingly motivated memorandum in the form of a press statement, 12 members of the Qwaqwa legislative assembly made an earnest appeal to the three Houses of Parliament to support this Bill. I think it is important and very relevant that I quote certain points in this memorandum in the form of a press statement by these 12 members of the Qwaqwa legislative assembly, since the impression is given that this is an ad hoc decision that is only of recent origin. However, the issue dates from a long way back; in fact all the way to 1977, more than a decade ago, when certain agreements were arrived at between certain governments with regard to the transfer of this land.

Secondly, I want to quote point six of this memorandum:

Point nine of the memorandum reads as follows:

*I quote:

†This motion was unanimously adopted by the legislative assembly. We in the Democratic Party will respond positively to the appeal of the 12 members of the Qwaqwa legislative assembly who made an earnest appeal to the three Houses of Parliament, saying that the sooner Botshabelo is incorporated into Qwaqwa, the better.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I should like to thank the hon member for Southern Cape for his party’s support of this Bill.

I should like to exchange a few thoughts with hon members with regard to the essential change that is being effected in the legal position as a result of this Bill. What change does this entail in the present situation?

We know that in the first place this Bill has the object of stabilising a position that has developed so that there will be no further uncertainty with regard to what the exact position is. That is one of the objectives. [Interjections.]

The other objective is to give the State President the authority to amend or change the boundaries of these areas upon proclamation, in cases in which he deems it expedient, and after consultation with the self-governing territory. [Interjections.]

What is the present position with regard to the changing of boundaries? The present position is set out in section 1 of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, Act No 21 of 1971. Let me quote section 1:

Subsection 2 goes on:

[Interjections.] In other words, the existing position is that the State President may amend the boundaries of self-governing territories.

Then where does the change come in? The change comes in with regard to what the State President has to take into account when he alters these boundaries. What is the position at present? At present there are no provisos that the State President has to take into account. If this is not defined in an Act, a court cannot judge merely on the basis of some or other vague feeling of what is just or fair…

Yes, the courts talk nonsense, do they not!

I do not think it is appropriate to react to anyone who interjects in such an undignified way.

You (jy) are hypocritical!

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Durban Central that one addresses the members in the House as “hon members”, and not as “you”. The hon member may proceed.

In that case the hon member is hypocritical!

Order! I call the hon member for Durban Central to order! The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, one sometimes wonders what certain people are doing in such an institution as this one.

Take it easy!

Mr Chairman, I request hon members’ attention for the following. What must be taken into account by the court if the Act is not prescriptive? The court cannot react to a vague feeling of what is fair or just. The court has to follow the guidelines set out in the standard rules of legal interpretation.

What do the courts have to take into account? Among other things, the courts—they did this in the past—have to consider the entire contextual background against which the specific Act is to be read. What is that contextual background that hon members of the DP apparently feel should continue to exist? It is a contextual background which consists of legislation that they always oppose. I do not understand their argument that the status quo must continue to exist. That is why the courts have said on occasion that they have to judge on the basis of ethnicity when they consider the whole context of the legislation, and they also have to judge whether or not that area has gone through all the different stages of development.

This amendment provides that the courts need not apply that test, because this amendment says—for all practical purposes this is the only difference with regard to the existing position—that if the State President deems it expedient, he may extend or curtail the areas of jurisdiction of self-governing territories. What does this legislation say, therefore? The legislation says the decision that has to be taken is a political one. If any hon member in this House says the determination of the boundaries of self-governing territories is not a political decision in the first and in the last place, I do not understand how that hon member argues.

You people (julle) are hypocritical! [Interjections.]

It is specifically your party’s politics that is at issue!

Naturally it is a political decision, but we cannot expect the courts to become involved in political decisions or to answer yes or no to political statements. [Interjections.]

Hypocrites! To hell with the courts! That is exactly what you are saying! [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Durban Central please repeat what he said?

Mr Chairman, I said to hell with the courts. That is exactly what you are doing!

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, naturally this legislation is political legislation. We do not pretend that it is anything but legislation that wants to provide clarity and express emphatically that what is at issue here is not the difficult question of legal interpretation whenever boundaries are drawn, but rather a political decision that is being taken.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the good arguments of the hon member for Sundays River. It is just a pity that the dignity of this House was impaired, as the hon member for Durban Central did. That hon member said that we were hypocritical. Can he explain what he means?

I shall have a turn just now!

Order! Would the hon member for Bloemfontein North please continue. [Interjections.]

You people are hypocritical!

Order! Who are “you people”?

Mr Chairman, is the use of the word “hypocritical” in order?

Order! Apparently that hon member referred to a party and not to an hon member. He did not refer to the hon member for Bloemfontein North. I listened attentively. The hon member for Bloemfontein North may continue.

We shall return to this argument. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member for Haarlem sitting in a bench?

No, Mr Chairman.

Order! That hon member must please go and sit in one bench, and then comment and pass remarks from there. The hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

The long title of this Bill makes the objectives of this Bill very clearly, namely that the State President is being empowered to alter the boundaries of areas for which legislative assemblies have been established for self-governing states. The self-governing territories concerned were consulted, namely Quaqua, KwaNdebele, Lebowa and Gazankulu. The people of those territories accepted the amending Bill. KwaZulu and KaNgwane were consulted and it was accepted with certain provisos, with the exception of clause 3 which was deleted in any event at the discussion of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development.

The Bill also seeks to make the self-governing states more administrable. However, the LP does not want to support this Bill. They are politically sensitive.

They do not want to give effect to an Act which has been on the Statute Book since 1936. In 1936 Smuts and Hertzog came forward with a Bill in terms of which certain land was promised to the non-White peoples. However, they are hesitant to demarcate the boundaries in respect of these areas, in spite of the fact that they are in favour of a geographical federation. [Interjections.] In that respect they are in the same category as the CP, which is also hesitant to draw their boundaries. [Interjections.]

I notice that the hon member for Lichtenburg is not present. I understand that he has gone to hold talks with Prof Boshoff. I also believe that there is a difference of opinion in their confidential organisation, called “Toekomsgesprek”, between the hon member for Lichtenburg and Prof Boshoff about the admission of AWB members of Parliament to “Toekomsgesprek”. I leave it at that.

Are you a “Broeder”?

I wish I could tell the hon member that I am a “Broeder”. It is a top-notch organisation. There are some of his members in the “Broederbond” and some members of the DP are also in the “Broederbond”. I wish that I could tell the hon member that I am a member of that top-notch organisation. However, I shall leave it at that because I wish to proceed and I have only a few minutes at my disposal.

Those two gentlemen—the hon member for Lichtenburg and Prof Boshoff—will probably tell us where they are demarcating the boundaries after their discussions. In addition they will most probably inspire the hon members of the LP to tell us what the boundaries of their geographic federation are.

The objections to this legislation were based mainly on the following argument and I quote from the submission made by the attorneys of the claimant:

This brings me to the hon members of the DP and also the hon members of the LP, who have such a lot to say about the whole issue of democracy. Their whole argument about democracy is a hollow argument. They do not have the vaguest idea what it is all about. If one looks at the history of Botshabelo you will see that in 1985, in 1986 and in 1987—throughout its history—there was consultation with the inhabitants of Botshabelo.

When the percentage polls are low—because this is the only defence which these people have—and it is not expedient for their arguments, then they are opposed to it. That is what those hon members in the DP are. These people are the puppets of those people. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: the hon member referred to hon members on this side of the House as “these people”. May he do that?

Order! No, the hon member must say “hon members”.

May I just draw the attention of the hon member for Durban Central to the fact that when he used the word “hypocritical” it also reflected on the policies of the governing party. It is definitely not parliamentary. Will the hon member please withdraw it?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Mr Chairman, while sitting here I began to wonder what on earth has happened to our White Afrikaners. They used to be a God-fearing, law-abiding people. Now they want to be as indecent as Henry VIII was. Whether his previous wife had died of natural causes or he had chopped off her head, Henry VIII wanted to take unto himself a further wife. However, the Pope said: “No”. Henry VIII then changed the law. He took his country away from the jurisdiction of the church.

Here we have the indecency and the immorality of the NP who want to subvert a Supreme Court judgment. That is utterly and thoroughly disgusting. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member please confine himself to the issue at hand?

There is a court judgment which the NP is attempting, through this Bill, to subvert. That is a subversion of the law. That is immoral. It is thoroughly disgusting and we are not prepared to support that kind of cynical, utterly indecent measure.

There has been talk of consolidation. If there were a genuine attempt to consolidate Botshabelo with Qwaqwa, which means incorporating a large part of the Orange Free State into Qwaqwa so that there will be genuine consolidation with geographical contiguity, we might have given it consideration, I will even say sympathetic consideration. However, it is an absolute falsehood to claim that this is consolidation. This is like attempting to sell Alaska. The time is past when territory can just be diverted, and when human beings can be sold as if they were just units.

Lord Acton quite correctly said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This Government has had absolute power for far too long. That is why they even want to give absolute power to the State President to do whatever he deems fit, after mere consultation. Consultation without concurrence is nothing better than insultation. It is not consensus. They take words and give them the meaning which they want to attribute to those words. They want to subvert language as well. Consensus refers to people agreeing after discussion. Consultation means merely talking to the person. Concurrence, as the hon member for Sea Point pointed out, is a far more sensible expression.

Let us never forget that Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany. He was given powers by the parliament of Germany which abdicated its own authority to Hitler. As a result of that, he became the world’s worst dictator. We do not want to abdicate the powers of Parliament as to whether or not any territory of the country will be given away to another state. A self-governing national state can elect to become an independent state. If it elects so to do, it shall become an independent state. Let us therefore not bluff ourselves by saying that Qwaqwa is part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa.

We from the DP, exactly like the LP and Solidarity, feel that this Bill is completely unacceptable as it stands. The Government made a blunder. If they had come to Parliament and said: “Look here, chaps, we made a horrible mess of this thing, as a result of which the legal rights of the inhabitants of Botshabelo are affected. Please help us to rectify that, and undo the mess we have created by a wrong and illegal proclamation,” that, too, might have been given consideration. However, they do not confess to having acted wrongly. They do not confess to having acted illegally. All they want to do is to cover up their illegal action, which we are not prepared to tolerate.

Mr Chairman, it looks a little as if we are all suffering from a slight touch of election fever. I think hon members should grant one another that. I really do not think it is the intention of hon members of my party to be derogatory towards any hon member. The same probably applies to other hon members. I think what we should say to one another this afternoon is that we differ politically on this legislation and that it is really only our right, as the governing party, to put our standpoint here. I do not become angry with anybody if he wants to express a different standpoint. I merely think that it should always be done with dignity.

We are faced here with governments which have to take decisions. We are faced here with a situation which has caused legal uncertainty, whether we like this or not and regardless of whether it is politically good or bad. Unfortunately it is the duty of the governing party to ensure that legal certainty is provided wherever shortcomings arise in this sphere. Consequently it is not altogether fair to accuse the governing party here of assuming Hitler-like powers.

The object of this Bill in the first place is very clearly to remove uncertainty. Secondly, the State President may only take decisions if he deems them expedient. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated clearly which other bodies were to be consulted before such a decision could be taken.

Many arguments were raised here. One argument from the other side of the House is perhaps rather disturbing. If a court case had not been pending on the Botshabelo affair, what would the standpoint of those parties have been? Would they have adopted a different standpoint from that adopted this afternoon? What would their standpoint have been?

I want to conclude but there is something more—whether we agree on it politically or not. It is the Legislative Assembly of Qwaqwa, which has assumed responsibility for communities in that area. These people also have a leadership function, a political function, to fulfil. Hon members need not agree on this but it is their wish that this legislation be proceeded with so that they may obtain legal certainty in their communities. That is why I think it fair to take a look at these people, who also do the work—even if the hon member for Claremont does not like them. These people also carry out specific tasks in the interests of their own communities and in the interests of South Africa; consequently it is a good thing that the Government should listen to them too. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Swellendam wishes to know what the LP’s and other parties’ stance would be with regard to this type of legislation were it not for the case that is currently being considered in court. I think the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister, as well as the rest of the hon members of the committee, should know by now where our party stands as far as consolidation is concerned. I see the hon the Deputy Minister agrees with me. Therefore there is no confusion as far as we are concerned. We have been saying the same things over and over again. In fact, we do not need notes any more when it comes to repeating what we have said about consolidation. We do not believe in the concept of consolidation at all.

In fact, we do believe that consolidation is simply directed towards preparing homelands or self-governing territories for independence. We accept this as a basic fact. Hence we cannot ever again have any dealings with considerations for the consolidation of homelands.

Were we to believe in independence for self-governing territories, were we to see a future in it, then one could make out an argument for consolidation. However, as one of my colleagues says, consolidation and now the intended straightening out of the legal aspects concerning Botshabelo and Moutse, attempt merely to make certain of the address to which the people of these affected areas are being sent. My colleague said the address is hell itself.

As far as the hon member for Bloemfontein North is concerned, I do accept that he became a bit hot under the collar. Somebody said something that annoyed him. He really cannot justify calling the LP, of all parties, puppets of the DP. We have supported moves mooted by the NP and opposed by the DP and the old PFP in the past. We have also supported ideas which emanated from the DP as well as the PFP. We take strong exception to being called puppets of any other party. We think for ourselves. We support what we believe to be right. I think the hon member owes the LP an apology in this regard.

I would like to raise a point with regard to something which has been said repeatedly by some of our hon members. Why are places like Bloemfontein, East London, King William’s Town and even Durban itself not even considered when it comes to the consolidation of homelands?

I am not making out a case for consolidation. I am just trying to point out that the whole idea of consolidation and the manner in which it is being advocated by the NP—the ruling party—is not moving in the direction of the dropping of ethnic consolidation.

At this stage I need to clarify a point. The hon member for Lenasia Central seems to have confused two Bills with each other. We did not have anything to do with amendments to this Bill. I would like to point out that we opposed the principle of this Bill in the committee. We therefore did not vote on any of the clauses.

I listened carefully to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives had to say today. He said that because clause 2(3) had been removed, he had no problem with this Bill. However, in the committee, even before the idea of removing clause 2(3) came up—in fact, even before the hon the Deputy Minister had indicated that he was willing to remove it—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives had in any case indicated that he did not have any problems with the Bill. Does this reflect on his studious work concerning the construction of homelands? Does it reflect on the manner in which he deals with these serious matters? I would suggest that he be a little less critical of the LP. Perhaps he should be a bit more hardworking when it comes to Bills of this nature.

I now wish to refer to another matter. The allegation is quite often made that we in the LP have very simplistic answers and solutions to the very difficult problems of this country. I want to say that that very viewpoint is a simplistic one. We give a lot of thought and attention to the proposals which we put forward. We are serious-minded when it comes to our idea of a federation for this country. We do not see an ethnic constellation of states in a federal structure as being a solution. We have our own ideas. However, are our ideas taken seriously?

As the hon member for Swellendam said, we simply have to accept that the NP and the LP differ on this Bill in principle and politically. We must therefore not get too hot under the collar. We should rather just accept that we differ on the matter, so that the NP can just thunder this Bill through the President’s Council and make it law. That is basically what the hon member was saying to us. If he is genuine about that then, since we cannot reach consensus, I would like to suggest that the Bill be withdrawn altogether.

The allegation is often made that the LP should be grateful for the inclusion of their representatives, the so-called Coloured people, into this tricameral system. I want to allege that it is by our political action, our commitment to the community at large and our dedication to the future of South Africa that we drove our way into this Parliament. After 1980 the NP had no choice but to come up with something like this tricameral structure. No doubt at another time it will have to come up with something better again!

Homeland leaders—leaders of self-governing territories—are beginning to overcome their hasty criticism of the LP for having entered the tricameral system in 1984. Indeed, some of them are beginning to understand that in politics one gets what one settles for. If one settles for a CPRC, that is what one gets. If one settles finally for a tricameral Parliament, that is what one gets. Similarly, if one settles for a government in a self-governing territory, and one is satisfied with it, that is what one will get. It seems as if that penny has finally dropped. Homeland leaders are beginning to find out that they should settle for something better, such as inclusion in central Parliamentary politics—mainstream politics in this country.

People like Enos Mabuza are beginning to realise this fact. He realises, like the hon Chairman of the Ministers Council in the House of Representatives, that he will have to teach his grassroots support—and this man has grassroots support—that regardless of the efforts that are being made within Parliament to have them included in mainstream politics, the driving work still has to be done by themselves.

I now want to return to the issue of consolidation. I said earlier that consolidation is directed towards preparing homelands for independence. I also wish to say that it represents an effort towards driving self-governing territories into demanding independence. I want to repeat that; it is an effort towards driving self-governing territories into demanding independence by giving people no choice. One cannot accept a lift from a motorist and simultaneously demand the right to drive the car. Similarly, the more homeland government is streamlined, reinforced and consolidated, and the greater the co-operation of the target community of people, the less their chance of ever reaching the Central Parliament. I have said nothing different in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, a number of members of the NP have contributed to this debate in an attempt to justify this legislation. It was a half-hearted attempt because they have had to skirt around the real reason behind it, namely to enable the hon State President to do what he wants to without having the irritation of the courts to deal with.

The hon Deputy Minister is a lawyer. I want him to please explain to me, if he can, in his reply…

You did not behave like one this afternoon.

This hon Deputy Minister must not talk to me about behaviour when in this Bill he is responsible for deliberately undermining the standing of our courts. It is a deliberate attempt to circumvent our Supreme Court. He shakes his head. I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to explain that away. It is a vote of no confidence in our Supreme Court.

That is not true.

It is an absolute vote of no confidence in our Supreme Court. That is why I use the word “skynheilig.” The word “skynheilig” was used to illustrate the fact that those people, who on the one hand pretend to espouse the independence of our courts and support our judiciary, on the other hand come up with legislation which runs directly contrary to that and undermines our whole legal system. That is what this hon Minister is doing with this particular Bill.

The hon member for Springs has tried to come up with an explanation as to why this Bill is necessary. He said that the court decision was based on old Acts. I say that that is nonsense. It is based on Acts which are now in existence and which apply now. [Interjections.] He must amend those Acts then. [Interjections.]

Order! We shall definitely not allow a continual stream of interjections to be made. The hon member may continue.

He explained that those old Acts which he referred to only relied on ethnicity. This is not true. He must go and have a look at the Act. That is why the courts interpreted that Act to mean that in order to consolidate one piece with another, they need to be able to complement and fit in with each other. To talk of “sinvolle konsolidasie” in a situation where one has Botshabelo about 270 kilometres away from QwaQwa, makes absolute nonsense of the concept of consolidation.

If one reads the judgement of the Supreme Court case in the Orange Free State which this Government is so irritated by, one will find that the evidence by the applicants that the Botshabelo people were not consulted, is not contradicted by the hon the Minister or by the Government. The situation is that there are about 600 000 people in Botshabelo who were not consulted, and the rather naïve justification by the hon member for Southern Cape that he relies on an affidavit from several Qwaqwa members of Parliament, is very difficult to understand. The people in Botshabelo have said that they are prepared to have a referendum about it.

Why has there not been a referendum? Why does the hon the Minister not allow the people of Botshabelo to have a referendum on this issue?

I shall answer you.

The hon member for Springs talked about negotiation. He tried to charm the LP by saying: “We are in favour of negotiations, aren’t we?” Has the Government negotiated with the people from Botshabelo? They have not. It is a fact that 600 000 people are being shifted by law into Qwaqwa without them having been taken into account. The Supreme Court judgement says amongst other things that a step like this is a drastic constitutional step which changes the rights, status and way of life of about 400 000 people who are affected by it. Despite such a drastic step being taken the people in Botshabelo are not consulted. Why should they be consulted?

*After all they do not have a vote. The hon the State President now has the power to do what he likes. We can shunt those Blacks around as much as we like. We ignore and circumvent the court.

Be careful now.

That hon Deputy Minister, who is a lawyer, is in the forefront of the action and seems to be doing so with a fairly clean conscience. This type of legislation is the type of legislation which undermines our whole legal system. In 1985 the HSRC undertook a wide investigation into group identity and relations in the country. The council published a report and one of the points in the report read as follows:

With this step the Government is contributing to the present legitimacy crisis in our judiciary. When I speak about a legitimacy crisis I am not speaking about my own subjective views, but of a finding of the HSRC. It is stated in that report of the HSRC that this will encourage a revolution. If this Government goes ahead with the inclusion of Botshabelo in Qwaqwa without consulting them, Botshabelo, in the same way as Natal and other places in the Eastern Cape, will become a place known to everyone in South Africa and abroad because violence is going to occur as a result of people’s viewpoints and opinions being ignored.

If one takes into account what this Government has done during recent decades to undermine our judiciary one does not have enough time to list all the incidents and all the legislation they used to accomplish this. The status of our judges is not the same as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Our entire judiciary is losing its effectiveness, especially for those who cannot afford it.

By those who are relocated our judiciary is considered to be an arm of the apartheid state, and this hon Deputy Minister is contributing his share to ensure that our Blacks see our judiciary as part of the apartheid state which the Government can use as it chooses to enforce its will on people. This is exactly what they are doing here. They are forcing their will on the people of Botshabelo in the name of the law while a court in the small area which is left tried to oppose this.

This is a crude method which is being used to undermine our courts and to make our administration more authoritarian. It is a crude method of conferring powers on our hon State President which cannot be controlled by any court, which he can exercise without being forced to consult with the people concerned and without worrying about the courts which might limit his powers. We shall not oppose these crude measures, but reject them. This is not something one opposes; one rejects it with disdain. That is the standpoint I should like to make clear.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my reply I shall also react to the hon member, who has just spoken.

In the first place I should like to thank the hon members for Springs, Sundays River, Bloemfontein North and Swellendam for their support and also for the arguments which they advanced in respect of their support for this Bill. I should like to thank them for it. I should also like to thank the hon member for Randfontein for his support for the Bill.

Before I go any further, I just want to say that the behaviour of the hon member for Durban Central during this discussion was of the poorest I have seen for a long time in this Chamber, and even in public. [Interjections.] I think it was really objectionable and it was a great pity.

Your legislation is objectionable!

Firstly I should like to put a few general matters in respect of this Bill into their correct perspective. I respect the opinions and arguments of hon members concerning this matter, but I should like to put into perspective a few matters which in my opinion are important to take into consideration in respect of the Bill before this Committee.

Firstly the court decisions which we have on these specific matters at this stage—one can refer to them as the Moutse and Botshabelo judgments—were based on the interpretation of existing legislation and proclamations making provision for the consolidation of land. They were based on that. The best example of the dilemma we have is the fact that with the Moutse judgment and the Botshabelo judgment one has two conflicting judgments in respect of the interpretation of the provisions concerned.

In the case of Moutse the court states that ethnicity is the decisive factor. In the case of Botshabelo the court states that the decisive factor to take into consideration is whether the procedure followed the normal course of development. These are two divergent judgments which therefore tell one that the court finds itself in an uncomfortable situation. I am saying this with all due respect to the court. The court is obliged to interpret existing legislation and give an interpretation thereof, and this legislation is apparently inadequate as far as its capacity for interpretation is concerned.

I do not in any way want to criticise the judgments of the courts; that is not the point. However, on the basis of these two judgements we have a clear demonstration that legal certainty on this point must be created. That is primarily what this Bill before us is concerned with. It must create legal certainty in order to put an end to the divergent judgments and the existing problem of interpretation. If ever this matter should at any stage in the future again come before the court, there will at least be a clearly demonstrated basis on which the court will be able to pass judgment.

Secondly I want to tell the hon member for Wentworth and other hon members on his side that the procedure of consolidation adopted in the case of Botshabelo was also adopted in all the other cases.

†This was not a method that was used for the first time in connection with consolidation. I would like to say the same to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Apparently he is not here at the moment. No, sorry, there he is. He took a point about the question of consolidation. He said that in principle he was not totally against consolidation—if I understood him correctly. He nods, so he agrees.

That is the whole point. In the case of Botshabelo the procedures that were followed were the normal procedures that were followed in all the cases in terms of consolidation. They were nothing new.

But the court interfered!

What happened was that, following the proclamation of 2 December 1987, the proclamation was taken to court. This can happen in any other case of course. [Interjections.]

*That is the whole point. Now one has received an interpretation of that proclamation, and there was a different interpretation in the case of the Moutse proclamation. That is the whole point, which must be rectified by means of this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon member for Haarlem back?

Yes, I am back. [Interjections.]

Let us consider for a while the procedure that is adopted in respect of Black areas. The Bill makes provision for the inclusion of Black areas in a self-governing territory. It is not an undetermined or undefined area, but a Black area. The procedure which is adopted prior to the determination of a Black area is a prescribed procedure. I have mentioned this before, and I am repeating it.

The Commission for Co-operation and Development undertakes a public investigation into the matter. Anyone can make representations. In the end the determination of that area as a Black area is placed before Parliament by way of an amendment that must be made to the Schedule to the Act. Consequently Parliament has already given its finding with regard to an area when it is declared a Black area. That was in fact the procedure followed in this case. In other words, it is not something that took place uncontrollably in the past or at this time, but a specific procedure that is followed in accordance with legal prescriptions.

The third point that I should like to refer to is that the hon members who are opposing the Bill seem to be doing so on the premise that this consolidation that is in question here will mean that the self-governing territories in question are going to become independent. That is their argument. The basis of this argument is that the Government is ostensibly forcing these areas to accept independence on the basis of this consolidation. Surely that is not true. To tell the truth, it is completely devoid of all truth. The Government’s standpoint in that regard is very clear; no self-governing territory will be forced to accept independence.

Why are you creating the homelands?

Since that is the case, surely it means that those self-governing territories which are not independent are in fact part of the RSA. I do not understand quite how that can be reconciled with the Labour Party’s standpoint in respect of… [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon member had his chance to speak. If the hon member wants to put a question, he can do so in an orderly manner, and I shall try to reply to him.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member must ask properly, not just any old way.

Order! It is very clear that the hon member is overstepping the mark. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I do not understand how that can be reconciled with the Labour Party’s standpoint. The Labour Party say they are in favour of a federal system, but they themselves do not have clarity with regard to the boundaries. If I remember correctly, they spoke about the possibility of 13.

A non-racial federation.

That does not matter; we are talking about a federation which evidently consists of 13 different states.

Who gave that figure?

It is the Labour Party’s figure. The hon member Mr Douw said here the other day that it could be more or less 13. [Interjections.] In that case the hon members must tell us how many there are going to be, because it seems to me that there could also be 30. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon the Deputy Minister is provoking the hon members into replying [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The point at issue is whether the boundaries, according to the Labour Party’s standpoint, can or cannot be determined. My submission would be that the self-governing territories, according to their standpoint, are in fact part of that federation. Or do they want to tell us that they want to undo the self-governing territories within their federal system? [Interjections.] That is an important point. I am not asking for an answer; I am debating the matter, because it is very important. If the hon members say no, they are not going to divest the self-governing territories of their existence and of their boundaries, my question is whether it matters. With a view to a final constitutional solution in terms of the party’s policy, does it matter? When we talk about the party’s policy, we are talking about one overall boundary within which various states exist. I say that if it is true that the self-governing territories are part of that constitutional solution they envisage, surely the size of the areas or which areas are included in the boundaries of those self-governing territories does not matter.

How far is this place from Qwaqwa?

I shall reply to the hon member specifically with regard to Botshabelo in a moment.

The next point that I should like to emphasise is that in the hon member’s argument against this Bill, I note an undertone of disrespect with regard to the self-governing territories. I must say that to hon members, because their argument is that the self-governing territories are being forced to accept something that they ostensibly do not want.

We did not say that!

In addition it looks as though the self-governing territories cannot exercise any choice in respect of the acquisition of land. In my opinion that indeed shows a complete lack of respect for the self-governing territories and the right of the authorities and the governments of the self-governing territories to take decisions for themselves in respect of matters such as these.

I want to come to Botshabelo itself, because apparently Botshabelo is the pivot on which so many of the hon members’ arguments hinge. Since the establishment of Botshabelo, there has been no doubt at any stage that Botshabelo was earmarked to become part of Qwaqwa. If one goes back in history, it is clear that at the time of the agreement between the South African Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana, when this state became independent and ThabaNchu became part of the independent state of Bophuthatswana, those people who were not citizens of Bophuthatswana would in fact be resettled in an alternative place. The alternative place which was agreed upon was Botshabelo. I am not quite sure what the name of the old farm was, but I think it was Welbedag. One of the Free Staters will be able to correct me. [Interjections.] In any case, that was where Botshabelo had its origin. There was an agreement between those two authorities and Qwaqwa that Botshabelo would indeed become part of the self-governing territory of Qwaqwa.

Before settlement had actually taken place in Botshabelo, that was a well-known fact. Everyone who subsequently settled in Botshabelo, settled there on that basis. No one could argue that he was ignorant with regard to the future of Botshabelo after its establishment. People came from everywhere, not only those from ThabaNchu who were resettled there, but literally people from everywhere. On the basis of voluntary choice, people even came from the northern parts of the Transkei to settle in Botshabelo. The numbers increased considerably.

As early as November 1982, Botshabelo was declared a Black area once the procedure I described a moment ago was completed. In other words, the procedures with reference to this area had been complied with a long time before. As I said, people went to live there on this basis.

In 1985 the hon the State President gave an undertaking on the part of the South African Government, by way of a speech before the Qwaqwa Legislative Assembly, that this original arrangement would be complied with.

In August of the same year there was an election for the Qwaqwa Legislative Assembly. The election preceded the hon the State President’s speech. The inhabitants of Botshabelo were given the opportunity inter alia to participate in the election. The governing party of Qwaqwa made its standpoint clear. It was recorded in all its manifestos and in the documentation that was distributed and in speeches made in Botshabelo that the governing party of Qwaqwa adhered to one standpoint, viz that Botshabelo would become part of Qwaqwa.

During that election 62 248 people who were registered voters in Botshabelo voted, and 99,3% of them voted in favour of the governing party of Qwaqwa.

What percentage of the population is that?

I do not know what the percentage…

It is 10% !

No, wait a minute. We are talking about 1985. I do not have the figures to determine the population of Botshabelo at that stage. If one looks at the total population of Botshabelo even now, however, I would argue that the more than 62 000 inhabit ants who voted in fact formed a high percentage of the total population that was able in any way to participate in an election at that stage. It still appears that a large percentage of the inhabitants of Botshabelo are children and young people who would not have been able to take part in an election at that stage in any case.

The point that is at issue here, is that a legitimate statement was made by way of an election in favour of the governing party which adopted a clear standpoint in favour of the incorporation of Botshabelo into Qwaqwa. If a question arises as to the demonstrated basis for this, there is an answer to this point.

And the referendum?

I think it is fair to say that on that basis the Government had reason to proceed in any case.

I want to come back to certain hon members’ arguments with regard to opposition to the Bill. I should like to ask the hon member whether he read the judgments of those judges himself.

I was also on the committee.

No, I asked whether he had read the judgments.

[Inaudible.]

I conclude that the hon member did not read them. In that case I do not think he understands the reason for this Bill.

Tell us about ethnicity.

Obviously the hon member was not listening to what I said earlier either. The point is that that hon member made the allegation that this Bill was based on contempt of the courts. I say that is completely devoid of all truth.

I am correct!

If the hon member had read the judgment he would have realised what was wrong with the handling of this matter.

Why were you not prepared to delay this until next year?

Order! No, the hon member for Addo has now made his last interjection.

But the hon the Deputy Minister asked me a question.

Order! That may be the case, but the hon member for Addo has made his last interjection. I see the hon member for Durban Central is preparing to interject. [Interjections.] I merely want to ask him please not to do so. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Addo also said that the leader-in-chief of the NP had referred to the statement “fairness to all people”, which I sincerely endorse and which I am sure we all endorse. I merely want to ask him to consider the following. If one wants to apply “fairness” in respect of everyone, that also applies with regard to self-governing territories and the governments of those territories. I do not think we should allow ourselves to adopt a standpoint which would be in conflict with fairness and reasonableness toward the self-governing territories. I want to invite that hon member—he need not answer me; I am not provoking him—to discuss this matter with Chief Minister Mopeli and his government and to ask them for their standpoint on this matter. If he does so, I think he will get an opinion from the Chief Minister and his government in Qwaqwa which will be based on fairness in accordance with his own criterion.

What about the people?

Oh, Sir, this hon member definitely did not listen to a word I said. [Interjections.]

†I think the hon member for Lenasia Central totally missed the point. The intention of this Bill is solely to conclude the process that was actually initiated in the case of Botshabelo and in other cases in the past in terms of consolidation. That could only take place where land has been identified as a Black area and, in terms of the processes, has been consolidated. That is the purpose of this Bill; nothing more or less.

The hon member for Berea referred to…

He made a good speech!

Yes, it was a better speech than that of the hon member for Durban Central!

The hon member for Berea referred to the upheaval that took place after the incorporation of Botshabelo on 2 December 1987. However, that is not true, and I think the hon member knows it. There was no real upheaval in Botshabelo after that date. It is just an untrue statement to say that there was an upheaval after that date.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister has just said of the hon member for Berea that he said something that was not true and that he knew it. I submit that that is out of order.

Order! Did the hon the Deputy Minister say that?

No, Mr Chairman, I said…

Order! Then the hon the Deputy Minister did not say that. We can therefore continue.

On a further point of order, Sir, may I then request that you inspect the Hansard of the hon the Deputy Minister?

Order! I suggest to the hon member that he obtains the relevant Hansard and draws it to my attention should he deem it necessary. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, I will gladly help the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I said that there was no upheaval, and the hon member for Berea knows it. Following that, I said that it was just not true to say that there had been an upheaval in Botshabelo after 2 December 1987.

The hon member referred to certain amendments. First of all, let me point out to the hon member for Berea that the amendment as far as clause 2(3) is concerned was already on the Order Paper last Friday. That was the one that was proposed by myself. I think his own amendments were only printed on the Order Paper this morning. I just want to point out that we had already taken the initiative in this regard, as I indicated in the committee last week.

There is a fascinating point about one of the amendments proposed by the hon member for Berea in today’s Order Paper. The hon member moves that clause 3 should be rejected totally. Following that, there is an amendment by the hon member for Johannesburg North proposing that only subsection (1) of that same clause should be deleted. In other words there is apparently quite a difference of opinion between the two hon members. [Interjections.]

In one case it means that the hon member for Johannesburg North actually moves that clauses 3(2) and 3(3) should be retained, which means that he wants to rectify the position as far as Botshabelo and Moutse are concerned.

That is the second prize!

It seems to me that they might be representing different opinions or different leaders in their party. [Interjections.] We will take that further in our discussions at committee level again.

I have already referred to the hon member for Reservoir Hills but I want to point something out again. There is nothing sinister about this Bill as far as the provision for the consolidation process is concerned. So if he is in principle in favour of consolidation, I would like to say to him that this is not a new method to bring about consolidation. It is actually only to rectify the position that was created through the problems we had concerning the interpretation by the courts of the procedure that was followed in the past.

The hon member for Wentworth said that the LP is totally against consolidation. That is clear. They said so in the past and they have made that point clear. However, let me just say that consolidation is almost concluded. He knows it. Consolidation in terms of the self-governing territories is almost concluded. This Bill in essence legally endorses the boundaries that have been drawn and therefore brings about certainty as far as the consolidation process is concerned. That is the main aim. If one looks at clause 3(1) then one sees that that is its main aim. [Interjections.]

The hon member says it is a way of putting pressure on those self-governing territories to take independence. That is not true; it is absolute nonsense. The hon member knows what the Government has stated in the past on this very subject, namely that it depends on the self-governing territory itself. If it wants to opt for independence, it is free to do so. However, the Government is not going to put pressure on any self-governing territory to opt for independence at any stage. That cannot be done through this Bill or in any other way. So there is no need for concern by the hon member in this regard.

*I should like to conclude by saying that I think hon members missed important points in their arguments with regard to this matter. I am referring to the hon members who objected to this Bill. What is in fact in question here is the rectification or the establishment of a legal position in terms of which the dilemma that obviously existed on the basis of the two judgments to which reference was made can ultimately be rectified to ensure that we are not caught up in that same dilemma again. In a certain sense this also eliminates the dilemma in which the courts find themselves with reference to this matter. I think that on this basis and by means of this process certainty has been furnished, as was argued by hon members in support of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 18h25.

Mr Chairman, the Elections and Identification Amendment Bill is the result of two and a half years of investigations and consultations by the Joint Committee on the Electoral Act, 1979. The Electoral Act is, as hon members know, a highly technical procedural measure. The proposals in the Bill are also of a technical nature, comprehensive and, in several respects, reasonably far-reaching.

Today I want to pay tribute to the hon member for Innesdal, who was the chairman of the Joint Committee on the Electoral Act, 1979, and also to each and every other hon member who served on this committee. I also want to express my gratitude to the present chairman of the committee, the hon member for Umlazi, who is carrying on with the task. I want to thank them all for a great job of work they have done. It was a difficult task which, over a long period, necessitated a fair degree of perseverance.

Experience has taught us that the electoral system is a subject about which members of Parliament, in particular, can never stop talking. The fact that there was unanimity about the Bill in the Joint Committee is in itself a major achievement, and hon members of the committee deserve to be commended for that.

Mr Chairman, I have taken note of the committee’s report which was tabled. The committee’s proposals about policy and administrative changes have been duly considered. Owing to the limited time available to me, I cannot discuss all those proposals in detail.

The majority of the proposals contained in paragraph 1 of the report are acceptable. I have therefore instructed the department to give effect to them. The proposed overall control of elections, however, and also franchise for South African citizens abroad, are aspects that still need in-depth investigation. Owing to the short time remaining before the general election on 6 September 1989, it will unfortunately not be possible to implement the acceptable recommendations contained in paragraph 1 in time for the general election.

In regard to the proposals for an extended investigation into the Electoral Act and related matters, I do not now want to commit my successor. I am nevertheless of the opinion that the proposals have merit. It is essential for a procedural measure such as the Electoral Act to keep pace with practical demands.

†It is equally essential that we should examine how new technological development, especially computer technology, can be utilised to provide a more effective and less expensive electoral procedure. Since the amending Bill was tabled, the Director-General, some of his officials and I have had discussions with hon members of all three Houses to explain the Bill and to clarify certain problems.

The discussions have been generally positive and in the light of these discussions I do not deem it necessary to explain again the proposed amendments contained in the Bill. I would rather listen to what hen members have to say about the Bill so that I can deal with those aspects which need further clarification in my reply. I have also taken note of the amendments which hon members have placed on the Order Paper. An amendment also appears under my name.

The Joint Committee will meet as early as tomorrow to consider the amendments. Time is of the essence because the department can only proceed with the printing of approximately 23 millions forms, the finalisation of the elections procedure manual and the preparation of a consolidated Electoral Act after the Bill has been enacted. I therefore appeal to all hon members to make every endeavour to ensure the prompt finalisation of the Bill by Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for the good spirit in which this debate on the new Electoral Act legislation has been conducted over the years. I also want to refer to the particular committee on which we served for a long period. We met many times. We had a great many sittings and spoke a great deal. We listened to many witnesses. I am sure that even today we have not yet succeeded in producing a final, proper product which satisfies all requirements because many shortcomings remain to which we could not find answers.

Examples of these are that we are still grappling with the problem of postal votes and that a more refined procedure still has to be found on how to remove certain people from the voters’ lists. The greatest problem is that we have not yet found a final, effective method by which the voters’ lists may be kept up to date.

It so happens that there is an election ahead and we shall therefore all participate in piloting the Bill through Parliament as soon as possible so that it may be implemented and all the forms printed to get them to the electoral divisions. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that it takes place quickly so that the forms may reach the electoral divisions as soon as possible and the new Electoral Act legislation in its new form be printed as soon as possible so that it may be available because the Electoral Act lays down the rules of the game. These are the rules of the game according to which every hon member here will play the game. That is why it is of paramount importance that finality be reached.

I also wish to congratulate the Chairman of the Joint Committee, the hon member for Innesdal, who is becoming an ambassador now, for his great patience and the expertise which he displayed. I want to wish his successor everything of the best for the future.

As far as the officials are concerned, I can say that I had an interview with Mr Attie Trudeau as recently as yesterday evening. Thank you very much to all the officials, Mr Dirk Vermeulen and the Director-General who helped us in this difficult matter.

One of our chief aims was to update the voters’ lists and to keep them up to date. The question was how one would accomplish this. I do not think there is a single hon member here who does not know how many problems we experienced in the past with people whose names were simply not on the voters’ list. The reason was of no importance. His name was not on the voters’ list and he was furious. One has to vote and in some urban electoral divisions it actually becomes a farce because there are 25 000 voters on the voters’ list but between 7 000 and 8 000 are no longer there. In some cases even more people have moved.

The question is not what one does to keep the voters’ list up to date. As hon members may perhaps be aware, we reflected on this subject for days and perhaps months within a year or two. We actually considered numerous methods and we even heard evidence from the Receiver of Revenue. There was mention that we should launch great registration or change-of-address campaigns annually and that political parties could perhaps become more involved in this.

It is not such an exceptional problem to us because our political party is young and vigorous. We get things done. Nevertheless one should appreciate the position of old parties which are done for and finished. [Interjections.] Sir, of course I did not mention any names but I invite hon members to look to my right to see who is apparently howling after I had launched that arrow in the air.

I think that the nearest the committee came to the solution of this problem was the insertion of section 12A in the Act by means of clause 117. This is being inserted because we felt that the primary agent of the Department of Home Affairs for the maintenance of the voters’ list ought to be municipalities or local governing bodies. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting this Bill on behalf of my party. As the hon the Minister indicated, this Bill is the result of an inquiry into the Electoral Act by a committee which lasted almost two and a half years. The Bill involved is a type of interim report of this committee. Although all recommendations of the committee concerned are not contained in the Bill under discussion, the proposed Bill facilitates the specific voting process considerably and it could lead to greater convenience for all concerned, including the voter, the candidate and political parties.

Initially my party had a few problems which we ironed out with officials and it appears that we can provide a temporary solution to these problems. One of the problems concerns the identification of special voters. In terms of this Bill, only persons who are in possession of an identity document may cast a special vote. Our experience in by-elections is that we shall see an increasing tendency toward preference for special votes because this gives one more time and because it gives the voter considerably more time to cast his vote at a time which suits him. It also eliminates intimidation to a great degree.

Part of the solution to this problem appears to be that, if a voter would like to cast a special vote, provision is made in the Bill for the issue of a temporary identification certificate free of charge which, together with a photograph of the voter, will enable him to vote as a special voter providing his particulars appear on the voters’ list and in the population register.

Another important problem which we experienced in the past was related to electoral officers handling special votes. In by-elections we usually had a crowd during the lunch hour and then the polling station was locked and the officials went to lunch. A long queue of voters then stood there unable to cast their votes and, because our people are workers in general, voters crowd in mainly in the morning early, during the lunch hour and in the afternoons after work. Officials have assured us that they will attempt to eliminate this problem for us by means of a directive to all electoral officers so that the polling station will remain open during the lunch hour.

One of the matters about which we are still unhappy is that independent candidates require only 300 signatures to stand in an election. Hon members know that an election is very expensive nowadays and we shall come up against a number of nuisance candidates again on 6 September—people who have no chance of winning but who will merely be put up by embittered members of the opposition, who are sitting here now and will not be here after 6 September, to cost us a great deal of money and to take up a great deal of our time. It would perhaps be a solution if we could have increased the number of signatures to 1 000. [Interjections.] In the process a number of nuisance candidates would have been eliminated. [Interjections.]

A further problem which we solved was that there was some ambiguity in the legislation regarding the question whether voters holding the old green identity card would be able to vote. In terms of the existing Electoral Act, provision is already made for voters holding the green card to vote, providing their names appear on the voters’ list, and it may also serve as a positive means of identification.

We take pleasure in supporting this Bill. We particularly welcome the fact that the process regarding special votes has been simplified considerably. In future a voter need only be of the opinion that he will not be able to get to the polling station on polling day in order to qualify for casting a special vote.

I think the fact that a voter has to be in possession of an identity document will to a great extent eliminate the discrepancy in the identification of voters. In the past we had to do with cases in which a man signed a series of forms and identified a number of voters whom he did not know from Adam. Provision is made in the Bill that, if an opposition candidate wishes to lodge an objection, that objection shall be entered on such an identification form, the matter investigated and such a vote may subsequently be cancelled.

The system of postal votes was also open to corruption in the past. This process is addressed in the Bill too. In future a voter will deal with his postal vote personally and it will no longer be handled by political parties’ officials. This process also eliminates many problems.

We of the LP are firmly convinced that we shall win all 80 seats. [Interjections.] We want to thank the hon the Minister very much that with this Bill he has made it much easier for us to dispose of the election quickly. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, by this time hon members will already have discovered that the spokesmen on this Bill are very well acquainted with the various provisions relating to the fighting of elections.

This Bill, as bulky as it is, was a fairly long time in the making. It originated as early as 1986 and, in the case of the House of Assembly, has in fact already survived a House of Assembly election. Consequently, a number of valuable lessons were learnt during that election which in due course have also manifested themselves in the legislation before us.

†From the start the committee agreed on three basic objectives as far as reform of the electoral process was concerned. In the first instance the feeling among the various components of the joint committee was unanimous that a uniform procedure should be established for all parliamentary elections. That sounds easy, but it is not quite as simple as it sounds. One must remember that the 1984 election for the Houses of Representatives and Delegates were conducted under rules which differed substantially from those prescribed in the Electoral Act.

Furthermore, the backgrounds against which the elections were fought for the House of Assembly in 1987, and the Houses of Representatives and Delegates in 1984 also differed substantially. Hon members will recall that the hon member Mr Lockey made reference to the question of intimidation, something that was felt in the election for the other two Houses, but not so much in the election for the House of Assembly. The hon member Mr Lockey also made reference to “nuisance” candidates, a situation which made itself felt in the first election for those two Houses, which is also not such a major problem in the case of the House of Assembly.

There were therefore substantial differences in the attitudes brought to the joint committee on the part of the members of the various components of this committee.

The second objective was that there was a desire to remove as many anomalies as still appeared in the Act, some, for instance, referring to provincial council elections, others simply because times and electoral practices had changed. Another thing which had to be removed was the reference to special justices of the peace.

Thirdly, the objective was to simplify the procedures in regard to elections so as to make it as easy as possible for voters to exercise their democratic right to vote and to reduce the number of pitfalls into which people could fall.

The Bill before us represents a remarkable degree of consensus reached among all political parties on the basic principles of the measure. It is true that some minor amendments will be moved in this extended public committee and the joint committee will attend to them but then, as the hon member for Overvaal so rightly said, I suppose there never will be an Electoral Act which will satisfy all the segments of the population and I think the Electoral Act will have to be adjusted from time to time as far as we can see in the future.

The degree of unanimity achieved was due to two things, I think. The first was the spirit of give and take displayed by all parties on this committee and the second was the patience of the former chairman, the hon member for Innesdal, and the trouble he took to ensure that the committee would be provided with as much data as it required to perform its task. One of the initiatives the chairman undertook was an investigation into electoral procedures in West Germany, Great Britain and some states in the United States of America. In this he was accompanied by the Director-General of the department, Mr G B S van Zyl, and his chief director of civic affairs, Mr M P Lombard.

*According to what my predecessor has told me, the visit was useful in various respects and it also made a real contribution to the decisions reached by the committee. Perhaps the most important lesson that was learnt from the visit, was the realisation that our electoral legislation was nowhere near as primitive in relation to those of the leading Western democracies as one may sometimes be inclined to think. In fact, in some respects we are ahead of those old democracies. In fact, if we continue to adjust and to modernise our Electoral Act periodically, we could indeed make it one of the most refined systems in the world. Particularly in the field of the identification of voters, we have developed a system here that is streets ahead of those in the countries that were visited.

In other respects there are, in fact, things that can be learnt from the examples of these countries, and the Bill before us already makes provision for some of these improvements. I shall mention just a few. In all three of these countries local authorities play a far greater role in the conducting of parliamentary elections. They play a key role in the registration of voters, in the drawing up of voters’ rolls and in the running of the election itself. A great deal more negotiation will have to take place in order to bring about such a situation in South Africa, but this Bill already furnishes the legal authority to set this process in motion. Hon members will find it in clause 117. In due course it may also appear advisable, inter alia, to establish a form of liaison insofar as the boundaries between parliamentary electoral districts and municipal wards are concerned.

Secondly, the provision that is made in the countries that were visited for removing from the voters’ roll the names of those voters who have made a permanent change of residence, could possibly be followed in South Africa as well. This great deficiency in our Electoral Act is now also being addressed in clause 9 and ought to lead to voters’ rolls becoming more up to date.

Thirdly, I refer to a further example which the deputation came across abroad, and that is that in all three countries, very great emphasis is placed on smaller electoral districts and on a smaller number of voters per polling station than we have. In all three of these countries an absolute maximum of approximately 2 000 voters per polling station is the norm. In clause 22 of the Bill before us, progress has already been made in this direction as well.

However, the Bill goes much further than just those measures to which I have referred so far. In fact, the measure before us is one of the most bulky amendments to the Electoral Act ever to have come before Parliament. It goes without saying that it will not be possible to deal with the entire Bill in the course of one speaking allocation, and later speakers will refer to specific groups of clauses.

Permit me, however, to say a few words about the proposed amendments to the provision for absent voters. Up to now those voters who were unable to visit a polling station on polling day were able to exercise a choice as to whether they wished to vote by post or by special vote. This had the advantage, insofar as the House of Assembly was concerned, that the 1987 election provided a good yardstick of voters’ preferences in this regard. The other two Houses, of course, have made use only of special votes right from the beginning.

Insofar as the House of Assembly was concerned, the 1987 election reflected a clear preference for the special vote. To tell the truth, 228 372 special votes, as opposed to 70 016 postal votes, were cast in that election. That is to say, approximately three special votes for every postal vote. Nevertheless, in spite of representations that the postal vote ought to be abolished entirely, consensus was reached by the committee that this voting system was to be retained for the benefit of that group of voters who would be unable to visit either the polling station or a presiding officer for special voters, and who ran the risk that they, in turn, could not be visited owing to the pressure of work of the presiding officer. This, together with a drastic simplification of the reasons as to why a voter may lay claim to either a postal vote or a special vote, ought to make this voters’ preference, which already made itself felt in 1987 in the case of one House of Parliament, appear all the more clearly. It is therefore possible that in a future round and during a further investigation into the Electoral Act, a single voting system may be agreed upon. However, I should like to submit for the consideration of this Committee that it is still too early at this stage to reach consensus on this.

In conclusion I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for its acceptance of the committee’s recommendations, and I believe that I speak on behalf of all parties that were represented on the committee. The Electoral Act is one of those measures that requires continual refinement and adjustment. This, too, will not be the last amending Bill, but it represents meaningful progress on the path to a sophisticated and modern electoral system.

Mr Chairman, I too would like to add to the sentiments expressed in respect of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications, who will be retiring. The positive attitude displayed by the hon the Minister will always be remembered. His retirement and the simultaneous retirement of the Director-General are noted with regret. However, we are satisfied in the knowledge that they leave behind competent persons to continue with the department’s work and that they will always be available, as the hon the Minister and the Director-General have been.

It is also necessary for me to place on record and acknowledge the efforts of all the members of the joint committee that was entrusted with the task of amending the Electoral Act. I have tremendous appreciation for the arguments and proposals submitted by hon members.

Obviously, due to the fact that the hon members in the House of Assembly has been involved in elections for a considerably longer period than hon members in both the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, the input from the House of Assembly was that much greater. The chairman of the committee, the former hon member for Innesdal, and the hon members for Overvaal, Green Point, Johannesburg North and for Umlazi are seasoned campaigners, and I was pleased to serve with them on the committee and listen to their various arguments. My hon colleagues will agree that with our limited participation in elections the input of the hon members in the House of Representatives, particularly that of the hon member for Wentworth, was noteworthy and very valuable. The expertise that was available to the committee in the form of the departmental officials was firstclass, and Mr Trudeau and his team are to be complimented.

During the two and a half years that this committee was constituted, the major portion of time was taken up by discussion centred around the maintenance and the compilation of voters’ rolls.

I believe that a system has still to be devised which will ensure a more reliable and effective voters’ roll. There still appears to be many dead persons on the present voters’ roll.

It is invariably so that the provisions of the Electoral Act come under question immediately after a general election. This Act becomes a scapegoat for the defeats and near-defeats at the polls. I believe that the time has come for rewriting the Electoral Act, and not by piecemeal amendments. This task should be performed by an independent body. Members of Parliament, together with representatives of political parties and the Department of Home Affairs, under the chairmanship of the judge of a Supreme Court could well constitute the members of this independent body.

It is obvious that when one sits around a table, be it in a joint committee or any other committee, motivations are biased in favour of a particular political party. To prevent this I do believe that the time has come for an independent body to look at the Electoral Act anew.

An amendment in the name of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates appears on the Order Paper. The hon member for Stanger, as Chief Whip of the House of Delegates, will address this amendment when he speaks from this rostrum. I am satisfied that the committee has in the main come up with acceptable recommendations which have resulted in this amending Bill.

I am pleased that persons in possession of identity documents and temporary documents issued by the department will only qualify to vote as special and postal voters. The identification of voters on polling day will have to be very carefully monitored. We have previously experienced many irregularities and I do believe that the returning officers will play a very important part in ensuring fair play at all times.

As far as intimidation is concerned—the hon member Mr Lockey spoke on this subject—it is sad that legislation has to be introduced to combat such intimidation. We do not deny the rights of outside individuals who consider it necessary not to vote. By the same token, however, we believe that those who wish to vote have the right to exercise their democratic right to vote. We call on those forces outside who use intimidation to an extent that makes life unbearable, to understand that we have opted to participate within the system. Our strategies may differ, but the end goal remains the same. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue. His time has not expired.

Mr Chairman, it is really unfortunate that the system which prevails in this country has brought about the form of intimidation which is found on the outside. The time has to come when we in South Africa will be able to participate in one Chamber and in one Parliament.

I believe, and I think that my colleagues from both the Houses of Representatives and Delegates will agree with me that we are not here to see that changes come about overnight. We are realistic and understand that, as is the case of the Electoral Act, the situation has to be given time. It will come about through discussions and dialogue. So too will the system in this country change for the better through dialogue and participation. Nothing will be achieved by intimidation or the bandying about of slogans which mean absolutely nothing.

We concede that there are flaws and that we will not bring about change on our own. We need the support of those on the outside, but they too need our support, as do hon members of the House of Assembly. They need our support in a matter such as the Electoral Act as well. We cannot have different Electoral Acts for the different Chambers.

Unfortunately, at the moment situations arise which are peculiar to a particular House, which is why we have an amendment on the Order Paper which emanates from the House of Delegates. This amendment is aimed at hon members of the House of Delegates, because we find ourselves in that peculiar situation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to apologise for the absence of the hon members for Green Point and Johannesburg North who participated in the work of the joint committee. They are unfortunately not able to be here today. I might say, looking at this Bill, that much good work was undoubtedly done in that committee, although, as the point has been made, improving the Electoral Acts is probably an unending process.

The objectives of an Electoral Act would, amongst others, include the following: to provide for free and fair elections; to provide reasonable opportunities and encouragement to voters to vote; and, perhaps most important in a sense, to provide clear and understandable rules so that the system under which elections are conducted is based on certainty and not uncertainty.

I have a large number of amendments, some of considerable significance, others relatively minor, which are on the Order Paper in my name. I will not deal with every one of them; one of my colleagues will deal with some of them. I wish to address certain of the major factors that I think are covered by this Bill.

The first factor is the postal vote system. I am not a fan of that system and I think the faster we can move away from it, the better. It was certainly open to abuse, and definitely was abused. I have always argued that it was desirable to exclude political parties from handling ballots at any stage in the process. In that respect this Bill offers real improvements, and I support them.

However, there are certain residual problems. I will deal with the major one first which relates to clause 24 and also applies to clause 55, which has to do with special votes. It is the question of what reason needs to be given to be allowed to use a postal vote. I believe the present wording in the Bill is ambiguous or too restrictive, and, because of that, I believe that it will encourage fraud and encourage people to sign fraudulent statements when applying for these votes. I have therefore framed an amendment, and I will deal with a possible addition to that amendment to cater for the needs of the members of some Houses or communities.

Clause 24, which is replacing section 47 of the Act, reads, inter alia, as follows:

It goes on to describe the process. The key words are “any person who will not be able to attend at a polling station”. I think the Afrikaans version reads “nie in staat sal wees nie”. “Not able to attend” in that context is “not in a position to attend”. The two main categories of people who qualify for and use postal votes are, firstly, old people—people of advanced age—who may or may not have physical infirmities or illness etc. The second group are people who are either going to be away from the constituency that day or, alternatively, no longer live in that constituency.

Without giving reasons we are saying that these are people who will not be able to attend. I suggest that in both these key categories the number of people who will qualify is actually reduced. For example, in past elections it has normally been the practice that the political parties agree with the returning officer that people over a certain age will be entitled to use a postal vote on the grounds of advanced age. Therefore one does not have to contrive stories about whether they have wonky knees or defective eyesight or shaky hands etc. There was normally a certain age—60 or 65, whatever it might be—that would have been acceptable as a legitimate reason, and everyone was handling it on that basis.

Now, I think this opens the whole thing again. Clearly somebody who is 65, 68 or 75 years old who goes to the post office and goes shopping cannot honestly say that they will not be able to attend a polling station during the hours of the poll. If the intention is to exclude those people then let us be more specific. I have asked hon members who are on the committee and there are very varied interpretations. Some people say that the clause is, on the contrary, actually widening the reasons for a postal vote.

If one takes people who no longer live in a constituency, how far away do they have to live to be able to say that they will not be able to attend at a polling station? If that person owns a motorcar does he have to live five kilometres away from the constituency or 10, or 20, or 30?

If one takes somebody who is a voter in the Green Point constituency—of course, Green Point stretches through to Woodstock—and he now lives in Mowbray, does that mean he will not be able to attend? That is quite close but what if he lives in Constantia, or Durbanville? I think—and I am not trying to be finicky—it is very important to have certainty so that when one goes to a voter and says: yes, you are entitled to vote by post, one is not inducing them to commit fraud because one must know what “will not be able to attend at a polling station” means. I would suggest—and I have framed such an amendment—that one actually specifies—as in the past—certain reasons. Although I accept from the report the motivation behind this change I do not think it achieves its objective. [Interjections.]

I might add, to cater for the problem of intimidation—and I accept it is a real problem and one wants to be able to overcome it—one of the reasons could be that the person has good reason to believe that he may be obstructed or interfered with if he wants to vote on polling day. I would have no objections to that being included as an additional reason to qualify for a postal vote.

I am concerned with the wording as it is at present, that it is going to lead to abuse and people signing effectively fraudulent statements because they are capable on election day to go if they really want to go. That uncertainty is undesirable.

I would also like the hon the Minister to please give clarity in respect of clause 26. This is the clarity in respect of addresses. This is part of the proviso which has been amended but this element has not been changed—although the hon the Minister is proposing an amendment—and that is the position of students and the precise wording. I know the Identification Act says that a student who is in residence or living away from home, should register as a voter in his ordinary place of residence which is at the university or at his residence. That is fine and I have got no problem with that.

However, when one reads this, if a student happens to be at home when he applies for a postal vote, if it happens during a university vacation and that is where he wants his postal vote to be sent, what does he fill in on the form? It is just that area of uncertainty which needs to be cleared and I would like the hon the Minister to comment on that, maybe by way of regulation, maybe by the way in which the form expresses it. One must remember the member of the public signing a form of that sort. If one asks a student what his permanent residence is he will say his parents’ home. He will not think in terms of the definition of the Identification Act.

It can also possibly cause problems in respect of a person on holiday unless provision is made as to an address other than his current address where he wanted his vote sent if there is not a provision for that to be taken into account.

The committee’s report—and in fact a statement made—was that the change of address of family members should also be accounted for. This does not seem to be included in the Bill in any other way.

Also, in respect of the postal votes, I can see no reason why we should not stick with the practice of allowing people to apply up to the fifth day before the election.

If they live so far away that the post does not get to them on time, that is the risk that they choose to take. This applies at present and there is no reason why it should be changed. However, it does give people who live nearby and who want a postal vote the opportunity to use that mechanism. I do not see that it puts any onerous burden on the returning officer.

Given the time—it can be as little as 35 days—between nomination day and election day and the fact that postal votes and special votes are only going to become available after 10 days, one is then left with 25 days. If one then has to have all one’s applications in 10 days before election day, one is actually down to 15 days. I suggest that that is unnecessarily onerous.

I have an amendment in my own name and the hon the Minister also now has one in his name that ballot papers should go directly to voters so that there is no possibility of them going via political parties. I think that covers an area that could have been uncertain and I welcome that.

I would also like some clarity in respect of the same clause, namely clause 26, and wish to ask the hon the Minister the following: It says that if the voter’s address is different from the address on the voters’ roll he has to fill in a change of address form, namely the B14A form. I want to know whether that is going to be a condition of the issue of the vote or not. In other words, is it just a general requirement or if that is not attached, does that then make the application invalid? I think we need certainty on that as well.

Many of the points I have made in respect of postal votes obviously also apply to the special votes. They say: if the voter is of the opinion, for whatever reason, that he will not be able to attend. I do not think that that actually helps things by adding “of the opinion for whatever reason” because that applies in a previous case although it does not say it. He will not be able to attend and the question is what that actually means in legal terms.

To turn to voters’ roll information, I think that the automatic changes of address that are going to be required for special and postal votes where people have moved is an important and worthwhile step and will over the years help to keep voters’ rolls more up to date, and I welcome it.

In clause 12 provision is made that if an affidavit is made by the current occupant or owner of a house to the effect that the registered voter or a person registered at that address no longer lives there, it should be accepted by the electoral officer. I am happy about that. However, in many cases the current occupant or owner may not be willing, interested or prepared to sign an affidavit, which is a very formal document.

I can see no reason why an official of a registered political party should not be able to supply that information by way of affidavit. I think it is important to realise we are talking of affidavits so that if somebody provides information which turns out to be false, it is actually sworn information in a very formal form. It is not simply political parties coming with a stack of cards that one cannot tell where they came from or who supplied the information. In practice, I believe that if one wants to keep voters’ rolls up to date, there is no reason why affidavits from officials or representatives of political parties should not also be accepted.

Further in clause 12 it says that if the electoral officer is of the opinion that the person no longer lives there, he may make an appropriate note in the population register. I can see no reason, once he has made up his mind on what is in front of him that the person does not live there, why he should not do so. We are therefore proposing that that “may” be changed to “shall”. I think one needs to bear in mind that that is once he is already of the opinion that the evidence before him shows that.

The next item I wish to refer to is the whole subject of detecting fraud. In elections in general, if one is going to pick up fraudulent behaviour, the political parties themselves actually play a critical role. They have far more information of what is going on than the returning officer himself. He has a very limited investigating capacity. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to say that we in the DRP welcome this amending Bill. As a person who has always participated in elections I am glad about the simplification taking place here. The previous speaker roamed for a while over the subject of postal votes. This is something new to us. The reason why I welcome this legislation is that to my mind there will definitely be a higher percentage poll in the next election. With the municipal elections there was a drastic change and I think that the following election will definitely reflect a higher percentage poll. [Interjections.] I shall come to those hon members in a moment; first I just want to do my job.

I am glad that the casting of special votes is being made easier because a large percentage of our people still do not know how to cast their votes. One is not surprised upon meeting a person who tells you: “Man, I have not yet voted. What do I do? How must I do it? Will I not get into trouble? How do you know about me and where did you people get my name?” Therefore I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for the simplification effected by the amendment so that our people can come to the polls to cast their votes, and so that they can make use of the democratic structures in the knowledge that change will only come about if they use the ballot box to do it.

There is a saying: “The Government you have is the Government you deserve”. If one keeps this in mind, it is for the people to decide who they want. Do they still want the weak-kneed fellow who did not do his work, loafed around for the past five years and now wakes up at the last moment? Then I say the voter now has the opportunity to cast his vote. [Interjections.]

Another important point which is contained in the legislation refers to intimidation. We cannot ignore it; it is there. I also understand that there are schools already engaged in the use of boycott methods. However, of course there are those who thrive on this type of thing. Yet it is a fact that this Bill makes it easier for our people to cast their votes.

For the LP.

That hon member who has just spoken, is now struggling to lay on electricity to his hen-houses. [Interjections.]

As regards irregularities I want to ask for this to be looked into, because when a person knows in his heart that he has not worked, he will come forward with irregularities merely to win a vote. Therefore I ask that attention be given to irregularities which may become prominently evident.

As regards special votes I hope we shall not encounter problems. Formerly when I served on the committee there was talk of the central computer system. Unfortunately it will not yet be in operation, but I look forward to the day when a central computer system will be in operation, one which will make it even easier for us to get our people to the polls.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to hon members who have participated in this debate thus far. Except for the fact that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has expressed his opposition to the use of the postal vote, I have no fault to find with the content of the speeches of other hon members.

I disagree vehemently with the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, and later on in my speech I shall come back to his opposition to the use of the postal vote. As regards the rest of the hon member’s speech, I want to tell him that he and his party are not consistent in their behaviour. Most of the matters he raised here today, are matters we thrashed out in the joint committee and on which we reached consensus. Now he is raising these matters here again today.

I should like to speak in support of this Bill. One of the greatest frustrations one usually experiences during an election is when voters arrive at the polling station to vote for their candidate and then learn that their name does not appear on the voters’ roll. Not only does your party lose those votes, but nine times out of 10 you are blamed as if it is your fault that those voters were not able to vote whereas it was actually the voters who neglected to report their changes of address to the Department of Home Affairs.

The name of a voter in possession of an identity document today has been incorporated in the central address register. As such his name must appear on a voters’ roll when a voters’ roll is printed from the central address register. When we discussed the hon the Minister’s Vote we learned that 94% of the Coloured population, 95% of the Indians and 100% of the Whites are in possession of an identity document. This means that very few people who are entitled to vote are not registered as voters at the moment. For all practical purposes we can accept that as far as the Whites are concerned the names of all persons who are entitled to vote do appear on the voters’ roll. If a White voter’s name does not appear on the roll at this stage, this simply means that he has neglected to report his change of address to the department.

A second statement I should like to make is that a voters’ roll which is fully up to date is simply not possible because people never stop moving around. On the other hand it must always be our ideal and endeavour to fight an election with a voters’ roll which is as up to date as possible.

After a great deal of discussion the Joint Committee on the Electoral Act felt that there was only one way to achieve this objective, namely to follow the British example and call in the assistance of local authorities in collecting changes of address. It goes without saying that if a newcomer in a town or municipal area were to be instructed by the municipality to furnish the necessary particulars in connection with himself and his family before his water and electricity was connected and those particulars were fed into the central address register, we would have a voters’ roll which would be far more up to date. There is no doubt in my mind that we are now on the right track and that in future we are going to see a dramatic improvement in the state of our voters’ roll. It is only a pity that we did not start doing this years ago, for then we would have started reaping the benefits by now.

I find it rather ironic that we did not seek the advice of the British in this regard earlier. Virtually 20 years ago, in 1970, Mr Piet Marais—I am not referring to the hon member for Stellenbosch now, but to the former member for Moorreesburg, better known as Piet Weskus—and I brought a report back from London after we had investigated how the British fight an election. In this report we spelt out the role of the local authorities in great detail. I still remember very well that I gave copies of our report to two consecutive Ministers of Home Affairs, Mr Theo Gerdener and Dr Connie Mulder, as well as a message from the then Cape leader of the party, the present hon State President, stating that we would look into the recommendations we brought back from Britain. However, neither of these gentlemen wanted to accept our proposals. I can fully understand why.

In the first place, as regards the composition of the voters’ roll, we here in South Africa wanted to retain central control over the entire process whereas the British system was decentralised to the maximum. In Britain town clerks act as returning officers, for example, and every returning officer is himself responsible for the compiling, keeping up to date and printing of his constituency’s roll.

As regards the physical handling of postal votes, we did not want to let the issued postal vote out of our hands for fear that the voter may neglect to vote. In Britain the postal vote is posted directly to the voter, he makes his cross in the privacy of his home, without the intercession of a presiding officer or even a witness, and then posts it back to the returning officer. Now, after a number of years have elapsed, we are also considering involving local authorities in the collecting of changes of address, and we are about to amend our postal vote system in accordance with the British system.

I must add that one of the recommendations we made at that stage has since been accepted and incorporated in our Electoral Act, namely that the party affiliation of candidates must appear on the ballot paper. Another recommendation we also made at that stage and which is now being recommended by the joint committee, is that our candidates, like their British counterparts, should be allowed to post two postal articles to each voter free of charge during an election campaign.

To get back to the postal vote system, hon members can think for themselves what a tremendous saving of time, labour and costs the proposed change implies for us. That second visit of the justice of the peace so that the voter can vote, now falls away completely. Hon members know what a chaotic state our electoral offices are in on the first day on which postal votes are issued.

This brings me back to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, who spoke so lightly about the abolition of the postal vote system. I want to issue a warning that we are going to lose votes from the day on which we eliminate the postal vote entirely. In my opinion the postal vote is a far better way than the special vote of allowing large numbers of voters—please note, large numbers of voters—to vote in a relatively short period of time. This is true for the simple reason that in the case of the special vote one must take the voter to a presiding officer and then take him back home again. This in itself is a time-consuming process, whereas in the case of the postal vote one must simply get the voter’s signature and the moment one has that signature, one can immediately go to the next address to get the next signature.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

Mr Chairman, the time at my disposal does not allow me to answer questions. I only have 10 minutes.

To give hon members an example, during the last general election my party’s three postal vote offices here in the Peninsula visited over 12 000 voters, from constituencies throughout the entire country, with a view to their casting their votes. Our experience was that in the time it took one to collect a voter in Oranjezicht or Tamboerskloof and take him to a presiding officer, and then take him back home again, one could easily get 10 or 12 signatures for a postal vote. That is why I am saying that hon members must use the special vote if it suits them, but the postal vote must for heaven’s sake not be abolished.

I believe that in accordance with the spirit of the Electoral Act it must be made as easy as possible for the voter to cast his vote. For that reason I am not only pleading for the retention of the postal vote, but I also welcome the fact that in future we are going to allow the postal vote and the special vote more freely. The replacement of the nine reasons of the application form is a good thing, and the fact that a voter who is afraid of intimidation on polling day can now cast a special vote before the time, is also a good thing. I predict that we are going to see far higher percentage polls in the forthcoming election than in the past, particularly for the Coloureds and Indians.

During the 1960 referendum 29 years ago a voter could also, as we are proposing here, cast a postal vote in advance if he merely suspected that he would not be able to visit the polling station on polling day. I still remember well, that that year I was the referendum agent in the Queenstown constituency… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to link up at once with the appeal which the hon member Mr Kritzinger made here about the involvement of the local authorities with regard to the maintenance of the voters’ lists. I notice that provision has been made in the Bill for the national voters’ lists to be made available to local authorities from time to time so that they will be able to make their necessary adjustment as well.

When it comes to our local management committee elections, a totally new registration usually takes place, or if not, there are always out-dated voters’ lists at that local authority level. I hope that something will develop from this according to which local authorities will also eventually be able to use parliamentary voters’ lists to keep their voters’ list up to date and to let people whose names appear on such voters’ lists vote for the local government.

With regard to the question of postal votes, we of course have no experience of postal votes. We have never had them.

†I notice from the Order Paper of the House of Delegates, 18 May, that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates has given notice of some additions to clause 24. I want to say it is a pity that that party which had the temerity to tell the voters in 1984 that it was coming to Parliament to fight for equality and to loosen the nuts and bolts of apartheid, wants to work towards to the exemption of a House of Parliament with regard to certain conditions in the Elections and Identification Amendment Bill. All I want to say is that if we are here to loosen the nuts and bolts and to work towards equality, then I believe the sort of amendments that that hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is proposing, is to my mind a “terugwaartse stap.” We are going backwards.

One is accustomed to getting that sort of thing from that hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s party because only last year the hon leader of that party said that we should boycott Parliament for a month while the Group Areas Act was on the Statute Book. They never carried out what they said they would be doing.

*I want to refer to the names of deceased people on the voters’ list. We have often heard that many deceased people have voted.

†In our community we have also had a situation where people who have voted by way of special votes, had their names taken up by extraparliamentary forces. The names of voters are then reflected in a double page spread in the Sunday Times Extra—something which many hon members do not see. One of the benefits of the abovementioned situation was that we could pick out who the dead people were because these extra-parliamentary forces went to addresses and found that the people had already been in their eternal way of fife for a long time. I am pleased to note that some provision is being made in this Bill to address that particular problem.

*I have seen the names of quite a number of people on the present voters’ lists which are made available by the department from time to time, whom we know have been dead for some time. I realise that this Bill is not addressing that problem at this stage. I want to suggest that if political parties supply the department with such names, the department should then send a letter by registered mail to the person in question. Of course the voter will not receive it, because he is no longer with us. If a reply is not received within a specific period, the department should remove the name of that particular voter.

This brings me to a further unhappy point. This deals with clause 12 in which provision is made for persons to lodge a complaint regarding people who have changed their address. There are still many people who do not go to the necessary trouble to fill in a card and notify the authorities of their change of address. It seems that for many people this is a very difficult task. They simply cannot do it. In many cases this is also as a result of ignorance. I also want to tell the hon the Minister that the local authorities in my area have in fact received documentation from the department during the past week with regard to changes of address. This has been widely distributed in my constituency by the local authority. Nevertheless there are still people who have not taken the trouble to fill in the form and return it.

I just want to ask that when action is taken against such people, it should be done with great circumspection because this is a delicate situation. One should take care not to remove a voter from the voters’ roll when perhaps he did not go to the necessary trouble to change his address for other reasons.

I usually agree with the hon member Mr Lockey, who is unfortunately not here now. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with him in one regard today, and that concerns the question of the obtaining of the 300 signatures of voters when one wants to stand as an independent. In a country such as South Africa where we believe that democracy must take its course, I believe that we should also create an opportunity for the independent who thinks that he has a chance. During the election of the House of Assembly in 1987, three independents did very well. One won a seat and the other one lost by only 39 votes. He needed only 40 more and then he would also have won. [Interjections.]

Ask Oom Dougie!

Yes, Sir. The hon member for Riversdal also stood as an independent and got in. There are also many others among our hon members. I believe that these people should also have an opportunity to put democracy to the ultimate test.

Well, Oom Dougie is a phenomenon, you know! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, yes, he is a very special person and I am telling hon members that he will return. [Interjections.]

With regard to the period regarding special votes, I want to tell hon members that in our communities the special votes as well as the whole system will be placed under a lot of pressure. There are certain reasons for this. For example in many communities it is the in thing particularly in the urban areas to curry favour with the extra-parliamentary groups as well while still quietly coming to one and saying: “Look, you are also on the right track, but the other people are also doing the right thing.”

Anyway, as long as we get their votes, we do not mind, but they do not want to be identified. I can tell hon members that I have received requests in which people have asked whether the paid officer who records these votes, could not also be available in the neighbouring town. They would prefer to vote there because here there are perhaps people who are watching them and could possibly cause trouble.

As someone who has already experienced a limpet mine attack on his house, I want to tell hon members that that possibility does exist. People can be intimidated by unscrupulous people who will be looking for a little publicity for their cause, particularly during the election period which we are moving towards at the moment. Whether or not they have a case, they will want the maximum publicity for it.

I want to suggest that the department should keep an eye on these places where special votes are made, particularly in our communities, and should ensure that there are sufficient numbers of Police available. I realise that this is the task of a different department, but after all, it all has to do with the election. I hope the electoral officers will bear this in mind. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss a few aspects. I should like to link up with the aspect which was mentioned here of the 300 voters’ signatures for a person who wants to stand as an independent. I think, with respect, that that is a provision which did not work very well. It is somewhat in anticipation—if one may speak of a rule of anticipation in the sense that we would all like to see a person’s vote remaining secret—because, as soon as he has signed that list, he may be identified by means of his own handwriting and his vote may be regarded as a possible vote for that person. This is stronger than merely saying that one is a supporter. I know that in such a case there may be considerable intimidation of those 300 people who have furnished their signatures and I would personally not advocate it.

I want to refer briefly to clause 12 on page 14. This deals with the removal of someone’s name from the voters’ list. The proviso stated here reads:

In my opinion this indicates that he has left the division in which he is registered. It does not indicate the case in which he has a different place of residence still within the same electoral division. He no longer occupies his usual place of residence in the division in which he is registered. If it is the point of departure that he no longer occupies his usual place of residence in the division in which he is registered, it means, for example, that he has moved from the Bethal electoral division to the Ermelo electoral division.

The provision continues as follows, however—

The second part indicates that he no longer resides at the address which is indicated as his residential address. If he has therefore moved from Roger Street, the new occupant of that house may furnish an affidavit and say that the man no longer lives there. His name is therefore removed from the voters’ list. That is the deduction which one makes if one looks only at the second part.

If one reads it together with the first part, however, one deduces that he should no longer be resident in the electoral division. If he has therefore moved from Roger Street to Smuts Street in the same electoral division, although the new occupant at the residential address on the voters’ list knows he no longer resides there, that person’s name may in any case not be removed from the voters’ list yet unless one is sure that he has left the electoral division.

This frustrates the object of this provision to a great extent. There are many people who will be able to say that they know that a certain person no longer resides in a certain house because they live there themselves and, if he had lived there, he must have moved long before. Nevertheless they will not be able to state with certainty that the person does not reside elsewhere in the electoral division.

Surely we would not like to disenfranchise somebody and we now require the affidavit of the current occupant for the disenfranchisement or removal from the voters’ list. These persons’ names are usually removed from a voters’ list by the representatives of a specific political party. They are the people who do the initial work.

Provision is not made for the representative of the political party who requests this removal to provide an affidavit. If there is anything wrong with this affidavit, the current occupant can get into trouble as a result but the instigator of the affidavit gets off scot free because he does not even provide an affidavit. I should therefore like to see that the representative of the political party should also provide an affidavit so that, if it were a false declaration, it would also affect such a person.

We now reach the new provision in section 21(6), as amended in clause 12, which reads:

Which he supposedly made—

Does the provision “at any time” include the day of the election? If the person’s name has been removed, may it still be replaced on that day or what is meant by this provision? I think we should obtain some clarity on this so that we do not have arguments at a polling station in consequence of the possibly conflicting interpretation which may arise regarding this.

The electoral officer acts according to information which he has before him when he judges that the person no longer resides there. We have one affidavit—possibly two now, if we include that of the political party—but I feel that it would be beneficial if a notification were sent to the last-known address of this person so that, if he has been dealt with wrongly and he perhaps still resides there, he may receive notification of this. He may have told the post office to forward his mail to another address and then such a notification will reach him and he will be able to lodge an objection against this.

When we get to the question of change of address, it is true that the legislation provides that a person may be prosecuted if he does not furnish his change of address. I want to say with all due respect that I do not know of a single person who has been prosecuted and I do not think any one of us is aware of anything like this. Then one wonders why this clause is there. It is a clause which is not implemented—perhaps for a very good reason. It has just been said that we should deal with this cautiously.

I should like to request that we approach this from another angle because we have many problems in South Africa with people on the run—one could almost say—and we have no method of registering or notifying changes of address. I am thinking, for instance, of a person who evades his duty to pay maintenance. Is it not time, regardless of the problems which we have with the Electoral Act, to make it enforceable that a person must have a residential address and be obliged to give notice in every case of change of address for the reasons which I have already mentioned, such as evasion of maintenance?

I also want to refer briefly to clause 109 on page 80.I did not hear the announcement myself but I believe that it was implied that the voters’ list would close on 1 June. It was apparently on the radio or on television on Saturday or Friday evening; I am not quite sure about it. This conflicts with the provisions of clause 109. I do not know whether it is intended not to implement this clause. This may be possible, of course, because I see the Minister has the right not to implement certain clauses. The announcement on the radio would be in accordance with the usual interpretation of Acts. If anything falls on a holiday or a Sunday, it moves to the following day.

Here the usual law of interpretation has been amended, however, by making it the day before the holiday. If this legislation is implemented, to my mind the voters’ list should close on 30 May and not on 1 June and confusion may arise as a result of the report, if it is correct that such a report was broadcast. I should therefore like to say that it should be seen to that we obtain clarity so that there may be no confusion among the voters in this regard.

An aspect which is viewed very seriously is damage to posters. I think we shall probably all be pleased about the measures against this, but it is almost the death penalty which is being imposed here—up to R10 000 or five years! [Interjections.] This sounds a bit strong but I have no objection to it as it applies to everybody. Nevertheless I really think that in comparison with the property which is damaged—if it deals with damage to property as is the case here—it is an exceptionally heavy penalty. As it applies to both sides, however, we cannot object to it. [Interjections.]

There is one other aspect to which I want to refer and that is the question of identification when requesting a ballot paper. In clause 69 on page 56 the ordinary vote is… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when one speaks about elections, electoral laws and so forth, then it is only normal that a tingle of anticipation is experienced not only by the politicians, but also by the general public.

The electoral law is there to create order in the election process, but the elections are not always quite as serious as we want to make them seem this afternoon. As a matter of fact there is a good interplay between healthy humour and deadly earnestness and also between very hard work and pleasant relaxation. It is also true that in an election campaign there is good interplay between the good standpoints stated and the nonsense which is sold to voters.

The changes brought about by this amending Bill, are in the first place created to restrain the “ingenuity” of certain campaigners, and secondly to ensure that it is as secure and attractive as possible for the electorate to cast their votes. I wish to focus attention on those aspects which are aimed at the security of the voters, electoral officers and so forth on election day.

It is interesting that the NP has developed the habit, over many years, to have pretty ladies wearing sashes at the polls, who receive the voters in a friendly manner. However, these days we are faced with other elements which, by means of robust violence, want to persuade voters to adopt their political standpoints. Unfortunately it is so that we are going to forfeit many of the old practices which made elections pleasant and inspirational, due to the stipulation in the legislation that the electoral officer or the presiding officer, together with the various political parties, can decide that a certain area around the ballot-box is a part of the polling-station and that it may not be entered. Nevertheless, I feel that it is of extreme importance that the safety of the voters is placed first, and therefore we support this statutory amendment.

In two other respects we also see the concern which the legislature has for the safety of the voters. Firstly, as regards the appointment of agents and so forth, it was a requirement in the past that the names of those agents and assistant agents be published, but that is no longer the case. Now they need only be handed in to the electoral officer, and they are kept by him.

Secondly, as far as postal votes are concerned, in the past an application form for a postal vote was a public document which was open to inspection by any person after it had been accepted by the electoral officer. In future application forms for postal votes will only be open to inspection by the candidates and agents of political parties after the finalised postal vote has been returned to the electoral officer. In this way the whole question of intimidation of voters is being done away with in the system of postal votes. In my opinion the measures with regard to postal votes, as contained in this amending Bill, will bring new meaning to the postal vote in the South African electoral system.

The second aspect I wish to refer to deals with the whole issue of irregularities during elections, especially those bogus deceased voters and immigrants who are so inclined to turn up at the polls on election day to cast their votes. The legislation stipulates that the electoral agents of candidates may compile a list of those who are presumably deceased or have immigrated, and that that list may be handed in to the electoral officer who in turn, will mark it on his voters’ lists accordingly. When such a person turns up to vote on election day, he will only be allowed to do so if he is in possession of his identity document or a temporary identity certificate with his photo, issued by the Department of Internal Affairs. They will not be allowed to vote on the strength of identification by other voters.

I think that this is a step in the right direction because I do not think it is always the case that political parties deliberately allow these people to vote. I think that the measure can be applied effectively to restrain those people who want to take chances.

It is also the object of the legislature to eliminate irregularities because with the development of the new postal vote system in that the postal vote is sent to the voter himself, the intervention and involvement of political parties from the time the postal vote is issued until the completed postal vote is submitted to the electoral officer are eliminated completely. This in itself demonstrates that the legislature is in earnest about curbing these irregularities which have occurred from time to time during elections.

A third aspect which I welcome in these amendments is the fact that a voter may now, when he makes a mistake on his ballot paper or makes a cross behind the name of the wrong candidate in the solitude of the polling booth, go to the presiding officer and return his ballot paper. The presiding official may then determine whether it was a genuine mistake, in which case he may issue him with a new ballot paper.

This should prove very helpful to the elderly or first-time voters. We are aware of the fact that the whole process of voting is an emotional one for the aged, which can easily result in them making mistakes on their ballot papers on election day.

Penultimately I wish to discuss the whole aspect of the secrecy when it comes to voting. From time to time voices are raised and an agitation is set in motion because a person’s vote is ostensibly not secret. It should be noted that immediately after the conclusion of the counting on the eve of the elections, all the documents and ballot papers have to be sealed and those sealed packages may only be opened in accordance with a court order.

Therefore I think that we can assure the electorate that they need not be concerned about the secrecy of their vote under this system. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to respond very briefly to certain aspects of comments made by speakers earlier.

The one aspect I wish to respond to is the aspect to which the hon member Mr Abram referred to in reference to my party. He suggested that it would be compounding the anomaly in South Africa by asking for postal votes for a particular House. It is a pity that he is not present in the Chamber now, because my response to that is that he has not understood the situation clearly.

If he were sincere in that particular viewpoint he should have asked for a uniform voting Bill which would enable all South Africans to vote for a common Parliament in South Africa. I would like to suggest that the next time an amendment to the Electoral Act is brought before Parliament, it should be legislation which will in fact enable all South Africans, regardless of race, to participate in the election of members to Parliament.

What would have been apt for Mr Abram to refer to would have been the lifting of the state of emergency. I believe that, while this matter is under consideration, the state of emergency ought to be lifted because those of us who genuinely believe in participation as a strategy in achieving our objectives through negotiation, should not be afraid of the extra-parliamentary groups. If we are honest and sincere in our strategy of negotiation, we need not fear the extra-parliamentary groups. We should indeed get them to acknowledge our role if we are making a positive contribution in our participation.

I come now to question of postal votes. I would like to agree with hon members that special votes are there as a provision for those who are not able to vote on polling day. From our own experience we therefore do not believe that postal votes are necessary for our process.

We believe that special votes are almost equal to the experience we had during the municipal elections with prior votes. There were no postal votes when there were prior votes. There was no difficulty in respect of prior votes, and now special votes are being changed in terms of this legislation from prior votes in that a person without identification cannot vote.

We ask the committee, when it considers this matter of postal votes, to consider its not being applied to the House of Delegates, because we see our participation in the tricameral system as a transitional period. We know there is going to be a constitutional change and we know a constitutional debate is taking place. We want to ensure that the representatives we have after the next election will make a positive contribution to the process of negotiation here in South Africa.

I would also like to say that those without identification documents should be permitted to vote on election day. However, this has also been abused previously, and only those who submit that they have lost their identity documents should be permitted to vote if they have reported such loss to the police and have had an affidavit signed before a police officer with a photograph of themselves to ensure that no fictitious person will be voting on somebody else’s name. We do not want to be embarrassed any further by people coming from the grave to vote. This embarrasses not only us, but the whole process of election, and mars Parliament as a whole.

I would like the hon the Minister to consider that we are now in the computer age, where with the press of a button we can get details. The cut-off date in for May seems to be cutting it a bit too fine. There might be other impediments to extend that date to perhaps 30 June. I think those provisions that limit the extension of that date to 30 June should be amended. I think the hon members who are going to be involved in the election will agree with me that that would be in the interests of all the participants in the election.

While I am grateful that the hon the Minister’s department has sent us maps of the various constituencies in South Africa, some of them are so huge that even the walls of this Chamber are too small for them. I tried to open them on my lawn, but even my yard was too small. If scaled-down versions of those maps are made available to us, it will be easier for us to look at and examine them. This is an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister.

From our own experience we have found that officers who are engaged in electioneering must be persons of the highest integrity. While one might not be able to pin them down for any fraud, as it were, in respect of any electoral practices, their attitudes leave a lot to be desired. I think they have to be above any kind of partisan movement; they have to be totally apolitical in their operations and functions. Therefore my penultimate appeal to the hon the Minister is to ensure, through his administration, that people who have the wrong attitude are not employed as electoral officers.

I also appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that voters’ rolls and supplementary voters’ rolls be made available to parties timeously. I speak from experience, but I do not want to belabour the point. We have had the experience where it was alleged that our party received the voters’ roll, when in fact we did not. We resolved the matter amicably without taking it any further. Such a recurrence would not be in the best interests of a fair election.

Having said that, I trust that the committee, when it examines the amendments tomorrow, will be objective and not subjective. While I agree with the concept of a uniform Electoral Act, I believe such uniformity will only come about when we have a uniform system in South Africa which represents all the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, one of the concerns as appears from the amendments which the DP have put on the Order Paper relates to the question of casual vacancies. We are particularly concerned, and we have been for a long time, at the phenomenon that when a seat is vacated there is no provision in the Electoral Act which compels Government to bring in a new representative for a particular constituency within a specific time limit.

We believe that one of the primary purposes of an Electoral Act should be to ensure that every voter, every constituency is represented in Parliament at all times. Where a general election is called members of Parliament keep their seats until election day, and under normal circumstances, full representation for all times is ensured.

However, we have repeatedly had the situation such as two or three years ago when two members of the House of Assembly vacated their seats in January and there was only an election in September that year to fill the vacancies. Again this year we have three vacancies which occurred at the beginning of February. These vacancies are only going to be filled in September with the general election. We think that it is most undesirable that those constituencies should have nobody representing them in Parliament for such a lengthy period of time. For this reason we have the following amendment in the name of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens to clause 15: “On page 18, in line 10, after ‘subsection’ to add: Provided that when a vacancy has occurred in terms of section 110, which deals with casual vacancies, the nomination day shall be not later than 75 days after the vacancy has occurred.” Obviously this gives ample time for the election. It is in fact no longer the period prescribed for a general election. We see no reason why—merely because a vacancy has occurred—that particular constituency should be without a public representative for any time longer than would occur under normal circumstances in a general election.

We welcome the amendment to section 41 of the Act which shortens the sitting time of the nomination court from one hour to 30 minutes. Most members, of course, have at least some activity to occupy their time during the sitting of the nomination court, certainly at least for the first 10 minutes while nominations are being considered, and usually there is a bit of banter between the opponents during the remaining hour. I must tell hon members that as the only member of the House of Assembly who was unopposed in the nomination court in the last election I found this hour a particular bore. I had absolutely nothing to do except for occasionally looking at the door to see whether anybody else was going to put in an appearance.

As the position is with the amending legislation, clearly if there are many people who want to oppose a particular seat, if when the 30 minute period runs up there are still three, or four, or five people who want to put their names in, the period can be extended. We think that is a very welcome amendment.

Clause 22 deals with the question of maps of the polling district being advertised in the Government Gazette. We believe that as the political parties are the people most concerned with the delimitation and the boundaries of the areas where voting is to take place it would be wise to insert a provision for the political parties to be notified of the availability of these maps. Not everybody reads the Government Gazette, not everybody can trace a Government Gazette at the drop of a hat and it would just be a very easy addition to the Act to facilitate things for political parties across the board.

When we look at clause 98—and this has already been dealt with by a few of the former speakers—the provision of a penalty of R10 000 seems completely out of keeping not only with the rest of the Act but also with the severity of the offence.

Obviously we welcome the introduction of this new section 144A because all of us across the board would like to see the practice of tearing down posters and damaging property at the time of elections severely dealt with. However, just as a matter of practical consideration I would regard the tearing down of one poster as an offence. If a man goes and tears down 100 posters he has in fact committed a 100 offences. Technically one could if one really wanted to hammer this particular individual fine him the maximum penalty 100 times. That is the theory of it. I do not see any need when dealing with this particular category of offence to have a fine and an imprisonment which is five times higher than stipulated in the Act for far more serious offences, namely offences to do with dishonesty and malpractice during elections. I think that should, as proposed by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, be reduced to a fine of R2 000 and an appropriate one year prison sentence, bearing in mind again that those are maximums. We must not lose sight of the fact that there is also a civil remedy. Somebody who damages one’s property can be taken to court in terms of the civil law and damages can be recovered from him.

Clause 109 seeks to substitute section 195. I cannot understand—as was previously mentioned by the CP—the logic of giving a person a certain number of days within which to do something and then, if the last day falls on a Sunday or public holiday, depriving him of one day. Why not make it the succeeding day rather than the preceding day?

Then there is the introduction of this word "workday” which is not defined in the Act. We do not know what a workday is. I suppose it depends whether one is a member of Parliament or not or whether one falls into some other category of people who elect not to work on certain days. However, what is a workday? Is it any different from Monday to Friday? Is a Saturday a workday or not? Using loose words undefined in the Act and which have no generally accepted meaning in legislation is completely out of place. It would be far better if one has to deal with this sort of situation to refer to public holidays and Sundays. However, I am not aware of any day other than a Sunday and a public holiday which can clearly be defined as not being a workday.

So why the use of the word “workday”? It merely sows confusion. I certainly believe that it is completely contrary to all provisions of law that I am aware of that where a period of time is provided for the doing of an act one penalises a person rather than give him the benefit of the time allotted by making him comply with what he is supposed to do the day before that public holiday or Sunday rather than the day after the Sunday or public holiday. Although we have not moved an amendment to clause 109, I sincerely hope that this will be given consideration. We could possibly live with it for a while but certainly it seems to be completely out of keeping with what is required in terms of the Act and what is generally accepted in terms of law.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just completed his speech has raised certain points with which I fully agree. I would like to point out that I regard his speech as a very balanced one. He did not dwell only on negative parts or things he did not agree with but also pointed out matters with which he is in total agreement and of which his party approves.

The hon the Minister must be complimented on having focused attention on the need for a revision of the Electoral Act. I do agree with the hon member for Umlazi when he says that the Electoral Act is something which will always need to be amended because political circumstances in any country are always changing.

I need to make special mention of the chairman of the committee who so patiently negotiated with this difficult committee. I say it is a difficult committee because of the variety of opinions that were raised there. We sat for a very long period and the chairman dealt with each point as it came up. There were times when he had to adjourn the meeting just so that consensus could be reached on another day.

Mr Trudeau and the rest of the officials also deserve praise for the way in which they answered so many of the questions that we set during the sittings of this committee.

Unfortunately, I have now also to refer to what passes for an opposition in the House of Representatives. As is the custom, there is not a single member of the Official Opposition Party present here and I find this rather disgraceful. It is a daily practice with them, and I wish one of them were here so that he could hear what I am saying. It is a known fact that they are inclined to disappear as soon as they have made their few comments. One would imagine that, because of their absence in the Houses of Parliament, they are either in their constituencies or busy with joint committee meetings. However, they are not there either. The attendance of those opposition party members at meetings of this specific committee was so deplorable that one should really establish whether such people should be allowed to represent constituents, as they claim to be doing. They made absolutely no input here, and for this reason one cannot regard them as being serious in regard to what they purport to be doing here.

A very new concept has been ushered in this amending Bill so as to update the Electoral Act. It is based on common sense. It is difficult for anyone to try to get 30 000 or 40 000 voters to cast their votes on one particular day. One has to ask why this must be the rule. Why must we simply accept practices that developed in other climes as being the alpha and the omega? Certainly it makes a lot more sense to spread the load over a period of time. I need to emphasise, from the LP’s point of view, that we do not regard this as a measure to avoid intimidation. There will be intimidation; it will always be there. We know that certain people who do not believe in participation have other ways of intimidating people. If they cannot do this on a particular day at a particular point, they will do it elsewhere. They walk around with cameras. They intimidate old people at their homes. They threaten them and say that they will come back and deal with them; they will burn their homes. The old people are terrified.

There are many ways in which they intimidate people. For this reason we do not believe that this particular amending Bill even tries to address the problem of intimidation. It simply makes more sense of the election procedures in this country. Once again I should like to ask why we should confine all voting to one particular day. There is no real reason for this. I believe that this concept should be patented because, no doubt, some other Western democratic countries—and perhaps even Russia—may adopt this system in future.

We are very pleased with the concept of the equalisation of rules for conducting elections for all three Houses of Parliament. All reference to the individual Houses have been studiously eliminated from the amending Bill. As the committee progressed with its work, this point came to the fore very strongly. We are very pleased about that because it shows in a very real way that there is a move towards unity—a single parliament with a single set of rules for all players.

We welcome the creation of two separate voters’ lists. This is based on the motivation put forward by the department. 94% of the people we represent in the House of Representatives are in possession of the latest identification documents. For this reason we welcome the idea of phasing out the names of voters who do not possess an identity document. This will be the last election where such people will still be catered for and we are not unhappy about it. We are certain that in future elections the remaining 6% of our people will possess the necessary identification documents.

As far as the postal vote system is concerned this provision, of course, is foreign to the hon members of the House of Representatives and even to those who were members of the former CPRC because it is something which was never applied in our community. I said earlier that it is important that the electoral procedure rules will be the same for all of us regardless of which House we come from or which people we represent. Therefore, it was in keeping with the whole context of the exercise to introduce postal votes for our House and the House of Delegates as well.

Moreover, we are pleased to have played a role in amending the original postal vote provisions to ensure that abuses which might have taken place in the past cannot be proceeded with in future. We are pleased with the simplification of the system of postal votes and we are certainly also happy with the tightening up of the procedure so that corruption can be eliminated as far as possible. We are also happy with the provision concerning the casting of postal votes ending on the tenth day before polling day.

We also welcome the important changes in the special vote system which have been brought about by means of this amending Bill. We believe that as far as possible one must try to make it as easy as possible for people to cast their votes. By making it a complicated affair or difficult for a person to register his vote one does not encourage that member of the public to give an indication as to the kind of person or party he is prepared to support. If it becomes too much of an involvement for people many of them, especially the older folk, are inclined rather to stay away. I believe it is important that we must know the political opinions of every person in the country, whether it is an old person, a semiliterate of even an illiterate or a blind person.

A very important change which has been brought about here, which we welcome wholeheartedly, is the provision that a person who has voted for the wrong candidate accidentally, may vote again and that his previous vote will be cancelled. This is an area of corruption with which we are quite familiar. It is common during election time to find a person posing as the candidate of a particular political party. He knows that the party has canvassed already and so he slips in and poses as the candidate. In many instances that person persuades old or timid people who are easily intimidated to vote for him. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to join the previous speakers who have spoken so highly of the hon the Minister. I support whatever they have said and I am also very sorry and sad that we will be losing a Minister from the banana colony. [Interjections.]

The Indian people are reluctant to register as voters because of intimidation which is rife amongst our people. They feel that by registering as voters they are siding with the Government. That is not true. They do not realise that when they apply for identity cards or the book of life, they are automatically registered as voters. Whether they vote or not it is essential that their names are on the voters’ roll.

Since the 1984 elections thousands of voters have changed addresses but have not notified the Department of Home Affairs. Why?

The Department of Home Affairs has not imposed or implemented a fine for not doing so. [Interjections.] I strongly feel the rules of voting should be reported in the media—in newspapers, over the air and on television—and people should not be threatened with a fine, as has been done in the past. There should be some kind of legislation in order to see that they notify the department of a change of address. I know the extra-parliamentary forces are advising the people they will not be fined, the R500 is just a gag and that they should not bother to register as voters or even go to the polls.

There are many State employees who are antiparliamentarians and they encourage their children not to register and to boycott elections. They do not realise that their wage is paid by the State. This matter also needs to be taken up by the authorities concerned. I know many of them who go about in cars, advising people not to vote or register. Although they are openly defying the Government, nothing is being done about it.

The delimitation of areas for the different constituencies needs to be revised. In Natal in the Phoenix constituency there are over 100 000 voters and there is only one member of Parliament for the area. The Southern Natal constituency stretches from Port Shepstone to Pietermarizburg, including Harding, Ixopo, Richmond, Thornville and Edendale. It is not fair that only one member of Parliament should be in charge of a constituency which covers such a vast area.

Every voter who goes to the polling booth to vote should be in possession of a book of life, identity card or birth certificate, and not just anyone should be allowed to identify the voter because then people vote about five or six times with one of their own people inside identifying them every time.

I do not approve of schools being used as polling stations because it disrupts the education of students and scholars. Besides, some of the students also antagonise the candidates by passing filthy remarks.

I am happy that there is legislation under which extra-parliamentary forces are not allowed to see the polling done by prior votes or postal votes. If they are able to see the polling, the extraparliamentary forces go to people’s houses and say: “You voted and do you know what the consequences are? You are in trouble!”. By doing away with that a lot of good has been done.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Newholme for his support for this amending Bill. I differ with him on one standpoint only, which is that he does not want to see schools being used as polling stations. Unfortunately it is a fact that in some towns school halls are the only suitable place to have an election in because there are parking places, space, etc. Therefore one cannot just say that we should move away from using schools as polling stations.

I wish to confine myself to clauses 16 and 17 which deal with the registration of a political party. These two clauses provide that a party may not field a candidate if he is not registered for a specific House or, vice versa, if a party wishes to field candidates for all three Houses of this Parliament, it will have to register thrice, thrice pay a deposit of R500 and thrice gain support from at least 500 signatures of registered voters who appear on the voters’ rolls of the relevant House, before it may field candidates for those relevant constituencies and relevant Houses.

I understand that the DP—the Demos—have registered thrice—in triplicate. In keeping with its troika leadership it has registered thrice. It has three leaders and each leader now has a House.

The question is whether the DP will field candidates to oppose the LP and Solidarity because they have registered thrice and therefore for all three Houses. This is the important question to which we will have to know the answer. Why did the DP register thrice in terms of clauses 16 and 17? Is this a bluff to try and impress the voters of South Africa that their power base does not consist of Whites only, that they really are a “non-racial democracy” which actually just means one man, one vote on the same voters’ roll, and which will simply replace White domination with Black oppression? Is this an indication which they wish to give the voters that they are supposedly democratic, but eventually they are not going to field candidates for the other two houses? Or is this typical of their paternalism, because recently they manipulated hon members of the LP like puppets into voting against…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member speaking to the Second Reading of this Bill?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I would like the hon member for Cape Town Gardens to look at clauses 16 and 17. Then he will notice that this is exactly what is contained therein. [Interjections.]

If it is not a bluff and a sign of “tokenism” that they have allowed hon members of other Houses into their party, the question is whether this is then the type of paternalism, as I said earlier, with which they manipulated the LP like puppets into voting against the Constitutional Development Vote, while in the long run they are going to field candidates against them in any case and, with the large amount of money at their disposal, are going to eradicate the LP. [Interjections.] We shall keep a careful eye on the practical meaning of the steps which the DP took in terms of clauses 16 and 17.

Order! The hon member should really not deviate too far from the two clauses now. [Interjections.]

Very interesting implications may arise from these two clauses. I think it is very important for us to look at these provisions, because this has definite political implications.

If it has to be, I will leave it at that and refer to clause 20, which provides that the nomination court will only sit for half an hour. In the past it had to be in session for a full hour, but in future it will last only half an hour and should the proceedings not have been completed before this half an hour has expired, they may be continued with approval for a further period to ensure that all the procedures are disposed of.

Things are a bit quiet and uneasy if the proceedings are disposed of after 10 minutes, especially when only two parties are present in such a nomination court and everybody has to wait there stock-still like statues until the hour has expired and the CP can once again make their rabble-rousing speeches, which they may not make during that hour. To them this must be a very pleasant clause, because now they only have to wait for half an hour before they can go outside and make their rabble-rousing speeches to stir up the emotions of the voters. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting to note the changes which this Bill will entail in general. I think it simplifies the Electoral Act and makes it easier to use. From now on it will be more difficult to abuse the Electoral Act. It is a pleasure for me to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker said the LP had been the puppets of the DP when it came to the rejection of a certain Vote. I want to reject that statement with the contempt it deserves.

We wish to thank the officials of the department for the wonderful co-operation we have had over the years. There was never any problem too big for them to assist us.

In the first place I should like to talk about the disfranchising of certain voters in my constituency. I live in an area in which mixed marriages took place both before and after the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. In my constituency, there are White women who are married to Coloureds, Black women who are married to Coloureds and Indians who are married to Coloureds. These people voted for the CRC on the old CRC voters’ roll, because they were registered there, although without identity numbers.

Many of these people are still on the voters’ roll today without having any identity numbers, because they are members of another race group. They chose to come to our areas, however, they have been living there for as long as they have been married and their children are growing up there. Consequently I cannot envisage those people ever moving away from where they are living.

My question now is what we are going to do with those voters, because it is unfair to disfranchise them. These are people who came to live in an area of their own free will. They are prepared to vote for a candidate in the House that represents that area. A solution must be found for those people. Consequently the Act will have to be amended again. [Interjections.]

There is no racial connotation.

Sir, there is no racial connotation, but the Electoral Act clearly specifies that such people cannot appear on the voters’ roll, because by definition they may register as voters only for a particular House and in terms of the Act and the Constitution a so-called Coloured person may vote only for representatives of the House of Representatives. That is defined in the Constitution and in the Electoral Act.

†The second aspect on which I would like to touch is the choice we have of bringing about change through either the ballot-box or the cartridge box. In no uncertain terms have we told this Chamber that we are not prepared to bring about change through the cartridge box and that we prefer to use the ballot-box. For that reason we especially welcome the new special vote—unlike the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. He complained about this special vote but he should remember that this Bill is a marriage of two systems.

*In days of yore there used to be “boeresport” on election day. On the other hand, we prefer the voters to be able to vote over a period in order to eliminate intimidation. That is why we welcome the abolition of the nine reasons that led to obtaining a special vote. We welcome that. We would welcome it if people were allowed to vote from day one to day 30. One should be able simply to go and vote, without having to give any reason.

†The reason advanced in clause 55, that anyone who is of the opinion, for whatever reason, that he will not be able to be near a polling station must vote as a special voter, is welcomed by us with open arms. That hon member should not forget that he is talking in terms of an ideal First World system. We are talking in terms of another world.

*Sometimes one has to get the permission of the main “skolly” in the area before one can work in the area. If one does not have his permission, one cannot go from house to house, because that would be a threat to that “skolly”. We therefore have to adapt to that situation too. [Interjections.]

I should like to talk about the fact that clause 57 states that an office will be opened for each constituency to deal with the special votes. I represent a constituency that includes East London, King William’s Town, Cathcart, Stutterheim, Queenstown and Komga. If only one office is opened in that constituency, when are the voters in the respective towns going to vote? Is this office going to have the authority to open other offices in the constituency? This is not clearly spelt out in the Bill. I hope the hon the Minister will explain this clearly in his reply so that there will not be any problems on the road ahead. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed, but the other hon members may not proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

With regard to the special votes there is also a small problem in connection with the mixed marriages. If someone does not have an identity document, that person may not vote by means of a special vote, but on election day that person may come and vote if her name appears on the voters’ roll and she can be identified as the wife of Mr So-and-so. Surely we are discriminating against that voter, and why are those voters being punished? Why cannot they also be identified by someone—either a relative or another voter who is registered and has the necessary documentation—in the period during which special votes may be recorded?

Why can such a voter be identified specifically only on election day? This means that one can take the husband and children to exercise special votes, but one cannot take the wife; one can fetch her only on election day. Surely that is discrimination too, merely of a different kind. I would therefore appreciate it if the hon the Minister could investigate those cases and perhaps amend the situation by way of regulation.

†Now I wish to talk about clause 98, whereby section 144A is inserted in the principal Act. We have spoken about the person who commits the offence of malicious damage to property or theft of posters etc but what about the inciter? [Interjections.] Should we not also look at the inciter? Normally they send little children—9 and 10year-old boys—to destroy the posters, placards etc. These children are not doli capax, so when they get to court the case against them is withdrawn. But the inciter goes free.

I think somewhere and somehow we shall have to sit down and discuss this so that we not only penalise the perpetrator, but also the chief inciter of that particular deed. We have found from experience that children are used to do the necessary destruction. So the inciter goes free and the child goes unpunished, even though we have a provision for a sentence of a fine of R10 000 or five years’ imprisonment, or both. They make a laughing stock of the legislature, because it is easy to circumvent the specific provision.

*They say a cock closes its eyes when it crows. I feel like a cock now, because if I go any further, I shall elaborate on what other members have said, and so before I can be classified as a cock, I shall say thank you very much.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg asked how much longer he was still going to have to listen to me. I had the decency to listen politely to his swan song, the last speech he is going to make here, because if he has won the nomination against the hon member Mrs Jager, there is a very dusty road ahead of him. Mr Louis Stofberg will be the next hon member for Sasolburg. I want to tell this hon member that we are not even going to miss him in the next Parliament.

The hon member who spoke just before me, the hon member for Border, made a very good point in connection with the person who encourages someone else to remove the placards. I must tell hon members that I am very glad about the increase in the penalties for damaging placards, because we in particular suffered a great deal at the hands of spiteful Nats who constantly removed our placards and tore them up. We will therefore be very glad if the inciters…

Who are they? Name them.

I have tempted many of them, and I could perhaps think of a few names, but I shall not mention them, because you, Mr Chairman, may reprimand me. [Interjections.]

The hon member is an attorney; I do not think it will be a big problem. They will send their accomplices, the chaps in the office and the children. I am sure they will also be brought to book.

You know a lot about this!

I know a lot about it because I was looking everywhere, in Sasolburg for example, for the person behind this. We almost caught him. Next time we will probably catch him. [Interjections.]

In my previous speech I was talking about our main objective to ensure that the changes of address are rectified. Then, as hon members know, we decided to use the municipalities as primary agents. Hon members will note that it is stated in clause 117 that municipalities may take certain steps when they render services to compel the consumers of the services of the municipalities to report their changes of address, as well as those of the other people occupying the houses. The Minister may also compel municipalities to do this.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister what administrative steps he is envisaging to implement this very good decision we have taken. What steps is he envisaging? Are they going to write letters? Are they going to pressure the municipalities into putting this campaign into effect? The sooner municipalities start compelling people to report changes of address regularly, the sooner we are going to get rid of the greatest part of our problem.

I want to say something about the matter of postal votes, something which I wanted to say in my first speech. I made it very clear on the committee that my party was opposed to the system of postal votes and that we would prefer it to be abolished.

I must tell the hon the Minister that we will not be moving an amendment, and we have not done so either, but we will vote against this Bill, because we would like to demonstrate our objection to the system of postal votes. Having said this, I want to say that we have learned from experience in the past that very many people suffered a great deal because of the system of postal votes.

From what I have heard unlawful methods were used on a large scale to obtain postal votes for specific parties, and elderly people in particular would seem to have suffered under the abuses which existed. Consequently we feel that this kind of abuse must be eliminated by the abolition of the system. We will also argue that the system must be made as streamlined as possible, but we will vote against the Bill in any case to illustrate our objection to postal votes as such.

I should like to touch on another topic, and this concerns the fact that something from the Electoral Act has remained which I really think we can also abolish, namely the right we still give people to have themselves nominated in more than one constituency. A person can therefore stand in two constituencies. The Act prescribes a procedure for when he is elected, but what would happen if he were elected in both constituencies? In my case I also received an invitation to stand in Sasolburg, but the opposition there was so weak that I preferred to stay where I was. [Interjections.]

The question is whether it is really necessary for us still to give a person the right to stand in two constituencies. As far as I could ascertain this has only happened three times since 1910. The first person who would seem to have been worried, was a person by the name of the Right Honourable Sir Leander Starr Jameson. He had a number of titles, and we were not very fond of him either. On 19 September 1910 he was declared elected in both Cape Town Harbour and Albany. He then elected to stand in Albany. That was in 1910.

In 1921 there was another case, involving Dr the honourable Colin Fraser Steyn QC. In the 1921 general election he was declared duly elected in both Vredefort and Bloemfontein South, and he decided to remain in Bloemfontein South.

The only other example I could lay my hands on was that of a certain Wilhelm Brückner de Villiers. On 13 June 1929 he was elected in both Kuruman and Stellenbosch. Then he made the terrible mistake of choosing Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] This is not because they cannot play rugby. It is because on 15 May 1930 the Supreme Court ruled that Mr De Villiers had not been duly elected in Stellenbosch, and then he had a seat. The fact is that there have only been three occasions on which a person has stood in two constituencies, and the last time this happened, was 60 years ago.

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: Is it really still necessary for us to keep this option open for a person who wants to stand in two constituencies? If hon members merely consider the expense which this automatically entails, because he must resign in one of the constituencies if he is elected—why do we want to run the risk of taking that extra time and trouble simply to give him that chance?

If hon members were to decide that we should retain that outdated practice in any case—I cannot see any reason why we should do so—then I want to issue the warning that provision is made in a rather too drastic manner in the legislation for the possibility of such a candidate not responding timeously to the chief electoral officer’s letter to exercise his choice. If I remember correctly he must make his choice within seven days after the chief electoral officer has instructed him to do so. If he does not do so within seven days, he is kicked out of both constituencies. Then two new elections must be held. I think the hon the Minister should look into this. [Interjections.]

The next point I should like to touch on is the hon the Minister’s amendment. This deals with clause 26, which amends section 49 of the principal Act. What happened here was that it was originally stated in the principal Act that every applicant wanting to vote by post had to furnish his present residential and postal address. There had to be a choice as regards the postal address, and it could be interpreted as the political party’s postal address. I spotted this deficiency and also discussed it with the officials. One of the two…

Hear, hear!

I do not claim the credit for having noticed this. If those hon members had looked carefully, they may have noticed it too, and may have sent me a tie and a handkerchief. [Interjections.] We support the amendment, because it now makes it absolutely clear that the political party must not be involved at all. We are very glad about this, because this eliminates a number of possible malpractices, under which we, amongst others, also suffered a great deal in the past.

I should also like to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot announce now when proclamation and nomination is going to take place. We have been waiting for a long time now and one is planning for the election. This is after all a formality. The hon the Minister knows this, and he may have decided on this already. When is there going to be proclamation and nomination, so that one can calculate when postal votes and special votes can be cast?

The State President decides on this.

If the State President decides on this, the hon the Minister must see whether he still has friends in the Cabinet and perhaps influence them to see whether they cannot ask him to expedite this.

Another problem I have concerns the word “State”. In this regard I refer hon members to clause 69 on page 56 of the amending Bill. I know what the word “State” means, but I do not know whether it is clear enough. We know that on polling day a person must identify himself by means of his identity document or a temporary identity certificate on which his photograph appears, but then the clause goes on to provide:

“… or other proof of identity issued to him by the State and on which the name and the photograph of the voter appear…”.However, I have a problem with what ‘the State’ is. Some hon members may know what the State is, but there are many voters who may not know precisely what “the State” is. Is Iscor the State?

No.

The hon the Minister says no, but Armscor would seem to be the State because it is a semi-state public-service organisation. I believe there is other legislation in which the word “State” is explained very well so that one can get closer to the definition. [Interjections.] Hon members must remember that more than three million people are going to vote; for that reason we must make the rules of the game as simple and clear as possible.

If Armscor is the State for example, why can its document with a person’s name and photograph be used, but not that of Iscor or Barclays Bank, for example? I am also in favour of us reaching the stage as soon as possible where a person may only vote if he has an identity document or a temporary identity document in his possession. We must reach that point, but if we want to restrict “State” to certain organisations in the interim phase, before we get there, we must consider including the Barclays Banks and the Volkskases.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon the Minister that there is a tremendous task awaiting him, and in particular the officials. They must fight the election in approximately 308 constituencies. We want to wish them everything of the best. We should like to bid farewell to those hon members who are going to leave us, and the hon the Minister too. We never had a problem with the hon the Minister. We always co-operated very well with him. He was a non-political figure in every sense of the word. We are really going to miss him, and we wish him, his wife and family everything of the best. We hope he is going to rest well, and if he ever considers coming back and has gained a bit of insight in the meanwhile, he is welcome to stand for the CP. [Interjections.] We may have a good place for him. [Interjections.]

I specifically want to wish the hon member for Gezina, who is not going to return, everything of the best and we hope he is going to enjoy his rest. To the hon member for Sasolburg and others we say everything of the best and may the best man win, as long as he is a CP man.

Mr Chairman, it is always interesting to speak after the hon member for Overvaal. We in Jeppe miss the hon member for Overvaal. He and I used to have quite a bit of fun when we were still together, and then later when we were not together all that often. Those were interesting days. [Interjections.] If he were to come back to Jeppe, I could probably pay his deposit for him. Then he would not have to worry about losing it. Since his problem is that one cannot stand in two constituencies, by his actions he has also closed his own back door. [Interjections.]

I want to say more about the voters’ lists. The way voters’ lists are compiled in South Africa has undergone considerable changes over the years. Initially registered voters specifically had to register in order to vote, in contrast with the present system, where the voters’ list is compiled using an extract from the population register. South African citizens who possess an identity document are therefore automatically reflected on the voters’ list when they reach the age of 18 years. Changes of address on the population register are therefore the only way in which a change of address on the voters’ list or a change of electoral division can be recorded.

Since we are still in the transitional phase, the coming general election will be the last opportunity for voters, who have not yet been issued with an identity document, to vote. A separate voters’ list, which will be deleted after the election is being compiled for them. We are therefore making an urgent appeal to those who do not yet have an identity document, to apply for that identity document as soon as possible. By failing to do so, such a person will effectively be disenfranchised after 6 September.

Changes of address on the voters’ list or a population register can be recorded by means of the prescribed form, by means of a loose address form at the back of the identity document or by means of a letter stating the voter’s identity number and particulars and properly signed by him.

However, it is our experience that South Africans are remiss in giving due notification of changes of address. This happens despite the fact that there is a fine and penalty for failing to do so. To the best of my knowledge there have been no prosecutions for failing to do so. This laxity is totally unheard of in European countries, where very strict requirements are laid down. I do think that at some stage the legislation should be enforced to make this compulsory.

Efforts are now being made to involve the local authorities in this change of address campaign as well. The object is to make the services furnished by local authorities subject to the provision of proof of identity and present residential address.

In addition to the voters’ list for an electoral division which is divided up alphabetically according to polling districts, an additional list of voters will be furnished for that electoral division for administrative purposes. This list will be compiled in strict alphabetical sequence according to the surnames of the voters for that entire electoral division, and not in accordance with polling districts. However, there will be an indication of the polling district in which every such voter is registered.

This alphabetical list of voters will also be available on microfiche for the whole of the Republic of South Africa. A single voters’ list for every electoral division will be furnished free of charge to registered political parties for nomination court purposes. In addition, printed voters’ lists will be supplied by the Government Printer at very reasonable cost. The costs is expected to be between R1,00 and R2,00 per copy. In the future only printed voters’ lists will be furnished to private organisations for purposes of sale.

The amendments contained in this Bill are by no means final. The joint committee recommended that a departmental committee, on which officials of registered political parties would serve, be appointed to investigate the provisions of the Electoral Act on an on-going basis. It is especially after elections, when the provisions can be assessed in practice, that valuable contributions can be made in order to make the election procedures even more streamlined.

I understand that Butterworths is going to compile a consolidated Electoral Act which will incorporate all these amendments. We hope and trust that this newly compiled and up-to-date Electoral Act will be available before the general election. With these few words allow me to express my thanks for the opportunity to have served on the select committee and to have participated in the debate. We hope that it will be possible to implement the amendments as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to speak immediately after the hon member for Jeppe, but I hope he can give some tuition to the hon member for Sasolburg. Instead of addressing the Bill before the Committee the hon member for Sasolburg deemed it fit to attack a political party in this Committee, which has nothing to do with the provisions of the Bill. I appreciate the hon member for Jeppe’s contribution and I advise him to give some tuition to his colleague, the hon member for Sasolburg, after this debate.

The whole concept of this amending Bill is by and large to end corruption in elections. That is the principal idea behind the amendments. I want to deal with the postal votes first. The hon member Mr Abram took an amendment concerning postal votes on the Order Paper to task. The House of Delegates is on record as recording many votes by deceased persons. In the last by-election in Tongaat a couple residing in Norway reputedly came and voted on that particular day. Then a teacher in Port Elizabeth who was on duty at the school that day, supposedly cast his vote in Durban at 10 o’clock that day. That is corruption. [Interjections.] That is the point I am coming to; I am just getting my preamble ready.

The postal vote is highly open to corruption. An aspiring candidate for Rylands here in Cape Town is already telling voters that they should not worry; he will bring all the voting papers to their houses so that they can vote at home. So we see the postal vote is open to corruption. I also heard stories from my hon colleagues in the House of Assembly about how postal votes were abused during the previous elections. In the joint committee they tried to obviate this and rectify the problem. However, if one has an abscess one cuts it right out; one does not slice it or else it will form again in the same place. I strongly advocate a total abolition of postal votes if we want a clean election.

Clause 56 of the Bill amends section 82 of the principal Act, doing away with the necessity for giving reasons for wanting to cast special votes. Clause 69… I am now pointing out the irregularities in this Bill, which for some reason were just carried forward. Clause 69…

Clause 69 again, Sir. Clause 69—going, going, gone!

It is not gone. I am sorry; I have lost my place. [Interjections.]

I will come back to that point. There is a major irregularity between clause 58 and 69. Clause 58 seeks to avoid voting by dead people, people not living within South African boundaries—to avoid voting by non-participants, people without a name. We recommended that no person shall vote by identity document or affidavit because it is not acceptable.

Clause 69 has been reintroduced. It says clearly here:

What is your objection to that?

The objection is that clause 58 states that no person shall be identified by an affidavit. Clause 69 states that he can be identified by an affidavit and vote, which will allow dead men and also people living overseas to vote. I am talking from experience gained from elections in the House of Delegates.

Only at the polling booth.

Even at the polling booth.

When this Bill is passed I will specially take voters from my constituency and let them vote by special vote because this clause does not specify that on polling day dead men can vote.

Not all of us are dishonest! [Interjections.]

There is a saying in my language that he who speaks the truth and stands by virtue is always hated.

Order! I take it that the hon member for Turffontein is not implying that some of us are not honest?

No, Mr Chairman.

The point I am trying to make is as the clause stands it does not preclude—it does not specify “on polling day”. Even on polling day what is there to preclude unscrupulous people bringing people other than those who are registered knowing full well that they are not registered.

In our elections we know exactly who are the non-participants, who are the extra-parliamentary activists who will not vote. Nonetheless they are on the voters’ roll. What can candidates or their agents do? They identify those people by a proxy and vote.

They are the real “skelms”!

That is perjury but who will catch them? Yes, there are “skelms”! To avoid that recurring we have also to scrap that provision even for polling day. Why must we have that provision “on polling day”? What control will we have? Is anybody going to check the voter’s physical residential address on polling day before they are allowed to be identified? Never!

Don’t be influenced by the DP!

I am a democrat myself. I am not influenced by them; I formed that party.

Talking about the DP I want to say to that hon member that the time will come when the DP will take control of this country and rule it the way it ought to be ruled—with full democracy. [Interjections.] He must just wait; time will tell. The NP has outlived its welcome—40 years is too long a period to be in power. Excluding Russia it is the second longest period in the world, and such a lengthy period leads to corruption. If one is in power too long one becomes lax as hon members have been lax here. They must please not pick on any other party. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is getting too much co-operation. The hon member may continue.

That is my objection. I have lost my clause. [Interjections.] But I want to say that in this clause there is provision for special votes.

Under special votes the provision states that if the returning officer is not satisfied that the reasons given for voting are wrong then that special vote will not be taken into consideration.

You do not understand it!

I understand it. I challenge that hon member to come to me after my time has expired. [Interjections.] It a certain challenge and I will accept it. I know my job. However, some hon members are distracting me when I am doing it. The provision in this Bill states that a returning officer or presiding officer can disqualify a special vote because the reasons given for casting that special vote are not right, and yet clause 56 states that no reason need be given.

No, you are wrong!

It is here! I bet ten to one! Do not stand for election! [Interjections.] I will come back to that clause. I will leave it to the following speaker. There is definitely a clause here which I picked up just now and with which I wanted to tackle my opposing party members in the House of Delegates. Unfortunately I have lost that clause now. However, it is here. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to follow my colleague, the hon member for Camperdown, for two particular reasons. The first is his absolute honesty with this Committee which—in terms of when he lost various things—indicated the validity of the points he was making in terms of the honesty of his approach; and, secondly, of course, it is marvellous to have a speaker such as the hon member for Camperdown who wakes everybody up before the next speaker has to speak. I pay great tribute to him on that.

One of the previous speakers, the hon member for Border, made a point about different circumstances in different areas and so on. I agree with him entirely. In respect of special or postal votes I have great sympathy with the problem of dealing with intimidation and I will certainly support any measure that enables people to circumvent that problem and that enables them to vote either by special or postal vote or on election day without being intimidated or without being afraid to vote.

However, I still do not believe that the way it is provided for in this Bill is the way it should be provided for, because I believe it is ambiguous and unclear. If the intention in respect of, for example, special votes is to have a prior voting system like we did in the municipal elections—although I do not think that would be a good idea—let us be honest and say it. Let us not fiddle around with funny words. There was a Bill to do with the local authority elections saying that prior votes are allowed. If one chooses to do so one can. One should not have words such as “who will not be able to attend”. It is open to enormous abuse. I suggest that we make up our minds about what we are trying to do and then be honest enough to say it and achieve it in a clear way.

I am very concerned about this. For example, in the Tongaat by-election—I will just take it as one example because it is the highest that I know of—in November 1987, 88% of the people who voted voted by way of special vote. I think there was something like 5 500 of them. I understand the reasons for it. However, I cannot honestly believe that large numbers of those people actually did not commit fraud and signed that they would not be able to vote for some or other reason. I cannot believe that all of those or nearly all of them were true. I understand the problem but I do not think this is the solution. I do not believe we should allow people to be encouraged to go through the democratic process in this way—that we encourage them to behave fraudulently to be able to do so.

In terms of the current wording I believe that for an honest person it limits—not increases—the number of people who can qualify. I would like to tell the hon the Minister, for example, that in the past couple of elections returning officers or presiding officers for special votes have visited old age homes and allowed everybody in the home to vote if they wished to do so on the grounds of advanced age.

If they wanted to, many of those people could go to a polling station on election day. Will those people be allowed to vote in terms of the wording that we now have? Is that going to happen? I suggest that if it does, and if the returning officer goes to old-age homes and allows anybody there to cast a special vote, he is actually encouraging those people to make a fraudulent statement when they say that they will not be able to go and vote on election day. I really think one needs to look into this.

Mr Chairman, at the end of my previous speaking turn, I was talking about the importance of being able to detect fraud, and the fact that political parties largely act as investigating officers and that they bring matters to the attention of the returning officer. In practice for the most part he does not have the facilities or the information to know that fraud has been perpetrated. Therefore I think this Bill needs to be amended in a couple of ways.

Firstly, I believe that political parties are entitled to be present when ballots of postal votes are being issued and not only when the ballots are returned. I will give my reason for saying this. If somebody—a candidate or a political party—is in fact intending to behave fraudulently, he is going to apply for a postal vote ballot. He will get the ballot and will possibly return it at the last moment before the close of poll so that the other party will not have a reasonable opportunity to check whether that person is still in the country or whether he is dead, or whatever. I think this is of fundamental importance. As it is, one of the political parties, which hands in the ballot, is going to know that it has been issued. In addition, the correct step that has been taken for special and postal votes to be issued simultaneously will greatly reduce the temptation to duplicate and to try to get people to cast special votes because they have applied for a postal vote with another political party. The fact that these are now going to occur from the same date, is going to reduce that possibility enormously. I think a lot of that sort of duplication is going to disappear.

Thank you for the tip.

Its a pleasure! [Interjections.] I do believe, however, that political parties need to be present when the applications for postal vote ballots are handled. Otherwise one is going to get this secret lodging and it will be very difficult to detect if someone is behaving fraudulently.

The second point I wanted to make applies to a number of these things. I agree with the hon member for Durbanville that the ballot papers and the counterfoils must obviously be sealed.

The documents—I am not talking about the ballot papers, but the actual applications—should be available for a period after the elections—14 or 30 days—so that if political parties suspect that there has been fraud, they can go and look at the applications and do some checking. Hon members know what happened in Hillbrow. In that case the PFP had to go to court, not because it thought that the count was wrong but because only by doing that could they get the documents reopened so that they could look at the applications for postal and special votes to ascertain the fraud that had taken place. In having the applications available for a certain limited period—not the ballot papers or the counterfoils as they are sealed and only a court can have anything to do with them—one can overcome that problem and discourage fraud and discover it when it has occurred.

The next point I wish to raise is the question of identity. For some of these special and postal votes a person has to have an identity document or a temporary identity document. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the people who come on to the supplementary voters’ list with identity cards will be able to do. We know, and it has been mentioned in the report, that many of them are older people. Are they not going to be able to cast postal or special votes because they only have an identity card? I would suggest that we broaden the basis of identity so as to include identity cards, passports and driver’s licences. I do not see why that should be any more open to abuse than books of life, and I would suggest that there is no harm in doing that and it makes the mechanism work more smoothly. Of course there is always a certain proportion of people who send in their identity documents for a change of marital status, a driver’s licence, fire-arms’ licence or whatever needs to be added. Therefore using other documents as well is going to facilitate the voting process.

Like the hon member for Overvaal, I should also like to query clause 69. I would like to get some guidance from the hon the Minister. When it says “other proof of identity issued to him by the State”, would a passport and a driver’s licence qualify under that heading as proof of identity issued to him by the State? I do not know and should like to hear from the hon the Minister…

Yes. If it emanates from the State.

Yes, so both of those would apply if they emanate from the State. I hope we can extend that to the postal votes. I am not sure if this pertains to the special votes too.

I do not see why there should be more abuse. One has a cross-referencing number—a passport number or a driver’s licence number—which one can use, so I do not see why it should be more open to abuse than an identity document. The same would apply to an identity card, of course.

I would like to support the appeal made by the hon member for Overvaal during his first turn that as soon as this amending Bill is passed and becomes an Act a consolidated Electoral Act be published in the Government Gazette so that all the parties, and everybody else, can have one document to work from during the election instead of taking the old document and trying to write in all sorts of amendments. I hope the hon the Minister will be able to oblige in that regard.

As I have mentioned, I put a number of amendments on the Order Paper. I hope they will be supported because I believe they will bring about improvements. Nevertheless, we do believe that by and large the measures contained in this Bill are improvements and we will be supporting the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the purpose of this amending Bill is to ensure an orderly and peaceful election, whether it is a general election or a by-election. The joint committee with the former hon member for Innesdal as its chairman has endeavoured to the best of its ability to bring in acceptable amendments so that elections and by-elections can take place more effectively and peacefully.

One of the things in this amending Bill which worries everybody, including our party, Solidarity, is the question of special votes. The purpose of the special vote is to help those who cannot be at a particular polling station to cast a vote on election day. However, the abuse of special votes has culminated in the system of identifying a voter by means of an affidavit. We noticed in the 1984 election and in subsequent by-elections for the House of Delegates that a number of dead people seemed to have recorded their votes. This was done by a person going to the electoral officer, saying that he had no identification documents and a registered voter identifying him as a voter by making an affidavit. I am glad that this identification system for voting has been eliminated in this amending Bill. I would like the hon member for Camperdown to have a good look at this Bill. It does not provide for identification of a voter by way of an affidavit to cast a special vote.

As far as elections are concerned the electoral officers and the clerks at the polling stations have to be people with no political affiliation. They must not be actively involved in canvassing for a particular political party. Surely every individual has the right to support a particular party, but when people who have been actively canvassing for a particular political party act as officers or clerks at polling stations it causes a great deal of concern because it can lead to abuse. We have had experience of such cases and they were brought to the notice of the electoral officers. We do not want to see a recurrence of this sort of thing.

A further point that I wish to make is that there should be facilities for casting special votes in every constituency.

During the 1984 elections we had polling stations centralized either in the magistrate’s court, at the Department of Home Affairs or the House of Delegates. This also caused tremendous problems and inconvenience to voters, and I would like to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that the polling stations are situated in each constituency. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow the hon member for Bayview, who delivered a very fine speech in the late hours of this peaceful Monday afternoon. I must tell hon members that the hot air that came from the hon member for Camperdown provided the only lively interlude we have had so far. He injected a little life into the proceedings, but I must tell the hon member that I think he still has the wrong end of the stick.

The hon member for Overvaal referred to the NP today and said that the NP was an old party. He also referred to the CP and said that the CP was a young, vibrant party. It is true; the NP is an old party. The NP is an old, proven, seasoned, reliable party with dynamic, young leaders who are going to improve South Africa in the years that lie ahead. The NP have once again proved that they are the party of the future… [Interjections.]

Order!

A proven, reliable party that is capable of adapting and handing over to young leaders who will seize the opportunity to take the ball and run with it.

All the political parties, including the NP, will be given an opportunity before 6 September to lay their cards on the table. I can tell hon members right now what is going to happen on 6 September. The White voters are once again going to say on 6 September, as they have done so many times in the past: “The Nats are still the best”. They will say that the Nats are still the best. [Interjections.]

Order!

I can tell the hon member for Overvaal right now that they can play any game they like; the Government will still be safe in the hands of the NP after 6 September. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I have very little time and many questions are being asked about the Electoral Act, and particularly about postal votes. I am of the opinion, and I am speaking from many years’ experience, that the amendments that we have made to the Electoral Act are for the good. They are good amendments.

Many stories are being told about postal votes. I regard the old PFP as being probably the greatest authorities on the subject of postal votes. In the recent past we have heard some good examples from their candidates. However, the best story I have ever heard, is the following. In earlier years there was traditionally a presidential election in one of the old republics. I think that as the story goes, President Kruger stood against General Piet Joubert. The facts may be wrong, but be that as it may, they also made prior votes at that stage. One of their agents devised a very clever plan to tamper with the ballot papers. He took an old, emaciated turkeycock, killed it and cut off its hind leg at the extremity. The hon member for Barberton, who is a farmer, will know that when one does that to a turkey or a chicken, there are some tendons in the foot that cause the foot to close when one pulls them. They took the turkey foot and stuck it into the ballot box, pulled the tendons to take out the votes, spoilt the votes and then put them back again. I am not saying that they learnt this from the then PFP, but I do think that there is something of the CP in this story about the old republic. [Interjections.]

Various important amendments have been effected. The first is that in future, the returning officer will have to establish an office in each constituency. This means that the chief returning officer will have to provide the necessary equipment in order to assist voters to cast their votes. This will mean a great deal in a city like Port Elizabeth. In the past we all had to go down to North End to cast special votes there or to have postal votes issued. The fact that there will now be an office in all the constituencies, will be a great help, and we say thank you very much for that amendment.

Who qualifies for a postal vote? It is someone who is registered on the voters’ roll of a division and who will not be able to visit a polling booth in that division at any time during the voting hours on polling day.

The application form is basically the same as in the past. The only changes are in terms of clause 26. This provides that if a witness is acting in that capacity, he must furnish on the application the name and address of the political party or candidate he is authorised to represent. This is a new provision.

Another amendment relates to number 5 on the application form. Here the witness must also indicate whether the voter’s identity has been proved in the prescribed manner. In the past this was not so.

There are a number of other important amendments. One, for example, is that when a voter applies for a postal vote and the address which appears on the voters’ roll differs from the present residential address of the voter, section 49, subsection (1), paragraph (e), subparagraph (ii) will apply:

I think this is a good amendment that we have made.

A voter voting by post must identify himself to the witness, who completes the application form, by the submission of an identity document or temporary identity certificate on which a photograph of himself appears. This is also a very important amendment.

As in the past, no application for a postal vote may be signed before the dissolution of Parliament, and applications for postal votes will also be received by the various returning officers on nomination day, which is normally 21 to 28 days after proclamation day. When the returning officer receives the postal votes, he stamps them, as in the past. He allocates a serial number to the application. He receives applications up to 16h00 in the afternoon of the tenth day before the polling day. It is no longer five days.

As in the past, an application may still be rejected. In such a case the returning officer does not only inform the applicant, he also informs the competent witness if the witness has acted on behalf of a political party or a candidate. A voter may submit a further application.

The applications are open for inspection. Reference has been made to this. I fully agree that the applications must only be open for inspection up to the evening after the counting has taken place. Thereafter they must be closed and stored away. This will facilitate the work of the department and the officials tremendously.

What about Hillbrow?

In so far as Hillbrow is concerned, the hon member must go and ask Neil Ross. He was the teacher.

I also fully agree that the large number of agents who are normally present at the issuing of postal votes, are superfluous. This simply hampers the work of the officials. This is usually also the place at which unpleasant incidents occur. I think this is also a very good amendment that we have made.

In terms of clause 31, ballot papers are to be issued on the date 10 days after the nomination day for the poll in the division concerned. In the past, it was 21 days before polling day. This is also a very good amendment that has been effected. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to listen to people talking about elections and preparations for the elections.

*Every candidate knows that house calls are a very important aspect in an election. If a candidate does not visit his voters during the election campaign, he is not worthy of being a candidate. That is the important point.

I want to focus specifically on clause 55 which deals with special votes.

†Democracy is an on-going process. The seat that a candidate occupies, belongs to the people there. They have every right to take it away from the candidate. Therefore if a candidate wants the voters to know him, he must go and visit them.

*I learnt in the old days that one writes the names on one’s voters’ list on a recruiting card. Then one divides their addresses up into streets so that one can go and make one’s house calls. One talks to the people who are going to vote for one. They must know one. They must know whom they are voting for, and if one has done this regularly over the years, they know one, because one is their public representative.

†It is no use becoming a public representative if one is not prepared to do the work that is demanded by such an office. The right to represent people and a seat in Parliament are not gifts from heaven and one must work for it. Therefore it is important that one views this correctly, especially when it comes to special votes. This particular proposal about special votes comes from us, because we want to make democracy available to the poorest person in our community.

*Take the farm labourers for example. I am very pleased that the hon member for Bokkeveld in the House of Representatives is here. In his constituency in Ceres there are 300 farms. In only that one seat there are 300 farms. We think of the Du Toit brothers who have 800 workers on their farms. How does one get those workers to the village to come and vote? We have to give them the right to make use of special votes. We had to hold a by-election during fruit harvesting time. How does one get those people to a polling station in the village between seven o’clock in the morning and nine o’clock at night? Just think of the transport system! That voter should have the right to go and vote, however. If I recruit them before the election, I have the right to ask them whether they want to vote beforehand. If they do, I can bring them to the magistrate’s office so that they can vote in advance. Surely that is their right. They are the voters, and if they elect to vote beforehand, why should we deny them that right?

†Hon members talk about democracy—the right of the voter to choose when he wants to come and vote. Now they as candidates want to determine at what time he must come and vote.

*I feel the voter has the right to say that there is too much fighting on election day and that he does not want any nonsense with regard to politicking in front of the polling station. He can record his vote in advance merely by applying for that vote and, if he can identify himself, he can vote. I am very pleased that the legislation provides that there must be some form of identification. The voter cannot simply turn up there. After all, he can apply for an identity document if he wants to vote in advance.

†I want to tell our White colleagues who have gone through 300 years of voting—amongst others in the old Cape Parliament—that we are now entering the democratic process in order to bring people into the voting system. People have come to know democracy through voting. They have made choices and from my own experience the more one visits the prospective voters and one sits with them, the fewer spoilt votes there will be. However, some people think that they should post their election manifesto. They put it in the post box and they hold public meetings.

*They hand these things out. In 1984 I was elected unopposed and I did not hold one public meeting in my constituency. Some people think a public meeting is everything. There are 28 000 voters in my constituency. If I manage to fill Stellenbosch’s town hall, I shall have 1 000 voters. Where are the other 27 000? When are they going to hear from me if I do not have a corps as well as people who know how to come and vote? Our people find themselves in what I regard as a Third World situation. Their world is not the First World of the Whites; they have transport and they can travel. Some of my people get up early in the morning and many of them work in the city and live in Stellenbosch. They have to leave at six o’clock in the morning, and they only get back at night. When are those people going to vote? They have no time during the day and sometimes they still have to be fetched at the station. They have to take a bus or a kombi-taxi to get home. We must give those people a chance. Many of them do not even have an available hall in their residential area. Where are they going to vote? The polling stations are far away and it is unsafe for some of them to come and vote in the dark. Intimidation takes place very easily and we know certain people in the townships who interfere with the old people. They merely stand on the corner, and then those old people turn back.

†It was a subtle technique of intimidating old people not to come and vote. Yet some of our people want to vote and we have established this time and time again. If the radicals should object to this, they should take the voters’ roll and canvass from house to house, explaining to the people why they should not go and vote.

*After all, it is fun to have a public meeting with a well-known figure and to hand out pamphlets. I have found that with regard to public representatives, one’s feet must do the walking and one’s mouth must do the talking. That is how one gets to know one’s voters; one talks to them.

†I agree that if legislation is necessary, we should use it to change things. We should make the voting system available in a new democratic system so that the person has the choice to vote the day before. If we look at the situation all over the world, we shall find that even in America there are low percentage polls. Even the American President is elected with a low percentage poll, and the ordinary person does not have the opportunity to exercise his vote on election day.

I wish to repeat that the ordinary voter must be able to choose freely on which day he wishes to come to vote. I can quite understand the notion that there are certain days which should be days of rest, and even the officials should have days when no election is held.

In the local government elections, however, it was proved that the percentage polls could be raised. Some people thought it was awful that when our management committee at Stellenbosch was elected there was a 50% poll before election day. On the first day—I remember it was a public holiday—more than 300 people came to vote, in spite of having to fill in forms. We went to fetch them and they were prepared to come to vote. The desire of a person to participate in elections is apparent. It depends entirely on that political party to try to get the people to vote. In some areas the poll was much higher. That proves that if we create a system by which the voter is able to come before election day, he will come out and vote. It depends entirely on the community.

I can understand that the White community is used to voting on a certain day and that it prefers to come to the polling station on that particular day. They have transport systems available to them, they have cars, or transport can be arranged for them. With us it works differently.

*If hon members go and look at some of our constituencies, such as North Eastern Cape, the constituency of the hon Mr O’Reilly, they will see that one has to travel for kilometres before one reaches the next town. [Interjections.] One has to spend days on reaching one’s voters.

Consequently we feel that the hon the Minister should ensure that this legislation can always be revised so that we can make it easier for the voters to record their votes. I agree that we should prevent irregularities from taking place and that we should pass legislation to deal with that kind of matter.

†People so often talk about corruption. I am not saying that those who object to it do not have a case that one should not avoid corruption.

*I like being miles ahead, with the votes of hundreds and thousands of voters, so that if that man is dishonest,…

We like that too.

No, I want to be miles ahead, so that if someone tries to cause trouble with spoilt votes and that kind of thing, one can know on that day how far ahead one probably is.

My experience of elections is that the work one has done makes the difference. The most important people in an election are the women. They are the best recruiters. They bring the voters home, because they are the people who are interested in elections. If, therefore, one is worth one’s salt, one knows whom to fetch to do one’s work.

†I do not wish to go into all the other clauses in detail. I think the hon members have spoken enough about the legislation. I am very pleased that the hon the Minister and the committee have considered making special votes available to people who wish to use them. If we have to alter the law to ensure that this provision is not used fraudulently, we must talk about this.

The time has come in South Africa, however, when because of the distances, subtle intimidation and because of the points I have mentioned we should make the polling station available to enable people to vote as freely as possible, even before the day of election. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives. It is also a privilege for me to be speaking in favour of this Bill, particularly as this Bill is being dealt with by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, for whom I personally have great respect, and with regard to whose retirement from politics, I am particularly sorry. However, I must also add that I can understand it.

This Bill could probably not have been debated in this House on a more suitable occasion than before the election. As a result the amendments will soon be tested in practice. The aim of any law or laws which regulate elections, is undoubtedly to place voters in the position to cast a vote in secret and without harassment for the candidate of their choice.

The joint committee, in my opinion, looked carefully at the Electoral Act and the Elections and Identification Act against this background. Advice was sought across a wide spectrum, memorandums were considered and evidence was heard. Furthermore, as a result of years of experience, the joint committee also had the necessary expertise within its own ranks which resulted in meaningful contributions.

I myself came to the conclusion that the Electoral Act was still very far from perfect even after these amendments. However, the amendments seek to update the Electoral Act and to enable this Act to meet the particular demands and circumstances of the times.

As an Electoral Act must constantly be under scrutiny, I would like to support the recommendation of the joint committee that a committee of Parliament should be appointed to consider ways of improving the election procedures in the Republic on a continuous basis.

Ideas were expressed to the effect that such a committee could be fruitfully assisted by a working committee which would consist of representatives of registered political parties, officers of various departments and other bodies which have an interest in elections.

I would also like to deal more specifically with clause 117 of the amending Bill. Much has already been said here regarding the necessity of keeping voters’ lists up to date. Local authorities which have direct and close contact with the voting public, have, until now, given voluntary help to the department on an ad hoc basis by obtaining information regarding the changes of address, and then sending this to the department. These forms of assistance have varied from place to place. Some local authorities were so helpful that, for example, they sent change of address forms to all home-owners within the boundaries of such an authority.

This clause makes provision for the insertion of a new section, section 12A, into the Identification Act, in order to authorise local authorities to enforce people applying for the rendering of services by local authorities to provide certain information which is necessary to indicate changes of address in the population register. For this purpose we are thinking of a form on which the particulars of an entire family—that is those members over the age of 16 years—can be furnished. It must be made clear that in terms of this local authorities are merely given the authority to obtain the information and that this does not make it compulsory.

Subsection (4) states that the Minister may, after consultation with local government bodies, impose an obligation. So far there has been effective consultation, and submissions have been received from the side of larger local authorities in particular. In the future there will also be consultation with local government bodies, because the aim is one of co-operation, and the result will be in the interests of the voters, as well as the Department of Home Affairs, and also of the local authorities concerned, because it is unnecessary to say that up-to-date voters’ lists are also in the interests of local authorities, and that particularly after the recent municipal election, local authorities identified several vacuums.

Section 98—this has also been referred to—imposes a very severe sentence on a person who is found guilty by the courts of offences relating to malicious injury to property or theft in relation to any bill, placard, poster, pamphlet, circular or other printed matter referred to in section 141(1). Such a person is liable to a fine not exceeding R10 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, or to both.

Some of us are aware of the frustration experienced by political parties and candidates if, for example, some of their placards are damaged or stolen. Placards cost a great deal of money nowadays and political parties have the right to display their placards according to certain requirements, without being obstructed. I have put up placards till late at night, only to see them being systematically reduced or damaged. It is high time that this crime is prevented, and it is my wish that these heavy penalties will serve as a sufficient deterrent. Fines contained in various existing sections are also being increased to correspond with present monetary values.

Finally, I want to mention that section 93, which deals with treating, brings the present section 130 of the principal Act into line with what takes place in practice.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my gratitude for the great words of wisdom uttered in this Chamber this afternoon. They were uttered by people with years of experience in electioneering, which is not an art one learns in a year or two; it is something one can only learn from experience, and at times not even then. I want to thank each hon member sincerely for his contributions and proposals. It is impossible to react to every hon member’s proposals. My sincere thanks for all the proposals that have been made. Those which have any merit will be followed up. During the meeting of the joint committee tomorrow, hon members will have an opportunity to discuss this matter when amendments are moved.

†Hon members will be afforded the opportunity to discuss many of the suggestions that they have made. They will then have the opportunity of canvassing and arguing the various points that they have made.

I have also taken note of the strong stand against intimidation and any other form of improper conduct which hon members have referred to here this afternoon. I am very pleased about it and I agree with them. I will give instructions to the chief electoral officer to ensure that all the officials participating in the election keep a very close watch and ensure that the election is fought in a manner which will do justice to the stage of civilisation that we have reached.

I want to appeal to hon members of all the Houses of Parliament and all the departments concerned that will make available some of their staff to assist the Department of Home Affairs in the conduct of the elections to see to it that they make available their top-class staff, because we will need them. It will take tremendous effort to train all these people, and in the long run it will also depend on all hon members in Parliament whether or not this election will be a success in the sense that it will be well run.

A lot of advice has been given here this afternoon.

*In this regard I am thinking, for example, of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives. He gave sound advice about how one went about winning elections. Every hon member would do well to listen to that advice. Again it impressed on one the fact that there was only one way of doing so, and that was by looking one’s voters squarely in the eye. [Interjections.]

I also want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the SABC which, with its campaign to publicise the election and encourage voters to register their changes of address, proved to be of tremendous help to us. The SABC did so during peak hours on television, in news broadcasts and on all the radio stations of all the other population groups. I therefore again want to express my very sincere thanks to the SABC for the assistance which it has granted us in this regard.

†Much discussion took place this afternoon on issues which had already been canvassed during the two and a half years in which the committee was busy with its deliberations. I would like to refer in particular to the good contributions made by the hon members for Groote Schuur and Cape Town Gardens. Those two hon members did, however, not participate in the joint committee proceedings. All the arguments which they raised were canvassed and discussed during those committee meetings. Obviously they were not fully informed by the representatives of their party. They must therefore pardon me if I do not reply in detail to the various points which they raised.

They will also have the opportunity tomorrow in the joint committee to repeat what they have said here this afternoon. I wish to assure the hon members, however, that much of what they said was considered by the committee and they arrived at a unanimous conclusion. There must therefore have been some loss of contact. Perhaps I should put the hon member for Groote Schuur on a metered call because he has been chasing me all over the country about metered calls! [Interjections.] Perhaps he will have contact with his people then.

*Firstly I should like to refer to the hon member for Bethal. He mentioned that the closing date for the voters’ roll was 1 June. That is correct. The reason for this date is that the Bill now before the Committee will not become law before 31 May. The present Act provides that if a campaign falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, it should be held on the next day. That clarifies the position.

Unfortunately I cannot reply to all the hon members.

†The hon member for Groote Schuur referred to the fact that if something has to take place on a Sunday it is usually extended to the Monday and not taken back a day. This was also discussed by the committee, and it was found through the years that, for example, special votes sometimes expired on a Sunday. It then happened in practice that the expiry date was extended to the Monday. That caused tremendous problems as far as time periods were concerned, which is why it was recommended by the committee that the date should be moved back. It is, however, quite correct to say that this is unusual.

*The hon member for Overvaal referred to the local authorities, mentioning that provision had been made to compel them to assist. [Interjections.] This present Bill is the first leg in a further series of Bills which will probably come before Parliament in the years ahead. As it is lengthy discussions have been held with provincial municipal associations. They have not yet been completed; consequently we do not, at this stage, yet have the necessary muscle to compel provincial authorities to assist with the registration of new addresses. It is proposed, as a matter of urgency, to hold discussions with the United Municipal Executive, and enabling legislation will hopefully be piloted through Parliament next year, legislation which will, in fact, empower and compel the local authorities and make the overall campaign obligatory.

We differ from Europe in the sense that it is easier for people to give notification of their changes of address. There voters can only enjoy many of the social services once they have registered in the new district. If they move from one district to another, for example, they do not obtain medical services until they have registered in the new district. That is only one example. There are consequently many more incentives for people to register there.

The hon member for Overvaal also spoke about the State’s role in the identification of voters. The wording in clause 69 follows that of the relevant section in the Identification Act. This means a valid identity document issued by the State. The State, however, is not identified in the Electoral Act or in the Identification Act, but I have been informed that in terms of the Interpretation Act the word “State” should be given its normal meaning, and this does not include parastatal bodies. This is, however, a matter to which more attention could be given at a later stage.

In connection with what quite a number of hon members mentioned—I think both the hon member Mr Abram and the hon member for Bethal referred to that—I now want to deal with clause 12 of the Bill. In that clause provision is made for the fact that a voter’s name can temporarily be removed from a voters’ list if, after a thorough investigation, it is determined that that voter no longer resides at his registered residential address in the relevant constituency, with all the relevant provisions attaching to that.

The Government feels very strongly about the fact that voters must be made more aware of what a privilege it is for them to vote, but that they can only exercise that right if they furnish their new addresses. That is why the Government has introduced this extremely drastic measure, as contained in clause 12.

The Government has decided, however, that this specific provision, i e that a voter’s name can be removed from a voters’ list, should not be regarded lightly at this stage, and consequently should not immediately be put into operation. Consequently this specific clause will not immediately be put into operation. We feel that it should be preceded by another in-depth investigation with a view to finding even more effective methods of compelling or enticing people to register properly.

†We are on the eve of the biggest general election ever held in this country. Approximately 5,6 million voters in 286 constituencies are involved.

Almost twice as many returning officers and electoral staff as were involved in previous general elections must be appointed. Preparations for the election are in full swing. We are very busy at this very moment. Electoral officers from all over the country have already attended a seminar designed to provide training and to facilitate organisational arrangements.

The electoral officers in turn are busy with long training sessions for returning officers on a regional basis. Representatives are looking for suitable people to use in this whole process. Some of the party officers have already received invitations to attend some of these seminars. The department will be in touch with all parties to invite them and to provide them with literature as soon as it becomes available. I wish to appeal to all political parties to make full use of this training opportunity. It is on these occasions that contact is made with each other on the broadest possible basis.

*That is where problems are identified and solved. This afternoon so many problems were identified here. It is impossible for me to react to everything. That is specifically where the problems are solved, because not only the public representatives, but the team as a whole, are available to be informed. It is also there that mutual understanding between officials and representatives of political parties is achieved about their respective roles in the electoral process. It is also there that valuable information, which has been gleaned in the past, can be shared.

These proposed amendments, which we are now introducing into the Electoral Act, an Act which many of us are already reasonably familiar with, but which is now going to be amended, and also the lack of experience on the part of electoral staff, place a heavy burden on hon members to positively apply their knowledge and experience of elections and to give the proper guidance to electoral officers. Those electoral officers who were supposed to help hon members are going to help them. They must do so courteously and with alacrity, but hon members will also have to co-operate, because many hon members know more about this than they do. I wish all hon members everything of the best with their election campaigns.

Before 6 September there are going to be many altercations about politics, and that is, after all, why election campaigns are held. Let our approach to the rules of the game be a positive one. The smoother this electoral machine runs, the more opportunities there will be for candidates to make proper use of the election campaign.

In conclusion I want to focus hon members’ attention on the disappointing results of the intensive change of address campaign which is being launched at present. About five weeks ago the department began with a major campaign encouraging people, on television, radio, in the newspapers, by way of pamphlets and by other means, to indicate their changes of address.

†The results were disappointing. We still have nearly a week to improve on them. I want to give hon members the figures. In respect of the House of Assembly, up to 19 May, for a period of five weeks, approximately 111 901 changes of address were recorded.

In the House of Representatives the figure is only 11 051. [Interjections.] However, in respect of the House of Delegates it is even worse. The figure for the five week period was 2 485.I would like to impress upon hon members that they still have the opportunity to do something about this and I wish them well.

*In previous general elections the Department of Home Affairs was blamed because voters’ lists were not up to date. We are really doing everything in our power to encourage voters to notify the department of their changes of address. Voters only have until 1 June to do so. Hon members must make use of this time. I make this appeal to hon members to continue doing so in the weeks ahead.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 18h01.